Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

"Democratic centralism" (sourced to the CCP's own publication)

The lead prominently describes the CCP as practicing "Democratic centralism". This is only sourced to the party's self-published journal, which is not a reliable source for this claim. The term "Democratic centralism" obfuscates that this is an authoritarian ruling party and misleads readers into thinking the party has "democratic" procedures. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if you think it is not practiced in the way it is purported, Democratic Centralism is a key part of the organization of Communist parties since Lenin. I undid your edit removing the section, and cleaned it a bit with a better citation. May do more later. BSMRD (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearly it should be in the lede, and clearly we can source this claim with the Constitution of the CPC and of the PRC, as well as this journal. If you have some source that claims democratic centralism is not upheld in the CPC/PRC, then we can either add this view later on in the article or mention in the lede – yet you removed the whole sentence that said the party officially upheld democratic centralism (this is not a claim about whether democratic centralism is upheld in practice, mind you). If you think it's "obfuscatory mumbo jumbo", you obviously don't know what it means, and by the comment that it "misleads readers into thinking the party has "democratic" procedures", you further show your ignorance on the matter. The word democracy is not synonymous with Western liberal parliamentary democracy and your claim that the CPC doesn't have democratic procedures is laughable, given the history of democratic centralism in communist parties and given the contemporary history of the CPC. Acalycine (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm apparently an ignorant buffoon, I'm punting this to the NPOV noticeboard[4] where they can hopefully help in resolving this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A better place is WP:Request for comment, I think. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I've responded there, but I don't really see anything to be resolved. Why not respond to the responses you've got here anyway? I'm not (in principle) against editors qualifying this "officially upheld" claim with reliable sources that show it's not upheld in practice, by the way, as long as you can find them. Acalycine (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, democratic centralism is a key tenet of Communist parties everywhere, so if a reader is puzzled by the term, well, he or she can find out more by going to that article. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

. The concept of democratic centralism is well established in CCP doctrine. This discussion is wholly based on ignorance, and should be closed. DOR (HK) (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Danghui R.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hua Guofeng

Following Mao Zedong’s September 1976 death, Hua became CCP Chairman. Like Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang, he was not, by any stretch of the imagination, “paramount leader.” DOR (HK) (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop disruptive revert spam

Hey user Amigao, Could you stop your disruptive revert spam of actual edits? Hayashihouyi (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That would require your edits to be "actual edits". They aren't. They were vandalism. --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hayashihouyi: Although I believe your edits were made in good faith, the consensus has consistently been to use Chinese Communist Party (CCP) over Communist Party of China (CPC) per WP:COMMONNAME. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

“Vandalism”… stop your pretentiousness. Saying this is vandalism is like saying fixing a typo is vandalism. Get a degree. Hayashihouyi (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixing a typo involves correcting a mistake. There was no mistake here, therefore it was not like fixing a typo. Your edits were counter to the consensus on this article and counter to actual usage in English. That makes them vandalism. --Khajidha (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism needs to be intentional WP:VANDAL and as we should assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH the bar for something as trivial as flipping the common name to the official name is quite high. Unless you have proof they knew the consensus, in which case you may have wanted to lead with that. I see two options here either they are acting in good faith and you have hurt their feelings or they are a troll and you are giving them what they want. Neither option is desirable (suggested euphemisms are "non constructive" or "good faith" edits). Also we use CCP here, don't blame us, blame the sources we must use. Do you get upset with the newspaper when it reports that your football team lost, same thing. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Intellectual elitism, Technocracy, and meritocracy

I am of the opinion that not enough to address the maintenance of the organization department, which was the making of Xi Jinping, who work under the organization department for 30 years. Singapore, which is often considered the birth place of modern rule by experts, technocrats, and or intellectual elites, (whichever you wish to call it) was visited by Deng Xiaoping early on in his presidency, after this Deng Xiaoping structured the economy of several special economic zones in ways that very closely resembled Singapore.

Singapore, which is generally considered a meritocracy, (Not the necessarily opportunity oriented egalitarian type) is also populated by a majority of Chinese people, and possess (much like china) a system for the promotion of individuals based on their local performance. Although the organization department resembles Singapore's model for political structure, the Chinese organization department was created in the 1920s under the warlord cliques. While more recently this has been transferred over to the corporate world, with privately held organizations more recently following Singapore's meritocratic model. China has almost no startups, while India, the USA, and other English speaking countries have many small companies. China has many colossal conglomerates much like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or Vietnam. These corporations, likewise are regulated by China (despite being private institutions) and their performance rewarded artificially through a merit based system of subsidies.

Is it a Chinese characteristic? Yes, certainly, all countries with a Chinese speaking majority had a government elected by a promotion process within recent history. As long as the civil service examination allowed people to rise based on their perceived merit, talents, strengths, and or hard work, depending which version of the civil service examination is used. The emperor historically appointed officials based on their ability to complete this examination. This can be seen as a respect for the tradition of holding and still hold the same values which Confucius preached. This respect for authority is seen as one reason for the acceptance of high power distance power distance structures in both corporate and state China. Systems of rewards for well performing individuals by elite figures who control both economic and social promotion, are particularly pronounced in countries which have been both Confucian and Chinese historically. Including Hong Kong (Ruled by the leg-co, elected by economic elites), Taiwan (Ruled by the Kuomintang, who maintained and grew the organization department.), Singapore, and now Mainland China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hong kuslauski (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is there nothing denoting this in the ideology box?

Disputed content:  • Technocratic Meritocracy Hong kuslauski (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

References

A few corrections:

→Deng Xiaoping was never president of China.

→After Lee Kwan-yew gave Deng some unsolisited advice on how to run China, Deng famously said, “If I'm ever mayor of Shanghai, I'll be sure to heed your advice,” (or words to that effect).

→The CCP created the organization department. It had everything to do with the Leninist model of political organization, and nothing whatsoever to do with Chinese warlords.

→China has a very large number of start-ups. You may not have heard of them, because they're start-ups …

→Xi Jinping joined the CCP in 1974. He never worked in the organization department at any level.

1975–79 – student

1979–82 – secretary to Minister of National Defense Geng Biao

1982–98 – county, city and provincial cadre … not in the organization department

1998–2002 – student

2002–07 – provincial cadre … not in the organization department

2007– national-level carde, … not in the organization department

Source: https://www.chinavitae.com/biography/Xi_Jinping/career

These may be some of the reasons why the items you mentioned above are not part of this article. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Also the fact that this is a big ball of WP:OR without a single source. BSMRD (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

China's startup rate is unbelievably small, which was what I was getting at: https://www.startupranking.com/countries it may have many extremely small cottage industry startups, but I am inclined to be distrustful of this because: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.EMP.SELF.ZS?locations=CN The employment in cottage industries in China is becoming smaller. This doesn't prove that China doesn't have loads of startups. I seem to remember Hong Kong, has loads though.

