Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Mao Zedong. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

This discussion page archives discussion for Mao Zedong before November 2005.

Mao, from a strictly US Cold War, perspective

With morals and philanthropy aside, Mao's 27 year reign was arguably the "best" thing that happened to Red China from a US political point of view. Think about it. It was Mao's arrogance that forced China to split from its greatest ally, the Soviet Union. If no Sino-Soviet Split occurred, the Soviet Union would have aided China throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, my god China could have turned in to another global Superpower. Also if China and the Soviet Union were true allies in those 30 years, the Eastern Bloc and the USSR might not have collapsed in 1989 and 1991. Finally, Mao's failed Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution forced Red China to lose 14 years of military, political and economical development. Yes the Chinese suffered BUT their suffering were for the greater good because it helped US interests. This may be callous but politics in this world is very crooked and in the end Washington always consider interests over morals. --Secret Agent Man 06:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, then I guess your "worst presidents of the U.S." is also the best thing that ever happened to China. Just because the Soviets supported China doesn't mean China has to give up its disputed territory. And China is a superpower, or the U.S. would have invaded it instead of Iraq. The greater good does not equal to U.S. Interests. The Soviet Union collapsed because of it's own disasterous policies, not because of the Split. Mao built Communist China, without him, there is no Communist China. China would be a sattlite nation of the U.S. So maybe that is a good thing to your America-is-better-than-everybody-else-and-should-rule-the-world-ist views. -A.K.F.

Edits

I personally would like to remove most of the references to Jung Chang or at least put a controversial tag on her on this page. She has a very very unorthodox view of history and most experts on Mao do not believe her sources to be credible (Jung Chang did not even major in history). Just because her book is a New York Times Bestseller does not mean that it is absolute truth. If one is to include her testaments, then I have a right to include quotes from Cultural Revolution-era textbooks. I believe this page should contain the mainline view of Mao. I'm not asking the removal of facts by Jung Chang that might be true, but please cite a different source. No truth-spinning, please.

Also, all non-Chinese authors be particularly careful about introducing unwanted bias. Many westerners seem to have an inate belief that communists were horrible people, whether they realize it or not. The Chinese have a very different interpretation of Mao, but many people denounce it as brainwashing by years of Communist rule. While the Chinese interpretation might not be completely accurate, the fact that the Chinese have both praised and criticized Mao shows that "brainwashing" is simply not true.

Mao is not a saint, he is also not a evil. The history conclusion by official CCP documents says his good and bad can be splitted into 70%-30%. I believe it is a very reasonable estimation of his accomplishments.

It is a common misunderstanding that Mao did nothing good. He's not perfect, nevertheless he eliminated all the military factions that were present during and shortly after WWII, he chased away virtually all foreign invaders who were "renting" part of Shanghai, Nanking, etc, and he cleaned up almost all the masses left over from China's corrupted society ruled by Kuomintang. During he's years of ruling, people enjoyed maximum social security as thieves robbers were extremely rare. His revolutionary military talent made Americans cry in Korea AND Vietnam. If you don't know him, don't judge him, Western people generally don't like Mao, because of massive propagandas against him. I lived through most of Mao's ruling period, while my opinion cannot represent that of all Chinese people, I would personally say that Mao was a GREAT leader, yes he had great mistakes, but that wouldn't worsen his extraordinary accomplishment. WM

If one wants to know about a foreign leader such as Mao Zedong or Adolf Hitler, one must ask the people who're from those countries. Credible sources have stated an average Chinese citizen believes Mao was truly a great man up to the point when Mao became arrogant and split from China's only ally, the Soviet Union, in the late 50s. On the other hand an average German citizen hates Adolf Hitler. They believe his reign was one of the worst, if not THE worst, thing that ever happened to Germany.

If we won't even respect the opinions of people who're from those countries, whose opinions can we trust? --Secret Agent Man 01:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to say that the official splitting occured at around 1969, when the Soviets and the Chinese entered into a border dispute. That, and the relationship with China and the Soviet Union was never actually that good. The only thing that kept them together was ideology, and even that later became tenuous.

I think respecting the opinion of the people from those countries would work if they're in a democracy, and not prone to mass propaganda. For example, Hitler being recognized as a bad leader happened "after" he was defeated. Remember Nazi party actually had majority in 1920 and later 2nd majority. Hitler was quite popular during his early reign. Also, lets take note of Mao's advesary Chiang Kai-Shek. He was so very admired by the ROC people in the 1960-70 due to KMT propaganda, but now most ROC people have mixed opinion about him. Mao, as a important communist leader, cannot be undermined in China for it'll jeopardize the CPC's legitemacy to rule. Therefore CPC protray him as a great guy.

However, I suppose part of being a great leader is gather admiration of one's follower.

I live in China and must concurr. Finding someone here who has a dissenting view about Mao is rare enough, finding one who has a dissenting view that is actually substantially supported (and not just ingrained) is even rarer. And then finding someone who would be willing to air such views openly... China is probably the worst place to look when it comes to an accurate portrayal of Mao. Daduzi

Did some minor copyediting, NPOVing, replaced "Emperor Mao" with the more widely used "Great Helmsman." 172

Found this web when doing research on Mao and FDR, learned a lot from different opinions on Mao. As a native Chinese, born in 1970s, I lived through the post-Mao influence and Den's reform. Maybe one can say I do not represent all the Chinese's opinion, the fact that Chinese live a better life than our ancestors in Qing Dynasty proved that a united (I do not think in general that Taiwan issue can affect the reality that China is a united country) China, to which Mao had contributed part, is the precondition for Deng to carry out his open and reform policy. If you were interested in talking about Mao, a murderer would not be a good term to start with. User:Seattlewind

Your comments on the Mao talk page were extremely astute. I'd be very happy to work with you on improving that article, especially on illustrating how the Mao era laid the groundwork for China's modernization.

A lot of Americans, especially ones with devout anti-Communist ideals, fail to look at him within the context of Chinese history. This article needs to avoid that. 172

172, Just a quick comment, in the last paragraph of the article, it says that Mao's picture appears on all new RMB, I would say all the new RMB100 is more correct. User:seattlewind

Actually, Mao is on all newly issued 100, 20, 10, 5 and 1 RMB notes. Right now I have 1x20, 2x10, 2x5 and 1x1 RMB notes in my wallet and all have Mao on them. He is not on the 5, 2 and 1 "jiao" notes as of yet, though. Daduzi

Questionable: "there are those who regard Mao as a symbol of moral incorruptibility and self-sacrifice in contrast to the current leadership." --Jiang

Right,

First of all not all non-Chinese hate Communists so much that they're biased against Mao. Equally not all Chinese academics are so impartial that they won't overlook Mao's bad side. So what if "officially" the CCP says Mao was 70% good and 30% bad? There was a time when they said he was 100% good and you could be punished for even criticising him. That's what happened to not just Jung Chang's father but the grandparents of one of my best friends. They spent ten years in jail because they were denounced as "rightists" by the Red Guards.

No one is saying all non-Chinese hate Communists so much that they're biased against Mao. Its only a warning. From my personal experience as a Chinese-American, most, if not all, Americans have a deep-rooted distrust or even dislike of communism at a subconcious level. Most foriegners do not understand the culture as well and the condition of China before the Communist victory and even the Chinese Civil War are ignored.

Erm, Jung Chang isn't an American and she lived in China until she was an adult. Equally I am not an American and I have many Chinese friends, etc. There are many Chinese who don't understand their own history and culture, so your point is invalid. John Smith's 30 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Because I was trying to be unpresuming, I mentioned my experiences in the United States, although I leave it to reader to infer that, in fact, most foriegners do not have a complete grasp of Chinese culture and behavior because they have never been there. Furthermore, how can you say that the average Chinese that was born in China does not understand his own culture and history? Such a statement is insulting. Besides having really no evidence to back that up, I reccomend living and growing up in China. I think you'll be plesantly surprised at the wealth of knowledge even the average person knows. Maybe your friends living near you do not know because they have emigrated at an early age.

At the end of the day, the basic fact is that books that heavily criticise Mao are not allowed in China. Thus I question the supposed views of PRC Chinese academics, because the government artificially stifles debate on Mao. How can a Chinese historian freely criticise Mao if their works would be banned? For one thing, they couldn't make any money. For another, given the government actively tries to stop such books being made available to the Chinese public, I wouldn't be surprised that historians censor themselves - or are reprimanded by others. Look at what happened to Dr. Jiang Yanyong when he dared to suggest the students at Tiananmen Square were not criminals. That's what the CCP does to people who rock the boat. Guardian report

The simple fact is that no public figure ever goes without criticism in his/her own country of the kind where they are regarded as being more bad than good. So why are there no Chinese academics in the PRC who say Mao was more than 30% bad? Obviously because the scope of debate is limited. One can debate Mao but only inside the 70% good, 30% bad ratio. Or the views of those who think Mao was worse are not heard. Tell me which countries in the world have "official" lines on historical figures, such that they ban material that contradicts them? Relatively few. So I suggest we stop assuming that PRC Chinese scholars are automatically more trustworthy than others. That kind of view is what children at primary school have. Anyone who has studied history at university-level knows that how "good" a historian is has no relation to their nationality and the geographical location of their research topic.

Again, no one is saying PRC historians (the few that there are, history is not a formal subject in China) are more trustworthy than Western historians. In fact, Western historians are much more trustworthy. The only bias most of them have is probably in some cultural aspects. However, when I refer to the "mainstream", I am referring to the mainstream that historians take. That's why Chinese expatriate historians are probably the most trustworthy.

Well in that case, Jung Chang should be right up there on the reliability list. John Smith's 30 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Perhaps, as a Chinese American. But I believe she fails at the mainstream level, which is really the most important qualification.

Yes, Jung Chang did not study history at university. But neither did Iris Chang and yet I have not seen anyone here complain about that. So if you want to discount Jung Chang's views, then Iris Chang's article and the Rape of Nanjing needs to be heavily modified too. If people want to use material from Cultural Revolution-era books, then why not let the nationalistic Japanese historians have their say on the Nanjing thread? Also Jung wasn't the only person who wrote the new book - her husband is a respected Soviet historian in Britain and he wrote half of it, perhaps more than his wife.

I was referring to Cultural Revolution textbooks as a counter-example to Jung Chang. By nationalistic Japanese historians, I assume you mean the ultranationalists during the Imperial era. Of course, its ridiculous to either example in the any thread. That is what I mean by staying with the mainstream. If, after years of historical research, many more historians have confirmed not only Jung Chang's facts, but that Mao, indeed, was Jung Chang's portrait of the devil incarnate, then edit away.

Read the bit below. Iris Chang's work was groundbreaking. The issue isn't about whether Mao is all evil - no one here has tried to edit the Mao article to say that. What we argue is that her points are valid. She doesn't have to "right" overall for us to use her evidence. The onus is on your to disprove it. John Smith's 30 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Iris Chang has been criticised by non-Japanese as well as Japanese academics, but most on specific points - such as her acceptance of debateable photographic evidence and oral records. Few reasonable people deny Nanjing took place. But although people have said there are those that "criticise" Jung Chang, they never make any specific points. I have yet to see someone argue against what she writes - all that I see are baseless accusations. The same applies to this book. No one has suggested her material is wrong. If they painted only part of the picture that was their choice - it doesn't mean what they wrote was a lie. So until people here can actually disprove her points, her arguments are valid on this and other threads. At no time have I or anyone else rewritten articles to just have her point. We have left other information up. So it is only fair her views are accepted as well. At least we name her - I never see a pro-Mao historian or academic being named.

Untrue, I included several names in my writeup. I have a huge list of historians on Mao, but Moise is by far my favorite. Jung Chang causes controversy, whether her statements are true or not, which is another one of the reasons to why I advocate other sources besides her. People are on the opposite spectrum will be infuriated by her views, and en edit war should be prevented. The middle path is best. I am not saying that all her information is false (although some, like Luding Bridge, have a lot of evidence going against them). I am saying she seems to deliberately twist the truth to match her views. It is imperative to portray an accurate and complete picture of Mao. Until Jung Chang's "information" can be proved and accepted, it might not be prudent to include the extreme areas of her stance.

