Talk:Cultural Revolution

Wasn't there an ultimatum presented to Mao by the PLA generals?

I heard many times that the curtailing of Cultural Revolution was due to the generals of Peoples Liberation Army presenting Mao with an ultimatum: either you stop this nonsense, or we will throw you out of power (and maybe even kill you).

Any views about that? Any documents confirming or denying it? Any witnesses? Any sources? 75.82.33.24 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

YEEERRRR Maatteeeee

In the "Great Leap Forward" section of the article, there is this sentence:

"According to various sources,[4] the death toll due to famine may have been as high as 20 to 30 million[citation needed]."

Why is a citation needed if the sentence starts with "According to various sources", along with a very good source? 24.200.23.161 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Citizens

I don't think we have enough information on the impact of the CR on the citizens of China, i.e. the ones who were purged. I mean what the purges actually included, etc. As I know very little about the CR, I thought I would bring this to the attention of more competent readers.

Please put new postings at the bottom of the page.

No.

Please sign your postings with four tildes ~~~~.

No, please get over yourself.

You state a good ideal. However, it may prove difficult to get objective information on this subject.

It wasn't so much that people were purged, at least as I understand the term. A "purge" is usually a wholesale killing off of people in the government by the leadership or the takeover leadership, or the wholesale killing off of a segment of the population. The targets of the Cultural Revolution were generally ordinary people, people with ordinary positions in society, but people who could be singled out for supposed "counter-revolutionary" tendencies. The intent was presumably to remove them from positions of influence. Like McCarthyism in our country, there was no need for real evidence. If suspicions could be raised against someone by a "red guard" type, then attacking that person gave more power and influence to the attacking red guard leader. Mao apparently started the movement thinking he could recoup losses to his prestige that resulted from the failures of the so-called "Great Leap Forward," but it took on a life of its own. One of the features of the ensuing struggles was that power struggles developed between different red guard groups.

People who were driven from positions of responsibility in the community were frequently subjected to "rustification" campaigns, sent to the countryside to "learn from the common man," etc. I doubt that anybody who even bothered to keep statistics on the success of his/her attempts to get people rustified would have been interested in preserving the statistical records afterwards. It would have been potentially incriminating in some feared counter-purge in the future.

Besides families being torn apart by one or more members being sent to the countryside, and by divorces intended to avoid a husband giving a wife guilt by association or vice-versa, and besides the economic and personal losses suffered by those who were removed from responsible positions in their communities, there were also substantial losses due to people committing suicide. Again, I doubt that statistics were kept -- any more than the IRS probably records the number of suicides attributed to consequences of their actions in the US.

As far as I know, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence in the form of individual biographical writings of people who went through these events themselves and knew of family members and friends who suffered their own losses. To get accurate statistical information would require massive research projects that probably would be opposed by the central government of China. P0M 05:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent book on this topic is Legacies by Bette Bao Lord, who was the wife of Winston Lord, U.S. Ambassador to China, 1985-89. The book presents about a dozen individual stories. Mrs. Lord was born in China in 1938, came to the U.S. at the age of 8, and returned to visit twice before her residency as wife of the Ambassador. The book is readily and cheaply available "used" [NY: Fawcett Columbine, 1990] Dacq 14:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

CP China?

Where does the Communist Party admit that this was a horrible, inhuman and anti-intellectual genocide? Wondering, is all. 74.225.130.13 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been reading too much western propaganda!

The CCP basically recognizes that the Cultural Revolution was a disaster whose chief responsibility belongs to Mao Zedong and was used by "counter-revolutionary camps" of Jiang Qing and Lin Biao. That is the official view of the CCP. If the party maintains the CR was a good thing then Deng would have had a hard time implementing his policies. Colipon+(T) 04:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You only translated half of that section. It says roughly "All of the accomplishments and progress during the revolution were resultant of the CPC Central Committee and Comrade Mao. Likewise, all the errors can be attributed to the same leadership." I'm not sure how you translated "all the good AND bad of the revolution are attributed to Mao and the party" as "The revolution was a disaster, and this disaster was entirely Mao's fault." 02:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.80.4 (talk)

Right. We're listening to too much Western propaganda. The West is terrible. They block our websites and restrict our free speech. They throw us in prison if we speak out against our leaders. They persecute us for our religious beliefs. Woe unto us who live in the West. Taishaku 01:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been listening to too much propaganda. Not all aspects of Communism are bad and it has worked to a degree in China. There are many aspects of Western culture and Communism that can be improved and what about Guantanamo Bay and the Vila wood detention center. (Gloryify (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Just My two cents: Neither of the models are bad, on paper, it is when we start to work for our Own Benefit over that of the greater good that models go awry, Censorship is not unique to Communism, cruel prison camps aren't part of the capitalist model, both of those things are bad but the responsibility of those facts must fall upon specific individuals rather than whole models. You do have to admit though that in general Socialist politicians have shown more fear to dissenters than Capitalist ones, have they not?--Angry Mushi 18:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Mushi (talk • contribs)

What about the whole Mao thing when he ordered the people to kill all the sparrows? Did that happen? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.77.26 (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

the "sparrow campaign" did happen as a part of the "Great Leap Forward" as Mao perceives the sparrows as pests that eats the grains. Yifanwang99 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Not all aspects of Communism are bad"

Only mediocre, inhumane and totalitarian.

"it has worked to a degree in China"

Is this a joke? Agrofelipe (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the CCP has been in uncontested power since 1949 on the mainland and the PRC is nowhere close to being overthrown, yes it has worked. Corruption within the CCP and measures of repression that miff human rights groups are besides the point. The PRC is stable, the economy is still experiencing rapid growth, and China is not occupied by foreign powers. This is not "mediocre" by any stretch of the imagination. As regards "inhumane" and "totalitarian" this is not a discussion of the DPRK, where the economy is nonfunctional, and human rights abuses are legendary. At least the PRC is run by an oligarchy rather than a hereditary dictatorship, and like the way Nikita Khrushchev broke ranks with Stalinism, it actually had the capacity to walk away from the unmitigated disaster that was the Cultural Revolution. Bringing stability to China is a tremendous achievement, and for all its substantial failings, one that should never be begrudged the PRC. Jun Kayama (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Man, some of you guys just can't think rationally can you? Similarly when you look at the USSR, its command economy significantly advanced the industrial capabilities of the country (albeit at great cost to the population). One important result of this was the fact that Nazi Germany had to fight on two different fronts, rather than one (as many historians have argued, if the USSR, under Stalin, had not industrialize to such heights). If anyone simply says: "oh communism must inherently be bad and nothing ever useful or important ever came out of it", I strongly recommend you go read some books and educate yourselves; you are educational disgraces to English-speakers worldwide.Children of the dragon (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just ... insane. If either of you lived in China today (not as pampered foreigners as you are in your country-but as ethnic Chinese citizens), you couldn't wait to escape! Such smugly stated intellectual armchair generalship comes easy in a free society. If your freedoms were taken from you as they would be in China, you'd be singing a very different tune. You would have zero security in China - your life could be taken from you on the whim of those in power and no one could help you. Let's balance the overwhelming documented failings of Chinese communism on the people and culture of the nation with whatever slight 'stability' etc., that it has brought. MASS MURDER, ladies and gentlemen! Keep that always in the forefront of your minds before claiming any positive achievements of Chi-coms.98.67.185.41 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Vandalism

Someone vandalized the article by placing a Japanese flag as the whole thing. I suggest we ban the user whoever did this. Aeryck89 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the way it was before vandalism. It would appear that The zero fighter is the one responsible for this. --Aeryck89 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

Could someone please explain to me why we need:

http://www.geocities.com/crmaozedong/index.html
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/magdoff010706.html

in the links section?

The first is a very amateurish site with no reliable content - we already have an excellent site for posters. The second is a description of a conference - if it was a link to the conference site and/or its seminars, etc I would understand. But I don't see any real useful information there. John Smith's 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you substantiate your claims? You claim this site has "no reliable content." This claims needs support. I don't see any information it contains about propaganda posters being inaccurate. The second link contains lot of useful information about issues surrounding interpretations of the CR. The article, after all is about a conferenced whose title is: "The Fortieth Anniversary: Rethinking the Genealogy and Legacy of the Cultural Revolution" Maybe you don't see any information it contains as useful to you, but it is certainly useful to those interested in understanding and rethinking the legacy of the CR, along with the various scholars that it reports on.Giovanni33 22:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So can you highlight the useful information in the second article? I'm sure the conference was interesting, but it doesn't go into much useful depth from what I can see. John Smith's 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is a highlight of useful information itself. No point for me to copy and paste each section here. Maybe you can look at each section and tell me why what it says is not deemed useful. Obviously its from a socialist pov, and addresses some of the issues of the CR (its goals, its short comings, its excesses) from that POV. Within the article there are other links to articles talking about those specific issues in greater depth, which is also useful for anyone trying to understand the multi dimensional aspects of the CR--something that is often times greatly lacking in the Western media.Giovanni33 08:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not an answer, that's an attempt to wriggle out of the question. Don't answer a question with a question, or a request with a request. I still want to know what the oh-so important information is. If it's everywhere you should be able to quote easily. John Smith's 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I quote the whole thing. Why paste it here? You have the links. Tell me what about is NOT relevant or important? Its you who is wiggling out of making specific and concrete objections.Giovanni33 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you can spin and try to divert the discussion by making demands all you like. Until you can highlight key parts of the article that are so important to the Cultural Revolution you have zero credibility. John Smith's 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite the other way around. The entire article is about the Cultural Revolution. Look at the title of the article: "Rethinking the Genealogy and Legacy of the Cultural Revolution." Now show me how the title is a lie and its not about the CR. Until you do so, your objection here has no merit, i.e. zero credibility.Giovanni33 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is on a conference about the Cultural Revolution, but it contains only a summary of it. It is just some guy saying how "interesting" it was, with no real useful information - otherwise you would have highlighted it.

