Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

Ideologies

I find the newly inserted ideologies problematic. Sources:

Chinese nationalism

Cultural conservatism

  • On a sidenote, there's absolutely no mention of the CPC as conservative in the academic book about the ideology of CPC. If there was any relevant academic dispute that the Party was conservative, it would have at least a mention.
  • https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/5851 There's no mention of the CPC as conservative, so there's not even the need to check if it's reliable, if it represents academic consensus (which would be incredibly strange if it did, and not get mentioned in the previous book). The summary of the abstract is literally «This paper evaluates the revival of Maoism in China as major factions of the Chinese Communist Party take a conservative turn in ideology and politics». In the article, conservative is mentioned in the same way: «Most importantly, the re-hoisting of Maoist standards has signified a conservative turn in Chinese statecraft. Repeated appeals have been made by ideological and propaganda departments to Party members and college students to steep themselves in the works of Mao and the related Marxist canon. [...] As the following sections will make clear, the CCP leadership has been reviving with gusto many values and policies that are unmistakably Maoist in nature». This should be referent to Maoism.
  • https://jamestown.org/program/xi-jinping-chinas-traditionalist-restoration/ The author seems to be reliable. However, there's no mention of neither cultural conservatism nor the CPC here, only a selective [...] neotraditionalist cultural revival campaign by Xi Jinping.

P.S. About this, which does not have any source. There's no consensus on how Marxist-Leninist the CPC is as shown by the Chinese_Communist_Party#Formal_ideology. Saying the CPC abandoned Marxism-Leninism altogether is definitely a stand which is not close to consensus. The current source, which the reverting user said «As seen by the citation it is correct», literally says, vis a vis, «The Communist Party of China (CPC) takes Marxism-Leninism [...] as its guide to action and theoretical bases». Bear in mind that it's not even argued that the CPC has rejected Marxism-Leninism, but rather «orthodox Marxism-Leninism [...] (or at least basic thoughts within orthodox thinking)»; BRD diff

--BunnyyHop (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:
Declined. The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"Chinese Communist Party" nonsense

DISCUSSION CLOSED
In light of the subsequest requested move, this discussion is moot.

