Talk:Chinese Communist Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CWH (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 12 March 2024 (→‎Requested move 4 March 2024: additional reasons for opposing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sotchoud. Peer reviewers: Sotchoud.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we should vote on this

let's put it to a vote, shall we? 71.246.72.214 06:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a s=cite that shouldn't be used in the case of a history project. I have a friend who edited a page as a fist hand account of Hurrican Katrina, even though he has lived in TExas his whole life and was not there.

first, what are your reasons? a simple search shows that the term is not being used solely to refer to 1949.--Jiang 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the top google searches ARE for the 1949 revolution

Google lists the Chinese Revolution hits primarily as those referring to the Chinese Revolution ending in 1949 with the communist seizure of power. Some seem to include the years in the 1910s which would merge the Xinghai Revolution and Chiang Kai-Shek's republican/nationalist revolution into a single era, but in any case even that period ends with 1949 and the communist seizure of power away from Chiang's forces. This all casts the 1949 revolution as the main "Chinese Revolution." Again, I think we should have a vote on this. 71.246.93.238 09:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is meant to disambiguate. Please follow the standard disambiguation format and do not write an article in its place. There is no need to create duplicate and redundant articles. --Jiang 04:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

other pages do things like this

Jiang, I feel I am entitled to object on the grounds that other pages with straight names -- i.e., no parentheses or qualifiers -- also have articles that immediately go into its most popular, most accepted definition, yet have disambig italics at top, which the version of the page that explains the revolution as the 1949 revolution most certainly does have. Fact being, the 1949 revolution is the most widely recognized worldwide as the "Chinese Revolution," and a lot of pages dealing with communism link Chinese Revolution on them, which if your disambig were kept as opposed to letting the 1949 explanation version stand, could very well make the process more tedious for those lefties who thought they were going to find out basic info but instead were forced to click on Chinese Civil War and read up on the whole process as opposed to the summary -- a summary which, by the way, was gleaned directly from the most essential parts of the Civil War article; it wasn't a rewrite or a paraphrasing. 24.199.91.55 11:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is redundant, as a topical overview of the 1949 revolution, with the Chinese Civil War article. The "topical disambiguation" would only work if you tried moving the content from the Chinese Civil War article over to here, which would be wholly inappropriate. Besides, topical disambiguation is only used when one of the choices overwhelmingly is favored over the others. But this isn't the case! And it isn't settled whether the communist revolution starts earlier, in 1927, or only includes the final stage of fighting. From everything Ive read, including speeches by communist leaders, the revolution refers to the former with the Long March included. The very term "Chinese Revolution" is inherently ambiguous and is not used in serious literature.
If linking to a disambiguation page is a problem, the let's fix the links! Proper implementation of Wikipedia:Summary style would entail starting an article on the War of Liberation that is longer and more detailed than the Chinese_Civil_War#Final_stage_of_fighting_.281946.E2.80.931950.29 section.--Jiang 12:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP users

This is a disambiguation page. Please use your common sense: Chinese revolution does not specifically refer to the general War of Liberation. Any further changes without explanation will be reported. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a disambiguation page. The Communist takeover of 1949 was not a revolution and is never referred to as one by serious historians. This page is unscholarly and ridiculous.116.28.15.77 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news' site

This site: [Fox News] has an article about this revolution.Agre22 (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Meow

A google search [1] of the word "Chinese Revolution" turns up several different meanings. Please don't make it a fork for the chinese civil waar article. Blueshirts (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved per discussion  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Revolution → Chinese Revolution (1949) — The term "Chinese Revolution" is clearly ambiguous (is that possible?) and most often refers to the 1911 Revolution (Xinhai Revolution), not the end of the Chinese Civil War. — AjaxSmack 01:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no primary topic for this term. In addition to referring to the 1911 revoltion and the end of the Civil War in 1949, it is also a general term for the turmoil in China in the 19th and 20th centuries (note John King Fairbank's seminal The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985). See these Google Book Results and Google Scholar Results for a sample of the various applications of the term. — AjaxSmack 01:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey and discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

