Talk:Struggle session/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article needs work

This is one of the worst articles on wikipedia. It needs serious work. --128.138.64.90 21:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Content looks pretty reputable to me. Just needs a little clean up -- think you're being a little extravagant in your criticism -- User: betssem@aol.com 31 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.175.194 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Pi Dou mass rally

I did not know this article already exists, that is why I create Pi Dou mass rally. I propose merging these two article together, using the common title as Pi Dou mass rally. Any suggestion is welcome. Arilang ^talk 21:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds it has being redirected there, although I think the user messed it up the first time which is why I had reverted the edit as a precaution (Cluebot might have done that anyways). It now works, although I haven't seen any recent discussion by the user who replaced the article by a redirect. --JForget 23:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

These two articles cover the same content, so I merged them.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK no problem, I've noticed that as well. --JForget 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move back to Struggle session, as the more common term in English. Aervanath (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Pi Dou mass rally → Struggle session — The commonly used English name for this is a "struggle session". Per Wikipedia naming conventions, I would recommend that it be renamed as such. "Pi-dou mass rally" is rarely used in English literature on the Cultural Revolution, and usually used only once in reference to the Chinese name. L ^talk 11:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I object to the original name being moved to "Struggle Session", though the term "Pi-dou mass rally" hardly being used in English literature, the term 批斗(Pi-dou) is really quite a commonly used term and understood by every chinese. And 批斗(Pi-dou) is not only limited to Cultural Revolution, and been used throughout the Chinese communist history. Arilang ^talk 04:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A search on Google reveals that there are at least some sources that use the phrase "struggle session". Therefore I don't think the move is justified and should be reversed, even though it was done in good faith. Colipon+(Talk) 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, Colipon, you believe that the move to "Pi-dou mass rally" is unjustified and should be reversed? If so, I agree. Because it is "a commonly used term [in Chinese] and understand by every Chinese" is not a good enough reason to have an article with such a title in English, where the audience is English speakers, not Chinese speakers. I speak Chinese, and when I am speaking on this topic in English, I use "struggle session" because this is the accepted term in that language; when I speak on it in Chinese, I use "批斗" because this is the accepted term in that language. L ^talk 03:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong translation

"Struggle session" is a bad translation.

1. Pi Dou(批斗) is short for 批判斗爭; 批判 translate as (1) to judge,(2) to hand down verdict. 斗爭 is to fight, to struggle.
2. 批斗大會:大會 translate as mass rally, usually had thousands or tens of thousands attendents. "Session" just does not convey the whole meaning of the word 大會.
3. Al in all, "Struggle session" is one of those terrible translation. I suggest we need to invite more editors(who can read Chinese/Enlish) to discuss this name changing. Arilang ^talk 12:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Arilang, if you want to change how it is referenced, then write academic papers arguing for the use of an alternate terminology. As it stands, the commonly used English word for this in English media and academia is "struggle session". It is not a mistranslation, because when someone says "struggle session" in the context of China, the English speaker understands that to mean the same exact thing that a Chinese speaker understands "批斗" to mean. That the words do not directly translate does not make it a poor translation -- it means that there are simply differences between the English and Chinese languages. L ^talk 04:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Arilang is right that "struggle session" is a bad translation if it is intended to be a calque of the Chinese original. "Struggle" apparently was originally intended to calque 批斗, and that means it was originally quite wrong; I'm not sure if "session" was ever intended to correspond directly to 大會. However, I agree with everyone else that this doesn't really have anything to do with what the title of the article should be. "Struggle session" is a well-established English term, and we should stick with that.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping him from adding the literal translation of the Chinese term following its name in characters. L ^talk 03:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Class enemy" etymology

I changed the sentence "Ever since the Marxist notion of class enemies (階级敌人) was introduced into China" to read instead "communist notion" since the original writer did not provide evidence that the phrase "class enemy" originates from Karl Marx's writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.57.9 (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What is it?

Having read the summary at the top of the article I still have no better understanding of what a 'struggle session' actually is. Can the intro be rewritten to explain that, please? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read the entire article, I am still only vaguely clear on "what a 'struggle session' actually is". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.76.33 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Victims" of struggle sessions?

While this whole article tends to lean POV, the section Victims of struggle sessions seems to me to be a particularly egregious offender. Even the title of the section already imparts a tone of condemnation, hardly a neutral point of view and the section seems to imply that struggle sessions were a tool of terror directed primarily towards innocent "victims" (with the only reference being a broken link). The section needs to be either rewritten in a neutral manner or removed entirely. Anarkinsey (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, they were by and large innocent victims. So how is that a problem? Your profile says you "uphold the revolutionary science of Marxism–Leninism–Maoism" so it seems to me you're just upset that communism's evil isn't being quietly whitewashed away but instead is retained as a warning. Communism is a monstrous crime against humanity and I hope one day you come to your senses and realize that mass torture and slaughter of innocents is wrong. 23.91.143.127 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There are opposing viewpoints on how "struggle sessions," or criticism and self-criticism, worked in Mao's China. I know of at least one source that has a positive light on these things, so I'll work on including that in an effort to pursue a neutral point of view for this article (Prisoners of liberation; Four years in a Chinese Communist prison; Rickett & Rickett; 1957). As for the unverifiable section that references the execution of 2 million landlords via struggle session, I'm currently disputing with another editor to remove it. To suggest that 2 million people were executed without citation is particularly egregious (said reference has remained in the article uncited for 2 years). ComradePupper (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Execution

The article says one purpose of a struggle session was to "execute political rivals". As MOS:INTRO says, the lead should "identify the topic and summarize the body of the article". But there is nothing at all in the body of article about executions, or the deaths of the subjects of the struggle sessions. How many were executed? How did they die? Were the deaths premeditated, or due to over-zealous beatings? Who was murdered in this manner? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this still done today?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59818971

Would this be considered a struggle session? Was thinking of including it in the article but not sure. Interested in your thoughts. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Why was this changed to "denunciation rally?"

Makes no sense, everybody knows this under the name "struggle session" - ? I have never heard of "denunciation rally". 194.255.48.178 (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. 'Denunciation Rally' is a very generic description, whereas 'struggle session' in English specifically refers to actual the topic of the article. If the goal is to take the focus away from China/its communist context and towards them as a more global phenomenon, I guess that would make sense, but Struggle Sessions qua Struggle Sessions might still warrant their own treatment. 2A01:C22:A9B0:D500:1C0:C0BD:D48F:5D42 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; in English so far as I can tell it's always been called "Struggle Session", the reasons provided for changing the name to a more literal translation are quite frankly too esoteric to justify. Article should be renamed back to "Struggle Sessions". 24.44.73.34 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)