Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

POV

The Ideology section of the article feels like a persuasive essay, not something one would expect from an encyclopedia. To the person who wrote: "This simplistic view is wrong in many ways," I would like to ask: what gives you the right to call that view simplistic, if you are writing from a neutral standpoint? That very same sentence continues to say: "since official statements make it very clear the party does have a coherent worldview." There needs to be some other sources if that claim is to remain (not to mention re-writing), not just official statements from the party. The section is a clear violation of WP:POV in my opinion. Unown Uzer717 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Unown Uzer717: Thats literally what the source says... Whats so POV about it? Is it strange that a party over 90 years has an ideology? ... Of course, "simplistic" may not be the correct term (I'm not a native speaker of English, so that might have been a bad word choice).... However, there is nothing controversial with "since official statements make it very clear the party does have a coherent worldview". Whats POV with this? Official statement do make clear they have an ideology.. What do you think this is about? ... But to the point, since I've been a bit diffuse, whats so POV about this. When did it become POV to state an organization has an ideology? Logically speaking, the CPC would not have survived 1989-1991 if party cadres did not believe in what they were doing, so I don't consider this strange (of course, this is my POV, and has nothing to do in the article - also why its not mentioned....) --TIAYN (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that the CPC does not have an ideology. What I'm saying is that there needs to be more sources, other than the party's own claims, to assert the CPC's ideology. The BNP in the UK claims that it is not fascist, however, most political scientists prove that it is, and that is cited in the ideology in its Wikipedia article. It would be great if you could cite a variety of sources from studies or credible political scientists. You also shouldn't say that those who argue the CPC lacks an ideology are wrong, as there wasn't ever a consensus by editors on that issue. And since they have that opinion, Wikipedia cannot just take the side that CPC has an ideology or its violating neutrality. Also, you should make it clear when you say the 'Soviet Union's communist party, whose ideology became "rigid, unimaginative, ossified, and disconnected from reality,"' that it is a claim, and not a fact, as it appears to be written in the article.Unown Uzer717 (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the source says that, from reading the party's own statement, it does become clear they have a worldview. The source does not say that because the party says it has an ideology it has one. I may have done a bad job on that (English is not my native language...) But to make clear, the source says from the party statements its clear that the party has its own worldview, it doesn't say that this worldview is communist or anything else. Which is important, since people call the CPC either communist, pragmatists or capitalists. --TIAYN (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

I recommend checking the references. Several works (Dynon, Ding, and Gregor, among others) have no links to them, and others (Leung & Kau, West & Smith, and Guo, Guo & 2008, among others) are broken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Some of the text was moved to Ideology of the Communist Party of China. --TIAYN (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

mental health awarness

Native American How does the governmental china seek recovery for those of its infrastructure of china's frame resolve the possible effects of trauma induced mental illness and substance abuse? pleas elaborate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:B025:AD00:C68:56B9:CAF5:1262 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Third Position?

After all the edit wars about China’s ideology, I’m stumped to see “Political position: Third Position.” We say, “The Third Position or Third Alternative is an ultranationalist political position that emphasizes its opposition to Marxism and capitalism.” Does anyone think that China is anti-Marxist and anti-capitalist? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@DOR (HK): Nope. --TIAYN (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideology edits

IP 207.207.127.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) said that the Communist Party of China ideology political are Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Market Socialism and left-wing Nationalism. But IP 69.158.114.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) undo and said that the situation was incorrect, actually Maoism and Deng Xiaoping Theory those two ideology is right. SA 13 Bro (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Where's the source saying that the Party's still committed to communist thought?

Title. Socialistguy (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

try this: 1) The second paragraph of the Party Rules proclaims the official ideology of the Chinese Communist party: Marxism-Leninism. Franz Schurmann (1971). Ideology and Organization in Communist China. U of California Press. p. 122. and more recently 2) Marxism-Leninism, the foundation of communist ideology remains an important part of the Chinese party-state, at least officially. Mark Kesselman (2012). Introduction to Politics of the Developing World: Political Challenges and Changing Agendas. Cengage Learning. p. 311.. 3) for more details see Sujian Guo (2012). Chinese Politics and Government: Power, Ideology and Organization. Routledge. p. 91. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, just because the Party claims it doesn't mean it's true. Why not change the sentence to include that the Party states it's committed to socialism? Socialistguy (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Socialism? like Eugene Debs maybe? or perhaps the Shakers? Quote #2 says Marxism-Leninism remains important. Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, communism, my bad. Thing is, a government can call itself anything, but doesn't mean you can write that it's committed to communism. May I put that the government states that it's committed to communist thought instead of how it is now? Socialistguy (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

it's committed to Marxist-Leninist traditions--if someone disagrees they get arrested. As for "communism" note that USSR had many different versions. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, ML is a type of Communism (capital C). The lowercase communism is the stateless, classless and moneyless society. Sorry if you already know, but we should at least replace "communism" with ML. Socialistguy (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

the article makes clear that ML is central, not the primitive communism of the early Christians. Rjensen (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Socialistguy: Have you even bothered to read the article? Or Ideology of the Communist Party of China? It's explained there.. Read first. --TIAYN (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

We should also note that Marx believed that socialism is a step along the road to communism. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The article appears Biased

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewer Introduction and Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede

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

Y Fixed!

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

Y Fixed!

History

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

Y Fixed.

Other comments

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

Y Good.

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

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

Prose+Source Notes

Good sources, sources require no review :)

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

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

History Section (a big one)

• Founding and early history subsection

Good.

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

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

 Done Take out the comma in the middle.

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

 Done Add a comma between it and the.

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

 Done Add a comma between 1930 and had.

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

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

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

 Done Change 2 millions to 2 million.

• Ruling Party (1949-present) subsection

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

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

Goverance section

• Collective leadership subsection

Good.

• Democratic centralism subsection

Good.

• Multi Party cooperation system subsection

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

 Done Add a comma between parties and which.

The below subsections are ALL UNDER THE ORGANIZATION SECTION.

• National Congress and constitution subsections

Good.

• Central Committee subsection

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

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

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

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

• Central Commission for Discipline Inspection subsection

Good.

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

Good.

• Members Subsection

• Probationary period, rights and duties subsection of Members subsection

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

 Done Add a comma between party and an.

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

Good.

SYMBOLS SECTION

Good.

Ideology Section

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

Party-to-party relations section

Nicely polished. Great job!

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

Historical:
Maoism

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist Party of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

CPC <> CCP

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

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

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

Adding every ideological development in the infobox is wrong

@Helper201 and Vif12vf: Guys, we have to stop adding every ideological development in the infobox. First things first, Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Socialism with Chinese characteristics and Xi Jinping Thought is Chinese communism. Secondly, someone forgot to add the Three Represents and the Scientific Outlook on Development. Which means, we are lacking two ideological developments.. But we don't want to include them because then the infobox would look like a mess.

Secondly, there is no point in adding Communism if you are going to include Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Outlook on Developmenet Socialism with Chinese characteristics and Xi Jinping Thought

Thirdly, Socialism with Chinese characteristics means Marxism–Leninism adapted to Chinese circumstances and to present conditions. So all CPC policy is Socialism with Chinese characteristics, and Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought are just Marxism-Leninism adapted to Chinese conditions for different times. The same ideology, just for a different era.

At last, as you know hopefully understand proponents of adding everything are both cluttering the infobox and using terms without understanding them. As a compromise I wrote Marxism–Leninism, socialism with Chinese characteristics. Which means the CPC ideology) (Marxism–Leninism) adapted to specific Chinese circumstances and eras (socialism with Chinese characteristics)... An example of a specific era is Deng Xiaoping Theory... However, Deng Xiaoping Theory was a guide for a specific set of circumstances and a specific time period. The present guide is Xi Jinping Thought.

Note. Removed Chinese unificiation. The CPC does not have an ideology of Chinese unificiation, they have a policy of it.

Hope people understand more clearly CPC ideology. --TIAYN (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vif12vf: then participate in the partake in it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is not necessary to split up socialism with Chinese characteristics into all of it's separate tendencies, however ML is a tendency and thus having only Communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics in the infobox like before people began to split up the ideology seems like the best decision. In other words, i think it looks good the way it is at the point of this message. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The same as above,I believe that Marxism-Lenimism should be included.Mao Zedong Thought is also not a part of socialism with Chinese characterristics.--113.128.146.247 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this, ML should be included as it's not a tendency that can be turned on and off like a light switch. I'm restoring that ideology as that was in the article status quo ante bellum.Wingwraith (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus (majority) formed, replace communism with Marxism–Leninism. --TIAYN (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect, there are two opinions against (myself and Tiberius Jarsve who said, "however ML is a tendency and thus having only Communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics in the infobox like before people began to split up the ideology seems like the best decision"), is one opinion for (you) and another one that is undecided (113.128.146.247) concerning your proposal to merge the two ideologies. Wingwraith (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TIAYN. Wingwraith, you have no support for your position and are simply being obstructionist. Get over it. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect, you would have known that I have support for my position(s) if you (cared to) read the above. Unless you want to end up incurring a block just like your fellow editor, I would suggest that you get more specific about your comment or just move the hell on already. Nobody needs these wiseacre one-liners that do nothing but add to the clusterfuck that is this talkpage. Wingwraith (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That was not helpful, and as you well know there has been no reason for threatening a ban.DOR (HK) (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No my comment was entirely helpful and I wasn't threatening you with anything I was advising you to do something. Except for coming up with meaningless one-liners (you did it again) and piggy-backing on other people's arguments, you've done nothing in what you've written on this talkpage to advance the debate. Wingwraith (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss this comment, and the authoritative citation it contains?

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

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

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

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

Here’s how the CPP describes itself, officially:

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

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

No I read it and what you wrote was just crap the article isn't supposed to read like an advert where the only information that is allowed is the information that it produces. There's already been extensive discussion/debate (see above) on the kinds of issues that you've been referring to, so write your concerns there otherwise like I said you just need to move the hell on already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith, please point to another article where the only authoritative source on the subject is ignored because it doesn't fit preconceived notions. You will have some trouble doing so, because that's not what we do here. We use primary sources where ever possible, and secondary ones where necessary or useful. Get over it.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop using the grammatical person "we" when you don't even know what the rules are. There's ALREADY been extensive discussion/debate (see above RFC and all) on the kinds of issues that you've been referring to, so write your concerns there otherwise you are just wasting everybody's fucking time Wingwraith (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Summoned via legobot. Hope the editing is going nice and smoothly guys! Looks like it might be time to swallow hard and send out some wp:wikilove to get those collaborative beans bouncing on beat again. With regard to the discussion, please see my comment on the RfC above. The Chinese party, probably More so than other well-known parties, comes up with and rigorously publicizes official sounding terms about whatever it woke up thinking of that day. It also makes claims of associations with other political movements and thinkers which political scholars may point out exist only tentatively. Whilst it’s probably ok to find sources for and include information on their means of self-styling, it would almost certainly require in-text attribution to make clear that the party makes such-and-such claim about itself. By default this kind of attribution isn’t possible in an info box and as such the information there can sound more authoraritive, appearing to be imparted in wikipedia’s voice. With this in mind it’s probably best to consider whether or not the info included there can be verified by multiple independent sources - independent meaning in this case that the information did ‘’not’’ originate with the party. Edaham (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Dispute protection

I've protected the article for two weeks. Discuss your edits, come to consensus, and file {{edit fully-protected}} requests. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed someone writing above, “we use primary sources wherever possible and secondary sources where useful or necessary”. The opposite is the case on Wikipedia. Secondary sources are to be preferred when writing about entities which are capable of producing their own source material. People or organizations don’t get to write their own articles. The gold standard here would be a balance of information from academic sources with corresponding attribution. As this is a political article, if scholarly thought is divided then both schools of opinion should be presented with due weight given to the more mainstream view. Primary sources are only useful (with attribution and in moderation) for demonstrating what the party claims, or what it writes about its self.

To give an example, using a primary source to say something like, “the Chinese communist party is is guided by Xi Jinping thought” is (from a sourcing perspective) similar to using a coke press release to write, “Coca Cola’s ingredients are full of life and happiness”.

Since this discussion has been given a break, Keep the above in mind and I’d suggest using the fresh start with the intention of ensuring that ensuing suggestions to edit the article are accompanied by reliable secondary sources.