China has no President, but both are the executive head of state, I am used to explaining this to people who are not experts so I refer to the general secretary or the premier or any republican head of state who is not prime minister, as president. Deng Xiaoping was bizarre as he ended up in a position of controlling the executive powers of statesmanship, much like Theoneste Bagasora was never President of Rwanda, or Park Chung Hee while Chang Do Young was in charge, all were in positions of power which made them de-facto executive heads of state. Be it, the Supreme council for national reconstruction, the crisis committee, or one of the many positions the head of state in China generally occupies simultaneously, it's all pretty similar. I didn't want to fuss too much over technicalities or get stuck in the reeds, because then nothing gets done, like in a democracy.

I made mistake, Xi under the promotion of the organization department not for them. Thank you for pointing out this BSMRD! I remember the promotion process was controlled by the organization department.

Some Communists were warlords and relied on them, and Some Kuomintang were warlords and relief on them, you know there was no central state in China, this is old, old, trend which happened forever. "The civil service exam" was implemented by the Qing! Not warlords! But in the end, after the Taiping rebellion warlords controlled huge swathes of China, much like any unstable country with strong local authority. The communists did not conquer the warlord

Be aware I sometimes have trouble speaking English.

independently of the reasons for not seeing it on the article, the CCP inherited Chinese intellectual elitism culture and uses this as a central vector for the implementation of its goals, (at least since Deng)

No mistake understand: I mean no disrespect, I always want to learn more and help people learn more, and work hard. Sorry if I hurt someone. If I tell you something you already know, is not because I think you know little but because I don't know you.

Hong kuslauski (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from this, it is difficult to argue that there is insufficient support for the categorization of the Post-Deng CCP as an institution which could be scribed both Marxist-leninist intellectual elitism, I remember talking about this a while back with someone else, but on top of this a Chinese cultural element. Derived from its late emergence Psuedo-Serfism, its Confucian values of respect for experienced authority, the civil service exam's cultural ramifications, emphasis on institutional education as opposed to self-help, and the current geo-political situation. Why does this belong here? In part because of China's social credit system which came out in 2014, In part because of its high levels of economic inequality not seen in any Marxist Leninist country: https://www.gapminder.org/data/ ^^^Select GINI Index

Which was of course made possible not only by economic reforms, as the Doi moi in Vietnam were similar in their privatization of industry and other reforms in Laos did not result in the same sky-rocketing of inequality. The economic inequality matters as it represents the socio-economic promotion side of technocratic meritocracy.

Oncemore, the inclusion of meritocracy under Marxism-leninism wouldn't disqualify it from the box if other pages are anything to go by, National-conservatism, Conservatism, and Nationalism are often included in the same area, for instance in the Solidarity Movement (Cyprus) or else other ideologies which overlap like Christian-Democracy and Right-wing populism.

Deng's reforms very closely mirrored those of Lee Kuan Yew, including Privatization. But wasn't this just leninism's new economic platform? This decision was controversial among marxist leninists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hong kuslauski (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Please be more careful of citing things you think are facts, but which do not correspond to reality. First, China does, indeed, have a President and his name is Xi Jinping. Prior to that, it was Hu Jintao, Jiang Zemin, Yang Shangkun, and Li Xiannian.

Chang Do-yong was selected as a unifying figure by Park Chung-hee as part of the May 16 (1961) coup. It is a long, long stretch of a very vivid imagination to suggest that this is similar to Deng Xiaoping's relationship to Hu Yaobang following China's 1976 coup d'etat. No, it is not “all pretty similar.”

Civil service examinations pre-date the Qing Dynasty by about 1,000 years.

At the end of the Taiping Rebellion (1871), the rebel army was destroyed; it did not control large parts of China. That's why the revellion ended: they lost. Forty-five years later, in 1916, five years after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, the Warlord Era began. It was not the result of the Taiping Rebellion directly, but the result of the fall of the dynastic system.DOR (HK) (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE

Context must be added to the article body explaining how the CCP or academics claim the party to be "socialist patriotic" or "Chinese nationalist". The infobox should not be the only place with this information; infoboxes are used as references and summaries for the article body and does not supercede the article body. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

CCP websites provide all the information you are seeking. Be Bold! DOR (HK) (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources are cited in the article body, but I'm asking the people who added "socialist patriotism" and "Chinese nationalism" to elaborate. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Mao's membership of the party

The opening paragraph states that "Mao Zedong joined the party in the late 1920s" despite the only source provided (and even Mao's own Wikipedia page) clearly stating that he was a founding member in 1921. Am I missing something?

(Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere - I don't normally get involved in editing of wiki articles but this just seems like a glaring error very early in the article) 2404:4408:870C:1A00:89A:DD0B:9BBF:52D7 (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. The change in language was a recent edit by another editor who misread or misinterpreted the source. The source given begins as such:

"Mao Zedong (1893-1976) was one of the historic figures of the twentieth century. A founder of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), he played a major role ..."

The correction has been made. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

—

Whether Mao Zedong was present at the founding of the CCP or not is a matter of debate. What we do know is that in 1918 he worked at the Bei-da library under Li Dachao, and that Chen Duxiu knew Li and was present in the city. A year later, he was in Changsha, editing progressive journals. In early 1920, he was in Shanghai, but quickly returned to Changsha. From there, reports vary:

Suart Schram, “In September or October [1921], shortly after receiving word from Peking that a Communist group had been established there, Mao Tse-tung took the initiative of forming one in Changsha.” This implies that Mao was in Changsha when the CCP was founded in Shanghai.

Jonathan Spence, “The documents of this first [1921] congress were never published, even for internal distribution within the Party, and no record of the exact nature of Mao's participation has been preserved.” . Spence implies that Mao was present at the 1st Party Congress.

Mao himself, “In May of 1921, I went to Shanghai to attend the foundation meeting of the Communist Party.” Others said to be present were Chen Tu-hsiu, Chen Kung-po, Shih Tsent-tung, Sun Yuan-lu, Li Han-tsen, Li Ta, Li Sun, Chang Kuo-t'ao, Pao Hui-sheng, and Chou Hu-hai. Mao said Li Ta-chao was in Peiping; Tung Pi-wu in Hubei; and P'eng Pai in Guangzhou, among others mentioned in “Red Star Over China,” by Edgar Snow DOR (HK) (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

Hello,I want to edit the article about the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) because this name is not serious at all. The correct name is the Communist Party of China(CPC) and I found that the abbreviation of that used in the whole article is CCP instead of CPC and this may associate CPC and CCCP in someone's opinion and will give them wrong ideas about it.So I suggest we can change the word CCP into CPC in this article(maybe in other ones),thank you! 孙海言不是孙海严 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

From the article,there's no agreement that CPC is the correct and official name of the Communist Party of China and I've found the sourse: https://www.quora.com/Should-one-say-CCP-or-CPC-when-referring-to-the-Chinese-Communist-party 孙海言不是孙海严 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I opposed the move of this article to "Chinese Communist Party", the fact of the matter is that most English language sources use "Chinese Communist Party" and not the official name "Communist Party of China", and time and time again the community (as in seasoned editors, not just random new accounts whose sole purpose is to argue in regard to this specific issue) votes and argues in favour of using "Chinese Communist Party" and "CCP" across the English Wikipedia, on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I do not want to move the article to "Chinese Communist Party", I just think the name CCP for the reference of the Communist Party of China is not as good and official as CPC and by the way, I'm new here and can you tell me how to make a vote about this? 孙海言不是孙海严 (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but our opinions are in the minority and thus such a proposal (i.e. Making the official name the preferred name when referencing the party in article bodies) will fail, as it has before.

