Talk:Cultural Revolution/Archive 1

message: Looking through the article I find lots of little things to fix, but nothing so far that sticks out as obviously wrong or strongly POV.  What basis for the "totally disputed" label remains at this point? There is an incredible number of uncited assertions that are, as far as I know, correct -- but there would be no basis for much dispute if these assertions were backed up by citations.
P0M 16:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As best I can tell, the label is only there because someone objected to this article being halfway balanced, and felt it should only represent the views of mainstream Western scholars. Everyking 16:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe someone objects to the attempts to paint a vicious dictator in a positive light?
I'll keep working through it as I find time. P0M 16:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "Anti-Communist"? It was basically mob-rule that resulted in people suffering and cultural heritage being destroyed. Few wikipedia articles "just keep to the facts" - they often bring in anaylsis. The article can be continued to improve, but there's certainly nothing wrong with saying the Cultural Revolution sucked. John Smith's 10:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed status 

message: Just added a line about different possible causes for the CR, to just put it down as an attempt by Mao to eliminate his rivals is overly simplistic. Just in the middle of writing an essay on this at Uni, will add more once I've finished. - James
I've expanded the effects sections, and given a couple of specific examples of persecutions.  Will try to considerably expand the entire article at a later date; at the moment I feel it unduly concentrates on the high-level political intrigues within the Party (a fascinating subject and the primary cause of the CR, undoubtedly) and could do with considerably more material on how the persecutions affected ordinary Chinese life.  In particular, religious persecution probably deserves a subheading of its own - J.P.
How many tens of millions of people were executed by the Chinese government during this period? Was the term cultural revolution coined specifically to be a euphemism to hide these murders? Have regimes after Mao's acknowledged any of this genocide? User:Ed Poor, anti-communist.
* This is simply incorrect. 1) In cultural revolution, it is the government officials at the time who were tortured by Red Guards. You should understand the reason Mao intiatiated the cultural revolution is that he felt the CCP and the governments (at all levels) were out of his control. Therefore, he mobilized the "grassroot" as the weapon to purge those disobeying cadres. 2) In cultural revolution, Red Guards tortued people, but seldom executed people. Most people were died from either suicide or later gangster fights between revolution organizations. 3) Another common mistakes among western historians is, they did not discriminate "Red Guards" from Later Revolutionary Organizations (Known as "造反派")。Red Guards are mostly constituted of students, while 造反派 are largely workers. It's 造反派, NOT Red Guards who are responsible for the massive armed gangster fights and massive murder. 08:35, 16 January 2006 68.68.104.203
* I agree. Basically, the term "Cultural Revolution" is a gigantic euphemism for "the destruction of ancient China's culture, for centuries and centuries", and, when pointing out that the Red Guards were getting rid of "all foreign influences" doesn't mention the fact that "Marxism", including the idea that all of culture can be reduced to a "class struggle", comes from Karl Marx, a German and foreigner. (Oct.)
:: Relatively few people were actually "executed" per se.  Most of the blood on Mao's hands comes from the people that he starved to death.  Even in his gulag, far more people died of starvation and disease than a bullet to the back of the head.
Not all the murders during that period was done by the government actually.  Nevertheless, it was done by the people in power locally.  i.e. if the leader of your village didn't like you, he could use any excuse to kill you and got away with murder.  Because during that period, the communist government enpowered the mass to do anything they wanted.  I was a kid in HongKong during that period, and I still remember watching news about corpses floated into HongKong's water almost everyday.  These dead bodies were bundled up like a parcel.  Someone just tied up their arms and legs and threw them into the sea.  If you said someone did not follow Mao's doctrine, the crowd would carry out the execution.
If you look back in history, this type of mob crime is not unique to communists.  For example, witch hunt was done in the name of God. Religious leader said that was what God wanted, and the crowd simply followed.
