Talk:Chinese Communist Party

Skip to table of contents

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why is the article titled "Chinese Communist Party" when the party's official name in English is the "Communist Party of China"?

A1: The name "Chinese Communist Party" is more commonly used by reliable sources in the English language. Consensus on the current title was reached on 23 July 2020 (see discussion). As of May 2024, there have been five failed proposals to revert this decision due to a lack of policy-based arguments (i.e. pertaining to WP:MOVE) on the part of the proposers.

Q2: Why are certain political ideologies and positions not included in the infobox?

A2: Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, content in an article's infobox must appear and be reliably sourced in the article body. A fact should only be added to the infobox after it has first been added to the article body with reliable sources. Content that is in dispute between reliable sources is generally not included in infoboxes.

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.

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 Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

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
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

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 Wikipedia. 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).

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. 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.

Socialism Top‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. 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.

Organized Labour Top‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. 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.

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 Wikipedia. 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.

Asia High‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
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

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Logs and discussions:

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, Not moved, 19 October 2022, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Gongchandang, Withdrawn, 8 February 2023, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 4 May 2023, discussion
RM, Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China, Not moved, 27 October 2023, discussion

"Rush Limbaugh/Chicom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rush Limbaugh/Chicom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 6 § Rush Limbaugh/Chicom until a consensus is reached. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CPC. Communist Party of China.

This is the official name. The way US press and public refers to it does not change the fact. The articule title should be Communist Party of China. 2A0C:5A85:D500:EE00:984:A7CA:3925:1FB9 (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic because you're not wrong. But please read the FAQ at the top. If this is to change it will require someone to put the effort into a policy based argument for the change that supersedes the 2020 commonname decision. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not say it is not official. We do not even try to hide that form from the reader. All we do is use the form commonly used by most native English speakers. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did a bit of digging on this recently and, among academics, it is not the form most commonly used with academic work slightly favoring CPC over CCP. It was a pretty significant split - like a 40-60 sort of thing - so I don't know how compelling that would be to some of the more set-in-their-was members of this page. But it is true that we have this wrong. I don't think it's a significant enough error to go to the mattresses over but it's still an error. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And general use is almost entirely CCP. So I don't see how your point matters.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That unsubstantiated belief is exactly why we are going to continue to be embarrassingly wrong about this minor point. And us page-watchers will continue to have to field comments that correctly point out we're wrong about this. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, we will contine to have to deal with questions like this because people don't understand that "official name" doesn't count for much. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I literally did the numbers on common use in academic sources. The claim that the global public prefers CCP is based, as far as I can tell, entirely on vibes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22chinese%20communist%20party%22,%22communist%20party%20of%20china%22&hl=en User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that we should use the correct page title and correct CPC acronym. I do not fully understand the intensity that frequently arises on this issue. Both formulations are common in English. Neither will create confusion. "CCP"-proponents put too much weight on their mathematical impression on common name. Where we have multiple common names, we should be more precise and use the correct one. I do not understand why we would want to be imprecise on so simple a point.

These questions will come up again and again until the page title is correct as it once was. I do not know, however, when the proper time for the formal discussion should be. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last RfC was in 2020. Anyone could open a new one with a sufficiently neutral question on the basis of this as an RFCBefore. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion about this was in October 2023. Still not seeing any new evidence presented or novel arguments. - Amigao (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My argument about academic sources preferring CPC is a novel argument. Frankly the google search terms being used as evidence for WP:COMMONNAME systematically exclude Chinese people from consideration as Google is not used extensively within China. I find the rigidity of this local consensus somewhat perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the last discussion? This was mentioned then (If we adhered to "common usage in sources" by following WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS, then we would be using "Communist Party of China", since in scholarly articles on JSTOR, which are generally considered more reliable than news reports in academia, the aforementioned name is more common. Searching "communist party of china" yields 98306 results, but searching "chinese communist party" yields 83778 results. Félix An (talk) 5:11 am, 27 October 2023, Friday (1 year, 3 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−4)), but consensus was that overall usage was still CCP. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Google data that excludes most usage in China? Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're interested in general English usage, not Chinese usage. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Chinese people speak English. A claim that says that a certain formulation is more widely used and that presents, as evidence, a source that isn't able to touch the country at the heart of the discussion is a flawed methodology. This is why I say we're wrong. We've come to the decision of WP:COMMONNAME with information which is incomplete in a non-neutral way. This is ultimately somewhat trivial. But we're still wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my research, most major English-language media outlets (BBC, CNN, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, etc.) refer to it as the Chinese Communist Party. The AP Stylebook accepts both Communist Party of China and Chinese Communist Party as valid terms. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wiki titles should use the most recognizable and widely used names. Since mainstream media, which is basically the primary source of information for most people, refers to it as the Chinese Communist Party, this name is the most common and recognizable choice. Frankserafini87 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does SCMP use? Or People's Daily? Or CCTV5? Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The South China Morning Post has never been consistent with one standard, even within the same article and even after it was acquired by Alibaba Group in 2016. For example: 1, 2, 3. Amigao (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: People's Daily, it is interesting that it has used Chinese Communist Party not only in official figure profiles of Mao Zedong and Zhu De (e.g., 1, 2), but even in translated statements by Yang Jiechi as recently as 2022 (example: 3). It is somewhat curious why they would not stick to one standard. - Amigao (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do Chinese publishers have to do with English usage? Secondary language users do not set standards. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The publications I mentioned are all English language. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary usage doesn't set standards. We don't ask the Polish how to say something in Swahili. Or the Japanese how to say things in Quechua. Same goes here. The Chinese don't determine how to say things in English.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonsense analogy. The appropriate comparison would be asking Polish people how to translate their own words into English. No third language is involved. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rephrase, Poles don't get to determine how to speak Swahili. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political position

Hi everyone. This is clearly left-wing to far-left party. Or minimally left-wing. The are a lot of sources that describe the party as that. I do not understand how at this point, the party has no political position. Marty McDonalds (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, state capitalism. Maybe, national socialism? Sorry, but your unsourced opinion is not quite the verifiable source we require around here. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]