Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 25 April 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese Communist Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Chinese Communist Party has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 12, 2014. (Reviewed version).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chinese Communist Party. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chinese Communist Party at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Chinese Communist Party received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese Communist Party article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "China begins to cut back on its 3.5m fleet of 'perk' cars". Daily Telegraph Online. March 3, 2004.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 23, 2017.

Copy-editing

I copy-edited the article but someone should probably check its neutrality. There are some problematic passages too; for example I don't think I understand this passage: "While both Su and Dong agreed that it was the collectivization of agriculture and the establishment of People's Communes which had ended rural exploitation, neither of them sought a return to that era." What era? The era of rural exploitation or the era of collectivization of agriculture? Not clear.

The article appears Biased

I don't see any criticism mentioned in the article. The whole article looks like it might have been written by a CPC flunky. It looks biased towards the CPC or at least to have shrouded the CPC in a haze of buzzwords. I do *not* think it's a good candidate for a 'good article'.Sanpitch (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sanpitch: Why should the article contain criticism? :p The article on China doesn't contain criticism, not even the article on North Korea contains criticism, so why should this be treated any differentially? --TIAYN (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sanpitch is right--the bias is pro-Party and should be reduced. Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Tell me where concretely this article is "pro-party" Rjensen? --TIAYN (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The article makes it seem like the CCP is an open, democratic and largely bottom up party, much like a western political party. But my understanding is that it is a totally top down structure, where people largely do as they are told. And there is far to much vague woffle in it about "centeralized communism" etc. Tuntable (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer Introduction and Notes

This review is transcluded from Talk:Communist Party of China/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and I will be the reviewer for this awesome article! This should be awesome :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note, that I'll try and do review comments in a 7 day time period. Just a note ;) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I will use this old peer review and check off if you did everything the reviewers recommended you do.

EDIT: to TIAYN, I do my review in a style with a main review covering most aspects, then doing an in-depth review for both the prose and sources. Just a note ;) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Okay, by reading each section of the article, there are no spelling or grammar mistakes. No problems from a first look, but other minor mistakes will be covered in the "Prose review" section. Also, just a question, how long does the article have to be to split it? Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 16:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead pretty much summarizes the article, and layout is correct. From a first look, there aren't any "Pigeon words," but more will be covered in the prose review.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	From a first look, all sentences/paragraphs are relevantly sourced. More details in source review.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All statistics, statements, quotes are all directly sourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is sourced, so there is no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The Communist Party of China article covers everything it "should cover." (the history, its point of views, etc.)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Again, just a question, does the article have to be like over 100kb to be split? I don't think its necessary, however.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Unlike the last review, which I rushed, after reading the article, the article has point of views from both sides. However, maybe add some international coverage, or sources if possible. (This is just a tip for FA.)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No really big arguments (Edit wars), and the article is relatively stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	will check images soon. Copyright status is tagged, fair use rationales are also provided for non-free content. Great job!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to each section, there are plenty to go around. Captions, I will check soon.
	7. Overall assessment.	See notes below and change them if needed. On hold. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 23:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Article is passed, notes were done. Good job. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review Notes (Followed everything noted in peer review) Y

Lede

• My concern is that this article's lede is so short, particularly given the length of the rest of the article. For instance, it does not mention Mao Zedong (surely an omission) and does not go into any discussion of the ideological background to the CPP. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Fixed!

• We mention the 18th National Congress, but not the date in which it took place, which should be fairly important here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Fixed!

History

• One of the main sources used here is ""History of the Communist Party of China". Xinhua. 29 April 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2014", which seems to me to be the product of the Chinese state news. We can do better than that, surely ? Let's get some academic historical accounts of the CPP history in here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Fixed.

Other comments

• This page could probably do with more images; for instance, could we use an image of Mao, or Deng, or any of the CPC's founding members ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Good.