Happy editing Edaham (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: As long as you state clearly to Wingwraith he can't add factual innaccuracies, and especially contentious information to the infobox, I'm fine with the left-wing position in the infobox... But the All-China Women's Federation is not part of the CPC. I know that, and he's unable to source it. Thats his problem, not WP's. So if you clearly state you support Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research regarding infobox information, I'm fine. --TIAYN (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Better sourcing needed

I would like to focus on the appropriate use of sources for the article, rather than specific claims in the article. The official media of the PRC is indeed a legitimate source for the article, but that it should be the main source for the article is, as Edaham said above, the opposite of standard Wikipedia principles. To treat the official media of the PRC as an authoritative source is sheer folly. How this came to be advocated is difficult to understand. The news media in China is regularly are subjected to government control of a type virtually unknown in most other countries. As a result, it is frequently unreliable and never NPOV. There are a vast wealth of secondary sources available on Chinese politics and government that are far more reliable and well within the Wikipedia definition of NPOV. Some of these are already in the references, e.g. David Shambaugh. More use should be made of these, with appropriate citations, rather than constant citations of materials such as the PRC constitution, a much more theoretical document than the article currently indicates. Rgr09 (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rgr09: The article barely uses official sources. --TIAYN (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I was responding in part to the discussion above. Ironically, the 'self-description' of the CPC cited there gives July 1 as the CPC founding date. This is contradicted in the article itself.

Perhaps I have overstated the case. Here are a few instances of what I think are problematic descriptions: 1) the use of a now vanished Xinhua article discussing causes for the rise of the CPC in current reference 6. 2) The use of Chinatoday.com for the dating of the first Party Congress. Chinatoday.com is not, of course, Chinese media, but it drew this content from official media; whether right or wrong, there are much better sources than this. 3) the use of a now vanished Xinhua article to date the resignation of Hu Jintao as General Secretary in 2012 in current reference 48. 4) the use of Qiushi in the discussion of 'democratic centralism' in current reference 54. This is particularly problematic. 5) the use of china.org.cn to discuss the United Front System in current reference 56. This is a very 'theoretical' discussion, describing how the eight 'minor' parties 'are independent in organization and enjoy political freedom, organizational independence and legal equality under the Constitution.'

In addition to inaccurate information and unbalanced presentations, much of the material sourced to official media is taken off-line relatively quickly, and is not usually available for retrieval at Archive.org's Wayback Machine. This should also be taken into consideration when using these sources. Rgr09 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(Edaham, my comment about primary / secondary sources was mainly about numeric data. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC))

Infobox

The infobox is a train wreck — at least 3 times as long and intrusive as it should be. There need to be useless parameters removed ("political position" — file under: no kidding), multiple responses removed from "Armed Wing," "Youth Wing," "International affiliation," etc. so that only current entities are included, and false information removed ("The Internationale" is the national anthem of China?!?! I'm no China expert but I'll step up and bet you $5 that that's completely wrong). God, that box is terrible in every way. Somebody needs to be bold with a sickle chopping away the gunk and hammering that thing down to a reasonable size. My two cents. Carrite (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Ideology = Marxism-Leninism. Period. Cover the flavor of the day tips o' the hat to the Great Leaders in the body of the piece.

@Carrite: I agree with the infobox.. Most importantly, most of the info in the infobox is wrong.. The All-China Women's Federation is not a part of the CPC, and never has been... (and the list goes on with inaccuracies). As for ideology, for me Marxism-Leninism, socialism with Chinese characteristics... but I also be fine with just communism. --TIAYN (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two versions describing the CCP would be accurate, one of which has the excellent characteristic of being relatively short. Neither, however, refers to authoritarianism.

1. The Communist Party of China uses Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as its guides to action. Citation: (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/interface/flipboard/1142846/2017-11-06/cd_34191468.html).

2. Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought. This is a decades-old shorthand for whatever the party decides is this year’s favorite phrasing. Citations: (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-16590-2_4), (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2159087?journalCode=austjchinaffa), (https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gP-0HuccHE4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA119&dq=Marxism-Leninism,+Mao+Zedong+Thought&ots=k9VCBpIldw&sig=lkASefauQf7q08c4bVb7ZNYPu_Y#v=onepage&q=Marxism-Leninism%2C%20Mao%20Zedong%20Thought&f=false, p. 119), and (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10670569508724221). It is a simple matter to find twice as many references, or 10 times as many.

What’s new. This time around, Jiang Zemin’s Three Represents and Hu Jintao’s Scientific Outlook on Development didn’t make the cut, but they weren’t abandon altogether, either. As per the CCP Constitution,

“…[T]he Chinese Communists, with Comrade Jiang Zemin as their chief representative, acquired … The important thought of Three Represents is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory; ...”

“Since the Party's Sixteenth National Congress, the Chinese Communists with Comrade Hu Jintao as their chief representative,… developed the Scientific Outlook on Development …”

So, my suggestion is that (1.) above be referenced in the body of the article, and (2.) in the info box. If anyone can cite a respected contemporary Chinese politics scholar who disagrees with this, raise your hand. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Your (2) isn't terrible, but there isn't a ton of similarity between current Chinese state capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, and anything Mao ever thought or wrote. No sense being parrots. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Carrite and DOR (HK): I doubt we know better than the Chinese Communist Party what Mao Zedong Thought is or is not... As for infobox, the logical would be Marxism-Leninism, socialism with Chinese characteristics... Marxism-Leninism is the ideology, Mao Zedong Thoughr is Marxism-Leninism adapted to China and socialism with Chinese characteristics is Marxism-Leninism adapted to China (includes Mao Zedong Thought) and Marxism-Leninism adapted to specific time eras. Before we had Marxism–Leninism, socialism with Chinese characteristics (see section below).... Easy--TIAYN (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Every country of so-called "actually existing socialism" has had "________ (fill in the blank) national characteristics." Again, this is just parroting an official line, which might be fine in the body but has no place in a summary infobox. Shorter is better because that thing is a monstrosity as it sits. Whatever the hell you call 21st Century China, it has nothing to do with Mao. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Carrite: Socialism with Chinese characteristic is a clear system of thought. Just because you haven't read about it and don't understand doesn't mean its not relevant... As for Mao, well, I'd call the CPC today very much Maoistic (if you forget the Cultural Revolution).. Mao's New Democracy policies, which mixed public and private enterprise, and his ideological rationale for those policies are very much in vogue in China. --TIAYN (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

