Talk:Cultural Revolution#Chinese New Left

Is there a reason why Cultural Revolution is abbreviated as CR? It seems to have been a unilateral decision made by @Lfstevens in late 2023, and doesn't really make sense as it is (thankfully) not applied uniformly on all instances. If there isn't any opposition to it, I will revert all of them to Cultural Revolution or the Cultural Revolution. I think there is an argument to be made of keeping the long form of CRG "Cultural Revolution Group" as well. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:These should be reverted. I agree with you. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:I'm ok with switching them back, but I don't think it benefits the reader to do so. Shortcuts are a good thing. If inconsistency is the only critique, I'm happy to convert the rest of the references. Lfstevens (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

::I've seen a bit of attestation of the initialism in sources—which makes sense, because it's a proper name that is both pretty long and will be stated over and over. I would be okay with establishing its use in sources, and using it a bit. Going to be awkward either way, though. Remsense诉 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

:::No. This is an encyclopaedia, not a casual western-style article. Spell it out properly. 2400:1A00:B040:E1BB:4802:B25B:C7CD:5ED (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. When the tag was added, its readable prose size was 16,483 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections or mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.{{pb}}

— Isaidnoway (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)—

:So what is your specific proposal to address the length? Mztourist (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

::This isn't drive-by tagging, and in egregious cases like these they really don't need to provide any specific proposals. "It's way too long, and we should talk about it" is the operative point here, and it's worth bringing that up in itself. Remsense ‥ 论 06:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:Indeed—this is essentially what I've been grappling with since I first started editing: I've been trying to use 10k as an arbitrary but concrete target, and trying to figure out which third to cut out of the article. It's very poorly written in parts, so frankly that makes it a bit more difficult to discern which parts are truly undue versus just poorly articulated. If anyone has any pointers or analysis here, please let me know! Remsense ‥ 论 06:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

::I briefly had a burst of wanting to work on this aspect and made some revisions.

::Further specific ideas that I am not so interested in doing myself but others could pick up include:

::1. Going through the chronological sections and phrasing more directly to lose some of the flowery language, unnecessary adjectives, and so on. There are also some quotations that can likely be simplified.

::2. Going through the further reading and external links and reducing them to a more selective bunch.

::3. Another pass to eliminate invisible comments of marginal use.

::4. Wikilink review: remove more unnecessary quotation marks, remove duplicative wikilinks. I have done some of this, but not in a comprehensive way, just as I noticed them. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:::I'm happy to work through the duplicative wikilinks. Thanks for providing a good framework for improvement, really appreciate it as sometimes I see a tag but I have no clue what to do to improve the article so thank you! <3 Thatautistichistorian (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Houston/Global_Chinese_Literature_(Fall_2024) | assignments = MinhanhChin3344 | reviewers = Surcease | start_date = 2024-08-19 | end_date = 2024-12-09 }}

— Assignment last updated by NINEVER (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense What do you want me to do? Ping me. Alexysun (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:3 minute response time insta-revert is crazy. Alexysun (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Gatekeeping knowledge is crazy 💔 Alexysun (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Not Remsense, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Revolution&diff=prev&oldid=1281348150 the content you added] is already described in the lead or Background section in more detail. In the lead, it already says:

::"Tens of millions were persecuted, including senior officials such as Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and Peng Dehuai; millions were persecuted for being members of the Five Black Categories, with intellectuals and scientists labelled as the Stinking Old Ninth."

:In my opinion (based on MOS:LEAD), the added bit about Mao's semi-retirement and the context of the Great Leap Forward is better suited for the Background section rather than the article's first paragraph, as the article would otherwise begin off focus. The lead at present is already quite long. Yue🌙 04:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this length concern. Each point was already addressed in the lead at a higher level of detail. The other troublesome aspect was the POV-style "in reality ..." JArthur1984 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)