• This article is very long. Most of that is necessary, I appreciate, but when sections such as "Party-to-party relations" are considerably longer than that on "History", then I think that we have some problems on appropriate weight. Branch some of these sections off, creating articles devoted solely to them, and then edit this page down as a result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Yes, you cut down the prose. Good job with doing everything the peer reviewers noted. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 17:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose+Source Notes

Good sources, sources require no review :)

Prose Review Begins Here When you finish a point, just use a check sign which looks like this: Y Otherwise, use Y if it only partially is needed, or N if you don't think its necessary.

NOTE: Sorry that the review is so messy. Try and figure it out, but if you can't (which I completely understand) ping me or leave me a talkback template ;)

History Section (a big one)

• Founding and early history subsection

Good.

• Chinese Civil War and World War II (1927–49) subsection

"The near-destruction of the CPC's urban organizational apparatus, led to institutional changes within the party."

 Done Take out the comma in the middle.

"Li Lisan's leadership was a failure, and by the end of it the CPC was on the brink of destruction."

 Done Add a comma between it and the.

"The Comintern became involved, and by late-1930 he had been taken away his powers"

 Done Add a comma between 1930 and had.

"By 1945, the KMT three-times more soldiers under its command then the CPC, and because of it, it looked early on like it was winning."

 Done Maybe say "the KMT had three-times more soldiers under its command then the CPC..."

"However, the main failure was that the KMT, with 2 millions more troops than the CPC, failed to reconquer the rural territories which made up the CPC's stronghold."

 Done Change 2 millions to 2 million.

• Ruling Party (1949-present) subsection

Everything is good, just a question. Is there any new information on Xi Jinping's leadership?

 Done Added a line on Xi's anti-corruption effort and his bid to centralize more powers in the CPC General Secretary at the expense of the collective. --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Goverance section

• Collective leadership subsection

Good.

• Democratic centralism subsection

Good.

• Multi Party cooperation system subsection

"The Multi-party Cooperation and Political Consultation System is led by the CPC in cooperation and consultation with the 8 parties which make up the United Front."

 Done Add a comma between parties and which.

The below subsections are ALL UNDER THE ORGANIZATION SECTION.

• National Congress and constitution subsections

Good.

• Central Committee subsection

"While the Central Committee is the highest organ in the periods between party congresses, few resolutions cite its name. Instead, the majority of party resolutions refer to the "Communist Party Centre", an indirect way of protecting the powers of, and resolutions produced by, the Politburo, the Politburo Standing Committee and the General Secretary."

Maybe change the second sentence to ..."the majority of party resolutions refer to the Committee as the "Communist Party Centre"...'

 Not done @MrWooHoo: You seemed to have misunderstood the point, the point is that instead of citing or referring to the Central Committee, the party's "supreme body" inbetween party congresses, they instead refer to the "Communist Party Centre" which can mean the Central Committee, the Secretariat, the Politburo or the Politburo Standing Committee. Another example of informal politics in communist systems institutionalized; instead of delegitimizing the Central Committee, which they would by issuing resolutions which stated that they were published by the Politburo, they refer to the "Communist Party Centre". This is not to say that the Central Committee is unimportant but that its role is different from what is said it should be according to the party's constitution; in it the Central Committee is the supreme authority between congresses, but since the Central Committee meets only once or twice a year usually that power is handed to the Politburo, which in turn hands it to the Politburo Standing Committee. The centralization of power has turned the Politburo Standing Committee as the highest body in the land. However, when the Central Committee do meet, it acts as a "discussion chamber" where policy is decided. A place in which the communist elite can discuss and form policy, which is accordance with the party's constitution. Point being, the party's constitution gives the Central Committee supreme authority over all aspects of the party - thats a power it does not currently has, since in fact the Central Committee is more accountable to the Politburo then the other-way around. Of course, it still has these parties formally, and as can be shown with the Soviet Union in 1957 and 1964, if the Central Committee was unhappy with the leadership (and had the belief that it could change the leadership without suffering physical harm) it could dismiss Politburo members and the party leader. But this happened only twice, and its telling that with the majority of the Central Committee opposing Mikhail Gorbachev's reform efforts in the late-1980s and early-1990s, the man left the party by resigning from it in a bid to strengthen his legitimacy, and was not a case of the Central Committee actually using its powers as "bestowed upon it" by Lenin & co. Short, the "Communist Party Centre" does not refer to the Central Committee, in fact it does not refer to any specific body - it refers only to the party leadership. Not only does this make it impossible for the grassroots to hold the leadership accountable, it also institutionalizes the "dictatorship of the Politburo Standing Committee" (a small body) at the expense of the "dictatorship of the Central Committee" (a large body).... Any tips for making this clearer? --TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@TIAYN: No, it's fine, I just needed a clarification. I have passed the GA Article. Congrats. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Central Commission for Discipline Inspection subsection

