Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:32, 5 November 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.

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 RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Malformed, 19 October 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.

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)

Using CCP have nothing to do with the common name clause. It is the principle of Misplaced Pages to be neutral. CCP is not a neutral term. CCP is a term used by biased medium to invoke soviet era red scare CCCP and the usage of CCP is almost always associated in negative coverage.

In addition to not being neutral, there is also colonialism undertone behind the term CCP, just as western society try to mimic Chinese pronunciation such as Peking or Nanking back in that period. To this date this is still being used to highlight the difference in the type of government of the local people. This should be changed back to the official name and reflect a more neutral tone. CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:32, 5 November 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)

this is an absolutely false statement. If you do a search on all the article that contains the term CCP it is mostly in negative coverage. CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lol most westerners don't know know the significance of "CCCP"... we don't really put that much though into the acronym we use. But studying political science in school, we never used CPC, always CCP. You call something what it's called. In English, the Communist Party of China is exclusively referred to by the acronym CCP 2601:643:897F:8C40:1169:C757:A266:89D8 (talk) 12:36, 22 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)

The first sentence is just fine the way it is. It's much better to have the title name first and official name second, so it is explicitly stated what the official name is. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:48, 26 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

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

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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: malformed, premature, and without consensus.. This move request was not made with full substantial reasoning or support. Further, it is only 3 months after the previous identical RM which determined consensus against the move. If this is to be revisited, it should be done at least 6 months after the previous (and preferably 1 year) by convention. Or with substantially new evidence or sources. Neither are true. As such, I'm closing this as malformed and without any applicable or useful consensus. Questions? Ping my talk. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink 18:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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. I am also a little suspicious that the nominator might be a sockpuppet, since they have only done 2 edits on Misplaced Pages, and one of them is for this RM. Seems very odd to me. 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)

  We can't move it to 中国共产党 because it's in Chinese (WP:COMMONNAME). 你好... 23:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Leiho7: Though I think I would say I do not support the move (a week oppose I guess?), I am curious about the COMMONNAME rule here, so we have Waffen-SS (in German), RENGO (in Japanese transliteration I guess?) and even Baizuo (in Chinese), how does the CCP take the exception? ときさき くるみ 21:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because WP:COMMONNAME. 你好... (talk/討論頁) 23:24, 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)

We do not "correct" English-language usage here on Misplaced Pages, we follow it. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 21 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)

• Oppose and suggest speedy closure This has been raised multiple times, and it should not be moved per WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, there is no valid rationale given by the nominator. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, and suggest a ban of such requests for a year (I've seen it done with other frivolous cases, not sure the correct term). --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:483B:BF09:5CBB:F49B (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support move to Communist Party of China. All western editors should leave our articles alone. We don't want you. We don't need you. We don't wanna see you. Go edit your articles. Leave our articles alone from now on, and that means you. 202.9.46.226 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  You can't just make a claim like "OUR articles". Misplaced Pages is a global endeavor, and you need to do some more reading up on Misplaced Pages policy before continuing this train of thought. WP:OWNERSHIP states: "No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Even a subject of an article, be that a person or organization, does not own the article, nor has any right to dictate what the article may or may not say." Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  China's Communist party has exactly the same meaning as Communist Party of China and could also be used. 2806:107E:13:3C74:9875:451F:7DC0:94D9 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support -It is important to note the difference which "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" have, even if that difference seems minute at first. Indeed it seems as if though only a few words are being swapped around, but the meaning of those words significantly affects the definition of, and how the party is seen.

"Chinese" is distinct from "China". "Chinese", while it can refer to Chinese people in general (including all nationalities of China ) it is usually made to refer to the Hanzu, which are only one of the ethnic groups of China. Since the Qing era, "China" or Zhongguo has been stressed by the Chinese government as referring to all of China, and not just the Han-populated areas. Notably, you will find this same terminology used in the rival Guomindang's official name, it is not "The Chinese Nationalist Party" but the "Nationalist Party of China". This is because both parties see themselves as representing not the Chinese people (commonly understood to be the Han) but all of China. This gives them much more a claim over the juridistiction of China and its autonomous regions as both the GMD and CPC do not describe themselves as being the political party of the Chinese but of China. All of China- including the mainland and the island of Taiwan.

We can indeed pull up the Common Name rule, and point to how the common name should have priority over the official name (the Guomindang is an example of this)... but what distinguishes the Guomindang from the CPC is that the etymology of the Guomindang's article comes directly from the official name of the Guomindang "Zhōngguó Guómíndǎng". I believe that people have misunderstood or used the COMMONNAME rule incorrectly as a way to justify the continued incorrect usage of the term "CCP". Generally speaking, most of the articles which fall under the examples of COMMONNAME have their common names directly originating from their "real names" or instead are what they are consistently referred to both academically and casually. The "Chinese Communist Party", however- does not fit this trend. As I explained previously, the "Communist Party of China" wishes itself to be seen not as a communist party that is Chinese, but rather THE communist party of China. Not just "another communist party".

