Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 5

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

Intro again

The phrase "seeking to achieve, by means of his political philosophy, the ideal of a strong, prosperous and socially egalitarian China" is uncited and completely POV; it ascribes positive motives to some of Mao's most destructive policies.

It would probably be easier to cite and support a claim along the lines of: "He instigated several major socio-political programmes (some through collectivisation), including the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, seeking to achieve, by means of his political philosophy, complete control over the Chinese economy (which was almost totally based on agriculture at the time), the brutal suppression of all domestic political opposition, amassing the means to build a military capable of projecting power abroad, etc."

I'm not suggesting the above should replace what is there but that once uncited motives are ascribed, POV is almost inevitable; the best thing would be to simply remove that phrase. Jimg 14:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. I'm removing the phrase.

The motive is obviously positive. No leader in the world seeks to destroy his own country. It is failure that made it destructive. Common sense. Aran|heru|nar 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Many leaders, now and in history, have been driven by motives which most would consider to be negative. Egotism, greed, thirst for personal power, for example, are motives which have driven many leaders. None would be considered to be positive. There is nothing sensible about claiming that all leaders have always intended the best for the countries they rule. Jimg 00:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the offending sentence has been added back in by Giovanni33. I've read the discussion below but I don't see anything which directly addresses the point I've raised. To restate; some (Mao supporters) would claim that these programs were motivated by these (largely positive) goals while others (Mao detractors) would claim that the programs were motivated by his desire to eliminate opponents, his desire to re-acquire political power or his desire to produce enough food for export in order to finance military expansion. The introduction is not the place to second guess these motives. It should be enough just to state that he introduced these programs. If you are going to ascribe motives behind Mao's actions here then both intrepretations of his motives should be included to avoid being POV. I don't think the introduction section is the place to do this. Jimg 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiang language?

Mao spoke Mandarin albeit a very colloquial form of it; it was one of the many dialects of the Chinese language. However, he didn't speak a totally different language.

Cultural depictions of Mao Zedong

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

hey i need info!

i need more info on Mao Zedong!

Marriages

The article on Luo Yixiu states that she died in 1910 while this article implies that she was still alive when Mao married Yang Kaihui. Which is correct? Richard Pinch 23:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel something is wrong

I'd like to know, why isn't there written anywhere that Mao is considered by most of the people on earth, to be a dictator? Is this too politically incorrect? (I saw the word dictator isn't even mentioned on the pag about China)

• What do you mean by dictator? Even if Mao Zedong was worshipped, he could not act alone. He could pit one faction of the communist party leadership against another, and he could mobilise the mass, but I doubt that he was ever all-powerful. ----user talk:hillgentleman 08:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Has nobody read the excellently researched biography written by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday? This man was a dictator of the like of Stalin and Pol Pot and this should not be concealed for whatever considerations. - Anonymous user

The 2005 Chang-Halliday book has its own entry on Wikipedia: Mao: The Unknown Story. The talk page there is quite extensive and full of discussions on the use of POV words like "evil", "mass-murderer", "dictator" and the like. The problem with words like "dictator" is not that they describe Mao and Hitler and Stalin negatively, but rather that they are so overused as polemics that they are no longer precise descriptions. If you are consulting an encyclopedia, would you prefer the information that Mao was an "evil dictator", or (better) he was a Chinese leader who (here comes the description) undermined other contenders for the Central Committee at Zunyi, kept control of the army by pitting his rivals against each other, unleashed the Great Leap Forward and then blamed it on the weather when millions starved, etc.? Therefore, the best articles on Wikipedia dispense with the emotionally-charged terms, and provide content as the measure of the man or the event. For example, here is an excerpt from Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which recently won recognition as a Featured Article:

In 1945, Soviet Marshal Kliment Voroshilov forced the freely elected Hungarian government to yield the Interior Ministry to the Hungarian Communist Party. Communist Interior Minister László Rajk established the Hungarian State Security Police, which employed methods of intimidation, false accusations, imprisonment and torture to suppress political opposition. The brief period of multiparty democracy came to an end when the Hungarian Communist Party merged with the Social Democratic Party to become the Hungarian Workers' Party, which stood its candidate list unopposed in 1949. The People's Republic of Hungary was declared. Hungary became a communist state under the strongly authoritarian leadership of Mátyás Rákosi. The Security Police (ÁVH) began a series of purges in which dissidents were denounced as “Titoists” or “western agents”, and forced to confess in show trials. Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps or were executed, including ÁVH founder László Rajk.

Now, reading this, does anyone have any doubt about the type of government that Hungary became? Was it necessary to use the terms "dictatorship", "mass-murder" or "totalitarian"? I was involved in editing this article, and to this day, people still post on the discussion page that it never says that Hungary was a dictatorship! I feel that the encyclopedic & NPOV approach of stating the facts, supported by references, and letting the reader get the full picture, produces powerful prose. Just my two cents - Ryanjo 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have noticed the same problem and have an explanation for it. The Mao page used to be signicantly more balanced. I was actually discussing Mao with an avowed Maoist and told him about the page. That same night the page underwent a complete overhaul and suddenly had a markedly Maoist slant. Though this is completely ridiculous, I'm under the impression that this guy not only rewrote the Mao Zedong page but also talked about it in some Maoist discussion forum, urging other Maoists to keep a watch over the page. This, of course, is not altogether different from Mao's approach to democratic discourse. In point of fact, most historians, from Margaret MacMillan to Jung and Halliday are highly critical of a great many of Mao's despotic motives and actions. I have made a few minor amendments to create a little more balance. It's ridiculous that the page begins by citing what Maoists believe without citing what most historians believe. I'm sure my edits will be wiped out the same way any perceived dissidence was wiped out during the cultural revolution.

Phil Friesen PhilFriesen 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The biography by Jung Chang is completely fabricated. The entire book is based off of opinion, not actual facts. A quote in the book says that "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader" and claimed that he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom." Mao never had absolute power over China, if he did, he would not have stepped down after the Cultural Revolution. Also the 70 million dead is completely fabricated; there was however, a tragic deathtoll of about 30 million under Chairman Mao, however, that does not give Jung the right to state that over twice as many had died. The book also says that the Communists spent more time fighting the KMT than the Imperial Japanese Army. The reason for that was because it was the KMT who refused to believe that the Japanese were a greater threat than the communists. Mao had already offered an alliance to Chiang right when the Japanese began their invasion, but Chiang quickly turned it down and continued to battle the communists. -Anonymous User

<Long string of threaded personal attacks and other bickering removed.> Article talk pages have a purpose, and that was not it. See also Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. Picaroon 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

This part of the article is a total mess. It very often deviates from its purported subject matter, and seems more like a debate betweem pro and anti-Mao advocates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.255.1 (talk • contribs) 23:20, November 17, 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. It only mentions in short bursts. Some people are merely trying to put their POV in there.

The International Herald Tribune, 30 November 2006

This article and the corresponding Chinese counterpart were featured on the front page of the 30 Nov 2006 edition of the IHT. The leader was "In China, a restrained Wikipedia" and the article was mentioned to illustrate how censorship operates in China. The conclusion is that the Chinese Mao article is guarded by the average product of the education system.

Personal anecdote: One very interesting point made in the article is the prominent role of the education system in establishing the party-approved version of history. I have had met some very educated and well traveled young Chinese, and the article is spot on: they really believe the tripe that Mao was a great man and that he saved China. My friend is doing a Ph.D. in physics at Waseda University in Japan, he speaks Japanese well, and speaks, reads, & writes English marvelously. To boot the guy is learning French as a hobby. Nevertheless when I pointed out that (even if we took the high end estimates for Nanking) Mao's Great Leap forward killed more people then did the Japanese my friend answered "it's OK to be killed by your own people, it's wrong for the Japanese to come and do it". Well, dead is dead but how can you reason with someone who thinks like that? You can't. More interesting even is when my friend went back to Shanghai for Chinese New Year and met up with his high school chums, some of them had moved abroad and had done a 180 degree turn; they went from being good Nationalist Chinese to (silent) opponents of the regime who would never return to live in China. Vincent 00:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what the same Chinese gentleman thinks of the quote by Deng Xiaoping, that Mao's actions were "seventy-percent right and thirty-percent wrong". Obvious, killing one's countrymen is not in the 30% wrong, in his opinion. Not remembering (or understanding) the history of China makes it much more likely that another Great Leap or Cultural Revolution will be repeated. - Ryanjo 03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the article link:[1] - Ryanjo 03:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The IHT was inaccurate and misleading. We've been discussing it on the Chinese Wikipedia, and frankly most people are disappointed at this complete misrepresentation of what the Chinese Wikipedia really stands for. After all, we've been blocked three times by the Chinese government, but have never made any concessions to them. zh:User:R.O.C has sent an email to the foundation-l mailing list: [2], listing the inaccuracies in the IHT report. -- ran (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See also the blog entries by Chinese Wikipedia editor Roadrunner, who was interviewed and then found his remarks misrepresented: [3]. -- ran (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I've just brought the intro section of this article in the English and Chinese Wikipedias to sync with each other. -- ran (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is why should Wikipedia make any concessions to the Chinese government? For that matter, how could it make them given that Wikipedia is by definition freely editable and peer reviewed? Vincent 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia shouldn't make concessions to anyone in matters of fundamental policy, and the Chinese Wikipedia hasn't. As for your second question, the Chinese Wikipedia is freely editable and peer reviewed like any other, the only barrier being the block that the Chinese government has put in place. -- ran (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone else read the beginning of this article carefully? Wikipedia demands a certain amount of neutrality in its guidelines and someone has typed in the words "complete dickhead" in Mao Zedong's page. I had trouble editing it out so if someone could it would be better. Whatever your beliefs may be about any historical figure, this site is intended for informational purposes and not personal opinion.

