Q1: Why is the article titled "Chinese Communist Party" when the party's official name in English is the "Communist Party of China"?
A1: The name "Chinese Communist Party" is more commonly used by reliable sources in the English language. Consensus on the current title was reached on 23 July 2020 (see discussion). As of May 2024, there have been five failed proposals to revert this decision due to a lack of policy-based arguments (i.e. pertaining to WP:MOVE) on the part of the proposers.
Q2: Why are certain political ideologies and positions not included in the infobox?
A2: Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, content in an article's infobox must appear and be reliably sourced in the article body. It is appropriate to add a fact to an infobox only after the fact has been added to the article body with reliable sources. Content that is in dispute between reliable sources is generally not included in infoboxes.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Chinese Communist Party was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Amigao Here's your article talk. Please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources do not exactly back up the statement in question. Probably best to find academic WP:BESTSOURCES to actually back it up. - Amigao (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is something bordering on WP:SKYBLUE that the CPC arose out of this movement. I gave you three sources supporting Xinhua which, as I said, is not a deprecated source and can be used for uncontroversial statements you need a better reason to exclude than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one said WP:XINHUA is deprecated. If you read the guidance, it clearly says, "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately." - Amigao (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What dispassion is needed here? It's a flat historical fact, well cited to other sources, that the CPC was one of the groups that came out of the May 4 movement. If it were claiming that the CPC founded the May 4 movement or that other groups did not then you might have a point. But that's not what you removed. And to claim that the sources I gave are insufficient too? You are literally just occluding a well accepted piece of historical information for no apparent reason beyond disliking the source that was there. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS continues to apply here and very much to the statement in question. Amigao (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you four sources including Xinhua and your response was just "nah I don't like them". Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't back up the actual statement in question. Let's find WP:BESTSOURCES which do. - Amigao (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how. Because your assertions are incredibly vague and hand-waving beyond just asking me to spend more time satisfying you that what? That the May 4 movement existed? That it included communists and anarchists? That the CPC traces its origin there? I honestly don't understand the locus of your objection beyond your obvious distaste for the source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing controversial about stating that the CCP itself traces its own origins to the May 4th movement. Indeed, what other source could possibly be more authoritative than the CCP itself? The question being discussed above is about whether this is true, or not, which is an entirely different issue. Moreover, the concept of "tracing origins" has no hard and fast definition; it is merely indicating that prior events had an influence on later events. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, what other source could possibly be more authoritative than the CCP itself?
Any reliable secondary source whatsoever. As we're an encyclopedia, we generally don't prefer primary sources to support claims about a subject in any case.
I think it's an easily verifiable claim, and we can easily do better than Xinhua for it. Remsense诉 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the question was "did the CCP arise out of the May 4th Movement," then the issue of credibility of the source is of paramount importance. Thankfully, that is not the question here. Rather (now, pay attention here: this is important) the actual question is "Does the CCP claim that it traces its origins to the May 4th Movement?" . . . see the difference? Discuss. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