January 2013 tag

This article may have been copied from a source. After the end of a sentence, there may be a roman numeral. What does that numeral mean? There are no numerals in the references section. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 22:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a massive edit on December 4 which added an block of unbroken text: Here Over the next few edits the text was slightly formatted but no notes or references. ch (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Revolution (1946−1950) → Chinese Communist Revolution – As mentioned above, there was an article titled "Chinese Communist Revolution" that was merged into Chinese Civil War, because it was considered topic duplicate of this article, looking back, I think that's a better, more accurate title. Charles Essie (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment the phrase "Chinese Communist Revolution" is definitely very notable since it has 133,000 results in Google Books. [2] I'm leaning towards support, however, I'd like to hear others' comments. --Երևանցի talk 00:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Would Deletion Be the Best Policy?

Should this article be deleted? I have tagged it for deletion because I think that would be the best thing but also to give other editors the chance to form a consensus on how to deal with several issues:

  • This article has serious issues of fact and interpreation: "The Soviet Union provided little aid to the communists" and "Nationalist forces were surviving almost entirely by the grace of their international capitalist sympathisers (chiefly, the United States)."
  • This article is a WP:STUB, that is, too summary to be useful to a reader, and it would not make sense to develop it when there is already better coverage elsewhere.

Does this make sense? My understanding is that the discussion should take place on the Deletion discussion page, where I will also post these reasons.

All the best. ch (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Communist Revolution for the discussion. tl;dr decided the article should be improved, not deleted. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to the improvements to this article from editors who wanted to retain it. ch (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to the improvements to this article. MaynardClark (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous name!

It wasn't a revolution, it's never referred to as a revolution. It's ridiculous that this article should have such a silly name!92.90.17.136 (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chinese Communist Revolution → Chinese Civil War – The article Chinese Civil War should be renamed as or merged into Chinese Communist Revolution,[1] and the article Chinese Communist Revolution should be renamed as Chinese Civil War.[2] 芄蘭 (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-communism/chinese-communist-revolution-and-the-world/E51E80A236D4AB05850F53F9487F70BE#fndtn-references. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.britannica.com/event/Chinese-Civil-War. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To add to article

To add to the first paragraph of this article: the years this revolution takes place. The infobox says 1945-1950 while the first paragraph implies (but does not state conclusively) that it began in 1946 and ended in 1949. Please fix! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rewrote lead

The article is very misleading, not least in having contradictory descriptions in the lead and in the body of the article of what the revolution was. The article follows the correct scholarly view that the revolution started with the founding of the CCP in 1921, or even, as Bianco's book has it, 1915. But the lead limits it to the last phase of the Chinese Civil War. I will make a quick edit to the lead, but we should work a little more to make this the good article it deserves to be.ch (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede sentence

I will remove "Chinese People's War of Liberation" and "National Protection War against the Communist Rebellion" from the lede because I cannot find references that these are how the "Chinese Communist Revltion" is "offically known" and in fact few if any references that use them at all. The Google search "National Protection War against the Communist Rebellion" doesn’t find any hits and "Chinese people's war of liberation" finds only a few incidental uses, while People's War of Liberation" doesn’t find hits that describe this article. ch (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2024

