# Talk:Central Commission for Discipline Inspection

Hi, with regards to the sentence "The jurisdiction of the CCDI mirrors that of the Ministry of Supervision, with the latter being responsible for cases involving breaches of party discipline and breaches to state law made by Party members", am I correct in saying that the MoS is also responsible for the breaches to state law made by non-party members? Colipon+(Talk) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewrote to The jurisdiction of the party discipline inspection system mirrors that of the Ministry of Supervision, with the CCDI [...].. Maybe not better written, but its easier to understand. --TIAYN (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please clarify with regards to the following passage: 

Before an investigation is initiated, eight preliminary steps have to be made; "preliminary evidence and complaint management, preliminary confirmation of disciplinary violations, approval for opening the case, investigation and evidence collection, case hearing, implementation of disciplinary sanctions, appeal by the disciplined official, and continued supervision and management of the case"
The passage implies that all eight things must happen before an investigation may even begin. Is this correct? For instance, how could "disciplinary sanctions" be "implemented" before an investigation is even initiated? Please elaborate. Colipon+(Talk) 21:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Colipon: Big error; wrote "An investigation goes through eighth steps". --TIAYN (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi - could you please clarify why the previous intro stated that the CCDI is tasked with "enforcing democratic centralism" of the Central Committee? Does this mean that the CCDI has a mandated duty to enforce that the regions follow the rule of the centre? If this were true - then it is much more than just an anti-corruption body, it implies that it is also charged with enforcing the party's ideological line across the entire organization, which is not my impression from what I know. Colipon+(Talk) 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Colipon: Article 44: "The main tasks of the Party's commissions for discipline inspection at all levels are as follows: to uphold the Constitution and other statutes of the Party, to check up on the implementation of the line, principles, policies and resolutions of the Party and to assist the respective Party committees in improving the Party's style of work and in organizing and coordinating the work against corruption." The CCDI and the CDIs supervises the implementation of the "line, principles, policies and resolutions of the Party [CC, PB, PSC]". To not implement the orders of the CC is by definition a breach of party discipline, and in this case, by definition a breach of democratic centralism... I would also argue, maybe a touch bit too arrogant, that this should not be a surprise; the party basic organizational principle is democratic centralism (meaning in this instance Id argue how the CPC operates). If they did not supervise the proper functioning of democratic centralism, how could they ensure the CPC's "health"? This goes back to the debate in the 1980s on wether the CCDI should be a political or apolitical; it was decided it was, and would remain, a political weapon. --TIAYN (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your response. Fair enough, although I would also contend that what the party constitution says and what happens in practice is often two completely different things. Anyway, you will notice that I edited the lede to open with "The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) is the highest internal control institution of the Communist Party of China (CPC), tasked with enforcing party discipline and combating corruption and malfeasance in the party." Do you find this description ok? I figured that "enforcing party discipline" speaks to, in laymen's terms, what is written in the constitution and what you spoke to above. Do you have any specific examples where the CCDI acted as more of a "party whip" on policy issues rather than just a straightforward anti-corruption body? I was under the impression that "supervising implementation of the line, principles... etc" was the role of the Secretariat. Colipon+(Talk) 01:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Colipon: The CPC constitution defines it as the working body of the Politburo. The Secretariat supervises the implementation of central directives and is responsible for communication between central and lower-levels. It can only supervise the implementation, It doesn't have the formal power to punish a cadre (which the CCDI does). But I'm guessing, I don't know. Its a good question. But as you know, there has been a lot in the press about the failure of lower-level committees in implementing central-level directives. This does fall under the auspices of the CCDI. The CCDI is not an anti-corruption agency, its rather a constitutional court-cum-Party Bureau of Investigation. It ensures that party by-laws are adhered to in practice, and arrests and initiates investigations against people who breach these same party by-laws. Simply calling it an anti-corruption agency is by definition wrong.... So instead of " the highest internal control institution of the Communist Party of China (CPC), tasked with enforcing party discipline and combating corruption and malfeasance in the party", what about " the highest internal control institution of the Communist Party of China (CPC), tasked with enforcing party by-laws and combating corruption and malfeasance in the party"? --TIAYN (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I guess my hesitation comes from the fact that the CCDI's anti-corruption role is much higher profile than its "constitutional review" role. I am ok with the revision, but I feel there may be a more accessible way to say it. Maybe, "enforcing the party's internal rules." As for its constitutional role, has it ever been in a position where it needed to interpret the party charter and 'rule' on it? Colipon+(Talk) 14:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Colipon: My analogy is incorrect. As mentioned in the article; "DICs at every level have the power of issuing and interpreting regulations [party rules]", however, the CDIs do not have the power to interpret the party constitution (as far as I know, no one in official capacity has that power). But the party constitution is vague, and is supplemented by party regulations when need be. Therefore, while the CCDI does not interpret the constitution, the CCDI interprets all resolutions passed by the CC which is nearly the same. --TIAYN (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Commission for Discipline Inspection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a very well written article that to be honest is on its way to FA status. There's only one change that I think needs to be made for clarity before GA listing.