Intro changes

I've reverted Wwoo22's changes to the intro - to me, at least, they don't have a neutral point of view. The fact that many people believe that Mao's policies were a failure is adequately discussed in the version that I reverted to, while the version that I reverted from seems to have overemphasized these and, in fact, made the whole introduction revolve around them. I'm not saying that the article, or even the intro, is perfect as is; I simply believe that it is more in line with the NPOV policy this way. Any other opinions? Picaroon 18:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From:wwoo22:

I am happy to discuss with Picaroon and John Smith on this issue to get a better "intro"; a perfect one is probably not possible.

When I saw "Mao's supporters believe...", "Supporters around the world regard..." and “His detractors hold that...”. I think the readers will get the impression that Mao has many supporters up to present time and only some detractors, not a majority, have negative view on him. I think the neutral point of view should emphasize majority view. The minority view should be mentioned but not in dominant manner.

I agree with John Smith removing that extra text “...free of foreign domination..”. This goal was basically achived by Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Wwoo22 22:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From wwoo22 to Picaroon and John Smith

I agree that my versions were a little bit POV. Thanks Picaroon for informing me the NPOV policy. It did help me.

I agree with most the facts in John Smith's version. I don't think we have big disagreement. However, the 3 sentences I mentioned above were not written in the way in terms of neutral and balanced point of view. It emphasizes the very positive side of Mao and is not the balanced view.

Unless one of you give me a good reason, I will consider revising. I just want to help here and have no other purpose. Mao's never affected my life. Sorry to talk to you this way. Wwoo22 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Wwoo, can you please say specifically what it is you want to change from the current version? John Smith's 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello John Smith's, I think the sentence "Supporters around the world regard Mao..." placed right after "today" from previous sentence implies Mao is still popular today with quite a lot of (though literally it didn’t say it) supporter on his thought. I combined this sentence with the sentence “Mao's supporters believe…”. Wwoo22 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I want to get this English version to a better form that I can use as a base for the Chinese version that I think is pretty much lack of facts. Wwoo22 20:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So can you please type out all of the bit you want to change so I can see it in more detail? John Smith's 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem - looks like a good version now. John Smith's 22:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have re-wrote the introduction so that it reflects a more complete description of Mao. Changes including several points:

• Mao is supported both inside and outside China. Maoism was and is still held in high regard in some countries.
• He tried to spread Maoism across the world, as seen by his financial and political support of nearly all the third-world countries, many which now have Maoist parties.
• Changed "detractors" to "critics". The word "detractor" is labelled to someone who purposefully undermine another person's success, which certainly is not the intended meaning here.
• Changed "he is today rarely mentioned by the government" to "his influence on the Chinese government have diminished since his death". In my opinion, more accurate. Not being mentioned does not have a direct meaning.
• Added "Mao Zedong was also a poet and a calligrapher." Two important points. Mao Zedong's poems and calligraphy are significant, whether or not it is because of his political career.
• Re-write and combine the paragraphs about supporters and critics. The last lines of the supporters' paragraph are related to the critics, so it wouldn't be sensible to separate them. Mao wanting "a strong, prosperous and socially egalitarian China" was certainly not an idea of his supporters - it's quite obvious that any leader wants to make his own country "strong" and "prosperous".

Feel free to make comments. Aran|heru|nar 13:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and I restored to my older version to make my other changes. I would suggest User John Smith's not to revert another user's good-faith contribution simply without any consultation.

As for your edit summary, I would say that Mao is held in pretty high regard with his poems and calligraphy, whether you like it or not. And yes, he is known as a military genius even to some of those who criticize him. As for being a tailor, tinker, or spy, I certainly don't think so. Poetry and calligraphy are important parts of Mao. There are quotes from Mao's poetry repeated every day in China as an Englishman would quote Shakespeare. I do not think Mao should simply be depicted as a military and political leader in his introduction. Aran|heru|nar 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please wait!!!!!! If I say I am trying to type please wait until I say it. Now I am going to ignore your above post, as I'm not going to re-edit what I have said below. Read mine first and then reply.

Point 1 is fine generally, but remove the "significant". It's too vague. It's enough to say he has supporters - no one has used a similar term for critics.

I don't see Point 2 in the intro.

Point 3 is fine.

Point 4 should be combined. The fact he is not mentioned is important, as they're trying to sideline him. Also really he has little or no influence on politics today.

Point 5 should be deleted. Lots of people do things in their spare time, but it doesn't mean it needs to be flagged up in the intro. And you've said he is "esteemed", as if he is widely regarded for it. That is nonsense.

Point 6 looks fine. John Smith's 14:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From wwoo22: for record only

At this moment, I am satisfied with John Smith's version. For record, I don't agree with Aranherunar's statement "Mao Zedong's poems and calligraphy are significant". Mao's is certainly not recognized academically as superior Chinese poet or calligrapher. The statement “…quotes from Mao's poetry repeated every day in China as an Englishman would quote Shakespeare” is certainly not true. I, including my family, have the backgrounds to discuss with anyone on these two topics. Wwoo22 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the third generation is certainly more freed from Mao. But if you look closer, a lot of sentences around us are actually from Mao - simply go looking around the street and you'll find sentences like "为人民服务" posted everywhere - they seem to be traditional Chinese phrases but actually they all come from Mao. Simply look at the rest of the article and you'll find information regarding Mao's status as a poet and calligrapher - not superior to poets like Du Fu, but certainly deserving a mention. Aran|heru|nar 10:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the new intro's other changes, they're generally acceptable. The reason I combined the two paragraphs is that their separation is ambiguous - now it's fine. I still insist the Mao should be mentioned as a poet, calligrapher, etc. in his intro, though. Aran|heru|nar 12:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't "writer" be a general term to be used? Everything else is mentioned below. John Smith's 13:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Neutral

Compare the Mao entry to the Hitler entry. The opening 2 paragraphs of the Hitler entry include terms such as "totalitarian", "mass murder", "genocide" and "invasion". The opening 2 paragraphs of the Mao article discuss his supporters and ideology. Even when the tens of millions dead are finally mentioned, it is cushioned as something that critics blame him for (not as something he caused) and he is described as controversial. Murder is not controversial and starving your people in a truly totalitarian state (much more so than even NAZI Germany) is something to be blamed for. This article is not neutral because it is far softer on the figure than an unbiased account would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.153.108.10 (talk • contribs)

I read the same words as you do, and I think the lead paragraph is a fairly good summary of the man. The words that you propose need to be added, like "murder" and "totalitarian", are so often used as epithets that they are imprecise. Which do you want to read in a reference work:

Mao murdered 10 million Chinese.

or, the article text under the Great Leap Forward section:

Under the Great Leap Forward, Mao and other party leaders ordered the implementation of a variety of unproven and unscientific new agricultural techniques by the new communes....This famine was a direct cause of the death of tens of millions of Chinese peasants between 1959 and 1962.

