Talk:Lin Biao

Untitled

There seriously need to be a better article about Lin Biao, who was one of the most significant figures of PRC history. Colipon 19:57, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What details do we need? What are your suggestions? Saying that it needs to be better w/o explaining how isn't going to help. Just go ahead and do it!

Try Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. --Jiang 20:48, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Too many mistakes & too much false information

On the "Revolutionary" section I read the following quote:

"With Mao Zedong, Lin Biao shared the distinction of being one of the few Red commanders never wounded. Engaged on the front in more than a hundred battles, in field command for more than 10 years, exposed to every hardship that his men have known, with a reward of $100,000 on his head, he miraculously remained unhurt and in good health. "

But in the "Second Sino-Japanese War (the War of Resistance Against Japan, 1937-1945)" section I read the following account:

After the Battle of Pingxingguan, the Chinese troops captured many of the personal items that belonged to Imperial Japanese Army personnel. Among them is a cloak and a katana which was favored by Lin. He tried the cloak on and took the katana by his side, jumped onto a horse and went for a ride. He was then spotted alone by one of the sharpshooters from Fu Zuoyi's troops, who later became the mayor of Beijing after surrendering the city of Beijing to the Communists. The soldier was surprised to see a Japanese officer riding a horse in the desolated hills all by himself. He took an aim at Lin Biao in the head and severely injured him. Lin was then given the post of commandant of the Military Academy at Yan'an in 1938. He spent the next three years (1939–1942) in Moscow. After returning to Yan'an, Lin was involved in troop training and indoctrination assignments.

Well...which one is it? Was he wounded or not? There are two contradictory accounts on this. Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.212.43 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The section cites the account of Snow, but Lin was wounded less than a year after this account.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't trust Chang & Halliday

They simply ignore evidence that does not fit their prejudices. I've detailed some of it elsewhere. (Wikipedia is acting up so I can't give the exact link. But see Luding Bridge for detailed evidence against one of her widely-reported claims.

Everyone except Chang & Halliday regards Edgar Snow as reliable. Read his later books, which show a critical judgements.

I'm happy that extra sources have been added, and Mao's doctor is a reputable source.

--GwydionM 18:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Check [1] here for a critical survey of Chang & Halliday by someone who's just as much hostile to Mao, but more concerned with facts and proof. --GwydionM 17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes

I've added some material from Edgar Snow's works, making it clear that Lin was a gifted military leader. Included his replacement of Peng as Defence Minister, and that issues of military professionalism were important.

• It's incorrect that "Peng replaced Lin in Korean War". Lin has never involved in the Korean War. Mao originally asked Lin to command the Chinese Army in Korea, but Lin refused with the health problems as the execuse. He then went to Moscow for treatment.68.68.104.203 03:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also corrected the assignment of a 1937 battle to World War Two. Removed an unsourced claim that Lin Biao opposed the Korean war. Split the article into sections, making it easier for more details to be added.

I've left alone the story about a planned coup or assassination, though frankly I don't believe it. Assassination has never been part of Chinese Commuist politics. But Lin would have had no hope of staging a coup if Mao opposed it What I think happened is that he knew he was due to be replaced, lose his position and be subject to imprisonment or 're-education'. So he decided to flee to the USSR as a refuge until Mao died. Had this succeeded, he would have been a formidable rallying-point for old-style Maoists in the years after Mao's death.

• If you read more Chinese history, you won't think so. If he successfully went to USSR, his political life in China would be dead. Coming back after fleeing to a foreign country like that is simply not possible in Chinese political culture.

The crash itself seems very suspicious - why did a brilliant general not notice his aircraft was short of fuel? Why didn't the pilot seek some other airport when the fuel showed low? There may have been some sort of subtle sabotage.

I have added the widespread view that Lin opposed the raprochement with the USA.

