Talk:Three Rules of Discipline and Eight Points for Attention

message: The main paragraph of this article (after the bullet points) seems to be written from a very pro-Red Army point of view. Cynical 09:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was the popular sentiment of the time. It is often a historal conclusion is that the Eight Points of Attention garnered most of the peasant support, rather than sheer military might, - compare with Three Principles of the People. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the npov tag, because this is a myth and propaganda. The "eight points" existed mainly for propaganda purposes and appears in writings of liberal influence, to create the myth of the Chinese Communists as popular land reformers. Small land owners were beaten and had their land confiscated. So much of "Eight points," eh? The same phenomenon continued to occur on a national level in the 50s and 60s. You see the it  right now as the government, without due process, confiscates peasant land for state projects. I recognize that there are some distinct policies such as "do not march over peasant land", but attributing the "eight points" as a "major reason" that the Communists defeated the Nationalists is rather juvenile and uninformed. The Nationalists did not lose in a "people's war" as claimed by both the PRC and liberal writings of the West. They were defeated by stupid economic and political policies and by three classic set-piece positional battles, not "guerrila warfare" as propaganda most likely claims. These things need to be addressed, particularly in the Chinese Civil War article, rather than propagating such misleading myths. BlueShirts 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone named after the KMT's Fascist society, you sure seem to have something against propaganda. 184.64.72.53 (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

text: 虽然已经八年了，但还是忍不住要问你一句，王师始终没上岸，不知你的中二病是否有所好转？68.145.210.83 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Excluding the role of peasants in the war fully shows that you are indeed a descendant of the Kuomintang. It can only be said that failure is too inevitable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorx (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I add attribution of some sentences to Uhalley, Stephen (1985), where I'm confident are mentioned in the book. For the rest of the article, I believe it is true, and very much the conclusion of Uhalley, although I need to check for precision. Peasant support is an important factor in the outcome of the Civil War, and this article does not deny that there are other important factors as well. If there are other historians who claim that this is a myth and a non-factor in the war, please kindly provide sources. --Vsion 06:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Actually, I find some of the translation for the rules and points not quite exact. Using rule as an example: the word that was translated into "peasants" actually mean the masses (or, taken in context, the civilians). Also, there is nothing to indicate that only taking in the official capacity (i.e. to confiscate) is forbidden: the rule has been, in my limited knowledge, commonly interpreted to forbid soldiers from receiving gifts large or small from civilians.
And the 7th point for attention is much more restrictive than what the current translation makes it out to be.
Here is a link to what may be considered a more official, if not more "authoritative" translation:
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/dengxp/vol2/note/B0060.html
Just my two cents. Mimson (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative version of translation