The Netherlands is commonly (and incorrectly) referred to as Holland, even in academic media, but the wikipedia article is not titled as "Holland" but as "Netherlands", noting the incorrect name as being an informal name. There are many other examples, such as "America" being commonly used to refer to the United States but the latter's page still being called "the United States". You could of course argue that both "the Netherlands" and "the United States" are still popular terms even informally but it still stands that Holland and America remain common names for both nations. The common name rule, while it can apply to other articles, simply does not apply effectively to the CPC's page. I would also like to point out that other communist parties do not generally follow this same principle (such as the Communist Party of Vietnam, USA, etc.) and the CPC is an outlier and not the norm.

Using the "CPC" is not only academically correct but should replace "CCP" as the title of the page, as "CCP" does not fit the general principles of the common name rule.

Or alternatively we could rename it the "commie chinese party" - TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The technical distinction that you are attempting to make between "of China" and "Chinese" does not exist in English. They are linguistically equivalent in English. A "Chinese person" in English does not just mean a Han Chinese person. Just look at the Chinese people article. It encompasses all ethnic groups of China. And frankly, what the CCP wants its name to be or mean is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think the name CCP has led anyone here to believe the PRC isn’t a de facto one party state. Also, there are no COMMONNAME exceptions similar to the one referenced by you. Doanri (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see anything changed since the discussion in July. ときさき くるみ 22:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support Communist Party of China is the official name and common name of the party. You don’t call the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party” even though a lot of people in the population also commonly and popularly call it the Democrat Party. Yeungkahchun (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

When we say it is the "common name" on Misplaced Pages we don't mean that it is the colloquial name or a name that is commonly used by a lot of people in the general population, like "Democrat Party" vs "Democratic party". What we mean by "common name" is that it is the most common name used in reliable English-language sources. So, with that definition of the term, on what basis do you assert that it is the "common name" of the party? Rreagan007 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• Malformed, no rationale has been made so theres nothing to agree or disagree with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

This Requested Move discussion was also started by a likely sockpuppet in bad faith and several of the supporters' accounts/IP addresses also look suspicious, which taints this entire RM process. One supporter's user page literally says that he is "Part of the glorious 50 Cent Army". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "Chinese Communist Party" is simply the common name in English by any metric, across both academic and non-academic works. I consider this the textbook case of why official translations are not always the best choice for article title. — Goszei (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support If we look through academic publications and news media, we can often see CPC and CCP used interchangeably. Although CCP is the more common name, I don’t think WP:COMMONNAME necessarily apply to it, as CPC is just as recognizable the a common audience. I don’t think the common reader would be unable to recognize « Communist Party of China » as the party in charge of China any more than « Chinese Communist Party ». Both CCP and CPC are commonly recognizable. Using CPC and « Communist Party of China » has the added benefit of being the official name of the organization. I should also note that CPC is most commonly found in English language government publications like Chinese press releases and US government handbooks. TypeKnight03 (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

A less common name being recognizable is not a generally accepted exception to WP:COMMONNAME. Lots of less common names for topics are still recognizable to readers, but we still use the most common name for article titles, while including significant alternative names in the lead section. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The Chinese Communist Party, together with its abbreviation the "CCP", is already widely known and commonly used throughout the world. I don't see why changing it to the "Communist Party of China" would make any difference. Siuhl10 (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  A handful of western outlets is not "the world," as you put it, and if in your perspective the vote doesn't make a difference you shouldn't be voting on it. 2601:285:4180:80B0:AD91:5C07:4D96:A219 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

  If you meant that my vote doesn't make a difference, well it does. Moving it to the "Communist Party of China" just doesn't make sense. Plus, this should've been already agreed upon years back. And to top it off, it's not only "A handful of western outlets" that uses the term CCP, but worldwide. Siuhl10 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support as a generally good idea. Their own references use CPC. The common name rationale for prefering CCP is underwhelming. Nobody would make an argument preferring CCP over CPC if CPC was the status quo. I will note that as a matter of process this is a bad faith nomination from a sockpuppet account. It doesn't even have a rationale in the request. This should have been speedy closed but too late with all the discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Addendum since poking in an argument here I've listened closely to a lot of news about last week's party elections. I didn't hear "Chinese Communist Party" so much as "China's Communist Party". We'd never use that level of informality for a serious title. In any case, it's just another unofficial possessive form. I'm more convinced that the "common name" is being given too much weight.

  Common names are one of five WP:Criteria for naming articles. It is not the most important. Anothe criteria, of equal weight, is Consistency with other article titles. All of the other article titles about national communist parties are in the form of "Communist Party of Xyzab", unless they have a more specific name. Thus, Misplaced Pages has Communist Party of Vietname as preferred over Vietnamese Communist Party but Japanese Communist Party is official, and so preferred over Communist Party of Japan. In this case, of China is both official and consistent with WP policies. Consistency, in and of itself, is as important as common name.