During the cultural revolution, capitalists, landlords, wealthy people were prosecuted, why?  Those who carried out the prosecution had their hidden agenda.  Where did you think the wealthy victims' possessions end up?  I bet many ex-Red-guards now dig up from their back yard the loots that they collected decades ago.  I believe personal grudge and greeds played a bigger role in those murders than political reasons.  However, it is undeniable that Mao provided the means.
* This is just incorrect. "Capitalists" are persecuted in early 1950s. By the time cultural revolution starts, there are basically no "wealthy" people in China. Don't get confused with the words of Red Guards -- they used "capitalists" to refer to anyone they believed disobeying Mao. For example, Liu Shaoqi is a "capitalist". 08:25, 16 January 2006 68.68.104.203
* After reading the article, which seems fairly "balanced" to me (except fairly-obviously, as told from Mao's point of view), I can't see almost any progress being made at all. Instead, it seemed to have been a time when all economic progress was stopped, and political activity became the only focus of the day. Purge after purge, and faction against faction, justified the power-struggles of the time, and instead of really building anything; the Chinese were mostly destroying things (the economy, historic buildings, ancient culture of Confucian thought in China, artifacts, museums, old buildings, people who thought in old ways, etc.). But, it seems like they sat around, all day long and into the night, thinking up ways to "get at" each other. Like the Mob, or the Mafia; it was all about political power, and murdering one's opponents. (Oct.)
-------
Cultural revolution was the name they used at the time.  One common
misconception in the West is that the Cultural Revolution was Communist government versus people when in fact it was much more complex.
Basically Mao thought that the government was being too bureaucratic
so he declared war against the Communist Party bureaucracy.  He
basically encouraged people to out "red" each other, which led to a
general breakdown in order with mobs trying to be more revolutionary
than each other and lots of people killing each other in the process.
What's significant about the Chinese leaders after Mao is that
pretty much all of them were victims of the CR.  Pretty much everyone
who benefited from the CR was purged between 1976 and 1980.
Ironically the main lessons that the Chinese leadership learned from
this period is that really bad things happen if the party loses control.
It's a mistake to say that there are two sides to every story.
Usually (as in this case) there are at least six or seven.
----
Most people were aware of the genocide during the period.
But many were not aware of the impact of CR to the school age people.
I have cousins in China who have 10 years of their life missing because they joined the Red Guards.
They are in their late 40s and 50s now, they realized how much damage to their career when they were not educated properly.
The 10 years created a void and a generation of uneducated people.
----
8 million or 30 million killed during this period? Article needs to be reconciled with Mao Zedong article. Ed Poor, Tuesday, July 9, 2002
----
Okay. Why not include something in the article about the "no music", "no mahjong", etc., rules, that I read about somewhere?
If you ask me, this is ample evidence of why people should be interested in the traditions of each other's cultures. So if yours gets wiped out, some foreigner can keep it alive for you.
P.S. I have several albums of Chinese music, mainly dance. User:Juuitchan
----
I think there is room for improvements. Cultural Revolution ended in 1976, but this article only mentioned roughtly about what happened before 1969. Many things had happened after that, for example, the escape of Lin Biao. One thing not mentioned here is that millions of Chinese youth(many were from Red Ruards) were sent to rural areas in 1969, because the city was in such a chaos that it can no longer afford so many people. I am now working on the Chinese edition first(which is much easier, since I don't really know many terms in English), then perhaps I shall try to translate it into English.--Formulax 07:50 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
I am in the progress of translating much of the Chinese Article to give a fuller understanding of the Cultural Revolution. If there is any advice please leave it here or My talk page. Colipon 00:03, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: When you login, select the checkbox that says "remember my password across sessions" dave 09:25, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
----
Why is there a whole bunch of ?????? in the first sentence.  Let's get rid of that if we can.  134.22.139.42 09:28, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
What you're seeing is the Chinese unicode format which may not show on your computer. For example, do you see these as ?'s as well? 一二三四五六七八九十. If you do, then it is because your computer does not display Chinese. Colipon 04:31, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier discussion