Iris Chang's work was groundbreaking, so why can't Jung Chang's be groundbreaking as well? Jung has many supporters in the historical community outside of China. Who knows, perhaps she has supporters inside China who don't dare to speak up. John Smith's 28 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Iris Chang's work was "groundbeaking" for westerners, who largely ignored the Nanjing Massacre until they could read a sentimental version of it in a New York Times Bestseller so they could claim to be enlightened about the world. 68.202.96.31

I was trying to think of a comparison to help you - you didn't have to make a snide comment. Tell me why Jung's work CAN'T be groundbreaking. John Smith's 30 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)

I had no intention for that comment to be snide, as I am trying to be as non-confrontational as possible (this is, after all, an objective encyclopedia). You seem to be missing the point. Yes, Jung Chang's work can be "groundbreaking" (if our definitions are equal). However, we must wait until this can be proved by years of investigation. In addition, not only must her evidence be true, her portrayal of Mao must be proven to be complete as well.

I'm sorry but we don't have to wait for years. No one can "prove" if someone was right, because it's all a matter of perspective. In any case, so far ONE non-PRC historian has criticised the new book and he only made a general grumble - he didn't even make any specific criticisms. She and her husband have only been supported so far. UNTIL someone criticises her, her views are valid. John Smith's 30 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Yes, we do have to wait for years. Of course we can prove if facts are facts. I mean, that's the basis of the scientific method. We wait for more historians to go to China and talk to witnesses who say "Yes, that really did happen." Just because no one has made a public and official criticism of Jung Chang except Short does not mean they don't approve it. They just don't care and it is a very bad idea to start feuds these days. I could easily publish things like "Mao was a sausage somewhere as long as I made it compelling and believable enough to certain people," and I promise you I will not get one complaint because honestly, no one cares enough. The problem with Jung Chang is that it takes a lot of resources to go to China and to seek down those supposed eyewitnesses and talk to them. If Mao's atrocities were really as great as Chang portrays them, shouldn't the people have spoken up by now? Don't tell me its because they were afraid, because if 70 million deaths were caused by Mao, I'm sure a lot of people would have spoken up. I'm not sure "brainwashing" (a term used by Chang I think is very very insulting) is whats preventing them either.

History is not a science, it is an art. There is no such thing as "truth" in history - it is a matter of perspective.

I've said this before, how can people in China say if Mao was so bad? The government bans books that criticise him heavily. So what are they going to do? In any case, Mao did not go round to everyone's house and beat everyone up. He mismanaged the country and abused his authority. How were peasants supposed to know that? Mao & the Communists blamed capitalist roadsters, etc. China has never had transparent government, so how can anyone know what's going on? John Smith's 1 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)

Afraid? China is opening up debate on Mao's character. Censorship only works if the people enforces it. Can anyone support a government that have killed 70 million people in cold blood? Wouldn't they be afriad that they would be next? There are many who's immigrating to other countries. Yet there is only one person, Jung Chang, who said Mao is all evil and no good. She won popular support because she wrote what the Americans wanted to hear. If Hitler wrote that book. He'd win popular support too. -A.K.F.

You're not even from China, and comparing the SARS guy and Chinese academics is pure hypocricy. The Nanjing Massacre and its incidents are proved beyond resonable doubt, and are documented in the Tokyo Trials and the diaries of John Rabe, as well as others to back up. On the other hand, Jung Chang's 'research' is fuelled by her hatred of Mao and have a political agenda attached. Her sources are not even credible, mostly from the Soviets and the KGB, who are enemies with China at the time and its sources are not absolute truth. John Smith's and and his Jap friend Flowerofchivalry are associates, or maybe even the same person, and hates China, thinking the Nanjing Massacre is justified.

Too scared to write your username here, 211.30.211.93? You haven't read her book. If you had, you'd know that there are huge numbers of Chinese sources that don't have such a hatred of Mao.

Why is my comparison between Chinese academics and Dr. Jiang Yanyong hypocricy? I think you need to get a dictionary - hypocricy has nothing to do with it. I think it shows how the CCP deals with someone who dares to challenge their carefully crafted presentation of the past. If Jung Chang has a political agenda, I suggest you show us some evidence. Otherwise you're no different from Flower saying the same about Iris Chang. At least he said she received funding from certain political groups. Jung Chang got nothing from the British government - tell me who gave her money and why they're so bad. John Smith's 30 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Both of you, there is no reason for baseless accusations and confrontation. If I were Jung Chang, I would harbor a deep hatred for Mao for everything he has done to my family. Mao was an extremely polarizing figure. If you were a commoner in China, a majority of the population, Mao probably holds a great place in your heart, as he gave every Chinese a sense of pride. On the other hand, if you were a member of the handful of the rich and bourgeosie and were out of favor with the Communist party, you would probably detest the Communist party and its actions during the Cultural Revolution. Of course there are exceptions. My grandfather was persecuted as one of the four great evils as a "landlord," and he went through some very depressing times. However, he does not hate Mao, as once he saw everything from a big picture, he understood why Mao did such things. Of course, he resents his misfortunes, but that's life. Its all a matter of perspective and I believe the Wiki article criticizes Mao enough about the Cultural Revolution. 68.202.96.31

Well just because your grandfather forgave him doesn't mean Jung should. I have Chinese friends whose family (they weren't rich) suffered and they think he's a monster. In any case, Jung's parents were Communist officials. They were only trying to do what was right. Or should they have just stood by and let the Red Guards walk over the people they were supposed to protect? John Smith's 30 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)

By the way, John Smith's, do you bear any personal relationship with Jung Chang? Both of you seem to attend the same university...

Erm, what are you saying exactly? Well, no. She's a lot older than I am and she went to York decades before I did. But I have met her personally nonetheless. John Smith's 30 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Great Leap Forward

Does anyone think the great wealth of info on the Great Leap Forward should go to the Great Leap Forward article instead? It might make more sense...

Achievements relative to Tigers and Deng Xiaoping

Trade theory suggests gains of international trade regardless of economic system. Hence the proper question is under what conditions countries give each other favorable conditions of trade instead of huge tariffs and distrustful credit terms.

I would suggest that if Mao were as poor a leader as those of India, the Philippines, Indonesia or Thailand, then Deng Xiaoping would have had no chance to enjoy the "Open Door" of U.S. trade, because Richard Nixon never would have seen Mao as someone to woo. As a result the trade embargo never would have ended.

The pattern of success speaks for itself. Countries that the United States wanted as showcases against Mao suddenly received great trade attention while the other 150 countries in a similar boat languished. 205.179.217.195 19:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Romanization

When and why did the media stop writing Mao Tse-Tung and replace it with Mao Zedong? I first saw the latter form in 1972 in matter that was not in English; I never saw it in English until perhaps the 1990s. Michael Hardy 18:46, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pinyin was adopted by the UN and the offical organizations of the US in the mid-1980s I believe. American media must've followed soon after. --Menchi (Talk)â 02:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Worship

I don't know Chinese today "...still...worship (Mao) as a god-like figure" ... At least, I don't do that. Maybe for some people? --yacht (Talk) 01:52, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

The keyword is "largely...still". That means only like 10% of Mainlanders don't worship Mao. I guess that's not true still. Not sure. --Menchi (Talk)â 02:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wow, you mean there are 90% Mainlanders still worship him? Oh, my, again, I go to another minority! (maybe sometimes I would admire him) I think Mainlanders still admire him, but not long worship him as a god-like figure. :O --yacht (Talk) 04:03, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

That percentage is not my opinion. It is a possible interpretation of what the article means by "laregly". --Menchi (Talk)â 05:01, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Removed the first sentence. First of all, Mao is known as the four greats since he was and is largely worshipped doesn't make sense because of the since. Second, I *don't* think that Mao is still largely worshipped as a god like figure among common Chinese. Opinions about Mao run all over the map, but I don't know of too many people from the PRC that see him as a god-like figure. Even people who admire him tend to see him as flawed.

Roadrunner 00:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that Mao Zedong is actually revered as a god-like being today. Most people who admire Mao still recognize him as 7/10 good, 3/10 bad.

Well, why do taxi drivers have his photo hanging in their taxis? He has already taken on some god-like qualities.

Bathrobe 03:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot of Chinese families have Premier Zhou Enlai's portrait in their homes. I think it's more of just a sign of respect, as opposed to worship. A photo hanging in a taxi = god-like figure is a pretty weak suggestion. My friend in Canada used to wear a Mao pin and a Lei Feng hat around. He worships neither. Colipon+(T) 06:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

One thing western people hard to grasp is that Chinese people is mostly an agnostic people. They don't really worship any gods. So those taxi drivers mostly hand Mao's photos out of admiration. On the other hand, they usually won't hang a living people's photo. So sometimes you could also see them hanging Den Xiaoping's photos in the taxis, but Jiang Zemin's unlikely.

(T)

At his death, illiteracy had declined to less than seven per cent, and average life expectancy had increased to more than 70 years.

Really? The CIA cites a current figure of 86% literacy, as does the UN, and what they define as literacy is fairly soft. --Robert Merkel 03:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Literacy has declined since Mao's death. On the other hand, literacy rates, especially in China, are of very questionable value, for reasons of assessment that I won't go into here. The statement should be modified. Shorne 10:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Further to this, isn't it possible the average life expectancy in China in 1949 was artificially low due to the chaos inflicted by the war with Japan and the internal conflicts? Any government that managed to have the chance of a country not at war would have found it quite easy to increase literacy and life expectancy. --Robert Merkel 11:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the life expectancy was artificially low, the country's economy was also destroyed. In any case, the life expectancy had not been anything like 70 years even before the wars. Moreover, China surpassed other countries, such as India, in life expectancy during that time period, and the life expectancy in China today is actually a couple of years lower than it was under Mao in the early 1970s. You were right to raise that question about the effects of war, but the conclusion remains that Mao did dramatically improve the life expectancy of his people—something that conveniently gets omitted in tallies of deaths supposedly caused by Mao. Shorne 10:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As is true throughout the Third World, the vast majority of premature deaths come from starvation, not war. Even where war is a factor, it is mostly as a contributor via starvation. To understand this, we have to have a grip on the quantitative scale of starvation globally and how it dwarfs all combined war as a cause of death.205.179.217.195 19:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great Leap Forward

Re: the recent changes, is there really any dispute that the GLF was suboptimal? If anyone thinks so, please discuss here before modifying the article. Thanks. Markalexander100 05:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The statement "Both inside and outside China, the Great Leap Forward is now regarded as a disastrous policy contributing to the deaths of millions of people." is POV because not everybody regards the Great Leap Forward as a total disaster. In fact, within China you will find a substantial number who believe quite the opposite. Therefore, it is better to say "Many people believe the Great Leap Forward was a disaster."--Spencer

There are indeed people in China, India, and other countries who believe quite the opposite, and there are many people who dispute the common claim that "millions of people" died from the Great Leap Forward. It is unacceptable to suggest universal agreement that the Great Leap Forward was a disaster. This article should briefly discuss what happened in a neutral way, and the article on the Great Leap Forward should go into the issues in more detail. I will undertake to correct the text if no one else does. Shorne 10:08, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. We'll just state its effects. --Jia ng

According to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, both the statements "Both inside and outside China, the Great Leap Forward is now regarded as a disastrous policy..." and "Many people believe the Great Leap Forward was a disaster." are weaseling. If you want to say that it is regarded as a disaster, you need to say who specifically regards it as a disaster.

No, we simply state how it was a disaster (i.e., the amt of damage it caused). Please sign your name with ~~~~. --Jia ng 08:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees it is a disaster. --Anon

I would say a vast majority of the mainlanders agrees that the Great Leap Forward was a disaster, even the official media in China regards it as a catastrophe that only matched by the Cultural Revolution. --Zhouyn

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms says "As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions that may need calling out:

When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."

We can't say exactly who regards it as a disaster precisely because there are a lot of them. But it is relevant that it is so considered, because the balancing of the disasters against any possible benefits is an important judgment. The judgment of informed critics is worth mentioning. Markalexander100 09:11, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mao's Private Life

Apparently, there was a book written about ten years ago called "The Private Life of Chairman Mao" that claims, amongst other things, that Mao had a rather active extra-marital sex life. While it's peripheral to his performance as a political leader, it's certainly relevant material for a biography. Is there any independent confirmation on the truth or falsity of these claims? --Robert Merkel 01:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Certainly relevant"?! :-D There's a tad at Talk:Homosexuality_in_China#Mao. --Menchi 05:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gossip need not be given the dignity of acknowledgement in Wikipedia. Shorne 09:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Intro

172, can I ask why you have reverted my recent attempt to cleanup the intro? It is frustrating when you revert without providing an explanation. As I have mentioned, the phrase "free of foreign domination since the Opium War" is incorrect since Qing China only ceded a few ports to Europeans after the Opium War, the mainland was sovereign until the WWII occupation of Japan.