I think the answer is obvious. Ryanjo 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I did make a few changes to the introduction after reading his comments. Though I'm not sure the introduction is that bad. John Smith's 00:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)WTF is the author smoking? I don't see anyone editing the George W Bush article claiming that he's "responsible for war crimes against Iraqis". We don't compare our least favorite people to Hitler. Each article should be their own case.--PCPP 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree, any attempt I have to put factual context in this article (i.e, Mao is resposible for more death's than any other person in world history, is swiftly deleated). Facts are not POV. I can't help it if the facts are so damning. Why is the Great Leap forward given better treatment on wikipedia (and elswhere) than the Holocaust? It killed more people.24.94.232.13 22:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

Again, I am astonished. Read the text of the article; it clearly says: Mao and other party leaders ordered the implementation of a variety of unproven and unscientific new agricultural techniques by the new communes....The net result, which was compounded in some areas by drought and in others by floods, was that the rural peasants were not left enough to eat and many millions starved to death in what is thought to be the largest famine in human history. This famine was a direct cause of the death of tens of millions of Chinese peasants between 1959 and 1962. The Holocaust article states: The Holocaust was characterized by the efficient and systematic attempt on an industrial scale to assemble and kill as many people as possible, using all of the resources and technology available to the Nazi state. Both articles directly state that the actions of the leaders of these states caused the deaths, and also why and how. If Mao rounded them up into extermination camps as Hitler did, then this article should say that. If millions starved due to his agricultural policies, it should say that. But to say that Mao killed more people than Hitler, or the Black Plague, or the 1918 flu, or Noah's Flood, is a "factoid" for a TV game show or the Guiness Book of Records. This article elaborates on why they died, the debate over how much Mao knew, the numbers of deaths, and the repercussions.

Just for comparison to another well-known reference work, here is the 2007 Desktop Encyclopaedia Brittanica entry on Mao:

Mao Zedong, or Mao Tse-tung

born Dec. 26, 1893, Shaoshan, Hunan province, China, died Sept. 9, 1976, Beijing

Chinese Marxist theorist, soldier, and statesman who led China's communist revolution and served as chairman of the People's Republic of China (1949–59) and chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP; 1931–76)

The son of a peasant, Mao joined the revolutionary army that overthrew the Qing dynasty but, after six months as a soldier, left to acquire more education. At Beijing University he met Li Dazhao and Chen Duxiu, founders of the CCP, and in 1921 he committed himself to Marxism. At that time, Marxist thought held that revolution lay in the hands of urban workers, but in 1925 Mao concluded that in China it was the peasantry, not the urban proletariat, that had to be mobilized. He became chairman of a Chinese Soviet Republic formed in rural Jiangxi province; its Red Army withstood repeated attacks from Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist army but at last undertook the Long March to a more secure position in northwestern China. There Mao became the undisputed head of the CCP. Guerrilla warfare tactics, appeals to the local population's nationalist sentiments, and Mao's agrarian policies gained the party military advantages against their Nationalist and Japanese enemies and broad support among the peasantry. Mao's agrarian Marxism differed from the Soviet model, but, when the communists succeeded in taking power in China in 1949, the Soviet Union agreed to provide the new state with technical assistance. However, Mao's Great Leap Forward and his criticism of “new bourgeois elements” in the Soviet Union and China alienated the Soviet Union irrevocably; Soviet aid was withdrawn in 1960. Mao followed the failed Great Leap Forward with the Cultural Revolution, also considered to have been a disastrous mistake. After Mao's death, Deng Xiaoping began introducing social and economic reforms. See also Jiang Qing; Liu Shaoqi; Maoism.

Wikipedia's article seems to be much more direct in holding Mao responsible for the disasters he visited on the Chinese people. Ryanjo 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is still not neutral.

Mao Yuanxin

I restored him to the article, because he was at least as important as his father. You'll find him in the index of most large-sized book about Mao, including Chang & Halliday. --GwydionM 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

The Wen Qimei article as it is, is nothing more than a note saying she was Mao's mother she was a devout buddhist and she was illiterate. Unless she did something far more noteworthy this could all be provided on this page.--Matt 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why she needs her own page. In fact I don't see why she needs to be discussed, other than a simple reference. John Smith's 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't seem to need her own page (based on what's on there at the moment) - the info that's on there could be transferred to Mao's page pretty easily. I'd say go ahead with the merge. --Cricketgirl 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought hard about how to approach Wen Qimei in the merge and I decided on doing it in the genealogy section, I felt that as there were already issues regarding citation in her own article, that I was within Merge guidelines cleaning it up. I doubt that her literacy is relevant unless tied into an abiding affect it had on Mao, such as him making an attempt to educate everyone as a result of her illiteracy. I would be inclined to add a citation tag to that piece of information now however I will leave that to another editor if they feel it is neccesary.--Matt 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is anti-Mao!

This article is edited by right-wing Mao haters who compares Mao to Adolf Hitler while glorifying pro-American dictators such as Suharto and Pinochet. It's a fact that many Chinese still admire Mao and this article gives the view that somehow Mao is regarded widely as a Hitler-like villain while ignoring his achievements. The views of Maoists and supporters should be acknowledged, and not disregarded as some loony leftists. --PCPP 05:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"compares Mao to Adolf Hitler" -- you're right, there's no comparing them. Hitler killed 20 million, Mao 80 million (see the [democide] article). That 60 million is the same number that died in the entire second World War. Don't forget that Hitler also built the Autoban and basically took Germany out of the Great Depression. It's easy to make huge changes when you control the entire country as Mao or Hitler did, and some of things you do are bound to help. It's also a fact that there are still neo-Nazis, but I don't see that mentioned in the Hitler intro. The truth is that China would have been lucky if they had gotten Hitler instead of Mao. 72.205.60.201 18:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is not anti-Mao. However, it is uneven, and there are many sections that lack references. This encourages use of "weasel-words", such as Most historians and academics are highly critical of Mao, some comparing him to Hitler and Stalin. Some Chinese mainlanders and international Maoists continue to regard Mao Zedong as a great revolutionary leader... The worse section in this regard is the first five paragraphs of the Legacy section. Some of us should take a shot at cleaning up the Legacy section, maybe by organizing subsections, and getting legitimate references for the statements. Looking through the material already in the section, I came up with something like:

Legacy and influence (proposed re-named section)

• Social policy

• literacy
• China's population & life expectancy
• role of women

• Economic initiatives

• industrialization & collectivization

• First Five Year Plan & Great Leap Forward

• comparisons to Taiwan, India, Hong Kong

• Political influence

• anti-corruption
• military leadership

• mobile warfare, Long March

• The Cultural Revolution
• international socialism

• relations with Comintern, Soviet party

• writings on revolution

• International relations

• sanctions & embargos by the West
• Taiwan (ROC)
• third world revolutions
• neighboring countries (Korea, Vietnam, India, USSR)

Initially, the existing text could be transposed, but unreferenced material would eventually need to be eliminated. I realize that most of you who regularly contribute have your hands full beating off the vandalism, but what do you think? - Ryanjo 02:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

Mao is responsible for many times more deaths than Hitler through outright murder and economic mismanagment. This article chearleads for the world's greatest mass-murder (that's not an anti-Maoist phrase, it is a statistical fact. The Great Leap Forward alone was twice or more as deadly as the Holocaust. 24.94.232.13 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

Please read the comments above, people have gone over this already. The article gives the facts and reasons why so many people died, and the article definitely doesn't "cheerlead" anyone. It has both the good sides and bad sides of Mao.

And about the Holocaust; it was designed to kill all the Jews in Europe. Mao most likely didn't try to kill all the people in china, thus the difference in description.Dan Guan 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a right wing agenda to deface Mao. The only person(s) that Mao should be compared to is Stalin. They were both figureheads for the Communist world and they had both negative and positive impact through their time in power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Takamaxa (talk • contribs) 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The contents of this section were already discussed earlier in this talk - I'd like to motion to remove it if anyone else agrees.Salient Edge 08:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

land reform and the suppression of counterrevolutionaries

I was surprised to find that two of the bloodiest campaigns of Mao's rule (in terms of deliberate killings, anyway) were omitted from the article. I added a paragraph on these joint campaigns of repression with a plethora of sources. I'm sure it will be edited many times and perhaps deleted altogether. Although I personally view Mao as a homicidal tyrant, I did my best to avoid using POV terms such as "mass murder," "slaughter" and "genocide" --C.J. Griffin 15:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