Good.

• Bodies of the Central Committee subsection with its own sections (all prose until Members subsection)

Good.

• Members Subsection

• Probationary period, rights and duties subsection of Members subsection

"To join the party an applicant must be 18 years of age, and must spend a year as a probationary member."

 Done Add a comma between party and an.

• Composition of the party and Communist Youth Leage subsections of Members subsection

Good.

SYMBOLS SECTION

Good.

Ideology Section

No prose errors, or infractions with MOS. Great job!

Party-to-party relations section

Nicely polished. Great job!

I agree that the article needs criticism of the "Communist Party of China". There should be criticism of the "Communist Party of China" from other parties that call themselves "communist" noted. 71.181.179.45 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Historical:
Maoism

why I can't put this in the box?--E.F Edits (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@E.F Edits: Because its not historical, they are still officially committed to Mao Zedong Thought. --TIAYN (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

CPC <> CCP_CCP-2017-11-08T06:05:00.000Z">

Only a small part of the text makes use of CCP. Should we not use CPC throughout for the sake of consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.186 (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)_CCP"> _CCP">

Yes! --TIAYN (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The actual translation of Zhonghua (China/Chinese) Gongchan (Communist) Dang (Party) makes it obvious that CCP is correct. CPC is merely a Western adaptation based on “Communist Party of ...” conventions left over from the Cold War.DOR (HK) (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104213020/http://english.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130513/chinese-communist-party-to-train-chavista-leaders to http://english.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130513/chinese-communist-party-to-train-chavista-leaders

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) 11:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Left wing / far left

Does anyone really know what this means, or believe it actually represents current CCP positioning or ideology? If any of these short-hand tags have meaning, I'd say it would be nationalism, with neither a left nor right slant. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Add: The CCP isn’t listed in the Far-left political parties Category (which for some reason disappears as a Wikilink). Their policy positions don’t match our Left-wing politics article. Chinese trade unions, for example, have less to do with advocating for workers’ rights than they do with surpressing (or, controlling, to use a more neutral term) a potential political force.

Anti-globalization? Green politics? Internationalism over nationalism? Social justice for minorities? LGBT rights? Not a chance.

As we say in our Left-wing politics article, “In China, the term “Chinese New Left” denotes those who oppose the current economic reforms and favor the restoration of more socialist policies.” In other words, China’s left is not the governing force, and so the label doesn’t fit in this article. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

These labels mean nothing for governing parties in one-party states. The line should be removed altogether. --Soman (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's see if anyone else chimes in before we remove it. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The CPC may be qualified as a Third Position's party, due to the nationalism, even ultranationalism of both Chinese politicians and civil society (e.g. aggressive attitude and threats against Vietnam, Philippines until the victory of Duterte, Japan and other countries about Spratleys, Paracels, Senkaku; violence and persecutions against Tibetans and Uighurs and aggressive messages on social networks) which look like German or Japanese attitude in 1939-45; and also the opposition to both liberal values and economic communist's policies, so that throughout not abandoning completely and officially communist ideology, the economic policy seems to be an alternative between formal capitalism and collectivized economy combined with a dictatorial regime (third position's supporters are described as against democracy and for a syncretism of nationalism and communism). Martopa (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, Socialism with Chinese characteristics is listed in the section see also of Third Position. Martopa (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2018