In a nutshell, a majority of the community believes that, on the basis of the Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME, the unofficial but commonly used name and abbreviation "Chinese Communist Party" and "CCP" should be used when referencing the party (with few exceptions). There have been several attempts to challenge this consensus by different editors, but these discussions have repeatedly resulted in the same outcome: the existing consensus based on WP:COMMONNAME.

The most recent discussion was only a few months ago, and so a new one, if done as a request for comment or a move proposal (i.e. the only ways to get a firm decision from the community), will likely be closed as premature by an administrator ("close" as in the discussion is closed and nobody can comment further).

Any further discussion now will be a waste of your time and efforts, so I recommend redirecting your ambitions elsewhere. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

In the test it says that the party was founded in 1921 and right after that it says that it’s a 100 years ago which is not true 2A02:2121:611:F8E2:5461:FFF0:1DEC:E092 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, as that is how counting works. ValarianB (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a template that will automagically update the years since founding when the anniversary date passes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Citations Not in Numerical Order

I've noticed that the citations here are not in numerical order. For example, the first citation is reference "[5]," then the numbers go up, and later go back down. Is there a shortcut or bot for re-numbering these or do they have to be done manually? JArthur1984 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)JArthur1984

They are numbered automatically by first appearance. Citations in the infobox are considered to come before the first paragraph, because that is where the infobox appears in the page source. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realized. Thanks for educating me on that. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Political position

Just wondering if the political position was removed, if there ever was one, or why there never was one to begin with. Personally support "Left-wing to far-left" with sources but that is irrelevant. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Strongly agreed, the CCP is far-left and should be mentioned in the lede no different how the Nazi Party is defined as far-right. -69.121.9.199 (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

As per the extensive discussion further up this page, the terms associated with Western political positioning have been deemed unsuitable for application to the CCP. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

According to whom? That's not how Wikipedia operates. This is your subjective opinion, not objective fact. -69.121.9.199 (talk)

As per the extensive discussion further up this page, that's according to whom... DOR (HK) (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

No Chinese Communist party is only namely communist, besides it's small Maoist faction, majority of the number believes in Nationalism, state capitalism and Chinese conservatism, so it should be Majority right-wing to Far-right, faction left wing to far left if we want to added it Sirui JIN (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No such changes can be made without reliable sources. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Completely backwards. Huge problem with Wikipedia moderators in being fine with defining the Nazi Party as 'far-right,' despite their socialist underpinnings, yet as soon as there is an authoritarian left-wing regime in the CCP you try and hide it. Ridiculous and indefensible. 2601:5C2:200:8730:3C4E:6C69:3E1A:F484 (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you could inject your own, personal political views into the article. That would be fun … DOR (HK) (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The above comparison does not make sense because the Nazi party did not have socialist underpinnings. Indeed, privatization accelerated under the Nazi regime. It was a right wing, fascist, government.

Nonsensical comparison aside, of course the CPC is left wing, it is a Marxist political party. If political position is to be addressed in the lede, perhaps the clearest way is to describe the party is as "Marxist." JArthur1984 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

China had nothing resembles Marxism or any from of mainstream left wing ideology besides Stalinism, it is a mixture of some elements of Stalinism, some fascism, some neoliberalism blend with nationalism. Kevin454123 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

So I believe synthetic politics is the best to describe the Chinese Communist Party. Kevin454123 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2022

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 to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. The discussion shows agreement that the current title is the common name in English, and there is no consensus in this discussion that use of the current title is otherwise inappropriate. Dekimasuよ! 05:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China – Official name MChinaGA (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Support move to CPC I’ve said it elsewhere on the talk page, but I favor using the correct name and acronym, and I favor this move too. JArthur1984 (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct according to who? Even if it is the official name approved by the CCP itself, wikipedia is not bound by that any more than its bound by other country's official claims. Wikipedia goes by the common term, as seen in Australia not being titled Commonwealth of Australia and Taiwan not being titled Republic of China. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:E5CD:5255:109D:B568 (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@2001:8003:1C20:8C00:E5CD:5255:109D:B568 Where do you find out it is the official name approved by CPC? Australia is being used in UN and Taiwan is the name recognised by DPP. But CCP is actually a wrong thing using by western medias. We should correct it instead of keeping it here. MChinaGA (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

http://cpc.people.com.cn/english/ MChinaGA (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, wrong according to who? The majority of sources (western media or not) in English use Chinese Communist Party and CCP. And wikipedia uses the term most popular in English. There is nothing to correct. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:E5CD:5255:109D:B568 (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

According to CPC itself. All of the communist party calls itself as Communist Party of X instead of X Communist Party. When the majority of sources are using the WRONG spelling, why we should follow? MChinaGA (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thankfully, Wikipedia isn't subjected to an authoritarian government's assumption of infallibility. WP:COMMONNAME isn't about whether a name is right or wrong, it's about which name is the most common. As you most gallantly admit, the common name is CCP. Doanri (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should leave aside the kind of remarks like "authoritarian government's assumption of infallibility" and focus on the issue. Those kind of characterizations don't seem relevant or meaningful to this discussion. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of people are wrong doesn't mean that the thing become correct. We need to correct it instead of keeping the wrong thing. Or that our world won't develop. MChinaGA (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless you can show that English language usage favors CPC, then there is no reason to change. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Khajidha CCP is actually a wrong thing using by western medias. We should correct it instead of keeping it here. http://cpc.people.com.cn/english/ MChinaGA (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Khajidha CPC itself don't recognize it. MChinaGA (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether the CCP itself recognises it or not is irrelevant to what it is called on wikipedia. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:E5CD:5255:109D:B568 (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support move to CPC - the party itself uses CPC, and this is the term used in the international communist movement. The current situation (with CCP instead of CCP) creates weird language in many articles on communist movement, as within the communist movement the use of 'Fooish Communist Party' or 'Communist Party of Foo' is distinct (compare Communist Party of Brazil/Brazilian Communist Party, the name change of 'Communist Party of Japan' to 'Japanese Communist Party' etc) --Soman (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Support move to CPC http://cpc.people.com.cn/ Officially as in according to the Communist Party themselves CPC is correct. This isn't an issue that can be changed by sources saying CCP, the only entity with official control over the name is the party themselves, and as long as they say CPC, that's the official name. Even if every non-party source started using CCP the official name would still be CPC, no one but the party can decide that. --MChinaGA (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RM#Nom: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Dekimasuよ! 05:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

We have had this discussion already. CCP is the common name, the party's strange qualms about its usage are not relevant as per WP policy. Doanri (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It's true this discussion has previously occurred, but the consensus to the correct acronym of CPC is shifting. Maybe an ultimate consensus for moving won't be reached, but we shouldn't assume the point. To borrow your phrase, maybe Anglophones are beginning to get over their "strange qualms" about using the correct acronym.