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

Stop entering propaganda cooked up by some people from some country. The official name is "Communist Party of China" and there is no such thing as "Chinese Communist Party." "Chinese Communist Party" is an anti-communist propaganda by the United States. Use the official name. 202.9.46.161 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the official name is 中国共产党. Both "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" are translations of that. And there is no difference in meaning between the two, it is purely stylistic. Just as "satin sheets" and "sheets of satin" mean the same thing, so do CCP and CPC.--Khajidha (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Communist party of china is different from the satin sheets or sheets of satin concept. Zhonguoa means china not chinese. CPC styles itself Communist Part of China not "Chinese Communist Party." "Chinese Communist Party" is a joke of a concept. ,,43.228.131.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
You do realize that the word Chinese means "of China", right? Just as "government of China" and " Chinese government" mean the same thing, so do CPC and CCP. It's just a stylistic difference, not a different meaning.--Khajidha (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
"Government of China" and "Chinese government" is stylistically different. There is a difference between Government of United States and "American government." "American government" sounds much more unofficial than "Government of the United States." "Government of China" is the official concept that describes what is the government of China. "Chinese government" is about the specific government that is currently, not exactly the objective concept of what is the "Government of China." There is a difference. "Communist Party of China" is the institution. "Chinese Communist Party" is the slang version of the "Communist Party of China." "Communist Party of China" is the official English translation of Communist Party of China. I think you are confused, or you have a specific agenda behind your edits. 202.9.46.101 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The only one confused here is you. Government of the United States and American government mean the same thing. Both Government of China and Chinese government can be used to describe either the current government or the concept as a whole. And neither is slang. --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Official translation is COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA. You can use Chinese Communist Party 100 million times yourself. The official name is COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA. Same thing is CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and not AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, US CONSTITUTION, USA CONSTITUTION nonsense 202.9.46.101 (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ummm, the official name is in CHINESE. We aren't writing Chinese, so that is irrelevant. --15:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
You don't know what you are talking about. You are a US government agent intentionally inserting planned edits on behalf of someone 202.9.46.101 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Even assuming "Communist Party of China" is the official name, on Wikipedia we do not title articles according to what their official name is, but rather what the most common name in English is. Please see
WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk
) 07:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Rreagan007, COMMONNAME does not apply to all, see it's respective page mentioning that there can be exceptions. See below for elaboration. GeraldWL 14:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you that the official name is CPC, but unfortunately Wikipedia has a silly policy of calling organisations by their most commonly used Western name, instead of the official name. It is what it is. Acalycine (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Support changing to Communist Party of China. "Chinese Communist Party" (CCP) is a colloquial term internationally. I support using its official name. The first written name in the article is the CPC, and the infobox title is the CPC, so why not making it consistent with the title? But I think the IP user here needs to calm down, don't make yourself look like Xi Jinping. GeraldWL 12:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
See the move request above, the policy justification was
WP:COMMONNAME. Those errors you speak of in the article are, I think, editors being careless after having suggested the move in the first place, which in my opinion was done out of spite and not out of a concern for policy. PS: being compared to Xi Jinping is a compliment ;) Acalycine (talk
) 01:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Acalycine, COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. The CCP is simply a colloquial term and is not recognized by the CCP themselves. Other communist parties follow this name: Communist Party of India, Communist Party of Indonesia, etc. So it should be changed. GeraldWL 14:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
COMMONNAME is
WP:POLICY. It applies here, and everywhere else on Wikipedia. Doanri (talk
) 16:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Why doesn't it apply, Gerald Waldo Luis? Acalycine (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
COMMONNAME is not for all. Corona pandemic is the most commonname, but it's best to use the official one, COVID-19. "Uighur camps" is the commonname, but it's best to use the Xinjiang re-education camps. 2020 US election is the commonname, but it's best to use the 2020 United States presidential election. CCP is simply a Western term centric to the United States— this is the English, not American Wikipedia. Following the other communist parties article titles, it's best to have it as Communist Party of China. Even the COMMONNAME policy page said that there can be certain circumstances where it is not effective. CCP can simply be a redirect page. GeraldWL 03:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, what part of COMMONNAME says this? I'm pretty sure that because the CPC is an organisation, COMMONNAME applies to it, or at least that's what I remember reading when this argument first transpired on this talk page. I would agree with your reasoning, it's just that Wikipedia policy seems to disagree with both of us. Acalycine (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Acalycine, as I said, CPC is a better title because it is consistent with other communist parties like Communist Party of India, Indonesia, etc.
My last hope would probably be
WP:IAR?
:
Are you sure that your idea is a good one by common sense and that it improves the encyclopedia? Yes.
Does it break the rules? Either no or yes.
Is that because the rules are wrong? No.
DO IT.
After all, "CCP" is just a slang that, as I said, only represents the United States. COMMONNAME does not mean all articles must use what's common in society. For example, the article title is "COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland" rather than just "-Ireland" so that it can be distinguished between the island and the country. The better title is "Vaccine hesitancy" than "Anti-vaccination" because being skeptical of vaccines does not necessarily make you anti-health. GeraldWL 05:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
1. Other communist parties having slightly different English language names seems perfectly fine to me.
2. When you are scrambling for a policy that 'seemed able to justify us', you might want to reconsider whether your interlocutor's arguments are more solid instead.
3. 'CCP' is used outside of the US.[1]
4. The Ireland - ROI analogy is false, CCP and CPC are equally unambiguous terms
Doanri (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Doanri, The problem with choosing COMMONNAME here is that it is very weird: it is titled "Chinese Communist Party" but it begins with "Communist Party of China." The infobox also uses the official translation. "Other communist parties having slightly different English language names"-- well as it turns out China has the same translation for its communist party, and besides, it'd be best to have it consistent. When you interpret--not translate--it, it is clear that the correct translation is "CPC": "中国" (-of China) "共产党" (Communist party-). The CCP may be used outside the US, but it's more catered towards US people (and maybe UK) than other parts of the world. (Oh and don't we all scramble for policies like a Hungry scrambling for meat?) Here are some other analogies:
  • Coronavirus pandemic
    .
  • 2020 US election
    .
  • Singapore MRT
    for the sake of consistency.
  • Indonesia omnibus law protests, not Tolak omnibus law (the most commonname of the protests).
  • Cute
    (when translated, "Mignonnes" can also be "Cute," but an official translation is favored).
After all this is a silly title to use, and if WP's policy really mean that ALL articles must use commonname (it's not all of course), that's a silly policy and in fact there's another policy that, when used appropriately, allow me to counter that policy. I don't see how my arguments are "not solid," it's definitely solid and definitely makes sense.. GeraldWL 13:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The claim is made above several times CCP is an "American" abbreviation. Please provide a reliable source for this claim. The claim is also made that CCP is "anti-communist propaganda". This also needs a reliable source if you want anyone to pay attention to it. Finally, the claim that "中国" somehow means "-of China" really needs a source. What dictionary did you find that in? Rgr09 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we should call "CCP" a Western abbreviation, not an American one, since it's common in the West to call it the CCP, while in China, CPC is preferred. There's no real point looking for sources to confirm this, because it's irrelevant to the policy. The claim about "CCP" being "anti-communist propaganda" is obviously hyperbole, but I would say that the abbreviation "CCP" instead of "CPC" is commonly used in hawkish media promoting an anti-China view - alas, correlation does not equal causation. Finally, in regards to your concerns about "中国", I would agree that I can't see how this translates to "of China", but I would say that it does not translate to "Chinese" - if it did, CCP would make more sense as a literal translation, since it is "Chinese Communist Party." I'm by no means an expert in Chinese languages, but I believe "中国的" is a more accurate translation in Mandarin of "Chinese" or "relating to China", so I would expect to see that in the official Mandarin name if the literal translation was CCP. Acalycine (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
To be specific, "Chinese Communist Party" would be "中共." GeraldWL 09:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
They use CCP in Qatar, UAE, India, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan etc... Not to be rude but I don’t think its a “western” abbreviation at all I think its the “global english” abbreviation. Everyone outside of China appears to prefer CCP and many Chinese sources (including government ones) use CCP as web when writing in english, for example the SCMP (Hong Kong’s paper of record and the most reliable publication in China) generally uses CCP[2] although to be fair I have also seen them occasionally use CPC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
But even though the media uses that term, it doesn't necessarily determine the article title. For example, more media calls it "coronavirus pandemic" or the "Covid-19 pandemic" but "COVID-19" was used anyway since that's the official recommended name. More people say "blowjob" but Fellatio is used because to call it BJ will make the article's tone weird and not neutral. GeraldWL 08:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Rgr09, "What dictionary did you find that in?" Myself, of course. I learnt Chinese when I was in school and is a Chinese-Indonesian myself. There are languages where the first word(s) is/are placed at the back of the English translation, often with a prefix like "of." For example, "teman yang memalukan" is "shameful friend;" "Friend" is "teman" and "shameful" is "memalukan." "白痴世界" is "world of morons;" "世界" is "world" and "白痴" is "morons." GeraldWL 10:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not wish to be rude either, but the attempts here to use some sort of linguistic criteria to clarify things are very far off. Unfortunately, native speaker proficiency does not help in this case.
I return instead to the idea that use of CCP vs. CPC somehow reflects nationality or political orientation. Take for example the journal China Quarterly, one of the most important western publications on Chinese politics and history (now published by Cambridge University). Searching all issues of CQ on JSTOR, there are 104 instances of CPC vs. 1376 of CCP. (NB some of these may not be acronyms for Communist Party of China.) Another example is the China Journal, published in Australia, CCP 460 vs. CPC 78. Another example is Perspectives Chinoises, published by the French Centre for Research on Contemporary China, CCP 65 vs. CPC 7. None of these are published in America or by Americans, and it is absurd to label any of these major journals as "hawkish".
There is no doubt that the Chinese government news agency Xinhua now uses almost only CPC, but in China too it has not been unusual, at least in the past, to see CCP. As one of dozens of examples sitting on my shelf, I have Mi Zanchen's book The Life of General Yang Hucheng, published in 1981, which has dozens of CCPs and no CPCs. Even today, one can still find examples of CCP in chinadaily.com, though they are of course overwhelmed by CPCs.
In sum, CCP is is NO way derogatory, biased, nationalistic, or dated. It is by far the most common acronym for the Chinese Communist Party in English language publications, and it makes perfect sense that it should be the acronym used in this article. Rgr09 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Rgr09, I feel like you're addressing the old argument. The latter is on it's informality. Yes sometimes it's best to use widely-known terms as the title, but here it will just make the tone of the article weird and unneutral. Imagine if the COVID-19 pandemic page uses "coronavirus" instead of COVID-19— that's how I feel about this. You look at the title "Chinese Communist Party," and then you look at the infobox "Communist Party of China"... Like I said above, media uses many terms to simplify their job; that should not be a sole criteria on what should be the title. There are many instances when COMMONNAME is not used: for example, it's commonname is the Oscars, but Academy Awards is favored anyways. GeraldWL 10:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
If I have understood the previous discussion, "informal" is what you previously referred to as "slang". I do not see that either term applies here. Looking at other Communist party names in Wikipedia, we find the French Communist Party, the Syrian Communist Party, the Bulgarian Communist Party, the South African Communist Party, the Nepal Communist Party (it seems the Communist Party of Nepal is actually another group!) and so on. These names do not carry any inherently informal connotations, just as the Chinese Communist Party is neither slang nor informal. The choice of the English language names XX Communist Party or Communist Party of XX seems to be a product of historical usage and convention. Wikipedia's common usage standard is meant to give some weight to these considerations, and I don't see why it shouldn't apply here. Note also that a big part of this discussion has been over the acronyms CCP vs. CPC. Are you arguing that "CCP" is more informal than "CPC"? Acronyms are by definition informal, if informality is the issue, acronyms should not be used at all.
Taking up your feeling that use of CCP or Chinese Communist Party here is "non-neutral" or "weird", I understand you may feel this way, but I don't see how this is sufficient to overcome the reasonable requirements of Wikipedia's common usage standard. As I said, CCP is not derogatory, biased, nationalistic, or dated. How is it non-neutral? As for weird, CCP is currently the normal usage in English, that was the point of the examples I listed above. Rgr09 (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that people are bringing up
✉
07:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Your analogy with "Democratic Party" vs "Democrats" doesn't hold up. Both "Chinese Communist Party" and "Communist Party of China" are parallel to "Democratic Party". The parallel form to "Democrats" in this discussion would be "Communists". And, if you admit that "people who see CPC often consume media outside of the West or are from China", then you are admitting that your position is wrong, because such sources (from non-native English-speaking regions) cannot have a normative effect on the English language. --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Outside the conspiracy-theory drenched far-right of