That was a reference to indirect political and economic dominance. The fact that you are citing is irrelevant. 172 17:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Still, the phrase "for the first time since the Opium War" is inaccurate. Zh 17:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not. This is a reference to the forced 'opening' of the Chinese market by the British following the First Opium War, not just the cession of Hong Kong to the British in the 1842 Treaty of Nanking. 172 17:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The phrase "foreign domination" makes it seem like China was a colony of some other nation. If you need to, make the changes that you see fit. But unless an edit is pure vandalism, don't revert without an explanation - it can be frustrating for new users or those who have worked hard on an edit that gets reverted. Zh 17:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Foreign domination does not necessarily refer to colonialism. Look up the terms and do some reading on China following the Opium War. This is a reference to China's increasing economic dependence on the Western powers following the forcible opening of a series of key Pacific ports, including Shanghai and Canton (plus the cession of Hong Kong) to British residence and trade. This is not a reference to formal colonialism, but the means of Western penetration accepted along with the treaties following both Opium Wars that led to virtual economic vassalage: (1) extraterritoriality, (2) customs regulation, and (3) the right to station foreign warships in Chinese waters. 172 17:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The other thing I did was remove "After his death, economic controls implemented under Mao were loosened, although politically, the CPC remained authoritarian." in the interest of conciseness, since I thougt that might belong later in the article or in an article on PRC history. If you want to add that back, feel free to do so.

I also added "In China," to the sentence "Mao is sometimes referred to as the "Four Greats": "Great Teacher, Great Leader, Great Supreme Commander, Great Helmsman (伟大导师，伟大领袖，伟大统帅，伟大舵手)". He was commonly addressed as as Chairman Mao (毛主席, Mao Zhuxi).", since Mao is certainly not referred to the "Four Greats" by those holding mainstream political views in Western countries. In addition, the old intro had typos and mistakes in it such as "Mao became developed a brand of Sinified Marxism-Leninism". Thanks, Zh 16:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Leadership over the PRC

I would like to open the discussion of minority rights in the PRC. I am not editing the article directly since I am not knowledgeable enough, but a discussion of the Tibet situation would be in order if the article is to suggest that Mao Zedong was an upholder of the rights of those who are not Han Chinese.

As far as I can tell the CCP never had a problem with the tens of millions Muslim minority living in the western provinces.

Bias

Many questionable opinions are presented as fact in this article. I shall have to resolve them later.

In the meantime, can anyone cite a source for the claim that China has had the highest economic growth in the world for two decades running? I also wish to know what "economic growth" means here: GDP? per-capita income? capital investment? Shorne 09:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some troglodyte keeps vandalising the page by deleting large sections and adding such remarks as "i was here". Already we have reverted it at least four times in the past few hours. Please protect the page if the abuse continues. Shorne 20:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We don't need to protect pages in cases of simple vandalism; I or some other admin will just block him from editing if he keeps it up. Everyking 20:36, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Policies Leading to 40 million Deaths

I am speechless after reading this article. What about the 40 million Chinese who died circa 1954 - 1960 from the brutal policies of the Red Army? What about the sheer ineptness of Mao in telling farmers to grow rice closer together, and killing birds which were responsible for keeping locusts at bay? Instead it almost sounds positive! It says "The CPC introduced price controls largely successful at breaking the inflationary spiral of the preceding ROC as well as a Chinese character simplification aimed at increasing literacy. Land was redistributed from land-owners to poor peasants and large-scale industrialization projects were undertaken, contributing to the construction of a modern national infrastructure. During this period China sustained yearly increases in GDP of about 4?9% as well as dramatic improvements in quality-of-life indicators such as life expectancy and literacy." LIFE EXPECTANCY!?!?! How can an uptick in life expectancy be measured in this short a time frame? And what about the 40 million who died? - Oct. 4, 2004

Once you have stopped foaming at the mouth, will you kindly tell us where you got this information? There were no "40 million". Shorne 18:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There were at least 30 millions, as many sources report. Here's one at random: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/inside.china/profiles/mao.tsetung/ Anyway, the Wp page on the Great Leap Forward states the same. I also believe that the description of Mao Zedong here is way too positive (see stalin comment on top). The famine created by the Great Leap Forward was the biggest in recorded history and no scholar really disputes that fact. Luis Rib 20:32 CET, 4 Oct 2004

So an offhand comment by CNN counts as proof? Ha!

There is no basis for the claim of 30 million; it's a ridiculous fantasy entirely contradicted by population data. So-called scholars in the Cold War made careers out of asserting higher and higher numbers for these things. It's rubbish.

I shall have to check the page on the Great Leap Forward. Shorne 19:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I really doubt that Chinese population figures from that period were totally accurate either... Luis rib 20:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You believe 40 million people died due to famine in the Great Leap Forward. LOGICALLY speaking, how is FORTY million even possible when China only had 500 million people in the 50s? I'm open minded but some statistics contradict simple logic. --Secret Agent Man 01:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That 40 million Chinese died is way overblown. China had bad weather for a few years. How come I never hear Hoover blamed for people who died of starvation during the Dust Bowl? China had famines for thousands of years before the CPC came to power. A few years after taking over, they had some bad weather for a few years, and have had no major crop problems since. China has problems in the late 1920's, it's a "weather problem", China has problems after the CPC comes to power, its the "brutal policies of the Red Army". Nonsense. And the idea 40 million Chinese died is ridiculous, I doubt 40 million died due to all causes in those years. Ruy Lopez 02:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These ridiculous figures are the product of a simple-minded extrapolation from population statistics. Assuming a constant birth rate, some Western academic came up with a discrepancy of just under 30 million (29.5 million, as I recall) between her predicted population and the actual population, then assumed that this discrepancy meant 30 million excess deaths and pinned them all on Mao. This figure was widely reported as fact. In recent years, it has been puffed up to 40 million, 80 million, and even more absurd numbers.

Anyone with any intelligence can see the many errors in this approach. First, the assumption of a constant birth rate is unwarranted at a time of natural disasters, war, and other major disturbances. The birth rate is likely to be much lower than usual in all of those cases. Second, there are other ways than death that a person can disappear from population statistics: migration is one of them. Third, the population data themselves were only estimates (censuses are conducted only every ten years even in developed countries) and contained a significant measure of uncertainty. They cannot be used for this sort of extrapolation, let alone to three significant digits. Fourth, no effort is made to assess the causes of the alleged deaths (such as the bad weather that led to crop failures); they're simply blamed on Mao.

Just to demonstrate the invalidity of this approach, Douglas Tottle used it to calculate that 25% of the population of Saskatchewan died of starvation and repressive government policies during the Great Depression. No one would believe that, let alone pin the "mass murder" on the premier of Saskatchewan. Yet some people are all too eager to accept a similar claim about socialist China and to hold Mao responsible for deaths that never happened.

The same invalid approach is behind the reports of a huge government-caused famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s and various other fictitious death tolls that Cold War propagandists have tried to pin on communist movements.

What is not in dispute is UNESCO's report that 40,000 children die for lack of food every day in today's capitalist world. That's 15 million children per year, or 100 million every seven years, from that one cause alone. Why is it that capitalism seldom gets the blame for all those dead children? Shorne 11:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for replying so late, but I had other stuff to do as well. The number of almost 30 million is mentioned also by Bjorn Lomborg (in "The Skeptical Environmentalist"), who cites the FAO as his source. Since China is - as far as I know - also member of the FAO, they seem to tacitly agree with this number. Also, the 30 millions did not starve in one year, but in 3 years (from 59-62), which makes it 10 million per year - not so high when compared to the population of 500 million. I don't dispute that there might have been bad weather. Yet bad weather alone would never explain the extent of the famine. The policies of the Great Leap Forward have a big share in responsibility since they forcefully diverted ressources from agriculture to industry (the failed experiment to make steel in every village), imposed central planning (preventing local farmers from moving to more weather-resistent crops), etc. They also imposed fixed prices - which was a very bad policy contrarily to what is written in the article. While inflation might have been halted by that measure, it completely disrupted the economy and removed any incentive to produce better quality. Concerning food, the farmers (or farming collecivities) could not increase their prices to match their lower production (due to the bad weather, maybe). They were forced to sell the little they had produced at discount prices. This condemned them to extreme poverty and starvation. In a documentary I saw, the blame was not attributed to Chairman Mao, but to his subordinated, who did not want to displease him and hid the true extent of the catastrophe until 1962. It can be argued that Mao would have stopped the experiment earlier if he had known what was going on. Nevertheless, his policies are the major cause of the starvation, and this should be acknowledged in the article. Luis rib 13:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Luis Rib)

"Not in dispute"? Funny that I checked, the UNESCO estimate is actually 24,000 per day, and not all of the "capitalist world" is capitalist and blaming hunger on on capitalism when it is often happening under inept Latin American regimes or sub Saharan anarchy is laughable. When you stop beating off to the communist propaganda let us know. --Ur Wurst Enema 22:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Figures of 30 or 40 million come from counting extra deaths in the hungry years 1958-1961. Strictly, none of them were deaths from famine, which happens only after massive wasting of the flesh, with people becoming living skeletons. Nothing like that was seen in China at the time, though it was familiar from the Nationalist era and also from India at that time, in Africa down to the present day.

Undoubtedly there were more deaths than usual in those years, as might be expected in a time of food shortage. Numbers depend heavily on what you call normal. Chang and Halliday treat a 1% death rate as normal, which is absurd. The figures they use show more than 2% as the norm under the Nationalists. On this basis, Mao's entire period of rule saved more than 100 million.

Note also that other figures for death do not comparr normal death rates to actual figures. It hasn't been done for Russia under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, though it is accepted that the death rate went up sharply. It hasn't been applied to Hitler either, though he can be reasonably held responsible for the total dead of World War Two, 30 million to 80 million depending on sources, all of which try to estimate deaths caused directly by the war, not deaths above the expected deaths in normal times. Likewise for World War One, especially if you add in 20 to 40 million dead in a flu epidemic that started among US troops being sent into the World War after the USA chose to join it.

In summary, people are compairing chalk and cheese. Intended deaths with deaths deduced from population statistics. --172.213.152.47 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Gwydion M. Williams

Considering that China had 500 million people at that time. It is valid that at least 5 million will die per year due to age. (assuming that age is evenly distributed and life expectancy is 100 years). Three years makes 15 million, which is half of the estimated thrity million, and still a hefty 38% of the 40 million estimate. We know that the life expectancy in China back then is a lot less than 100 years, which makes even more deaths due to age. Taking that into account, the people that Mao killed because of his policies should be around ten million, give or take a couple million. These estimates do not even scratch death caused by natural disasters. Do Mao seem like a merciless killer? If you were in his shoes, can you do any better than he did? Do not let your bias towards communism overshadow the achievements of this man. -A.K.F.

The defending of Mao on this page and the ridiculous Wp article on him defy belief. It just shows that the Chinese authorities hold over their population is still as strong as ever. How can anybody justifiably defend this butcher who showed such disregard for the lives of his countrymen? It is a recorded and well documented fact as to the deaths that occurred under his bloody rule. There is no excuse for ignorance. The truth is out there but some people’s brains have been well and truly washed! -TGV

If you're in his shoes, can you do any better? Can you say that you will not cause death to a population that's grossly underfed and does not have the means to produce enough grain for everyone? He might have killed 40 million people, but that's a small loss considering that china became a world power today. America wiped out two cities with nuclear weapons, and cause more deaths in Iraq, the only reason less people died is because China is more populous and less advanced. I ask you gain, TGV, can you do any better than Mao did? Can you really expect people not to die in a nation of turmoil? If you can't do better than Mao, then you shouldn't be criticizing him for his policies. The ends always justifies the means. And you never told us where you got your information about 40 million dying. There will always be people dying in countries, you cannot prevent it. A.K.F.

Whoever you are, A.K.F. (is that supposed to be a timestamp?), you have contributed as little as TGV here (that is, nothing). Debate's fine, but seems self-defeating when it doesn't lead to a better understanding of how the article could be improved. The topic in this section is whether or not the deaths occurred, whether they were accidental or intentional, or any other concern that might lead to an enrichment of the article (particularly in the 'Legacy' section). I don't see how determining TGV's ability to lead will give a better understanding of the facts of Chairman Mao's reign. And TGV, can you produce some good references as to the "well documented" facts of the deaths under Mao--and more specifically, whether these deaths were the result of cruelty or gross negligence? It is nothing new for people to die. But with Hitler and Pol Pot, there is little dispute in the international community that the unnatural deaths under their reigns had no ethical justification. --JECompton 23:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

wives

Jiang Qing is listed here as the tird wife, but her article says she is the fourth wife. I did a quick search, but could not find out the details. Anybody knows more detail? -- Chris 73 Talk 09:31, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a possible first wife before Yang Kaihui; [1] says Mao's first spouse, a family-chosen native of Shaoshan, ended in separation when he married his second wife, Yang Kaihui, a neophyte Marxist, but doesn't mention her name (or explain how a spouse can end in separation- sounds messy). It's also suggested that no. 1 was unconsumated, which may be why it isn't counted (I don't know what Chinese law of the time said, though). Mark ¹ 06:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So Mao was married 3 to 4 times. Thanks a lot for the info, greatly appreciate you digging up the info. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Mao said the following to Edgar Snow: "My parents had married me when I was fourteen to a girl of twenty, but I had never lived with her--and never subsequently did. I did not consider her my wife and at this time gave little thought to her." [2]. It is very odd to count it as a marriage if there was no consent from the bridegroom, and also no sex.