Republican Party is the model here. "Republican Party" gets primacy, but "GOP" is obviously an acceptable abbreviation listed secondarily. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Completely different thing. "GOP" is an abbreviation of a nickname. The difference between "CPC" and "CCP" is a purely stylistic one with regards to translation. "Communist Party of China" and "Chinese Communist Party" are equally valid translations of the party's native name. Which one to use is up to whoever is doing the translation. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that they're equally valid. The subject of the article is the CPC and its position is CPC is the proper acronym. And if the matter is purely stylistic with regards to translation, would we go with what the subject calls itself when it writes in English? JArthur1984 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Chinese" literally means "of China". So, yes, they are equally valid. And I see no reason to prefer the Chinese government's pet translation to that actually used by English speaking populations.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

First, Chinese people don't think CCP is the right translation. Second, Communist Party of X is the naming method of all Communist Parties. Third, CCP is the WRONG translate according to CPC, even if it is popular used by English speakers, but it is still wrong. MChinaGA (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

How can it be wrong when "Chinese" and "of China" are synonyms? And what names are used for other Communist parties has no bearing here. I don't see why it matters if some are called "Communist Party of Foo" and others are called "Fooian Communist Party". There is no law, custom, or force of nature that would require them all to be the same. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Khajidha Oh my god... You basically aren't Chinese, the things you think are synonyms doesn't mean it is right. If Chinese translate the USA the American United States, will the name of USA change? Like American to USA, Chinese have the right to name our party and set the transition instead of the west. CPC is the right name which is recognized by Chinese and CPC itself, but CCP isn't. That's all. MChinaGA (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on how the name of my country is translated into Chinese, as it is none of my business. No, you DON'T have the right to set how other languages handle translation. That is the entire point. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Khajidha Most of Chinese can speak English(more than the population of USA), if all of us use AUS for English and edit its name to AUS on Wikipedia, will you let us do it? MChinaGA (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering that we are not discussing rewriting the Chinese wiki, your suggestion is not a parallel case. Simply put, I won't tell you how to write Chinese and you don't try to tell me how to write English.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, "American United States" isn't a translation of "United States of America". Both are English. CCP and CPC are BOTH translations of the Chinese name. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean English, instead of Chinese. Why you think CCP and CPC are both translations? So AUS and USA are both translation. The only different is how many people use it. Anyways, even if most of the people use CCP, it's CORRECT translation is CPC which is recognized by Chinese. Another question, why so many westerns call CPC CCP? You need to find it out. MChinaGA (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We only do that for living people, outside of BLP we tend to go with what the preponderance of WP:RS use. Which in this case would be CCP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Would that still apply for something like this, which is a translation? It would be such a shame if we can't get the correct acronym for the second largest political party in the world. A blot on Wikipedia's credibility. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I said "blot" above but that's too dramatic. Maybe "dent" is a better word. What I'm trying to say is that it hurts Wikipedia's credibility if we can't get the acronym correct on such a major topic because of these other customs. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

1) Both versions are right there in the opening sentence, 2) The correct acronym depends on the translation used. If you use "Chinese Communist Party", then "CCP" is the correct acronym. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Khajidha Again CPC is the correct translation, but CCP the wrong transition is more often used in the west, which doesn't mean that CCP become the right transition. MChinaGA (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As a Chinese, we have the right to name our party and clarify its English translation, and we hope you will respect this right. http://cpc.people.com.cn/ Communist Party of China or CPC is the official and clear English translation, and the one recognized by the Chinese people. Although CCP is widely used in the West, it is not the correct translation of the Party's name, which is also not recognized by CPC itself or Chinese people. Using the wrong translation is disrespectful to the Chinese people and irresponsible to those who browse Wikipedia. This is why I am making this request. MChinaGA (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

To put it simply, no, you do not have a right to 'clarify' its English translation, especially when there is no difference between CPC and CCP in meaning. If anything it is more disrespectful to English-speakers for the CCP to try and force its pet translation on them. Also you shouldn't be editing or removing your comments after they're replied to. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:1098:68B7:23F5:B94A (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@2001:8003:1C20:8C00:1098:68B7:23F5:B94A It has no different in meaning, but the name of it is CPC instead of CCP. And we have the right to clarigy its English translation. MChinaGA (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No, you don't have the right to 'clarify' its English translation. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:6188:B1CF:28A:841B (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Why--MChinaGA (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the material you removed from previous discussions. DO NOT edit in such a disruptive manner again. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Khajidha OK sorry, won't do that again. MChinaGA (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose move: Looking over the discussion I may have missed references to policy, rather than opinion, so I checked. The policy page WP:TITLECHANGES is clear and firm:

Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be a stub was made.

I see no consensus, or even agreement on what a good reason might be. So let's move on, read some more books, and put our energies to productive use! ch (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Good opinion. But anyways, I still keep mine. Since CPC has already set its English translation, so CCP is the wrong one even if its commonly used by West. Don't think Wikipedia should keep the wrong name and spreading it to anyone who is checking it. MChinaGA (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support: All other communist party articles are named after their official names, except this one. Changing CCP to CPC won't erase their history or improve reputation, the move is just to create uniformity and formality. -Vipz (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support move to CPC I do not think it is correct to state there are no differences in meaning between the two titles. Historically there was a difference that was connoted by "CP of Foo" versus "Fooian CP" - essentially (and really only for a very short period) it related to the origins of the communist parties which considered themselves national level structures of a larger world-wide communist party, hence (immediately following the October Revolution) we have "All-Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik)" (1918) and "French Communist Party" (1920). But with the founding of the Soviet Union and the move to socialism in one country policy, with the Soviet Union as the leading state, we see the move towards CPs of Foo (CPofSU becomes official name in 1952). Contemporary news madia use of CCP can inform discussion, but it is not decisive and we need to be cautious around the effects of WP:RECENTISM. FWIW, I think it's hard to ascribe anti-communism to use of CCP over CPC, when I suspect contemporary news media use of "CCP" is more affected by the simple fact that it contains less words and is faster to type/write. However, a comparison via Google Ngram shows CPC far more prevalent historically (as much as 6:1 in favour of CPC in the 1970s), although over the last decade usage is a little under 2:1 in favour of CCP (with CCP mostly static and CPC increasing). If there was some particular reason that use of CPC connoted Wikipedia's endorsement, I could understand opposition to its use (and would support that opposition). That said,

• (a) usage in all sources (rather than just contemporary news media) is more complex than presented
• (b) we have an official version of the name
• (c) we have practice across the entire encyclopedia of using official names of parties, unless very good reason otherwise (which to me is absent here).

