Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:17, 19 October 2022

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

Template:Vital article

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

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.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Move logs: Communist Party of China Chinese Communist Party Discussions: RM, Communist Party of China → Chinese Communist Party, No consensus, 6 September 2009, discussion RM, Communist Party of China → Chinese Communist Party, Moved, 16 July 2020, discussion MRV, Communist Party of China → Chinese Communist Party, Endorsed, 25 July 2020, discussion RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 21 January 2021, discussion RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 9 July 2022, discussion

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: Political parties High‑importance Politics portal 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance). 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. Socialism Top‑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 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. Organized Labour Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour 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. Cold War High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Chinese / Cold War / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Post-Cold War task force

Other talk page banners

Chinese Communist Party was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Article milestones Date Process Result January 30, 2014 Peer review Reviewed October 12, 2014 Good article nominee Listed September 22, 2020 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article 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, July 23, 2018, and July 23, 2021.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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://en.wikipedia.org/Solanaceae 83.213.130.26 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

While both are translations of the Mandarin wording, the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is not the place to solve this essentially political problem - Misplaced Pages only reflects existing realities, and if the English-speaking world has collectively decided to misinform its population in this way, the English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages -- 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

1. McMorrow, R. W. (2015-12-19). "Membership in the Communist Party of China: Who is Being Admitted and How?". JSTOR Daily. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
2. Xia, Ming. "The Communist Party of China and the "Party-State" - New York Times". archive.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2022-07-05.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Just move the page and end it

It's the official name. It's not ambiguous. It's not unwieldy (like the expansion of NATO or Mueller report would be). No one would be confused by a redirect from CCP/Chinese Communist Party. Mention CCP/Chinese Communist Party is common in English, but not the official English translation. There's no controversy here except those invented by rules lawyers who think COMMONNAME (which, personally, I think is one of the worst policies on Misplaced Pages, but I'm willing to recognize its usefulness for articles like Mahatma Gandhi, though I'd argue that "Gandhi" is the most common in English, and almost invariably refers to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi – if it doesn't, it's always accompanied by disambiguation through the use of a given name – and that "Mahatma Gandhi" is a concession to common sense in defiance of COMMONNAME) is the be-all, end-all. This is one of the stupidest disputes on Misplaced Pages I've ever seen. WP Ludicer (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like the policy of titling articles by their most common name in English, then you need to try to gain consensus on the talk page at WP:COMMONNAME to change that policy. But the current title is very clearly the most common name in English for this subject, so that is what the title should be based on our article titling policies. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like this. It pains me to see something on Misplaced Pages that’s so easy to get right, still be wrong. All we have to do is switch two letters in the acronym and we can have an accurate CPC instead of CCP. As you point out, it will confuse no one.

Also, I noticed that this page used to be “Communist Party of China” (presumably with the correct acronym), so it’s not like a consensus for the incorrect acronym is set in stone. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:33, 7 August 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)

Rephrase the first sentence of the lead to say the official name first.

The starting sentence should be changed to the one of this revision

"The Communist Party of China (CPC), commonly known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP),"

Instead of

"The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),"

Aside from the fact that Chinese Communist Party/CCP is literally wrong - CPC is the official name. It's not ambiguous - the official one should simply come first. FF toho (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. As you will see on the talk page and archive, it is a recurring issue. It sticks in my craw that we can't get a simple issue like this correct and I view it as credibility-damaging for Misplaced Pages. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

We’re following Misplaced Pages policy correctly, even if it goes against party doctrine. Whilst I can see how that can be hard to swallow, it is strengthens Misplaced Pages’s policy credibility, rather than disproving it. Doanri (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Having wrong information on the wiki strengthens its credibility? No, it does not. FF toho (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the criteria of ‘right’ information differ between the CCP and Misplaced Pages, as they so often do Doanri (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no argument whether CCP is correct or not, its not. It is objectively false, their name is CPC. CCP' is Western usage in an attempt to associate 'CPC' with 'CCCP' in the minds of a western audience in the hopes it drums up the old red-scare terror. As such, anyone who uses 'CCP' is either straight up malicious or ignorant (and if ignorant, still kind of malicious because of said ignorance). FF toho (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No, this isn't some modern Western attempt to drum up "the old red-scare terror". The fact of the matter is that, throughout the entire existence of the Gòngchǎndǎng, the dominant English-language name has been the Chinese Communist Party. The claim that anyone who uses 'CCP' is either straight up malicious or ignorant (and if ignorant, still kind of malicious because of said ignorance) amounts to little more than a combination of confused historical revisionism and an assumption of bad faith. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME of the party in the English language is reflected in the current title and lead of the article, which has been repeatedly reaffirmed in move requests. That we list its official name in the first sentence in writing The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), officially the Communist Party of China (CPC) is perfectly fine. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:00, 5 October 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)

Leave our articles alone

Go and edit your western articles. Leave some of our articles alone like this one. 202.9.47.11 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This kind of comment is not consistent with Misplaced Pages's guidelines because Misplaced Pages is 'not a forum.' You are encouraged to join Misplaced Pages and edit constructively, citing reliable sources (and you may be particularly helpful in this regard as I presume from your comment that you are literate in Chinese). But this sort of general complaint is not useful. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:OWNERSHIP. Honestly don't think it's worth engaging with comments like this because they are clearly unserious; no reasonable person would believe that a proposal to have articles edited only by (anonymous) editors from certain locations / nationalities / ethnicities is possible. Yue🌙 06:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You are probably right Yue, I am likely too much of an optimist. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2022

It has been proposed in this section that Chinese Communist Party be renamed and moved to Communist Party of China. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Coddlebean (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close per WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing has changed since the previous 3 requested move discussions. The current article title remains the most common name in English for this subject. And with the most recent RM being only 3 months ago, I think this nomination should be speedily closed. More than one RM per year is usually inappropriate unless circumstances have materially changed in some way, which they have not here. Also, the proposer has failed to even provide a rationale for this RM, which makes it procedurally flawed. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close no rational provided by nom—blindlynx 02:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support It's what the party is called. The Communist Party of China. That's its actual, official English name, and there isn't a particular reason to insist on calling it something else simply because some English speakers have incorrectly named it. There is a simple, correct answer, as the Communist Party of China does have official translations and communications, in which it is called the "Communist Party of China." This is all retreading ground, but it's frankly absurd that this obvious change hasn't already been done. It's needless and contrarian to not have the article titled by the actual name of the party. The title of the page for the Conservative Party (UK) for instance isn't "Tory party" despite that name being a common colloquialism which has notably more justification as a page title than does the present "Chinese Communist Party."

SuperUltraMegaDeluxe (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• The party's "actual name" is 中国共产党. Feel free to propose a move to 中国共产党. Doanri (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Support move. This is a discussion which recurs and I do not wish to overly repeat myself. We should use the correct name and acronym. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close per WP:COMMONNAME. Extensive argumentation for my position has been provided in the other move request discussions. Doanri (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is getting silly. Please stop these frivolous proposals. Nutez (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• B-Class political party articles
• Top-importance political party articles
• Political parties task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• Top-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class organized labour articles
• Top-importance organized labour articles
• WikiProject Organized Labour articles
• B-Class Cold War articles
• High-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• B-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Selected anniversaries (July 2017)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2018)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2021)
• Requested moves