Talk:Cultural Revolution/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

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

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:

[

Arilang talk 03:01, 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)

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)


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)

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.[1] At the National Museum of China in Beijing, the Cultural Revolution is barely mentioned in its historical exhibits.[2] Despite inroads made by numerous prominent sinologists, independent scholarly research of the Cultural Revolution is discouraged by the Chinese government.[1] There is concern that as witnesses age and die, the opportunity to research the event thoroughly within China may be lost.[3]

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.[1]

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)

Link scrubbing

I would like to do a mass purge of external links on this page as part of the process to streamline it, but I will paste any links I remove here, so that people can easily access it, and discuss their merits if necessary. Colipon+(Talk) 18:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed links

Internet video

General clean-up

The state of the article has been improving over the years, but evidently a lot of work still needs to be done. To this end I've attempted a 'sandwich' approach. Attacking the front and back ends of the article, and focusing in on the middle chunk at the end. I've primarily used one source, Mao's Last Revolution by MacFaquhar and Schoenhals, which has become one of the most authoritative English-language works on this subject. I realize this article is getting a little lengthy, and have tried to cut out unnecessary information. Though when I look at the size of the article on Barack Obama, I begin to feel a little bit better here. Colipon+(Talk) 16:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Heavy reliance upon a single source

MacFarquhar and Schoenhals are cited no less than 43 times (out of 127 citations). This is in an article of over 12,000 words. There must be some other sources out there that are pertinent ("Red Star Over China" by Snow, or perhaps Frank Dikötter has done some relevant research). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.184.235.166 (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible bias

Mao Zedong's desire to have the Chinese people keep wary eyes on their leaders is not dissimilar from countries with advanced democracies and that claim to have enlightened governance and leadership.

This seems to break neutrality. 98.255.23.89 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Historical relics

This section reads to me problematic. The destruction phase is mainly in the 1960s, and was largely over in most of China by the early 1970s, yet this section mentioned the Terracotta Army and the Mawangdui which were excavated after the destructive phase. The archaeological excavations are in fact separate issue, and not related to the destruction of historical relics, so it seems wrong to have linked together in one paragraph without making it clear that they happened after that phase. It appears to be the opinion from a book that didn't actually covered much of the destruction of historical relics or gave an in depth analysis on that issue, so it is hard to tell how valid this opinion is. There is also a complete absence of mention of destruction of large number of religious sites which were one of the main targets (apart from a brief mention elsewhere). This section reads very odd, and does not appear to be an attempt to give a clear and unbiased view on the subject. Hzh (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Text adjusted and added some on the extent of destruction, but still could do with a bit on places like Tibet where the damage was worse and continued for longer. The original text read like a deliberate attempt to conflate two different issues to make things seem not as bad it was. Hzh (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

End of the GPCR in the lede?

It is controversial and not clear when the GPCR ended. Mao tried to say it ended in 1969, but it is common to say 1976. Many in China still refer to "ten lost years" and Western scholars often include the years from 1969-76. For instance: MacFarquar & Schoenhals Mao's Last Revolution; Fairbank & Goldman, China: A New History; Ebrey/ Walthall/ Palais East Asia; Schoppa, Revolution and its Past. Spence The Search for Modern China and Ebrey Cambridge Illustrated History don't specify. This article itself extends to 1976, so I rearranged the final paragraph of the lede to reflect this, without, however, committing to either 1969 or 1976, which it is not the job of editors to do. ch (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The destructive phase happened in the 1960s, so by the early 1970s, it was considered largely over, at least in most parts of China. I certainly remember reading in the early 1970s about the destruction of the Cultural Revolution, written somewhat in hushed tones with a sense of regret, but sounding as if it is something that's in the past. They certainly felt confident enough by the early 1970s to assess the damage done in the 1960s, something they would not have been allowed to do at the height of the Cultural Revolution. However, those responsible were still in power, and the effect of the Cultural Revolution continued for a while, which is presumably the reason why some consider the 1970s to be just the later, less destructive, phase of Cultural Revolution. For some time Cultural Revolution referred to the 1960s period (although the boundary is a bit vague), the broadening of this period to 1966-1976 is something that happened later, according this, it was declared to be so in 1981. Hzh (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this point again. I have added a reference to the lede quoting the official resolution on the 6th Plenary Session of 1981. ch (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
According to this this, the formal end of the Cultural Revolution was declared in 1977, although all through the 70s the articles I read referred Cultural Revolution to the 1960s period. So there is a difference between official date and what's popularly used then. Hzh (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you are suggesting that we change anything in the article. If you are suggesting a change, then please look through the definition of a Wikipedia Reliable Source. A Reliable Source is not just something on the internet. I put language into the lede which does not draw conclusions, but is simply a report of official statements in any case. Of course you are completely correct that people in most countries have opinions which differ from their government's official positions, but we can't put these into an article without a Reliable Source. ch (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting anything, just noting the difference in what was the common perception in the 1970s and the official position. There are I'm sure plenty of sources that discussed the end date of Cultural Revolution, here for example. If someone wants to look further into it and expand the content then by all means, but the lede at the moment is fine as it is (and thank you for the change). It is not a very important issue at moment in any case, I would say that the more serious problem is with sections like Arts, Historical Relics and others which need improving (relying on the Gao source is highly dubious, as noted before, he doesn't appear to be at all neutral and has been given excessive prominence here). Hzh (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