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I need to clarify my statement as my Ngram search criteria were not correct. This is the correct result, which shows CCP usage more than CPC for all periods - although close to parity in the 1970s. Also noting, as above, that there is an increasing use of CPC over the last decade. Nevertheless, I continue to support use of CPC over CCP given all the reasons discussed. WP:COMMONNAME does not an automatically trump all other reasons (eg Conservative Party, not Tory Party). Regards Goldsztajn (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Support; WP:OFFICIALNAME and given other communist parties' articles use "Communist Party of X" format, if push came to shove, I would move the article. However, even if it isn't correct, other names for organizations when used commonly enough become official or become deserving of Wikipedia titles. WP:OFFICIALNAME does a good job of explaining this, but I'll place some examples here just in case.< The Nazi Party's name originally was colloquial before becoming the standard name of the party. The Interstate 470 Bridge in West Virginia's formal name is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge but so many bridges are named after Vietnam Veterans so the title of the article is I-470 Bridge since there's only one I-470 that has a bridge. The Islamic State has too many nicknames to count that the subject of names alone has its own article. Despite this though, the name "Chinese Communist Party" is primarily an American rephrasal. While US politics, especially the Republican Party, uses such term, the name isn't used as prevalently in the rest of the anglosphere. BBC and the Hindustan Times prefers CPC, while Sky and Australian broadcaster ABC more commonly use CCP. You can conduct a test by going into Google and entering "site:(whatever site you want to use)" followed by "CPC" or "CCP". Overall, while WP:OFFICIALNAME does argue significantly against moving, the split is about even, and the official name would probably be the tiebreaker for me to lean towards CPC since both names are almost equally as common, especially when you consider that our wiki has an entire template dedicating to warning other users of national bias. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If y'all are interested, Zhao Dashuai wrote an interesting Quora thread on this very debate. I've linked it here, but the TLDR is that CCP is a monicker used by opponents of the party, while CPC is the neutral and pro-party acronym. And isn't one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia neutrality? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that historically CCP was used by opponents of the party, although I would not be surprised that more lately, with the CPC insisting on use of CPC, this would lead to the party's opponents insisting on use of CCP. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn Frankly I agree with you entirely. I haven't seen CCP until the Trump era of US Politics. However, even if it wasn't historically used, which translation is used has become politicized, and in the interest of remaining neutral, we should be using the neutral term. A perfect example of this dilemma comes from Florida House Bill (now law) 1557. The official title is the Parental Rights in Education Act, and its article is titled just that, however given the sheer amount of frequency and unanimity its opponents use the term "Don't Say Gay", it's been mentioned in the lead. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that CPC is supported as the official name by the CCP doesn't make it neutral. If anything it makes it no more neutral than CCP. Hence why wikipedia should use the common one (which for now is CCP, but if in the future CPC becomes so then it should be moved). Additionally, as shown by ngram search, a 2-to-1 ratio of CCP being prefered is far from the equally as common usage you claim. --110.141.167.16 (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So why not using the official name CPC? If you say CPC, others won't think you aren't neutral. MChinaGA (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I stated the reasons not to use CPC above (that CCP is still far more commonly used) and why CPC isn't simply more neutral due to being the preferred name of the party itself. The fact you consistently respond to rebuttal by repeating yourself (eg: constantly repeating the 'western medias' thing or other claims when it has been pointed out that wikipedia has its own rules regarding this) combined with the implication that if someone isn't Chinese they simply can't understand this (the "Oh my god... You basically aren't Chinese" above) seems to be treading closer and closer to simple WP:DONTGETIT territory. --110.141.167.16 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Like someone said, we have practice across the entire encyclopedia of using official names of parties. If you think I'm repeating myself, you are also doing that since we have the different opinion. MChinaGA (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The practice of using official names of parties is because the majority of said parties have said names as the common use in English. This is because that is the basic wikipedia policy of WP:Commonname. Furthermore, if there is a case where I have repeated myself that wasn't in response to the original argument being parroted back at me after I pointed out policy regarding names, then I apologise for my fault there. --110.141.167.16 (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a classic example of WP:OSE. From prior experience debating on talk pages, using "other stuff exists" isn't a good argument unless many articles on such subject have been deemed as good articles or featured articles. Official names should not be article titles but rather redirects and mentioned in the lead as "official known as". Prime examples of this are most nation states and their official names (China vs. People's Republic of China, France vs. French Fifth Republic, North Korea vs. Democratic People's Republic of Korea). InvadingInvader (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for several reasons:
  • 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).

For all the reasons above, the article should not be moved. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• While I'm not sure how much weight an IP has here, I'll also formally note I Oppose as well, with my argument being essentially the same as what was summed up well by Adumbrativus.
• Oppose. Clear common name in English-language sources. The official name is, of course, irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: As noted above, Chinese Communist Party and CCP have been by far the most common terms in English since the founding of the Party, and remain standard in English today, particular in academic and formal writing. The name should remain as is per WP:COMMONNAME. CCP and the Chinese Communist Party are in NO way derogatory, biased, nationalistic, or dated. Rgr09 (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've changed my position in light of new developments and now prefer to keep the current title. Many of my arguments are ibid the recently-made previous arguments from Adumbratvirus, Rgr09, Necrothesp, and others. CCP has clearly proven to be the more popular title. It's also worth mentioning that this is a perennial discussion, and consensus has decided on CCP. While consensus isn't always right, I respect it regardless. I would propose as a middle ground to rephrase the first sentence of the lead to say the official name first in a format similar to the following: The Communist Party of China, commonly called the Chinese Communist Party..., but if push comes to shove and I had to pick one side entirely, keep things as they were. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment — I personally prefer the official name as I believe Wikipedia should be a formal resource and accordingly adopt official names, but personal opinion is not policy. The fact of the matter is that the current article title, "Chinese Communist Party", has become the most common English name for the party by far, in both non-academic media and academic works. Yue🌙 19:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

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

CCP vs. CPC

Comment: Below there are a slew of US sources on the topic. How about we hear from what the CPC decides to call itself... http://cpc.people.com.cn/english/

Oh what? They decide to choose their own name? And they choose to be called the Communist Party of China. Well then.... maybe we should use that. Actually nah wait let's use the endearing term the US and India (their closest allies) use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:37A1:4200:4DD:6E3F:8EF6:504B (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought they chose to be called 中国共产党. Both "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" are translations. And they are equivalent, so I don't see why anyone would object to the English language community using whichever one they wish. --Khajidha (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This is (mostly) nonsense, by which I mean that your logic is flawed. You're correct to say that both "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" are translations, and you're also correct to say that the party itself chooses to be called 中国共产党. However, of the two English translations in question here, only one is a translation of the official name. "Communist Party of China" is the official English translation. "Chinese Communist Party" is not; it is unofficial.