--GwydionM 16:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• To me, this view is very doubtful. Lin is actually not a left-wing extremist imagined by some western people, most of whom only know his public image in the cultural revolution. Lin's political agenda is actually very close to Zhou's. One of the reasons that Mao was no longer trusting Lin in 1970, is because their political difference. A well-documented story (I could hardly find English reference to this, but it is somehow well know in the Chinese world) said that around 1970 Mao asked Lin to draft the keynote speech for CCP's national congress (which will usually be the "highest" policies for the following years). Mao used this as a test for Lin, to see if he is truly following him or not. If yes, Mao will consider to end the cultural revolution. Lin got excited and used several months to write the draft. He talked with Zhou Enlai and believed the focus should be economic development. Zhou proof-read the draft for him and highly praised the draft. However, Mao was extremely angry because he thought Lin's draft had no difference with the political ideas of Liu Shaoqi. He disproved the draft and asked Zhang Chunqiao (Member of the later "Gang of Four") to re-write the draft to stress on "class struggle". From then on, Mao began to suspected that Lin was actually against him politically. He became more relying on his own wife, and refused to end cultural revolution, as CR is Mao's ultimate weapon in party struggles.

• Actually, I find the repeated mention of Snow's book rather distracting -- at times the article reads more like a criticism of Snow's coverage of Lin's career than about Lin's career. I don't think the information is inappropriate, but it might be organized better. --Saforrest 13:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Snow's views about Lin are full of mistakes and some of them even lack common knowledge. Examples: 1. Lin led Chinese Army in Korea -- anybody with some relevant knowledge would know how ridiculous this is. 2. The reason Mao established Lin -- the true reason is Mao wanted to purge Peng, and Peng was the No.1 military leader in China at the time, so Mao need a giant from the army to support him. It absolutely has NOTHING to do with the relations with USSR.

• Many authors mention Peng's Soviet links as a cause of his fall. Chinese Communist secrecy remains highly effective, so many other things remain uncertain. It is possible that he commanded Chinese forces in the Sino-Indian war, but I only found one source saying that. --GwydionM 18:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Military histories are lacking

There seems to be nothing in English that gives details of the military career of Lin Biao or the other Chinese Communist generals. The best I've seen are a couple of books about the Long March, which give broad outlines in a couple of paragraphs. It's an odd gap in Anglo knowledge.

--GwydionM 20:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

One mistake. It was Yen Hsi-shan's troop that shot Lin after the ambush at Pingxingguan. I know some about Lin and other Chinese generals. However, my English is poor ...

--zhxb515 18:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

subjectivity of the article

i think there is no place in an encyclopedia to give the opinions of writers. there is too much inpropriate details about Lin's life and thoughts. why not noly concentrate on facts ?? (what's more' all the writers are American I believe). I propose that some quotations should be erased from this article. (sorry for my English'

Hi. I'm not English-speaking neither, but I feel it's odd to write an article with so many quotations. Doesn't seem like an Encyclopedia article, but pieces of novels (for instance, who cares that Lin was awesome ?)

83.204.72.149 17:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment

This article needs some serious clean-up. It's a good start, and I like that there's a picture, and some good section divisions. But there are way too many quotes and not nearly enough regular prose text. The sections on the Sino-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War could presumably be expanded, and the intro definitely needs some work. If this was in fact one of the most famous and important people in Communist Chinese history, I don't get that impression from the introduction, nor do I know why he would be considered important. An introduction paragraph should give a summary or overview of everything the casual reader needs to know about the subject. LordAmeth 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

Are any details known about Biao's personal life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.64.99.48 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Flight and death

Does anyone think Lin didn't die in 1971? If so, who? Cite them.

While the cause of the falling out and the plane crash remain speculative, the fact that they happened seems unquestionable. Presumably the USSR confirmed Lin's death after examining the wreckage.

