Jump to content

Talk:History of the Chinese Communist Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahaines01, Zeldridge.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number of delegates at first conference

[edit]

I'm no expert in this area but this looks like an inconsistency:

  • "There were informal groups in China in 1920, and also overseas, but the official beginning was the 1st Congress held in Shanghai and attended by 53 men in July 1921 and later transferred from Shanghai to Jiaxing." (article History of the Communist Party of China)
  • "The first session of the National Congress of the Communist Party of China was attended by 13 delegates, Mao included." (article Mao Zedong)

This looks like an error. How many delegates were there - 13 or 53? Kidburla (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

53 looks like an estimate of the total membership, not the delegates. Numbers get disputed, but 12 is the official total. --GwydionM (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Communist Party of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Views

[edit]

Shouldn't the section "Feminist Views" rather belong to the article Feminism in China? It seems randomly put on this page. Ideology of the Communist Party of China might also be a better fit (it is views, after all). In addition, the section has quite a few language and content issues. I tried taking a stab at fixing them, but I didn't know where to begin. For example, it starts by calling Xiang Jingyu the most prominent female leader in the party, even though there are other candidates for that title. Moreover, it speculates that Xiang's influence in the party was the result of her relationships with male leaders, which would seem to marginalize her own efforts. I've inserted tags to highlight these problems. 92.34.154.78 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that this section needs copy editing. Addressing the need for citations/sources and then addressing any WP:NPOV issues could be a good place to begin. The section probably would be in better context in either Feminism in China or Ideology of the Communist Party of China as suggested, but maybe this section could be rewritten to be about the "history of feminist policies" or something along those lines. Romhilde (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I've taken a look at the Feminism in China article, but women under communism seems to already be covered there, and I don't see a way to neatly incorporate the section there. Some bits and pieces could perhaps be inserted, but certainly not the section as a whole. In the Ideology of the Communist Party of China article, on the other hand, feminism is not addressed at all, and there's definitely room for that topic there as a separate section, where it would also fit in better than here. My worry, though, is that the section would be immediately deleted if it were to be moved wholesale to that article, considering the problems with both language and content. I could give it a try, of course, but otherwise, I think the best solution would be to just get rid of it all together. 92.34.153.146 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One person, anonymous, said it should go. Unacceptable. --GwydionM (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism in China has a lot less. And some people hate to admit that the Chinese Communists did the main work, even though it is a solid fact. --GwydionM (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does need a rewrite. Inaccurate on several points - it tended to be male leaders marrying women who were already prominent in their own right. I will do this over the next few days.--GwydionM (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the initiative. However, the section is now duplicated, appearing in two articles: the history one, and the ideology one (where it seems to be welcomed, as someone has already started to do the copy-editing work). So, it becomes a question of in which article the section fits best. Personally, I think that "feminist views" by definition has more to do with ideology than history. Thoughts? 92.34.138.217 (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Views again

[edit]

The Feminist Views section has now been successfully incorporated into the article on the party's ideology: Ideology of the Communist Party of China. There, editors have started to address the problems with language and content, making it conform to encyclopedic standards. Thus, it would be natural to at this point remove the section from the present article, since it has now obviously found a better home. Again, it's a section on feminist views, which by definition has more to do with the ideology of the party rather than its history. Thoughts? I don't think the section can exist in two different articles simultaneously. 92.34.150.1 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can, because not everyone would think to look for it.
I'd be happy with a shorter section that references the full article. Just not an omission of something most people will not know about.--GwydionM (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bias definitely exists, see | Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry. --GwydionM (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is interested in the CCP's views on women, why would they turn to an article on the party's history? Wouldn't it be more natural to consult the article on party ideology? Moreover, the section upsets the otherwise tight structure of the article, moving from the foundation of the party and its activities during the Revolution to its more recent history as the ruling party. The section on "feminist views" just seems tagged-on at the end, ruining the chronological flow of the article. Lastly, the section is simply not very good, neither in form nor content. While the editors active on the ideology page have started to revise the section into something resembling acceptable shape, there seems to be little interest to do so here on this page. Can we open this up to a broader discussion? 92.34.114.188 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of my most interesting discoveries are chance noticing. So I will not allow useful facts to be erased, Anonymous Person. Supposing you are honest, which is unproven.--GwydionM (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting absurd. We can't put everything on every page, just to allow for chance discoveries. Anyone? 92.34.151.110 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In China, rights for women was a distinctive Communist Party policy, not shared by any other party with significant power. So at least a short section would be needed, with a link to something longer. I'm busy, but if someone wants to trim the section I'd be fine with that. --GwydionM (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing the party's interest in women's rights. This is a structural/organizational issue: the section does not belong in this article. It has already been successfully transplanted to Ideology of the Communist Party of China, where it fits in much better. Hence, it needs to be removed from this page. As you can see from the discussion below, there is an emerging consensus on the issue - though you are of course welcome to argue your point there as well. 92.34.123.5 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved all the material to a new article, referenced here. Hope this pleases everyone. I also covered the matter of what the CPC did once in power, not well covered as things were. --GwydionM (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