Maybe if you spent more time thinking and less time trying to parrot what others say because you're too lazy to think up your own rejoinders, you might understand that. John Smith's 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't make comments like that, please. – Steel 00:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on wasting space here, lets start with just one passage at a time from this article. Here is a POV on the CR, which is probably the real reason you donut like it. But, I am interested to hear how you think it doesn't really pertain or provide any information about the CR. I think it makes a good point about the standard Western view, and the experience in the city contrasted with the way the period is viewed in the rural areas: "Mao's purpose for initiating the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) was to mobilize and engage millions and millions from all sectors of society -- workers and peasants as well as students and intellectuals -- in a struggle against the forces within the Party that favored the restoration of capitalism. Among most intellectuals in China and the United States, the Cultural Revolution has been viewed as an era of inhumane chaos. It is true that the Cultural Revolution was chaotic, with various Red Guard factions (some were even sham Red Guards, possibly organized by those under attack to confuse the masses) and many instances of exaggerated and inhumane treatment of people, including killings. On the other hand, in the rural areas this period is commonly viewed in a more positive light -- an era when much infrastructure was built and attention paid to problems of the great mass of people living in the countryside."Giovanni33 08:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-read what I said. it doesn't go into much useful depth from what I can see I didn't say it had nothing relevant at all to say. What you wrote would be useful if it went into more depth, but it's only a summary of a view. There are no sources for that opinion, statistics, etc. Maybe you wouldn't mind the reverse of that, which was a source that said something along the lines of "lots of people died in the Cultural Revolution, had ink poured down their faces and the economy was shot to hell" (albeit in a more long-winded fashion) but I wouldn't deem it necessary. John Smith's 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Each section of a summary of a position contains an article that one can click on for more depth. And it does list the sources--the speakers at this conference. The point being made regarding the differences in perception from the urban and rural standpoint is useful information. You want more depth then find another link that makes this point in more depth--donut delete it so we then have nothing making it.Giovanni33 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh God, not the "you go find more info" routine. That's your response to everything, Giovanni. Why can't you go find the information we need rather than spam some silly conference report all over wikipedia? John Smith's 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is there for you to read if you bothered to look instead of wikistalking me to any other article I go seeking to edit war. And you are not being honest. This link was only placed here and in the article about Chang's book, since it also discusses that. So, stop making false accusations. If you keep this up this wikistalking for the seeming purpose of only looking to have a battle and edit war--without even making an argument most of the times on the talk page,I will have to assume you are not being serious and will report you.Giovanni33 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So what you mean is you can't counter my points, so you're going to completely change the subject. It would have been a lot easier if you had just said that. John Smith's 09:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, your points have been refuted. You say "its not there, there is no useful information there!' and I say it is there, it is useful, relevant. You ask me to point it out. I say read the article. You seem not to be able to do that and point out specifically any example to support your claims. So, I quote one section. Then you make the claim that its 'not in depth enough.' So I counter: If you want something more in depth then go and find that link and add it, and suggest this links replacement--provided it makes the same points better. Care to make your counter argument? I'm still waiting. But, no, you simply want to suppress the information all together under the flimsy guise that it "doesn't go in depth enough." Do you have any other point to make, other than trying to change the subject again?Giovanni33 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, once again you default to you go and do my work for me mode. Giovanni it is up to you to find and supply information, not to dump something barely relevant and insist someone find something better. John Smith's 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did supply the information, and refuted your false claims, above. You have failed to respond to that, or come up with any other substantive argument to support action of removing the link. Care to try again?Giovanni33 10:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't refuted anything. You just regurgitated some generalization and then told me to go do my own research. What you seem to be saying is that you can't find anything more concrete so are scraping the bottom of the barrel to have something. John Smith's 10:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I posted earlier: No, your points have been refuted. You say "its not there, there is no useful information there!' and I say it is there, it is useful, relevant. You ask me to point it out. I say read the article. You seem not to be able to do that and point out specifically any example to support your claims. So, I quote one section. Then you make the claim that its 'not in depth enough.' So I counter: If you want something more in depth then go and find that link and add it, and suggest this links replacement--provided it makes the same points better. Care to make your counter argument? I'm still waiting. It does not make sens to suppress all the information under the guise that it "doesn't go in depth enough." That doesn't stand unless you have a better link to suggest that makes the same points but in more depth. Answer that. Unless you do, you stand refuted.Giovanni33 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the two websites. They are not ideal from a couple of perspectives. (1) They are both sites that clearly are designed to praise the ideological forces that were at work in the Great Cultural Revolution. (2) They are not very successful advocates for their own position. So putting these sites up is almost like setting up a straw man. The discerning reader is likely to say, "If this tripe is the most that can be said for the Great Cultural Revolution, then it must really have been an indefensible movement."

If someone wanted accurate and balanced information about any recent American President, anything written by the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National Committee would have to be treated with great skepticism. We know that each party's propaganda branch will glorify its own and vilify its opposition. If those were the only available sources, then one would have to pit the one against the other and try to sort things out. For the general reader, it would be more practical to try to find that work already done by a neutral observer with access to all available information.

One approach would be to balance these websites with websites from their ideological opponents, e.g., perhaps something by the government of the Republic of China (with capital in Taipei, Taiwan) and something by anti-Mao factions within mainland China. But it would be easy to overbalance these two sites because they are both filled with assertions and attitude but not much information. It would be a strange balancing act to try to find site equally flaky on the KMT side or the side of the Tiananmen proponents of increased freedom in China that pertained to the GCR.

It would be more useful to readers to find websites on both sides that have good information that is clearly cited, and perhaps most useful to find websites that use good research and reflect a neutral ideological stance. P0M 02:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Patrick - thanks for your thoughts. John Smith's 08:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with finding better sites that advance the POV, including cites that advance the opposite POV for balance. What I am opposed to is simply suppressing any sites given leaving nothing. As I told Smith, if he can find a cite that makes the same points better, then by all means suggest it and I'd be happy to consider replacing the existing one. I do disagree that the cite on the Conference about the CR is in anyway a strawman. Maybe you can list what you find about that site that gives you the impression that it "must have been an indefensible movement.' I find it does a good job at making some points on both sides of the fence, with links to other articles on the subjects in greater depth.Giovanni33 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh geez, do you ever stop with that tired excuse? It is actually better to not have a link than a substandard one. There are already plenty of other links - it's not as if the page is starved of information. Wikipedia guidelines on external links actually says that an article should not be viewed as being poor/bad/etc even if it has no external links. John Smith's 22:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to back up your claims. You say its substard, poor, etc. However, you have failed, thus far, to come up with anything that substanciates those claims. You say there are other links that makes the same point? Care to quote the point that this link makes, as I have cited, above, since now you claim redundency? Yuu keep changing your reasons, each time, after you are called to back them up and can't do it . Still waiting. Why don't you spend your time doing that instead of reverting?Giovanni33 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you ignore whatever I say, Giovanni. Why should I waste my time with someone who cannot be reasoned with? I've made my points, which are easily understood by anyone. The fact you pretend you don't understand is just an act - that or something less flattering. John Smith's 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

False, again. I refute any point you make. Then you just change points. Now that you have run out of anything to support your actions, you simply refuse to give any reasons, hiding under the false pretext that I ignore whatever you say--a blatant lie, along with other personal attacks. Your personal attacks and dishonesty are also indicative of the fact you have no arguments to make so you must resort to that. As I said elsewhere, your behavior, if you continue it, can be properly labeled as simply trolling. Good faith has its limits.Giovanni33 22:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You refute nothing, just skirt around it or make a complaint. Then when you're under pressure you keep repeating the same thing over and over until people either get bored, frustrated or both and leave/do something stupid. It isn't a blatant lie that you ignore people, because I have regularly had to challenge you when you've ignored comments made by myself or others.