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
As of 2014, five of the 31 CDI secretaries are women: Huang Xiaowei, Hong Qiang, Zhang Xiaolan, Ma Yongxia and Song Airong.[28] Of these Zhang, at age 50, is currently the youngest serving CDI provincial secretary Here "CDI" is used instead of "CCDI." Is that intentional/meaningful? Looking through the rest of the article I think it refers to commissions on a more local level, but I'm not sure as I don't have the source so I'll need an author to check that
Clarified, wrote in the section "Lower levels and inspection teams" that "Below the central level there are several commissions for discipline inspection (CDI)".
Looks good. Wugapodes (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(Optional) While the use of quote boxes is well done, the article still lacks illustrations. While illustrations of an abstract body are hard to come by (and I couldn't find any on commons), I think images of leaders of the department or hi profile people who were investigated by the Commission would go very far in helping this article.
I've added one image of Wang, and I'll try to add more.
I left this unstruck not because the Wang picture is bad, just as an ongoing and general reminder to think about images as the article progresses. Wugapodes (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(Optional) I think a section on high profile cases that the CCDI was involved in would be a useful addition. Likewise, if there are any controversies regarding the Commission, a section on that would be good
No need for an actual controversy section, since controversial events are mentioned throughout the article, such as "Problems with Shuanggui, such as forced confessions, have occurred with inadequately-trained officials"... I'm not a very big fan of "controversy" sections... I'll see what I can do, but the article will get passed in the meantime right? --TIAYN (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I've added this In late 2013, Zhou Yongkang, a former member of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) and head of China's security agencies, was placed under investigation by the CCDI for alleged abuse of power and corruption, a decision state media announced in July 2014.[27] Zhou was the first PSC member – and the most senior-ranked official – since the founding of the People's Republic of China to be tried and convicted of corruption-related charges.[28] Following his investigation, Zhou was expelled from the CPC.[29] On 11 June 2015, Zhou was convicted of bribery, abuse of power and the intentional disclosure of state secrets by the Intermediate Court in Tianjin.[30] Zhou and his family members were said to have taken 129 million yuan (over $20 million) in bribes.[31] He was sentenced to life in prison.[31] to the "Political history" section. Hope that's enough. --TIAYN (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Thanks for reviewing this article. --TIAYN (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


### Results
On Hold for 7 days. The moment that the one required change is made, it will be listed as a GA. The optional suggestions are optional and suggestions for further improvement. Great work!
Wugapodes (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Passed A very well written article. I found myself learning far more about the Chinese political system than I ever imagined. The new image of Wang is a good addition. Some stylistic recommendations are to alternate which side images and quote boxes are as they are all currently on the right. It helps to break up the monotony of things which can happen in such a long and comprehensive article. I do agree that controversies are covered well throughout the article, though it is something worth keeping in mind as it would be usefule for someone coming to this page wondering "what are some historic controversies involving the CCDI?" and just being able to click the link in the Table of Contents. Obviously you don't have to take that into account, just some food for thought. Overall a very good article that in my opinion is very close to achieving WP:FA status. Remarkable work!
Wugapodes (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Trust Is All You Need:PS, I moved your responses to a new line and indented them so that the formatting is more clear to future readers. I didn't change any of the content.

Hi @Trust Is All You Need:, have a look at this page. Recently the CCDI promulgated a new set of "disciplinary regulations" (中国共产党纪律处分条例) and "self-discipline rules" (中国共产党廉洁自律准则). This is a highly relevant 'codification' of CCDI rules. Colipon+(Talk) 13:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Colipon: Sorry, not very active as of late. --TIAYN (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
i think we need to wait until the commentariat and scholars get hold of this and flesh it all out, don't we? interesting days in the 天朝, that is for damned sure.Happy  monsoon day  04:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cfls: "Article 45: The Party’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection shall function under the leadership of the Central Committee of the Party", from the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party: [1] TheUzbek (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)