With the detail and references that you supplied, I doubt that any deletion attempt would succeed. I wish we had more citations for the rest of the article. - Ryanjo 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we cannot accept these blatantly biased sources. Steven W. Mosher is a prominent rightwing anti-Mao polemicist; he has written a laughable book about "China is out to dominate the world". The U.S. State Department qualifies as propaganda, frankly. Jiang Chang does not specialize in history but is a linguist; her work is biased against Mao and contains several factual errors. The "Black Book of Communism" is a polemical work which has been exposed to contain numerous inaccuracies. R.J. Rummel's work is at best dubious and at worst unsubstantiated. laogi.org and hrichina.org are both anti-Chinese propaganda activist web sites; hrichina received millions of dollars from the US gov. via the "National Endowment for Democracy." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.252.131 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Imagine, all these unsubstantiated sources, even an entire government agency! I guess all I need to see is some information proving your contention of bias. Ryanjo 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the several editors who reverted 68.126.252.131 (talk)'s deletion rampage. Ryanjo 14:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the banned vandal and sockpuppeteer Jacob Peters is at it again. I like the way you put it: "I'm afraid that we cannot accept these blatantly biased sources." Are you referring to your many sockpuppets, perhaps? It is interesting that you failed to mention in your inane tirade my other sources - Stephen Rosskamm Shalom, Philip Short, John King Fairbank and Roderick MacFarquhar – hardly right-wing anti-Communists. And you only provide one source – a clearly biased one at that. All you did was basically copy and paste his words. Anyways, I would also like to thank the editors who restored my contributions to this article.--C.J. Griffin 05:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited material removed by anon

68.126.252.131 (talk · contribs) has removed cited material from the article with this edit: [4]. I do not believe this material should have been removed; however, I do not wish to edit war, and therefore I'm bringing it here for discussion. Heimstern Läufer 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked as an open proxy used by banned User:Jacob Peters. Heimstern Läufer 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

--As this issue has been dealt with I'd like to motion to remove this section from the talk page to remove general clutter Salient Edge 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than removing discussions, archive the page. Λυδαcιτγ 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and Deaths

Mao's image presented on this article is clearly not neutral and towards a positivistic point of view. Considering direct and indirect deaths caused by Mao's government we have 40 Million deaths on the Three years of Natural Disasters- a lame explanation for the government failure to provide basic human rights and needs to the population as stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Years_of_Natural_Disasters The other negative side that is not clearly posted in the article is the number of deaths caused by the military actions and prosecution of landlords in china.

"According to Mao: The Unknown Story, "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader" and claimed that he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom."- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story

I have many friends from china here where I do my masters degree and I usually ask them about Mao's legacy and the answers are always biased and leading toowards a positivistic view. Most of them fail to provide any information about the invasion of Tibet and the deaths caused by Mao's regime. I do believe that the problem in this article is that this facts are being considered not be neutral but the evidence ( even from official figures ) is more than enough to state this facts clearly thus being neutral - facts -.

It should also be stated clearly that the Chinese government impose a censorship over the negative sides of Mao and also hides them from the chinese population. I do recognize that Mao made great improvements for the country but the negative sides should be clear.- As if any dictatorship could be good - Thanks for your consideration. 125.63.217.116 09:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another posting by an unregistered user who finds fault with the article (but obviously didn't read the article in detail, since they missed the recent addition on the "prosecution of landlords"). Also, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday are cited in the article and their statements from the book referenced several times. Statements of Halliday & Chang such as "he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom" are exaggerations, impossible to back up with cites, and thus don't belong an encyclopedia article. As far as the "Three years of Natural Disasters", blaming the Yellow River flood in 1959 and the South China drought from 1958-1962 (documented by Encyclopedia Brittanica) on Mao really attributes supernatural powers to the man. The fact that Mao's policies caused millions of peasant deaths during the Great Leap forward is very well documented in this article (as anyone who took 10 minutes to read the posts in this discussion would discover). This article will not benefit from uncited claims on how many million deaths we can blame on Mao. Find citations for the information already present in, or for what you want to add to, this article. Ryanjo 19:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

. "The fact that Mao's policies caused millions of peasant deaths during the Great Leap forward......" The fact that this statement is well documented in this article does not make it any less untrue! Most of the material on the Great Leap Forward is nonsense propagated by various groups with a vested interest in undermining Mao's many achievements in China - not least the introduction of a democratic political system which resulted in great achievements by the people of China over a very long period of time.

Cultural Revolution and Little Red Book

I deleted the reference to the Little Red Book from the beginning of the Leadership section. That book was not published until 1964 and was popularised during the Cultural Revolution, not at the beginning of Mao's rule. It should be added in the Cultural Revolution subsection, but I'm not sure where in that section it should be added. However, I do see that the Little Red Book is mentioned in an other section about Mao's cult of personality. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandelism

I'm unable to find/correct the vandalism problems on this page; can a more experienced user please remove the vandalism?

12.160.181.179 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)James

Responsibility

I've reverted back to what seems to be the original wording ("Mao has been blamed by critics for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese..."). User:A.J.A. and User:HongQiGong, please discuss below. Λυδαcιτγ 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not even TIME Magazine used as strong words as that he was responsible for all those deaths. But I suggest this as a better wording than the current one:

Mao's policies are responsible for the deaths...

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is pov problem here. We can only say he his policies are blamed, not that he is responsible, or it would be OR. And if we say he is to blame according to..., we have to give voice to those who say he is not to blame, or there are other factors that mitigate or bring into question where blame should rest. In anycase, we can only report blame, not state as a fact he is responsible without committing OR.Giovanni33 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what exactly are you saying is OR? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be OR (plenty of people have said that Mao was responsible). Possibly POV, but is there any doubt that his policies were responsible for millions of deaths? I like Hong Qi Gong's wording, although I would put it in the past tense. Λυδαcιτγ 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be OR because we are not attributing this statement of fact to a source that meets the verification requirement. It seems that one is drawing a conclusing based on known facts about policies and results. But, to blame Mao himself one needs to make the connection, and there are different arguments/POV's regarding culpability. At most we can say he as been blamed, or that such and such believes him to be responsible. Saying Mao is responsible is either OR or POV.Giovanni33 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wild Swans

User:HongQiGong and User:John Smith's, you are both at three reverts in the last 24 hours, so stop reverting and discuss. For now, I removed the link, since that is how the article was before this dispute.

HQG, Wild Swans is definitely not all about the Cultural Revolution, as the Revolution begins on page 273 out of 505, in my edition. And it definitely tells a lot about Mao; one chapter is entitled "'Father Is Close, Mother Is Close, but Neither Is as Close as Chairman Mao' — The Cult of Mao (1964-1965)". On the other hand, Chang did write an entire book about Mao, which is already linked, and which I have not read. One could argue that there's no need for two books by the same author with the same POV when one is clearly more detailed than the other. I don't know whether Wild Swans has any additional info. Information from someone who has read both would be useful. Λυδαcιτγ 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the reasoning that the book contains some information about Mao Zedong, we could potentially include all articles about books on modern China. This is a simple case of a Jung Chang fan trying to spam her work in articles where they don't necessarily belong. Also, just a correction, I have only reverted twice today. My first edit on this article today was not a revert. You can see my edit on this article from two days ago that I actually left that link in[5]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where the line between a revert and a non-revert removal comes in (though clearly, just the fact that there were edits in between doesn't mean that it wasn't a revert). Anyway, in terms of Wild Swans, I think perhaps its usefulness is as a primary source. It's fine to read something like "China's youth had mostly been brought up during the Communist era, and they had been told to love Mao. Thus they were his greatest supporters. Their feelings for him were so strong that many followed his urge to challenge all established authority." But Chang's firsthand account is better at bringing home how pervasive Mao's influence was: "In 1965, my New Year resolution was "I will obey my grandmother" — a traditional Chinese way of promising to behave well. My father shook his head: 'You should not say that. You should only say "I obey Chairman Mao"'". Λυδαcιτγ 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with Wild Swans. It's a book that covers a lot of 20th century China, but especially "Mao's China". Now, Hong, I getting pretty tired with your whinging about me being a "Jung-fan" - should I accuse you of being biasedly anti her? I should also point out that the link has been there for quite some time - certainly while you edited the page. I'm not even sure if I added it in myself. John Smith's 10:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

About the two books. Well "Mao" is a historical work, whereas "Swans" is a personal account. So I think it's interesting to have links to both. John Smith's 12:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, again like I said, using this rationale, we can essentially add any and all articles about books written on modern Chinese history, because most if not all books on modern Chinese history discuss at length about Mao. Wild Swans is more about the Cultural Revolution, even if it talks about young people's "love" for Mao, Mao's cult of personality was really only pertinent to the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution. This article is, or should be, about his entire life. Now if there's something specific and useful to be added from that book into the section in this article about Mao's cult of personality or his rule during the Cultural Revolution, I'm definitely not opposed to having the book listed as a footnote with the ref tag. To put it into perspective you'd understand, John Smith's, it would be like if there's a book about Unit 731 and the Japan article does not use it as a reference, but someone insists on listing the article about this book on Unit 731 in the "See also" section of the Japan article. I'm almost certain you'd be opposed to that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot compare Unit 731 and Wild Swans - the former is a very specific historical reference, the latter a general biography that covers about seventy years of Chinese history. Besides Wild Swans is not just about the Cultural Revolution - there are maybe 200 pages of pre-CR, PRC history, ignoring the rest of it. Of course not every historical work that once mentions Mao should be included, but it isn't like a general history book at all. It is a fairly unique work that interjects a personal perspective of that period and of Mao's policies generally. That said, I'm not sure why you are so opposed to it due to its chapters on the Cultural Revolution. It was a very important part of "Mao's China", and he was a key part of it. It was his policy.