I removed the left-wing label, as per this discussion.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove the description and, for the record, I object to your naming of the description of its political position as an exercise of labeling as there's nothing ulterior in stating the obvious (and, as a corollary, everything ulterior in not stating the obvious). Affiliated organizations with the CPC such as the CPSU or the Communist Party of Cuba both have their political positions documented in their respective infoboxes so I don't see why the political position of the CPC shouldn't similarly be documented in this case, and just because you think that political labels mean nothing for governing parties in one-party states doesn't mean that that in fact is true, much less that political ideologies do not in fact exist. The political position of the CPC is by definition left-wing, it explicitly identifies itself through the media of its constitutional foundations as adhering to a left-wing ideology (socialism) and its MO is similarly specialized along the logic of that ideology. Your comment about how the labels mean nationalism doesn't make sense as nationalism isn't a political position (it's an ideology that bisects the political divide) as is the comment by Martopa about how the CPC is a representative of the Third Position ideology when it explicitly attacks, in both theory and practice, what it sees as Western/non-Asian types of political systems. I have restored the description as you don't have consensus to remove it (I am disagreeing with you) so please do not restore it until we have sorted this out. Wingwraith (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that "Far-left" must be combined with "Anti-globalization" or "Green politics", or political parties in China couldn't use the label. However I agree that after Deng come to power, the CPC nowadays is a Center-right to Far-right party de facto.--Wkbreaker (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And believe me, if you work hard to check out the constitution of CPC, you would find "Social justice for minorities" and "Protect the Environment". Maybe it isn't these that make a party "Left" or Marxist--Wkbreaker (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Political position and the slogans

The political position of the CPC has been removed. However,there is no consensus to remove it(see the discussion above),so it should not be removed. The slogan part is also unnecessary.The sentences cited are used by the CPC,however they are not widely-used "slogans"that can represent the CPC.If these sentences can be referred as slogans,any sentence in a CPC publication can be a 'slogan',and this is not reasonable.--113.128.150.197 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the position arguement

@Wkbreaker, Wingwraith, DOR (HK), Martopa, and Soman:

1. First things first. A position in a political map is a democratic thing, something which exists in liberal and iliberal democracies. In China there is only one party, and only one political movement. The party and the movement defines themselves as communists.
2. It doesn't really matter that people are to the left or right of the CPC does it? There were people to the left of Stalin, they were shot! There were people to the right of Stalin, they were shot too! .. Are we suppose to conclude that Stalin was a centrist, and a defender against the extremism of the left and right?
3. Third position. As far I remember, the Soviet Union underwent ethnic cleansing of sorts, Russian nationalism (Central Asians were not allowed to lead their own republics because Russians, and Eastern Europeans were preferred - China is better here), and suppression of specific groups (the Muslims in Central Asia had it way worse than the Christians in European Soviet area)..... Are we to conclude that the Soviet Union was third position? No.
4. Territorial claims are not synonymous with nationalism. If I rightfully think something is mine, and I want it back, thats not nationalism - thats wanting something back. The conflict in the South China Sea is not proof of ultranationalism.
5. So everything that opposes liberal democracy is third position?
6. How is CPC a right-wing party? They have one of the most progressive tax systems in Asia - Thomas Piketty (yay that guy) has even written about it. The state owns the majority of the economy. They call themselves socialists, and say their highest ideal is communism. Despite the conflict with Vietnam, it has the highest level of diplomatic friendship China can have with a country - comprehensive strategic partnership (neither Vietnam or China designates their relationship with Japan, China, US or Russia that way)... In an increasingly liberal world, China is literally the only leading country holding onto state-owned ownership, the only country which officially proclaims that markets fail without state leadership el cetra el cetra.. Of course, in China education and health is partially privatised, and GINI is high... My point is not to say China is left or right, its just to say that its absolutely wrong footed to call the CPC centre-righr or far-right. They have literally instituted many policies leftists the world over can only dream of.
7. Yes Tibetans and Uyghuirs are not treated well.... However, Tibet is also one of the fastest growing economic regions of the country... Hu Jintao even headed the province for several years - yes him, the previous leader. They might be suspicious of Tibetan political sentiments (because they have a strong and vibrant independence movement) but its not like they are trying to make their life a living hell. They are improving the economy in the area, they are improving living standards. That doesn't sound like either ultra nationalism or like anything else.