Chinese Communist Revolution → Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War –
1. The Chinese People's War of Liberation, National Protection War against the Communist Rebellion, and Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War in the "Other Names" section of the infobox all mean the events between 1946 and 1950, while this article contains the events since 1927. So, "Chinese Communist Revolution" is very different from the three titles mentioned above. The "Other Names" in the Infobox is misleading.
2. The Chinese version of this article uses the title "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War", and the name is used in multiple contempary media articles. Here are some examples: 1 2 3 4. If not changed, this article will not be the English version of the article "第二次國共內戰".
3. All the images in the Infobox are related to the conflict between 1946 and 1950. None of them are before 1946, so are the other sections of the Infobox.
4. Besides the Chinese version, other language versions, like the Korean and Vietnamese ones, all describe the event between 1946 and 1950.
5. If not changed, sections 2 to 5 of this article will be very similar to the article Chinese Civil War, and there will be lacking an article describing the events between 1946 and 1950.
Besides the title change, I also suggest condensing the sections 2 to 5 of the article while expanding section 6. In addition, the "Date" in the Infobox section should start from 1946, not 1927. GoldWitness (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, since I have to object to some of the OP's reasons. English Wikipedia's policies on article titles act independently than what the Chinese Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia versions are doing. Here on the English Wikipedia, article titles are based on the common name used by a majority English-language sources, not Chinese or other language sources. And if a majority of English-language sources refer to all of those specific events since 1927 under the general umbrella "Chinese Communist Revolution" title, then that should also be reflected here too. Furthermore, as noted in the hatnote template at the top of the article, this page should basically be a general summary style article about the "political and social developments, and the origin and aftermath of the war" while the Chinese Civil War page is more detailed about the specific "military actions". Now if there is a proposal for a further page split to those specific events, while keeping this page a summary style article, that is a separate discussion entirely. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion. The problem is that the Chinese Communist Revolution is not the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War. This article indicates that they are separate things. I do not oppose the fact that the name "Chinese Communist Revolution" appears in many English-language sources. Instead, I want to suggest that since this article is linked to "第二次國共內戰" (Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War), it should be about the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War, not a different thing. After renaming, I am open to contributing to a new article called "Chinese Communist Revolution". GoldWitness (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article titles, summary style articles, and page splits here on the English Wikipedia should act independently than what the Chinese Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia version is doing, because English-language sources may organize topics differently than what Chinese or other language sources are doing. I still currently oppose because I myself do not currently find the exact name "Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War" in many English-language sources.[3] Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, do you think it is better to cancel its link to other languages? If so, please help do that. I am not very good at Wikipedia grammar. GoldWitness (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will likely be reverted at some point because this page is currently the best equivalent match, regardless of the differences between the other Wikipedias. The links to the other languages are generally more based on language interpretation than literal translations. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I want to point out that this article indicates that the Chinese Communist Revolution ≠ Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War. Regarding the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War, there are English language sources like 1 , 2, and 3 that we can find if we try to add a quotation mark when searching. Anyway, I think this is unimportant here. What I think is important is that the two concepts are different, and this article should be either renamed or removed from other languages. GoldWitness (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the organization of topics here is different. Much like American Revolution versus American Revolutionary War. We have one article providing an overview of the political and social developments and changes. And other detailed articles on the actual military actions. What is needed is a page split to a more detailed article on that second civil war, not a page move of the general overview article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in this way, could you please put forward a request to cancel its link to other languages? I do not know how to do this. After that, we can create a new article called The Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War and link it to "第二次國共內戰". Thank you very much! GoldWitness (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I will likely be opposed because this page is currently the best equivalent match on the English Wikipedia. Must have some replacement. Cannot leave it blank. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, do you mean that a page split to a more detailed article on that second civil war is needed? At present, this article occupies the position of the English version of "第二次國共內戰" (Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War). How is it possible to make a page split without first cancelling its link to other languages? Once it is done, a replacement in the form of a page split can be done. GoldWitness (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a page split to a more detailed article on that second civil war is needed. Then I can replace its link to other languages. I cannot cancel the link if there is no immediate replacement. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already cancelled its link to Chinese and several other languages. Thanks! GoldWitness (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also launched a discussion about those languages, which are titled "Chinese Communist Revolution" while actually referring to the Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War in Wikidata. I think this may be controversial, and thus, a consensus is probably needed to change the links further. I hope you can participate in this discussion. Thanks! GoldWitness (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I also oppose creating an new page for the "Second Chinese Civil War". That topic is covered as part of Chinese Civil War. It's rare for English-language sources to refer to the 1946-1949 period as the "Second" Civil War. SilverStar54 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article clearly concerns the period 1921-1949; this is a common periodization; there are almost no references to the subect "Second... War" in English.ch (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further: in reason #2, the four examples of "Second ... War" in Chinese are not Reliable Sources, but commercial or journalistic, and #4 refers to it as "Civil War."ch (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Communist_Revolution&oldid=1213289999"