On a side-note, why did you accuse me of link-spamming when I didn't add the link to begin with? John Smith's 17:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no other reason why the link should be there, other than that fans want to linkspam. Like I said, we might as well add any and all articles about books written on modern Chinese history. And my comparison is not on Unit 731 itself, but a book about Unit 731. What about a book about Japanese war crimes, that discusses Japanese history as well? How would you feel about a link to The Rape of Nanking (book) in the See Also section of the Japan article? Hey, I've read that book and it talks about Japanese history, military structure, etc etc. Point is, we shouldn't be adding in the See Also section articles on books about specific topics on Japan if those books aren't even used in reference. The same goes for Wild Swans. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But, Hong, you're comparing apples and oranges. This is a page about a figure - the Japan page is about a country. A "Wild Swans" style book would not be suitable for the Japan page under any circumstances - I wouldn't stick it on the China article. It can be for an individual or historical reference. What you are effectively saying is that a book on Japanese war crimes would not be suitable for the Nanking Massacre page because it spends more time talking about Unit 731, or something. Really I think you're being just a tad too rigid in your attitudes. John Smith's 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the other way around. I am effectively saying that an article about a book on the Nanjing Massacre is not suitable to be included in the See Also section of the Japanese war crimes article. The logic here is the same. An article on a book that concentrates on one specific part of an article topic need not be included in the See Also section. Do I think the books themselves are suitable references? Absolutely. Like I said, if Wild Swans can be used as a reference here in this article, by all means, add it in with a ref tag. But also like I said, your rationale for including the article about the book in the See Also section basically opens the floodgate to any and all articles about modern China, because almost no book on modern China goes without discussing Mao. On an obscure topic, I might not care, because it would probably be insignificant. But do you have any idea how much Mao has been written about? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, Wild Swans is a fairly distinct work in its style compared to those other works. John Smith's 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And as I said before, we could be including any and all articles about books about modern China. Any anonymous editor can come in and say, such-and-such book is a "fairly distinct work" and the article about it should be included in the See Also section. And by the way, published personal accounts of life in China before it opened up is not really that unique at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Chang's book is not anything special in terms of historiography, as her attention to historical trends is secondary to the story of her family. Its value is anecdotal. HQG, your last remark seems to imply that that there are plenty of books like Chang's, but hers is to my knowledge the most widely-read, which suggests that it offers something special. Do you disagree that reading a personal narrative about life under Mao would be useful, or do you think that Chang's book is the wrong one to link to? Λυδαcιτγ 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that linking to the article about that book in the See Also section is inappropriate, as the book is not about Mao Zedong. I keep saying again and again, this rationale justifies basically any and all articles about books written on modern China or modern Chinese history, as most if not all of these books include discussions about Mao. And again, I do not oppose the book being used as a reference if applicable. But this is not the case. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that every book in the See Also section must be about Mao. If it's about something else that relates to Mao and provides interesting and instructive information about him, I think it should be linked to. Like Red Star Over China, Wild Swans presents a firsthand description of one piece of Mao — in the case of Wild Swans, the effects of his policies on the Chinese people. Λυδαcιτγ 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that that's completely objective. Anybody could make the claim that such-and-such book is "interesting" and provide "instructive information" about Mao. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is, of course, a certain amount of objectivity in deciding to keep any source over another. But that shouldn't mean that we have to link to any source someone proposes, or that we can't link to any. I admit that I would like to include Wild Swans for subjective reasons — I think it's a good book. But even disregarding that, I think the book is valuable in a pretty objective sense as a personal account, like Red Star over China. Λυδαcιτγ 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was some time ago I last participated in this debate, but I agree with HongQiGong here. Why should we include an autobiographical work when there are literally tons of books out there dealing with Mao that are not mentioned? I see no reason whatsoever and we should not inundate articles with references. And why aren't Spence's or Stuart Schram's biographies mentioned?--Niohe 03:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How should I know why they aren't included? Include them if you want. John Smith's 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do add those two. I agree that we should mention many more books — especially those with a novel take on Mao. Λυδαcιτγ 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just rearranged the references and the external links, added a couple of titles, deleted one. Hope this will satisfactory.--Niohe 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, but we still have the issue of Wild Swans... Λυδαcιτγ 20:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No one has tried to reinsert it, so I tnink there is no problem. I see no reason why the book should be there since it is not a biography of Mao.--Niohe 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither is Red Star Over China. And the reason no one has tried to reinsert it is because revert wars are undesirable — not because no one disagrees with the fact that it was taken out. Λυδαcιτγ 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

But Red Star over China is a book that is partially based on interviews with Mao, where he gives his first account of his youth. as a matter of fact it this book was the first extensive account on him in a Western language. We can have our doubts on the bias of the book, but a lot of biographies are actually based on this book - even when the remain critical of it.--Niohe 15:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. Anyway, I don't understand why you and Hong share such an aversion to Chang, and I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you, so I suppose that if no one else feels strongly that we should keep Wild Swans it'll be left out. Λυδαcιτγ 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any particular gripe with Chang, but if I have to take sides, I'll rather leave it out than keep it. It may be included in Cultural Revolution if it isn't already.--Niohe 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If I have an "aversion" to Chang, I'd want to take out the link to Mao: The Unknown Story. Like I said in the beginning, Wild Swans is not a biographical work of Mao, and including that book basically justifies us including a plethora of books on modern China, because most books on modern China discuss Mao. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Λυδαcιτγ 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This wiki article of Mao is extremely bias. Mao: the Unknown Story is no more than a anti-china propaganda book. There no evidence show that 30 million people died in the famine happened between 1959 and 1962. The issue have been widely debate in chinese forums and many think that the 30 million death theory is created inside the PRC government to undermine Mao's achievement and make more chinese support PRC's change to capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.7.63 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-21 19:58:46 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, the people who spread information about Mao and the famines are actually supporters of the PRC. Jung Chang is actually being paid off by the Chinese government to pretend she is anti-Communist. Λυδαcιτγ 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think internet conspiracy theory is going to hold much water as reliable sources here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Views of historians

Hong, you yourself said "I don't think many INSIDE the PRC think this". I draw your attention to the "think". Without evidence that is personal research. And as you wish to allege the point, it is up to you to give some reason as to why you are correct. It is not up to me to prove you wrong. John Smith's 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The contention is exactly how many historians, both inside and outside the PRC, qualify as that "most" historians hold that particular opinion of Mao. Since neither can really be verified, I've reverted to an earlier version that doesn't use weasel words. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

But that version has no evidence as to historians that dispute XYZ. It also still uses "weasel words" such as "many". John Smith's 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, John Smith's, two wrongs don't exactly make a right, does it? We should just come up with a better way to word it instead of reverting between two versions that both have weasel words. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe what we need is to review the literature among historians, esp. those that specialize in China studies on the question? I would guess that most would, and a minority dispute the charges that Mao's policies or that Mao are to blame. This is just from my own reading, but not from taking a wide survey of opinion of such historians.Giovanni33 18:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've editted in another version that tries to avoid weasel words altogether. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Better, but I added a citation tag. Also why just use Short's book - he's not really a historian. I put that list of death estimates in instead as that has more sources. John Smith's 19:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't know who inserted Short as a reference, but it was inserted some while ago until it got deleted recently. But if you only want to use sources from people who are academically trained historians, then we might as well blast away almost all the references in the article and only use sources like Jasper and Spence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

He's still listed, just not as a source to say there is such a view from historians - the reference I inserted has more sources. John Smith's 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, could we please not keep this edit war going? We need to discuss here, not keep reverting each other. Heimstern Läufer 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe John Smith's and I have come to an agreement on this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I restructured a bit, and also took out the cite needed tag, since the dispute is discussed in the body of the article. Λυδαcιτγ 04:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did a rewrite for intro hoping to satisfy both sides on this. Dunno if I solved the problem. Just stop the edit-war. Aran|heru|nar 12:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted. Your version just created more problems - we were discussing a very select point that didn't require all those changes, and it had already been resolved. John Smith's 13:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the changes by Aranherunar. They are much better and improve the flow and content of the issues. I don't think they create more problems. We should discuss this.Giovanni33 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't support it. I think the current version makes it much more clear that Mao's programs are recognised to have caused all kinds of problems, but that there is dispute whether or not Mao can be personally held responsible. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The newer version was no less clear that critics blame Mao for the negatives consequences of the policies, but says so in a much more encylopedic manner. I think that both versions can be synthesized a bit to come up with something better. The current version is just badly written.Giovanni33 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way do you feel it's badly written? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not flow smothly, its wordy, choppy:

"Historians hold that Mao's policies resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese, as well as severe damage to China's culture, society, economy and foreign relations. However, there is dispute on the degree to which Mao can be personally held responsible for the deaths under his regime."