One could also emphasise the Mao's thinking of party-military affairs, which has never been contested... Yes they don't have a plan economy, but so what.. It was terrible system, you don't become less communist because you don't want you're population to be miserable... SOmehow people forget that being an ordinary Chinese worker was much worse during Mao then it is today--TIAYN (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Carrite: "There need to be useless parameters removed ("political position" — file under: no kidding)" This isn't a useless parameter per the discussions above. Can you elaborate on this? Wingwraith (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's my question: is there one single person on the entire fucking planet that is going to be informed in any way by that parameter? Carrite (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes you would have known that if you (cared to) read the RFC section in this talkpage. Also you'll want to stop swearing and just randomly going fucking ballistic there's no reason for the hostility as I just met you and was trying to collaborate with you when I wrote my OP. It doesn't make you tough when you do stuff like that, it just makes you look desperate for attention. Wingwraith (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Party vs. State organs

The National Supervisory Commission is a state government organ; the Central Discipline Inspection Commission (DIC) is a party organ. The two are not the same, regardless of whether they have identical objectives or personnel. Party members cannot be taken to court; they are disciplined by the party or if the case is serious enough, expelled from the party and then and only then handed over to the courts. The National Supervisory Commission has no such limitations. Just like the two Military Affairs Commissions (MAC) – state and party – they are distinct and should not be confused.

The CPPCC National Committee is the top level public face of the united front policy. It is important, if not powerful.

Oh, and on the topic of Slogans: Robert MacFarquhar nominates “Serve the People” here (https://search.proquest.com/openview/893589205c87b585e95e8efe867280de/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=506321), and it has stood the test of time better than “Learn from Comrad Lei Feng” or “Learn from Daqing.”

Sorry, should have signed the above DOR (HK) (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is this? Is it @DOR (HK):? If so, yes, of course two separate organs... But since they share the same personnel there is no need to have it in the infobox.. No surprise then that the CPC has full representation.

I can agree with the CPPCC—but are you really saying the amount of party representation actually means anything? Its a one-party state.

I don't get that last point... Serve the people is of course the slogan, but where does it say its the official slogan? --TIAYN (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism, etc., etc.

Here's the record:

• 7th (1945) Marxism-Leninism with the practice of the Chinese revolution—Mao Zedong Thought
• 8th (1956) Marxism-Leninism.
• 9th (1969) Marxism, Leninism, and Mao Zedong Thought (note the divided M-L)
• 12th (1982) Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought (M-L reunited once again).
• 15th (1997) “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory
• 16th (2002) “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, and the important thinking of the three represents”
• 18th (2012) “Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thinking of the three represents, and the scientific development concept.”
• 19th (2017) “the new era requires us to uphold and develop and how we should uphold and develop it, thus giving shape to Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The Thought is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development.”

Sources: Alice L. Miller, Xi Jinping and the Party’s “Guiding Ideology’,” China Leadership Monitor Fall 2017 Issue 54, September 11, 2017. https://www.hoover.org/research/xi-jinping-and-partys-guiding-ideology.

"Full text of resolution on amendments to CPC Constitution," Xinhua October 26, 2017, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1072072.shtml.

DOR (HK) (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

For ideology, I would say Communism, Marxism–Leninism, Xi Jinping Thought, Socialist market economy, Chinese nationalism. In that order. (therewillbehotcake (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC))

We generally go with the facts, rather than personal preferences. I see the page was once again modified without discussion, so perhaps we need to go back to the protected status. DOR (HK) (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox final discussion

In light of the discussions above, there is consensus to relate the following items to the infobox in the following manner:

Keep as is: Gen Sec, Standing Committee, Founded, HQ, Newspaper, Armed Wing (Specifically: People's Liberation Army, People's Armed Police and China Militia), Membership (2017), Ideology (Specifically: Communism, Marxism-Leninism and Socialism with Chinese characteristics), Political Position (Specifically: Left-Wing to Far-Left, authoritarian socialist) International Affiliation, Slogan

Remove: Think Tank, Student wing, Youth Wing, Women's Wing, Labors' Wing, Popular Front, People's Liberation Army (formerly Red Army, 8th Route Army, New 4th Army, etc.), Xi Jinping Thought, Socialist market economy and Chinese nationalism, International Communist Seminar, Comintern, Anthem, NPC (13th), NPCSC, State Council, Central Military Commission, National Supervisory Committee, Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, Prosecutorial Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate and CPPCC National Committee

I've also created the following categories to restructure some extant items (this action is tentative as I realize that there's been no consensus on the proposed categories since they haven't been discussed in the aforementioned tp sections):

Research Office: Central Policy Research Office

National affiliation: All-China Federation of Trade Unions, All-China Women's Federation and All-China Youth Federation

Do not modify this information on the article without prior discussion of it in this section. Wingwraith (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The PAP and militia are State, not Party. Marxism-Leninism is still a critical factor in CCP ideology, and ranks above both Mao and Xi thinking. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Political positions and "authoritarian socialism"

As per the discussions above there was no consensus to use the term left-wing to far-left in the infobox. I along with other editors above advocate keeping the political position section of the infobox blank for the reasons given above. In regards to authoritarian socialism there was discussion as to whether it could be regarded as a term. This has no bearing on whether or not it should be in the political positions section of the infobox, which it shouldn't. If this fits anywhere its in the ideology section. Authoritarian socialism does not fit on the political spectrum, that's a fact, so it has no reason to be in that section of the infobox. Also none of the sources used to support the claim of the party being authoritarian socialist actually directly stated the party is authoritarian socialist, therefore breaking WP:SYNTHESIS, and as such should not be included. Helper201 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here because Helper201 (talk · contribs) pinged me on my talk page for my input. A quick look at the removed sources shows that none actually explicitly uses the term "authoritarian socialism", and in my view the "political position" parameter is only ever used for terms along the left-right axis (except in the unusual case of "big tent" as used on Five Star Movement). I don't have a particular position on whether to use the term "left-wing" or "far-left" to describe the CCP as I'm not deeply invested in this discussion, but on the surface this appears to be a case in which the omission of a political position may be an appropriate solution. Mélencron (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Helper201:

1) You remove the political description again and I will report you directly to ANI. You don't get to pretend that your opinion on this matter is final when you excused yourself (you were notified of this issue by an involved participant) from participating in the relevant debates which went on for months and featured a series of opportunities (e.g. RFC) for you to contribute by giving your input on it. We can debate what issues you have about that bilaterally here first and see if there's a compromise to be had, but for you to do what you did is a complete fucking joke and I will not stand for it.

2) There is unanimous consensus to include the political description in the infobox. Not a single person who responded organically to my RFC request (i.e. cared enough to respond not by getting notified by a third party) agreed that the description should not be included. Even my primary opponent (TIAYN) ended up agreeing with my position. You had your chance to voice your objection then and you didn't even (care enough to) do that.