People's Republic of China. This is the most straight-forward solution.Leutha (talk
) 13:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This analogy is even less substantial. We have separate pages for the Communist Party of Italy and the Italian Communist Party because they both exist. In this case, there are not two competing parties. There is only one, so Chinese Communist Party and Communist Party of China are equivalent terms. That the party itself favors one style is of little bearing. Reliable sources tend to favor the other. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I regret to say that you have not grasped the role of the nomenclature in the history of the communist movement in Italy. The
Communist Party of Italy transformed itself into the Italian Communist Party during the political tumults of 1943. Once the Red Army had destroyed the Italian Army in Russia, General Gariboldi headed back to Italy in time for the dumping of Mussolini. The PCd'I transformed itself into the PCI so that it could emerge as the second largest party in Italy. Not only had the context changed, but also the nature of the party.Leutha (talk
) 11:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Post discussion comments
  • I Agree with changing to Communist Party of China, it's literally the same thing, plus it will be continuous with other prominent Communist parties like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the Communist Party of Cuba. Although the IP that nominated renaming is very brazen and disruptive, he doesn't know what a concensus is and calls everyone that disagrees with them an "American government spy", probably a sockpuppet. PyroFloe (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The more common name in Chinese media today, especially the party's official media, is "CPC". "CCP" seems to be used whenever there is a negative connotation, and using it to give the article a negative view on the party would not be
WP:NPOV. Félix An (talk
) 05:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Additional comment: "CCP" seems to carry a negative connotation today, which would violate
WP:NPOV. Félix An (talk
) 05:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think we should be using
    WP:COMMONNAME as a guide, to paraphrase: 'common names are generally preferred over official names as article title'. Though officially it may be known as the "Communist Party of China", the overwhelming majority of English-language articles will refer to it as the Chinese Communist Party, or the CCP. To pose a question to those in favour of the change: what encyclopedic value comes from making the change from Chinese Communist Party to 'Communist Party of China'? Alssa1 (talk
    ) 23:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree to changing it to Communist Party of China. This is the more formal name. It's somewhat a custom/tradition for many communist parties to use the English translation form adopted by CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). Examples include not only CPC, but also the other CPC (Communist Party of Canada), CPUSA (Communist Party of the United States of America), KPD (Communist Party of Germany), CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation). It isn't universal, but it is the preferred nomenclature. CCP tends to be used most in English-language media from a specific ideological angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korladis (talk • contribs) 06:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 21 January 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Supporters of the move have not made convincing arguments in consideration of the article titles policy why the proposed name meets those criteria better than the current one. I recommend a move moratorium of at least a year before another name change is proposed. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