The other version do not suffer from this but still communicates clearly these points in a more professional and encylopedic manner. I'll go back and try again with a new version that incorporates language from the latest version with this one.Giovanni33 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The version I had reverted to was this: Although historians dispute the degree to which Mao and his policies can be held responsible, they generally believe his policiees led to the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese, [2], damage to the culture, economy and foreign relations of China.

The new version is expanded to this:

"Mao is blamed by critics both inside and outside of China for causing severe damage to the culture, society, economy and foreign relations of China, as well as the deaths of millions of Chinese[2], as a result of his several major socio-political programmes, including the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, seeking to achieve, by means of his political philosophy, the ideal of a strong, prosperous and socially egalitarian China, and to spread Maoism across the world. These programmes were largely seen as failures, while some criticize them as political purges. Mao was also often seen as a hostile figure in the West for instigating several international conflicts such as the Vietnam War, while in third-world countries and communist states he received more popularity."

I propose this compromise version that mixes elements of all three versions above:

However, Mao is blamed by critics for causing severe damage to the culture, society, economy and foreign relations of China, as well as the deaths of millions of Chinese, as a result of his several major socio-political programmes, such as the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, which seeked to achieve the ideal of a strong, prosperous and socially egalitarian China, and to spread Maoism across the world. These programmes are largely seen as failures by historians although they dispute the degree to which Mao and his policies can be held responsible. Mao was often seen as a hostile figure in the West, while in third-world countries he received more popularity. Although officially held in high regard in China, he is seldom mentioned by the Chinese government, whose policies have diverged greatly from those of Mao, and his influence on it has greatly diminished since his death.

Giovanni33 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There were some problem with the flow that I fixed with this version:

However, Mao is blamed by critics for causing severe damage to the culture, society, economy and foreign relations of China, as well as the deaths of millions of Chinese[2], although historians dispute the degree to which Mao and his policies can be held responsible. Major socio-political programmes, such as the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution seeked to achieve the ideal of a strong, prosperous and socially egalitarian China, and to spread Maoism across the world but are largely regarded as failures. Mao was often seen as a hostile figure in the West, while in third-world countries he received more popularity. Although officially held in high regard in China, he is seldom mentioned by the Chinese government, whose policies have diverged greatly from those of Mao, and his influence on it has greatly diminished since his death. [3]Giovanni33 00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unsure how the current version is "wordy" or "choppy" or does not "flow" smoothly compared to your suggestion. And there is a problem with saying that "critics" blame Mao, as it places a possibly undue label on those who think that Mao is responsible. They could be just normal historians that do not necessarily criticise Mao. Also, your suggestion does little to delineate between his policies and this person himself. I suggest this revision:

Mao's major socio-political programmes, such as the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, have resulted in severe damage to the culture, society, economy, and foreign relations of China, but historians dispute the degree to which Mao can be personally held responsible. He was often seen as a hostile figure in the West, while in third-world countries he received more popularity. Although officially held in high regard in China, he is seldom mentioned by the Chinese government, whose policies have diverged greatly from those of Mao, and his influence on it has greatly diminished since his death.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no contradiction between critics and historians, as long as its clear that his critics are legitimate critics, i.e. historians. Historians generally are critical of Mao's programs, as they are seen to have been the cause of severe damage, etc. The dispute that exists is the degree to which Mao and his policies are seen as responsible. There are other causes that contributed to the disasters that unfolded, so this is where there is disagreement--a matter of how much blame to put on both Mao and the effects of the programs. Your version above misses these points and simply says "have resulted in severe damage..." but doesn't give any attribution or proper qualification that there is dispute as to the degree which which they are blamed. The question of Mao's personal involvement and knowledge is another point.Giovanni33 00:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited to clarify what exactly is blamed and what is disputed, namely that Mao's policies are blamed, and whether or not Mao can be personally held responsible is disputed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the policies are blamed but there is still disagreement about the extent to which these policies are responsible for the effects that are attributed to them. In other words, how much "severe damage to the culture, society, economy,ect" are the policies themselves responsible for, as opposed to natural causes that occured and would have caused severe damaged even in the absense of these programs (although there is no dispute that the programs made it a lot worse). How much worse is still an area of dispute. This is in addition to the question of Mao's personal role and knowledge in carrying them out.Giovanni33 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty much agreed by academics and historians that his policies caused all that damage. I was not aware that some attribute it to natural causes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus that his policies led this this, precipitated it, and are mostly to blame. However, there is disagreement about how much they are to blame and how much other factors are to blame. For example, the three years of floods and bad harvests, which no one disagrees also severely damaged levels of production, or the decision of the Soviet Union to withdraw its large number of technical experts working in the country during this time.Giovanni33 03:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This might be nit-picky but...

Major socio-political programmes, such as the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution sought to achieve the ideal of a strong, prosperous and socially egalitarian China, and to spread Maoism across the world but are largely regarded as failures.

Can we really say that these three programmes sought to achieve all that stuff? It might be reaching too far. The Anti-Rightist Campaign, at least on the surface, sought to eliminate rightists, but it can be said that it was merely to eliminate critics of Mao and the CCP. Almost the same thing with the Cultural Revolution. Supposedly, Mao wanted to revitalise China from what he saw as bureaucratic stagnancy. But a lot of people suspect that it was to root out his critics. The Great Leap was probably the only major programme we can really say this about, that it was supposed to make China strong and prosperous. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but these social/political programs did cover these other areas as well in a broader sense. For instance, the Cultura Revolution, which was in many ways a continuation and expansion of the anti-rightists movement also launched other programs such as famous barefeet doctors. See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4990242 It also sought to equalize access to higher education, however flawed their chaotic method was and what turned out in practice.

These social movements under Mao were construded and thought to be as much about the continuous development of the means of production, but through the superstructure of society, unleashing productive forces by changing people themselves, their culture ect. The economic goals are ofcourse major goal of all Marxist governments, but Mao's method subordinated strict, direct economic policy to this massive class struggle and, in the end, to political struggle carried up to the Political Bureau level. In a way this was also a way to deal with the problems of hasty agricultural collectivization and the GLF, since the political and ideological "struggle" was focused against these 1950s reformers, reaching massive proportions during the CR, even though the widespread damage it caused.

To understand this, one must see that an important goal of Maoist ideology was the inculcation of certain prescribed values in society as a whole. These included selfless dedication to the common good; an egalitarian concern, and a fervent commitment to ideal social behavior conducive to these values and goals. Thus we saw he usage of quotations and slogans--uncomplicated expressions of ideas in maxims or brief phrases understandable to all. Even with the Anti-Rightist movement, we saw a directed effort against the legal system, which like the economic system earlier was mainly copied from the Soviet Union. The new Constitution added some new rights such as the freedom to propagate atheism and to practice religion, and the "four big rights": the right to speak out freely, air views fully, hold great debates, and write big-character posters. These "new" forms of socialist revolution along with the right to strike were examples of radical political activism popularized during the Cultural Revolution that were revoked in 1979. One interesting effect from the shift from formal legal organs to local administrative control was that criminal sentences became milder. Persons found guilty were sentenced much lighter, and the death penalty was rarely imposed. Of course, legal protections and recourse for the accused were virtually eliminated in practice.