Good faith has its limits, does it? Well a certain somebody said only recently that was not optional and you had to assume it all the time. Such hypocricy from you is a joke! John Smith's 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that you often are actually describing yourself, your own very actions when you attempt to attribut them them to me. Classic projection. That is exactly what you do: "you refute nothing, just skirt around it or make a complaint. Then when you're under pressure you keep repeating the same thing over and over until people either get bored, frustrated or both." Exactly, as evidenced by your latest reply, above. My only repetition is due to the fact that YOU keep ignoring and pretending not to see my response, and ask for it again, pretending not to see--but then you ignore it and repeat your false allegations going around in a circle again. If I do not assume good faith, then I'd have to conclude something even less flattering.Giovanni33 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"You are actually describing yourself." Hahaha, that's like being back at school again. Someone makes a criticism and you reverse it, because you can't think of anything to say. Surprise, surprise Giovanni ignored the fact his hypocricy was blown wide-open and tries to spin the conversation away - as he always does when under pressure...... John Smith's 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you find this amusing since this is apparently your only motive here, other than POV pushing. If you have a valid criticism then you should actually support it with some kind of evidence, instead of acting like the qualities you are criticising. That is the irony, and why you have strained the assumption of good faith. Good faith is for any serious editor, and you have proven yourself not to be one, so keep laughing. When you do decide to be serious and are willing to actually talk about the actual content confict, and then SUPPORT your false claims with at least some evidence or reasoning, THEN, you will be deserving of the asumption of good faith. Until you demonstrate that, how you act is how you are to be seen.Giovanni33 23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Giovanni, remember - assuming good faith is not optional. Remember that. John Smith's 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not optional for serious editors like myself who are not obviously playing games, unlike yourself. That is indeed not optional, which I've reminded you of when you said you can't assume good faith, and when I was still assuming that you were just having a hard time reading...So I assumed good faith and asked you to do that same as that is not optional. However, when someone refuses to talk about issues, and instead plays games, is dishonst, ignores, and then continues to act in a dishonest manner, having fun, etc., like you are doing here, then you fall out of the category of a serious editor, and the option presents itself as optional.Giovanni33 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Giovanni33 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you can choose when to assume good faith and not - whereas someone else has to assume good faith when dealing with you. That's the second time in the space of an hour or so you've demonstrated hypocricy - can you make it a third before I log off? John Smith's 23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not what I"m saying but you already know that, as I assume you are able to read and undestand elementary concepts. If not, I am not the one to help you in that dept.Giovanni33 23:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly what you're saying, you just don't want to admit it. Unfortunately you seem to believe anyone is deceived by such feeble attempts to cover up what is so obvious. John Smith's 23:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bite by explaining the difference in what you said I said, and what I said, and what it means, as that is, as you said, obvious, no matter how you try to twist the meaning. Again, I ask that you stick to the content dispute, instead of these petty diversions. But, I guess you have nothing else to say, or can't? That says a lot in itself, and is further evidence of your failure to win on the merits of the issues.Giovanni33 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you can only accuse me of what I have said about you - this time it's about twisting. Really, find more original ways of criticising people that being so obvious to repeat what they say.

It's ironic you insist I stick to the content dispute, because you're not with your recent posts. You can walk away from my comments whenever you want, so why do you keep responding? Probably because I'm exposing you for the hypocrite you are, and you're scared of that. Your own actions speak volumes.

Oh, your insistance I stick to comments about the dispute when you've gone off-topic yourself is yet another sign of hypocricy. Congrats, that's the third time you've demonstrated that tonight! John Smith's 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, again, and unlike you let me refute what you say, and prove what I say. You blame me for going off topic, etc. Here is the proof: Me bringing up the points again, which you ignored. See above for the first time I said this, and see how you ignored it. Then I repeated it again, and you still ignored it: [1]. Having been refuted you went silent. Then you brought up a new point and I adressed it (since unlike you, I never ignore any point you make): [2]. And then how you do you respond? By addressing the point or going off topic? This proves, that its YOU who goes off topic and engages in personal attacks, talking about me instead of the issues you just ignore when you lose, by accusing me of "ignoring whatever you say,' a blatent lie: [3]. So no matter what you say, the record speaks for itself. You can't hide behind any deceptions, and unlike you I support all my claims, while you just change topics and make false accusations about editors personality. Shameful.Giovanni33 00:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Shameful" Funny Giovanni33, that's exactly what I thought when I was reading your comments. Forget assuming good faith, you're a trolling idiot, and I think you're aware of it. Either that or you're just not terribly bright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.48.96 (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL the interesting thing is that Giovanni doesn't seem to realize that Smith never changed his point: The references are still lacking useful information. I mean, Smith said it wasn't in-depth enough, thus it doesn't provide any useful information. This problem still hasn't been solved (if what Smith says is true). 67.180.87.122 (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link

This is a dispute about whether this link and this link should be included on the external links section of this page. 10:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Do not include either

The first link is to a website displaying propaganda posters. Although they can be considered useful in as far that they provide examples of such posters, I feel the website itself is far too biased and unreliable in its praise of Mao Zedong. We already have a much more neutral and and NPOV site here, so I have wondered whether the geocities site is suitable given its obvious POV position.

The second link is on a review of a conference on the Cultural Revolution. Though in my mind the conference may have been of interest, I do not believe that the article goes into nearly as much detail on the points raised as to be suitable. Without more information on sources used, access on the article to papers made by academics, etc it is providing points-of-view without any easy ability to examine them. Comments made by Giovanni33 that one should "do their own research" to follow up on this is not an acceptable argument. John Smith's 09:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do not include either

I had a look at both cites. The posters on the first sight might be of some interest to some users, but they could get a much fuller selection of posters by using Google.

A professor of plant and soil science is not the best secondary source. Magdoff makes judgments like, "On the other hand, in the rural areas this period is commonly viewed in a more positive light -- an era when much infrastructure was built and attention paid to problems of the great mass of people living in the countryside." He does so without any documentation being offered. I guess that is o.k. if you are writing from a personal point of view about a conference supposedly composed of experts and activists. But the reader has no way of judging whether this is an "expert" judgment or an "activist" judgment. The author indicates his own approach to "discovering the truth" by saying, "When asked how such egregious distortions of the historical record could be combated, Ross pointed to the need for novels, dramas, and movies about the Cultural Revolution and the positive difference it made in the lives of millions of workers and peasants, whose stories have not been told in the West."

The general purpose of the article seems to be to highlight assertions made during the conference that accord with the author's own views, but not by any stretch of the imagination to provide objective information from a neutral point of view. The article also does not provide a clear path of verifiable sources of information. The best that the reader might hope is that some of the books would contain some objectively verifiable information. P0M 04:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

*Include BothThe standards that you are imposing for these links are the standards for sources to rely on and include in the body of the article itself--NOT for the external links section. Hence, even if you are right that this professor is not an acceptable source to rely on for the article-- as his expertise is in a discipline is other than the subject matte--it is perfectly fine for the external links section. Therefore, your points are NOT relevant. The same goes for the other point about this not being neutral, has a POV, bias, etc,--all false standards, and does not pertain for the external links section. You might not like the judgement/POV's that are expressed, however that does not give you a basis to remove the link. It expresses a POV and offers links to other articles that go into more depth on the quetions/POV's it raises. There is no problem that the point of this article is to offer a summation of this academic conference on the Cultural Revolution from the socialist pov, as this is an article published by Monthly Review. There is nothing wrong with this; it need not be balance, it need not be without bias/pov, and it need not be by an author whose qualifications make him an expert in the field. So the arguments to suppress these links simply do not stand. Removing them because you don't like the POV seems to be the basis of the objection, so the best I can suggest to rememdy this is to offer another link that presents a contrary POV. Or, if this one does not do the best job at giving sources and advancing the POV it does advance, then suggest a better link that does the same job and makes the same valid points. But do not censor. About the posters, saying one can google it, defeats the point of WP.Giovanni33 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Include One I've changed my mind, per below, and now feel only the link to the MR article up to standards.Giovanni33 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments from other users

(blind RfC response) These links seem to violate Wikipedia's External Links policy on several points, in particular: (avoid) links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET; links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority; and links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. Demong 20:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see either of these links being of the nature of any of those prohibited you list above. Are you sure you are looking at the right links? The CR link on the conference is a link to the published article in the highly respected Marxist academic journal, Monthly Review.Giovanni33 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Highly respected? By whom? Academic journal? The articles I've look at are similar in being expressions of opinion. There is certainly room for people having an opinion on, e.g., John Edwards. But when I want information on John Edwards I won't go to Ann Coulter. P0M 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic. John Edwards? Ann Coulter? Are you making an analogy? Can you be more clear so I can properly respond? If your familiar with the publication, then you will know it's a well regarded academic marxist journal.Giovanni33 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the second (Monthly Review) link and I rescind the objection; but I don't see any defense for the first: geocities (which I see as "personal web pages", correct me if I'm wrong), unsigned/unknown author, hotmail contact, less than 300 hits on its counter... what makes it worth inclusion? Demong 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess your right about the second link, being a kind of personal web page, but it does have lots of documentation of propaganda posters, which were a very important part of the CR. I know we are to avoid links. Looking at the link a second time, I'd be ok as a compromise to leave that out, and allow the other link suggested by Smith as a valid substitute. The first link, from the MR article, though, is quite valid, and the above objections seem to stem wholly from POV/political objections.Giovanni33 00:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still object to the Monthly Review - I just don't see it as being worth the while. You can say my points (and that of others) aren't relevant, but that's what you always say so I'm not taking any notice of that. John Smith's 18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cultual Revolution was pretty interesting... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shihtzuluvrian (talk • contribs).