178.61.85.127 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 16:47, 28 April 2014 (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)

What about PIPA, SOPA, the PATRIOT Act, or the French headscarf ban, to name just a few examples? Isn't it just great live in the west! g.rocket (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2012 (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

There is a total lack of understanding capitalism as an international system. Yes, first world nations enjoy relatively speaking a cushy life, but on the backs of much of the third-world who produce most of the things and cultivate most of the resources for the first-world to enjoy. One would say slavery was a great system if it only looked at slavemasters and how great the quality of products from cotton and sugar were, whilst ignoring the human cost to produce these things. Each first-world nation, England, France, Netherlands, America and so on, accumulated vast wealth, labor and resources from imperialism and theft, forcing less powerful lands into subservience. India showed a growing textile trade in its economy until the British came, and for 200 years had zero GDP growth, but the UK then suddenly enjoyed industrialization. Africa with all its gold, diamonds, oil and so on, still remains vastly poor and exploited by foreign capital like Shell, Exxon, D'Beirs and so on. The CIA and US military has overthrown and invaded numerous nations to replace governments with complaint regimes that exploit their own people for the benefit of Western interests. If you ask a jingoist why the troops must fight in these far away lands, they usually show a fair understanding of the reason, "they are fighting over there so we can enjoy the life we have here," which is basically correct. The Chinese elite definitely exploit their laborers, but it is largely in service to a larger global capitalist system, for which the producer nations serve the consumer nations by making things most of the producers themselves would never be able to enjoy and own themselves. It this international system that employs mass murder, dictatorial powers, repression and so on. Ask the nearly two million dead Iraqis, the four and half million dead Vietnamese, and the million dead Filipinos killed by the America or the million killed in Kenya and over three million dead in Burma at the hands of the British. How about the three million Ugandan refugees shelled by Fort Leavenworth-trained US-puppet Paul Kagame? But because it is *merely* imperialism, war, occupation, adventurism, and so on, it is not counted as a black mark on Capitalism and the West. So the next time you buy a garment made in Indonesia or fill your gas tank with Iraqi oil, think about how you would "be singing a very differetn tune" if you were on the other end of the system2600:1002:B01E:7DA5:758D:5B16:98B7:7A6C (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Infiltrated

He did not say that bourgeois elements infiltrated government"government". He was a Marxist he knew that the state or "government" is a function of the ruling bourgeois class — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:172:6E26:DD7B:F528 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Spelling error

Spelling error in the article: it's "Qur'an," not "Qu'ran." 204.210.190.132 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cultural Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016

Phidman (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 04:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 3 December 2016 (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)

"According to various sources" is a vague statement, and it would be helpful to have listed those "various sources" and cite them. WalkerLynnHeather (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cultural Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Attention