message: I changed the section estimating the number of people killed, since it seemed very unhelpful for an article on the CR to estimate the number killed by everything Mao ever did.   It'd be nice to find a more official source (e.g. to track down the Chinese government source  refers to, but it's a start.
Remember the true chaos of the Cultural Revolution only lasted 3 years, from 1967-1969. After 1969 Mao dismantled the Red Guards and the CCP took control of China once again. My third uncle, a former Red Guard, described the chaotic 3 years as mass street gang warfare. One month his R.G. faction would wage war with a rival R.G. faction and then later they'd switch to another so-called "treacherous" gang and fight to the death. He said it was not uncommon to see dead young Red Guards in the alleyways in the suburbs of Beijing during those 3 years.
----
This new politburo consisted mostly of those who rose because of the Cultural Revolution, with Zhou barely keeping his status, as he ranked fourth.
Fourth out of five doesn't seem that tenuous.  Is there any better evidence of Zhou's problems? Markalexander100 07:04, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Purge" just means "take some action against".  Anything from demotion to flaying.   Unless otherwise stated, here it would normally mean dismissal from positions of influence, plus probably some ritual humiliation.  If the person is murdered, that should be said explicitly. Mark1 21:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you speaking about how you think writers of the article have used the word "purge"? To me, the word does not mean anything like, "pensioned off and sent into retirement in his dacha." P0M 22:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Death toll

message: An earlier version of this article said that Mao refused to admit error in the Great Leap. That is not literally true. Here is one of many quotes available: "In 1958 and 1959 the main respnsibility was mine, and you should take me to task. In the past the responsibility was other people's--En-laii, XX--but now you should blame me because there are heaps of things I didn't attend to. . . .
Who was responsible for the idea of the mass smelting of steel? K'o Ch'ing-shih or me?
I say it was me. . . With this, we rushed into a great catastrophe."
Mao Zedong "Speech at the Lushan Conference," 23 July 1959 available in common documents including Chairman Mao Talks to the People, ed. Stuart Schram
205.179.217.195 23:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao's self-criticism on Great Leap 

message: One minor, but persistent, problem throughout the article is the mixture of American and British usage. If I recall correctly, the rule is that if an article is started using British spellings, etc., then other editors have to conform to that standard -- and vice-versa.  I couldn't reach the first version via the history, so there may be no way to determine which way was the first way. Consistency is probably more important than historical accuracy in this case. P0M 16:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the text 

message: I can only guess what this statement is intended to convey. Does anyone know the intent of the original writer clearly enough to fix it somehow?
:Compared to Extreme Leftism, Mao was still no great enthusiast of the Right.
P0M 17:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This police action later became known as the Tiananmen incident.
The afterage well-informed reader who comes upon this article will understand by "Tiananmen incident" the massacre of June fourth, 1989.  The earlier event may be "tiananmen shijian" in Chinese, but in English it should be given a name that will be clearer to the reader who does not know the history and the dates of demonstrations that have occurred in Tiananmen Square. P0M 17:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Tiananmen incident" is the literal translation of the official Chinese term for what happened 1976. Of course, it is an euphemism as is the official term for what is commonly called in the West the "Tiananmen massacre" (1989). Here we should translate: "The Events of June fourth". Please keep in mind that language is politics. The term "massacre" implies one interpretation as does "incident" or "events". Changing those terms at will to make it allegedly more comprehensible or leave the euphemisms without a comment that puts them into a context just contributes to the confusion. And please do not underestimate the average readers ability to carefully read and evaluate. This leads to undesirable simplifications.--藍蘭  Lan Lan 20:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The first one means that Mao after Lin Biao's death still preferred extreme leftism rather than moderate "rightists" like Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping. Therefore he promoted Wang Hongwen, who was a member of the Gang of Four. Second one I think is clear cut, and I suggest you not to remove it, for Tiananmen Square of 1976 was also a major political event in the history of China, and has great impact on the rise of Deng. It might not be so well known in the West and could be confusing, but it will make the article much less comprehensive if there is no mention of it.-218.1.176.204 08:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning what? 

