Talk:Battle of Luding Bridge

message: That's the account in Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China.  It's not referred to as a battle, nor does Snow say he got the story from Mao.  The total number of survivors out of the 30 is not mentioned.  If 22 men were honored for it, that suggests 8 out of the 30 died, quite a high death rate for a single skirmish.
Jung Chang does not accurately summarise the story in Red Star Over China, which also does not say which unit was defending the bridge.
--Gwydion M. Williams172.216.27.87 19:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A skirmish involving 30 men 

message: When does her new book actually get peer review... CharlesZ
:Hopefuly soon, because all this conjecture is becoming tiresom. El_C 20:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and the sign of China's success under Maoist policies can be seen how the CCP rejected all of Maoism in the 1980s and has not touched it with a barge-pole ever since. The fact that China's current economic growth is based on capitalism is not relevant either. John Smith's 23:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Boys, this is an article about Luding Bridge.  Take it to your user pages if you must.  Mark1 18:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: 'Alledged' implies serious doubt.  But dozens of historians, some quite hostile to Mao, insist that there was some sort of fight.  There was an interesting story to be told, and others have now told it, since there was some propaganda exaggeration in the Maoist account.  But Chang & Halliday were too caught up in their hatred of Mao and made a deeply foolish claim, denying that there was any fighting or courage, which no one else believes.
I've tracked down another gross error in Chang & Halliday.  They say that Peng Dehuai refused to confirm the battle for the bridge.  Check their source, Robert Payne's Mao Tse-tung: Ruler of Red China.  In Chapter six, the second paragraph mentions some variations in accounts of the crossing of the Tatu (Dadu).  It then mentions Peng getting confused about two entirely different battles, one in Kweichow (Guizhou) and another (unspecified) in Szechuan (Szechwan).
The same book gives a fairly standard account of the crossing.  And it explains another Chang / Halliday 'discovery'.  They say that the Chinese Communist Party was founded in 1920, but Mao altered the record.  Source, a notice printed in Moscow.  But Payne in Chapter three explains how Pravda in 1920 had wrongly reported the formation of a Chinese Communist Party, but this was actually a mixed bag of anarchists and non-Leninist socialists which “ended in a fiasco”.
--GwydionM 11:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current revision is quite suitable - no need to defend it. John Smith's 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not 'alleged' 

message: I wikified it in, but I would like someone to confirm it, but it was the truth the KMT had German assistance anyway. Anyhow, two years back I was reading a book on this exact same topic: in fact, I thought it was a neutral source at the time and I didn't know it was disputed - it was pretty vivid. I think it was the one described in the Shangri-La link, actually - it mentioned the "grenade after grenade" part, and also mentioned something about a fifteen year old boy who had been through the Long March and had a "faded red star" on his cap. 'Twas pretty fascinating. 
Anyhow, the book mentioned Mausers in the battle, (which as I am aware there is a grenade-launching kind, too) but I can't remember the specific details, that's all I remember. It was in fact in one of those "clearance sale" kind of things, and I didn't actually buy it because I was just window-shopping. Or browsing-reading. Whatever. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, see below. Mausers were the rage in 30's China, and it didn't have anything to do with the German assistance... it was market forces at work. (Meaning, there was a BUNCH of Mausers in Germany and a BUNCH of wars in China, so the Mausers ended up in China.) -- Миборовский 04:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, yes, but it was my impression that it would have been rather expensive given the supply line without assistance, so I sort of hastily jumped to a conclusion, heh (especially at you deciding to plug market forces at this point :p). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a running dog of the capitalist pig-dogs, remember? -- Миборовский 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German weaponry 