3) Similar articles (e.g. CPSU, Communist Party of Cuba and Communist Party of Vietnam) all list the political position item in their respective infoboxes so there's no reason why this article shouldn't also have its political position listed in the infobox; the onus is on you to explain why an exception should be created for this established practice.

4) You need to explain the inconsistency in the way that you handled the political tag issue on this article vis-à-vis this article; why didn't you just add a "citation needed tag" to the political description here as you did on the other article instead of removing it outright?

5) The sources describe the CPC as authoritarian socialist. The Forbes article for example explicitly refers to China as authoritarian socialist.

6) These edits of yours ([1] and [2]) violates WP:CAN and will be noted should the need arise.

Wingwraith (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't get pretend my opinion is final. That seems mightily hypocritical. You have been the one pushing your own agenda from the very start, not taking aboard others views or coming to any sort of compromise. Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. The notification you refered to discusses adding every ideology, I have not advocated for adding any ideologies.

There is absolutely no unanimous consensus for having left-wing to far-left. Heck, neither are even cited with any evidence. Don't just assume that if someone didn't do something its due to them not caring to, we all have lives and responsibilities outside of this website, we can't all be on top of what goes on on every page or discussion. I mentioned already that the reasons for why I don't believe positions should be given have already been mentioned on the talk page, so I would just be repeating what others have already said.

I didn't add a citation needed tag because there was clear controversy around the matter as noted on this talk page. I added a citation needed tag on Québec debout because its a break off party that still maintains much of the core ideology of the party it broke from, as well as the claim having stood there for a while without controversy surrounding it, unlike here.

Actually no, they don't outrightly label the party as authoritarian socialist and clearly break WP:SYNTHESIS, please do read that page. As for CAN, I was not aware of this. I was merely advocating users I could find to get involved in the discussion, I didn't not ask them to support any view point.

You have shown to have a very obstinate view from the very beginning of this, accepting no views that are opposed to yours. Your hostile and impolite attiude has turned people away from even contributing as you won't accept any sort of compromise or rejection of your own views on the matter. You immediately go back to setting the article back to your view point whenever anyone tries to make any changes. Please take note of Wikipedia:The Rules of Polite Discourse and Wikipedia:Civility. Helper201 (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now read the four sources for authoritarian socialism. Of the sources, two come from the same page, one comes from the american authorities which are not a reliable source regarding politics of any legal communist party, and the last source which is the only one to use the term "authoritarian socialism" is clearly political and meant to harm the CCP and Maduro's PSUV. Only the latter mentions this ridiculous concept, however the latter is also clearly biased and un-academic. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith, Did you forget that China is not the Soviet Union, Cuba or Vietnam? We’ve been over that before: one size does not fit all. And, since you don’t have a consensus (even though you like to say you do) it would be wrong to make the changes you insist on making, over and over again.

If you want to make a change, the onus is on you to justify it. You haven’t done that. The sources you cite are not the only ones available and do not comprise a definitive statement of the facts. That’s why there is so much disagreement with your actions.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Following are how the given three to-me-accessible web sources cited by the tag ″authoritarian socialism″ speak of authoritarian socialism,

1. The Forbes : Venezuela is an example of the authoritarian socialism that China has promoted worldwide as a “Beijing Consensus” development solution to replace the Washington Consensus. Apparently someone has misunderstood the source to wrongly believe that China is authoritarian socialism rather than Venezuela.
2. The diplomatⅠ No mention of authoritarian socialism.
3. The diplomat Ⅱ No mention of authoritarian socialism. --123.161.170.160 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Helper201:

1. I've removed your malformed RFC. It's supposed to be in the form of a question not a screed.
2. Your allegation that I am uncompromising is false. I've been the only one throughout this discussion to think of a compromise position and I was also the first person to initiate a RFC discussion on this (as I mentioned before).
3. There has been unanimous consensus to include the political description in the infobox. As I said before not a single person who organically responded to my RFC request disagreed with my position that the infobox shouldn't include the political position item. Don't try to pass off your lack of participation as oversight when you have tried to rehabilitate this issue after it was decisively concluded.
4. Your justification for your actions regarding the Quebec debout article is confusing (why does it matter if the controversy is clear or not?) but for the sake of argument and compromise-building, I've included the tag for the political position.
5. "Actually no, they don't outrightly label the party as authoritarian socialist and clearly break WP:SYNTHESIS," That doesn't apply because I'm not combining material from multiple sources.
6. You have yet to make the argument to justify why this article deserves an exemption to the established practice of listing the political position item in the infobox of every article that belongs to the Communist Party class of articles.

Wingwraith (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vif12vf: You already agree with my position that it makes sense to include the political position item in the infobox so what you wrote is besides the point. Wingwraith (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@DOR (HK): No that is not how the logic of the burden of responsibility works. You don't get to claim an exception for an established practice that applies to the class of articles to which this one belongs and then ask the opposing side to justify that established practice. That is just borderline hysterical. And before you appeal to WP:BURDEN you will note that an RFC which you were made aware of and to which you made no contribution has already established the consensus to include the political position item in the infobox. Wingwraith (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@123.161.170.160:

1. The Forbes : Venezuela is an example of the authoritarian socialism that China has promoted worldwide as a “Beijing Consensus” development solution to replace the Washington Consensus. The author is saying that China is so authoritarian socialist that it is confident enough to promote that model of political development for other countries to adopt (and adapt).
2. The diplomatⅠ: The Party’s new emphasis on socialism’s applicability to other developing states seems to take this further, specifically prescribing loosely defined “socialism” as an alternative authoritarian model to guide indigenous development. It can be deduced from this sentence that the author says that the CPC is authoritarian socialist.
3. The diplomat Ⅱ: Chinese analysts and party schools have long looked to Singapore’s governance and political model to justify authoritarianism and the CCP’s one-party rule. It can be deduced from this sentence that the author says that the CPC is authoritarian socialist.

Wingwraith (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith, Perhaps if you had access to a sufficient wide intellectual base this would be less contentious. But, if you insist on limiting your resources to anything-but-scholarly sources such as Forbes, there isn’t much we can do but list even more sources than your three.

• Ideas and Ideologies competing for China’s political future, by Kristin Shi-Kupfer, Mareike Ohlberg, Simon Lang and Bertram Lang (Oct 2017): https://www.merics.org/sites/default/files/2018-01/171004_MPOC_05_Ideologies_0.pdf

p. 41 Flag Wavers: Naationalsts. Chinese term “Angry Youth(愤青) describes (now aging) leftists. Equality Advocates: Called New Left (新左派). Closer to European welfare models than adherents of the “Old Left” (老左派), who advocate pre-1978 socialism.

p. 46. “The Flag Wavers share some traits with contemporary populist movements in Europe and the United States. Mirroring anti-establishment rhetoric in Western countries, they turn against ‘white leftists’ and ‘white liberals’ who allegedly want to dominate China. ‘White’ in this context refers to segments of the political left in Europe and the United States that champion multiculturalism and social inclusion, but also to Chinese intellectuals who embrace similar positions.”

p. 48 “Similar to the CCP, parts of the Chinese public are wary about reviving Maoist ideas and using Maoist insignia. Many associate Mao’s rule with the ‘chaotic times’ of the Cultural Revolution. In our survey, Mao Lovers were characterized by others as ‘extreme left’ (极左) and as ‘worshipping Mao Zedong’ (崇拜毛泽东). Survey participants also described this camp as holding the most negative views on the market economy.”

And, “This ‘New Leftist’ thinking (新左派), as it is called in China, first rose to prominence around 1994 when China’s rapidly growing social and income inequality became obvious. Representatives of this line of thought compare China’s current situation to European industrialization in the 19th century, which produced a wealthy elite and a poor working class with no access to healthcare and social services.”

Other sources:

• Xiao Gongqin (萧功秦), 新左派与当代中国知识分子的思想分化 “The ideological differentiation of the New Left and China’s contemporary intellectuals”, in Modern China Studies, 1. http://www. modernchinastudies.org/us/issues/past-issues/76-mcs-2002-issue-1/1219-2012-01-06-08-38-50.html.
• Li, He (2015). “China’s New Left,” Politics and Development of Contemporary China, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Defund, 为什么骂“圣母”和“白左”在中国是‘政治正确‘的 “Why scolding the ‘Holy Mother’ and ‘White Leftists’ in China is ‘political correctness,’”). https://www.douban.com/note/521727464.
• 白左是什么意思 “What is the meaning of White Leftists?,” http://www.zuilxy.com/reci/9294.html.
• 如何看待白左? “How to assess the White Leftists?,” https://www.zhihu.com/question/21459364.

And, our own New Left in China, which says Cui Zhiyuan, is one of the leading lights of the movement. Not Xi Jinping. Not Hu Jintao. Not Jiang Zemin, Zhao Ziyang, Hu Yaobang or Deng Xiaoping. In other words, not the mainstream of the Chinese Communist Party.

More?

How about Left communism in China, which says “the terms "Ultra-Left" and "left communist" (simplified Chinese: 共产主义左翼; traditional Chinese: 共產主義左翼; pinyin: Gòngchǎn zhǔyì zuǒyì) refers to political theory and practice self-defined as further "left" than that of the central Maoist leaders at the height of the GPCR ("Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution").” In other words, 50 years out of date.

Finally Left-wing politics, the nail in the coffin: “In China, the term ‘Chinese New Left’ denotes those who oppose the current economic reforms and favour the restoration of more socialist policies.” Which is to say, it is inappropriate to label the current Chinese leadership’s political positioning as “left-wing to far left.”

Please take a moment and give some serious thought to going away.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1) You remove that political description again and I will report you directly to ANI. You really don't get to do that when you excused yourself from participating in a RFC which you were made aware of, to which you made no contribution and that ultimately established the consensus to include the political position item in the infobox. I even added the dispute inline as a compromise building measure (as I stated above) and for you to just overlook that by deleting the label outright is fucking ridiculous.

2) What is YOUR point and can you say it in a few sentences/paragraphs instead of referencing ten thousand different works published by other people and presenting it like it is some essay on your a personal blog? We don't write like this and it's impossible to figure out what you are trying to say. Wingwraith (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith,

What is my point that I can say in a few sentences/paragraphs instead of referencing ten thousand different works published by other people? My point is this: Don't used poorly referenced opinions to replaced well-researched analysis. Just don't do it. Refuse! DOR (HK) (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@DOR (HK): That's a separate question. That is about conduct, whereas this comment of yours (which sparked this latest round of disagreement between us) was about the content. If you can't disentangle the two, then stop editing this article. If you can, then the question still stands: what is YOUR point and can you say it in a few sentences/paragraphs...without referencing the works of anybody else? Wingwraith (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wingwraith, you have absolutely no right to remove an RFC. Not only are you status quo stonewalling but you are also showing clear signs of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. You do not get to decide or mandate what goes on on the main page or on the talk page.

There clearly is not unanimous consensus for left-wing to far-left, even a cursory read through of the talk page will tell you that. The fact that editors did not respond when you wanted them to gives you no right to go about imposing your own will or shutting down any further discussion or request for change.

If you would please care to read the whole of WP:SYNTHESIS I was not refering to combining information. I was referring to the fact that your claim of the party being authoritarian socialist is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. None of them outrightly state the party is authroitarian socialist, therefore breaking synthesis. As stated on WP:SYNTHESIS - "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Your claim is not explicitly state as an ideology of the party in any of the sources you gave. Not to mention as I have already stated, if this should go anywhere (providing you can properly source it) it should be in the ideology section, not in the political position section. Authoritarian socialism does not exist on the left-right political spectrum, that's a fact.

On top of all that you should be providing evidence for your claim, otherwise if there is dispute around it it should be discussed here on talk. In the mean time the article should go back to how it was prior to you attempting to enforce these changes. The left-wing to far-left claim is backed by no sources and there is clear dispute around it. The authoritarian socialist claim is not probably backed due to your sources breaking synthesis, as well as it being in the wrong place. Helper201 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC) @Helper201:

1) I had the right to remove that malformed RFC, like I said it is supposed to be in the form of a neutrally-worded question and not an (your) argument. At the very least, I had reasonable grounds to believe that I had the right to remove the RFC which FTR was done on procedural grounds and not out of hostile intent: I wouldn't have removed it had you filed it properly. I won't remove it this time to prove the point that it is (most likely) going to be removed by somebody else anyway, particularly after this edit of yours.

2) You have yet to make the argument to justify why this article deserves an exemption to the established practice of listing the political position item in the infobox of every article that belongs to the Communist Party class of articles.

