Talk:Three Red Banners

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

October 18 to 24, 2020 (7th)

So what were the three ideological slogans?

The article doesn't answer this basic question about the topic. GeoEvan (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! This needs to be fixed. In the text of the article there are things that might be the slogans, but that's merely speculation. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the "banners," "flags," and "slogans" are interchangeable as written here:

"The "Three Red Flags" of the title (usually translated as the Three Red Banners) refer to slogans of the time: the General Line for socialist construction, the Great Leap Forward and the people's communes."

However, this book on page 155 describes the "Three Red Banners" as itself a slogan.....:

(X. L. Woo; Two Republics in China: How Imperial China Became the PRC; Algora Publishing, Aug 1, 2014 )

The purpose of the slogan "Three Red Banners," was to help make China a strong and prosperous country in the shortest possible period...

Yes, I myself was expecting something more "sloganie" myself; I shall work on rewording to reflect that.

SteamWiki (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the suggested lead change with the understanding the "Three Red Banners" is itself the slogan comprising of the three components described in the lead:

The Three Red Banners (Chinese: 三面红旗; pinyin: Sānmiàn Hóngqí) was an ideological slogan in the late 1950s which called on the Chinese people to build a socialist state. The "Three Red Banners" also called the "Three Red Flags," consisted of the General Line for socialist construction, the Great Leap Forward and the people's communes.(added ref) Woo, X. L. ; Two Republics in China: How Imperial China Became the PRC; Algora Publishing, New York, NY; p. 155 (2014 )The Other China: Hunger Part I - The Three Red Flags of Death (1976)

If there are no scholarly objections I will check back in a couple of weeks or so and make the changes. SteamWiki (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Protection Of This Article Necessary Due To Disinformation?

I understand people thinking that this article would be a target of "disinfo", I'm wondering if this level of protection is necessary. There might be people with substantive content to contribute that will not be able to edit due to the protection. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 16:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support extended confirmed protection as imposed by administrator ST47. For editors unfamiliar with the context, this meme should illustrate. Opponents of U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden are associating him with Three Red Banners in order to impugn his patriotism and discredit his campaign. It is vital that Wikipedia not leave itself open to abetting this political smear tactic. NedFausa (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to !vote on it here, as an action performed under discretionary sanctions, it can only be appealed to me, to WP:AN, to WP:AE, or to arbcom itself. NedFausa is quite right as to the reason why this is relevant. It is unlikely that this article will need any significant editing over the next few weeks, since it has been stable for many years, but non-extended-confirmed users who wish to propose changes are welcome to submit an edit request. ST47 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes source

If even Snopes can't be used as a source to cover the story, then who watches the watchers here on DNCpedia? 205.175.106.156 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're kind of missing the point -- we don't want to "cover" it if that would mean giving oxygen to lies and disinformation. We could include it on an article devoted to misinformation in the 2020 election... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lies and disinformation have always been covered by a wikipedia whose founding principles is wp:npov. this article is barely a stub, so not including relevant information because you disagree with is just wikiactivism. 205.175.106.156 (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]