The Monthly Review link is certainly worth keeping. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Liberal" In "Liberal Bourgeoisie"

What exactly did Mao and other revolutionaries mean when they use the term "liberal" in Liberal Bourgeoisie (in the second paragraph of the first section)? What philosophy of liberalism are they referring to? Are they referring to Classical liberalism or European liberalism? Zachorious 07:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a sad era...

"Liberal bourgeoisie" = "Pro-West Rich Chinese people". The Communist party have been trying to get rid of them since the Three-anti/five-anti campaigns. Ironic how everyone in the PRC economy today is trying to be just that. Benjwong 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation Check

Regarding footnote 24, Mao: The Unknown Story, the reference lists page 569 as the source for the figure of 3 million dying. Looking at page 569 in the book, I do not see this figure given (it doesn't even seem like the right context). Would it be possible to give more information so that I can locate the figure (for example, the chapter). I am looking at the paperback "First Anchor Books" edition. Thanks mlhwitz —Preceding comment was added at 18:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Page 569: In the ten years from when Mao started the purge until his death in 1976, at least 3 million people died violent deaths, and post-Mao leaders acknowledged that 100 million people, one-ninth of the entire population, suffered in one way or another. What this doesn't say is that all three million violent deaths were directly as a result of the GPCR. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jiang qing poster.jpg

Image:Jiang qing poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dariusisdaman link spam

This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dariusdaman - I am undoing his link spammage. John Smith's (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Query about language in the "1976" section

The third and last paragraph of this section reads oddly to me (a complete outsider). In particular:

:To the common people, Mao's death symbolized the loss of the socialist foundation of China ... the entire nation descended into a massive state of spontaneous grief and mourning

As I say, I am not particularly knowledgeable about this subject, so am simply bringing this up for those who know better to respond to, but the language above (especially "entire nation") implies that everybody in China was grief-stricken by Mao's death. Can that really be true? 86.132.141.139 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the phrasing about China's reaciton to Mao's death. It may be a bit flowery, but it isn't inaccurate. The problem is, there cannot be any proof since any alternative response would not have been reported by the press at the time. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone was supposedly grief-stricken; it would have been near-blasphemy to act otherwise. Celinayi (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many contemporary participants later observed that many people were careful not to appear overly grief-stricken as no-one would have believed it and you would have been left-open to charges of insincerity. See e.g. China in Revolution, vol 3, The Mao Years PBS production. Cripipper (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is true that certain people were not sincere in their grief during the period. However, the majority of reactions consisted of genuine grief as Mao was not merely a person, but a revered symbol that was very close to being divine. Only in the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution did most ordinary people in China realize Mao's misgivings and mistakes. Thus it is understandable that at the time, people felt genuine, heartfelt grief, and therefore mourned spontaneously. Thus the justification for using that phrasing. Colipon+(T) 13:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Coup d'etat

Is there some objection to using this term to describe the events of October 1976? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Rename Proposal

I think that the title Cultural Revolution is a vague term for such a specific event. I suggest that the article be renamed to something like Cultural Revolution (China) or perhaps something even more specific.

If this article is actually renamed, the current Cultural Revolution page should, of course, be redirected directly to the new location.

Thank-you for the consideration. -- GarrettHeath4 - ¿Crees? (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural Revolution" may be a vague term for such a specific event, but it's the term generally used in scholarship - hence, it is used. DDSaeger (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Social background

The section starts:

Prior to the Cultural Revolution, most of the intimidation tactics were already established from the earlier Yan'an Rectification Movement (延安整风运动).

There is not enough context here. What intimidation tactics, by whom, against whom and why? Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Memoirs and Further Further Readings

I added a section of so-called "Red Guard Memoirs" to the "Further Readings," though in the long run it may be better to include in the Red Guard article.

Thoughts, anyone?

I should also divide the Further Readings by category and add important items, e.g documentary collections, sort out the treatment in films with those in the Red Guard article, but not until I have a little time. ch (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Liu shaoqi poster.jpg

The image Image:Liu shaoqi poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Subjectiveness of the introduction

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (simplified Chinese: 无产阶级文化大革命; traditional Chinese: 無產階級文化大革命; pinyin: Wúchǎn Jiējí Wénhuà Dà Gémìng; literally "Proletarian Cultural Great Revolution"; often abbreviated to 文化大革命 wénhuà dà gémìng, literally “Great Cultural Revolution,” or even simpler, to 文革 wéngé, “Cultural Revolution”) in the People’s Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Communist Party of China that manifested into wide-scale social, political, and economic violence and chaos, which grew to include large sections of Chinese society and eventually brought the entire country to the brink of civil war.

Those in italics obviously needs citations.

What I want to talk about is the sentence in bold letters. It's true that some of the intentions of Mao initiating the CR is to resettle his power as the ultimate idol for all Chinese; however, the idea of the CR is definitely more than this. Even the name has revolution on it, so it necessarily implies that some of the original ideas/concepts/thoughts were lacking behind, and thus a revolution is required to correct it. --98.234.64.205 (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree. From what I've learned about the Cultural Revolution it was mainly Mao's struggle to regain control within the party. I would consider that a power struggle more than a revolution. Also the Cultural "Revolution" mainly consisted of Red Guards beating up and killing "capitalist roaders" and those who were though to have old ideas, not any real change in party policy. In fact the idea of killing the old to let in the new is Mao's whole idea the idea he implemented when he first came to power. Also this is the first graph not a long description it's going to leave things out.

71.206.38.71 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the reason it's called a Revolution is because Mao asserted that a Revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie was not enough, that there needed to be a further internal Revolution to ensure that those bourgeoisie elements don't resurface, and thus, the only way to do this, in Mao's theory, was to have a "Cultural" "Revolution". Colipon+(T) 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with many of the points about the Introduction. As it is now, it provides a misleading and very biased view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.226.174 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally find "unmitigated disaster" as an understatement. Face it, the Cultural Revolution set China backwards by decades and irreversibly damaged much of its cultural heritage. It was perhaps the most harmful series of social reforms ever conducted in human history. Even the policies of Maximilien Robespierre, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin, horrific as they were, at least produced positive economic effects. It wasn't until they reversed their policies in the future, admitting that emulating the West is the only way to prosperity, that they recovered. To this day, China is perhaps still encumbered by the residual thought of this era. I recommend that instead of worrying about being unfairly biased against China, we should worry about people making it unfairly favorable towards China. The truth takes precedent over hurt feelings. Taishaku 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I've understood after reading your comments, you basically expressed your negative feelings and criticisms towards the CR. You first said that personally you think "unmitigated disaster" is an understatement, and then continued to expand on this idea. You even used "perhaps" to describe the possibility of the CR to be the "most harmful series of social reforms" and the possibility of modern day Chinese being "encumbered by the residual thought of this era", which implies that it is not generally agreed by critics, and so is biased. Though your point about damaging the Chinese cultural heritage is a fact, your point is used for criticizing the general effectiveness of the CR itself, so it is not neutral, since the CR isn't just about power struggle (is it really a purpose of the CR, or is it an interpretation?). The point is that the introduction should give a reader a first impression, and I'm very certain that the POV that the intro has greatly affects how readers perceive the topic. What we want to do is to list out the facts about the topic, and then let the readers decide whether it is good or bad. That is not to say we should eliminate perceptions on the CR, rather I believe it is better to relocate to the Criticism section and write something to the extent of "Most agree that the CR had irreversibly damaged much of China's cultural heritage". Is that a better idea? 67.180.87.122 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas on changing the intro? Colipon+(T) 02:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just done an adjustment to the intro. This is by no means final but it sounds slightly more reasonable than the previous intro. The second and third paragraphs, the more controversial ones, remain largely unmodified. I can't say they'll be easy to "neutralize" and perfect. So any suggestions is more than welcome. If anyone has any good ideas about how to word it properly, please feel free to offer suggestions here or "be bold" and edit the intro. While we're at it, it may be best to modify some parts of the article as well... some parts are fairly well written, while others are not so much. Colipon+(T) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a go at re-writing the second and third paragraphs of the info, and thought it best to post it on the talk page for analysis. Here is the text i came up with (i purposefully haven't included any wikilinks, citations etc.):

'The Cultural Revolution was launched in 1966 with the Politburo's ratification of the 'May 16th Circular', a document that called on China's youth to attack the established Party apparatus and the perceived 'bourgois' culture though to be still prevalent in the People's Republic of China at the time. As well as a campaign with ideological motivations, some scholars also believe that the Cultural Revolution was Mao's attempt at regaining political power ceded to more moderate Communist leaders in the early 1960s. Despite being characterised by ideological rhetoric, the movement rapidly descended into a factional struggle between the various interest groups who had become involved in the Cultural Revolution. Although the momentum of the Cultural Revolution was waning by 1969, the term 'Cultural Revolution' is often used to denote the decade leading up to the death of Mao and the arrest of the Gang of Four.