Chinese Communist Party → Communist Party of China – Some editors in the above discussion support retitling this article to reflect the entity's official name (Communist Party of China). I am neutral on the move, and am filing this move request to seek consensus. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a note thats an Ngram for "Communist Party of Soviet Union" not "Communist Party of the Soviet Union." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Which is probably throwing off the results drastically. And apparently you can't do a ngrams search with more than 5 words. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Not including the phrase that succeeds that statement ("as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.") with consistency being one of them seems taking it out of context. PyroFloe (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment — Like BunnyyHop said,
    ✉
    02:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support; please see my reason above. Félix An (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – I'm seeing that those opposing are mainly due to the policy of
    WP:IAR exists too. When the Soviet Union had still existed, it was very common among almost everyone in the world (politicians, news outlets, etc) to refer to the party in power as the Soviets, the CCCP (similar to the CCP today), "Soviet Russia", "Soviet Communists", "Soviet Communist Party", or sometimes even just "Russia". And yet, the articles which that they are usually referring to are still named the the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (abbrev. CPSU, which was very rarely used compared to CCCP). It's highly unlikely that the full name was used except among official documents, as previously mentioned by PyroFloe. 104.244.210.118 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC) — 104.244.210.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits
    outside this topic.
  • Comment, on the basis of editors citing
    WP:5P5 also exists too, one of the 5 PILLARS of Wikipedia that explains that rules may be interpreted differently overtime. "Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected." PyroFloe (talk
    ) 03:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
That's nice and all, but not particularly helpful. This is a formal requested move discussion, which does have standard procedures and customs that are followed. And one of the main ones is that discussions about a requested move should center around our article naming policies and guidelines. But I can understand why you would want to ignore those policies and guidelines when they are so clearly against your position here. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the parody here but, I suppose that you don't consider
WP:COMMONNAME
is that discussions about a requested move should center around our article naming policies and guidelines and it's 5 criteria with consistency being one of them. But I can understand why you would want to ignore those criteria when they are so clearly against your position here.
Again, sorry for the ruckus, let's just be civil here next time, especially when discussing a naming dispute with respect to each other's own perspectives. PyroFloe (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
When I Google "Communist Party of China" I get 4.5 million results, but when I Google "Chinese Communist Party" I get 8.3 million results, almost twice as many. And in what way was it closed too hastily? The previous move request remained open for the standard 7 days and the consensus to move the page was overwhelming. And the move review that followed endorsed the move with overwhelming consensus as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
How come that you are
good faith. Please remember that consensus
isn't based on the amount of votes but rather the argument for or against it with compromises at hand.
The
heated and controversial topic, this will definitely be a long discussion and it seems that you really want to end this discussion hastily. PyroFloe (talk
) 01:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It's very suspicious when IP addresses contribute to a move request, particularly when it's the only edit that IP address has ever done. I don't think it's uncivil to point that out. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a very visible banner on the top of the article page, of course this will be swarmed by many editors, especially with this controversial and popular topic. PyroFloe (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP address that has never edited a Wikipedia article is hardly an editor, and is very unlikely to be familiar with Wikipedia's article titling policies. Not to mention that in his sole comment he appears to have made misleading and inaccurate statements. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
And what are those claims that you deem as misleading? PyroFloe (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
His characterization of the previous requested move discussion being "closed hastily" and "Communist Party of China" yielding more Google search results than "Chinese Communist Party". Rreagan007 (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean? Searching them for me in Google equates to almost the same amount of results of ~70 Million each. Clearly there is a divide among search results and it's use. PyroFloe (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you putting them in quotation marks when you search? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I get the same results as Rreagan007. 4.6 million hits for "Communist Party of China", and 8.4 million hits for "Chinese Communist Party". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment Anyway, we can see that there's no problem in recognizing one or the other, even though the informal one is used more often. As such,
WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here, so the formal name is better warranted for the title. --BunnyyHop (talk
) 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment – That is weird because I'm getting 77 million hits for "Communist Party of China" and 67.9 million hits for "Chinese Communist Party". I'm not sure how you only received 8.4 million vs 4.6 million, I'm pretty sure the governing party of the most populous country in the world would gather more than 10 million hits on Google. 185.153.150.53 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Google hit counts vary from person to person, and the numbers reported at the beginning of the results are only estimates, which are sometimes inaccurate. See
MrOllie (talk
) 17:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
As Rreagan already pointed out above, you need to put quotes around the search term if you want to test the exact phrasing. A plain search for Communist Party of China will return all hits with those words in any order, so your 77 million and 67 million will be largely catching the same results. To test the specific phrases you put quotes around the terms. Follow my links above and you'll see.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move again

