Talk:Land Reform Movement

Remove paragraph

Many thanks to JArthur1984 for model development of the article. I’m making a few minor edits.

I’ve removed the section based on Ching Pao-yu, which has been there for years, because it is not a Reliable source, and not researched based for pre-1949. An edition published in Manila is free online at Internet Archive The Foreword says “Prof. Ching upholds the socialist line of Mao Zedong and applies the proletarian revolutionary stand.” (p. ix) The same text as the paragraph I removed is at p. 175. ch (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful approach. Implicit in your comment however is that an ideological line makes a source not an RS. But this is not the case. The RS policy says the opposite: "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."

By analogy, consider how nonsensical it would be to remove a liberal author from an article on American political movements by virtue of being a liberal.

Additionally, the propositions supported by this source are ordinary and not controversial.

Removal is not supported by the policies, but perhaps attribution would address your comments? I'd have no objection to that. The author has an article that can be wikilinked to enable the reader to readily get information about her ideological perspective. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not yet understand what you mean by "not research based for pre-1949" JArthur1984 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, do you have access to the Wu Guobao text that Ching cites? I do not. But if you do, we could rely on that instead for the proposition. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Good, and renewed praise for your work on the article. The "Background" section should reflect the general views in the field. You are right that Prof. Ching is an academic, but the statement that "feudalism in China had been existent for more than three thousand years" is a minority in the field. See, for instance, Paul Cohen, Discovering History in China. The land system is highly contentious, and it's out of place to give only one position in Background.

Unfortunately Prof. Ching cites Wu by the title in translation with no date (Manila edition,p. 334) so it's impossible to find. In any case, it's not necessary and quite wrong to cite it when there is such a controversy about land holding in the 1930s. John Lossing Buck's surveys are one of probably a dozen examples of the problems of a specific percentage ("4% of the population owned half the land'), especially since the rest of the article makes clear that a national average is meaningless.

The Background should also reflect Demare's argument that Mao's "narrative of revolution" was as much ideological as research based. No need to cite Prof. Ching by name. Would you consider re-phrasing to reflect this? Gotta run. More later.... ch (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.

I understand your position much better now. While this is an RS which could be used, let’s exercise our judgment and delete it for the reasons articulated in your more recent message. For example, I am now thinking that a reader who interprets “feudal” as meaning that serfs/peasants are bound to land, etc., would indeed challenge the proposition. Let’s delete it for these reasons. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Seemingly contradictory paragraphs?

Hi, I’m not very well read on this subject so forgive me if I misunderstand something but it seems two paragraphs contradict eachother, under ”Process of land reform” paragraph 2 states

”In northern China, which had been governed by Communists since 1935, the peasants were more radical. Land reform was undertaken more quickly and more violently than in the south, especially beginning in 1950.”

But farther down in paragraph 4 it says

”In the north, CCP cadre often tried to restrain excessive violence from peasants. Land reform proceeded more slowly and less violently in the South”

This seems contradictory to me, can someone clear this up? Axeles stellaris (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not contradictory but the current wording is an obstacle to clarity. I can make an attempt to revise later today.

For your own clarity - the process of land reform was more radical in the north. Numerous northern areas had been under communist governance for a significant period of time. Peasants often were more radical (and aggressive!) than the CPC wanted.

In the south, land reform was generally more slow. The inequality was often less extreme and extended kinship networks sometimes meant poor peasants were reluctant to take radical action. In the south, the CPC often to pushed peasants to take more aggressive action.

these are generals trends. The critical thing to remember about land reform is what the policies, radicalism, and violence, varied over time and place. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand. Thanks for clarifying! Axeles stellaris (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

When you have the opportunity, would you mind taking a look and seeing if you think it reads more clearly now? JArthur1984 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well put, JArthur1984, that is, the PLA came down from the outside as an occupying force and imposed land reform in the south, often not even being able to speak the local dialect, whereas in the north they could work through networks they created in the "patriotic war." It was still an imposed process, with lots of power struggles etc. etc. ch (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It reads much clearer now, very well written! Axeles stellaris (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for identifying the issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)