The consensus is against having a "Feminist views" section in this article because editors find the section to be out of place in this article. Editors suggested incorporating the content into other sections of History of the Communist Party of China or moving the content to Feminism in China or Ideology of the Communist Party of China. None of these suggested moves achieved a consensus. There is no prejudice against boldly moving the material and further discussion if any of the moves are disputed.

Cunard (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Should the section "Feminist Views" belong to the article on the party's history, the one about the party's ideology, or both? 92.34.140.29 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • It seems to me that the content currently included in the Feminism section would be a better fit for an article about the party's ideology, or even in the Feminism in China article. That having been said, the All-China Women's Federation may deserve a mention in the article independent of the need for an entire section on feminism in the party, and some of the content about feminism in China would be relevant to provide context in this scenario. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat, it makes sense because no one else with any power was doing it. Concubinage was normal under the Kuomintang, and women had no right of divorce. Obviously there are plenty of people out there who would prefer that these facts were not facts. Or at least were not mentioned. Yet they are facts! --GwydionM (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The result of the RfC was that the section was developed into a new article: Feminism in Chinese Communism. 92.34.150.47 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Party origins

[edit]

Dozens of books agree that Comintern agents inspired it, but Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao recruited most of the membership. That they were the founders.

Someone just tried to change it, in favour of what is probably some crackpot anti-Communist book. Not clear if it even merits a mention. At best, it is an eccentric claim.

--GwydionM (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not defending the official history. I am defending history as told by everyone, some highly critical of the Communists.--GwydionM (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a reputable and neutral source. Tidied the existing details.--GwydionM (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also surprised at the obsession with Grigori Voitinsky. Is it relevant that he was Jewish, whereas most of the foreign advisers of Chinese Communism were not?--GwydionM (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent change is acceptable, since it does not try to wipe out the main history. --GwydionM (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPC began in 1921

[edit]

There was interest in Marxism in China from 1900: see Chinese Marxist philosophy

When it was learned that the Russian Revolution had succeeded and was Marxist, there was an interest in copying it. But the idea of an actual Leninist party was introduced by foreigners. And then there was a process of assembling various regional groups that were interested. Only from 1921 did they actually form a Communist Party.

An alternative would have been a Marxist faction within the Kuomintang, which the Kuomintang wanted. CPC members joining the Kuomintang but keeping their own party was agreed with difficulty, and broke down in 1927.

--GwydionM (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GwydionM: The point of my edit was that
  1. The terms of the article title in the first sentence should not be both bolded and wikilinked (MOS:BOLDAVOID)
  2. The lead should provide an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents (MOS:LEAD), which the current lead (This article details the history of the Chinese Communist Party) is completely insufficient.
The content of the lead can be reworked, sure, e.g. to formally use the foundation of the party of the start date. Feel free to modify the wording. — MarkH21talk 22:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beiyang government

[edit]

I replaced a reference to overthrowing the Beiyang government. The warlords who dominated around Beijing were not tackled until 1928, after the Kuomintang broke with the Communists. It was aided by the Kuomintang no longer seeming so radical to the Western powers and to right-wing Chinese.

What had happened in 1927 was clearing a path from Guangzhou (Canton) to Nanking and Shanghai. This meant defeating warlords who nominally recognised the Beijing government, but were independent powers. GwydionM (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party&oldid=1200306380"