Edgar Snow's Red Star Over China has been out of print for more than 20 years, but you can find the entire biography here.

Gwydion M. Williams--172.213.152.47 15:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Source for Population Figure Increase Under Mao?

"the total population of China increased 57% to 700 million, from the constant 400 million mark during the span between the Opium War and the Chinese Civil War."

Where did this figure come from? I have done some research for a work that I am writing on China's population, and I cannot find any sources that back this claim up. It would be very much appreciated if someone could tell me how these numbers were figured out or if someone could at least tell me what scholarly source said this?

Thank you.

Tomb

There really should be some info about how he got embalmed and turned into a tourist attraction, like in Ho Chi Minh's bio. I'd add it myself, but I'm really not qualified. -LtNOWIS 05:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, add what you know, NOWIS. It's better than not mentioning at all, and might attract interest from someone who has more details on the matter. I myself had no idea the Chinese had "Leninized" him. Peter Isotalo 16:27, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

wat the hell is that "ass pus" stuff? V.C.---

Mao is not a saint, he is not a evil.

In the offical document from CCP, Mao's acomplishments is 70% good, 30% bad, which I believe is a reasonable conclusion on his achievements.

So peter, do you think we should remove the tomb info on Ho Chi Minh's bio because "somebody who has more details on the matter?" Do you think that we should purge every bio that has tomb info? If not, why are you picking on Mao? -A.K.F.

Imperialism

Mao is remembered *not* for removing foreign influences, which after all continued during his rule (just of a different sort), but for removing Western Imperialism. Look most of this article is servile written by Maoists who have learnt nothing. But to say Mao just removed foreign influences is to misunderstand and distort the history. There is nothing biased about so describing what he did and what the Western powers were doing. Imperialism it was. As the people doing it would have proudly said if you asked them. Can we leave it as it is? Lao Wai 30 June 2005 16:02 (UTC)

I'll say it again. It wasn't just WESTERN nations. Either state, "American, European and Asian nations", or "American, European and japanese" nations. There is no such place as THE WEST. Please show it to me on a current map. However I suppose imperialism is fair.

If most of this article about Mao is "servile", what are you doing to make it better? John Smith's 30 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Well it was just Western nations by 1948. Admittedly it was Western (i.e. Europeans and America) and Japan up to 1945 but then WW2 sort of put paid to that. Nothing to do with Mao either. Technically Germany and Austro-Hungary lost their rights in 1919 as well but that would be too complicated. There is clearly such a cultural and economic group as the West. It is a convenient alternative to listing every single country in Europe and North America.

That's rubbish. It's a sterotype. You can't lump Europeans and Americans together, just as you can't lump Chinese & Japanese together. In any case, what was the "imperialism" after 1948? John Smith's 30 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)

It is hardly a stereotype. In some contexts you cannot lump America and Europe together (or at least to do so would be foolish). In some you can. Just as in some contexts you can lump Japanese and Chinese together (as people sharing a legacy of written Chinese characters for instance). In China's case it is simple - the Americans and the Europeans saw themselves as in it together (it was an American naval officer who attacked China unprovoked and without orders because "blood was thicker than water") and their "rights" in China derived from the same treaties. It is simply too hard to list every country that was exploiting China in 1945. But they were all Western. There was little Imperialism after 1948 although you could make a case for the Soviet Union. I was referring to the period 1945-48. Mao did not throw the Japanese out of China in 1948-49. The Americans did that for him. Foreign influence is certainly not right. Foreign imperialism is better but lets Mao off the hook for his treaties with Stalin. Lao Wai 30 June 2005 16:32 (UTC)

Well as I said before, you could say American and European. Why is that so difficult - it's also more descriptive. If you want to talk about the Soviets, then do so separately. Not problem there. John Smith's 30 June 2005 16:42 (UTC)

I could although the use of "American" is more inaccurate than anything else I can think of I have changed recently. Or I could just use the one word "Western" which everyone knows and understands and accepts. Just what is wrong with it? This seems to me to be a quibble on top of a niggle working up to being snit. Lao Wai 30 June 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Because Western is trying to lump many diverse and different nations together under an artificial definition. It is not relevant in the 21st century. Also why is American wrong? If you can't say American you can't say Western - America is a central part of THE WEST in people's minds. If you want to say Western, you can. But I'll just edit it out later when I have a go at this properly. John Smith's 30 June 2005 16:48 (UTC)

I am doing very little to make it less servile just yet but I am working on it. I'm with you on the deaths from the GLF but I have to say I do not care for Jung Chang much. Lao Wai 30 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)

The Long March

I was reading the article for The Long March and it states that an updated analysis of the march states that it was around 6,000 km instead of 9,600 km. Should we change the 9,600 km to 6,000 km or mention both? What does everyone think of these two conflicting stats? I think the 6,000 km stat would be more accurate since the CCP tends to over exagerate their triumphs. "The communists escaped in circling retreat to the north, which ultimately covered some 8,000 km (4,960 miles) over 370 days. The route branched through some of the most difficult terrain of western China and arrived 9,600 km (5,952 miles) west, then north, to Shaanxi. (In 2003, Ed Jocelyn and Andrew McEwen[1] retraced the route in 384 days[2] and estimated it was actually about 6,000 km (3,700 miles) long.[3])" Stephensj74 03:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Myth?

I deleted the passage claiming that Mao created myths around his youth, and faked the story about the battle of DaDu river. This is total nonsense. DaDu river battle in no way can be faked. This heroic battle is recored in the memoir of Zhang Guotao, a deadly rival of Mao in 1930's, and who immigrated to Canada later. It's also recorded in Harrison E. Salisbury 's Long March: the Untold Story. Same way, the claim that Mao faked his youth experience is also ungrounded. I read quite a lot of records of Mao's youth experience, some from official biographies, some from the memoirs of his enemys, and I have to say most of them coincide. There's no denying he had been a brilliant, idealistic young man.

I am a Chinese who now studies in U.S. I have a high opinion of the principle of democracy and personal freedom. But as most my fellow Chinese , I think Mao is a great hero of my country. I don't deny Mao did many wrong things, even ridiculous things, especially in his later years, like Great Leaps and Cultural Revolution. Still, I believe Mao did much more contribution than harm to his country. Without Mao, China could be just like some part of Africa nowadays, divided, ruled by various warlords, forever in war and famine. The people killed could be in billions, not just the 30,000,000 died in Great Leap.

After reading the discussion here about Mao, I have some words for readers from western countries

1) You shouldn't assume since a person is from a country like China, which has more control on free speech and publications (this I don't deny), he is not capable of free-thinking. This is prejudice and arrogance. Quite to the contrary, people from such backgrounds could be more independently thinking, because from their own experience they are more suspect of any kinds of propoganda, no matter it's from XinHua news agancy or Fox news. And they are more capable of viewing history from various perspectives, not just black and white.

2) Before you take on debate on such a topic, do yourself a favor and read some serious academic books and articles about Chinese history, not just some cheap top-selling book. It's amazing so many people are eager to form an opinion on something they virtually know nothing about. In the first place, how many people here can read Chinese? If I can't read English easily, I won't feel I have the ability to comment on Lincoln or Nixon. Same thing, if you can't read Chinese, you won't be able to gain first-hand, undistorted information about this topic. This doesn't mean you shouldn't form an opinion on Chairman Mao, you have every right to form an opinion about him. But on the other hand, I don't think you are justified to dismiss different opinions from Chinese people as brainwashed or lies.

What you are stating is nothing more than en excuse for the dreadful evil that this "man" inflicted on his countrymen. In his youth he blatantly showed no regard for the peasant in China and disregarded centuries of Chinese culture. He believed totally in self-satisfaction, the belief of looking after ones self. Yet of course he did not apply this to the people he ruled with such barbarity. He was a total narcissist.

The question you must ask yourself Yiyu Shen is how can you excuse the millions he oversaw murdered and the torture that he authorised? I cannot understand that in any way. Put simply, there is no excuse for it. The pictures and photographic evidence is there for all to see and the humiliating torture so many were forced to go through is not excusable. Please do not try and patronize those of us critics by claiming that we do not “see the bigger picture” or “do not understand China and its history.” Murder is murder, and there can be no call for it in any shape or form. Calling this evil mass-murderer a “hero” is just so ridiculous that I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I spend half my working time in various cities throughout China and see for myself the effects of his legacy. If there is a hell, I can assure you that Mao Zedong is sitting there with Hitler, Stalin and his other friends. TGV

I never said Mao shouldn't be responsible for the millions of death in Great Leap, but the question is

Did Mao intentionally killed the millions of peasants? The answer is no, the millions of death is the outcome of Mao's ridiculous policy, but he didnt' foresee it. Yes, he should be responsible for his mistakes, but he didn't want to kill the peasants, so you can't call him a butcher. This is totally different from Hitler, who intentionally wanted to wipe the Jews from earth. Mao started the Great Leap movement to speed up the production of crops, so that more peasants could be feeded. The thing is at that time the leaders of communist party had very little knowledge of economic management, so they employed ridiculous policies, and caused the drastic reduction of crop production, which lead to the starvation of so many peasants. Even though a leader's mistakes caused so many death, you can't call him a butcher just because of this. By your standard, Neville Chamberlaine should be called a butcher, since his peacefule policy toward Hitler caused the World War II and lead to death of million of Jews and other people. GWB should be called a butcher since his reduction in the funding of FEMA caused the hundreds of death in New Orleane.

Again, Mao should be hashly critized for his wrong policy which caused so many death in Great Leap, but it's not justified in calling him a murderer. And again, the question is , without Mao's revolution, what China will be like nowadays? I don't know, but I know if the KMT could have done a better than communist party , they won't have lost the civil war. Can you imagine how many more Chinese people would die in the endless civil war and famines, which were constant before 1949?

By the way, don't be so harsh toward Stalin, I know he was cruel, but without Staligrad Nazi would be ruling the whole world these days, have you ever read Man in High Castle?

You see what's very sad here Yiyu is the way you ignored totally the statements I made about the TORTURE AND MURDER he inflicted on his people not just the great leap which he oversaw by the way and refused to correct when it was obvious how wrong it was going so he WAS responsible for that.

So I'll ask again, what about the MURDER he inflicted on his people? The people he commanded his troops and personnel to carry out? How do you justify that? My contention is there simply is no justification for what he did. His cruelty and sadism were shocking.

What about the mayhem he caused during the Cultural Revolution where Chinese person turned against fellow Chinese person? Or are you going to blame that on the Gang of Four?!

Ok, if it's not the death of Great Leap, so let me ask you, what do you mean by murder? First of all, I think Chang Jun's book is totally a lie, so it's useless to cite the numbers in her book when arguing with me. Do you mean the people killed in civil war? Yes, he was the head of communist army, but should he be considered a butcher just because his army and KMT army were killing each other? If so, is Lincoln a butcher? ( I know many sountheners in U.S really believe he is).

And for the cultural revolution, please notice the word 'revolution', which revolution won't cause death among people? You have to look for what lies in the root of revolution instead of simply say their leaders are butchers. Mao lead cultural revolutionary because he really believed it. Yes, he was wrong in it, but this doesn't mean he intentionally wanted to kill those people who died in it. And which revolution is not inciting people against each other? Which revolution doesn't cause chaos? Wasn't Jefferson and the founding fathers of U.S. inciting the american people against red coats and loyalists? Wasn't Lincoln inciting the North and slaves against the South? And how about French revolution? Even England kill its king in 1649. Can you say Crownwell is not a national hero of England? And can you say Napoleon not a hero of France?

this is truly amazing!!

You are continually ignoring my questions and ignoring them by asking other questions! Mao murdered tens of thousands if not millions of his own people. The people he saw as threatening his Communist superstate and threats to his absolute power. He took revenge gladly throughout his tenure. He personally oversaw the murder of his own people. The "Cultural Revolution" was all about Mao taking revenge on people who quite rightly forced him to step aside after the total failure of the Great Leap Forward.