Furthermore, considering that "中国共产党" does not exist in the English language, and considering that this is the English-language Wikipedia, where English is used and where all content appears in English, we can only ever use English to write articles. Therefore, if we are writing within the context of English (i.e., and not in the context of Mandarin) and if we can only use English, why would we use anything other than the official English translation of "中国共产党"? L'être et le néant (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Because English speakers don't generally use that official translation. It's really simple. If you want to write in English, you use the words that native English speakers use. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Solanaceae 83.213.130.26 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing as "Chinese Communist Party" shows inherent political bias, and not to mention is disrespectful to the people of China. Instead of "Khajidha" I'll instead call you "that Arabic person" because that is what English speakers would call you. Makes absolute no sense at all. 24.43.219.34 (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

An organisation is not a person. And a political organisation does not equal an ethnicity or race, not all Chinese people are members of the Chinese Communist Party. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

While both are translations of the Mandarin wording, the Wikipedia article's title in many other languages can only (in all instances I understand) be translated as "Communist Party of China". I believe aligning with the content written in other languages is a good way to avoid unwanted political bias in English Wikipedia articles. 83.213.130.26 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That makes no sense for the simple reason that "Chinese" literally means "of China". If we want to talk about the President of China, that is entirely equivalent to the Chinese President. If we want to talk about the mountains of China, we can say Chinese mountains. Anything that can be translated to "Communist Party of China" can also be translated to "Chinese Communist Party", because the two English forms are equivalent.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it literally doesn't. "Of China" is more restrictive and can mean only origin, location, possession and not a lot else. "Chinese" can additionally mean "having Chinese nature or character". You can move the Eiffel Tower to China and thenceforth start calling it the "Eiffel Tower of China", but you can't say it's the "Chinese Eiffel Tower" if you find it important to not let yourself be misinterpreted as saying the Eiffel Tower (design) is Chinese in nature or character. Similarly, Communist parties have agreed that all their official names should explicitly eliminate the possibility of interpretation that this or that country's party is practicing some kind of nation-specific Communism as opposed to the one single internationalist Communism, and hence that they should all be called "Communist Party of <Country>" and not "<nationalist adjective> Communist Party", as the latter can create the wrong impression. English-speaking academics, journalists and politicians have had every opportunity to find out about this and understand the distinction, and they do apply this logic to every other Communist party, just not the Chinese one. It is absolutely politically biased and intentionally disrespectful that the English-speaking West continues to call the CPC "CCP".

But I do also take your side's point that Wikipedia is not the place to solve this essentially political problem - Wikipedia only reflects existing realities, and if the English-speaking world has collectively decided to misinform its population in this way, the English Wikipedia should also keep up the misinformation, as long as the culture itself doesn't change around it and the majority of the people don't actively start using and popularizing "CPC" to the exclusion of "CCP" in English publications.

Donjoe (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, so the French Communist Party and the German Communist Party don't exist in your reality? So much for your assertion that the "Communist Party of _____" form applies to "every other Communist party, just not the Chinese one". There are multiple parties that use the "____ Communist Party" format and multiple parties that use the "Communist Party of _____" format. Your proposed misinterpretation is extremely unlikely among native English speakers. And the only disrespect that I see is coming from the CHINESE side in attempting to control the English language. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It is Western Chauvinism to insist on calling them by their unofficial name which is used by their detractors - the Western media. But it is also ironic that the Wikipedia page itself will admit that the official name is CPC, meanwhile using the unofficial name as the title of the page. Could you give me a Chinese government source that states that CCP is the official name? Otherwise, there's no reason to use the unofficial name. It comes across as an insult to many Chinese people such as myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:37A1:4200:6850:1C4D:6F52:B74D (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As a Westerner, I completely agree. It is very self-centered and egotistical to insist on calling them by anything other than their official name. Imagine if you told someone your name, and then the person said, "Ehh, no. I think I'll call you Brutus instead." L'être et le néant (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this issue. To call one “official,” rather than “alternative” gives the impression that anyone not using the “official” version is somehow less informed, knowledgable, or credible. That is not the case, and so I edited out the non-neutral point of view to present a more neutral one.

The Economist uses both, in the same article: https://www.economist.com/china/2021/09/18/the-chinese-communist-partys-model-emperor “The Chinese Communist Party’s model emperor” … an unlikely hero for the Communist Party of China,

britannica.com: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Communist-Party Chinese Communist Party. political party, China. Alternate titles: CCP, CPC, Chung-kuo Kung-ch’an Tang, Communist Party of China, Zhongguo Gongchan Dang . .

These sources prefer CCP (and I'm sure someone can come up with an equal number that prefer CPC).

Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinese-communist-party The Chinese Communist Party faces a host of domestic and international challenges as it aims to bolster China’s great-power status. .

The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/reconsidering-the-history-of-the-chinese-communist-party Reconsidering the History of the Chinese Communist Party .

NPR: https://www.npr.org/2021/07/05/1013203788/unpacking-the-100-year-history-of-the-chinese-communist-party Unpacking The 100-Year History Of The Chinese Communist Party . The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/09/chinese-communist-party-100th-birthday-vs-america-250th/ The Chinese Communist Party’s 100th birthday vs. America’s 250th .

VOA: https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_chinese-communist-party-100-hopes-and-disappointments/6207686.html The Chinese Communist Party at 100: Hopes and Disappointments .

al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/30/interactive Infographic: 100 years of China’s Communist Party China marks the centenary of the Chinese Communist Party on July 1. .

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/27/the-chinese-communist-party-100-years-that-shook-the-world The Chinese Communist party: 100 years that shook the world .

BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57648236 CCP 100: Xi warns China will not be 'oppressed' in anniversary speech .

Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/31/chinese-communist-party-money-us-institutions/ U.S. Institutions Must Get Smarter About Chinese Communist Party Money .

Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-01/china-tech-crackdown-communist-party-policy-changes-behind-1-trillion-selloff “...the most powerful Chinese Communist Party leader since Mao Zedong ...” .

Nikkei: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/The-lives-of-the-party-The-Chinese-Communist-Party-turns-100 The lives of the party: The Chinese Communist Party turns 100 .

The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/china-communist-party-capitalism/ What’s Left of Communism in China? Capitalists, once detested, are now welcomed into the Chinese Communist Party. .

Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-communist-party-hold-key-plenum-nov-state-media-2021-08-31/ The Chinese Communist Party will hold a key plenum in November, state media reported on Tuesday. .

DW.com: https://www.dw.com/en/chinas-communist-party-after-100-years-now-at-the-forefront-of-global-politics/a-58107249 “China's Communist Party after 100 years now at the 'forefront' of global politics” The CCP was founded in 1921, … .

Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2021-06-22/life-party Life of the Party: How Secure Is the CCP? .

India Today: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/decoded-100-years-of-chinese-communist-party-power-that-feeds-the-dragon-1821603-2021-07-01 Decoded | 100 years of Chinese Communist Party, power that feeds the dragon .

CSIS: https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinese-communist-party-targets-private-sector The Chinese Communist Party Targets the Private Sector . Might I suggest that we be a little less certain that one version is correct, and none other? DOR (HK) (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

http://cpc.people.com.cn/ Officially as in according to the Communist Party themselves CPC is correct. This isn't an issue that can be changed by sources saying CCP, the only entity with official control over the name is the party themselves, and as long as they say CPC, that's the official name. Even if every non-party source started using CCP the official name would still be CPC, no one but the party can decide that. BSMRD (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

To call one “official,” rather than “alternative” gives the impression that anyone not using the “official” version is somehow less informed, knowledgable [sic], or credible.
— User:DOR (HK)

I have never heard anyone assert this unless they assumed a claim of officiality to be synonymous with a claim of legitimacy. The use of "officially" in the lead refers to the formal name chosen by the party and does not make any claim regarding the legitimacy of other names such as "Chinese Communist Party". CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am happy that 'officially' means what the party calls itself and nothing more. I see it a little like the word official on the North Korea/DPRK page and Eastern Orthodox Church. In my reading CCP is the common name in English. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is essentially argument to the crowd. Just because the vast majority of media sources use the incorrect form, that does not make it correct. CPC / Communist Party of China is the correct and official form. Sciamachy (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

As we continue to have no consensus, perhaps my original suggestion might be considered on its merits. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Local consensus appears to be 3:1 in favor of the current wording, if you feel the need to start an RfC on this or take it to a noticeboard go ahead, but I don't think you'll get much in favor of your version. BSMRD (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can ANYBODY explain to me why any of these people care? To me (a native English speaker), this constant stream of people coming here to argue for CPC over CCP seems as ridiculous as the Monty Python bit about the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea. The two terms are absolutely identical in denotation and connotation, so the choice goes to frequency of usage. Sources from places where they actually speak English as their primary language tend to use CCP. That's it. If the Chinese don't like that, I don't know what to tell them besides the fact that their objections make them look silly. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Now how would we like it if everyone else called it the "Kingdom United", or "America's Sates United" or in my case "Zealand (the new one)". After a quick tour of Quora (thanks for that) it seems people are over thinking the difference between China and Chinese. But I would like to know more. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not equivalent. Unless you are implying that the country is the the CPC or CPC. What you are implying would be like calling it the American Party of Republicans, or the UK party of Labor in another languages format. It is a false equivalence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.74.253 (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If they did it in English, that would be wrong. But that is exactly what is done in Spanish. "Estados Unidos". You can't compare mangling the original language to stylistic variation in translation. --Khajidha (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"it seems people are over thinking the difference between China and Chinese" But the difference between the phrases isn't "China" vs "Chinese", it's "of China" vs "Chinese". And "Chinese" literally means "of China". That's why this campaign to change the translation is so absurd. They are basically saying "you can't say it is of China, you have to say it is of China". --Khajidha (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I can explain it, but with full disclosure it might be considered "biased". The way it was explained to me was that the CPC was always referred to as the CCP by western media. Whether that was because of a negative ideology or slip of translation is mostly lost to time, but I've heard that even CPC members used to refer to themselves as CCP. In either case, due to negative sentiment they fervently try to make it clear that it is CPC and consider it an insult to regard their party in any other way. From a US perspective, it could be likened to renaming a business to escape negative publicity, but that's personal bias and unproven. --Streetrollerofficial (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: you should email the Chinese embassy of the USA to ask what the party themselves would prefer the page to be called: chinaembpress_us@mfa.gov.cn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:37A1:4200:6850:1C4D:6F52:B74D (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Arguments should be made based on Wikipedia policy, not what the Chinese embassy in the U.S. specifically prefers. If the decision of the Chinese government was the determining factor, this article would not have been moved in the first place. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand this sentiment, but I do think it's worth emphasizing the significant difference in meaning between CCP vs CPC. Communist and socialists parties often avoided identifying themselves with one ethnic group, as opposed a nation or geographic area, based on principles of internationalism. There were similar distinctions in the early Communist Party of Italy, for example. Or think of the name of the French FSIO (French Section of the Workers' International). The CPC's self-conception is as a Communist Party of China rather than as a Chinese Communist Party. That seems intellectually significant. I think there would have to be cause to break from their self-described nomanclature, especially given its historical roots.Asoka89 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I would think it rather far-fetched to argue that the CCP/CPC's self-conception is consciously expressed in the English translation of its name, especially since the Chinese/of China distinction is non-existent in formal written Chinese. Doanri (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention that such a distinction is not really made in the English phrases in question. --Khajidha (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a distinction in usage when it comes to the abbreviations. While CPC is used by official Chinese coverage and publications in English, CCP is used by media which often fail to proofread pinyin spellings out of indifference. Since it has been pointed out that the difference in meaning is marginal, there should be no reason not to respect the offical name and at least use it as the article name. --2001:16B8:3163:7A00:7997:8628:22BC:EAF4 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If the difference in meaning is marginal there also should be no reason to respect the official name and use it as the article name. We have no policy or guideline which says to favor an official name over a common name, much the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

To try to put an end to it, the CPC accepted the term CCP until 2006. Magellan Fan (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2022 (PST)

And the common wikipedia term is to use the offical and correct ones (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations)Is it correct to call NATO the Organization of Trading in the North Atlantic or OTNA? RJS001 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Calling NATO OTNA would be contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, calling the communist party CCP is not. Doanri (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

My main problem with applying COMMONNAME for the party, is the consequence in the articles on the history of the international communist movement (upon which CPC had a profound impact), where the push to replace CPC with CCP is disrupting flow and accuracy across many articles. It is confusing and misleading to use 'CCP' in this context. --Soman (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

IS THERE A REASON WHY WE ARE NOT USING THE OFFICIAL NAME? as stated in the article itself? it just make everything look stupid. you can equally list a bunch of article that call native american INDIAN, do you want to replace all native american article as INDIAN? it just a stupid argument. a handful of article does not represent common use as old article get outdated, name changes all the time and they should be corrected to be up to date. 101.127.15.2 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the resolution of this issue, which maintains the accuracy of the party's name while recognizing the frequent English usage: "The Communist Party of China (CPC), also commonly referred to in English as the the Chinese Communist Party or CCP..." While CPC is the most abbreviation name, CCP continues to be common in English language media sources. My suggestion here addresses both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JArthur1984 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