This seems to have transformed into an unofficial repeat RM on the same proposal which was already closed above, including some "support" and "oppose" !votes but without any formal RM tags. If you want to start a move review, then follow the instructions at
WP:MRV. Otherwise, it's time to move on.  — Amakuru (talk
) 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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

@

MrOllie, Horse Eye's Back, Sixula, and Newslinger
:

The move is based on an incorrect assumption that Google can pin-point the correct name. Totally lost in the discussion is also how people reference the party if they do it in a formal or informal way. By moving this we need to consider moving the Communist Party of Vietnam to Vietnamese Communist Party, the Workers' Party of Korea to Korean Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Cuba to Cuban Communist Party. According to Google Books Ngram viewer the former always gets more hits. If you could search with five words I'm pretty sure we would have to move the mouthful Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the Soviet Communist Party (but you can't search five words so its impossible to check....)... This same check goes for minor parties as well. The Communist Party of Spain would have be moved to Spanish Communist Party... The same goes for every party that has the name "[party name of country]".. You find more results on Google Books Ngram viewer if you write "[country party name]" than "[party name of country]" (even if the former is correct).

The correct—formal name—is the Communist Party of China.

The discussion has not either discussed the change in naming convention. The translation was inconsistent until the late 1980s from the party itself—which of course compounds the problem.

The debate above is in general confused. Confusing common name with how one refers to the Communist Party. The fact of the matter is, obviously, most people write "Spanish", "Norwegian", "Chinese" because its faster to write and easier to read. People in Norway talk about Arbeiderparti, but the international media logically refer to it as the Norwegian Labour Party (even if its not the name in anyway). Are we going to move

Norwegian Labour Party
because more writers refer to it as such in international media? Everyone knows the answer to that is obviously not.

What am I saying? The arguments used as a reason to move this article to the present name are inherently flawed and don't make any sense unless we move thousand of other articles on this encyclopedia... --Ruling party (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  • In my opinion we should start a move review, both of our sides made compelling arguments for or against the move, and the closer of the discussion is not neutral at all and trended towards the oppose side despite the discussion having no clear consensus at the end. Closer didn't also consider the massive discussion at the top where opinions are split about the move. Pinging the discussion closer @Buidhe. PyroFloe (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I will also add that the White House/American Government referred to it as the "Communist Party of China" until recently when it began referring to it as the "Chinese Communist Party". The intention was to highlight the party's nationalist nature and its treatment of the Uyghurs. Naming it the "Chinese Communist Party" is also very political as we're pretty much saying it's only for the "Chinese" people, and not all the other ethnicities that China is composed of. It's inherently taking a political position I believe.--Ruling party (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not really believe that the name "Chinese Communist Party" is a propaganda name for nationalism or something, I am neutral about that. My argument was based purely on it's common use alongside the official name. I still think that the official name should be used since (1) It is as common as the exonym. (2) To be consistent with other Communist Party articles. PyroFloe (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@ruling party (et al) I'm not sure who told you that “The correct – formal name-- is the Communist Party of China,” but your leg was being pulled. Fact: there is exactly one formal name for the party that rules China, and that is 中国共产党. Google has nothing to add; the only other versions are those people use in other languages, and frankly the party doesn't really care what barbarians think. In my 40+ years of daily contact with issues related to the 中国共产党, I can assure you that CCP is at least as common as CPC, and less confusing (what would you call the Cuban ruling party?). . “Most people write 'Spanish,' 'Norwegian,' or 'Chinese' because its faster to write and easier to read.” Great, you agree it should be Chinese Communist Party (CCP), because its easier to read, faster to write, and most people use it.