Views on the Cultural Revolution vary, although many acknowledge the many adverse economic and social effects of the decade. Mao's role as the architect of the movement is widely accepted, but responsibility for its excesses and adverse results has also been attributed to such radicals as Lin Biao and Jiang Qing.

Any thoughts on this? MarquisCostello (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can this article be streamlined?

Upon review of this article, my impression is that it could be edited to convey its most important information in a more direct way.

Three observations:

(a) I note that several large sections of the current article reference standalone articles (e.g. Gang of Four . . . Lin Biao) and yet those sections are still quite lengthy. Could the main points be summarized more succinctly, thus making use of linking to other articles?

(b) I note a recommendation that the Norwegian and Swedish versions be reviewed, since they have been recognized as very good articles. Perhaps one useful step would be to identify major gaps in approach and content between those two and this current English article.

(c) In terms of chronology - it is easy to just get bogged down in way too many day by day details . . . .

I am interested in trying to accomplish these things. Does anyone have any comments. Shi Gelei (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I am gone

Though I am gone is a low budget, independent documentary made by a Chinese film maker 胡杰(Hu Jia), the film center around the beating and resulting death of a then Chinese girls school headmaster 卞仲耘. The person that started the first strike on her was called 宋彬彬(Song Bin Bin), who was later on received by Mao personally, is a very well know CR true story. I hope user Cybercobra would not delete the links again before discussion on this talk page. Arilang ^talk 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Can someone clarify which parts of the article are NPOV and give some suggestions to fixing it? Colipon+(T) 18:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Communists Eat Babies

Does anyone believe that communists eat babies? There are references to cannibalism in this article on the Cultural Revolution. Is there any evidence to support these statements or is this just a re-emergence of the myth that communists eat babies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.177.175 (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Testimony from those who lived in the PRC during that time period are not hard to find, provided you actually had the inclination to look. There are available Western sources as well, i.e. the Cannibalism wiki article has a link to a book profiled by the New York Times. Arirang1234 still has an article discussing "Cannibalism in modern China" in sandbox mode at the moment. This has nothing to do with any sort of slur on the CCP, and cannibalism has a regrettable, established place in Chinese history. Jun Kayama (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah i have to agree the cannibalism thing sounds highly dubious and a reviw of the book that sighted is starting to make me beliee it is largely untrue. heres the review. it makes some solid points

6 of 19 people found the following review helpful: 1.0 out of 5 stars a hoax or a conspiracy theory , October 19, 2006 By Ashtar Command "Functional atheist, philosoph... (Stockholm, Sweden) - See all my reviews This book is either a hoax of the Maria Monk type, or a conspiracy theory of the David Icke type.

The author, Zheng Yi, claims that politically motivated cannibalism on a massive scale took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the Guangxi province. This truly remarkable claim is, however, utterly unconvincing.

Zheng Yi claim that there were tens of thousands of cannibals in Guangxi. How come nobody else noticed? China has never been a completely closed society, unlike North Korea. Besides, there was chaos in China during the Cultural Revolution. Why didn't people flee the area and alert the authorities, the PLA or some competing Red Guard faction? And how come everything was covered up so completely? No society can go mad, and then simply forget about it the day after. Further, Zheng Yi only managed to interview two cannibals in Guangxi! A remarkably low figure in a province where "everyone" must have experienced cannibalism... But one of the "cannibals" is clearly a pathological liar, while the other only admits of having eaten small parts of a victims' liver.

Zheng further claims that there are documents proving that cannibalism took place. These documents are only re-printed in the Chinese-language edition of the book. But this too is unconvincing. Documents can be forged. There are "documents" from the Moscow show trials as well. Originally, Zheng apparently supported the "right-wing" faction within the Chinese Communist Party. He visited Guangxi on an official mission to investigate "certain ultra-leftist deviations" during the Cultural Revolution. During this trip, he supposedly saw the documents. Apparently, the "right-wing" in Beijing were preparing a purge of the local party leadership in Guangxi. The documents claim that the local party boss was responsible for the cannibalism. In other words, the documents are forgeries in a intra-Stalinist purge.

Zheng wonders why nobody was ever brought to trial for cannibalism. Simple: the "right-wing" around Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping must have realized that a "cannibal trial" would have strained the credulity of both domestic and foreign public opinion to the breaking point. Besides, the show trial against the Gang of Four largely failed, after Chiang Ching exposed it. A failed "cannibal trial" would have been even more embarrasing...

Inadvertently, Zheng Yi reveals another aspect of the situation that disproves him. Apparently, the local party in Guangxi was dominated by the Zhuang, a national minority traditionally regarded as cannibals by the majority Han population! AHA!! Here we have it!! The rumors of cannibalism are rooted in age-old Han racist prejudices against the Zhuang. After all, why cannibalism? And why Guangxi? Why these specific allegations, and why in that particular province? The explanation is obvious.

Zheng senses the problem, and devotes an entire chapter to absolve the Zhuang. Instead, he claims that the Han have a long tradition of cannibalism! This "politically correct" self-hatred (Zheng is Han himself) is not convincing. There are indeed ancient legends of cannibalism in China, but very little real proof of cannibalism out-side periods of famine.

In Sweden, some people take this book seriously. A respectable Swedish newspaper have promoted it several times. It's also been used in anti-Communist propaganda. This is amazing. Why do people believe a book like this? I believe that the explanation is sub-conscious racism against "Orientals". In the Western imagination, East Asiatics are often seen as cruel, totalitarian and irrational. This old prejudice was simply projected onto the new Communist regimes after World War Two, when "the yellow peril" became "the red menace".

Think about it. Would anyone accuse Stalin or Ceaucescu of cannibalism? Of course not. But accuse Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung of something, and you can get away with almost anything. Even tales of cannibalism in modern China.

ADDENDUM, 18 june, 2006

Incidentally, the book is NOT about famine-induced cannibalism, but VERY EXPLICITLY about (supposed) politically motivated cannibalism, carried out as a form of terror. Nobody denies that famine took place during the Great Leap Forward (long before the events "described" in the book), or that cannibalism and famine are connected. But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for cannibalism in China out-side periods of famine, like the "cases" described in this paranoid, delusional book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.114.64 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the book by Zheng Yi, would it be possible to find out how his work was received by the relevant scholars? That may be useful to know whether it's a good source; I haven't read it. However dubious that book is, a review from some Web site does not count for much.

Book by Zheng Yi:Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China Arilang ^talk 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone please correct this totally fictious part about cannibalism. This is ridiculous and makes the whole article unreliable. The cited work of the Hungarian author is mainly about the GULAG cannibalism, and he cites the abovementioned book only as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.220.130 (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

“

But as the cases of Linxia and Qiatou show, very few people were actually cannibals who killed to eat. Most were scavengers, extending their survival techniques to the eating of cadavers. Page 323 Mao's Great Famine

”

Arilang ^talk 12:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article used to cite the more extreme and dubious accusations (Cannibalism in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China) is from a now defunct journal, cited by no other peer-reviewed journals (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14627014409924729160&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=1,5&hl=en) and only by two other non-peer-reviewed documents, and the citations which the article uses are all from stridently anti-communist and extremely biased sources (i.e. R.J. Rummel and Robert Conquest among many others). In other words, the source mainly used for this wikipedia section does not meet the standards of a "reliable source" as stated in the guidelines, and is essentially slander by biased ideologues. I recommend that the sentences relying on this source should be deleted until a legitimate academic source in a peer-reviewed journal is found that verify the claims legitimacy. Aerdil (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Other notes regarding references and rhetoric

I recently made some changes to the page, including beefing up a bit of the explanation on the Mao/Peng conflict, and some minor other changes. Please advise if there is an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The references are quite messy; is there a preferred method for how they are to look? I could possibly do a tidy up of them if I knew what the ideal should look like. It seems that the "further reading" section includes some of what is referenced in the article. In the references section, some long titles appear in full several times. Other references are ill-formatted. Does Wikipedia usually care about this?--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the references, if no one disagrees with my proposition, I will scour the article and make them all conform to one style (I'm not sure of the names, but I think the style I prefer is that where the ref name tags are used, and subsequent mentions take the form of a shortened footnote. Readers can quickly scan the reference list for the first mention of the text should they wish to follow it up. If there is a better idea, I would be happy to hear it. In the meantime, I came across some fascinating remarks about the use of language during Mao's Cultural Revolution while doing some research recently, and will add it to the article now. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone please advise on the best way to add sourced information to an article. Right now I note the name, provide a citation, then summarise some of what they said and quote other parts. Is that all there is to it? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been using the citation tool since you've edited this article... it's a button located on the right side of your toolbar. You will need to activate it through your user preferences. Colipon+(Talk) 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I used it because it seemed a little unwieldy. But I could give it a go next time. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

	This editor is a WikiGnome.