• Conclusion. China is complex. The CPC is complex. The political map is relative to each country. For instance, if the most right-wing parliamentary party in Norway (that is were I live, correct) had ran for election in the US, it would be deemed far-left. Of course its not far-left. Still ,this just goes to show its relative. I find it strange that Westerners, who don't belong to China uses Western values (I probably shouldn't have used that term) to interpret the CPCs political position.

No position in the infobox. It should be removed from every one-party state ruling party on WP. Just because they make mistakes doesn't mean we should. --TIAYN (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that no "position" should be listed in the infobox. It adds not factual value at all. In reality the left, right and centrist elements of modern Chinese politics all cohabit inside CPC, fighting to pull the party in one direction or another. --Soman (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with TIAYN. The CPC's positions vary depending on the issue, and are hard to pin down and summarize in the infobox. Also remove the "slogans" too. Slogans were big in the Mao era, but not for today's CPC. -Zanhe (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need and Soman: The fact that we are in presence of a single-governing party doesn't necessary mean that the party hasn't any position (e.g. Nazi Party in Germany or fascist Italy, Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, Videla in Argentina who are largely recognized as far-right), but the most important thing is that these positions must be sourced. In the case of Communist Party of Cuba, French newspaper Le Monde diplomatique classifies the party as far-left (they use the French word extrême gauche 1) ; but for the CP of China the main problem is that there are no reliable sources which define clearly a political position and Chinese leaders widely accept private property since Deng Xiaoping, so it's not really conform to the definition of far-left (far-left or far-right parties are generally antidemocratic, even if China is currently non democratic, it's not a sufficient criteria). Historically, under Mao there is no doubt that they were far-left ; but from its beginning to nowadays, the party has substantially evolved. Moreover, majority versions of Misplaced Pages in other languages (in French, Italian, Spanish) don't mention any political position (except in Serbian and Hebrew versions) so I think that it's most reasonable to leave the position empty ...

PS : The fact that the most right-wing party in Norway is more leftist than American Democrats of Obama/Clinton is dubious. Indeed, American political spectrum is widely perceived as very right-winged due to their strong social and religious conservatism, economic ultraliberalism, neo-conservative foreign policy ; but the Democrats aren't anti-immigration contrary to Porgress Party of Norway ; and far-right European parties are authoritarianists/antidemocratic (see threats and physical attacks from French National Front to journalists/medias), some of them openly support Mussolini and Hitler, which is not the case of the GOP which accept democratic institutions, doesn't glorify fascist or nazi regimes and under previous Republican presidencies doesn't organize pogroms, killings of immigrants, foreigners (except Trump and his supporters, but he isn't historically a real Republican and his supporters come mostly from neo-nazi groups and KKK rather than Republican party ; however there are effective counter-powers that prevent him from doing what he wants, to establish a dictatorship and so on.). And if Chinese behavior in "South China Sea" (the name isn't consensual and is subject to caution) isn't a proof of ultranationalism, it can be considered nevertheless as irredentist (same thing for Putin's Russia in Eastern Europe -> Ukraine, Georgia etc.) --Martopa (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we are mixing apples and oranges in this discussion. First of all, labelling NSDAP as 'far right' is not helpful. It could easily be identified as 'far right' in the years leading up to 1933, but being in government makes the label irrelevant since 'far' indicates occupying a fringe position. In a way one could still consider German and Italian regimes in a left-right axis, because they could be compared with the opposition forces (PCI in Italy, KPD in Germany, most notably). But in present-day China the system isn't challenged from outside, all strands of modern Chinese politics, left-center-right can be found within the CPC. --Soman (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@TIAYN: There's no reason to remove the description and I note for the record that your absurd insinuation that the naming of the description of the CPC's political position is a Western-cum-democratic machination is, in conjunction with your seventh point, proof positive that you don't even make an attempt to edit this article from a neutral point of view and therefore provides good reason to summarily dismiss your recommendation to remove the political position item from the infobox. As aforementioned, affiliated organizations with the CPC such as the CPSU or the Communist Party of Cuba both have their political positions documented in their respective infoboxes so I don't see why the political position of the CPC shouldn't similarly be documented in this case; you also didn't raise this naming issue on either the CPSU or Communist Party of Cuba talkpage as you did here, so I don't understand the double standards of your commitment to render your proposed modification. Furthermore, just because you think that political labels mean nothing for governing parties in one-party states doesn't mean that that in fact is true, much less that political ideologies do not in fact exist: the political position of the CPC is by definition left-wing, it explicitly identifies itself through the media of its constitutional foundations as adhering to a left-wing ideology (socialism) and its MO is similarly specialized along the logic of that ideology. You will also note that you contradict your master conclusion when you explicitly say through the intermediate conclusion of your sixth point that "they have literally instituted many policies leftists the world over can only dream of." I understand that you are pro-CPC so it makes sense that you would try to present it through its Misplaced Pages article with a moderate physiognomy by eliminating any mention of its political position but that's no excuse for justifying your proposal with the fundamentally defective arguments that you proffered in your OP. I have restored the description and inserted another description (authoritarian socialist) as a potential succedaneum for the CPC's political position in an effort at compromise building, but in any case you didn't have consensus to remove the initial description so do not remove that material (again) until we have sorted this out. Wingwraith (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: You've very clearly misunderstood me and @Soman:. To make the following clear:

1. Chinese political scientific literature don't write about left or right, or if the CPC was far-left or not. They do write about left and right in the context of Europe. But its not like they are writing; "the CPC was a far-left movement which seized power".... Of course not, since left and right are relative terms...
2. Then you misunderstood my seventh point. Leftists the world over, in democracies and what I consider as leftish (I live in a democracy), would consider China to have very leftish policies.... That does not mean that what I wrote over was wrong. The political spectrum thing is still a democracy thing. Talk to Chinese students studying abroad - they don't say "yeah, the CPC is bit to the right..." Why would they? The spectrum thing is completely pointless to them. If you are left, you have to be left of someone. Who in gods name is the CPC left too? Or right? Saying the CPC is left if compared to the Republicans is neither rationale or a good starting point.
3. I've removed the positions several times from the Cuba party and Soviet party articles. But people like you always readd them. Check my edit history.
4. Political ideologies of course means something for ruling parties of one-party states. But what does socialism mean? I believe that Tony Blairs socialism was down right rightism when it came to taxes and the economy. He was social of course, and increased spending on social services and school... but, yeah. Many call Blair a traitor to Labour, to the nation and to the socialist cause... Many disagree. It doesn't become easier to define a party's political position because of ideology. The Socialist Party of Serbia calls themselves socialists, but there policies have been neither very social, distributive, liberal or state-ish. They still call themselves socialists though!
5. Yes, I do believe many leftists would have a way more positive attitude to the CPC if they recognised it as left-wing... however, as far as I know, most people in the West don't know about this aspect and its rarely in focus. Most leftists are not China admireres.

• You havn't proven me wrong one bit with you're arguments... Literally, instead of reading what me and Soman wrote you're saying this and this does not make sense. --TIAYN (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything you just aren't making sense in no small part because of your strong political bias on this issue.

1) Even if that was true it still wouldn't matter as you admitted that the political position of the CPC is on the left. ("They have literally instituted many policies leftists the world over can only dream of.") In any case if you don't like that description because it is (apparently) too vague, then we can go with what I recommended which is that the party's political position is authoritarian socialist. Either way your justifications to purge any mention of the CPC's political position on the article don't make sense.

2) Your seventh point was just a pro-CPC screed that proved my point about how you make no attempt to edit this article from a neutral point of view.

3) That's not the point the point is the double standards of your commitment to render your proposed modification, you don't go nearly to the same lengths to remove on the other two articles the same item that you are trying to remove on this one.