message: The Noam Chomsky quote from the interview is not accurately described or qualified; he is talking about the Communist takeover in 1949 and the effects after, not 1966. He clearly states the period he was referring to:
CONOR CRUISE O'BRIEN: ... Mr. Barrington Moore in his important book, The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, asks a pertinent question -- one he says he's almost afraid to answer: For which is the price heavier, the price for violent revolution, as in China, or the price for peaceful stagnation, as in India? And he leans rather toward the view that the price for peaceful stagnation may in fact be higher. The question has also been raised here about the terror used by the National Liberation Front, and by other revolutionary movements. I think there is a distinction between the use of terror by oppressed peoples against the oppressors and their servants, in comparison with the use of terror by their oppressors in the interests of further oppression. I think there is a qualitative distinction there which we have the right to make.
ROBERT SILVERS: Do you want to say something, Noam, about this?
CHOMSKY: Let me make just a couple of quick comments. Dr. Arendt takes rather an absolutist view, that I don't share, about certain historical phenomena such as the character of the new societies that have emerged. I don't feel that they deserve a blanket condemnation at all. There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable. Many things, in fact, do meet the sort of Luxembourgian conditions that apparently Dr. Arendt and I agree about. There are even better examples than China. But I do think that China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.
Indeed, a recent article in the China Quarterly -- which is hardly a pro-Red Chinese journal -- compares Chinese and Russian communization to the very great credit of the Chinese communization, precisely for these reasons, pointing out that its greater success in achieving a relatively livable and to some extent just society was correlated with the fact that these methods involved much less terror. This relates to a point Dr. O'Brien raised. I'm not at all convinced that the alternatives are hard and fast, either/or, violent revolution or peaceful stagnation. What one has to ask about a revolution is whether its success is based on its violence; and if we look at revolutions that have taken place I think it's not at all clear that the success has been based on the violence. In fact to a significant extent it seems to me that the successes have been based on the nonviolence.
Now again a blanket statement on this is not possible, but I suggest there are elements of truth in this characterization. I'm quite convinced, as I indicated, that, to a very considerable extent the revolution that took place in China, after the Nationalists were defeated, was successful because of its nonviolence, because the ground had been prepared, because people were moving to the next stage out of a sort of necessity that was widely felt. And the anarchist revolution in Spain, I think, is a nearly classic example of this sort of thing, where the great success of the revolution was largely due to the very long period of preparation -- extending over a generation, in fact -- during which the groundwork was laid for what turned out to be a very sudden, spontaneous, and I think highly successful revolutionary action. And, in a way, one of the most striking examples of all is precisely the National Liberation Front. If you examine the careful studies that have been made of NLF success, it turns out that this success was not due to its use of violence.
:I erased the relevant part completely as it is completely out of context and purposefuly misrepresents Chomsky's opinion in the quote. The whole paragraph just seems to be a lot opinion and Left bashing, but there is no outright misrepresentation, so I didn't edit it.--66.130.203.183 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomsky quotation - out of context 

message: In the background section of the GPCR article there is casual mention to the Lushan confernce and how Peng Du-Hai's criticisms led to Mao stepping down as Chairman. But this view can be easily debated and I believe it should not be written as a straight foward factual event. Jung Chang & Jon Halliday stated in their new book (Mao: The Unknown Story) that the Lushan conference was not the real criticism. But that the real criticism was at another conference called 'Conference of 7000', in 1962. Here Liu Shauqui (President of China) said "past policies have been disarstous" in reference to Mao and the GLF. This statement was the one that led Mao to step down as Chairman. Of course this is just different interpretation of what happened, but considering that this a well researched account of what happened it brings the cause of Mao's resignation to question.
--Chorgy 10:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd advise we leave Chang and Halliday's views out for now. It is highly controversial. Mind you, Liu Shaoqi had actually supported the Great Leap Forward for a certain period of time. Colipon+(T) 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it comes from that book doesn't mean it's wrong/shouldn't be trusted. The complaints tend to do with other things - I have never heard anyone dispute that yet. John Smith's 17:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1959 Lushan Conference, highly debatable... 