I do not believe that this article is unbiased. My only aim when reading this was being informed about the cultural revolution led by Mao. Unfortunately there are many expressions in this article that give me the impression that the main aim of this article is showing people that Communism is the end of the world, an ideology that destroys people's life. If what you guys want to write an "article", you need to delete that kind of stuff and just concentrate on the dynamics of the cultural revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.128.146.37 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You're insane. Communism has killed 10s of millions, possibly in the 100s of millions. And Mao was the worst of the lot, the Cultural Revolution killed, purposely, millions, following closely on the heels of The Great Leap Forward, which was even more murderous. These people, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, with purpose and malice of intent murdered millions upon millions. There is no way around the murder aspect of communism. 2602:306:3062:D180:8413:A60B:66F3:4257 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The "dynamics" of the cultural revolution included mass murder and famine. Eliminating all of the bad parts don't make an article neutral.65.209.62.115 (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Still, certain sections could be rephrased to describe neutral actions in a neutral tone, for example the section in this article on the 'Red Guards and the Destruction of the "Four Olds"' refers to the Four Olds as 'old customs, culture, habits, and ideas' rather than the less ambiguous version on the page about the Four Olds, where the choice to list 'Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas' in full clarifies that Mao was specifically attacking the parts of society he defined as old, and not all ideas or all culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.160.132 (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Minor edit, please?

"Qiu contests that Lin Biao was never personally involved in drafting the Outline and evidence suggests that Lin Liguo drafted the coup."

I believe "never" should be replaced with "ever" in this snippet, from the subsection "Flight of Lin Biao". Thanks.50.101.248.225 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Democracy in China

The final sentence in the introduction is problematic. 

"Mao Zedong's desire to have the Chinese people keep wary eyes on their leaders is not dissimilar to other advanced democracies."

First it supposes that Mao's objetive was for the Chinese public to judge its leaders critically, which would contradict his own promotion of a personality cult. Second, the sentence asserts that China is or was an "advanced democracy." As far as I am aware that has never been the case

Book for further reading

*{{Cite book |last= Wu |first= Yiching |year= 2014 |title= The Cultural Revolution at the Margins: Chinese Socialism in Crisis |location= Cambridge, MA |publisher= [[Harvard University Press]] |isbn= 978-0-674-72879-0 }}

Second Sentence.

The second sentence is: "Set into motion by Mao Zedong, then Chairman of the Communist Party of China, its stated goal was to enforce communism in the country by removing capitalist, traditional and cultural elements from Chinese society, and to impose Maoist orthodoxy within the Party." I believe there should be a coma between the words "traditional" and "and." I read it a few times to make sure, and it seems like three separate elements (capitalist, traditional, cultural) are being discussed, but without the comma it seems as if capitalist is an adjective which applying to two elements (traditional, cultural). I would add it myself, but page is protected.

Historical sites - Tibet

More needs to be said about the massive destruction of Tibetan temples in this section. The article on Tibet covers this disaster, so RS's are certainly out there for incorporation by involved editors.50.111.4.123 (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018

Add to 'Fictional treatments': - Liu Cixin, translated by Ken Liu, The Three-Body Problem (New York: Tor Books, 2014) 400 p. ISBN 0765377063 TheHegemon (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

"Legacy" section - include Xi Jinping?

Could the legacy include the Cultural Revolution's impact on the current leader of China, Xi Jinping? It is mentioned on his Wikipedia page with some good sources (including some Chinese-language sources which I cannot translate), and I think this article by the New York Times (soft paywall) would be a good place to start. I am unsure as to whether this would be too recentist for this page, but it does seem relevant in terms of long-term legacies on China today. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Marked outstanding citation problems in preparation for GA.

I've marked citation problems outstanding with the article. Usually this is just text at the end of a paragraph where the citation is ambiguous. If an adjacent citation satisfies the marked problem, feel free to simply move it on to the end of the paragraph. Otherwise please find an appropriate citation. If you cannot find a citation by the time the GA1 review starts, I will have to remove those trailing statements, but I will log them here, so they can be restored at a later time when they are verifiable.Ethanpet113 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cultural Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is tagged with a notice to correct the citations, and indeed there remain, several months after this was put into the GAN queue, 21 paragraphs still tagged with "citation needed". The article is accordingly not ready for GAN. The tagged citations need to be fixed before submission.

There are also some citations like 56, 57 (Wang) that are missing a title; this could be avoided by using a Harvard short form link as has been done for ref 115 (Gao). There are also refs not in canonical form, e.g. 116 says simply "Chan" with no date or anything else; this ought to be linked to Chan, Anita, 1985. Same goes for 185 Ewing and various other examples. I note also that 9, 10, 15, 18, 20 have automated short form refs to MacFarquhar and Schoenhals, while 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 and so forth have non-automated short-form refs to the same work, which is frankly not acceptable in a GA. There are many other instances. There are thus multiple styles of short-form referencing in the article; while you might want some long and some short refs, it's less easy to justify multiple short ref styles in one article.

This looks to be a fine article but it needs work before resubmission. I'm therefore quick-failing it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019: Citation Needed

Can there be a "Citation Needed" after the sentence "Some changes associated with the "Four Olds" campaign were largely benign, such as assigning new names to city streets, places, and even people; millions of babies were born with "revolutionary"-sounding names during this period." under the section "Red Guards and the destruction of the "Four Olds" " ? KevinDenks (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Saddly that who can offer some reliable facts to this topic can't reach Wiki

Yes,i mean Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 吾德 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

My mother is Chinese and so much of this is just capitalist propaganda Taylorjayincsharp (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask some Chinese people living in the Republic of China (Taiwan) or Hong Kong to contribute. I'm sure they have a valuable perspective to add. Icemachine79 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Preparing 1967 for GA review citations needed

@128.233.18.38:The statements found in 1967 were added in 2003 by annon IP, pinging and hopping this IP was statically assigned though that is unlikely. It appears to be assigned to the University of Saskatchewan. If you are the user that added this information and can provide citations please do so otherwise it will be removed within 3 days. Ethanpet113 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty to just re-write the entire section, which was written terribly compared to the rest of the article. Colipon+(Talk) 22:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
No response, removing problematic statements, please feel free to restore them if you can find an appropriate citation.

On January 8, Mao praised these actions through the party-run People's Daily, urging all local government leaders to rise in self-criticism, or the criticism of others suspected of counterrevolutionary activity. Many local governments followed Shanghai's example, with Red Guards or other revolutionary groups seizing power from the established ruling class and government organs.[citation needed]

In February, Jiang Qing and Lin Biao, with support from Mao, insisted that class struggle be extended to the military. Many prominent generals voiced their hostility and opposition to the Cultural Revolution. Foreign Minister Chen Yi and Vice-Premier Tan Zhenlin vocally incriminated the turn of events in Shanghai, accusing the movement of "destroying the party". This group of party leaders were subsequently denounced as the "February Countercurrent". Many of these rulers were criticized for trying to sabotage the revolution and fell into political disgrace thereafter.[citation needed]

At the same time, some Red Guard organizations rose in protest against other Red Guard organizations who ran dissimilar revolutionary messages, complicating the situation. In April, at Mao's behest, Jiang Qing attempted to organize Red Guard groups by issuing an order to stop all "unhealthy activity." On April 6, 1967, Liu Shaoqi was openly and widely denounced by a Zhongnanhai faction whose members included Jiang Qing and Kang Sheng, and ultimately, Mao himself.[citation needed]

The situation was quickly spinning out of control; local revolutionary activities lacked centralized leadership. As revolutionaries dismantled ruling government and party organizations all over the country, it was no longer clear who truly believed in Mao's revolutionary vision and who was opportunistically riding the waves of chaos for their own gain. By July, factional violence had become commonplace across the country. On July 22, Jiang Qing directed the Red Guards to replace the People's Liberation Army if necessary, as local Army units continued to support traditional establishment dogma. After the initial praise by Jiang Qing, the Red Guards began to break down barracks and other army buildings. This activity, which could not be stopped by army generals, continued through to the autumn of 1968.[citation needed]

In the central city of Wuhan, like in many other cities, two major revolutionary organizations emerged, one supporting the establishment and the other opposed to it. The groups fought over the control of the city. Chen Zaidao, the Army general in charge of the area, forcibly repressed the anti-establishment demonstrators. However, in the midst of the commotion, Mao himself flew to Wuhan with a large entourage of central officials in an attempt to secure military loyalty in the area. In response, local agitators kidnapped Mao's emissary Wang Li in what became known as the Wuhan Incident. Subsequently, Gen. Chen Zaidao was sent to Beijing and tried by Jiang Qing and the rest of the Cultural Revolution Group.[citation needed]