I think it is worth quoting the comments from a Chinese person reviewing Chang’s book on Amazon:

“There are several reviews here giving lowest mark to the book. Some are justifiable, while I've noticed that there are several suspicious comments. A guy called AChinesePerson might well be a commentator from the Chinese propaganda. Nearly nobody holds such an communist ideological view like he does. If he is not a propaganda person, he is an idiot. The way he tried to defend Mao and Communism is an typical way which is often used by the Chinese propaganda.

Although the book could be regarded as emotional sometimes, most its comments is reasonable. The author's emotive expression is really understandable to a Chinese who suffered in the Culture Revolution. Unfortunately, having been brainwashed so thoroughly, and having been horrified in those years, few people are able to face the truth, like the author does.

Chinese people need to know the truth of their own history, particularly the period after 1949, including Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Massacre. Their ideology has not changed at all since Tiananmen Massacre, despite the economic success. The Chinese Communist party still can not face to them, therefore, the possibility of democratic reform is zero!

How disgusting the Communism is! They are employing commentators commenting the websites, forums and blogs! They are desperately trying to control and go on brainwashing Chinese people! Unfortunately, their effort is somewhat effective. Most people in China do no have a objective view towards Communism, and most people do no dare to critisize the Communist Party.

Chinese people still suffer from Communism! The democratic world should help!”

TGV

I have nothing more to say except that one who claims Chinese people are brainwahed is himself brainwashed.

Yiyu Shen 14:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Only a brainwashed person would say that! (194.46.248.53 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC))

TGV, Maximillen Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety saved the French Revolution. However, Robespierre also GUILLOTINED 40,000 people. Notice that people were losing their heads, not starving to death. Yet I don't see people attacking Robespierre as a butcher, although blood was shed. People just called it the reign of terror and Robespierre it's head. They even tried to justify the killings, saying that Robespierre put down internal dissent and Drove the French to victory, therefore the killing of 40,000 people. Yet I haven't seen you produce a single shred of evidence that Mao had his troops shoot the people, even if he did, did he shoot 40,000 people? If Robespierre can be defended, why can't Mao? As for Jung Chang, notice that she had no dependable evidence and she's trying to destroy established belief. As for brainwashing, a brainwashed person will most certainly say that somebody that opposes him is brainwashed. It applies to both parties, Therefore, can we not waste time with brainwashing and instead treat this a difference of opinion? Also, can you trust the judgement of the admins and lay off of what the Wp says? I, who lived in both sides for a long time, do not have a problem of what the page saids, why should you? Also, why is defending Mao so derisive to you? Do you have relatives killed by mao or something? A.K.F.

Some Comments on Chang Jun's Book

I think this book is just ridiculous to the degree of shamelessness. It blantantly distorted many facts.

For example, here is its opinion on Long March:

The one heroic episode of his career that has never before been challenged, the 9,000 km (6,000-mile)Long March that began in 1934, turns out to have been a fraud: his Nationalist enemies never tried to stop his army, but rather shepherded it through various areas where they wanted to frighten the local warlords into submission. And he didn't actually march; most of the way he was carried in a bamboo litter.

Nothing can be more wrong with these claims. The KMT and CPC were dead enemies, Nationalists wound't pass any opportunity to destroy the CPC, again, see Zhang Guotao's memoir, who wouldn't say any kinds of words of Mao, how many times the Red Army had nearly been destroyed during the Long March.

Mao indeed was carried in a bamboo litter during much of the way, but there was a reason: he was seriously illed and just couldn't walk. So Chang Jun is the worst of all liars: the one who told only half of the truth.

I couldn't help laughing when I read this line:

And he didn't take a bath for 25 years.

Every Chinese people knows Mao was an avid swimmer, in the summer he swam almost day, until he was almost 80 years old, there were a lot of photos about his swimming, he even wrote some poems praising swimming. So what's it that he didn't take a bath for 25 years? Even if he really didn't take bath in the bathtub, won't swimming enough to make him a bit cleaner? Up here this book can only be read as a comic book.

Yiyu Shen 12:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Yiyu, you just don't like the book because it criticises this man with great justification. Painstaking research went into this book and neither you nor anybody else can refute it's statements on Mao's life! That's what's funny. This book I actually picked up in Hong Kong airport which is promising. Now if only this book can make it's way across to Shenzhen and then further...I think I'll bring the book next time I'm in China!

Obviously you are in some fantasy that you are a hero who smuggle some enlightening torch to elluminate our poor Chinese people who are living in darkness. But I am afraid your Chinese friends will only laugh at your little agenda behind your back ( they are too polite to do so in front of you). I remember when I was living in Shenzhen I could read every book published in Hongkong, including the (in)famous Li ZhiSui's memoir about Mao. Trust me, we Chinese people are not so ignorant what happened in our history, and the market for western preachers no longer exists.

Yiyu Shen 13:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I ask you a very simple question, can I buy this book in Mainland China? I don't think so. I can't even access BBC News on the internet for god's sake! Why? Because the Chinese didn't like the way the station reported the Tiannamen massacre in 1989....I have no intention of "educating" or "illuminating" the Chinese people. My experience is they do not wish to learn. Sad but true. Never a good idea to discuss politics in China so I never do because there's no point. Only when I travel across to Taipei from Hong Kong can I start to feel relaxed!

You are very naieve Yiyu, ask yourslef why Microsoft has had to bow and remove references to "Democracy" on MSN. Ask yourself why a simple girls singing talent show broadcast by a Sichuan TV station is now being discussed as being banned next year because it allowed ordinary Chinese people to VOTE for their favourite singer and the authorities are concerned that the people may get a taste fot this voting thing!

how do you think I would be greeted by immigration in Beijing next time I arrive there if they knew I posted coments like this? A serious question.

I think it's you who are naive. Ok, you seems not able to communicate with ordinary Chinese people, have you asked yourself why? It's obvious from what you just said. You said Chinese people don't want to learn, which imply in the first place you want to be their teacher, you want to teach them so called 'truth' in Chinese history, the principle of demoracy, blah, blah, don't you think this kind of altitude is a bit condescending? a bit offensive? Trust me, ordinary people know what happened in their history, and most of them, like me, are critical about Mao's behavior after 1949, they just don't want to talk about politics every day. You won't talk about politics in U.S. every day, why do you have to do this when you come to China? Showing them some trash like Chang Jun's book will only make things worse. What's more, I am afraid after U.S' invasion of Iraq chinese people are more suspicious of the so-call principles of democracy and human right preached by U.S. propaganda machines.

Chinese people are much more sophiscated than you imagine. Yes, talking politics on internet is banned, but no one will be arrested when doing this with friends. There is much more personal freedom than 20 years again. The rumor of banning Supergirl, if my memory is correct, is actually published by CNN, who won't miss every opportunity to show CPC is in trouble. But I really wonder how many black people in Ohio are tasting the flavor of voting.

As for your paranoid of Chinese secret agent after you if you show your name here, seriously, I believe they won't care.

Again, you try and divert attention away from the subject at hand here accusing me of saying things that I never said. A very obvious and childish style of debating. But being Chinese, I guess you're not used to healthy debate!!

I never said i want to be a "teacher" to the Chinese people"! What a stupid thing to say! I just said above that there is “no point in talking politics in China” I couldn't care less if the Chinese people know the truth or not. What I do care about is a Chinese person on a global site like this trying to tell us lies and lecture the rest of us on the truth! You forget that we live in a world of completely free press and wholly accessible internet so we know what the truth is. Now that’s what’s arrogant. Someone from a communist state like yours trying to claim we’re making things up when we’ve had access to the truth and access to uncensored press reports and publications for decades. Chinese people do not have that freedom.

I never once claimed that Chinese people were unsophisticated. Again, more lies from you.

How can you honestly claim to be objective on this matter? The education you would have received on Mao would hardly have been fair or truthful. I am not American, British or Japanese so I have nothing against China, I have no ulterior motive here. TGV

How can you claim I cannot form an objective opinion on Mao? Just because I come from a country without more press freedom doesn't mean I don't know how to think independently. And since Chinese is my home language, I can read much more on this topic than you. Again, as I said in my first post here, you claim that a person coming form a country like China cannot form objective opinion just shows your prejudice and arrogance. And "being chinese I guess you're not used to healthy debate", is this kind of word close to racism healthy?

And though you can access to more information,(which I doubt since you only have access to English translation of the historical materials), have you used them? You just believe blindly in some trash like Chang Jun's book. Do youself a favor, at least read Zhang Guotao's memoir , which is also in English.

This kind of argument has become meaningless, I will stop here.

Yiyu Shen 14:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well it's a truly a sign that you have been defeated in a debate when you mention the word "racism." What I have stated is actually correct, in China, public debate is not permitted in the way it is in the West. Do you deny that? I laugh at the way you label Chang's book as "Trash." References and people she spoke to runs into 13 pages! Do you accuse all those people of lying? You accuse the book as being "trash" just because it has the nerve to criticize "The Great Helmsman"

I ask again how can how stand up and claim to be objective about Mao? You live in a country where the truth was for decades not told about him! So of course your opinion is pro-Mao. Propaganda is a powerful tool.

Please do me a favour, if you don’t have the intelligence to debate rationally here, if your style of debate is to accuse people of saying things they never said and if you choose to bring out the race card, then please, you have no business here lecturing anybody.

If you are not willing to criticize and hold Mao accountable for the crimes he committed against his own people then I can only assume you tacitly agree with what he did. You cannot sit on the fence on this. Either you agree that Mao was right to engage in the murder he brought upon those he disagreed with or you don’t. Very simple really.

The truth is Mao was one of the great mass-murderers of all time and a truly evil man. He brought death and misery to millions. So many needless deaths.

It is time for you to face up to this. It is disgraceful for you to insult the dead like that by dismissing their deaths and the manner in which they were butchered. TGV

Come on, what are you? You are just a coward, you dare not show your name, you even dare not say where you are from. What a shame to argue with such a person like you!

Yiyu Shen 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Amd why the hell would I be afraid to show my name???? We are in the WEST now Yiyu and we can speak freely over the internet like this without fear of anyone watching or reporting us. Admit it, isn't that great?!

My name is Patrick Fitzgerald from Dublin City, Ireland. Anymore questions? How about answering some of the ones put to you about Mao the murderer?

First anwser me about the 25 years no bathing thing! How do you explain such ridiculous claims in Chang Chun's book? And the bamboo litter thing? If your little brain still blindly believe in Chang's book, I see no reason why I should continue arguing with you. However, if you keep adding that ridiculous claim that Mao faked up the Dadu river battle I will keep deleting it. You were lying when you said in your summary you deleted Mao's propoganda, you deleted nothing, you just added propoganda from Chang's book.

Yiyu Shen 16:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yiyu, all you are doing is here is making yourself look pathetic in front of everybody. The fact is swimming IS different from bathing! Actually washing yourself with soap and water and removing dirt and odours takes more effort then simply diving into a swimming pool! And did you ever see he teeth?! Disgusting!

You are making yourself look so foolish here. Look at the reviews of Changs book from a wide source of media publications. Are they all lying? I would advise you improve your debating skills if you ever want to make a success of your studies and have an open mind and don't be so childish in your guillable beleif of Maoist propoganda. it's very embarassing.

From the Wikipedia article on the book, read some of them yourself and then go away and think about the rubbish you have been saying here. I like this review "a massively researched biography of the Great Helmsman that strips all the flattering myths away and reveals the founder of China's Communist regime as a monster with no redeeming qualities whatever."

What you don't like to admit is that this book is not "trash" and not the work of simply some person who rightfully hated Mao but the painstaking research she did to write this, the people she talked to and the old files from the USSR she read back up her assertions of this animal. And Yiyu, he was a murdering, disgusting animal.

The inhuman touch - MAO: The Unknown Story" by Richard McGregor, The Financial Times, June 17, 2005 "Mao: The Unknown Story is a bit of a misnomer. Mao’s crimes are not unknown to anyone who has tried to find them. But Chang and her husband and co-author, British academic Jon Halliday, have laid out the case for the prosecution in bestial, and at times excruciating, detail unrivalled by other biographies."

"Homo sanguinarius" The Economist, May 26th 2005 "A major new biography-more than a decade in the making-portrays Mao as having been even more ruthless and bloody than was previously believed... Ms Chang's and Mr Halliday's informants include several Mao intimates, but some of the most revealing details come from non-Chinese sources, including the archives of the former Soviet Union, which played such an important role in the rise of the Chinese Communist Party."