Time to move on. . DOR (HK) (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not think there will be a consensus to move this article to "Communist Party of China" anytime soon. "Chinese Communist Party" is not the English name officially used by the party itself, but it is by far the mostly commonly used name in the Western Anglosphere. Because most readers and editors on the English Wikipedia are from the Western Anglosphere, I doubt that another proposed move would succeed. Restarting the same move discussion over and over without any changes in approach or consensus from either side is a waste of time for everyone.

✉
00:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn't "Communist Party of China" also a common name? I think it would satisfy

WP:COMMONNAME. Félix An (talk
) 02:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

But it isn't the most common name. --Khajidha (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, I do not think that another move discussion is necessary despite me voting Support on the move in the past. If other editors think that there should be at least a 1 year (or less) time of hiatus and moratorium for move requests about this particular subject then I will respect that. Even though I think it should be moved to the official and equally common name of Communist Party of China, I respect other editors' arguments despite it being against mine. PyroFloe (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have voted twice for the current name. Nothing is offered here that would affect my vote, no citations, no sources, no policy, nothing. Google books ngram is rejected because it does not capture "how people reference the party if they do it in a formal or informal way." What is your source for how people reference the Party? What people are you talking about and how do you know? You need to cite a source. You claim the current name is based on "inherently flawed logic." You need a source for that too. You claim that the arguments "don't make any sense unless we move thousand of other articles on this encyclopedia." No need to list thousands, 100 or so will do, with individual sources explaining why each of these article titles is based on "inherently flawed logic" as well. You claim that calling it the Chinese Communist Party is unacceptable because this is an ethnic label, as if Chinese were equivalent to the word Han, a true ethnic label. I take strong exception to this claim. There are hundreds of sources that carefully distinguish between ethnicity and nationality in China and that reject your claim that Chinese = Han. You claim that "the White House/American Government referred to it as the "Communist Party of China" until recently when it began referring to it as the "Chinese Communist Party". I am especially interested in a source for this claim, which I find, well, dubious. Without sources for these claims, the article title should remain as is. Rgr09 (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per WP:COMMONNAME, the argument for the move is not convincing. Opening this request so soon after the last one closed is a very poor choice.  // Timothy :: talk  22:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    @
    WP:DROPTHESTICK... 🤔  — Amakuru (talk
    ) 22:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons above. Félix An (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2021

Would you add {{pp-semi-indef}}? 49.150.104.5 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Terasail[✉] 23:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The CPC is not a far-right party

I'd edit it myself but it was semi-protected on the 21st. I don't care what your opinion of the CPC is, whether you love them or hate them, it's just factually wrong to call it a far-right party. Smartypantsdio2006's edit is incorrect and should be undone by someone with the authority to do so. Which it probably will be by tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk • contribs) 08:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gnerkistanislaviyort: Hi, Lenronpa reverted the edit. Thanks, pandakekok9 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of criticism of CCP

CLOSED
The path this discussion is on is towards an edit war and this will not resolve anything. I have worded a clear question for individuals to state their positions below, which I believe will clearly answer the question under discussion here. BOLD close of thread, rv close if objected to, but I think focusing on gaining a clear consensus to the core question on "Remove" or "Keep" will be best reached below. I have restored the content so uninvolved editors can clearly see what is being discussed. Please do not archive this so that it can be referred to as needed.

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


There is zero evidence supporting the allegations of "genocide" against Uyghurs. In fact, debunkation of all those allegations can be easily sourced. What do you mean "even the CNN page"? CNN is literally US state propaganda engaged in promoting fake news, which can be easily sourced, of course it has a list of controversies. Meanwhile, this entire article is filled with anti-communist propaganda bullshit already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:7045:8480:61B1:7EC6:9D80:B705 (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe we can all work together to expand the controversy section. The Uyghur genocide has enough
WP:WEIGHT to be included in the lead.Thomas Meng (talk
) 03:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Accusations of "genocide" against the CPC have been conclusively debunked. All the accusations of Uyghur genocide are either not supported by evidence or have already been debunked. Most of the allegations come from anti-communist conspiracy theorists like Adrian Zenz, US-funded propaganda organizations like Human Rights Watch who are known to lie about enemies of the United States to justify war (e.g. Nayirah testimony) and US funded NGOs like the World Uyghur Congress. There is no proof whatsoever of any genocide, it's a perfect example of anti-Chinese propaganda funded by the US regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:7045:8480:61B1:7EC6:9D80:B705 (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I remember you. Sure, you are welcome to try. But I might be busy with something else. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