Dubious historical analysis about what it was 'likely' was going on should be left out of the article, unless an authority can be cited.--Jack Upland 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

The article says that no planes entered Mongolian airspace because of the high cost of fuel at the time. This may well be the case, but it sounds very odd on two counts:

• One would assume that Lin may have been worth more then some tonnes of fuel for the Chinese government at the time
• Other reasons for not entering Mongolian airspace seem far more obvious. Relations with the Soviet Bloc were tense, and the Soviets had deployed some divisions in Mongolia (on Mongolian request) since (I think) 1965. In such a situation, a large-scale violation of Mongolian airspace might have caused a mayor international incident. A potential loss of Chinese combat aircraft over mongolian soil might at least have made China lose face big time. Yaan (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, Yaan. This is complete nonsense, without any basis in fact. I'll go ahead and remove it, unless someone puts it back. Radchenk (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian intelligence report

I thought I would add this interesting piece of evidence, which I obtained at one stage from a Mongolian source. This is a report prepared by the Mongolian investigators at the scene of the crash. It is actually quite lengthy, and as far as I am aware, is not yet widely available, or cited in any literature, with a possible exception of a recent Chinese book on Lin Biao. The report claims that the plane had plenty of fuel on board at the time of the crash, and suggests pilot error as the reason. It also provides a list of fatalities with detailed descriptions. Radchenk (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Time in Office

Shouldn't his time in Office have an explanatory footnote? It may be true, but it is confusing that he remained in office until four years after his death. 66.183.134.135 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)crf

Aftermath

'Lin, unlike Mao, did not have a history of making compromises and retreats when it suited him.' Is this sentence too opionated for wikipedia? MarquisCostello (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"...with only Su Yu and Liu Bocheng next to him." Really?

The closing paragraph from the opening overview of this article states, "Lin was considered by many to be one of the best commanders of the PLA, with only Su Yu and Liu Bocheng next to him."

While I don't doubt that "many" considered Lin to be one of the best commanders of the PLA (I've seen this stated several times,) the ending, "with only Su Yu and Liu Bocheng next to him" seems superfluous and somewhat subjective for an article ostensibly focused on Lin Biao. I've never seen nor heard any other source lumping these particular three together in such a way, and unless you can find "many" referenced sources that do, this Lin Biao article shouldn't either. Thank you.114.148.181.118 (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Military competence not sourced

The statement that "Lin was considered by many to be one of the best commanders of the PLA, with only Su Yu and Liu Bocheng next to him" was added in three pieces by three different people from July to October last year. Obviously there can therefore be no single source for this strange claim, yet at one point it was credited to "People From Hubei: Lin Biao, Xiang Zhongfa, Zhiyi, Chen Xilian, Li Yuanhong, Han Xianchu, Sun Lu-T'ang, Lee Huan, Xu Shiyou, Li Xiaoshuang". Amazon.com. May 24, 2010. http://www.msnsportsnet.com/page.cfm?story=13500&cat=exclusives. Retrieved August 25, 2010. This is a double joke. The "book" titled "People from Hubei" is in fact a printed version of this very article. A nice example of recursive citation. Moreover, instead of simply linking to Amazon.com, this source is linked to the sports news page listed above. Humorous, but I still deleted the whole thing, since no one has given a competent source for such claims and comparisons. Rgr09 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The official rules apply in wiki is to tell the fact instead of opinions and judgements. It is true that most of sources will consider Lin Biao, Su Yu, Peng De Huai and Liu Bocheng as top generals of PLA, but the rank between those are never a consensus. With that being said, it is better to simply list the fact that Lin Biao ranks the third in ten Marshals, Liu Bocheng ranks the fifth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.59.10 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Truth About Lin

[2] According to professor Hu Xingdou. I'll see if there's an English translation available.--PCPP (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Lin Biao1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Lin Biao1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 15 June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Blyukher and Lin Biao