"This book will shake the world" by Lisa Allardice, The Guardian, May 26, 2005 "So what made Jung Chang then devote 10 years of her life to researching a hefty political biography of Chairman Mao? [...] Chang aims to expose the true character of the man responsible for so much misery - Chairman Mao. He was as evil as Hitler or Stalin, and did as much damage to mankind as they did, Chang says. And yet the world knows astonishingly little about him."

"Mao: 10 parts bad, no parts good" by Gwynne Dyer, Trinidad & Tobago Express June 21, 2005 "The book is Mao: The Unknown Story, a massively researched biography of the Great Helmsman that strips all the flattering myths away and reveals the founder of China's Communist regime as a monster with no redeeming qualities whatever. The authors, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, spent ten years traveling through previously untapped archives and interviewing literally hundreds of people who were close to Mao Tse-tung at some point in his life, and the picture they draw of the man is as definitive as it is repellent."

"The long march to evil", by Roy Hattersley, The Observer, June 5, 2005 "A compelling study of China's red emperor from Jung Chang and Jon Halliday exposes the true scale of Mao's oppression and genocidal manias"

"History: Mao by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday" by Simon Sebag Montefiore, The Times, May 29, 2005 "Mao: The Untold Story exposes its subject as probably the most disgusting of the bloody troika of 20th-century tyrant-messiahs, in terms of character, deeds — and number of victims. This study, by Jung Chang, the author of Wild Swans, and her husband, the historian Jon Halliday, is a triumph. It is a mesmerising portrait of tyranny, degeneracy, mass murder and promiscuity, a barrage of revisionist bombshells, and a superb piece of research."

"Bad element" by Michael Yahuda, The Guardian, Saturday June 4, 2005 "The author of Wild Swans and her historian husband, Jon Halliday, have torn away the many masks and falsehoods with which Mao and the Communist party of China to this day have hidden the true picture of Mao the man and Mao the ruler. Mao now stands revealed as one of the greatest monsters of the 20th century alongside Hitler and Stalin. Indeed, in terms of sheer numbers of deaths for which he responsible, Mao, with some 70 million, exceeded both."

"Jung Chang: Of gods and monsters" by Julie Wheelwright, The Independent, 03 June, 2005 "Mao: the Unknown Story is not so much about toppling the myth of Mao as the benevolent creator of modern China, as setting it aflame. Based on painstaking and often dangerous work in archives in places ranging from Albania to Washington, the book uses sources they have unearthed that reveal Mao as a psychopathic leader, responsible for the deaths of 70 million, and driven by a hunger for power. "I was constantly shocked by how evil he could be," says Chang. "Mao was very, very shrewd but he didn't have human feeling."

It's really no use to pay attention to what you said. From now on I will just ignore your gibberish. But if you keep adding your propoganda to the main article I will keep deleting it. Yiyu Shen 17:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah! The truth at last! Your communist party must be so proud of you! Ignoring the truth and attacking anyone who dares express a different opinion to your own brainwashed one and defending Mao The Animal against any justified attack! A word of advise Yiyu, you are now in the West and freedom of speech is a RIGHT of all citizens. So don’t dare try and stifle debate when you are a guest in our part of the world. IF you want no debate and opinions expressed that only ever support your own, I suggest you go straight back to China.

And I say without hesitation that you are a disgrace for supporting and defending Mao The Animal. Your silence on the torture and murder he committed is deafening. Long live Democracy! Pat

Pat, your discussion style isn't helpful, agree or disagree with Yiyu Shen. Your last statements (above) are blatantly biased and insulting to him, any wise wikipedian will recognize that.

I do agree that the disputed section is indeed too biased. Calling someone murderer or torturer in this way brings about a subjective judgement of condemnation very clearly (WP:POV). We can write on such facts in a more neutral way. I haven't read Chang Jun's book, but indeed those quotes about Mao not having a shower in 25 years seem compromising to me -- this is not the sort of statement you find in scholarly, serious work. Anyway, we should put it in context with other works which might dispute its claims, not simply take upright as undisputable fact one (controversial) work, no matter how much praise it gets from the british press.

Just for the record, I am portuguese. --koenige 01:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

koenige, calling someone a murderer is not being subjective if that person oversaw the killing of so many! It is not subjective to state a fact. Would you suggest we be "neutral" or be gentle in our comments about Hitler? Of course not, so why should we be different with the treatment of Mao? If he murdered people then it is completly correct to call him a "murderer"

The findings in Chang's book are hardly revolutionary, the world has known for decades the extent of Mao's depravity. This book just sheds new light on what we knew already. It is my contention that one cannot "stay neutral" on a matter such as this. We have to call what happened as it was. Glossing over the truth in an attempt to appease some Chinese people who might get offended at criticisms of the former leader is not acceptable. I do not want to see Wikipedia go down the same route as MSN and Yahoo! in China, bowing to pressures by the government there to curtail freedom of expression and information.

Surely being Portuguese you would not hold back criticism of Antonio De Oliviera Salazar? Pat F 82.141.234.22 07:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll be the first to support criticisms of Salazar, so long as they are funded. My intervention in this debate is proof that this is not a question of appeasing "some Chinese people who might get offended at criticisms of the former leader". Just one quote of the controversial subject matter:

His entire life was punctuated with slaughter of such a magnitude that it could only have been ordered by a man who was criminally insane.

This is what I mean by blatant bias. If you say this of Mao, historical coerence obliges you to say the same of Napoleon and other French revolutionaries, Oliver Cromwell or the countless popes who ordered the crusades. Hitler is a bit of a different case, in that it is generally accepted that the Holocaust was a conscious undertaking to exterminate people without much of a military reason for it. Even then, you have to explain how countless others colaborated in such an undertaking, since he obviously couldn't have done it all by himself -- were they all criminally insane too? Historical phenomena can't simply be reduced to the eccentricities of one single individual, no matter how powerful. Condemning a general as a murderer because his actions led to the killing of people in a war is spurious at best. This is common sense in current historical investigation. This is clearly too controversial for a number of people, me included. Therefore I am reverting again your changes, but I'm really not keen on a revert war. Let us discuss this here before any further action to avoid protecting the page against changes. One final note: do register on wikipedia, Pat. You can build a history of useful contributions so that noone will doubt your good faith. Showing up as an anonymous ip straight into a revert war is ugly and tends to arise suspicians among established wikipedians. --koenige 17:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

koenige - I don’t apologise in anyway for the comments I made about Mao. and it is totally different from the position of a field General in the army who is following orders and is in a war. Mao was not in war situation when he was ruling China and that’s the crucial difference. You seem intent also in watering down what happened. Who do you think gave the instruction to implement the policies of "The Great Leap Forward" and who do you think started the Cultural Revolution? Who do you think gave the instruction to torture and murder his rivals?

I am baffled as to your comment "Hitler is a bit of a different case, in that it is generally accepted that the Holocaust was a conscious undertaking to exterminate people without much of a military reason for it". How you cannot apply this to Mao is bewildering. Mao "consciously" took the decision to kill people. Is that really difficult to understand? Or do you not want to believe it? I would certainly call into question the mental state of anybody who can so casually order countless people to their deaths. Someone who gives instructions to systematically kill and torture people is not of sound mind. I’m sure we could invite a legion of Psychologists to confirm the same.

Call a spade a spade koenige and stop trying to water down what Mao did. It’s a nasty world we live in with nasty people scattered throughout our history. Trying to sound “academic” by watering down history is not fulfilling the obligation we all have in making sure the world knows exactly what kind of people held power and the crimes they committed against Humanity. This is essential so as we can hopefully learn and be in the best position possible to stop it happening again, we have to learn from histoty and look out for the warning signs in the future. Staying silent or santising things is not an option. There is no "neutral" view here because the facts are there. There's the facts and there's lies. I can remove the "criminally insane" sentence but that’s it and I think I’m being generous in conceding that. Otherwise I will continue to revert and I’ll just e-mail others to log in and do the same.

And I did register, I am The Great Veritas, I was just too lazy to log on when I signed as Pat F! The Great Veritas 09:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Veritas - I'll go with what RoyBoy, Everyking and DS have stated in your talk page: water down your approach. You might think your statements are not biased POVs, but my and their opinions show otherwise, and you should take them in consideration, instead of thinking straight ahead chinese communist propaganda is dictating anything here - "you do not judge a man on the opinion he holds of himself".

DS has proposed a more acceptable version of your statements, take it and learn our ways around here, since both you and Yiyu Shen are new. --koenige 15:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have accepted the version as written by DS. But please koenige, spare me the lectures about "our way" etc. We are all entitled to our beliefs. It is only your belief, not a statement of fact, that my statements were biased. Other posters backed up my edits as well. Likewise it is my belief that I was right. So who is to say who is right and who is wrong? You? I don't think so....This, from what I can see, is an open website where people can edit articles and state their beliefs and if they disagree they can reach a compromise. There are many incendiary topics on a website like this, you surely can't expect people to act like un-feeling clones do you? I don't believe this site is owned by yourself or that you and a select band should have the final say on matters? So please spare me the condescending tone and lectures. Lets just leave it at this. The Great Veritas 16:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest Edits

Edits I have made are not a POV. They have been stated in the Guardian Newspaper in the UK and have also been stated by many more publications. I object to the allowing of censorship to articles here which are based on fact. Mao did murder countless numbers of his countrymen. The Jung Chang book is the result of an enormous body of work undertaken with hundreds of people talked to and countless references. Wikipedia must not follow MS in trying to sanitise this evil man. Do not allow communist propoganda to go unchallenged.The Great Veritas 21:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Avoiding an Edit War

I have rewritten the passage which had led to the conflict between The Great Veritas and Yiyu Shen, and presented it to both users on their respective talk pages along with a note explaining that I'm trying to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Currently, Veritas has accepted it, but I haven't seen a response from Yiyu yet. For the meantime, I'm presenting it here for discussion. If Yiyu doesn't reply by midnight on Friday, I'll assume he's not interested in participating further and just insert my text as written.

"Mao has also been criticized for his role in creating a cult of personality. Some analysts believe that he fabricated many myths about his background and youth, to enhance his image as a true "people's hero". It has also been suggested that details relevant to key events in the Long March, in particular the 1935 Battle of Luding Bridge, were falsified.

As well, Mao is widely held responsible for the millions of deaths that occurred during his lifetime - both indirectly, as a result of flawed policies during the Three Bitter Years, and directly, as a result of power struggles and the execution of those who were linked to his opponents and rivals.

Contemporary views about him in the PRC are affected by bans on works that criticise Mao heavily. The controversial "Mao: the Unknown Story", by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, provides a far less flattering picture of Mao than the Chinese authorities would like."

I have rewritten the passage which had led to the conflict between The Great Veritas and Yiyu Shen, and presented it to both users on their respective talk pages along with a note explaining that I'm trying to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Currently, Veritas has accepted it, but I haven't seen a response from Yiyu yet. For the meantime, I'm presenting it here for discussion. If Yiyu doesn't reply by midnight on Friday, I'll assume he's not interested in participating further and just insert my text as written.

"Mao has also been criticized for his role in creating a cult of personality. Some analysts believe that he fabricated many myths about his background and youth, to enhance his image as a true "people's hero". It has also been suggested that details relevant to key events in the Long March, in particular the 1935 Battle of Luding Bridge, were falsified.

As well, Mao is widely held responsible for the millions of deaths that occurred during his lifetime - both indirectly, as a result of flawed policies during the Three Bitter Years, and directly, as a result of power struggles and the execution of those who were linked to his opponents and rivals.

Contemporary views about him in the PRC are affected by bans on works that criticise Mao heavily. The controversial "Mao: the Unknown Story", by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, provides a far less flattering picture of Mao than the Chinese authorities would like."

DS 17:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

DS: Thanks a lot for your advices. I think during the exchange with Great Veritas I could have argued in a less hot-headed way, this is something I will pay attention to.

As to your suggested version I'm afraid I won't agree. In my opinion, the key point is that all the controversial claims in the argued passages, including Mao fabricated many of his youth stories, and Luding Bridge, ect, are all first brought out by Chang Chung's book, which I believe is very biased, I could almost say close to slandering. As I argued earlier, the official record of Mao's youth experience is consistent with the memoirs of many of his ealier friends, including some who became his dead enemies later. Many criticized him harshly for his political ideas, but almost all agreed he was indeed quite idealistic and brave. And the stories of Long March, including LuDing battle, are also mostly consistent with KMT's history records. Among the communist leaders who took part in Long March, some became the enemies of CPC several years later, like Zhang Guotao, Gong Chu, also wrote detail memoirs. Their records of Long March indicated stories like Luding are not fabricated. There are even more objective records of Long March. For example, in 1935 two French priests was arrested by Red Army during the Long March and travelled with them for almost one year. They wrote a book about this experience after they returned to France and had a high opinion for the Red Army.

