Talk:Chinese Communist Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleChinese 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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
October 12, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 22, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 23, 2017, July 23, 2018, July 23, 2021, and July 23, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article


May 4 movement[edit]

This is not a controversial statement and per WP:XINHUA the source is not deprecated. Why remove it? Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several supporting sources:
Amigao Here's your article talk. Please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources do not exactly back up the statement in question. Probably best to find academic WP:BESTSOURCES to actually back it up. - Amigao (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is something bordering on WP:SKYBLUE that the CPC arose out of this movement. I gave you three sources supporting Xinhua which, as I said, is not a deprecated source and can be used for uncontroversial statements you need a better reason to exclude than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one said WP:XINHUA is deprecated. If you read the guidance, it clearly says, "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately." - Amigao (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What dispassion is needed here? It's a flat historical fact, well cited to other sources, that the CPC was one of the groups that came out of the May 4 movement. If it were claiming that the CPC founded the May 4 movement or that other groups did not then you might have a point. But that's not what you removed. And to claim that the sources I gave are insufficient too? You are literally just occluding a well accepted piece of historical information for no apparent reason beyond disliking the source that was there. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS continues to apply here and very much to the statement in question. Amigao (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you four sources including Xinhua and your response was just "nah I don't like them". Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't back up the actual statement in question. Let's find WP:BESTSOURCES which do. - Amigao (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how. Because your assertions are incredibly vague and hand-waving beyond just asking me to spend more time satisfying you that what? That the May 4 movement existed? That it included communists and anarchists? That the CPC traces its origin there? I honestly don't understand the locus of your objection beyond your obvious distaste for the source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing controversial about stating that the CCP itself traces its own origins to the May 4th movement. Indeed, what other source could possibly be more authoritative than the CCP itself? The question being discussed above is about whether this is true, or not, which is an entirely different issue. Moreover, the concept of "tracing origins" has no hard and fast definition; it is merely indicating that prior events had an influence on later events. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what other source could possibly be more authoritative than the CCP itself?

Any reliable secondary source whatsoever. As we're an encyclopedia, we generally don't prefer primary sources to support claims about a subject in any case.
I think it's an easily verifiable claim, and we can easily do better than Xinhua for it. Remsense诉 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided three other sources and Amigao rejected them out of hand. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the question was "did the CCP arise out of the May 4th Movement," then the issue of credibility of the source is of paramount importance. Thankfully, that is not the question here. Rather (now, pay attention here: this is important) the actual question is "Does the CCP claim that it traces its origins to the May 4th Movement?" . . . see the difference? Discuss. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s a pretty good source:

"Mao Tse-Tung on Literature and Art":

“If we trace China’s bourgeois-democratic revolution back to its formative period, we see that it has passed through a number of stages in its development: the Opium War, the War of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894, the Reform Movement of 1898, the Yi Ho Tuan Movement [Boxer Rebellion], the Revolution of 1911, the May 4th Movement, the Northern Expedition, and the War of the Agrarian Revolution. (p. 52)

Footnote 8 (p. 57): “The War of the Agrarian Revolution was the revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people waged under the leadership of the Communist Party from 1927 to 1937 ..”

< https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.467258/page/n65/mode/1up?q=May+4th&view=theater>

More?

“It must also be noted that many of the prominent leftist intellectuals such as Ch’en Tu-hsiu and Li Ta-chao did not swing strongly in this [anti-capitalist] direction until after the middle of the May Fourth period.” (p. 216)

Chow Tse-tsung, "The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China" <https://archive.org/details/mayfourthmovemen0000zhou_v4d0/page/216/mode/1up?view=theater>

Still not convinced?

"From the May Fourth Movement to Communist Revolutin: Guo Moruo and the Chinese path to Communism," < https://archive.org/details/frommayfourthmov0000chen>

DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao: We're now at six sources supporting the statement previously cited to Xinhua. Is this enough yet? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That statement was replaced and expanded upon with a more accurate paragraph with academic WP:BESTSOURCES days ago. This is a WP:DEADHORSE situation. - Amigao (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why continue encouraging a Perjorative Label?[edit]

Read anything else written on this very page. Remsense诉 12:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.


An encyclopedia should be based on official names throughout an article, not perjoratives. This article is about the CPC. Even if folks in the West commonly use CCP instead (a negative stereotype, possibly to associate it to Soviet communism), it should not be a base noun of this article, as it indicates bias.

Analogously, in the past, Japan was referred to as "Jap-Land", as a sign of disrespect, in some quadrants. But I would never expect to see an article on Japan to use the label "Jap-Land" further promoting it's widespread use, instead of the correct term, through out the reference article. 163.120.113.248 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Left-right position of party[edit]

The party itself refers to Marxism, although its policies are different, but it could be assumed that the party's line is simply left-wing, not far left.

The most important aspect of the analysis is it needs to start with how the balance of WP:RS describe the CPC's ideology. As a further matter, the left-right dichotomy arises from the Western political and historical context, and becomes less useful once removed from them. Our current ideology section of the infobox is much more precise and specific to the Chinese context. For further information, take look at the archives section of the talk page to see how this recurring discussion has played out in various ways over the years. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article refer to the party as "CCP" and why is the title of the article "Chinese Communist Party"?[edit]

This question is answered in the FAQ. Editors need not repeat themselves. Yue🌙 00:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The party is known officially as "Communist Party of China" or "CPC", so it is curious why the article utilises a name more commonly associated with propaganda against it (people saying CCP often spell it that way to draw resemblance to CCCP, the Soviet Union, or to delegitimize the party in general). Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial and neutral. Eduluzsci (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) ming before[reply]

Years ago, the page used to have the correct “CPC” formulation. This is a discussion that recurs over time and is too soon to have again though. Take a look at the page archives to see how it has developed in the past. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to put another spin on it, the name in Chinese is the "China/Chinese Communist Party," with the country name coming before "Communist Party." DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party&oldid=1225831180"