message: Does anyone have proof that the jetliner position mentioned in this article exists? The only relevant Google results are these two articles themselves and their clones. Thanks -- Kjkolb 11:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
This position is commonly used in martial arts class as a legitimate form of exercise. I can see how it could be misused -- surprised it hasn't been used closer to home. P0M 23:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jetliner position 

message: * I have read that Mao had a venereal disease, and that he still had sex with a lot of young, Chinese girls anyway; whom, afterwards, would receive a "present" to remember the "great leader" by. This is seldom, if ever, mentioned; but, it provides a peek into a "great man's" character, if he doesn't give a crap about what happens to anyone else but himself. (Oct.)
:Nah. That looks like some shit from random internet sources. Even if it is true, we're not going to put in every leader's sexual habits in Wikipedia. Colipon+(T) 05:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mao's Spread of Venereal Disease

message: This article failed the Ga nomination because it has a cleanup tag and requires cleanup. When this article is cleaned up feel free to renominate it. --Tarret 01:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: This article begins with a direct and blatant lie and the rest of the opening section doesn't get any better, although curiously the body of the article seems to be much better. I have rewritten the opening section. Adam 15:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, thanks a lot for that. Please continuing making edits if you feel they're necessary. John Smith's 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: Under the 'effect' header:
Estimates of the death toll, civilians and Red Guards, from various Western and Eastern sources [4] are about 500,000 in the true years of chaos of 1966–1969.
In the article header:
In the chaos and violence that ensued, millions died and millions more were injured or imprisoned.
contradicting, which is true?--62.251.90.73 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  death count 

message: Need justification for the statement that most Western historians believe that the official Chinese position is false.
 - in the opinion of most western historians the official position significantly falsifies it
Roadrunner 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempts in recent years to reopen discussion of the Cultural Revolution inside China have been suppressed.
Roadrunner 15:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need justification for this statement 

message: ::The Communist Party also strongly de-emphasises the extent of Mao's involvement in the instigation of the Cultural Revolution, preferring to shift most of the blame onto the Gang of Four as a convenient culprit.
I don't think this is true at all.
Roadrunner 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed assertion 

message: I don't think that it is true at all that most Western historians consider the official Party view of Mao's role in the CR to be false.  Jung Chang does, but we can probably get a representative sample of Western historians see if 75% believe that the Party is incorrect.
Roadrunner 15:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added dubious tag 

message: The Cultural Revolution is the most tramatic event for an entire generation of people in the PRC, and the "most people have some knowledge of the CR" seems understated.  The first sentence is gramatically awkward (and I think it is questionable, how do you know that there are no other museums.)  The last statement is more specific about what happened to the museum and the official attitude toward it.
Roadrunner 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification for the change the the last paragraph 

message: It's customary when reverting to discuss the reversion.  The statement that most Western historians think that the CCP view of history is false is something that is easily verifiable.  I can go take a sample of ten Western historians, and Chang is the only one that I know that really hits the hard the Party's version.
Roadrunner 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing reversions 

message: I added more content as to what is in the 1981 resolution as well as more detail about what is and is not censored in the PRC.  My objection to the earlier content was that it did not give an accurate summary of the contents of the 1981 resolution, nor did it give an accurate summary of what can and cannot be discussed in the PRC.
If there are any objections to my edits, we can go to the text of the 1981 resolution, and discuss specific examples of censorship.
Roadrunner 16:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added detail 

message: Shouldn't that be "are routinely censored" instead of "are routine censored" and
"separates the Mao's personal mistakes" should be "separates Mao's personal mistakes"?  --darklilac 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes.  Also, I don't have any problems with people making accuracy edits that are based on source material.  I usually learn a lot about things when we get into these sorts of discussions.  I do have a problem with people reverting changes (which I've attempted to justify) without even trying to justify the revert.
Roadrunner 16:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor change 