«This is ruling party in a single-party state. It is responsible for everything», this is your

this essay to better understand the notability guideline. --BunnyyHop (talk
) 04:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the content you removed (diff above) was specifically about CCP, and it was sourced. So why did you remove it? I am saying a lot more such content can be added (specifically about and well sourced). My very best wishes (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Content related to the governance of China is out of scope, as well as a controversial proposed North American legislation. As I stated in the edit summary, "not every conflict is a controversy", and for non-notable people expelled from the party, it should be better to create a list article such as this one. I would consider notable expulsions those that should be included in the History section of the article. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, everyone (you including) is welcome to created such separate pages. But they should be linked and briefly described on this page as well, possibly as a separate section (some of that is partly covered at
Uyghur genocide. My very best wishes (talk
) 16:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
North America is a continent not a country. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that the criticism/controversies should be integrated into other parts of the article. Note that Nazi Party does not have a criticism or controversy section. (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed this dedicated section again, as it is
WP:UNDUE. I have also removed the list of names for the CCP in all the different languages, per Buidhe. That's completely unnecessary.  — Amakuru (talk
) 11:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
i agree on both @
📨
11:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Douurunzhu: I’m not seeing an NPOV issue here. I also believe you have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose when participating in this discussion. You have repeatedly claimed to be a CCP member, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
"I think that the criticism/controversies should be integrated into other parts of the article." - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally I dislike stand alone criticism or controversy sections (also note that we are explicitly asked not to create combined criticism/controversy sections), all of that seems like it can be easily incorporated in the body (and should be, the body has been pretty thoroughly whitewashed). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Actually, my main point was that the entire page was completely whitewashed, both with respect to recent important events, and to notable historical events, such as Great Leap Forward directed by the CCP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing those who were expelled for not being notable. I did a little research before creating a new page, when I came across this. Are we planning to add those 215 pages to this article? As

WP:RECENTISM. I also struggle to see how a bill (afaik a proposed law) introduced Scott Perry (politician) is notable to be in the "History of the CPC". --BunnyyHop (talk
) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If they have a wikipedia page they’re notable. Both Cai Xia and Ren Zhiqiang are notable and if you disagree please nominate those articles for deletion. Theoretically our coverage of the history of the CCP should touch on all of the people in that linked category BTW, we currently have about 10% of what is due given their long and illustrious history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Theoretically an argument could be made to move this information to History of the Chinese Communist Party but you removed it entirely from the history section which did not have any support from anyone. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The 215 expelled members aren't all worth mentioning just because they have a Wikipedia page, but rather
with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. --BunnyyHop (talk
) 17:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

Please change controversy section to include 1989 Tiananmen Square protests AuggieJ540 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that section mostly touches on criticisms and denouncements of the party. The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its repression are mentioned in passing under the section "Founding the PRC (1949) and becoming the sole ruling party (1954–present)".
✉
05:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's strange to have a "banned" section in the infobox?

The way it's laid out is confusing. I feel like having a banned section means the party is unable to operate in the country. Being banned by the ROC in 1948 does not seem entirely relevant to me, considering the KMT and CPC broke with each other anyway, and the PRC was to be founded roughly a year later... LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The ban being cited (
✉
06:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox stylisation proposal

I propose that the ideology section in the infobox be restructured as a bulleted or collapsible list, like so:

Socialism with Chinese characteristics
 • Communism
 • Marxism–Leninism
 • Mao Zedong Thought
 • Deng Xiaoping Theory
 • Three Represents
 • Scientific Outlook on Development
 • Xi Jinping Thought
Chinese nationalism

All the bulleted theories and approaches are officially elements of "socialism with Chinese characteristics"; however, Chinese nationalism is not (although

✉
06:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ideological and theoretical basis of CPC". 10 July 2007. Archived from the original on 3 July 2019. Retrieved 26 October 2019.
No objections, but perhaps that's a different (sub)article? DOR (HK) (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
"That" as in
✉
19:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I was responding to the OP: "I propose that the ideology section ..." In other words, perhaps the ideology section should be a stand-alone article. I doubt few would argue that the main feature of the CCP in this century is it's ideology ... DOR (HK) (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Question on Controversy section

REMOVE
There is a clear consensus to remove the Controversy section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

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

A question has arrisen over removing this section Chinese Communist Party#Controversy, which is beginning to look like an edit war. This is to establish a clear consensus on keeping or removing the section.

Question: Should the section remain in the article or should the section be removed and the content placed within other sections if there is a consensus for inclusion?

Remove means the section should be removed and content may be merged into other sections if there is a consensus.