In this article maybe the editor of the references could do it in APA styleGreatauston (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this page rely so much on a revisionist source for its information?

It's amazing to me that so much from this article is based on one revisionist book, Gao's Battle for China's Past. As the title suggests, it's not a history book but a revisionist polemic, in the words of one reviewer, "against the fashionable view on China" and "aims a knockout blow at Jung Chang's recent book on Mao." As such, its information is unreliable. For example, the final assertion in this web page's opener that "Despite this denouncement from the post-Mao Chinese government, the Revolution has still been viewed positively by a large percentage of working class Chinese" can be found in no other serious documentation of the GPCR save this single, Maoist, source. Even more strange, if you actually check the sources quoted from the book here, more than half of them are based on comments the author lifts off the government-monitored Chinese blogosphere! I really have to call into question the reliance on such a flawed book for so much analysis, and believe that this Wikipedia web page is unreliable now as a NPOV source. Thanks. 124.100.50.9 (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello there! As the editor responsible for the inclusion of information from Gao's book, I take some issue with your statement. I would argue that the term "revisionist polemic" is not entirely accurate: yes it is revisionist in that it criticises many of the attitudes taken by historians such as Jung Chang, Roderick MacFarquhar etc, but Wikipedia is meant to present all the academic points of view on a subject, and in this manner Gao must not be excluded. Claiming it is "polemic" is, I sincerely believe, unfair. Agreed, it takes a stance that argues that the Cultural Revolution benefited a huge percentage of the Chinese populace, but it never shies away from the fact that many were persecuted in the Revolution (including Gao and his own parents it must be added). In this manner it is a fairer assessment of the situation than is, for instance, Chang and Halliday's Mao: The Unknown Story, which reads far more like a polemic and has been heavily criticised as such, albeit of the anti-Mao variety. On a side note, I have a copy of MacFarquhar's Mao's Last Revolution (a fervently anti-Maoist source) and plan to start including information from that into this article as well. This article should not of course rely on Gao alone, but should use Gao as one source amongst many. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

but Wikipedia is meant to present all the academic points of view on a subject For the record, it is not meant to give undue discussion to fringe theories. Who are the academics that agree with Gao? If he's pushing new boundaries pretty much by himself then he shouldn't be relied on too much. John Smith's (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The main argument of The Battle for China's Past was essentially a critique of many recent books published by western historians and other figures (such as Jung Chang and Halliday's Mao: The Unknown Story), Li's The Private Life of Chairman Mao etc), and exposing the basic flaws in their work. In this manner it is not a history of the Cultural Revolution as such, more an examination of how the Revolution and its policies have been interpreted since the ascent of Deng. In the book, Gao argues that the capitalist powers (here including western governments, the western media and the post-Mao government and its media) have presented the Cultural Revolution in an overly negative manner, emphasising the *bad* points like human rights violations etc, without recognising that for the majority of Chinese, living standards improved, only to decline once more under Deng. Simply put, this book is not as revolutionary as some (whom I assume have not read it?) actually beleive it to be. Of course, as John Smith notes, Gao shouldn't be relied on too much, and I don't think that this article does this. It needs further sourcing from more *mainstream* historians obviously, and I plan to do some of that in the coming months.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Oh, and to respond to your question Mr Smith, I have been informed that the works of William Hinton, Lee Feigon, Maurice Meisner etc follow a similar train of thought to Gao, but not having read them, I can't really comment of the accuracy of such a statement.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Saying that the CR has been presented in an "overly negative manner" and that most Chinese people benefited still sounds like a fringe theory to me. And what do you mean by saying that human rights violations were *bad*? Are you insinuating that there was anything positive about them?! John Smith's (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

By *bad* I mean that it is subjective opinion that human right violations are bad. I personally believe they are bad, you might well believe they are bad, but I am sure I could find someone who would believe they were good. After all, for every millions people who believe the Holocaust was one of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century, there would be a handful who believe it to have been a wonderful event. Wikipedia is nuetral, and personal reflections and opinions must be expunged.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Well, sure, just as you could find a few twisted people who don't think rape is bad. By your logic all right and wrong is subjective, which is rubbish. The sort of neutrality you're suggesting Wikipedia have would be a blank page. I suggest you read Wikipedia policy on on fringe theories. Just because some people support genocide doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to treat their views as valid or important. John Smith's (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we best not get too off-topic on the nature of subjectivity here, I guess we're just going to disagree on this philosophical issue (I'm a bit of a post-modernist when it comes to the nature of subjectivity and I would contest the idea that "all right and wrong is subjective" is "rubbish", in fact I would say it was entirely logical). Returning to the topic at hand, I would argue that if you look at Gao's work, it is not exactly fringe as is defined on the Wikipedia fringe page, it simply focuses on a different area of the Cultural Revolution to many of the other books on the subject, and is perhaps better defined as an alternative theoretical formulation, albeit of a historical rather than scientific variety. I mean it's not verging into Erich von Däniken territory or anything, that is far more "fringe", it simply displays a minority view within the historical community.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

On a rough count, this article cite Mobo Gao 16 times, out of total 67 references, which is a classic example of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, not to mention Gao's Chinese New Left POV, as it is clearly indicated here:"But Gao's attacks on Chang are sometimes uncomfortably personal, while his defence of the cultural revolution failed to convince me." The revolution, revised by Michael Rank at guardian.co.uk Arilang ^talk 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese New Left

Mobo Gao is a Chinese New Left, he would be very welcome at Chinese ultra leftist website http://www.wyzxsx.com/ 乌有之乡， where you would find lots of pro-Mao articles. By the way, Midnightblueowl, are you pushing Chinese New Left POV here in wikipedia? Arilang ^talk 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not intentionally no, although I can understand that my use of Gao has given that impression. The fact that I have used academic sources that were written by those with leftist sympathies should not be taken to mean that I am particularly pro-Maoist. I find it a very interesting political movement, one that today is still hugely influential in Nepal and India, but I am not a Maoist myself. I must also highlight that I have also used academic sources that were written by explicitly anti-Maoist sources, and so I don't think it is fair for anyone to claim that I am pushing a Chinese New Left POV. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC))

Your argument is not convincing enough, see here:

User:Arilang1234/Draft/POV pushing by Midnightblueowl, POV pushing or not, you have violated WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight and WP:PARITY. Arilang ^talk 00:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to accept that I have over-used Gao's work as a reference in this particular article, because I believe that that is a valid criticism and agree that some of these references should be removed and replaced by those taken from more "mainstream" texts. I do however certainly believe that Gao should be referenced for certain points here, because after all, he is a scholarly and academic historian who has presented important information on the nature of post-Maoist views of the Cultural Revolution. Yes he does sympathise with the aims of the Maoist regime in creating an egalitarian society, but that doesn't make him a bad historian. Being from an academic background myself, it is clear to me that if postmodernist thinking has taught us anything, it is that there is no such thing as a non-biased and un-partisan scholar. Gao is supportive of the aims of the Cultural Revolution, just as MacFarquhar and Schoenhals are generally opposed to it, and Chang and Halliday are polemically hateful of it. Claiming that any of these figures are in some way nuetral and non-partisan, and that their published works are therefore objective in content, is simply nonsense and doesn't take into account the last forty years of theoretical and philosophical discussion within acadaemia.