3) There is unanimous consensus to include the political description in the infobox. Even if you exclude the editors who responded organically to my RFC request (i.e. cared enough to respond not by getting notified by a third party) agreed that the description should not be included the consensus would still be nearly unanimous. If you must do a hard count of the stance of the contributors who participated in the section that dealt directly with this issue (Political descriptor RFC) it's 5 for (myself, TIAYN, Edaham, Tiberius Jarsve, Jtbobwaysf) vs 2 against (Soman, Martopa). You would not have had any objection to that RFC had TIAYN not attempt that ludicrous vote canvassing edit which is ironic because s/he ended up agreeing with my position. In any case like I said you had your chance to voice your objection then and you didn't even (care enough to) do that.

4) I'm not shutting down anything, I already said we can debate what issues you have bilaterally here first and see if there's a compromise to be had.

5) Authors/sources can say something by (clear) deduction, it doesn't have to be said explicitly.

Wingwraith (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not add the RFC with any type of argument, I added it in request for further comment since there is a dispute. If you wanted to help you could of fixed it instead of removing it.

I'm arguing that YOU have given absolutely no justification for the positions you are maintaining via stonewalling. No evidence has been given for either of these claims (of left-wing or far-left). I'm not coming at this from a hard position of removing the positions, just that whatever ones are there should both be proven with evidence, which neither are. I personally think having no position is the best option but that doesn't mean I'm trying to enforce that outcome, just that if something is put there, as you keep doing, its done through evidence and agreement for is specifically claimed. You are fine to advocate that the political position section should be included, its what you are advocating I have a problem with, because its not backed up with evidence and you have no right to thus enforce maintaining unevidenced claims.

So essentially the numbers are 5 for 3, by your workings when you include myself, which is in no way a "unanimous consensus", as you like to claim. And as I have already stated if I or anyone else did not respond when you wanted us to does not mean we didn't care, we have lives, responsibilities, health matters to attend to. Just because we did not respond on your behest does not make any latter comments any less valid whatsoever.

Yes, it does have to be said explicitly, if you would take the time to please read the synthesis rule, it is clearly laid out there that claims have to be stated explicitly by the given source(s). Also, as you keep outrightly ignoring, authoritarian socialism is not a political position on the left-right political spectrum, if it should be placed anywhere its in the ideology section, however the evidence you have given for the party following this ideology breaks the synthesis rule, a matter of which other editors have agreed upon other than myself. Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Wingwraith,

I’m sorry to keep coming back at you time and again, but you are in fact the only person arguing your side of the issue. And, you keep doing it with the same sources. So, in an effort to move on, I will now examine your sources to see if they support the notion that China is properly categorized as ‘left-wing to far-left authoritarian socialist.’

In my view, case not proven.

The Forbes op-ed by Anders Corr doesn’t qualify as an objective, authoritative source. The link in the article where Corr claims there is a “Beijing Consensus” is to a 2010 (!) piece in The Economist that says, “Scholars and officials in China itself, however, are divided over whether there is a China model (or ‘Beijing consensus’ as it was dubbed in 2004 [!!] by Joshua Cooper Ramo, an American consultant [!!!] playing on the idea of a declining ‘Washington consensus’), and if so what the model is and whether it is wise to talk about it.

A 2010 piece citing a 2004 coinage by a consultant making a play on words...

Later, it says “Western publishers have been no less enthused by China's continued rapid growth. The most recent entry in the field is ‘The Beijing Consensus, How China's Authoritarian Model Will Dominate the Twenty-First Century’ by Stefan Halper, an American academic. Mr Halper, who has served as an official in various Republican administrations, argues that “just as globalisation is shrinking the world, China is shrinking the West” by quietly limiting the projection of its values.”

A US 1980s era GOP official. Not exactly an Old China Hand. So, what we have is an op-ed citing a source that doesn’t support the notion of the ‘Beijing Consensus,’ let alone the even further out-of-touch idea of socialist authoritarianism.

The 2017 Diplomat piece by David Gitter says Xinhua claims “China’s ‘development miracle’ is socialism, not other ‘-isms’ (read capitalism). It later cites other official sources as saying, “socialist ideology’s ongoing vitality is displayed by Chinese socialism, and quoted foreign dignitaries that lauded the CCP’s development model as applicable to the developing world.”

Only at the very end, in the second to last sentence, does the author’s own opinion – nothing at all related to official statements, just an opinion – relate any of this to the issue at hand: “The Party’s new emphasis on socialism’s applicability to other developing states seems to take this further, specifically prescribing loosely defined “socialism” as an alternative authoritarian model to guide indigenous development.”

The 2015 Diplomat piece, by a grad student, is about the political legitimacy of the CCP. Good use of Weberian philosophy (although the use of ‘strong man’ rather than Weber’s Charismatic authority is odd) to examine why there are challenges to authoritarian leadership in South Korea and Singapore. However, labeling the ‘Three Represents,’ ‘Scientific Outlook’ and ‘Chinese Dream’ as legitimacy seeking is simply wrong. Those three notions exist simply because party heads have to add to the ideological canon, nothing more.

So, can you please now stop using discredited sources? DOR (HK) (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Since Wingwraith is not responding, I will state here that there is insufficient evidence that the labels under question have any meaning in the context of contemporary Chinese politics and should be removed. Those who object will want to cite their sources in the next few weeks. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Second notice. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

My recent changes

I have replaced a link to a general article about "communism" with a link from Chinese communism to an article about the ideology of the CPC. I have also removed a link to "Marxist-Leninism", which is not especially helpful. I have also added three references to justify the use of the phrase "Chinese communism" to a user for whom ""Chinese communism" [...] is not an acctual concept". If everyone else is satisfied with the use of this phrase (to indicate that there is a distinct political tradition in China which claims to be a development of the Marxist-Leninist tradition), these references can be removed. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Not in agreement. Marxism-Leninism is very much a part of Communism with Chinese characteristics, most particularly Leninism. Take that away, and there is no politburo or centeal committee. Take that away, and the PLA becomes the PRC army, not the CCP army. Take that away, and there are no CCP cells in ministries, companies, unions, schools, army units or mass organizations. DOR (HK) (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I have restored Marxist-Leninism. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is a development of the Marxist-Leninist tradition, as I said, but I wasn't convinced that having it listed was especially useful to readers when the other two links were probably sufficient, but I'm happy to compromise on this point. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However, “Chinese unification” is a policy position, rather than an ideology. .DOR (HK) (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As an irredentist notion of recovering China's 'natural boundaries', I think it's more than a policy position, in the same way that unification in the DPRK is more than a policy position. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please find a source to support that position. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to be able to find a source which explicitly describes "Chinese unification" as something "more than a policy position" of CCP. That is my judgement based on the WP:RS. In any case, it's perfectly acceptable to put "policy positions" like "anti-immigration" etc under the ideology field. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Endymion, after all the controversy over ideology in the threads just above this one, it is really important that we stick to verifiable, sourced content. When we stray from that ideal, we end up in endless edit wars. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Emblem of People’s Militia.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Gold or red