4) Stop restoring as you did here your disputed modifications to the article, the article listed the political position of the CPC for a long time before you came along with your (disruptive) edits.

Wingwraith (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith, there is something fundamentally wrong with “stating the obvious” in an encyclopedia article: the lack of a citation. When something is “by definition,” there has to be a source, somewhere. No one has come up with one and after two weeks of waiting for objections (back in January 2018), I took the bold step of rectifying a mistake.

And, let’s not forget that the political position description itself was inserted at some point, with less discussion than we are having right now.

The case for inserting a political position description has not been made.

The CCP is not the CPSU (for one thing, it still exists) or the CPCuba. However much one may wish for all communist parties to be identical, this isn’t the Cold War prior to the Sino-Soviet split. Accept that fact, and then we can move on to factual descriptions of what the CCP actually is, and how it describes itself.

Here’s how the CPP describes itself, officially:

The Communist Party of China (CPC) was founded on July 1, 1921 in Shanghai, China. After 28 years of struggle, the CPC finally won victory of "new-democratic revolution" and founded the People's Republic of China in 1949. The CPC is the ruling party of mainland China (P.R. China). The Communist Party of China is founded mainly on ideology and politics. The CPC derives its ideas and policies from the people's concentrated will and then turns that will into State laws and decisions which are passed by the National People's Congress of China through the State's legal procedures. Theoretically, CPC does not take the place of the government in the State's leadership system. The Party conducts its activities within the framework of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the law and has no right to transcend the Constitution and the law. All Party members, like all citizens in the country, are equal before the law. http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/

The left-center-right description adds no value to this article but only serves to confuse. It should be removed. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: You are the only one who supports including positions in the infobox here... in this discussion!

There is really no point in having this discussion since you refuse to engage in talks. Instead of digesting what I mean, and from that basis refuting them... you are simply refuting them!

1. I don't have a political bias on this issue? What would that be? What is my bias? I simply don't have one....
2. I've never said the CPC is to the left. I've said its to the left in the Norwegian context. Because if you compare the CPC to the Norwegian parties its to the left... However, you can't use that as a basis to claim if its on the left or not. The CPC has to be to the left or right of a party / movement in China. That in fact doesn't exist. CPC is not to the left or right of anything because there doesn't exist anything else. You have to be to the left or right of something, the CPC is not to the left or right of anything in the Chinese political context.
3. Yes it is the point. The difference is that this is a WP:GA and the other articles are not that good, mostly terrible.
4. I won't. The only one who is disputing it is you.

--TIAYN (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the rare cases where I'd indeed suggest leaving that parameter empty. There simply is no good way to describe shortly the party's position. Theoretically it's still far-left, but its policies are neoliberal, i.e. right-wing. Let us leave it empty.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record I completely disagree with the nonsensical points that have been raised but for the sake of argument then we go with my compromise proposal, which is that its political position is authoritarian socialist (accompanied by the relevant citations...just to satisfy the captious types) and remove the left-wing/far-left description; either way it makes no sense to remove (purge) the political position item from the infobox. Wingwraith (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: Authoritarian socialism is a made up term, and is not a scholarly term... Most of the sources in the article refers to Marxism-Leninism and its deviations.. That article should be deleted and should not be included in this article. Never. --TIAYN (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Authoritarian socialism is a scholarly term (See for example: Naughton, Barry. 2017. "Is China Socialist?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31 (1): 3-24. DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.1.3) and a position that can be mapped onto the political compass (you should know this because you use the political compass to derive your political orientation which you display in one of your infoboxes on your talkpage.) As I said I understand that you are pro-CPC so it would make sense that you would try to eliminate any mention of its political position but that really is no excuse for refusing to compromise by resorting to these ridiculous arguments. It's a complete fucking crock what you are doing and I will not stand for it. Wingwraith (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• GA-Class Cold War articles
• Mid-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• GA-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• GA-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• GA-Class political party articles
• Top-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Selected anniversaries (July 2017)