I understand your frustration Arilang, at what you perceive to be my bias here in pushing for a highly pro-Maoist viewpoint (something I would contest, illustrating the fact that I have referenced from both pro and anti Maoist sources), but I must also remind you that your own edits and work on articles of Chinese history make it appear very much like your bias is vehemently anti-Maoist. Your bias is not nuetral either, so I would advise against making any more accusations against myself on both my user page and article talk pages. Some of the messages that you have sent me could be interpreted as verging towards personal attack, but thankfully I'm not a vindicative personality, so will not make a fuss about it. I am more than happy to work with you, and others, on improving this page (the quality of which, let's face it, is pretty terrible). In doing so, I have been adding referenced information primarily from MacFarquhar and Schoenhals's Mao's Last Revolution, a book that does have an anti-Maoist bias but is on the whole objectively written. Would you not agree that this is a good source to use for the basic analysis of the Revolution ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for your response MBO, I would very much like to cooperate with you here in Wikipedia. I agree with you that we all have our bias, because we all believe in different ideologies. But one thing we have to keep in mind is:WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight

“

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

”

As you know, and Mobo Gao himself had admitted, his view and interpretation of Cultural Revolution is "strange and not mainstream". I hope we can reach a consensus on this important point. We shouldn't care too much about who is pro-Mao or who is not, and editors shouldn't waste time here to debate about ideologies and philosophy, or who is a "bad historian" and who is a "good historian", instead, we should discuss whether Wikipedia basic rules had been applied or not. In this particular article, Cultural Revolution, I believe that basic Wikipedia rule WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight had been neglected. Arilang ^talk 23:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And on the question of WP:No personal attacks, that was not my intention, and if you feel that any of my comments were "personal attacks" against you, I hereby offer my sincere apology. But my understanding is, pro-Mao or anti-Mao is more a political statement, there is nothing "Personal" about it, you agree? Arilang ^talk 23:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

“

Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. WP:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?

”

After reading through WP:No personal attacks one more time, now I know that "political epithet" is regarded as Personal Attack. Please accept my apology one more time, and I promise you that I would not do it again. Arilang ^talk 00:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted, I'm glad that we sorted that out. I agree with you that my usage of Gao is overdone here, and think we should discuss which Gao references to remove. I do however maintain that he should certainly be used when discussing post-Maoist views of the Cultural Revolution (this need not play a big part in the article obviously), as - whether his ideas are mainstream or not - they are certainly of note. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC))

Mobo Gao references to be removed

Thanks for your comment MBO. Allow me to quote Michael Rank one more time:

"But Gao's attacks on Chang are sometimes uncomfortably personal, while his defence of the cultural revolution failed to convince me." The revolution, revised by Michael Rank at guardian.co.uk

Gregor Benton:

""A powerful mixture of political passion and original research, a brave polemic against the fashionable view on China. ... Aims a knockout blow at Jung Chang's recent book on Mao, which Bush and the conservatives rave-reviewed." Gregor Benton, Professor of Chinese History, University of Cardiff.

The above two reviewers would about sum up the Western mainstream academic view point on Gao. I have spend hours doing Google search on Gao's book, hoping to discover some "positive" reviews, unfortunately, I failed. Looks like The Battle for China's Past: Mao & the Cultural Revolution has been more or less ignored by the general academic world.

That said, first of all, Gao's references should be removed from the lede, according to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, and then we shall proceed to other sections. User John Smith's input would be very much welcomed here. Arilang ^talk 04:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that Gao's views could be used to represent the fringe perspective promoted by people like him. I disagree with removing his views entirely, because that would border on censorship. But what he wrote is clearly a piece of apologism and propaganda for the communists, not a genuine and rigorous scholarly work; it should be treated as such, which would mean sequestering it to one section of the article, identifying it clearly as coming from a radical press, along with its reception, and the author's position (I think he's a Confucius Institute head, if I recall correctly), and the broad point of the views. In no way does Gao present a counter-narrative to the historical facts of the period. His contribution to the debate could be said to be a footnote to a footnote, if you asked for my opinion. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I would have some issue with the assertion that his work is "clearly a piece of apologism and propaganda for the communists, not a genuine and rigorous scholarly work", and I'd argue that anyone who actually reads the book will realise that it is not. It does however focus predominatly on a fringe element of the Cultural Revolution, i.e. it's reception in the last two decades or so. And it is in this area that it should primarily be used as a footnote.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Shall we say we have reached consensus on removing Gao's reference from the lede, since we all have agreed that his book border on fringe theory? Arilang ^talk 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This article needs a complete re-write

• "Designed to purge capitalist thought from the country, it was instituted by Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China, in order to further advance socialism within the nation.[1] " This sentence should be removed, as it is Wikipedia:Describing points of view#Biased writing, "Mao Zedong... in order to further advance socialism within the nation", this statement is not "fact", it is Mobo Gao's POV, his biased opinion, which has no place in wikipedia, should be removed. What was "fact"? Why did Mao start the CR? Because Mao has a personal desire to get rid of Liu Shaoqi and others, because Mao wanted to consolidate his political position as the new Emperor of China. This is "Fact", and this fact is well documented. Arilang ^talk 06:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

History of CCP

“

在大胆地往前闯的过程中犯过严重的错误，经历了严重的曲折，特别是急于求成的“大跃进”和“文化大革命”那样的全局性错误...《党史》二卷对这两次严重错误和曲折并没有回避。在第二编和第三编中，以大量篇幅详细地写出这两次严重错误的演进过程和造成的恶果。这些痛苦的事实是不应该被忘却的。http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2011-01/17/c_12987574_2.htm

”

When we deal with Chinese history, the History of CCP cannot be ignored. 两次严重错误: Translation: committed serious error twice, refer to Great Leap Forward and CR, and “大跃进”和“文化大革命”那样的全局性错误: Translation: GLP and CR were overall and complete error. This is the official version of CCP, according to it's own History Department. "CR was a complete error". Yet in this lede, we have Mobo Gao's biased version, "to further advance socialism", a Gao's POV, should be removed. Arilang ^talk 06:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

张启华：“文化大革命”是要彻底否定的，没有任何进步的意义，所以不去肯定它。毛泽东发动“文化大革命”的主要论点，是“左”倾错误的论点，曾经被概括为“无产阶级专政下继续革命的理论”

http://www.chinaelections.org/Newsinfo.asp?NewsID=197381

张启华：“文化大革命”是要彻底否定的: CR has to be absolutely rejected(by the History Department of CCP) 张启华 is one of the editor of CCP Official History（《党史》二卷） Arilang ^talk 06:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Official CCP stance

In this document, it is stated that the "Chief responsibility for the grave 'Left' error of the 'Cultural Revolution,' an error comprehensive in magnitude and protracted in duration, does indeed lie with Comrade Mao Zedong". It is stated that the Cultural Revolution...brought serious disaster and turmoil to the Communist Party and the Chinese people."[55]

Shouldn't the CCP official version of CR be included in the lede? Afterall, this is CHINESE history. Arilang ^talk 07:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This article should definitely include both, but it SHOULD NOT be emphasizing the official CCP view, which of course is untrustworthy. The article needs serious updates and additions from sources other than the official Chinese version. And the introduction should most definitely include a paragraph about the horrible persecution that occured in that period. Why is there no mention of this until later in the article, and even then it is buried in an obscure section? That is certainly not balanced. I recommend adding this to the introduction: "Millions of people in China were violently persecuted during the Cultural Revolution. Those identified as spies, "running dogs", "revisionists", or coming from a suspect class (including those related to former landlords or rich peasants) were subject to beating, imprisonment, rape, torture, sustained and systematic harassment and abuse, seizure of property, denial of medical attention, and erasure of social identity. At least hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, starved, or worked to death. Millions more were forcibly displaced. Young people from the cities were forcibly moved to the countryside, where they were forced to abandon all forms of standard education in place of the propaganda teachings of the Communist Party of China."Computer1200 (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with mentioning destruction in the intro, but I think what you've written so far is a little bit sensationalistic. For example, "young people were forcibly moved to the countryside" etc. sounds as though all young people were moved to the countryside for no reason except to listen to propaganda. This is just somewhat misleading. Also, I am one for short and sweet introductions. We should describe things in the dryest, most factual manner possible, in the least number of words. A four paragraph intro is absolute maximum, and we need to cut down the current length. Colipon+(Talk) 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

users Computer1200 and Colipon are welcome to add content to this draft article: User:Arilang1234/Draft/The Ditch. Users may also find these videos useful:

• Culture Revolution - Public execution & Impact
• China - Mao Bloody Revolution Revealed (Part 1)

• China - Mao Bloody Revolution Revealed (Part 5)
• China - Mao Bloody Revolution Revealed (Part 6)
• China - Mao Bloody Revolution Revealed (Part 7)
• China - Mao Bloody Revolution Revealed (Part 8)

[

Arilang ^talk 03:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Two Paragraphs

The purpose of the two offending paragraphs in the "Great Leap Forward" section is to connect the Great Leap Forward with the Cultural Revolution by pointing out how the Great Leap Forward led to a broad decline in Mao's prestige and popularity, and how Mao dealt with this challenge by playing politics, eventually resulting in the Cultural Revolution as an extension of these efforts. I believe that this is the central relationship between these two events. The current edit isn't very clear about what the relationship between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution actually was. I believe that we should be able to find sufficient sourced data to support this relationship, and the inclusion of these two paragraphs is meant to be a movement towards this direction.

