Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

hi

wo The introduction states some pretty powerful--and true--facts about Mao, but before one even gets the remotest idea of who he was or what he did--it's painfully clear whoever wrote it was determined to portray Mao in a negative light--and if the facts support it, which they do, I say, let's do that. However, it would be nice to know the bare facts of his significance and existence--ie, he ruled China, was leader of the Communist Party, etc., and for however long, before finding out he shares traits with Nazis.

Just sayin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.221.107 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! That's a lot better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.19.44 (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

question

I wanted to point out a sentence that I think is confusing and suggest that someone maybe rewrite it to be more clear. In the section "Cultural Revolution", in the second paragraph, the sentence is:

Under the pretext that certain liberal "bourgeois" elements of society, labeled as class enemies, continue to threaten the socialist framework under the existing dictatorship of the proletariat, the idea that a Cultural Revolution must continue after armed struggle allowed Mao to circumvent the Communist hierarchy by giving power directly to the Red Guards, groups of young people, often teenagers, who set up their own tribunals.

Just a suggestion.

Thanks, Kelshew (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Kelli

Small intro edit, hopefully the last.

I myself have been making additions to this page for over two years (and others have been just as long if not longer, and I know who you are as well). As always the introduction remains one of the most edited parts of the article. Overall, I feel this article is becoming a great one. With that said I have made one addition. While the high end death totals have been noted in numbers in the introduction (which some feel should be so) nothing next to those numbers states them as controversial and debated. I have simply added this fact. Almost every negative thing on this page is a result of one questionable book. I'll be glad to give sources (Li Zhishi, and J. Spence to name two) as to show this controversial view fact by the historic community, though I think they are already peppered through out the article. If anyone has any issue, please debate here. (Majin Takeru (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Once more, As long as numbers of the people who died in China during Mao's rule are in the intro, the fact that those numbers and Mao's involvement are disputed should be left in as well. Jung Chang is not the only source on Mao, though sadly too many people think it is. Easy to cite the dispute, as even people who were not fans of Mao (once more Li Zhishi, and Philip Short) even dispute those numbers and his involvement. Not to mention some of the more pro Mao writers. (Majin Takeru (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Why does the intro no longer mention the hundreds of millions he was involved in killing? Less sympathy for j00s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.152.20 (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for MND / Parkinson's?

I note that there are templates here listing Mao as someone with Parkinson's disease and also as someone who died of motor neurone disease. Is there any evidence supporting either of these statements that could be incorporated? Apologies if this has already been discussed. --PaulWicks (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Li Zhishi was the one who said Motor Neutron Disease. He was Mao's private doctor for over 20 years, as far as Mao's health is concerned no other account that challenges his should even be considered, barring some extensive new research. He states this in his book (states Mao had MND), "The Private life of Chairman Mao". (Majin Takeru (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Article Locked - Please add IPA pronunciation

Please add IPA pronunciation, which I believe is: /mao tsə.toŋ/ or /mao tsə.tuŋ/

(I would avoid pitch accents, and use period/full stop as the syllable divider, for practical reasons.)

The current .ogg sound file is unplayable on many computers -- and not very useful for the deaf either.

Although actually, we really ought to give the Anglicized pronunciations as these are what should be used in normal English speech. This will be too long for the opening sentence though (a big Wikipedia issue in general -- we need a "pronunciation widget" at the top of articles), and should go as a sentence of its own somewhere in the first paragraph:

"The common Anglicized pronunciations of the name are /ˈmaʊ tseɪˌtʊŋ/ (residually from the older spelling Mao Tse-Tung), or /ˈmaʊ ziˌdɔŋ/ or /ˈmaʊ dzeɪˌdʊŋ/ from the Pinyin spelling Mao Zedong. The Standard Chinese pronunciation is /mao tsə.tuŋ/." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.204 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

when will you unblock it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandamir (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article locked - The section on his death should specify the official date and time of death - Ten minutes past midnight on September 9th 1976 [1] Woolly6 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mao's view about women

At the legacy section positive things are written about Mao and Chinese women. However, we should at least comment Mao's attempt to trade 10 million Chinese women to USA during a discussion with Kissinger (hopefully this was a joke, but we do not know for sure).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7243500.stm

[Mao] lamented the dismal state of trade between the two countries but remarked that China had an excess of women. He suggested sending tens of thousands to the US, but later in the conversation increased his offer to 10 million. The remark provoked laughter and was clearly meant as a joke, but Mao went on to complain that Chinese women were giving birth to too many children. If they were sent to the US he said, they would flood the country with disaster. When discussing the possibility of a Soviet invasion of China, Mao complained that too many Chinese women didn't know how to fight.

A.Cython (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly sure this wasn't taken very seriously, not sure if it needs to be in the article, however if it is it should be shortened and include a reference to jest. (Majin Takeru (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, I would agree with you that this is not serious if he had stopped the joke once they started laughing (at 10 million). But Mao went on reflecting his opinions about women, which is important for understanding the real Mao. A.Cython (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Molestor

Can someone put something in there about charges of him molesting children? It's clear everyone who wrote this thinks he's a demi-god, but I've read otherwise and I thought Wikipedia was fair to both sides.

35.8.218.205 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reliable sources as to such a thing. While Tom Clancy makes that accusation in several novels, those are works of fiction.

LordShonus (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mao's death?

In the section about his death, it jumps right from "he was revived" after he was moved over on his left side to "his body was displayed..." with no intermittent description of how/when he actually died. It doesn't even mention in the "Death" section that he died on Sept 9th, as noted at the beginning of the article. I suppose that the reader can use information from throughout the article to conclude that he died on Sept 9th due to a complication from his heart attack, but it would be useful to explicitly put that right in the "Death" section. --Nichenbach (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a better description at the article on the Cultural Revolution. Colipon+(T) 09:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Graffiti record holder

I first read this on Banksy's website but I later found it on the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/asia_pac_graffiti_artists_in_beijing/html/1.stm, apparently he used to write revolutionary slogans on walls and holds the record for the largest single piece of graffiti which he wrote on the stalls of his universities bathrooms. (Lenerd (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

mao was a vandal?

Did you know that Mao was a vandal? See the image below: http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/images/landscapes/centrepointtag.jpg 68.223.2.140 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

References to Chang and Halliday have been removed because their controversial work is not reflective of scholarly discourse. Chang does have the appropriate academic credentials to write history on China. Laogai.org and hrichina.org do not qualify as reliable sources because these are the mouthpieces of partisan advocacy groups. An encyclopedic entry on history should contain references from established scholarship rather than pushing the agenda of political organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.101 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

References to Chang and Halliday have been removed because their controversial work is not reflective of scholarly discourse. Chang does have the appropriate academic credentials to write history on China. To cite Rummel is fallacious because he is not a specialist on China. Rather, he specializes in political science. Nor is the "Black Book of Communism" reflective of scholarly discourse for the simple fact that it has been largely dismissed by the scholarly community as a polemic. If a controversial source is to be cited, it must be appropriately attributed. Examples of acceptable sources on the subject include historical surveys of 20th century China by Meisner and Chesneaux.

Laogai.org and hrichina.org do not qualify as reliable sources because these are the mouthpieces of partisan advocacy groups. An encyclopedic entry on history should contain references from established scholarship rather than pushing the agenda of political organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.101 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Very few books have been reviewed as favorably by as many publications and Chang and Halliday's book has.[2] It's certainly controversial and needs to be balanced with material from other sources. It's sounds like your idea of RS is "pro-Mao," which is a not a mainstream point of view outside China. Kauffner (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Black Book" and many of the other unreliable POV sources utilized in this article have been continually included by the hyperbolically-overzealous User:C.J. Griffin. To say that C.J. was on a "one man mission" to 'propagandize' wikipedia would unfortunately be an understatement. If you have any doubt about his "motivations" to NPOV ... then simply review his own personal website that he links to from his wikipedia account. There is also his own personal Amazon page (which he proudly links to on his wikipedia page) where he declares: “Communism is the greatest murder machine in the history of the world ... I refuse to allow the radical Left to sweep the unprecedented imperial Communist holocaust under the rug. Never forget the 100 million.” --- Now I'm no "Perry Mason", but something tells me that C.J. may not just be editing on wikipedia out of scholarly interest?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro

It reads (as of Oct 17th):

Early life in China

Mao was super crazy and guided by... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.196.252 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

60.242.159.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is insistent on inserting plagiarized text into the article. I reverted the first edit, which had content from this book. Undeterred, the same IP address decided that it would be alright to plagiarize from another source with this edit. I have revert this as well, since the material was lifted from this book. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

How did I plagarise anything? The text was clearly sourced, and in the second edit I've reverteed the paragraph in question. I find it offensive that you referred to me as an "IP vandal" when that is clearly not my attempt.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism is whenever text is copied without directly attributing it to the source. If you are directly quoting something, then you need to identify it as a direct quote. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

It is late in the country where I reside and I am unable to figure out how to revert edits without totally messing up the page. I'm sure someone will notice the vandalism before they read about it here. Sorry I couldn't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoliloquy (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the edits. Can we get this page semi protected please? Yialanliu (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 1 months. Thanks for undoing all the vandalism. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} I've found one instance where it calls him "Mao Da Boss", can someone check for any other vandalism and reverse it?

Fixed. I didn't find any other vandalism. --Skunkboy74 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

I removed the following sentence, If Mao had kept to his earlier policy of non-intervention in economics and end of class struggle, China would have been spared much trouble, and would have probably became a world power years ahead of schedule. from the legacy section, since it seems to be speculative. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

scrolling boxes

I was browsing around and noticed that the Muhammad page had a scrolling box for Notes, of which there were many. I thought the scrolling box made the page a lot nicer, and I thought I would seed the idea on different pages, hoping it would catch on. It can easily get reverted if popular opinion disagrees, so I thought I would find out what others think of using this format on extra-long pages such as Mao's.JW (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

KMT/Communist fighting against the Japanese

It seems that the following uncited passage has snuck in: "Sustaining more casualties does not necesarily entail greater involvement, it could in fact mean your forces performed more poorly. However, the nationalists did less fighting proportionally than the communists, they deliberately held back their resources to fight the communists after the war while the communists fought as hard as they could on both fronts against the japanese and the nationalists."

Uncited points: poor nationalist fighting, proportionally less fighting, nationalists deliberately holding resources, communists fought as hard as they could 66.212.202.251 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Those some of those uncited points can be found in materials related to General Joseph Stilwell, who was sent to China in 1942 as a military adviser. He openly criticized that Chiang was holding back resource unless it was absolutely necessary.

I do agree that the passage lacks the necessary support and is no more than a personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenity529 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mao fought from 1915 to early 1917 in a Bersaglieri regiment. He wasn't a sniper, he was a fusilier, an ordinary infantryman. I have read his war diary and there is no mention of sniping. Later in the war Mao was trained to use a trench mortar, and he was in charge of a mortar squad when one of the shells they were shooting at the Japanese misfired and Mao got wounded. So I can't see where that bit of information comes from. It is not in the Chinese entry on Mao, which is thoroughly documented. I do not think that MS Encarta is a reliable source when it comes to this kind of details.--213.140.21.227 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You are totally 100% correct. That is insanity to suggest that the crafty editor of newspapers was also a trained sniper. I have over 10 biographies on Mao ranging in time and scope and none of them mention him being a sniper. I have updated the World War I section and used legitmate references from a British Ambassador who was a contemporary of Mao, Ivone Kirkpatrick. Mao is too fascinating a figure to be left to such shoddy citing and crazy claims. It is time to clean this page up!!!--213.140.21.227 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ussr supported ccp?

my (rather terrible) ib textbook, by john l tomkinson, published by anagosis, called single party states, says that the ussr supported the gmd and NOT the ccp because stalin believed that shiek and the gmd would easily be overthrown.

is that how it was or is the article right?

--64.228.72.14 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately that is not the case, it was the opposite. The Nationalists did all the fighting, while the Mao’s forces held back. There are historical records of casualty figures in the Republic of Chinas Libraries.

The CCP changed the figures after 1949. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.73.125 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was watching a documentary (凤凰大视野, 2009年01月13日 [3]) on Phoenix TV regarding the issue of relations between the KMT and USSR. Stalin wanted the CCP and KMT to collaborate with each other, however had his own intentions of self-gain. Stalin knew that supporting the KMT would bring a US ally close to the USSR, and so he made a deal with Chiang Kai-Shek that China south of the Great Wall would be granted to the KMT, while the Dongbei Manchuria region would be granted to the USSR, in which Chiang reportedly agreed to (the USSR at that stage had already worked towards the independence of Outer Mongolia in 1921, and through a deal in the Yalta Conference, the USSR was granted by the United States control over certain aspects of land in China, in return for a co-operated attack against the Empire of Japan. With Outer Mongolia separated and the Maritime Province a part of the USSR, what then lied above the Great Wall was Inner Mongolia and the rest of Northeastern China.) Eventually, the Eighth Route Army was granted by the USSR to enter the Dongbei region, and so large masses of troops travelled unarmed to Manchuria via a short sea trip from Shandong. The Eighth Route Army was then armed with weapons and supplies provided by the USSR. What then appeared to Stalin is that, now there was something similar in regards to a "North China" and "South China", with the Chinese Communist-held "North China" acting as a buffer between the Pro-US KMT-held China (somewhat similar to North Korea today; the US cannot attack the USSR from the south, while the USSR cannot attack China from the North.) Mao saw this, and so, initiated the Chinese Civil War. What Stalin did not forsee was that Mao then controlled ALL of China, which prevented the execution of his initial plans. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also good to mention is that, from the documentary in question, Soviet troops were also present in the Dongbei region at the time. For example, there have even been accounts of Red Army troops encountering Joss paper and Hell Bank Notes, in which they did not know what they were. According to a witness, one Soviet soldier believed the notes to be legal tender, and attempted to purchase goods from a vendor, who knew of the notes and so refused the "payment". Assuming that the currency "was not enough", the soldier then gave all his "money", and was still refused. It is until the end of the civil war when all Soviet forces were retreated from China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

While this may sound strange coming from an anonymous user, I'm quite shocked that this article is not semi-protected. Mao Zedong was (and still is) a VERY controversial figure, to say the least. He ranks up there with Hitler and Stalin, and this page is vandalized just as much as those pages are.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cthulhu?

What's the matter with that Cthulhu part in the article?

Mao took up residence in Zhongnanhai, a compound next to the Forbidden City in Beijing, and there he was approached by The Great Cthulhu who planned to grant him the powers of an elder-god, But Zhongnanhai is known for having large amounts of pepper hidden underground. Upon getting a whiff The Great Cthulhu had a mighty sneeze and covered Mao with elder-god boogers, which turned Mao into a communist[23]

Link to page

Reverted it. Clearly vandalism. --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail) 20:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Would someone please be able to fix the signature? I have added File:Mao signature.jpg, however it is too large to fit, and every time I try to change the dimensions, it does not work. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to Hitler

This suggestion has been removed because it does not represent scholarly consensus. Chinese scholars, for example, hold Mao in high regard. And the West's leading authority on China Maurice Meisner made an overall positive evaluation of Mao. Sky01 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"NPOV" means that all mainstream points of view should be represented in the article, not just the one POV that you have arbitrary designated as "scholarly consensus." Kauffner (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does not meet rules on scholarly consensus. Cite a single specialist from China who compares Mao to Hitler. Sky01 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But it does meet the rules for Wikipedia content. Only accepting Chinese sources would skew things massively. How long does someone who takes a consistently negative view of Mao remain a professional historian in the PRC? William Avery (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that, you won't find any Chinese specialist who'd compare Mao to Hitler. Only suicidal historians in China would do that. Can you imagine what the communist regime would do with a historian who'd dare to do that? Akinaka (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No one's talking about only using Chinese sources. What western scholars actually consider Mao to be comparable to Hitler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.186.177 (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Or comparison to Stalin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legislator (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

None whatsoever... he wasn't for the annihilation of any sort of race/ethnicity/religion!?!?!?!?!?!? Was He!!!!!.... I didn't think so (but for more for rebels and others of the sort). I think, although not a very logistic purpose, killing people over there slight disagreement with communism is more of a purpose then being of Jewish faith! Turqoiseturtle (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

consensus! people! Come on! people around me falsely compare Mao to Hitler every time he is brought up! For one I am sure Mao, sittin in his grave doesn't appreciate you comparing him to Hitler, of all people! Well especialy for those of you who respect him as much as I do (not much but enough). Knowing Wikipedia as such a revered source for the uneducated I feel it is a great idea for this article to be in the public eye. Turqoiseturtle (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Quotes

It is written,

"During a speech to party cadre in 1958, Mao said: "He buried 460 scholars alive; we have buried forty-six thousand scholars alive... You [intellectuals] revile us for being Qin Shi Huangs. You are wrong. We have surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold."

People who try to commit suicide — don't attempt to save them

Quotations of politicians should be derived from published sources, not on unverified hearsay. This alleged quotation cannot be found in any of Mao's published works. [4]Sky01 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Qing Shi Huang quote is sourced in a 1969 work, but the suicide quote sounds sketchy.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with sources

Many of the sources cited here are inappropriate. For example:

(UTC)Along with land reform, there were also campaigns of mass repression and public executions targeting alleged counter-revolutionaries, such as former KMT officials, businessmen, former employees of Western companies, intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect, and significant numbers of rural gentry.[Steven W. Mosher. China Misperceived: American Illusions and Chinese Reality.]

Stephen W. Mosher is not a professional academic specializing on the history of China. His opinion does not relate tot he subject at hand.

The U.S. State department in 1976 estimated that there may have been a million killed in the land reform, 800,000 killed in the counterrevolutionary campaign.

What the U.S. State Department has to say is also not interesting. It would be preferred if academic sources are used.

Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949–53.[Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. Mao: The Unknown Story]

Jung Chang is not a specialist on Chinese History. Her education is in linguistics. The book "Mao: Unknown Story" has been debunked by the scholarly community.

the number of deaths range between between 2 million and 5 million. [The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0674076087 pg. 479]

Even if this book had not generated so much controversy, it would still be inappropriate because the sections on China are brief and selective. Jean-Louis Margolin is not a leading authority on the subject of China. --Sky01 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Points for citation

In the article there are the following quotes:

• 'During his stay in Shanghai, he engaged himself as much as possible in reading which introduced him to Communist theories.'
• 'Mao turned down an opportunity to study in France because he firmly believed that China's problems could be studied and resolved only within China.'
• 'Other important influences on Mao were the Russian revolution and, according to some scholars, the Chinese literary works: Outlaws of the Marsh and Romance of the Three Kingdoms.'
• 'More than one million Kuomintang soldiers were involved in these five campaigns, four of which were defeated by the Red Guard led by Mao.'
• 'In China, the formerly favourable Soviets were now denounced as "revisionists" and listed alongside "American imperialism" as movements to oppose.'
• 'During the Cultural Revolution, Mao closed the schools in China and the young intellectuals living in cities were ordered to the countryside. They were forced to manufacture weapons for the Red Army.'
• 'They attempted to marginalize Mao by taking control of economic policy and asserting themselves politically as well.'
• 'On the afternoon of September 7th, Mao took a turn for the worse. Jiang Qing came to Building 202 where she learned the bad news. Mao had just fallen asleep and needed the rest, but she insisted on rubbing his back and moving his limbs, and she sprinkled powder on his body. The medical team protested that the dust from the powder was not good for his lungs, but she instructed the nurses on duty to follow her example later. The next morning, 8 September, she came again. She wanted the medical staff to change Mao's sleeping position, claiming that he had been lying too long on his left side. The doctor on duty objected, knowing that he could breathe only on his left side, but she had him moved nonetheless. Mao's breathing stopped and his face turned blue. Jiang Qing left the room while the medical staff put him on a respirator and performed emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Mao barely revived, and Hua Guofeng urged Jiang Qing not to interfere further with the doctors' work, as her actions were detrimental to Mao's health and helped cause his death faster.'

Does anyone have citations for any of these extracts of the article? (as i think they are needed). MarquisCostello (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mao Zedong was Korean lies

Please note I am not here to troll, this controversial claim was firstly introduced by Taiwanese nationalists in attempt to make fun at Koreans. Please note this is very controversial claim coming from Taiwanese communities. Please post this controversial event at main article to show this was total lies. --Korsentry 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

This article vs. Britannica

Any editor questioning whether this article is WP:NPOV, should take the time to read Encyclopedia Britannica's Mao article. The glaring presence of WP:Undue editorialized criticism within Wikipedia's entry should be more than apparent. If you compare & contrast the two entries, you would almost think they are referencing two different individuals.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the population in 1900?

Something that bothers me is that I seldom see anything about the way China was using land & the number of people in China in 1900 or 1920 or at some point, wasn't that a big factor in WHY China wanted Communism? Weren't there so many people (close to a billion) that were subsisting on small plots of land that it was more obvious there than it was in America, which had a small population & lots of empty land, that the ideal for China would be to have Communism, where large communities would all live & work on the communally-owned land by large groups of people working together, possibly working fewer hours for each person? I've never seen the 'why' in the reason China wanted Communism. But maybe I've missed that & I haven't read a million books so maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like that would make it more clear as to why China wanted Communism. Stars4change (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And also, weren't they fighting against the few "richest" elite owners of the largest amounts of land, factories, etc, in China whom they had to "overthrow", which led to the violence? And couldn't some, or all, of that violence have happened because they had poor communication at that time (no TV, radios, & other faster means of communication) to teach all people at once how communism would work, which might not have anything to add to this, but I wanted to ask. Stars4change (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

US population in 1900 was only 76,000,000, & 2009 only 300,000,000 it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States Stars4change (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mao biography by Michael Lynch states that the Chinese population doubled to half a billion between 1800 and 1900. (Michael Lynch: Mao. London: Routledge, 2004. P. 3. --ChristopheS (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheist?

I searched the page for "Atheist", "Atheism", "belief", "God", "religion" and "faith". But I only "religion" and "atheist" in that summary box at the top. Are there sources confirming that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.253.191 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

red guard and red army are very different things

Red Guard = 红卫兵,volunteer student organizations during the Cultural Revolution Red Army = 红军, Red Army fight with KMT in the Civil War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.161.185 (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Genealogy

Hello, In this article it is written:

Mao Zedong had several wives which contributed to a large family. These were:

1. Luo Yixiu (罗一秀, 1889-1910) of Shaoshan: married 1907 to 1910 2. Yang Kaihui (杨开慧, 1901-1930) of Changsha: married 1921 to 1927, executed by the KMT in 1930

On the Luo Yixiu page, it says:

Luo Yixiu (simplified Chinese: 罗一秀; 1889-1910) was the first wife of Mao Zedong from 1907 until her death in 1910.

On the Yang Kaihui page, it says:

Yáng Kāihuì (traditional Chinese: 楊開慧; simplified Chinese: 杨开慧; courtesy name: Yúnjǐn (traditional Chinese: 雲錦; simplified Chinese: 云锦); 1901 – November 14, 1930) was the first wife of Mao Zedong from 1920 to 1930.

Both the first wife of Mao? What's the deal here?

Ventolin (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mao biography by Michael Lynch contains a chapter "Mao and Women", with the following overview:

Miss Luo - betrothed in 1908 but marriage unconsummated.

Yang Kaihui (1901-30) - married Mao in 1920 - divorced 1928 - killed by the Guomindang - 3 children: (...)
He Zichen (1910-84) - married Mao in 1928 - divorced 1938 - 5 children: (...)
Jian Qing (1914-94) - married Mao in 1938 - died of throat cancer while serving life imprisonment (...)

The above list can be found on page 213. On pages 24-25, Michael Lynch writes that Mao refused the marriage his father had arranged for him with Miss Luo, but that she still moved into the Mao household. She became Rensheng's concubine, after which Wen Qimei (Mao's mother) left Shaoshan to live with her own family. --ChristopheS (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article need to be summerised by expert

Expert help from able editors needed to turn this article into a better one. Arilang ^talk 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I have added this because I believe the article skims too quickly over allegations of human rights abuse etc made against Mao. That is not to say that I necessarily believe he did anything wrong. However, there are many sources to suggest he did, and the article must include greater mention of these in order to be balanced and neutral. At the moment, the article is a little too like a propaganda piece of the Chinese government.

Please discuss here before removing the tag.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm bit confused about your concern here. In the article itself, Mao said himself that he killed millions to secure power, almost the entire sections on his leadership of China after 1949 contains mentions of the millions that were starved, killed or imprisoned by his socialist programs. We all know, by examing this article, that he killed millions of peoples for power. Do we need to publish everyone's death and Mao's involvement to their casue of death to make it NPOV?

As for why his human rights abuse was skimmed before 1949, given that most records were in Chinese and most English sources published in those eras were favouring the Communist due to Sino-Japanese War, its hard to find reliable sources that mentions his misdeeds at that period. Just because he is evil does not mean we must publish unverified claims.

The POV tag for the entire article is unjustified IMO. We need more expert attentions on Mao's history before 1949, with expansion on the legacy section about how and which "historians claim that Mao Zedong was a dictator comparable to Hitler and Stalin". But saying this article "a propaganda piece of the Chinese government" is a bit insulting to people's intelligence. Jim101 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is already highly critical of Mao, especially the War section.--Bule55 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mao as a poet

"Mao is also recognized as a poet and calligrapher".[6]^ Short, Philip (2001). Mao: A Life. “Mao had an extraordinary mix of talents: he was visionary, statesman, political and military strategist of genius, philosopher and poet.”

Are there any other historians who agree about it, or is it just Short's opinion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.115.42 (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you should learn Chinese, after that you will find out what he said is true. No matter what he did, he cannot be denied to be recognized as a poet and calligrapher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.2.90 (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Biographies

This article would be improved by including material from several biographies of Mao that have appeared in recent years, such as Chang and Halliday's "Mao: the Untold Story," "The Private Life of Chairman Mao" by Li Shi Zui, or "Mao ze Dong: A life" by Jonathan Spence (a well-respected China scholar. Some of these works are referenced in earlier comments, but some issues that are presented in the article as unclear or in dispute have been been resolved outside of wikipedia, and in other cases, there are omissions that can be rectified with new material from these sources. 01:59, 7 June 2009 Gaintes (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me how the term "Red Guard" was used in the War Section?

I'm just utterly confused by the term Red Guard in the War section...

• ...Mao joined his army with that of Zhu De, creating the Workers' and Peasants' Red Guard of China, Red Guard in short...Isn't it called Red Army in Chinese?

• ...among whom the most prominent was Li Wenlin, the founder of the CPC's branch and Red Guard in Jiangxi...I'm not really into Chinese history that much, so is it the Red Army or some other unknown orginzation called Red Guard?

• ...Mao's Guerrilla Warfare and Mobile Warfare was based upon the fact of the poor armament and military training of the Red Guard...Is this talking about peasent guard units in each Chinese villiage that could be considered "Red Guard" or the Red Army again?

• ...More than one million Kuomintang soldiers were involved in these five campaigns, four of which were defeated by the Red Guard led by Mao...Again, peasent "Red Guard" or the Red Army?

• ...the Red Guard had no less than 45,000 soldiers, with a further 200,000 local militia acting as a subsidiary force...Mao said in his books the peasent army composed of guards, militias and army, all Red. Which one is which?

• ...Chiang Kai-shek, now openly against the Communist Red Guard (led by Mao Zedong) in the civil war for control of China...Are we talking about People's Liberation Army by now?

• ...Kuomintang forces suffered massive losses against Mao's Red Guard...Red Guard troops laid siege to Chengdu...PLA or not?

Finally, definition of Chinese Red Guard: a mass movement of civilians, mostly students and other young people in the China, who were mobilized by Mao Zedong in 1966 and 1967, during the Cultural Revolution....Isn't that 40 years later than 1927, where this article stated when Mao formed his first Red Guard units?

Utter confusion... Jim101 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty to replace the term Red Guard with Red Army or PLA depending on he time periods. But there are still a lot of Red Guard organizations in CPC within its history that I encourage experts to take a look at this issue. Jim101 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Red Guards (红卫兵) were creatures of the Cultural Revolution. William Avery (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1949, "Red Guard" refers to CPC militia used to fight the KMT.[5] Kauffner (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Defination by Mao is that pre-1949 Red Guard means local police/security forces empolyed by CPC, militia is auxiliary military units employed by the Red army. Jim101 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mao's ethnicity

It says Chinese, surely he was something more specific? Faro0485 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mao was Hunanese. Hunan is officially just another province, but it is well-known for its distinct cuisine and culture, including its own local language known as Xiang. Kauffner (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal life more info?

We can add more information for example, what did he do on personal life? Interesting little tidbits?

Also I know the memoir by that doctor was challenged by people who worked with him also. Paracite (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read the entire memoir and I plan to write up more in that section of the article within the next few weeks. Hcfwesker (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible bias

Just to let future editors know, be careful where you get your sources; lots of the "facts" on this page clash with the clarified facts presented in his non biased modern biography. I would suggest Chinese governmental interference, however I'd risk sounding like a crazy conspiracy theorist...--Wikicum (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Communist genocide

This category was recently added. First of all, I doubt what he did can be considered genocide. It seems terribly POV to call it such. Triplestop x3 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, Mao Zedong had nothing to do with ten of millions of death in China during his regime? I am glad nobody was hurt for example famines or staff like that. Peltimikko (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I REMOVED PART TALKING ABOUT MAO AND HIS FOLLOWERS PUTING GUNS INTO PEOPLES ANUSES AND SHOOTING BECAUSE IT IS BACKED WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, IS COMPLETELY HILARIOUS , VERY BOLD , AND VERY FAILLING... EXCEPT CALLING THEMSELVES ON 3RD GRADED UNCLE SAM BOOKS ,PLEASE CALL YOURSELF ON ANY VICTIM AND WITNESS OF THOSE CRIMES THAT EVERY LIVED

THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.171 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

commrade, im talking about something that really has no place in professional article

10 million people is really bold number which u will have to boldly back up ... many people died of famine , but ask yourself in what meassure previous bourgouise govrement had impact... in USSR many people died cause of kulaks slaughtering cattle, but that doesnt mean stallin sticked a gun into some man anus and shot

so this part of text is simply provocation which must be removed... also note that it was year 1935 when communists were suppressed with tough force... they couldnt afford themselves walk around country , and if they did , they wouldnt spend that time sticking guns into peoples bleeding asses !!!!

so please tell me that this part has anything to do with mao zedong "objective" article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.171 (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

once again i want to state that it is in noones interrest to turn wikipedia into yellow page website

which it is rapidly heading into —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.171 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

The Deaths from motor neurone disease cat is present. Some sources state he died of MND, but some say stroke(s). Is it known for certain what he died of? Qzm (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On Guerrilla Warfare

Someone should add the Chinese version of the title. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned before under his writings, considering how influential it is. ʄ!•¿talk? 02:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Can we please have atheism removed from the info box?

Atheism isn't a religion, for one. And secondly, even if Mao did follow a religion, why would that merit being included in his info box? Roman Catholic isn't used to describe Hitler's religious beliefs in his info box, so why must atheism be used to describe Mao?

It is completely irrelavent.

--92.2.74.87 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was not Roman Catholic. Nazism was his true religion, seriously. Furthermore, it is not irrelevant. The religion of many well-known people is stated, and if they are atheist, that is what should go in the box. It will not be removed.--KatelynJohann (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is problematic to apply this label to someone who is from a Taoist society: its normal implication is one who does not adhere to a monotheistic norm. This smacks of Eurocentrism. Are there any reliable sources for his being an atheist? William Avery (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods at all. What evidence is there that Mao believed in the "Tao?" Mao's beliefs came from Marx, who claimed that "religion is the opiate of the masses."--KatelynJohann (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remove all of these "atheism" references in the articles dealing with Chinese leaders. It is absurd to suggest that all politicians must be labeled a certain "religion". This emphasis originally came from U.S. President-obsessed researchers who seem to have nothing better to do than classify a bunch of useless presidential stats. We do not have to apply this to all politician infoboxes. Colipon+(Talk) 20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mao was aginst religion, including Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. That he is an atheist is true and should not be removed.--KatelynJohann (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That he was against Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. does not make him "Atheist". It's like saying if one is anti-liberal, one must also be conservative. Colipon+(Talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening section reads like CCP propaganda not NPOV

I think the opening paragraph is rather flawed now. In fact, I would go far as to say that is has been deliberately edited to present Mao in a flattering light. A year or so I did some edits and they stood for some time which got this propaganda-style material taken out. To be specific, when talking about Chairman Mao, it is not a little strange to use the term 'ever-evolving legacy' outside of China. He is pretty universally regarded as mass-murderer on a grand scale, as any of the sources listed confirm - even Short who is more sympathetic than most. Yes, one can talk about his other legacies, but the excess mortality as a direct result of his policies is a historical fact - in that no one seriously questions it.

The phrasing 'critics blame' is particularly weasel-worded as it implies that the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution did not necessarily cause millions of deaths. Note the use of the word 'a probable deaths'. It is deliberately ambiguous. The precise death toll from the Great Leap Forward may be debated but two central facts are not debated by any reputable source, apart from the the CCP. Firstly that millions died, secondly that Mao was responsible for the policy. The same holds true for the Culturual Revolution, except the death toll is more in the 100,000s. This paragraph suggests both that Mao wasn't necessarily the author of this policies and that they may not have killed large numbers of people.

It seems even more suspect when you notice the order of consequences: ' severe damage to the culture, society, economy, and foreign relations of China, as well as a probable death toll in the tens of millions'. Feels like a CCP inspired phrasing, to put things like the economy and China's foreign relations over millions of deaths.

Then there is the really odd final sentence: 'A number of the Chinese people regard Mao as the savior of the nation, who laid the military, political, economical, technological and cultural foundations of modern China. Some in China regard Mao as a deity.' So in terms of weighting, this opening sectionm when describing a leader who most regard as in the same category as HItler, Stalin or Pol Pot describes in various terms as a genius, calligrapher and a deity. Then one throway reference to the Great Leap Forward.

Can I suggest a wholescale revision of this opening - something much shorter and with more appropriate balance. Will do an edit shortly as it feels rather urgent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjamesbromley (talk • contribs) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, the controversies of Mao are listed. Triplestop x3 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adamjamesbromley. Now, Mao is only "controversial". The article is not reliable. Should it be tagged? Peltimikko (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote:He is officially held in high regard in China where he is known as a great revolutionary, political strategist, and military mastermind who defeated Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War, and then through his policies transformed the country into a major world power.Unquoted.

The above sentence should be deleted, since nowaday many Chinese hate this so called Russian-inspired revolution, and when Mao died, the Chinese economy was near collapse. Deng Xiaoping's Open Door policy saved and transformed China, NOT Mao. Mao would ranked among the worst-ever rulers in 3000 years of Chinese history. Arilang ^talk 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that Mao is a very controversial figure. This intro needs to go and a new one needs to be drafted. Colipon+(Talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He is still officially celebrated in China (see famous picture of Mao), and from what I've read often respected as an anti-imperialist even by those who don't like communism – so controversial would be truly correct in this regard. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By your logic: Stalin was the biggest anti-Fascist and he was voted the third most notable personality in Russian history (not to mention new school books in Russia: "great patriot leader, who made just few mistakes"). Should we also respect and consider him only "controversial"? Peltimikko (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. Mao is still officially celebrated as a founder of the modern Chinese state – and while he is criticized by some Chinese, he is praised more often. This is what the situation is – not something I am responsible for. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because the intro doesn't conform to your believes doesn't make it invalid. The claim that " most regard as in the same category as Hitler" show an inherent anti-communist, anti-Chinese bias. Many people in China still regard Mao as a savior of the Chinese state, and thus the intro stands. There's no need to introduce Mao as a cardboard cutout villain the Western academia like to portray, which implies an ethnocentric systematic bias. Let's also not forget the various murderous right-wing dictators sponsored by the US that hardly get the Adolf treatment, eg Chiang Kai-shek, Suharto, Pinochet etc. Hell currently the Chiang Kai-shek intro mentioned nothing regarding his various white terror campaigns.--PCPP (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

@ user PCPP, anti-communist=anti-Chinese? communist=Chinese? Are you coming from the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party? Arilang ^talk 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'A number of Chinese regard Mao as the savior of the nation' - how many? Qzm (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mao was a cunning plotter, mass murderer, self-appointed emperor

Just look at Shu Fan movement, Zhen Fan, Anti-Bolshevik League incident, any editor would agree that right from the beginning, the Chinese communist revolution was a game of mudering people; and Mao being the most ruthless, most vicious, he had become the top dog. Mao should be presented as himself, and wikipedia should not be used as a communist China's propaganda instrument. Arilang ^talk 03:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the Shanghai massacre of 1927, the 228 Incident and the 1938 Yellow River flood? Chiang Kai shek is no saint either. He murdered 10 million people through his political repression and purges before fleeing to Taiwan.--PCPP (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

@user PCPP, Chiang Kai-shek murdered 10 million people? You need to back it up with reputable source before you can make that claim. Arilang ^talk 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

dude , this is not you speaking

this is bourgouise doctrine combined with bourgouise dirty propaganda and simplifistic primitivist shallow thoughtsa and ideas speaking from you... claming that mao zedong was mass murderer is a child story... every revolution predicts mass murders... most people who he ordered to be killed or killed are political and war opponents... therefore they cannot be considered "innocent victims"

it is war... revolution is not anywhere described as "flower power" and big flashy cheery recreation of humanity... it is war and struggle

communists were slaughtered around world in same meassure

mao was a man who fought hardly for his believes , which many actions he did prove... he wasnt armchair man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.171 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New intro

If editors have ideas, instead of simply criticizing the current intro, please specify which sections need to be changed and what the new revision would look like so we can discuss. Someone can even choose to sandbox an entirely new intro or just edit the article to make it more NPOV. Back-and-forth argumentation is not conducive to making this article any better. Colipon+(Talk) 23:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite should adhere to NPOV policies while noting both his positive and negative aspects. The intro should neither become a propagandic CCP praise nor an anti-communist blackwashing comparing him to Hitler. Referring to the Chiang Kai-shek article, it mentioned nothing about his purges and white terror whatsoever.--PCPP (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The intro as it stands looks like it reads from CCP handbook. The intro is sorely in need of rewrite for NPOV. I may take a stab at it if I find time. NickCT (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NickCT, the above comments refer to the intro as of late August, which was different than the present version. Moreover, your "stab at it" recently only exacerbated the pov problems as you inserted a number of WP:OR caveats to discredit the positive, but none to call into question the negative. Any vastly redone intro should be probably first be placed on the TP for editor approval.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoreau; I think it's important to recognize here that the state sanctioned version of history in China often bears little or no reality to the truth. I think anyone who is well versed with this period of Chinese history (who is not drawing solely from CCP sources) will have few positive things to say about Mao (besides maybe that he was ruthlessly efficient at grabbing power). We should remember that we are talking about someone who committed democide on a scale essentially larger than any other person ever to have ever walked the earth. The current article clearly doesn't reflect that truth. I will rewrite slowly.NickCT (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NickCT, I am well aware of the differing viewpoints on Mao's legacy and actions. If you believe the article currently is relying on primary CCP sources, then please display them here so we can investigate their validity and potentially remove them. However, you can not just decry any opinion you do not agree with to be CCP hagiography. In fact the article at current reads far more critical than the Encyclopedia Britannica’s version who does not allow editors who may have a strong opinion one way or the other to imbue those sentiments onto the content. Moreover, your conception of "democide" is itself controversial and not universally held. You speak as if Mao himself personally shot 60 million people which was not the case. This simplistic "leader-centric" view of history is common, especially amongst polarizing figures such as Mao; however it disregards the thousands upon millions of people who are also part of the overall collective actions and policies – not to mention the endless amount of variables that encapsulate to cause famine, disease, and death from overall impoverishment or direct murder. Your work on the lead I believe fails WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and lacks WP:RS to support the contentions. Still you are obviously welcome to propose your revisions here on the talk page and see if they can acquire editor consensus and meet the overall muster of wiki policies. However, hyperbole such as a killer beyond "any other human that has walked the earth" would not be appropriate for an encyclopedic article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow Red.... Hyperbole? Seriously? Seriously Red?... Ok look.. Obviously Mao didn't personally shoot 60 million. Hitler didn't personally shoot 6 million Jews. It's also true that many of those who died under Mao weren't systematically/intentionally eliminated (as was the case with the Nazis). It is however also true that a large portion of those 60 million were exterminated in a systematic fashion. Furthermore, many of those not systematicly eliminated met their ends due to calous disregard for human life in Chinese leadership, which can be traced directly to Mao. I think it's only a minority of peoples who can be said to be truely unintentional casualities for policy change under the CCP. Regardless, you restored a section to the lead that was clearly unsourced POV pushing. I will remove it again. Please do not restore it again without citations. NickCT (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