Ethanpet113 (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ethanpet113 and Colipon: Was this resolved? Can the tag be removed from the article? By the way, pinging IPs won't work, but you could always use their talk page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the 1967 section is no longer problematic. Not really sure about the rest of the article. There are giant chunks of text that, while not uncited, may not be relevant, that in my opinion makes this article fall short of GA criteria. For example, the "mango" section. 19:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019

Missing Citation:

Owing to his loss of esteem within the party, Mao developed a decadent and eccentric lifestyle.[7] 7. Spence

This citation has no reference, appears to be just an author name or editor, with no linking information.

Sentence appears to be opinion without support.

Remove or correct. 67.183.29.188 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The reference refers to "Spence, Jonathan D. (1999). The Search for Modern China, New York: W.W. Norton and Company. ISBN 0-393-97351-4." DannyS712 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712: While you are correct in pointing out to 67.183.29.188 that there is in fact a reference for the citation, the claim in question does not appear to be supported by the source. This would be significantly improved by a page number (WP:PAGENUM and WP:CITEPAGE). As far as I can tell, the only relevant page in the original source is on 590, which reads:
...by late 1960 the Great Leap strategy was discredited in most eyes; and while Mao "retired from the front line," as he put it, other Chinese leaders assessed strategies for recouping the nation's economic losses and rebuilding public morale.
Again on page 600, the source states that Wu Han write critically of "Mao's isolation from an accurate reading of public opinion" in the early 1960s. The claim that Mao developed an "eccentric" lifestyle appears to have been assumed by the editor citing the source while the claim that Mao developed a "decadent" lifestyle is not even implied in the source. This likely needs a Verify source or, more likely, a Failed verification tag. AndersLeo (talk) 13:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

things things are wierd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.110.189.18 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2019

Please add an "other" before "members" in the phrase "Mao and many members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) opposed these changes" because Mao was a Party member. 192.180.76.49 (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

And please change "are" to "were" in the phrase "Effectively it implied that there are enemies of the Communist cause within the Party itself" because this was a past event, and past and present shouldn't be mixed in a single phrase. It's like saying "Johnny ran down the street and talks to his friend." 192.180.76.49 (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Deng "was eventually sent to work in a Jiangxi engine factory." Could this be changed to "was eventually sent to work in an engine factory in Jiangxi province."? It's simpler for people not familiar with Chinese geography. I hadn't heard of Jiangxi, so I thought it was a manufacturing company until I followed the link. 192.180.76.49 (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done, all minor and uncontroversial. --Nemoschool (talk to me) 01:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote

As the title of the article is ambiguous, could the following hatnote please be added?

This page is about the Chinese sociocultural movement. For the event in Libya, see Cultural Revolution (Libya). For the event in the Soviet Union, see Cultural Revolution in the Soviet Union. For the event in Iran, see Iranian Cultural Revolution. For other uses, see List of cultural, intellectual, philosophical and technological revolutions.

Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: Could it be moved above the infobox per MOS:ORDER? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

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) 01:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Western Left

The article is almost exclusively about China. The Revolution influenced some left activists and writers. [1].Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC) [2] Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Short Chinese name

Isn't it commonly called "Wen Ge" (文革) in Chinese, for short? Why not include this basic information in the article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

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): Tdozenbaugh, Rchabes. Peer reviewers: Scrallen, WalkerLynnHeather, Tdozenbaugh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Gao Mobo reference

@Karl Krafft: In this diff, you inserted the claim that "others, particularly members the working class, view it positively", citing Maoist author Gao Mobo. Please provide a page number and exact quote. 99.199.17.63 (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

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) 14:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c Fong
  2. ^ Johnson, Ian (3 April 2011). "At China's New Museum, History Toes Party Line". New York Times. Retrieved 31 October 2011.
  3. ^ "A Grim Chapter in History Kept Closed" article by Didi Kirsten Tatlow in The New York Times July 22, 2010, accessed July 22, 2010
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Revolution/Archive_3&oldid=1178994875"