message: Whoever was reverting the page earlier.  Please make any objections to my edits known.  As ground rules, I think that the article should be based on:
1) works respected historians (both Chinese and Western) - we can start with Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals and also add Spence
2) citations from Party resolutions.  My objection to the statements about the Party blaming the Gang of Four and absolving Mao was based an a quote from the 1981 resolution.  If you think I am reading or summarizing that resolution incorrectly, let me know and we can discuss that.
3) orders or reports of orders from the Chinese government namely the General Administration on Press and Publications.  My objection to the earlier text was that it was not specific enough, and didn't explain why, for example, the Chinese government is so worried about the museum curator giving interviews while not shutting down the museum itself.  The new text I think gives an accurate summary of what discussion is permitted and what is not.  I'm willing to discuss issues with accuracy.  (Ironically, I think that a text saying that Mao was a nice guy that wasn't responsible at all for the CR would get shot down pretty quickly in the PRC.)
Roadrunner 16:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk to me.... 

message: Western observers suggest that much of China's thousands of years of history was in effect destroyed during the short ten years of the Cultural Revolution
I don't see how this could be true, since most of the more treasured historical artifact was at that time in the National Palace Museum in Taipei. So the most valuable ones would not have been destroyed. --Big Wang 17:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the China's treasured historical artifacts probably aren't stuffed into a museum in Taiwan.  You're talking about a country with 5,000 years of history and one billion people- many artifacts weren't even discovered until after 1949 and probably have yet to be discovered.  A good deal of the best Ming vases could very well be in Taipei, but what about temples and minority dress and libraries? --Easytoremember 06:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in reference to places like temples, museums and art galleries - things like that. John Smith's 13:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Stating plainly that the Red Guards destroyed temples and other sites which they considered feudalistic seems appropriate.  I don't see the point of saying "Western observers" since no one argues that they didn't do this.  Also I do have trouble with the term "Western observers", in general, since that implies a unified coherent viewpoint that didn't exist.  Which western observers?  When?
Roadrunner 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - best to remove the bit about "Western observers". John Smith's 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical artifact destyoed? 

message: This section of the article gives the PRC party line, which it rightly states to be widely disputed. It does not, however, give any alternative view. This is not NPOV. Salim555 23:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time dominated by Lin Biao

message: There is a spelling error in the second paragraph.  Organized is spelled "organized" not "organised"  Can an admin please fix this?--michael180 15:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't a spelling error. Organised is the British spelling and is a perfectly legitimate word. See this google search, this Wiktionary page, and this article. I've removed your template. Picaroon9288 19:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, British English please - unless it's an American article. :) John Smith's 21:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am American. I was just pointing it out that it wasn't a spelling error. (Not so much an error as a sign we Yankees haven't conquered you Brits well enough.) But since it's a Chinese topic, all we have to do is be consistent when it comes to British English vs American English throughout the article. Picaroon9288 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Error 

message: Please replace :Category:Communist Revolutions with :Category:Communist revolutions (lower-case "r") on this page per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy of 29 October 2006. Thanks.—DomBot talk ; Chidom talk, owner/operator. 01:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. the wub "?!" 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category needs to be renamed 

message: The translation below the poster should really read "Smash (打碎) the old world" rather than "Shatter the old world" Cripipper 13:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poster translation

message: This document's title was actually 'Outline of the Group of Five to the Centre', and is commonly known in historical writing as the 'February Outline.' Cripipper 13:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Theses on the ongoing scientific discussion."

message: This group is more commonly referred to as the "Central Cultural Revolution Group".   Cripipper 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group in Charge of the Cultural Revolution" (GCCR)

message: I just finished Mao's Last Revolution by Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals, and their premise was that Lin Biao probably didn't have much to do with the coup and that it was, indeed, more his son's planning.  What were the sources used for the section so I can see about comparing references? ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lin Biao's involvement in the Coup

message: Although the official name of the party is the Communist Party of China, CCP is by a long stretch the most commonly used abbreviation (see the discussion page for evidence) and the article jars badly with its repeated references to the CPC. I propose to revert these to the generally accepted historic and academic standard of CCP. Cripipper 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CPC v CCP

message: Substituted at 14:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment