User talk:DOR (HK)

Major edits or new articles:

Li Desheng

Chen Xilian

Kang Sheng

Peng Chong

Xu Shiyou

Zeng Shan

Wan Li

Wang Sheng (Taiwan General)

As well as,

General Political Department

People's Liberation Army Air Force

PLA Military Regions and individual regions

Chinese Soviet Republics

Nanchang Uprising

Communist Party of China

Zhu De

Yang Shangkun

Qin Jiwei

Yang Dezhi

May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Li Desheng has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. — iridescent 04:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was entirely unproductive! "Li Desheng" diverts to "Mao Zedong", which seems to prevent me from creating a page for Li Desheng. FYI, he was a Chinese general and member of the politburo standing committee. There is, of course, no reason why this diversion should be there so please undo your reversion! Thanks. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through the process of nominating a deletion of redirect. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC) DOR (HK) (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out my first article, Li Desheng ! Comments welcome! DOR (HK) (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC) And one on Peng Chong, as well as extensive revisions to Xu Shiyou and others.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to People's Liberation Army Air Force has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Arienh4^(Talk) 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Arienh4, I've reverted your revert, as there is no reason on earth why anyone would (a) think that recognition / identification of the actual people running an organization such as the PLAAF is "unconstructive;" and (b) fail to notice that the issue had been discussed on the Talk page.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the Dos and Don't of reverts

Dos

Reverting should be taken very seriously.

Reverting is often used for fighting vandalism and similar abuse.

If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first.

If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, try to improve it, if possible. This may entail factual or grammatical corrections, or style changes such as trimming verbosity.

You can revert your own edit if you realize that it is wrong. Be careful if some other editor has made changes in the interim.

If only part of an edit is problematic, consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit.

Don'ts

Don't let superfluous or badly written material stand in order to avoid slighting its original author. Though your intentions may be good, doing so shirks your duty to the reader.

If your material is reverted, don't take it personally. Not every fact, detail, and nuance belongs in an encyclopedia.

If the edit you are considering reverting can instead be improved (for example, to avoid weasel words, or to re-phrase in a more neutral way), then try to reword, rather than reverting.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid and encyclopedic information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly.

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if there is reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors sometimes choose to transfer the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

In future, please refrain from unconstructive reverts. Thanks.DOR (HK) (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed. It happens sometimes that a good edit gets caught up with vandal edits, and I must've mistaken your edit for a bad one. I am sorry. Arienh4^(Talk) 04:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, don't see this as an attack of sorts, but mistakes happen. So please, try to assume good faith yourself. If we all believe the other one is acting in good faith, we will all be much happier. Again, this wasn't meant as critisism, just an advice. Arienh4^(Talk) 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but still can't figure out why anyone actually looking at the article might have reverted it. If there is some sort of automatic process, it needs to be stopped. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Hello, I would like to thank you for your great efforts of editing those China-related articles. I created some of them, and you did serious research and made substantial contributions. It's a pleasure to read your articles. Now I'd like to discuss the article General Political Department you've edited. It's good to find the online source. But I'm not sure where you found the second half concerning those subdivisions within the Department. They're not in your cited article. My original Chinese source said it at least controls a film studio (8-1 film studio), a PLA athlete training group, a military orchestra, and some political academies, one in Xi'an and one in Nanjing. I'm sure their status in the hierarchy system. They may probably under charge of those sub-departments you've listed. But I think they're worth mentioning, given that they have large exposure in Chinese media. Plus, you may want to clean it up a bit. For example, you have cultural department and culture department, apparently redundancy. Keep up your good work. I'm looking forward to seeing more exciting contributions from you. Regards. Ramtears (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's me again. I was little confused by PLA's publishing houses. I wondered if PLA Literature and Art Press and PLA Press are the same agency. First I found a message at xinhuanet.com [1]. It seems they are different names of the same press. Then this idea was confirmed by the following link [2], which says they merged in October 2003 and the press has at least four names. So you may want to adjust the page General Political Department a bit and eliminate one of them, or note they're the same now. Ramtears (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey It's me again. I may have some questions about the article Chen Xilian you've edited. In first introduction paragraph, you wrote the Little Gang of Four were Chen, Wu, Ji, and Chen Yonggui. But from either Chinese or English sources I could find, the last one seemed to be Wang Dongxing. For example, please take a look at this page [3]. And in my opinion, Wang Dongxing should be placed first because he was very close to Mao Zedong and had most serious problem. And you know that the order of names does matter in China. But at the end of your article, it seems you mentioned Wang correctly. So how did you include Chen Yonggui in the first paragraph? Could you check your source again?

The second trivial problem is your footnotes are a little messy. I assume those ibid refer to Lampton?

The last issue may be little more serious. At the end of your article, according to your tone, Chen shared same fate as the other three demoted officials. But some of my sources (mainly in Chinese) point out that actually his ending was better than the others. This is probably due to his amicable personality, i.e., he got along with different people, and his records in war time. After his purge, he still relied on the re-emerged Song Renqiong, his old friend back to Shenyang MR, and eventually restored his relationship with his former boss Deng Xiaoping. This was reflected by the fact that he was twice elected to standing committee member of Central Advisory Commission in 80's, retaining the equal rank of politburo. While the other three were given member of CAC at best. Especially after the death of Ye Jianying, whom he fell foul of in mid 70's, he got more chances of exposure. After Chen's death, CCP sang high praises of his achievements, not least his first half of life. I wonder if your source mentioned any of his rebounding in 1980's. Thanks. Ramtears (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes to myself

Kang was CCP Social Affairs Department Secretary, CCP Senior Secretary in Shandong (ca. 49?55), and Shandong Governor (ca. 49?55). He served on the Politburo and its Standing Committee throughout the Cultural Revolution (1966-75).

Kang reportedly took Jiang Qing under his wing upon her arrival in Yenan, and placed her in a job working in Mao’s confidential military office. (Hollingworth, p. 60.)

In the Summer of 1966, Kang accused Marshall He Long of secretly preparing troops for a “February Mutiny”. (Hollingworth, p. 120.)

Sources

< ref>Schwartz, Benjamin, hinese Communism and the Rise of Mao, Harper & Row (New York: 1951).</ ref>

< ref>Whitson, William and Huang Chen-hsia, The Chinese High Command: A History of Communist Militry Politics, 1927-71, Praeger (New York: 1973).</ ref>

< ref>Hollingworth, Clare, ao and the Men Against Him, Jonathan Cape (London: 1985).</ ref>

< ref>Editorial Board, Who's Who in China: Current Leaders (Foreign Language Press, Beijing: 1989), p. 315; hereafter Who's Who.</ ref>

< ref>Lamb, Malcolm, Directory of Officials and Organizations in China, 1968-1983 (M.E. Sharpe, New York: 1984)</ ref>

< ref>Lampton, David M., Paths to Power: Elite Mobility in Contemporary China, "Michigan Monographs in Chinese Studies No. 55," The University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: 1986).</ ref>

Redirect

For the ballet dancer of the same name, see Thomas Lund (ballet dancer).

Chen Xilian

Ramtears, Thanks again for taking an interest.

You’re right on the membership of the Small Gang of Four. As for order, it is just as common to have name stroke order as to have a more meaningful one. I can’t find more than one source, so I can’t confirm the proper order. Wang Dongxing certainly was closest to Mao, but he also was instrumental in the 1976 coup d’état. Citation: (http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/china/china_history_china_and_the_four_modernizations_1979_82.html)

The CCP CC 5th Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee “decided to approve the request to resign made by Comrades Wang Dongxing, Ji Dengkui, Wu De and Chen Xilian and decided to remove and propose to remove them from their leading Party and state posts.” But, due to Chen's military contributions (Wang Dongxing was no great soldier), he remained on the MAC to September 1982. Lampton, p. 286-287. Both Chen and Wu De were named to the Central Advisory Committee (CAC) in September 1982, Chen as a Standing Committee member.

I disagree that Song Renqiong was an ally of Chen Xilian. Lampton (p. 276-277) has Chen directing the Red Guard’s attacks at the CCP “Regional Party Bureau and Song Renqiong.”

As for the CAC, the arrangement in 1982-87 (or so) was that the Chair was entitled to sit in on Politburo Standing Committee meetings, but not vote. The Vice Chairs could attend Politburo meetings on the same terms, and the Standing Committee members such as Chen Xilian, could attend Central Committee meetings, only. Chen’s MAC role might have given him the opportunity to attend some Politburo meetings, but not many. His obit was in line with his accomplishments.

Hey, thanks for the discussion. Of course Wang Dongxing was instrumental in getting rid of gang of four. If not for that, he would have been completely discarded by those seniors. The fact is he was so loyal to Mao Zedong and so arrogant and stubborn, many senior officials disliked him. Evidence could be easily found from memoirs of Tan Zhenlin and Zeng Zhi, the wife of Tao Zhu, among many others. So if we are talking about little gang of four, we are evaluating damages they might have caused if they had remained in power. Thus, I guess Wang Dongxing could have done most harm compared with more placable Chen Xilian and others. It's like in Gang of Four, Jiang Qing was always placed first.

Chen Xilian's elevation to CAC standing committee was, as I mentioned, partly due to his personality. He could make self-criticism and listen to criticisms from others after Cultural Revolution. This is something Wang Dongxing would never do. Plus, he was the subordinate of Deng Xiaoping and Liu Bocheng from early years in war time. Thus, he somehow regained some trust from Deng and others in 80's. The exception was Ye Jianying, with whom he competed in Central Military Commission in Mid 70's. Thus, he was still somehow in "shadow" until the death of Ye.

His relationship with Song Renqiong may need more evidence. If that Lampton book is your only source and it's from the point of view of a westerner, we may want to find other materials to gain more comprehensive and objective examination. In theory, any source could be biased and prejudiced. Let's keep looking.

As for the status of CAC, I thought that foreigners believed CAC somehow suppress the politburo standing committee. (See page Central Advisory Commission. But if you think it didn't play a critical role, I'm totally fine with that. After all, the politics in China is sometimes hard to interpret. Regards. Ramtears (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading more material, I agree Chen and Song Renqiong were not close. But meanwhile they're not hostile either. It might be because of their different backgrounds. Song never really led any armies or battles, though he was a general. It's true that Chen succeeded Song as the head of Northeast China, and directed attacks at Song as you said. But what he did was simply following the directive of Beijing, and doing whatever he had to do to keep himself out of trouble. In those turmoil years, it's understandable. I don't think Chen had ambitions or evil intentions as Gang of Four did. Actually in his memoir,[4]Song mentioned Chen 13 times. His amicable style determined he couldn't be seriously execrated. Senior military officials such as Fu Chongbi and Li Desheng recognized his achievements even when criticizing his mistakes. Ramtears (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes: When editing different parts of articles on different days, the footnotes can get out of order. “ibid” means (as you probably know) “same source as the previous footnote,” although it may be a different page. So, the last several are indeed references to Lampton.

---

Ramtears, I’ve been watching Chinese politics on a daily basis for 30 years. One thing I’ve learned is that whether an analyst is Western, Asian, African or Chinese is totally irrelevant to that person’s objectivity. Some of the most bias work I’ve ever read has been by Chinese, whether from the Mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwan or elsewhere.

Such comments about bias and prejudice are thinly veiled racism. I don’t know why you would think “foreigners believed” anything different from what anyone else believes.

The CAC was a means of retiring the old guard, with face. That hadn’t been done before, and they needed a mechanism. It was useful in that it also got Deng Xiaoping’s policy (not political) opponents out of the way. The “critical role” was played by specific individuals (e.g., Chen Yun), not because of their CAC roles but because of personal prestige.

Challenges

Anyone know how to go about replacing a page with exactly one line on it, with a proper bio of another person of the same name? This Wang Sheng never ran the secret police in Taiwan . . . Advice appreciated. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Usually, the page with the name "as such" is for the most known person with that name. Others become something like "Name (specification)". For example: you can have a "John Doe", a "John Doe (politician)", a "John Doe (mathematician)" etc., and at last a "John Doe (disambiguation)" to list them all with a short description. So, if the new "Wang Sheng" is more likely to be of interest to people reading Wikipedia than the current "Wang Sheng", use the "move" button to change the name of the current article to, say, "Wang Sheng (football player)". This will make the current page disappear. Then create it again as the biography of the new "Wang Sheng", and in the text of both pages link to the other, so that people searching for "the other guy" will still find him no matter at which page they start looking around. For more details please read WP:D.

By the way: it's usually not a good idea to ask questions in your own personal talk page, as very few people read these. I were curious about you after your post at Persondata's talk page, and found your question here. Weren't for this and it would go unnoticed for who knows how much time. Best thing in these cases is to ask somewhere more people read, such as WP:HD. -- alexgieg (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexgieg. I posted it here mainly because I wanted to remind myself that it is something I want to look at when I have time. I didn't expect a quick response, and would have done more serious research when the time came. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on 199.173.225.25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cheatsheet