The article originally described Lin Biao as a "protege" of Zhou Enlai and Vasily Blyukher while at Whampoa, and has now been changed to read that Lin was "close to" Blyukher while at Whampoa. Both are incorrect. Lin was a member of the fourth class of Whampoa, which officially attended from October 1925 to October 1926 (see the entry for Lin in Klein and Clark's Biographic Dictionary of Chinese Communism). At some point in 1926, probably March, Lin was transferred to Ye Ting's Independent Regiment. Ye and his regiment were dispatched into Hunan in advance of the Northern Expedition in May 1926. Blyukher, on the other hand, left Canton in early July 1925 after a conflict with Borodin (see Wilbur and How's Missionaries of Revolution, p. 9 and 160), and did not return until mid-May 1926 (Wilbur and How p. 312), by which time Lin was in Hunan. It is therefore impossible that Blyukher met Lin at Whampoa. While it is possible that Blyukher met Lin sometime between May 1926 and August 1927, when Blyukher left China for the last time, I know of no documentation for this claim. Unless there is some reference that can support a relation between the two, I suggest deleting this sentence. Rgr09 (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, this article needs some serious attention. I'm trying to source and organize as much as I can, and I'm only about half done. Your observation about Bluyker makes sense, and explains why I haven't been able to find a single source that comments on Lin's relationship with Bluyker.

I can delete that sentence. If you have a good source on that period of Lin's life, you would be very encouraged to edit creatively. Thanks for letting me know.Ferox Seneca (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Ferox that this page is in need of some serious work. There are many biographies of Link where we could source. I also believe that the 'Lin Biao Incident' is probably the most notable event in PRC history that still does not have its own standalone article. This must be rectified by consolidating the contents currently in Project 571 Outline and everything else relevant to event into a new article. Colipon+(Talk) 18:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was also a little surprised that no one had thought to write much about, or create an article on, the Lin Biao incident until now. I was thinking of creating a redirect to this page after I am done with it. If you want to give the incident its own page, I can help source it after I am done here.Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm mostly finished with my work on this article. "Lin Biao incident" now redirects here. If you ever feel a strong desire to split the topic into its own article, let me know, and I'll do my best to help.Ferox Seneca (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I just came across an article that Lin wrote in 1937, in which he explicitly claimed to have been trained under Blyukher in Whampoa. I am not going to add that information to the article, though: I think that Rgr09's evaluation is correct.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lin’s supposed prophecies on Battle of France and Operation Barbarossa

On Chinese Wikipedia there is a discussion of Lin having prophesized that the Wehrmacht would go around the Maginot Line and outflank the French (Isn’t that what the Schlieffen plan and Halder’s plan are?).

In addition, supposedly Lin predicted that Hitler, rather than spearheading towards the Ukraine, will attack via “an entire front from the Baltic to the Carpathians”, and “will attempt to seize Moscow.” (??)

Both of these “predictions” appear rather pedestrian, if not incorrect. So as an admirer of Lin’s other military accomplishments, I’d interested in how factual all this talk is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyomei980 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the Chinese Wikipedia article (if I am translating it right), the story that Lin predicted the German invasion of France through Belgium is based on a rumor that another general, Chen Shiju, heard in Yan'an. As hearsay, its truth cannot be confirmed or evaluated. The article's claim that Lin predicted the details of Operation Barbarossa is sourced from the fifth chapter of the Lin Biao Diary, a work which was supposedly compiled by Lin's wife between 1964-1971, decades after this was supposed to have happened, and which some suspect is a forgery. Because the Diary (even if it was really written by Ye Qun) was written decades after the event which it records, by a person who had a political interest in promoting Lin's image, it cannot be known to what degree Lin actually predicted Operation Barbarossa.Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Beijing"?

The passage "One soldier shot at Lin's limousine as it left Beijing", and in the earlier paragraph about the Shanghaiguan airport being X km away from "Beijing", is this a mistake? Is it supposed to say "Beidaihe" instead? Colipon+(Talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that both of those should be "Beidaihe": I'll change that. It doesn't make sense that Lin's party would drive back through Beijing on their way to Shanhaiguan.Ferox Seneca (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Yes. But otherwise, a very nice job on piecing together the most recent scholarship on Lin Biao. It is indeed quite enlightening, but still offers not a damn clue about the motive behind the flight. From what I can piece together it just seems Ye Qun and Lin Liguo got overly paranoid and didn't want to get purged? It would seem more likely that Lin Liguo did, in fact, engineer some sort of plot, but that Lin Biao did not know anything about it. When Lin Jr. thought he'd be discovered by 'higher authorities', he decided the only way was to escape?? Colipon+(Talk) 23:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't a 100% coherent story available from the research. My opinion of what happened is that, by 1971, Lin Biao was basically mental and not capable of planning or executing any sort of long-range strategy. (Earlier in 1971, Zhou Enlai tried to mediate between Lin and Mao, but these failed when Lin couldn't even carry a conversation). I think that it was his son and wife who ran Lin's clique by that time, and who made the plot to escape. I think they would probably have been purged if they had stayed.

It isn't clear what happened after the plane took off. They flew towards Guangzhou, but then returned to Shanhaiguan for some reason and couldn't land. Then, the plane flew to the Russian border, turned around, caught fire somehow, and crashed (it didn't run out of fuel). I think that something must have happened on the plane (maybe a fight between Lin's party and his bodyguards, who didn't want to defect?); but, because everyone died, no one will ever know.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We will really never know. Maybe there was some sort of mid-air argument between Lin Biao and Ye Qun? Or perhaps Ye Qun argued with Lin Liguo on what the best escape route would be? But yes, you are probably right. We will likely never know. Colipon+(Talk) 04:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Although, there is really something to be said about Mao wanting to purge Lin. He understands how much of a blow this would deal to his own legitimacy. So for Mao, it was probably easier to wait until Lin died from his ill health. Therefore, the theory that the flight and coup were manufactured by Mao seems rather far-fetched. Colipon+(Talk) 04:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Lin Piao?

This man was referred to as Lin Piao for many years both during his life and after. The Time Life cover of 1966 used that spelling, and Lin Piao's advice to, "Study Chairman Mao's writings,follow his teachings and act according to his instructions" included in the Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung (sometimes known as The Thoughts of Mao Tse Tung) was signed "Lin Piao".

When did it change and how did that change come about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Lin Biao's name hasn't changed. In Chinese characters, it's still 林彪. What changed is the international standard for representing Chinese sounds with the Roman alphabet. Lin Piao uses the older Wade–Giles system, while Lin Biao uses pinyin, which is the modern international standard. Shrigley (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lin-Mao 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lin-Mao 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lin-Mao 1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Jin Qiu

Lin biographer Jin Qiu, what exactly is her surname and what is her given name? It is unclear since she published her works in the United States. Colipon+(Talk) 00:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that her family name is "Qiu", though her name appears as both "Jin Qiu" and "Qiu Jin" in the literature. I assume that she shares the same name as this woman.Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess a simple solution would be to see if she has published in Chinese, and take her name from there. You would think that the daughter of Wu Faxian would be surnamed "Wu". Colipon+(Talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I found her mentioned in the thirteenth paragraph of this page. Her Chinese name is 邱进. I haven't read much of her autobiography. Maybe she had to change her name after her father was purged? Maybe it is a pseudonym?Ferox Seneca (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for looking that up. It means my references over at Cultural Revolution have all been inaccurate, and I need to go fix it. As an aside, what do you feel about Jin Qiu's book "the Culture of Power"? It seems a little 'revisionist', perhaps borderline conflict-of-interest, but still a very interesting perspective. Colipon+(Talk) 02:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is always easiest to interpret historians' work when their biases are clearly stated (everyone has one), and Qiu's POV is very clear. She definitely has her own idiosyncratic perspective which differs from most scholars that I have read, but her work is difficult for me to assess except in comparison to other China scholars. I can't remember reading anything about/from her that has led me to believe that her theories were not supported by reliable research. Frederick C. Teiwes is the historian who I remember thinking was closest to her perspective.Ferox Seneca (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Korean War Command

Hello;

Despite the above claims, it seems Lin Baio commanded the Chinese "volunteers" in Korea in late 1950. He ceded command about 1 February 1951. This from Robert F. Futrell's The United States Air Force in Kore, where he is extensively mentioned.

Because the information given there pertains only to air operations, and is thus only partial coverage, I did not alter the article. However, I am posting this as a "heads up" for future editors. It seems there should be some source somewhere for events in his command of ground troops.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lin Biao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808171854/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722130556/http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/long-live-the-victory-of-peoples-war/ to http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/long-live-the-victory-of-peoples-war/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Injuries and Moscow timeline

The section about the Second Sino-Japanese War has Lin leaving for Moscow in 1937 after recuperating from severe wounds suffered in 1938. Would it be possible to get an expert on the subject to work on those dates? 65.102.5.142 (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to the sources cited right now, but Britannica states that Lin was injured and left China in 1938, so I believe the first source is correct, and that this date is generally agreed upon. I changed the article accordingly.Ferox Seneca (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lin Biao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106211340/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Current status of Lin in PRC

The article originally had a section on the current status of Lin in the PRC which read:

For several decades, Lin's name and image were censored within China, but in recent years a balanced image of Lin has reappeared in popular culture: surviving aides and family members have published memoirs about their experience with Lin; scholars have explored most surviving evidence relevant to his life and death, and have gained exposure within the official Chinese media; movies set before 1949 have made reference to Lin; and Lin's name has re-appeared in Chinese history textbooks, recognizing his contributions to the victory of the Red Army. Within modern China, Lin is regarded as one of the Red Army's best military strategists. In 2007, a big portrait of Lin was added to the Chinese Military Museum in Beijing, included in a display of the "Ten Marshals", a group considered to be the founders of China's armed forces.

The only source for the entire passage is a reference to a 1999 book review by Thomas Robinson:

• Robinson, Thomas W. "The Tragedy of Lin Biao: Riding the Tiger during the Cultural Revolution 1966–1971 by Frederick C. Teiwes, Warren Sun". The China Quarterly. No.160. December 1999. pp. 1080–1082.

The review, written 20 years ago, cannot serve as a source for 'recent years'. In addition, it does not make any of the claims made in the passage. It does not say "a balanced image of Lin has reappeared in popular culture", it does not say scholars' work on Lin has "gained exposure within the official Chinese media", it does not say that his name "has re-appeared in Chinese history textbooks,' or that they are "recognizing his contributions to the victory of the Red Army." It cannot be the source for the 2007 portrait of Lin being added to a Beijing museum. All of this may be true, but it can't be added to the article without a source. I have deleted the passage for now. Real sources are needed to add these statements to the article. Rgr09 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of these claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL given the accusations of Lin's involvement in the Project 571 coup. Agreed with this action and reasoning. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lin Biao & Ye Qun 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split the section. HappyWith (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose that the section "Lin Biao incident" and death be split into a separate page called Lin Biao incident. The section in the article is very long and well-sourced enough to make its own page, and users on this talk page have called it "probably the most notable event in PRC history that still does not have its own standalone article". There are numerous links going to that title, so it seems like there's really a gap where it should be. Info from Project 571 and other related pages could also be consolidated at this proposed page. Pinging frequent contributors to article: @Ferox Seneca, Colipon, and Toadboy123: HappyWith (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We can split the articles and also information from the available archives to expand more in the split article on Lin Biao incident. Toadboy123 (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Beat me to it! Support. There is enough information and notability for its own article. Bremps... 18:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I support it aswell As for the reasons mentioned above LuanLoud 20:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Support. Surprised it doesn't already exist, it's by far one of the most important political deaths of the 20th century. Lin Biao was the second most powerful man in the third most powerful country in the world. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.