Stll your point is well taken and maybe we should edit the text to say the word, "generally," in speaking about Mao's programs, with these ones mentioned being the most destructive (also the most successful by the standards of social engineering, which was one of the goals. Even though the back yard furnaces were a complete failure, and Mao seems to have seen that, it was allowed to continue because of its social effect despite its negative economic effects.)Giovanni33 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Great points. I'm ok with the current text if nobody else have any problems with it. But something about it feels like it's kind of far-reaching to me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What is exactly that's going to be changed and what is it going to be changed to? John Smith's 10:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, no one disputes that the polices have been regarded as harmful. That is the consensus among historians. The area of dispute is the degree to which they were harmful. Some have much worse estimates of the harm than others; others attribute some of the harm to natural and other causes independent of Mao's policies. Therefore, the wording should say that dispute exists about the degree to which the poliices and Mao's personal knowlege of them are held responsible.Giovanni33 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there's dispute about whether they were harmful — about the extent of the damage done to China's culture/society and economy. But is there any dispute about whether Mao's policies were responsible for the damage that was done? And if so, to whom else is responsibility attributed? Λυδαcιτγ 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see how this can be a subtle point. The damage is there and the policies are blamed, yes, but the extent that they caused the damage they did is in question, as well as the extent of the damage that exists itself. Its the former point that I raise. The latter we can just site ranges. There is consensus that his policies led this this, precipitated it, and are mostly to blame. However, there is disagreement about how much they are to blame and how much other factors are to blame. For example, the three years of floods and bad harvests, which no one disagrees also severely damaged levels of production, or the decision of the Soviet Union to withdraw its large number of technical experts working in the country during this time. Accounts of the GLF that are sympathetic to Mao generally put more emphasis on these natural causes whereas others who are antagonistic to Mao dont mention other factors that worked together to have the cumulative effect they did, together with his policies.Giovanni33 02:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, good point. What do you think of the further change I made? Λυδαcιτγ 04:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had basically came to an agreement to state that it was Mao's policies that are "blamed"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are trying to make three different points:

1. There is debate regarding the damage done during Mao's leadership
2. There is debate regarding the extent to which Mao's policies are responsible for whatever damage was done
3. There is debate regarding the extent to which Mao is responsible for the effects of his policies

My feeling is that the sentence as it is currently worded does not clearly communicate these three points. Perhaps we should start by focusing on the article itself, which does not seem to back up the the second two debates, only the debate about how many died during the GLF. Then it may be easier to decide how to incorporate these debates into the introduction. Λυδαcιτγ 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Succession

The Communist Party of China article list among the chairmen of the party Liu as succeeding Mao in 1959 and being replaced by him again in 1968. I was under the impression that Liu was state president during these years, while Mao remained the party leader. Can someone in the know clear this up please? Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that the info about Liu as party chairman was wrong and correct the article accordingly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 02:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Chairman of the Communist Party of China" is an honorary title Mao acquired in 1943. Mao was also "Chairman of the People's Republic of China" (head of state) until Liu succeeded him in 1959. (For Liu, this title is often translated as "president" so as to avoid confusion with Mao's titles.) Mao, meanwhile, retained the position of "chairman of the Central Military Commission." The top position in the CCP is "general secretary of the Communist Party of China". Deng Xiaoping held this post in 1956-1967. This made him No. 3 in China's hierarchy, after Mao and Liu. No one was appointed to succeed Liu as PRC chairman after he was denounced in 1968.

Nowadays, CMC chairman and secretary general are China's two top positions. "State president" is an empty title created in 1983. All three positions are currently held by Hu Jintao. Kauffner 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Deificiation in folk mythology

Mao is treated as a folk-hero or even folk-god in some parts of China. Many long haul truck and bus drivers hang portraits (probably more accurately icons) of Mao near the drivers' seat to ward off accidents and bad luck (bearing legends such as "毛大帝在此" "Great Emperor Mao is here". Statuettes of Mao are also popular among some rural areas, and treated similarly to other folk heroes-cum-gods, such as Guan Yu.

There should be something about this in the article, but I can't find any material on zh.wiki. Anyone know a reliable source that talks about this stuff? --Sumple (Talk) 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times article on the subject. Kauffner 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about what is basically a cult religion surrounding the worship of Mao as a deity (ironically, since he was an atheist). Some taxi drivers and truck drivers in China believe that hanging a picture of him in the car will prevent them from having accidents. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mao Zedong and Democracy in China

Mao and the Chinese Communist Party introduced democracy to China.This is an important contribution to Chinese society which is neglected and misunderstood in the West.

I cant see a mention of this in this article - or in any other of the wikis on related subjects. I think it would be a useful contribution to this item to elucidate the nature of Chinese democracy and the role of Mao and the Communist Party of China in the development of democratic structures and proceses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.76.14 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-11 18:59:59 (UTC)

What kind of democracy did Mao and the Chinese Communist Party introduce to China?

I don't see any.

Thats because you have not looked!

Brian qwerty 14:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)brian_qwerty

Well, if we want to nitpick, the Republic of China was the first supposedly democratic government in China, as Yuan Shikai was elected President in 1912. Mao did not introduce democracy to China - the best you can argue for is "reintroduce", although I personally doubt that you can keep a straight face while arguing that Mao's policies were particularly focused on reintroducing a democratic government in China. --80.41.56.134 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would rather suggest Mao introduced nothing of the sort. You can't have democracy with only one political party. John Smith's 11:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Democracy is about people making decisions about the day to day events in their lives. Mao most certainly practised this - to an extent not seen in the rest of the world before or since.

Well, for all practical purposes, it's possible. Read about politics in Singapore. Probably happens in some other countries as well. But I would use the word "democracy" lightly as far as Singapore is concerned. At any rate, Mr. 194.158.76.14 would need to show us some pretty convincing evidence if he wants to introduce to the article that Mao introduced democracy to China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hong, the Singaporean government does allow other parties to stand (they even win a few seats). The success of the ruling party is down in part to various controls & restrictions but also its general popularity. If people wanted to vote for the Opposition they could. That isn't the case with Mao's China - there never was an alternative political organisation to vote for. John Smith's 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You do know that the Chinese government essentially functions the same way in terms of political parties right? There is no law or rule that bans other party members from holding seats in local and national people's congresses, but because of various controls and restrictions, hardly anybody outside of the CCP gets elected. But it does happen from time to time. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hong, last time I looked other political parties weren't allowed to form (then or now) to challenge the CCP. That's the important point. If you want democracy you need to let people organise together - letting a few stand as "independents" at low-level isn't sufficient. Did that even happen while Mao was alive? John Smith's 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment above that "Mao and the Chinese Communist Party introduced democracy to China", the following statements from past and present leadership of the CPC would not support that:

• "In the sphere of theory, destroy the roots of ultra-democracy. First, it should be pointed out that the danger of ultra-democracy lies in the fact that it damages or even completely wrecks the Party organization and weakens or even completely undermines the Party's fighting capacity, rendering the Party incapable of fulfilling its fighting tasks and thereby causing the defeat of the revolution. Next, it should be pointed out that the source of ultra-democracy consists in the petty bourgeoisie's individualistic aversion to discipline. When this characteristic is brought into the Party, it develops into ultra-democratic ideas politically and organizationally. These ideas are utterly incompatible with the fighting tasks of the proletariat. Mao Zedong, On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party (December 1929), in Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 108.
• "For socialism to develop from immaturity to maturity … a very long process is required. It will take a long historical period for an immature, imperfect, underdeveloped socialism to gradually develop into a mature, perfect, developed system," Wen Jiabao, (March 17, 2007), quoted in the Los Angeles Times [6]

The present leadership seems to have forgotten the ideals of the earliest advocates of Chinese democracy, like Hu Shih, who wrote: "The only way to practice democracy, is to practice democracy." (Science and Democracy Defined (1921), quoted in Chinese Studies in History, Vol. 13 No 3 (Spring 1981): 70-71) - Ryanjo 23:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've talked to many Chinese about elections. At least half have never voted, don't know anything about them.

This is an interesting thought - how many people vote in Western democracies? In the UK the present government is supported by a rather small minority of the population.Democracy is not just about elections - the participative democracy in China under Mao was much more than voting from time to time and I think most Chinese felt deeply involved in the political and social events in China. Since the death of Mao there have been many changes.

Offically, the voting rate in China is over 90 percent.[7] But I have met quite a few Chinese who have never voted, so the government's numbers don't seem to correspond to reality. I was in China on election day and there are no lines at the polls anything else that would suggest that large numbers of people are voting. A billion people all voting on the same day -- It seems to me that's something you'd notice. Kauffner 08:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was election day, with big character posters all around, so I asked people, "In the election, do you support Hu Jintao or Jiang Zemin?" People were like, "Election? What election?" Typically, a Chinese ballot has one to three names, the nominees for some insignificant local position. Most voters have never heard of any of the people on the ballot just vote at random. The people who really run China, the regional and national party secretaries and the CMC chairman, are chosen by the CCP and are not subject to any form of election, not even indirectly. According to the Chinese constitution, China is a people's democratic dictatorship. Disidents tried to set up of a China Democracy Party a couple of years back and the government cracked down hard. (It was a legally registered political party -- unlike the CCP.) In his 1949 essay "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship", Mao writes:

"All the experience the Chinese people have accumulated through several decades teaches us to enforce the people's democratic dictatorship, that is, to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the people alone have that right."