I didn't put the paragraph on Lin Biao in the section titled "Lin Biao" because the current edit of that section only covers Lin's activities after 1968, and focuses on his later power struggle with Mao. The information that I want to add is more relevant to connecting the Great Leap Forward with the Cultural Revolution, and doesn't seem to fit there. Lin is introduced in the "Great Leap Forward" section, so I believe that the "Great Leap Forward" section should be the most appropriate place for a paragraph that describes his relationship with Mao shortly after his appointment. Lin is mentioned in other places before the "Lin Biao" section, so I do not believe that all information on Lin should be placed there by default, according to the current edit.Ferox Seneca (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - they are extremely helpful. I have readjusted some of the wording in the paragraph to hopefully better reflect this connection. Although I still beg to differ on Lin Biao - aside from my reason in the edit summary, another reason to remove the Lin Biao paragraph is that what Spence said seems to contradict what has been said by MacFaquhar and Jin Qiu, both scholars who have studied the CR in depth. They do not believe Lin played a very prominent role until much, much later in the CR. Jin Qiu in particular asserts that in fact Lin Biao was a very passive character that wasn't much interested in Maoist theory. I think perhaps we can say that "Lin Biao was more friendly to Mao's leadership" or something along those lines to 'set the scene'. What do you think? Colipon+(Talk) 23:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Lin Biao was a extremely complex person, unlike Mao, who had many books written on his life, Lin Biao's life is still very much shrouded in mystery. There was a theory that during the Lushan Conference Mao and Lin had grouped together to attack Pang Dehuai. And during CR, Lin Biao supported Mao's attack on Liu Shaoqi. So there is no deny that throughout his life, Lin was a willing partner of Mao. The one exception might be the refusal to lead the Chinese People's Volunteer Army at the beginning of the Korean War. Arilang ^talk 00:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Death toll and cannabalism

I assume this information is reliable because it is already in the "Struggle sessions and purges" section, not the "Aftermath" section as i wrongly wrote in the edit summary. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

100,000 deaths from cannibalism even in the whole of the several centuries is questionable; you will need extra sourcing to avoid the fringe theory pitfall. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not that interested, I was just trying to improve the introduction using information in the text. If an article on a historical event that resulted in mass death gives no idea in the introduction of a death toll and doesn't mention any deaths, it seems to me to be pretty poorly written introduction. 212.42.188.177 (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Mao Zedong Cultural Revolution.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Mao Zedong Cultural Revolution.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism section

C.J. Griffin, the edits as they stand are absurd. That 100,000 people could be killed due to cannibalism in Guangxi alone when considering the total number of deaths in the revolution (at most several million) is implausible, and per WP:FRINGE, extreme statements need to be well-sourced; the single reference you provided WON'T cut it. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit to "Legacy"

I agree with the need to improve prose and organization, and to remove spurious and superfluous perspectives and those based on marginal viewpoints. A recent edit to the "Legacy" section removed the sourced perspective that modern China censors information about the Cultural Revolution because allowing a greater understanding of the events between 1966-1976 may lead to a broad criticism of Mao Zedong, which would not be in the interests of the Party. I believe that this is a noteworthy and reasonable interpretation, and I want to restore this information.Ferox Seneca (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

As the user responsible for the pruning of that entire section, I just want to get a clearer idea of what exactly you wanted to restore, and the exact source that you are pointing to. I did a series of very comprehensive edits, I've moved many sources around, shortened parts that I thought were redundant, and expanded on parts that I believe deserved more due weight (or simply give more context). As for your concerns, I believe the section "Contemporary China" is what you are referring to, and currently the section reads:

Public discussion of the Cultural Revolution is still limited in China. The Chinese government continues to prohibit news organizations from mentioning details of the Cultural Revolution, and online discussions and books about the topic are subject to official scrutiny. Textbooks on the subject continue to abide by the "official view" (see above) of the events. Many government documents from the 1960s on remain classified, and are not open to formal inspection by private academics. At the National Museum of China in Beijing, the Cultural Revolution is barely mentioned in its historical exhibits. Despite inroads made by numerous prominent sinologists, independent scholarly research of the Cultural Revolution is discouraged by the Chinese government. There is concern that as witnesses age and die, the opportunity to research the event thoroughly within China may be lost.

That the government still displays such heightened sensitivities around the Cultural Revolution is an indicator that it still considers itself, at least in part, an inheritor of its legacy. The government is apprehensive that academic probing and popular discussions will lead to ideological conflict and increase social instability. It may threaten the foundations of Communist rule. The focus of the Chinese government on maintaining political and social stability has been a top priority since the Tiananmen crackdown on reformers on June 4, 1989, and the current government has no interest in re-evaluating any issue that might lead to a split in the Chinese leadership, or which might polarize the Party on ideological grounds.

This section sources two New York Times articles and the Fong book. It clearly states that restrictions on discussion about the Cultural Revolution is in place in Mainland China, and gives examples of these restrictions. In addition, it mentions that the current government is jittery, going as far as to say that "[discussions about the Cultural Revolution] may threaten foundations of Communist rule." I think this sufficiently sums up the political environment in China around the 'restrictions' surrounding the Cultural Revolution.

That said, I am very much open to hear your views and how you think this section should be framed. Colipon+(Talk) 06:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Aw, scratch that. After looking over the section again, I found that more information was re-added than I thought. The section is fine.Ferox Seneca (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mao killing people

Quigley can you please explain your last edit. Here are my questions. Why remove the quote " Mao himself showed no scruples..." sourced to MacFarquhar? Why remove the picture? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to hear your explanation to that edit (and the picture removal). Colipon+(Talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

anyway, I put it back. See source here. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That picture is copyrighted and only had a non-free use rationale for use at struggle session. If you think it's essential and meets all the requirements, then you should write a formal rationale. About the text: saying those "who dared to defy [Mao's] notice" instead of just "those who defied" makes those who disobeyed Mao out to be courageous heroes, which is not an impartial treatment of the subject. I also took exception to the tone of this sentence: "Mao himself showed no scruples about the taking of human life", because it could be read as Mao directly killing people and not feeling sorry for it, or Mao giving direct orders to kill certain people. In fact, the previous sentence simply and neutrally stated that Mao issued a public notice for police not to harass Red Guards. Isn't that enough? Writing that attributes the Red Guards' violence singularly to Mao and to Mao's personality (he is described as having a "decadent and eccentric lifestyle" earlier in the article) looks more polemical than text in an encyclopedia should. That sentence, and the following quote that tried to put praise of Hitler in Mao's mouth, triggers the same sort of conservative Wikipedian instinct that BLP violations do. The man isn't living, but to write about him as if he were might make for a better article. Shrigley (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear that we are discussing this paragraph:

The work of the Red Guards was praised by Mao Zedong. On August 22, 1966, Mao issued a public notice, which stopped "all police intervention in Red Guard tactics and actions." Those in the police force who dared to defy this notice were labeled "counter-revolutionaries." Mao himself showed no scruples about the taking of human life during the Cultural Revolution, and went so far as to suggest that the sign of a true revolutionary was his desire to kill.

I think there are more important things to worry about in this article - the parts that are in the worst shape are in the middle, beginning with "1966" and going all the way to Lin Biao. I.e. the three years where CR was at its height is currently the most poorly written part of the article.

That aside, I don't think Shrigley's concerns are totally unwarranted. I've read that passage a few times and I see the inclusion of Hitler in the quotation as more or less sensationalism and selective quoting. I have read Schoenhals and MacFaquhar's book, and it places central responsibility (as it should) on Mao for CR, but it is not quite so "Jung Chang" in portraying Mao as a one-sided figure throughout. I think a more nuanced approach is better here. From page 122 of Mao's Last Revolution, we see that M&S were referring to Mao's 'directives' as having unleashed the terror of the Red Guards in 1966. It should be placed in this context in the article. Quotations, unless they are absolutely crucial, should be eliminated from articles like this as much as possible. We should ideally try to gather information from more than one secondary source and try to fit everything together in neutral prose. Colipon+(Talk) 21:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So, my alternative suggestion would be this:

On August 22, 1966, Mao issued a notice to stop "all police intervention in Red Guard tactics and actions." Those in the police force who defied this notice were labeled "counter-revolutionaries." Mao, drawing on his experiences from prior to 1949, suggested that "the sign of a true revolutionary was his desire to kill." Mao's praise for rebellion gave a boost to the Red Guards, whose actions grew increasingly violent.

Colipon+(Talk) 21:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that sourced information supporting the view that Mao encouraged extrajudicial violence against perceived political opponents should be removed just because it is critical of Mao, but the paragraph could be edited to be less POV. I'm not familiar enough with the Mao-Hitler quote to tell what degree Mao is quoted in context in this section, but it's true that secondary sources are preferable. Colipon's suggestion is preferable to the original version and to Quigley's more extensive revision. I would change "gave a boost to" to "encouraged", "legitimized the actions of", or "effectively endorsed the actions of" but this is very minor.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed that section, and hope the current revision is more-or-less acceptable to all parties. It really is still in poor shape overall, and needs a serious copy-edit/overhaul sometime soon. Colipon+(Talk) 07:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)