message: I'm not sure it was needed, since it was a very small action militarily.  But since the request was there, I filled in what I could.
I tried and failed to include the picture.  
--GwydionM 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: How do people feel about moving the article and letting the bridge have its own entry?  It had been there a long time before the 1930s.
The name of the battle is a shade problematic.  If someone has a better idea, fine.
--GwydionM 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I think "Crossing of Luding Bridge" would be a better title. (飞夺泸定桥 is the Chinese term for it, but..."Flying across Luding Bridge"? XD)_dk 08:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blitzkrieg across Luding Bridge :D -- Миборовский 08:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe Crossing of Luding Bridge (1935).  It doesn't fit the definition of Blitzkrieg, everyone marched.  --GwydionM 14:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that was a joke...:D I don't think the (1935) part is necessary, since there isn't any other significant crossing of the bridge. _dk 23:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was. -- Миборовский 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this up. Of course this article needs to be moved, it is mostly about 20th century battles and says little or nothing about the history and other aspects of the bridge itself. It merely grazes over the fact it was built in the 18th century, then jumps right into battle logistics and the relationship of warlords to Chiang Kai-shek. What the hell is that? That's like writing an article for the Roman Colosseum with nothing but information on battles and political intrigue during the reigns of Vespasian and Domitian, with one or two lines about the Colosseum itself.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Just reigniting this discussion. I created Luding Yaye Expressway Bridge a month ago about a impressive suspension slightly upstream from this. It makes sense to me to have an article Luding Bridge on the bridge (focusing on the actual physical thing) and another one for the Battle of Luding Bridge. Also probably a disambiguation page. It seems like that was the consensus way back when. So I'll do it in the next day or so.ShakyIsles (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to 'Luding Bridge Crossing'?

message: What is the value of the opium dealing and addiction references? Would it have effected the outcome? Would it have given the local war lord's forces more endurance, or made them sloppier? Perhaps it helped to make the warlords themselves more open to bribery?
Are there any citations for this information?
GreenValleyHawk 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of warlord drug references 

message: This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dariusdaman - I am undoing his link spammage. John Smith's (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Dariusisdaman]] link spam

message: I just completed a copyedit of this article. Grammatically, it's ok now. Readability-wise, though, it's still a bit of a mess. However, as I know zero about military or Chinese history, and what's important to those topics, I didn't feel comfortable doing things like removing the listing and re-listing of squadron, battalion, etc numbers, or the naming of every official that took part in the battle. I have no idea if things like that are important or just kind of crufty, so I left them. To bring this article to a readable, non-eye-crossing form, though, the abundance of small, possibly unnecessary facts is going to need to be addressed. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert Attention 

message: Jung Chang's Mao: The Unknown Story is not a good source. Evidence that refutes her idiotic claims is presented in "The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution" by Mobo Gao.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.175.200 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobo Gao and Jung Chang 

message: Do we need to have those Chinese Charaters after EVERY name, placed there EVERY time? After a while it becomes a bit annoying, you know.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Characters 

message: I'm just describing the information I got from Chinese news sources. Note that they are written in Chinese and some of them have an ideological tone. I personally believe these news texts provide some factual details. They can be four points:
1. 3 more names of the assault team members are known; these names are Zhao Changfa(赵长发),Yang Tianming(杨田铭) and "Yun gui chuan(云贵川)"[][][]. According to the third news source, the soldier "Yun gui chuan(云贵川)" did not have name when he joined the Red Army; the name "Yun gui chuan(云贵川)" was given by his comrades.
2. Liu Zihua(刘梓华) was not killed in Pingjin Campaign; he survived until 1951[][].
3. Yang Tianming(杨田铭) survived until 1963[][].
4. Li Jinshan(李金山) should be Liu Jinshan(刘金山)[]. You guys can check any of these sources. It's all mentioned as "Liu Jinshan(刘金山)" rather than "Li Jinshan(李金山)".
Because Liu Zihua(刘梓华) and Yang Tianming(杨田铭) survived after 1949, the claim "none of the survivors lived to see the establishment of the People's Republic" seems to be inaccurate in this article.
Some may not think the sources are reliable. That's okay. 
-BlueYearning (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 more names identified;at least two of the assault team members did live to see the establishment of PRC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Luding Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306194228/http://www.paulnoll.com:80/China/Long-March/history-Luding-Bridge.html to http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Long-March/history-Luding-Bridge.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050306194228/http://www.paulnoll.com:80/China/Long-March/history-Luding-Bridge.html to http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Long-March/history-Luding-Bridge.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Luding Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917015112/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/4110/Brzezinski_New_Asia_03_2005.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/4110/Brzezinski_New_Asia_03_2005.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Long-March/history-Luding-Bridge.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified