Talk:Four Pests campaign

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): Hedgeb.

GOD DAMN HAN ARE SO DUMB LMAO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.32.180 (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

中国第一!!!!!!!! 209.195.248.194 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Old talk

This is an interesting event that apparently really happened, but very little is available about it online. I'd like to see this expanded if anyone can find more source info. Mangojuice 21:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One of two sources is Unitarian Universalist Association. I don't find that a very credible source. Jacob no. 9 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the sparrow extermination campaign was successful at all. Banging pots and pans would kill approximately zero sparrows. People did not have either guns or ammunition to "shoot them out of the sky". Even if they did, less than 1% of bullets would hit a bird. The whole thing is an absurd myth. It didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.176.175 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Photo

Can we get a still from the famous film of peasants banging pots and playing suonas to kill sparrows? Badagnani 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Four Pests campaign

In China this was known as the "Four Pests campaign". Accordingly, the article should go there. CruftCutter 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This article seems to be mainly about sparrows. And the fact that they have both been written out in Hanzi makes me think they're genuine Chinese terms. Maybe the Four Pests campaign article should be separate. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sparrows, as the article indicates, were one of four targeted pests (and the only target to have catastrophic unintended consequences). I'll do some double checking. CruftCutter 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are questioning the English names, which to be honest, there are plenty of. Also Mao: The Unknown Story is not exactly the best source for statistics. I only left it in place because there is no better source about the exact death toll. This book has been grilled by the academics. And the collective farming should be another article all by itself. Benjwong (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have questions regarding Mao: The Unknown Story, it is full of commentary and speculation and often unacademic in that regard. However, have the statistics on excess deaths been refuted? The authors go into detail on their sources and methods of caluclations on the 38 million number. CruftCutter (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No one really have the real statistics except for the government (who doesn't say much). So I suppose that book is as good as any. Benjwong (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Which Sparrow Species?

Which species of sparrows were involved? RickJP (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly the Eurasian Tree Sparrow. —innotata 15:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; added to the article. Do you have a reference for citation? RickJP (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, though I ought to add a page number for Summers-Smith's book. It is in the chapter cited at Saxaul Sparrow, and can be found from the index. —innotata 14:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Source of name

What is the source of the "Great Sparrow Campaign" name? The Chinese name doesn't mean that. Correctrix (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Revived Campaign section

From the current article:

On June 19, 1998, a poster was spotted at Southwest Agricultural University in Chongqing, "Get rid of the Four Pests". Ninety-five percent of households were ordered to get rid of four pests. This time, sparrows were replaced with cockroaches. A similar campaign was spotted in the spring of 1998 in Beijing. Few people responded to these campaigns, as they were already fond of killing the aforementioned pests, especially cockroaches.

It's totally unclear what this means. Who is spotting these posters? Are we supposed to take "someone saw this poster" to establish "the Government was running a revived campaign"? And what in the world is that 95% figure supposed to mean -- did the poster say, "95% of households should get rid of these four pests"? Takebackyourmink (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference 2?

The government also declared that "birds are public animals of capitalism"

the reference for this line is in German. can we get a translation and a specific page/line? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by StandardUser2 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've found the relevant German sentence in the reference (page 6 of the PDF / 54 by header number; low in the right column): «Vögel sind Stubenteiere des Kapitalismus», hieß es, «deren Studium im Sozialisumus bedeuted Revisionismus und fürht zum Ruin des Staates!» My German's not good enough to see if there's a connection to the Four Pests campaign (page 5 / 53), so I haven't updated the article. Isikyus (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What about Flies, Mosquitos and Rats?

There is a disturbing lack of discussion on how successful they were at eradicating the other pests Funkiestj (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: China Encounters the World

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lt2174, Chris Yang0609, Alibinauanov, Aidil Hisham (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Shuang Wen (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding original research tag to Significance on the Global Stage section

This section of the article reads as a broader discussion/interpretation of the campaign, and does not cite any sources. I've tagged it for Original Research, but am happy to have it removed if we can get sources on this section. 198.52.129.20 (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Article inflection

I and a few other people were checking the article, and we noticed that several sections in the latter half (especially the Campaign and Purpose sections), have very strange inflection reminicent of the response a chatbot like ChatGPT would produce when asked to, say, write up an answer to a question about the campaign. Stuff like how the paragraphs on Flies and Mosquitoes practically start and end the same with very slight variation in wording, with both of them saying very little despite using a lot of words, and sentences like "It underscores the importance of proactive measures in safeguarding public health and reducing the burden of preventable diseases on communities." and "This complex interplay between state-driven initiatives and the push for mass participation underscored the challenges inherent in the pursuit of rapid socio-economic change during this historical period.", which frankly don't look like they were written by a human at all. 181.189.25.80 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought so as well. The tone is all wrong for this topic, with colorful adjectives like "eye-catching" and a complete lack of wikilinks to other pages 2601:740:8002:6870:EC89:7F9A:A039:21EB (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that, but you're right. After the introductory paragraph there a grand total of one singular wikiling to another page in the entire article 181.189.25.80 (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)