Therefore the reason I can't accept your proposed text is that it implies there are two opposite view regarding the authenticity of stories of Long March and Mao's youth experience in SERIOUS historical research, but this is not true. In serious historcial research there are no opposite view about these stories.

So that's why I don't want the opinion that Mao fabricated Long March, etc, enter the text. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and should contain truth. Though sometimes it's hard for us to know what is the truth, we at least shouldn't let obvious lies enter. It's one thing to contain opposite views from serious historical research, it's another thing to present truth and obvious lies as two opposite view, by this way we are hurting the true history.

Yiyu 00:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just find out these in Luding Bridge's talkpage, as one points out, Chang's book has never been peer-reviewed.

Read the Diary of Cheng Xilian (a veteran who fought at Luding Bridge): this is probably the greatest firsthand account of the event...of course its written in Chinese, so I imagine you won't be able to find it. Of course, he probably doesn't exist right?

As for sources easily in access: Kim Hyong Ik's personal diary (1935, before Communist propaganda could really conjure something that big up) 1

Yang Chenwu 2 (this link, if you scroll to the bottom, mentions this veteran and his revisitation)

Those were the only internet sources I could find...but if you can, read

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140061134/qid=1120172497/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-0784350-3453450?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 (haven't read this one, but I saw it at the library, and flipped to Luding Bridge, Luding Bridge is real to them...)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0070544719/qid=1120172933/sr=8-6/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/103-0784350-3453450?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 (probably the best book on the Long March...)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802709044/qid=1120172565/sr=8-10/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i10_xgl14/103-0784350-3453450?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 (contains personal interviews with veterans...)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802150934/ref=pd_sim_b_1/103-0784350-3453450?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

The issues raised in Chang's book remember are not the personal memoirs of just one person. Painstaking research went into this book and she collected countless statements from contemporaries of Mao's and also directly from comments and writings that he made. He was flippant and quite dismissive about the peasant class and did not in reality show concern for them in the way that is later claimed. We can analayse him also in the dreadful way he treated his children and formwer wives. His third wife was forced to give away four of her children and died after years of mental anguish while Yang Kai-Hui, his second, was executed by the Nationalists in 1930. Chang was able to use a cache of newly-discovered letters that Yang Kai-Hui had hidden behind a roof beam before she was imprisoned. Mao had abandoned his family three years earlier to coach his first army, and had wed his third wife barely four months later.

Kai-Hui's letters, the last of which only came to light in 1999, are still considered so sensitive, says Chang, that even Mao's surviving family have not seen them. The letters are full of Kai-Hui's devastating longing for Mao and her anger at his desertion of their family. But they also reveal that Kai-Hui, who had been drawn to the ideals of communism, was losing her faith in the cause because of Mao's insistence on killing off his opposition. Look at his flippant statement during the Great Leap Forward that "Half of China may have to die" Look at his opulent lifestyle, a special fish was couriered live over 1,000 kilometres in a plastic bag because Mao hated to eat it frozen. His rice came from special spring-fed waters and, since he hated baths, his servants rubbed him every day with hot towels. In 1953, a special troupe was formed of attractive young women whose main function was to service Mao sexually.

Archives in China and Moscow revealed that Mao knew his policy of maximum extraction of food for export would cause millions to die. What had at first seemed mad, says Chang, took on a chilling clarity. Mao wanted to achieve greatness and terror was the means to that end. So this is not someone I think we can say "cared for the peasant" or had their welfare in his heart. The real impact made by Chang is her use of never before seen Russian archives which tell an awful lot and tackle a lot of the myths. Reading them, you can see the incredible closeness of the relationship between the Soviets and China. Contrary to the perceived idea that Stalin disapproved of Mao, Halliday says these documents revealed that the Soviet leader had talent-spotted his Chinese counterpart and nurtured his power-base from the 1920s. Mao always perpetuated the myth that he'd risen to power without help from the Russians. But he was the one that the Russians were pushing and protecting. Ref: The Independant Online

I believe the revised text to be fair. DS clearly states ""Mao has also been criticized for his role in creating a cult of personality. Some analysts believe that he fabricated many myths about his background and youth, to enhance his image as a true "people's hero". That is most fair as he does not make it as a matter of fact just something that has been suggested. This is a very "neutral" way of reporting this and surely acceptable to all.

Yiyu is also being very dishonest when he says, "I don't want the opinion that Mao fabricated Long March." Nobody is saying that. We are talking about one event in the Long March. We are not suggesting, nor is Chang for that matter, that The Long March was fabricated. Yiyu is trying to divert attention in the Edit matter to focus on something that nobody is debating in a vague attempt to suggest that we are trying to revise history on an event that did actually happen thus trying to discredit the attempts to edit the article.

And just remember this, Mao killed so many of his rivals and what he termed "intellectuals" during the Cultural Revolution, so many people who would have known the truth about him and even fought with him were forever silenced. What people think they know about Mao is the Mao version of history written by him and his people. Like in any war, the victor always writes the history....

The Great Veritas 07:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Veritas It's you who are very dishonest, I never said Chang's book claimed Long March is fabricated. But she specifically claimed Luding Bridge battle is fabricated, and I accused she is wrong. I don't you how you can blatantly accuse me of saying something I never said.

Here is what I said 50 lines above: " In my opinion, the key point is that all the controversial claims in the argued passages, including Mao fabricated many of his youth stories, and Luding Bridge, ect, are all first brought out by Chang Chung's book," Did I accused her claming the whole Long March is fabricated?

Yiyu 13:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yiyu, you are now backtracking. Did you or did you not say "I don't want the opinion that Mao fabricated Long March."?? You wrote it above! The Great Veritas 13:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Where I said this? Point it out to me. I simply point out her claim that Mao fabricated LuDing Bridge, and that's not true.

Yiyu 13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yiyu, are you blind or what?? I will re-print the ENTIRE paragraph you wrote at 07th Oct 00:36 UTC

"So that's why I don't want the opinion that Mao fabricated Long March, etc, enter the text. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and should contain truth. Though sometimes it's hard for us to know what is the truth, we at least shouldn't let obvious lies enter. It's one thing to contain opposite views from serious historical research, it's another thing to present truth and obvious lies as two opposite view, by this way we are hurting the true history.

YOU were saying you don't want an opinion in the article that says Mao fabricated the long March. Nobody is saying that. We are talking about one incident in the long March......Is this clear now?? The Great Veritas 13:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, about Kai-Hui's letter, I already read about it several years ago on http://www.boxun.com/, which is obviously an anti-CPC news website built by some oversea Chinese dissidents. I simply feel it amazing that Chang claim that the letters "are still considered so sensitive, says Chang, that even Mao's surviving family have not seen them". How come someone like me can read about it on some website if it's so sensitive? The more I look into this matter, the more I am suspect about Chang's book.

Yiyu 13:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Veritas, it's you who is dishonest and intentionally distorting my words, yes, my Enslish is not perfect, but from the context it's obvious I didn't accuse Chang said the whole Long March is some fabricated story created by Mao, what I said is Chang claimed some facts about Long March, especially Luding bridge, is fabricated, and I don't agree. Look at the controversial passage: "He also lied about seminal events like "The Long March." The claims of fierce fighting on the bridge over the Dadu River, a key event in "The Long March" in 1935, were invented." That's what I don't want to be included. Does this passsage said the whole Long March is fabricated? No, it said specifically the fighting on the bridge over Dadu river, which means the LuDing Bridge, is fabricated. So is it clear about my intention now?

Yiyu 13:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

--number8 04:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Yiyu, Great Veritas, I need to know one thing - are you editing the Mao section of the encyclopedia? If you are, please DON'T. The encyclopedia is for expressing knowlege, and if you two have your disagreements, then argue here. DOn't edit the encyclopedia section. And Yiyu, you are just so desperate to say something that you are making yourself look like a fool. I think you should do the decade research yourself, and then you can argue about Ms. Chang's book. Basing your arguments on the CCP [Chinese Communist Party]'s propoganda, is like arguing that Harry Potter is real when you know it's not - meaning that you are not going to win this argument.

Wikipedia should not be addressing any sourses that raise controversy, instead using sourses that is accepted and established. -A.K.F.

Accepted by whom? The CCP? :p John Smith's 12:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly no Jung Chang's book. The book itself is raising controversy, Mao not taking a bath for 25 years is an absurd claim. Did she follow him for 25 years to say that he didn't take a bath? Can she construct a timeline of everything that Mao did for 25 years? And as for Luding Bridge, Some people on both sides have memoirs that the battle exists, while the ones Chang interviewed say it didn't. We shouldn't say that the Battle existed or not because of one book. There is no reason to deny the possibility that Chang ignored evidence of the battles' existence in order to establish her claim that the battle did not exist. Wikipedia shouldn't be addressing that book on that issue. As for the exact number of people killed, it's impossible to determine the exact number killed because the result was interpolated from census information. Most sourses say 30 million to 40 million. why not stick with that? A.K.F.

I don't believe wiki IS forming its articles purely on the subject of her book. Concerning Luding, the page clearly mentions sources that do support the status quo. You can't censor references to books just because they challenge exisiting beliefs or theories. If we did that, then no new ideas would ever come forward. You claim that she doesn't have enough evidence for her assertions, while you make statements such as, "here is no reason to deny the possibility that Chang ignored evidence of the battles' existence in order to establish her claim that the battle did not exist". You can't have your cake and eat it. Either get some evidence that Chang has deliberately ignored credible sources, or stop complaining about someone conducting and publishing their own research just because you don't like it. John Smith's 15:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Luding Bridge

My proposed revision doesn't suggest that the Long March was fictitious, or even that the Battle of Luding Bridge was fictitious. I don't think Veritas would argue that the Long March and the Battle of Luding Bridge never happened at all.

It says that there are accusations that some of the details have been faked. Yiyu, I think you will agree that this is relevant to understanding how some people outside of China think of Mao today, yes?

Also, I'm glad I was able to help you - both of you - consider the project more calmly. DS 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

DS: In Chang's book, she said LuDing bridge battle never happened, not just some details fabricated.

Yiyu 13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, bar Yiyu, I think a general consensus has been reached here and the revision by DS should now go in. We can go back and forth but it will get nowhere. The version by DS is as neutral as possible, so I think, put it in. I agreed to take out the "criminally insane" segment, even though I think Mao definitely was insane and mentally unstable. So there has to be give and take here! The Great Veritas 15:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Veritas This is just your opinion, not mine, and I don't think general consensus has been reached. I have detailed out the reason why I don't agree with the proposed passages by DS and I have not been convinced by you or other members of this community that my argument doesn't stand. There is no such a thing called 'give and take' here. Yiyu 15:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is my proposal I just wrote in my talk page and why I am also against the last paragraph, now I copy it here:

DS: how about this?

"Mao has also been criticized for his role in creating a cult of personality. As well, Mao is widely criticized for millions of deaths that occurred under his rule - including those died from hungary for his wrong economic policy during the Three Bitter Years, and those killed or exiled during political movements lead by him, including 'Repressing Anti-revolution Movement' and 'Land Reform Movement' in early 1950's, 'Anti-rightists Movement' in 1957, 'Cultural Revolution' during 1966-1976."

I don't think the last paragraph is accurate either, because books having hash critism of Mao have indeed been published in China frequently in last 20 years, though not every book of this kind is allowed by government. For example, the memoir of Li Rui, who was Mao's secretary during 1950s' and been put into prison by Mao after the 1958 Lu Shan Incident, wrote several books detailing Mao's acts in 1950's , and critized his role in Three Bitter Years. The sufferings of ordinary people during Three Bitter Years and Cultural Revolution are frequently recorded in various historical books and literature. Zhang Guotao's memoir, which didn't say much good words about Mao, could also be bought at some bookstores in Beijing and Shanghai, though it's kind of "inner circulation", which means foreigners and people from Taiwain can't buy it, but ordinary Chinese citizen will have no difficulty getting it. On the other hand, Li Zhisui's book : Private Life of Mao, is indeed ban by government, though people can easily get one from black market (I bought one myself in Shenzhen).

What I want to say is that 1) Though there's indeed certain kinds of restrictions on criticism of Mao in China, it's quite loose in general, the current Chinese government has little link with Mao in either heritage or political doctrines and doesn't have much motivation to keep information about him from people 2)No matter what kind of 'ban' there is, Chinese people's view about Mao is not affected too much by it.