  By WP:Criteria, CPC has the advantage of being official, being precise, being consistent with other articles, and just as, recognizable and natural to native English speakers. If I was nearly indifferent about the status before, the criteria policy has convinced me the move should be made. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Nobody would make an argument preferring CCP over CPC if CPC was the status quo. This is not Misplaced Pages's role, Misplaced Pages:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not looking to right any great wrongs. I'm looking at this discussion being a recurrence of this Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. Sometimes the name Misplaced Pages's policies derive at are just wrong. The wrongness creates the endless discussions. So fix it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

      Adding to your point @SchmuckyTheCat, common name is a policy that talks about the most frequently used name "generally" being the most appropriate. The policy does not require us to propagate errors like "CCP." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

      And yet despite constantly claiming CCP to be an 'error' and 'wrong', not one of the Support votes has provided proof of this. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

      The name of the organization in English is, "The Communist Party of China," abbreviated as "CPC." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

      And your source for this is? Not a source saying the CCP wants their name to be CPC, a source saying the predominant use in English is CPC. Because there is no authority on what any English word is beyond what is most used as the word, the myriad of national variations of English attests to this. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

      Organizations name themselves. We should use those names if they are clear and not confusing. Using the correct (or as you might concede, official) name is not confusing here. We have a citation in the article currently regarding the official name. More get added on the talk page as this discussion recurs. You are focused on predominant use in English, but the common name policy does not require us to use the predominant name in English. That policy notes that the predominant use is "generally" appropriate, because it will generally fit the criteria for article naming. Here, the correct name fits the criteria better than CCP. It has the advantage of being official and what the organization calls itself. As this is an encyclopedia, we should strive for accuracy. It is damaging to Misplaced Pages's credibility that we continue to use the incorrect name. Understandably because this is the English side of Misplaced Pages, there is a focus on the anglophone perspective but we should not let that lead us to be inaccurate. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

      • The perpetual existence of rename requests certainly proves that there is no clear and overwhelming consensus for CCP and it comes across as wrong to those who advocate for the change. Those people do have valid rationales that you cannot dismiss by hand-waving and saying they don't. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, it merely indicates people have begun to WP:Bludgeon, as there is a clear and overwhelming consensus for CCP in sources, which Misplaced Pages operates on (rather than operating rationales based on personal opinion). --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:2DE3:F93B:52BA:64BB (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It would take a very compelling reason for the clarity of "Communist Party of China" over "Chinese Communist Party" for me to consider it, and I don't see an advantage. Ovinus (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment seeing how often this issue is brought up, I'm certain another request to move or debate on the article name will be brought up not too long after this discussion is closed, regardless of the final result. Since the page for the party is pretty important, maybe this should be posted on WP:DNR or maybe an rfc should be made. Also, there might be a potential WP:POV problem with regard to the title, as strong supporters the party use CPC, while those who strongly oppose the party use CCP. Both sides commonly accuse users of the 'wrong term' of being biased or shills or something. From what I can gather, neutral sources usually use CCP when talking to a common audience or when referring to the party as a whole in the greater context of Chinese or world politics; CPC is usually used when talking about the inner workings of the party in particular, such as when discussing party organs, events, or policy. TypeKnight03 (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This really isn't a difficult case. Even most of the supporters of this RM who want to move the article will admit that the most common term for this subject in English is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's so clear at all that supporters of the move admit CCP is the most common term. More importantly, is whether common name is being given unequal weight as just one of multiple criteria. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Move- Use of the term CCP has become a derogatory standard used as a pejorative against the party, which picked up pace in 2020. It is neither accurate nor appropriate- 118.176.52.32 (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

That's nonsense. "Chinese Communist Party" is in no way derogatory or pejorative. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons which I stated at the previous RM:

• Most importantly, the current title is the common name, as seen in the ngrams, and as affirmed and reaffirmed at the last two RMs. Contrary to suggestions that the common name is a result of recent political shifts, the common name has remained the same over a long period of time – indeed, for as long as the party has ever existed – and has not changed even through decades of drastic back-and-forth shifts in relations between China and major English-speaking countries. It is also the common name in both American English and British English. The current title follows established usage in English-language sources, and the conventions, style, and grammar of languages other than English do not matter.
• Comparisons to other parties are inapt. When the official name and the common name agree, such as Japanese Communist Party (ngrams), there is nothing to dispute. When two names refer to two completely different entities, such as Brazilian Communist Party and Communist Party of Brazil, it is different from when two names refer to the same entity. When two names are equally common, such as Communist Party of Vietnam and Vietnamese Communist Party (ngrams), then naturally other policies are needed to reach a conclusion. None of these cases is analogous to the present case.
• Of course, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense (WP:TITLECHANGES).

In the above, none of the underlying evidence or policy has changed in the past three months (except that the reference to "the last two RMs" is now the last three RMs). For all of these reasons, the article still should not be moved. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:19, 25 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)