What does this say about democracy in China? Criminals are treated in similar ways in most societies I think?

Mao helpfully explained that by "the people" he meant people who accept "the leadership of the working class and the Communist Party." Kauffner 09:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the above answers the question about Mao, the CPC, and democracy in China. Sometimes I wonder if any of the random posters on this page even bother to read what Mao wrote. His political statements are widely available on the web. Ryanjo 15:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If I still remember my Communist propaganda correctly, the "people" does not mean "citizens" or "nationals". Citizens who are counter-revolutionaries alienated themselves outside of "the people" and thus are not entitled to take part in the "democratic dictatorship". Thus the "democratic dictatorship" consists of "the people" dictating over the non-"people" citizenry. --Sumple (Talk) 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the way local people made decisions in the period when Mao was alive.Even some biographers not particularly positive about Mao have to admit there was a feeling of democracy. The one party/ multi party issue has very little to do with democracy. It is easy to lose sight of the true democracy which operated in China during the Maoist period.It is true that some people were no longer free to practise their oppression of people in China but this is found to some degree in most societies. It is just that in capitalist societies legalised robbery of ordinary people is a common and valued event. Under Mao a pattern of caring human relationships characterised social relations in China and extensive democratic participation in political and social events was the order of the day.

"there was a feeling of democracy", "some people were no longer free to practise their oppression of people in China", "Under Mao a pattern of caring human relationships characterised social relations in China"---Hmm... From the article (and referenced): "there may have been a million killed in the land reform, 800,000 killed in the counterrevolutionary campaign. Mao himself claimed a total of 700,000 killed during these early years (1949–53).", "Mao's government reversed its policy and persecuted those, totalling perhaps 500,000, who criticized, and were merely alleged to have criticized, the Party in what is called the Anti-Rightist Movement", "The (Cultural) Revolution led to the destruction of much of China's cultural heritage and the imprisonment of a huge number of Chinese citizens, as well as creating general economic and social chaos in the country". Democracy is not only standing on line and casting a ballot -- it creates protections for the rights and freedom of individuals and minorities, and places constraints on the leadership and the majority. Ryanjo 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

These figures are all somewhat suspect - there are complex issues here. There is no doubt that the Chinese Communist Party under Mao operated a participative democracy - it was from this policy, possibly more than any other, that influence was achieved. At the same time as this was happening there was a war ongoing in China and there is no doubt that many people died.There is good evidence that 650,000 people have died following the US/UK invasion of Irag - this has not stopped Western propaganda claiming that Iraq has been democratised and that this is to some degree a valid claim. I suggest that it would be possible to introduce the topic of democracy under Mao and the Commnunist Party of China and to describe the nature of this democratic process that operated. Quotations from Mao are interesting and carried enormous weight in China but are not directly relevant to an elucidation of the democratic processes - this can be based on matters of fact not third party exhortations. This seems to be a scary topic for Westerners - maybe this is at the root of the acceptance of the sheer nonsense about Mao in the Jung Chang biography. A new section on democracy in china might aid an understanding of the powerful interests at work propagating myths about Chinese people and politics - this understanding is presently very much at the "communists eat babies" level. There are many good first hand accounts of the early days of the Chinese Commnunist Party - a reading of these helps develop a richer understanding and helps counter the propaganda of Jung Chang.

I don't think anyone has brought up the issue of Iraq as a democracy, except you. (By the way, why don't you ever sign your posts?) As a "straw horse", it's a rather easy argument for you to knock down. It's also easy to say figures are suspect, when you don't provide any references to contest them. Finally, the "Western propaganda" whipping boy... give us some credit, obvious propaganda is just as transparent to us. Oh, and writings from Mao are not pertinent to whether Mao introduced or supported democracy? How convenient. Ryanjo 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

At least in theory, you can have democracy without voting or parties. The test is whether the public participates in the decision making process. ("Every man both ruler and ruled.") In the PRC, Xinhua reports that a decision has been made by a central committee, party congress, NPC, etc. Who really makes these decisions and why they pick Mr. X and not Mr. Y is a mystery even to professional China watchers. The Chinese public isn't involved and doesn't even know when a contest is going on. Kauffner 15:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Mao take a bath?

I've been reading the Jung Chang book and I came across this: "Mao famously refused to take a bath for quarter of a century." What was going on? Was he showing prolitarian solidarity? Is this a Hunan tradition, why they have such spicy food? No wonder all his flunkies asked him to swim in the Yangtse! Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate was also famously unbathed. I suspect Genghis Khan had personal hygene issues as well. We could create a category: Unbathed World Leaders. Kauffner 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Answer: stop reading Jung Chang. geez. (Like your user page btw) --Sumple (Talk) 05:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Sumple, did he bathe frequently or not? John Smith's 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How on earth do I know? More to the point, how on earth does Jung Chang know? --Sumple (Talk) 10:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe she asked the people she interviewed. Those that lived with him would know his routine. John Smith's 00:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe she just made it up. --Sumple (Talk) 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, surprise-surprise - she didn't. Maybe if you'd read the book you'd have seen her source. John Smith's 10:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, Jung Chang is renowned for the veracity and third-party verification of her sources, and her openness to opposing views. Silly me. Thanks for remindming me. I will make sure I believe whatever she writes about whoever she met next time. --Sumple (Talk) 10:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sumple, you made an assumption and got caught out on it - don't sulk about it. If you paint her the same way she is alleged to have painted Mao then by the logic of her greatest detractors you're no better than her. John Smith's 12:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I made no such assumption. I know she cites sources for these dubious claims. These sources are usually very dubious. This is no different. It's funny that you should accuse me of caricaturising, because it seems to me that you have gone out of your way to exclude as much criticism of Jung Chang as possible from these articles. --Sumple (Talk) 12:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So you assume she never has any credible sources - I'm not sure that's any different. And I don't censure any criticism of her. In some cases it's very justified. Whereas I haven't seen you ever say a good thing about her, so I don't think you can lecutre me on that point. John Smith's 12:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The biography written by his former physician also said that he refused to brush his teeth and would only rinse his mouth with green tea. His teeth all fell out eventually. Also, he was a carrier of some STD and he refused to get treatment, but slept around with a whole bunch of women. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Chang writes: "Mao did not like getting into baths, or showers, and did not have a bath for a quarter of a century. Instead, his servants rubbed him every day with a hot towel." (p. 406). Her source is a Chinese-language book entitled Following the Red Sun -- I was Mao Zedong's Valet for 13 Years by Li Jiaji and Yang Qingwang, (Harbin, 1994). Kauffner 07:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Its interesting to know that there is at least one statement in Jung Change which has a verifiable source. Most of her book seems to be unmitigated drivel! Mao liked to swim and I think this was a daily activity at least - maybe he felt he didnt need to take a bath as well.

This wiki article of Mao is extremely bias.

Mao: the Unknown Story is no more than a anti-china propaganda book. There no evidence show that 30 million people died in the famine happened between 1959 and 1962. The issue have been widely debate in chinese forums and many think that the 30 million death theory is created inside the PRC government to undermine Mao's achievement and make more chinese support PRC's change to capitalism.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.161.7.63 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry to beat the proverbial horse with this comment. I guess I'll take a more proactive effort on this issue at a later time. For the sake of knowledge, I'm leaving my original comment as follows: I don't know about the facts expressed within this article, but the language is extremely biased at times. I'll edit this post with specifics at a later time after having further reviewed the article. I'd say we should try to avoid using words like "rescued" that are heavily laden with either positive or negative connotations. This is supposed to be an unbiased report of facts, is it not? WiseEyes 10:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Chang is a hugely popular author and her book got glowing reviews from a long list major publications. Certianly she has a POV, so her views should be balenced with opinions from elsewhere. Figures from China's State Statistical Bureau show a population decline for 1959-62 and the 30 million death toll estimate is derived from this. This number exaggerates the actual death toll somewhat because some people must have put off having children because of the famine. But this is the same technique used to arrive at the estimated death toll of 6 million Jews from the holocaust. Kauffner 06:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Impotence

A little misspelling can get alot of importance. I think the Mao & Nixon pic needs to be larger and Nixon's visit more important. Nixon opened up alot in Foreign Relations. 68.14.163.83 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories

I seriously doubt Mao Zedong is known for being a "Poet of the People's Republic of China". And he has no connection to the Republic of China at all. --R1es 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the article, "Many of Mao's poems are still popular in China and a few are taught as a mandatory part of the elementary school curriculum." Mao's philosophy is also still studied, I'm pretty sure. Λυδαcιτγ 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)