Jump to content

Talk:List of campaigns of the Chinese Communist Party/Archive 1

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

CPC or CCP

The acronym now used by the Communist Party of China on the People's Daily is CPC instead of CCP. Should we use the acronym or move it to "List of Communist Party of China Campaigns"? --Jiang 01:54, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

CPC is a very confusing acronym, but CCP is used in many books and clearly is understood by the readers. I don't know, what do you think? Colipon 23:22, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think we should be listing CPC because that's what the party wants to call itself. However, the phrase "Communist Party of China (CPC)" must always be listed beforehand on the same page to clarify what that CPC is referring to? --Jiang 23:26, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think we should be listing CPC or "Communist Party of China (CPC)" since thats the official name and its the name the party wants to call itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolverOcelotX (talk • contribs) 08:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

PCPP please discuss

Please explain why we should use a euphemism to refer to the persecution of Falun Gong.--Asdfg12345 05:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another question is why you think that the material collected by highly respectable Canadian officials [1] here Appendix 9. Physical Persecution of Falun Gong is invalid in your opinion? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a name of a list of CCP campaigns, not a criticism article of the CCP. You're trying to push a point by including the listed material. None of the other campaigns has criticism linked despite having criticism in their own articles.--PCPP (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am citing a third party source here, while you are citing the CCP. What you are doing is not WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not the PRC's propaganda piece, so stop pushing your point. You are also calling the persecution as a ban, ignoring WP:RS. At this point please either revert or explain yourself. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your so called "third party source" is sponsored by FLG and acts as their mouthpiece. There's plenty of criticism on the PRC's campaigns which refers to the Great Leap Forward as the Great Chinese Famine, yet they're not listed here because this is not a criticism article. The listed campaigns goes by the the official party names, which I listed the PRC source that called the anti-FLG campaign a ban.

It's laughable that you accuse me of breaking NPOV and POINT, when you're the one that edited this article pushing your own FLG propaganda.--PCPP (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense to say that PRC's source is OK, but sources given by high level Canadian officials (who I don't know how you can possibly imagine that can be bought) are not OK. So let's stick with giving a reference to the relevant page, without changing unilaterally it's title. How about that? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It's obvious that the link here should use the name of the actual article, not a euphemism because we don't like the name of the article. If you want to get the name of the article changed, you'll need to work that out independently of this--then it would be updated here. You'll notice when you click "edit" that none of the other links use a euphemism, why should this one?--Asdfg12345 07:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny because that article was named "Suppression of FLG" until you took advantage of Samuel Luo's ban and renamed it to "Persecution of FLG", with little outside discussion. And WP:words to avoid also says:

"Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition...Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral."

And the PRC's description of the anti-FLG campaign is "取缔", which translates to ban/outlaw/suppress, NOT persecute. This is no euphemism, but the governement's official name of the campaign. --PCPP (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya, but we're not going by the CCP's propaganda handbook in building wikipedia, we're going by reliable sources. Besides that, in this particular case it's just a technical issue. The name is called X, so we link to X here, not make up something else. If you want the name changed, that's a separate issue. There's no more to discuss. It may interest you to know that the page was originally called Persecution of Falun Gong before Samuel and Tomananda changed it. --Asdfg12345 08:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And also, this term “取締法輪功”--you're using it as though it were the official slogan of the CCP for their actions against Falun Gong practitioners, like the other campaigns that have official slogans. The source you've supplied is in English and doesn't have this at all. Even if it were established it wouldn't be grounds for changing it here, but I'm making you aware that I believe it was deceptive of you to link that source which does nothing to back up the claim it seeks to make. Was that a mistake, or do you have another source which establishes this?--Asdfg12345 08:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[2] states "取締法輪功", which is the official slogan of the PRC government. "取締法輪功" translates to "suppress/ban FLG". The English title is simply a translation of this, and considering that FLG itself was declared illegal in China, there is nothing wrong with the label, especially since all the campaigns ojn this page goes by the CCP's OFFICIAL SLOGANS.--PCPP (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that 取締法輪功 is the official slogan, that's just in the name of the article. Secondly, the "banning" of Falun Gong is distinct from the persecution of Falun Gong, which the CCP does not acknowledge anyway. All the campaigns on this page are actually just links to the actual articles about those campaigns--why should this precedent be changed to support a euphemism? As I say, get the name of the actual article changed rather than try to ram it through here. I won't revert until you answer again. --Asdfg12345 03:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the term "取締法輪功" is largely used in the PRC's various slogans during the suppression of the movement, which is their official viewpoint on the subject. By using "persecution", you're suggesting that the PRC acknowledges the FLG suppression as "persecution" which is simply not the case. And all these titles goes by their official slogans and titles, so why make an exception on this one?--PCPP (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not taking your word for it here that that is their official slogan. They do not have an "official slogan" of that nature--that is your original research. No doubt they use the term, but you have no source that it is their "official slogan." They barely even publicise or acknowledge that they have any kind of campaign against Falun Gong nowadays anyway--it is all underground and on the sly. 1) The names on this page here are all direct links to the pages they are about, 2) You can't show that 取締法輪功 is the official slogan.--Asdfg12345 07:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[3] [4][5], official PRC publications, all referred to the campaign as "ban".--PCPP (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced

Sources for "anti-spitting campaign"? Seems dubious. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find sources to point out the millions of yuen spent on the program, then it is not dubious. However it would be better to word this as part of a pre-olympic pro-image campaign. That's one way to reduce the rather ridiculous name in the reuters source. The history however does not start there. Chairman Mao was the king of spitting in bowls. Benjwong (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

PCPP required to explain the euphemism for "persecution"

I had actually given up on this, which is uncharacteristic of me. I think I'd actually just forgotten. PCPP, there's now a consensus to include this 字眼. Please don't change it again. --Asdfg12345 04:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been a concensus before [6], and failed to reach an agreement on the terminology. The "ban" label is fine per the PRC government's official name, and consistant with WP:NAME.--PCPP (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In wikipedia, the article is called Persecution of Falun Gong. There is no reason that a euphemism should be used here rather than the actual article name. It doesn't matter that the official term is "ban," because wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party. It's just like the articles on Scientology. They don't follow the Scientology line. They follow reliable sources. Unless you can provide a good reason why we should not assent to reliable sources in this case, and instead the CCP's official line, then please don't change it back. If you can get some community support for why the official terminology should be used, then that's good too. Until then, we should go with RS and Wikipedia internal convention. --Asdfg12345 11:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The other thing that's wrong with that is that the ban is only one part of the persecution. The CCP does not acknowledge the rest (like torture, brainwashing, labour camps). So it's also a kinda misleading term. --Asdfg12345 11:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll put in for a 3rd opinion too. --Asdfg12345 11:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


Response to third opinion request:
I have reviewed the comments on the dispute and both the list page and the Persecution of Falun Gong page. I agree that the description "Banning of Falun Gong" is misleading because the campaign consists of more than just banning. I also think that the description "Persecution of Falun Gong" is problematic because, unlike other titles in the list, it strongly suggests a judgment critical of the campaign, and thus is not neutral. I would even go further to suggest that the title of the Persecution of Falun Gong page should be changed as well, but that is not the main issue here.

When I took a look at the Persecution of Falun Gong page, I noticed that it starts by saying "Persecution of Falun Gong refers to claims [emphasis added] by Falun Gong it has been persecuted by the government of China." The page does not subsequently use the word "persecution" except where it appears in the official name of organizations. The page presents and documents a great many claims of things China has done to Falun Gong, but does so without endorsing the claims. At the same time, it presents enough information and enough citations for it that it makes clear the extent of the persecution.

What I would recommend is that the link title be changed to "Campaign Against Falun Gong". This has the virtue of vagueness - neither suggesting that the campaign was limited to a ban nor endorsing the claims that the campaign was persecution. The link to the page describing in detail the claims gives more than enough information for the reader to decide for him/herself whether the campaign is persecution. Most of the campaigns listed has titles that do not make it clear at all what the campaign was about, and so being more specific in this one (by calling it a ban or a persecution) does not seem needed, especially when, unlike some items, there is a link to an article that gives all the details.—142 and 99 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

May I ask how "persecution" includes a judgement critical of the campaign? In a similar way, what about the articles like Rwandan_Genocide, and The_Holocaust, do they not also mean something negative about those particular campaigns? And when a campaign consists of large-scale propaganda, torture, execution, brainwashing, and labour camps, is it possible to have an accurate title which describes those actions in a way that says nothing about them? I mean, is genocide a negative term, or is it a descriptive term? That page could well have been called "Rwandan Conflict" or something similar. But would that be appropriate? It's the same sort of issue.
It may be helpful to know that the page Persecution of Falun Gong has been the subject of lengthy point of view disputes, and the current version is the result of a number of openly anti-Falun Gong editors' efforts. 60kb of content has been deleted from it over the last 6 or so months. Here's some recent news on the issue, for example. It's not a really controversial thing to call a spade a spade in this case. The fact is that wikipedia should not say nothing or omit information on contentious issues. It should say what the best sources say. And sources like HRW, Amnesty, US Congress, and scholars of Falun Gong are all clear in acknowledging that the persecution is happening. They endorse the fact that there is a persecution. These aren't just "claims" by Falun Gong. They're events that are attested to by a large number of third parties. We should not pretend that these groups have not said these things in the hopes of maintaining a facade of "neutrality." That's not the meaning of neutrality, and doing that would in fact be biased, because it would be omitting significant evidence to support a viewpoint. Neutrality is a methodology. Aside from that there is the technical question of whether the name of the page here should differ from the name of the main page for an apparently political reason (not to be taken in a negative way). What I mean is, if there is an issue with that naming, I think that should be addressed over there. In terms of what it's called here, it seems a bit disorderly to make a decision about that other issue, then apply it to one case. If it's felt by the community that the name is problematic, then whenever it's mentioned it should follow what is considered to be the neutral or proper formulation. So whatever potential issues there are with the name, why should they be taken up here rather than handled in a more organised and central way?
I'm not trying to belabour the point, but this is an ongoing issue that needs more input. I am interested in 1) whether this is a purely technical question about the name of that article, and 2) the wider issue of the correct naming of that article. But I think that only (1) concerns us here. To put my whole issue another way: should this page, or should it not, reflect what the articles it refers to say about themselves, or should the editors here carry out their own investigation and decide what an appropriate name is? Which would lead the door open for all kinds of other disputes about whether the list of other names for the campaigns were appropriate. --Asdfg12345 04:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There is already a lengthy debate on the issue and reached no consensus [7]. Furthermore, the sources used crackdown, suppression, persecution etc pretty much interchangebly, whereas FLG organizations largedly used the term "persecution". WP:LABEL states that some words should be avoided due to the fact that they label, as such the term should be either attributed to the source or replaced with more neutral wording. The Al-Qaeda article for example, does not directly calls it a terrorist organization despite the overwhelming labels, and instead calls it an "Islamist group designated as a terrorist organization by XXX and YYY.--PCPP (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been watching this page recently. I just have one question. If sources uses terms like crackdown, suppression, persecution etc interchangeably, then it may not matter what it's called. In that case, why not just go with the actual name of the article. Sorry if this too simplistic/obvious. I am mostly confused/curious; since the article is called that, it seems obvious. Maybe I don't know something. Homunculus (strange tales) 13:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Asdfg: "May I ask how 'persecution' includes a judgement critical of the campaign?" The term 'persecution' has built into it a negative evaluation. That's just how the word works. There is no such thing as a good persecution. "In a similar way, what about the articles like Rwandan_Genocide, and The_Holocaust, do they not also mean something negative about those particular campaigns?" Actually, they don't. "Genocide" is the systematic killing or attempt to kill an entire class of people. That statement in and of itself is not an evaluative one, even if you believe (as I do) that genocide is always wrong. Whether or not something counts as a genocide is a question of fact, not values. With the Holocaust, the term has become a proper name. Even white supremacists who defend the Holocaust use the term "the Holocaust" to name it.
More generally, it is always a tricky issue to say when it is acceptable for an encyclopedic presentation of information to cross the line from a neutral portrayal of facts to asserting evaluations. I would argue that an encyclopedia should never assert a judgement, since the facts of the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, and even the facts of the campaign of the Chinese government against the Falun Gong are sufficient on their own to lead any reasonable person to see that they are wrong.
Asdfg: "It may be helpful to know that the page Persecution of Falun Gong has been the subject of lengthy point of view disputes, and the current version is the result of a number of openly anti-Falun Gong editors' efforts." I was not aware of this editing dispute at the time I offered my opinion, but now that I am aware I would still stand by my recommendation, although I would suggest that the question here is not so clearly a "third opinion" situation, since its resolution might actually hinge on the resolution of questions there. I would, however, suggest that any information about what the Chinese government has done that is reported in reliable sources can be quoted and put on that page. (eg; According to the New York Times, "...." Those quotations often will include explicitly evaluative words, which is a legitimate way to include them in an article that itself remains neutral. Wikipedia isn't saying "it's persecution", The NY Times and WS Journal and CNN and the BBC and HRW and AI and the US Congress etc. are saying it.)
Asdfg: "should this page, or should it not, reflect what the articles it refers to say about themselves, or should the editors here carry out their own investigation and decide what an appropriate name is? Which would lead the door open for all kinds of other disputes about whether the list of other names for the campaigns were appropriate." When there is an ongoing dispute on two pages, then appeals to what is done on one of them to try to solve the dispute on what is on the other is a never ending cycle. If one of the pages is stable and the other in dispute, then what one says can help solve a problem on the other, but more likely reference to what another page does is just going to spill the disagreement over to the other page. In this case, I don't see that an appeal to how another page is titled should be decisive where there is an open question about whether that name is the right one for that page. (I should also note that one need not be anti-Falun Gong to oppose the page being called "Persecution of Falun Gong". I have no doubt that the Chinese government has done all sorts of evil things to Falun Gong members and leaders, yet I would call the page "Campaign Against Falun Gong" or "Communist Party of China Campaign Against Falun Gong".) As for the worry that people might question the way other items on the list are described, the only other evaluative terms I see there are ones that were officially a part of the names of the campaigns, so, no, I don't see how removing "persecution" would call any others into question.
PCPP: "There is already a lengthy debate on the issue and reached no consensus [8]." That may be, but I have absolutely no doubt at all that there should be an article describing the Communist Party of China campaign against Falun Gong, whatever the title of it might be. That there is a lack of consensus to keep the article only shows that there are a number of people trying to use this encyclopedia to advance their political purposes.
PCPP: "The Al-Qaeda article for example, does not directly calls it a terrorist organization despite the overwhelming labels, and instead calls it an "Islamist group designated as a terrorist organization by XXX and YYY." I agree that this is a good example, but I should point out that it was you, not I, who made this analogy that compares the Communist Party of China to Al-Qaeda. 142 and 99 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
142 and 99, I appreciate your engaging with this. To get down to the essence of it, your point is that "persecution" has negative connotations rather than being purely descriptive, like "genocide," for example. What do you base this on? Here's the wikipedia definition of persecution: "Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group." That is actually a much lighter description than genocide. (And with the description of genocide you gave, that would also apply to the CCP's treatment of Falun Gong.) The gap in your argument is that there is no evidence that "persecution" has any more negative connotations than "genocide." You say that it has built into it negative connotations, but no more so than "genocide," surely—to use your example: ever heard of a good genocide? These are just terms that describe a set of actions. Those actions are almost invariably seen as bad, but that's just how the world works. Can you see how I think it doesn't make sense to say that one of these words is merely descriptive and the other carries "negative connotations"? I think you need to substantiate that claim. The other guy above also raises a simple question that precedes this one. On a procedural level, why shouldn't the correct name of that article take place in a discussion of that article, rather than on a page that refers to it? Since it's named X, why should that be changed on every page it appears depending on what different people think, rather than being centrally named and having that reverberate as it might. That's just a simple question of what's logical. Those are my two points/questions. Thank you. --Asdfg12345 13:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Asdfg: "Here's the wikipedia definition of persecution: 'Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group.' " The key word here is "mistreatment". To "mistreat" someone is to treat them badly, thus the built-in negative evaluative component of the word "persecution". So to settle a question of whether a person's behaviour was or was not "persecution", one would have to make an evaluative conclusion. Two people could agree on all the facts of a person's conduct but disagree about whether or not it was bad, and thus disagree about whether or not it was persecution. But once we have agreed that it was persecution, we have agreed that it was bad. The term is an evaluative term.
The same is not true with "genocide". For two people to agree that genocide took place does not require that they come to any evaluative agreement or that they talk about goodness or badness at all. Whether something is genocide is simply a question of facts. So an anti-semite who does not deny that the Holocaust happened can agree with me that it was genocide, and we can reach that agreement without him having to say anything to suggest that he thought it was a good thing and without me having to say anything to suggest that I thought it was a bad thing. In fact, the anti-semite and I would agree that it was genocide, but he would disagree with me if I were to call the conduct of the Nazis "persecution" of Jews because he would think the treatment of them was justified. So to answer your question - "ever heard of a good genocide?" - I would say I never have, but that is not a function of the meaning of the word and it does not mean that people whose values are different would agree. But also, if we allow the word "genocide" to extend to non-humans, then there are lots of examples of genocide that are not bad. Exterminators make their living committing genocide of ants, termites, and rats. But I would not say that exterminators persecute ants, termites, or rats. Extending the word "genocide" to non-humans is easy to do because a negative evaluation is not part of the meaning of the word.
"On a procedural level, why shouldn't the correct name of that article take place in a discussion of that article, rather than on a page that refers to it? Since it's named X, why should that be changed on every page it appears depending on what different people think, rather than being centrally named and having that reverberate as it might." Two reasons. Firstly, as I have already pointed out, the issue of what the article should be titled is an open question, so saying that this page should follow that one just because that one does it a particular way is not a good reason. In fact, if I am right about how the campaign against Falun Gong should be referred to here, that would itself constitute a reason to change the title of that page. Secondly, How the other Wikipedia page is titled is actually irrelevant to the the list. The list does not purport to be (nor do I think it should be) a list of titles of articles about campaigns of the Communist Party of China. It is a list of campaigns. So what is needed in each box is a succinct description of it. If the description used on this page is different from the title of a page linked from it, that is not a problem. So if, for example, there were two equally acceptable succinct descriptions we could use for a campaign, there would be nothing wrong with using one for the title of a Wikipedia page explaining it in detail and the other on the list here. 142 and 99 (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I must say that I'm at a bit of a loss for words... on both counts. What you say doesn't really make sense to me. The procedural point is a bit arbitrary, I suppose. I was invoking a legalistic kind of argument, but there's nothing in the policy about that, and anything else is just opinion and speculation, as we've both offered. But your discussion of persecution and genocide makes no sense. Falun Gong practitioners are obviously being "mistreated" in China (if you would dare call torture, labour camps, executions, psychiatric abuse etc., mistreatment), as attested to by hundreds of reliable sources. Your argument is also not quite logical, because how could trying to wipe out a whole race or religious group not be worse than mistreatment? It's obviously much worse. So whatever negative connotations you read into "mistreatment", how much more there must be in actual elimination of that race/religion. It's just not common sense to say that "genocide" doesn't connote anything while "persecution" has a negative connotation. Both the terms obviously have negative connotations; the actions they describe are awful to any normal person. that's not the point, though. The point is that it's backed up by reliable sources. And in this case, "persecution" has a lot of textual support. Maybe we have to agree to disagree. We would both be better off doing productive work than continuing this discussion, in my view. --Asdfg12345 23:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Asdfg: "We would both be better off doing productive work than continuing this discussion, in my view." I agree, but let me try just one last time very quickly. "Falun Gong practitioners are obviously being 'mistreated' in China." I agree, but to say so is not to take a neutral point of view, which an encyclopedia should. "Both ['genocide' and 'persecution'] obviously have negative connotations." No. The difference is the literal meanings of the words. Just as "killing" is a value-neutral word and "murder" is a value laden word, "genocide" is value neutral. That does not mean that there ever is a good genocide. It just means that the word does not itself express the negative evaluation. 142 and 99 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I have been following this discussion; I think it's quite abstruse by now. Well done to both of you in maintaining a reasoned comportment. My only input would be that I disagree that 'genocide' is value neutral and 'persecution' is negative. When I hear this I think: Who says? Why? Since when? Got a source?

Maybe it's my research background, but I don't accept such assertions without some basis. It just sounds like an assertion. That is, an opinion. Homunculus (duihua) 12:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Describing ongoing campaigns

Some of the campaigns described on the page (ie. Falun Gong, maintaining the advanced nature of party members) are open-ended efforts. Currently the article only lists the start date of the campaigns. Should this be amended to indicate that they are ongoing? Homunculus (duihua) 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why Is "Patriotic Education Campaign" Absent?

The list is very incomplete without it. It is perhaps the most significant, and most institutionalized, campaign of the last twenty years or so. It is the organizational vehicle for the CCP's multi-pronged efforts to maintain its legitimacy by shaping discourse in almost every realm of life. In other words, it is organized propaganda to shape thinking. It should be here. Hanamizu (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No of death

should there be a column on the number of death per campaign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcll2000 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of campaigns of the Communist Party of China. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_campaigns_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party/Archive_1&oldid=1147917399"