Keep means the section as it is should remain, the section and content are appropriate in this location.

!Votes

  • Neutral as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove (edited for clarity) because Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Workers' Party of Korea, Communist Party of Cuba, and Lao People's Revolutionary Party have no such sections; and Communist Party of Vietnam has a single paragraph entitled “Critics.” The norm is not to have such a section, or if it exists, to be extremely focused and brief. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there is no pressing need for such a section and general best practices discourage it. We have already incorporated the information elsewhere on this page and at History of the Chinese Communist Party. If at some point the other sections of the text become overloaded with that sort of thing we can reconsider, but we are a long long way from there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as such content is already woven into other sections. Also, a stand-alone article on 'Criticism and controversies of the Chinese Communist Party' might also be warranted. - Amigao (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove, supporting
    WP:RECENTISM. ping for the following users to clarify their vote per Amakuru: @Amigao:, @Horse Eye's Back:, @DOR (HK): --BunnyyHop (talk
    ) 06:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove, per my comment above. I'm not sure why people have been voting "oppose" here, when we've been told the options are "keep" or "remove". Which one of those does "oppose" mean? Please amend for clarity. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove, agree with Amigao on a standalone article. Timberst (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, it's generally better to include opinions with due weight throughout an article, rather than to lump together one section to contain all the criticisms of a particular entity. That being said, the extant section is rather short as-is and it would make sense if it were to point to another article as a main article. I'm not opposed to this article having a short section on it should we deem an article on the controversies of the CCP to be notable, but it feels too early for me to make that call right now. —
    talk
    ) 08:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove per DOR. Other political parties do not have a dedicated controversy section, and this seems to be a catch-all section to platform any criticisms regardless of due weight or relevance. Remove the section and incorporate info into other sections as appropriate. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 04:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove. I think the content of the section would work far better either as a focused section on "criticism," which should eventually be split out into its own article,
    Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for example). There is notable criticism of the CPC but as others above have pointed out, this should not be a "catch-all" section for platforming anybody with an opinion. It is also probably better managed as a separate page which can be patrolled. In any case, a single section on "controversy," instead of having unique sections on particular controversial events, is not encyclopedic for an organization with as much history as the CPC. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs
    ) 01:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

Delete the Controversy section because it is a repetition of the other parts of the article. 208.59.126.226 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like other people also unanimously suggested this above.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done @Cannolis:, please refer to the #Question on Controversy section RfC above. I have made the requested change since this hasn't happened for a week after I closed the above discussion with a clear consensus to remove. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Founded in
Huangpu District, Shanghai
?

Does this article indicate that the birthplace of the Chinese Communist Party was the

Huangpu District, Shanghai? 173.88.246.138 (talk
) 20:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Move page to "Communist Party of China" and redirect "Chinese Communist Party" there

The Communist Party of China refers to itself as such and uses "CPC" exclusively - it doesn't really make sense for the page to be under "Chinese Communist Party" (CCP). Also the article itself starts with The Communist Party of China (CPC) [...] Pasta Enjoyer (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly at a recent National Press Club meeting in Canberra, Wang Xining, Deputy Head of Mission, was at pains to remark at length on the incorrectness of the term Chinese Communist Party adding that even given his own rather slight qualifications, he was able, if asked, to offer an hour long discourse on a) the significance of the correct (English form) term, CPC/Communist Party of China and b) equally why CCP/Chinese Communist Party was quite incorrect. Why it's seen by them as so sensitive was really not apparent, though it's just possible that the order of ideographs has some significance beyond non-Chinese readers.

Worth watching, as he begins as Mr Nice Guy on the day (presumably under instruction) but turns to the usual stern finger wagging aggro when under questioning by a free Press Corp (again, likely under instruction). See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkVz89lHNt8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.0.2 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been debated over and over. Please start with the 2009 discussion, and work your way though it before bringing it up again. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters if there's debate. "Chinese Communist Party" is objectively the incorrect term, and Wikipedia should at least reflect the proper name in its title and links. It doesn't matter which term is more commonly used, what matters is that one term is wrong and the other term is correct. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There’s debate because this is Wikipedia. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The argument goes that
WP:COMMONNAME applies and that CCP is the common name in English, even if it's officially wrong. I don't wholly agree, but that's the argument. BSMRD (talk
) 16:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer Communist Party of China since "common names" (in this case "CCP") are not always valid per

WP:OFFICIAL. --HypVol (talk
) 13:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

For reference, BBC and the Indian Express have both used "CPC". --HypVol (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Scott Perry

We say, "On 1 October 2020, U.S. Congressman Scott Perry introduced legislation to add the CCP to the Top International Criminal Organizations Target (TICOT) List and provide the United States law enforcement agencies a strategic directive to target the CCP's activity." But, given that American politicians frequently introduce legislation that has no chance of passing, merely to score political points, I suggest that we either confirm that this was passed, or delete it. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Who gives a hell Scott Perry did this or that? Who is he and why it matters? He is nothing.202.9.46.90 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party/Archive_5&oldid=1051178599"