Talk:Wang Ming

Untitled

While this article contains a good deal of information, it is faulty in terms of organization, missing information, has poor grammar, and it contains a lot of opinion.

Grammar is the most obvious of the article's defects. Fortunately it is also the easiest to correct.

In terms of organization, the article currently does not follow a chronological timeline. Moreover, the last editor divided the biography sections by geography instead of by important segments in history such as the rise of the ComIntern, the Chinese Civil War, and so on.

The article is also missing explanations to key events. Important events such as the Chinese Civil War and Imperial Japan's Invasion of China are barely mentioned or explained, which will result in confusing readers not familiar with modern Chinese history. I will try to edit this article, but given the severity of flaws; it will be a long time before this article is fixed.

--Cha0sth30ry 06:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The geography is an important sign of important stages of Wang's lives, and the important events of Chinese history can be found in the relevant articles. This is just an article instead of a discourse or treatise.Please keep this in mind.I do agree there are some grammar mistakes for the hurry. But I can't agree with the flaws being severe and the facts being inaccurate.Be more patient and attentive. I welcome your correction of my grammar mistakes.

---

First I'd like to say that I appreciate the time and effort that you took to put this article out. I did not mean to seem overly critical; I just thought that you had already abandoned the article.

I could be wrong, but couldn't be easier for the reader just to outline the important stages of his life?

I agree that important events could be found in other articles, but I think there still needs to be some explanation of the event and a link to the corresponding article. If there isn't, a lot of context will be lost to the reader. I just want to make the article more friendly to people not familiar with Chinese history.

--Cha0sth30ry 06:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

The last paragraph of this article is full of weasel words that support Mao and criticize Wang according. Needs--Bothnia (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC) to be rewritten.

Yes, the section giving an appraisal of Wang Ming's life and thought is very biased. A much more balanced account of Wang Ming, the Second United Front of 1936-45, and the balance between nationalism and social radicalism in the eventual victory of the CCP can be found in such works as T. Kataoka, Resistance and Revolution in China: the Communists and the Second United Front (Center for Chinese Studies, U.C. Berkeley, 1974), esp. Chapter II - Two Theories of Revolution. To speak of Wang Ming as a doctrinaire without an understanding of events on the ground in China completely misses a vital interaction between rural and urban political strategies for the CCP throughout the period 1927-45. One must remember that by 1934 the rural soviets in central China had been completely broken up by overwhelming KMT military pressure, and the Long March is chararacterized as an heroic event only in hindsight. Without the Second United Front -- of which Wang Ming was a leading spokesman (naturally enough, since he was then in Moscow with the Comintern) -- military suppression of the CCP might have been complete. Maoist-oriented CCP members -- at that time, and since -- have needed to downplay this important point, in order to give greater prominence to Mao's views on the predominant importance of rural revolution. Pechmerle (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's unusual to find such learned discussion on such obscure a point of CCP history, on Wikipedia! Homunculus (duihua) 06:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to have a lot of POV inserted from both sides.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. The article has more serious flaws than some POV insertions. Not sure exactly what you refer to as "both sides," but to me -- a student of this country and this period -- the POV issue comes mostly from someone following an orthodox Maoist description of Wang's life and political work. But the much more fundamental problem is that abstract terms from CCP doctrinal debates are used without much reference to the complex, shifting context to which they related. To take only the simplest example, a critically important issue to the CCP -- important to its very survival, let alone its ultimate triumph -- was how it should best attempt to influence Chiang Kai-Shek's KMT to focus on resistance to the growing Japanese intrusion more than suppression of the communist movement. Tightly related to this was the issue of the proper role for the CCP in supporting Stalin's shifting views on how best to avoid a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union. Such real, substantive issues, and not some purely philosophical debate over "internationalism" vs. "nationalist deviation," drove the internal conflicts in the CCP leadership. You get only a hint of that from the article in its current form. To properly sort all this out would take significant effort. I doubt that anyone, including me, will undertake it. --Pechmerle (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orthographical issue

It should be Yan'an, not Yanan. I am going to fix those. Homunculus (strange tales) 12:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)