Rather than see a low-speed edit war over which version of the hammer and sickle to use how about the two of you hash out your discussion on your preferred versions here at talk? Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Both versions are in official use. However the red version has been used for a long time and looks better on the standard wikipedia white background. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that red works better from an accessibility perspective due to its higher contrast. @Wushiye1st: would you care to weigh in on why you prefer the gold version? Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ideological details

Hi, @Vif12vf: what's the justification for excluding additional ideological detail subordinate to socialism with Chinese characteristics? Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The ideology-section has been discussed numerous times, which is how the section became what it currently is. All of the ideologies you added has been removed from the infobox by various users countless times. There is also no point in splitting one ideology up into many when the article about the party's ideologies explains everything just fine. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK except that right now, it's a minimum of 2 wikilinks to get to even the briefest description of Xi Jinping Thought - which is currently a predominant governing ideology within the country. It concerns me that seems like an odd detail to decide to exclude. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vif12vf: if you don't want to address this beyond what you said earlier, I'm inclined to start an RfC on this. I think it's rather silly that it's so hard to get from the CPC page to Xi Jinping Thought. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally i agree that at least Xi Jinping Thought should be included, but i think the other editors on the page will revert it. I also think adding any more than this one would be unnecessary. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Instead of getting into an edit war, how about we put out an RFC then? Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Xi Jinping Thought as an ideology of the CPC

Q: In the CPC infobox, should Xi Jinping Thought be included as an ideology separate from Socialism with Chinese characteristics?

Explanation: There has been a recent dispute about whether to include more wikilinks in the ideology heading of the infobox. At particular question is whether Xi Jinping Thought should be wikilinked independently from Socialism with Chinese characteristics or whether it should be considered part of that umbrella of terms. Argument for: Xi Jinping Thought is the predominant current political framework within the CPC and has represented a change of direction significant enough from the Deng to Hu period sufficient to warrant a direct link in the infobox. Argument against: Xi Jinping Thought operates in the framework of Socialism with Chinese characteristics.

• I should note that I Support inclusion of Xi Jinping Thought in the infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've left notifications of this RFC on the following WikiProjects: Socialism, Cold War, China, Politics, Politics/Political Parties. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Include in the infobox at the very least, per the subject themselves. No comment yet on the other aspects of the proposal. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  (Notified by Simonm223 on the WikiProject Politics talk page) 03:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the infobox. Maybe in the next few years or so, when the historical impact of Xi Jinping's leadership over China and the Communist Party becomes more apparent. At the moment it is far too early to put such a massive weight over Xi Jinping Thought, which doesn't really include anything innovative, rather as an update to the existing guiding principles and ideologies. Alex Shih (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I think there should be only one ideology, since the CPC has only one ideology. It is not the case for example that there are separate Chinese communist and Marxist-Leninist factions as the info-box currently claims. I think we should put down the official ideology of the party which is "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era." TFD (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone was trying to represent the ideologies as being in conflict so much as both being present, but your point is well received; however there's an issue of recentism if we just record Xi Jinping Thought as the guiding ideology. You wouldn't be wrong but it might not capture the historical breadth of how changes to party leadership have shaped the direction of the party over time. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions. Inclusion of Marxism-Leninism (not 'Marxist-Leninist') has absolutely nothing to do with factions, and the info box does not claim that it does. As noted in July 2018, "Marxism-Leninism is very much a part of Communism with Chinese characteristics, most particularly Leninism. Take that away, and there is no politburo or centeal committee. Take that away, and the PLA becomes the PRC army, not the CCP army. Take that away, and there are no CCP cells in ministries, companies, unions, schools, army units or mass organizations." DOR (HK) (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Further: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/special/19cpcnc/documents.htm, contains the full text of the party constitution following the 19th National Party Congress. As per the second paragraph, “The Communist Party of China uses Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as its guides to action.”

Subsequent paragraphs explain how each component was added to the basic, Marxism-Leninism ideology. Mao, Deng, Jiang, Hu and finally Xi. It then wraps up the section on guiding ideology with this: “Ultimately, the fundamental reason for all of China’s achievements and progress since reform and opening up began is that the Party has forged a path, formed a theoretical system, established a system, and developed a culture for socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

There is one ideology (a path, a theoretical system, a system, a culture). It can be shortened, but it is still only one ideology. There are not competing ideologies within the party, only competing policy positions and tendencies. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Except the RfC was specific to the infobox, not to the section on guiding ideologies. I'm unclear whether you support inclusion of Xi Jinping Thought into the infobox or not from your comment. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the reading is out of context. The party constitution continues, "The Thought is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development. It is the latest achievement in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context...." It notes there were errors in previous formulations and also parts had become outdated. I see no reason why we should state what their ideology used to be. We don't put in the info-box of the U.S. Democratic Party that it is the party of the white man, just because that is how they defined themselves at one time. TFD (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose exclusion of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics from the infobox more stridently than I support inclusion of Xi Jinping Thought. I think there's room for both, and support inclusion of both, but if the consensus is that we can only link to one page from the infobox I'd say it should be the former. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What about, ""Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era?" That's the official long-form name. TFD (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean, it's actually longer than separate wikilinks for the two different things so if space is a consideration... I am honestly curious to see what other editors think of that proposal. Reserving judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Not as long as listing half a dozen ideologies. TFD (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

OK except the RFC only mentions two ideologies. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The complete description is 'Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.' I'm happy to see that shortened to 'Marxism-Leninism,' which is the original ideology and has not been removed (unlike the above referenced Democratic Party ideology). I'd also be happy with 'modified Marxism-Leninism' or something similar. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think we have any usable consensus yet Would somebody like to go and ping affected wikiprojects or find some other non WP:CANVAS way of getting some additional comments? Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)