Thank you very much

Yiyu 15:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yiyu 15:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I propose that we keep the edit as drafted by DS. Yiyu wants to water it down to just a few words and remove any reference to Chang's book I note. Whether he likes it or not, Chang's book is relevant at this point in time, it has caused a further look into the shady past of Mao and reveals new information, especially the old Soviet files which are fascinating. And Yiyu is not painting an accurate portrayal of the Chinese Government's attitude to Mao. You cannot buy Chang's book in China! They still encourage the Cult of Mao. He is after all the father of the party and is crucial to the CPC and their continuing refusal to allow the people of China have their political say.

So I don't agree to Yiyu's attempt to alter DS's edit. I firmly believe we owe it to the memory of all those millions who died under Mao's rule. We hope by telling events as they happened will somehow stop another Mao, Hitler or Stalin from ever taking power again. It may be a futile attempt because human history shows how barbaric we can be, but we have to try....We owe it to those that died so horrifically....The Great Veritas 17:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Veritas What do you mean I am not painting an accurate portrayal of Chinese Government's attitude to Mao? I already pointed out Li Zhisui's book is banned by Chinese government, though it's easy to buy a pirated one in black market. Isn't this clear enough? Of course you can't buy Chang's book in China's bookstores, but I expect the pirated version will soon be available in black market.

Yiyu 18:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This article will always contain intense controversy. It seems that many people believe that they can accurately describe things like Mao's insanity or his "intentional and personal murder of upwards 90 million people" because Jung Chang published a popular book on it, and British reviewers on the net with little or no knowledge about Chinese history gave it favorable reviews as well. On the same note, many Chinese are offended by facts about Mao that are true, such as his tendency to womanize. Nonetheless, I believe that readers who have read Jung Chang and zealously believe her words to be true without ANY skepticism are causing more damage. If you want to read Chinese history, read a book by a well-respected known-to-be-neutral expert historian.

But to add to the discussion, it is unbelieveably easy to obtain a copy of ANY banned work in China, because of the black market. The government could enforce bans, but they do not, opting for a salutory neglect instead. Saying that one CANNOT buy Jung Chang's book in China with such authority and such capitilization shows a definite ignorance about China.

Furthermore, what evidence is there that the CPC still encourages the Cult of Mao? Have you ever been to China and seen this firsthand or have you even read a publication that verifies this? Again, Jung Chang continues to rule here...

CharlesZ 22:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Charles, as much as believing every word of Chang's biography is not a prudent way to address Mao Zedong and the CCP, it is no worse than the activities of fenqing across the internet who troll forums (and wiki) trying to censor criticism of Mao and the Party. Equally you've made yourself look like a bit of a chump, just like the extremists on either side of the debate, by suggesting that people should "read a book by a well-respected known-to-be-neutral expert historian".

There is no such thing as a neutral historian. Only people who gave up the study of history at school believe that nonsense. Anyone who went to a reputable institution that teaches historical theory (as opposed to learning dates from textbooks like in certain places) would know that all historians are biased through simple virtue of having an interest in historical areas, approaching a subject in hand, etc. Us historians all have a POV to push or are influenced by ones. It affects the way we conduct our research, analyse it and write it up. I used to believe that a good historian is impartial, but I realised a while ago that is impossible.

I don't mean to be rude, but don't dismiss other people as being naive if your historical skills are sorely lacking as well. John Smith's 13:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be looking at a single point in my argument, and that is the word "neutral." This s a very immature thing to do, because if you looked at the word in context, it is obvious that "neutral" means middle-of-the-road, a historian who does not reject almost all existing historical views of Mao.

I have never dismissed any other person's views. I emphasized what I believe and I think in the front of nearly every sentence. If you are truly trying to contribute to this article, you cannot personally affront anyone John Smith's. Please don't pretend to be polite when you tell me that "my historical skills are solely lacking as well."

CharlesZ 19:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Who said I was pretending to be polite? I made a critical comment.

The term "neutral" does not mean middle of the way - if you wish to be clear, do not use such terms when referring to historians. In any case, the best historians do not always walk along the middle of the path. Sometimes old myths must be dispelled, old views challenged, etc. Regardless of how "correct" Ms Chang is overall, she cannot be criticised merely for attacking current attitudes. The worst thing that one can do in historical academia is merely accept something because it is "accepted". John Smith's 22:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I should also point out that "respect" is also a very difficult term to use. Respected by whom? There aren't "supreme historical councils" that decide what is good historical research and what isn't. In the UK certainly, historical works are not given peer review, as they shouldn't. It is up to the individual reader to evaluate and contemplate the work in question. Some historians will support new efforts, others will criticise and most will probably not pass comment at all. Very few are singled out for extreme censure (such as Holocaust denial) and even then it is merely a moral criticism. Chang's book will not receive such attention in the United Kingdom, I can promise you that.

I fear the day when we are provided with "official histories" as in places like the PRC. John Smith's 14:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, could someone please give me a link to DS' edit, or please post it in full? Cheers, John Smith's 15:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

CharlesZ, you have indeed shown yourself to a bit foolish by making those comments..As I stated elsewhere I spend 40% of my working time in China. I work in Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, Shenzhen, Xi'an and Haikou. I also lived in Beijing and had close ties with the diplomatic corp. Your attempts to twist and negate what I said are obvious. The fact remains that you cannot buy her book in China. Saying that you can because it can be sold on the black market is ridiculous. The book would not be advertised, there would be no publicity and only very few Chinese people would be aware of it's existence. And why is it banned by the way? You’re suggesting that the book makes claims that no Chinese person would believe, so why does it have to be banned? Surely if the book is worthless as you claim, then the govt should have no problem with it whatsoever? What are they afraid of?

Many books are not advertised in China. I do not see why advertisement and publicity are requirements for a book to be bought. Take, for example, the novel "Mr. Rafferty's New Umbrella." It is not advertised, nor is it publicized. Therefore, it cannot be bought here in the US. Furthermore, Jung Chang's book was written in English.

The government is very old-fashioned still and I agree with your criticism. It bans materials for no reason and movies like Spiderman and Harry Potter have been banned as well for no real apparent reason. Nonetheless, I am not sure how this question relates to the argument. How does the banning of Jung Chang's book in China have anything to do with the accuracy of her research? I am questioning the accuracy of her work; I strongly agree that Jung Chang's book, indeed, is banned in China :). What it does do is contradict most research by westerners and Chinese alike.

And again, I do not resort to personal attacks calling people "foolish" so please do not do the same to me.

I don't really care if you put Jung Chang's views in Wikipedia. Although she is in a very small minority in her views of Mao, Wikipedia has a place for everyone. I am just warning against a belief of everthing published.

CharlesZ 19:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

John Smith’s, nice to talk with you. Here is the amendment as per DS..

“"Mao has also been criticized for his role in creating a cult of personality. Some analysts believe that he fabricated many myths about his background and youth, to enhance his image as a true "people's hero". It has also been suggested that details relevant to key events in the Long March, in particular the 1935 Battle of Luding Bridge, were falsified.

As well, Mao is widely held responsible for the millions of deaths that occurred during his lifetime - both indirectly, as a result of flawed policies during the Three Bitter Years, and directly, as a result of power struggles and the execution of those who were linked to his opponents and rivals.

Contemporary views about him in the PRC are affected by bans on works that criticise Mao heavily. The controversial "Mao: the Unknown Story", by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, provides a far less flattering picture of Mao than the Chinese authorities would like." The Great Veritas 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm not exactly sure where that would be properly placed, I can't exactly see what is wrong with it. Can someone please point out what is wrong about that. John Smith's 22:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Great Veritas, how about this?<br\>I move the claim that Mao falsified his youth and Luding, etc, to the third paragraph, since these claims are made by Jung Chang's book alone. Putting these claims in the first paragraph gives readers an impression that other historians also holds this opinion, which I don't see any.

I also changed the sentence "far less flattering picture of Mao than Chinese authorities like ... " to " than previous historical works do", since the previous historical works and biographies, including many published in Western countries, also criticises Mao hashly. Chang's book is not the first book about Mao that Chinese government doesn't like.

I also change the first sentence of the last paragraph to: "Contemporary views about him in the PRC are affected by bans on works that hashly criticise Mao.", since : <br\> 1) not every work criticise Mao is banned <br\> 2) As I said previously, people's views about Mao surely is affected by such bans in a certain degree, but I don't think it's affected heavily due to the existence of black market and also remember, they themselves or their parents had lived under Mao's rule, and they konw what it was like.<br\>

Mao has also been criticized for his role in creating a cult of personality. As well, Mao is widely held responsible for the millions of deaths that occurred during his lifetime - both indirectly, as a result of flawed policies during the Three Bitter Years, and directly, as a result of power struggles and the execution of those who were linked to his opponents and rivals.

Contemporary views about him in the PRC are affected by bans on some works that harshly criticise Mao. The controversial "Mao: the Unknown Story", by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, provides a far less flattering picture of Mao than previous historical works do. Chang's book claims that he fabricated many myths about his background and youth, to enhance his image as a true "people's hero". Chang's book also suggests that details relevant to key events in the Long March, in particular the 1935 Battle of Luding Bridge, were falsified. Yiyu 15:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Even though I would have liked to add more to the edit, I am glad we could reach a consensus on this. The Great Veritas 17:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Defending Mao with a biased view

I was schooled in Mainaland China until the fourth grade and then I migrated to Hong Kong. I was schooled in Hong Kong until the 9th Grade then went to US for further study. I was schooled in US from 11th Grade to a Bachelor Degree from University of California, Berkeley. I am currently pursing my master degree in UK.

Not saying I am not biased, but just providing the context. Just in case anyone want to claim I was brainwashed and therefore my point of view can be summarily rejected, they are really on very thin ground.

I am well aware that from a western point of view, Mao is usually mentioned in the same breath as Stalin and Hitler. To mainland chinese, the thought of placing Stalin and Hitler together is always a shock, but I digress.

I am also well aware that there are enough historical research done on Mao Ze Dong to fill a library. Not all of them neutral, as inherently westerners equates communism with evil dictatorship and many never even really try to understand China in the first place. (Speaking of brainwash, this is one prime example. Ask any westerner what communism is, and they will struggle to come up with the right answer. But that doesn't stop them from judging it in a totally different context. It is amazed to think that before the cold war, democracy was frowned upon.)

I am sad to find that out of all the academic works done on the subject, the most quoted sources in this entry are the memoir of a doctor who violates the patient's privacy and the fiction "swanlake" disapproved by most of the westerner academics. There are better sources out there than these to paint Mao 's outlook. Users of wiki deserve better.

Mao shall be held responsible for the failure of great leap forward and the start of the ill-fated cultural revolution, and the subsequent deaths of millions. Mass murder, no. Idealist went head to head with the dark reality of humanity and lost, yes. His sin, and probably the original sin of communism, is the belief that the world can be an utopia. Human nature proved otherwise. While a revolutionaire can be a saint, the mass is anything but.

To judge Mao is not easy. How do you judge someone making decisions based on misinformation and deliberate decit? That was what happened in the Great Leap Forward.

How do you judge someone started the cultural revolution because he had the foresight that unless checked the bureaucrats will form a class and dominiate the society, and in fact destroy the goal of the revolution. This more or less was what happened under Deng's economic reform.

From a result oriented view, this does not total absolve Mao's responsibility. But even in the criminal court, there is a huge difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder in the first degree.

Mao shall always be villified because of the great leap forward and the cultural revolution. But that isn't all that he did. There is much more to the great man than two terrible mistakes. He successfully unified China and the Chinese people as a whole. A feat perhaps not been done since the Qin/Han dynasties. Before 1949, China and the Chinese people had been a pile of sand, stepped upon and abused by the foreign powers for the last hundred years. It is under his leadership that we lay foundation of the modern China today. This in itself will always make Mao a great man and a Chinese national hero. A thousand years from now, this will still be how we remember him.

There will always be people like me defending Mao. Just like there will always be people trying to make him an absolute evil. It is easier to go to the extreme. I ask only for Wiki to be really neutral. Provide the historical context, provide the undeniable facts, and let people make their own judgement.

Personally, I will always view Mao as a tragic hero who achieved unbelivable greatness only to fall from absolute greatness because he is an idealist and he wanted Utopia for all.

A translation should be done from the Wiki chinese

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AF%9B%E6%B3%BD%E4%B8%9C

I have read this link and I suggest all the wiki users who can read Chinese should go to this link and translate its content into the English version.

I am very amazed at the level of neutrality achieved by the Chinese entry even though I don't agree with the content 100%. It has presented the view fairly from both side.

Maybe the same can be done over here.