Talk:Three Rules of Discipline and Eight Points for Attention

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Three Rules of Discipline and Eight Points for Attention article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Asian / Chinese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

The main paragraph of this article (after the bullet points) seems to be written from a very pro-Red Army point of view. Cynical 09:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was the popular sentiment of the time. It is often a historal conclusion is that the Eight Points of Attention garnered most of the peasant support, rather than sheer military might, - compare with Three Principles of the People. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the npov tag, because this is a myth and propaganda. The "eight points" existed mainly for propaganda purposes and appears in writings of liberal influence, to create the myth of the Chinese Communists as popular land reformers. Small land owners were beaten and had their land confiscated. So much of "Eight points," eh? The same phenomenon continued to occur on a national level in the 50s and 60s. You see the it right now as the government, without due process, confiscates peasant land for state projects. I recognize that there are some distinct policies such as "do not march over peasant land", but attributing the "eight points" as a "major reason" that the Communists defeated the Nationalists is rather juvenile and uninformed. The Nationalists did not lose in a "people's war" as claimed by both the PRC and liberal writings of the West. They were defeated by stupid economic and political policies and by three classic set-piece positional battles, not "guerrila warfare" as propaganda most likely claims. These things need to be addressed, particularly in the Chinese Civil War article, rather than propagating such misleading myths. BlueShirts 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For someone named after the KMT's Fascist society, you sure seem to have something against propaganda. 184.64.72.53 (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

虽然已经八年了，但还是忍不住要问你一句，王师始终没上岸，不知你的中二病是否有所好转？68.145.210.83 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the role of peasants in the war fully shows that you are indeed a descendant of the Kuomintang. It can only be said that failure is too inevitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorx (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article could state the extent to which the Red soldiers followed the orders. In some ways, these orders mirror the aim/concept of the US "Hearts and Minds". --80.41.61.198 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I add attribution of some sentences to Uhalley, Stephen (1985), where I'm confident are mentioned in the book. For the rest of the article, I believe it is true, and very much the conclusion of Uhalley, although I need to check for precision. Peasant support is an important factor in the outcome of the Civil War, and this article does not deny that there are other important factors as well. If there are other historians who claim that this is a myth and a non-factor in the war, please kindly provide sources. --Vsion 06:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the eight points of attentions are wrong in the English version. Actually, there are only 7 points in the English version.

Alternative version of translation

Actually, I find some of the translation for the rules and points not quite exact. Using rule as an example: the word that was translated into "peasants" actually mean the masses (or, taken in context, the civilians). Also, there is nothing to indicate that only taking in the official capacity (i.e. to confiscate) is forbidden: the rule has been, in my limited knowledge, commonly interpreted to forbid soldiers from receiving gifts large or small from civilians. And the 7th point for attention is much more restrictive than what the current translation makes it out to be.

Here is a link to what may be considered a more official, if not more "authoritative" translation: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/dengxp/vol2/note/B0060.html

Just my two cents. Mimson (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I was a member of the Black Panther Party, part of a group that lived in China during the Cultural Revolution. The translation that we ued was the one seen on the above linked article.Oldpanther (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]