My attempt to address both sides of this discussion was reverted to the old language that many find objectionable. I would like to hear with specificity why my edit did not meet the needs of both "sides"? It seems there is no consensus for the current language, following the reversion, in any case. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it was pointless? The current wording already covers the points adequately. We write using common English terminology. Thus, the article is titled Chinese Communist Party and starts with that phrasing. We then go on to note that the phrase Communist Party of China is the official usage of the party itself. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no problem here. They both mean the same thing, and it is something that is commonly used as well. In Arabic, it is literally Chinese Communist Party. Tisthefirstletter (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I support using the official name. The US Democratic Party is frequently called the "Democrat Party" by opponents, but no one would ever suggest Wikipedia using it, because it is wrong. Common but incorrect information should not be given priority or equal credence over also common and correct information. The same standard should apply in other countries. The two versions of the CPC's name also arguably have different connotations, with their preferred name more inclusive. Zellfire999 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Today the Global News called the Party "the community party of China" First time I have seen that. Cayrouses (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. Its the Global Times. Not News. A state run site. Cayrouses (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I support using the accurate abbreviation of CPC. It's too Western-centric to insist on re-ordering the initials despite the frequent practice. It is also helpful for credibility. I have noticed web-based and newspaper sources are much more likely to use "CCP," while more scholarly or neutral sources are more likely to use the accurate "CPC" abbreviation. Using the correct abbreviation seems to me more consistent with the goal of Wikipedia -- building a collaborative encyclopedia. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)JArthur1984

You would rather use Cambridge, a university in a country openly hostile to China, as a source rather than the party itself? Ridiculous. Snoekbaars1728 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

References

False. The CCP abbreviation is far more common in academic/scholarly writing than CPC. I commented two years ago on this. Here are the figures I cited then. "Take for example the journal China Quarterly, one of the most important western publications on Chinese politics and history (now published by Cambridge University). Searching all issues of CQ on JSTOR, there are 104 instances of CPC vs. 1376 of CCP. (NB some of these may not be acronyms for Communist Party of China.) Another example is the China Journal, published in Australia, CCP 460 vs. CPC 78. Another example is Perspectives Chinoises, published by the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China, CCP 65 vs. CPC 7." These figures I believe are roughly the same today. I see no way in which the use of CPC makes Wikipedia MORE collaborative, or the use of CCP makes it LESS collaborative. Rgr09 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My emphasis in the remark above was meant to be more on "encyclopedia" than "collaborative." The idea being that in writing an encyclopedia, we would want to put a primary focus on the correct term, not the incorrect term. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Your logic is circular, you've never demonstrated that CPC is correct and CCP is incorrect so your argument currently amounts to "CPC is correct and it is correct because it is CPC" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should use the official name. I can see the argument for using the unofficial title, but it is only common because we keep reproducing it, as an encyclopedia our duty is to educate, not perpetuate misinformation. Publius Pompilius (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Official name should be used. Yukkevchuhau (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Mao proclaiming the establishment of the PRC in 1949.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hello @InvadingInvader, I was confused on whether why my edits were reverted. If necessary, I can explain my edits:

1. All-China Women's Federation and All-China Federation of Trade Unions are technically not part of the CCP apparatus, with the former officially being an NGO (this addition wasn't sourced)

2. Xinhua News Agency is part of the State Council, still technically not under the CCP (this wasn't sourced as well)

3. China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations is under the Ministry of State Security while Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is under the State Council; technically not part of the CCP (this too wasn't sourced)

4. The Internationale is not the official anthem of the CCP, but is used unofficially

5. As I discussed with Amigao in the Talk:United Front (China), the UF is more of a political strategy used by the CCP than an established alliance

However for some, I could be wrong and would be happy to be corrected :) The Account 2 (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! For some reason, I accidentally reverted all of your edits (I hate computers sometimes)...sorry about that! I was looking primarily at the United Front phrasing...I was concerned a bit about the phrasing. Other edits though seem good, and I apologize for the inconvenience. InvadingInvader (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Public Response to Deng Xiaoping's Reforms

Potential additions to the "Reforms under Deng Xiaoping" subsection Marktberry (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

After weeks of student protest, government troops fired into the crowd and killed hundreds of protestors. Whereas Gorbachev condemned violence against reformers, Xiaoping supported the attack and arrest of thousands of reformers. Reactions to the Tiananmen Square massacre across the country were varied, but Party leaders attempted to use the media to create public support for this action. The CCP claimed that the massacre was necessary in order to maintain stability in the country, and argued that these methods garnered the understanding of many people and governments nationally and globally. Today, the Party still maintains media control by blocking website-based searches of the event and suggesting that accounts of the event may be myths. In the years following the massacre, Xiaoping's economic reforms led to GDP growth and greater prosperity for many in the Chinese public, and support for the government remained relatively high through the 2010s.

Accounts of Deng Xiaoping's efforts frequently skim over the brutalization of protestors at Tiananmen. Further contextualizing the events of Deng Xiaoping's leadership and the public response is important to understanding the history of the Chinese Communist Party. Marktberry (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

To this day, the incident of Tiananmen Square has been shrouded in mystery... the casualty and death count have not been confirmed, and neither has the nature of the event past what is shown in the press. Deng Xiaoping's motivations for having mobilized the troops from outside the capital city is speculated to have been due to his desire to send a strong political message, backed militarily. The press played a large role in inciting the public's response to Xiaoping's decision. In the West, where media was not so restricted, people were quick to condemn the Chinese government and Xiaoping for this draconian action while in the East, the Chinese government was quick to release literature falsifying the situation and conveying that the anarchic protesters set out to overthrow the government; instead many protesters indicated that they had simply wanted to work alongside the government to enact reforms. Therefore, Deng Xiaoping's reputation in China resisted a steep decline–the CCP had been there to cover up his tracks and persuade the Chinese public of their prevailing good intentions. Supreana (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that you should add that police and soldiers were lynched, beaten, or burned to death prior to opening fire on the rioters/protestors. This is a crucial bit of context. FF toho (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I am quite skeptical of any source that refers to “Xiaoping,” as if it is a surname. It shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of China and its language. The only time such casual terminology would be used would be in a very private meeting among equals, and their were scant few remaining in 1989. While language is not the key issue, it does point to a failure to have read any of the thousands of books and articles about Deng and his work. That, in turn, suggests that source is highly unreliable. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Plus the lack of citations and the non-encyclopedic language ("shrouded in mystery" ... "cover up his tracks") are further indications we should avoid. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Flag of the Chinese Communist Party (Pre-1996).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)