NickCT, the part you have removed twice now under the pretext of being "pov pushing" is

[1] That he is commonly referred to as "Chairman Mao" --- this is a irrefutable fact that helps a novice reader now that "Chairman Mao" is this guy.

[2] That he is credited with commanding the Long March --- once again are you refuting that the long march took place, or that he had no leading role in it, or what? This is the seminal moment in his rise to leadership and the most relevant part of understanding his rise to power, yet now it has been wiped from the lead.

[3] That he lead the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War --- do you dispute this fact? How is this "WP:POV pushing?" as it reads now you have wiped any mention of Chiang Kai-shek or the civil war from the lead altogether ... I guess the reader is just supposed to think that he was born on the throne?

[4] That he defeating an assortment of powerful regional warlords --- are you disputing the fact that there were a host of powerful regional warlords which the CCP battled against? In your version of events did the large warlords who controlled most of China just decide to voluntarily vanquish their large landholdings and board a Uhaul for the sunny beaches of Florida?

[5] That he helped repel the Japanese during the Second Sino-Japanese War --- once again, is this something you dispute? I am trying to figure out just how far you want to go down the negationist rabbit hole here? Maybe we should start with his birthday and see if we can agree on the "non-CCP-propaganda version" of that? Or perhaps we could just make the lead one sentence that says "Mao is an evil mass murderer who killed more people than any man, animal, or creature that has ever walked the earth - anything else is commie propaganda. The end."   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Red. Apologies for the delayed responce, and thanks for discussions. Here's my response. [1] Not in dispute. [2] This is somewhat disputable. Mao was certainly in the Long March and was an important, and at times a leading player. The reason I don't like this line is because the Long March was an utter disaster for the CCP. Almost all the Long Marchers died. They didn't achieve any real military victories, and the only reason any stragglers survived was because Chiang Kai-shek didn't want to eliminate them for fear of angering the Ruskies. Mao likely intentionally sent a number of his commanders into quagmires to accumulate power. I guess what I'm trying to say is that no one should really be "creditted" with the Long March. It's like crediting someone for the Trail of Tears.[3] Not really in dispute. Mao was certainly in command of the CCP when it beat Chiang Kai-shek. However, I feel awkward including this again because the word "credited" implies Mao's "good" leadership lead to victory. I think it was more the heavy support from the Russians, and the Americans stymying the Nationalists that lead to CCP victory. I think one could fairly say something like "Mao was the head of the CCP as it took command of mainland China from Chiang Kai-shek". I just dislike the word "credit".[4] Uhaul to Florida. Lol. I actually must profess ignorance on this subject. I know warlords controlled much of China, and that Mao battled (though a better word might be surplanted) them in his early career, but as far as I know these were more minor skirmishes in comparison with his later work. [5] Definately contest the Sino-Japenese war statement. The CCP made virtually 0 contribution to the Sino-Japenese war. This was Mao's expressed intent. He has a number of quotes attributable to him saying "Avoid fighting the Japenese. The nationalists are the real enemy". Anyways Red, as I said, thanks for the discussion. I think your suggested rewrite ("Mao is an evil mass mur" ) is obviously (and probably intentionally) a little over the top. Let me know if you dispute anything I've written above. I'd be interested to have your input. NickCT (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

traditional characters

this article used to have Mao's name in traditional character, aswell as simplified. Who removed the simplified and why? I wil put them back, as in parts of China, the traditional form of his name is widely used, aswell as in Hong Kong and Macau. It should never have been removed.Guitar3000 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Constant edit warring over the death toll in the intro

In my view, people providing precise numerical estimates, be it "44 million," or "40 to 60 million," etc. in the lead will always provoke others to provide estimates they agree with, resulting in a constant edit war. My solution has always been to provide the broad "tens of millions" which is in line with ALL of the estimates of fatalities brought about by Mao's policies (the numbers range from 20 to 80 million). If someone visiting the article is curious about the estimates historians are coming to, they can click on the citation links (a plethora of sources are provided) and decide for themselves which estimates to believe. Why is this a problem? I'm going to revert it yet again and hopefully the matter will be resolved, at least for a little while.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Griffin. Thanks for your thoughts on this, but I must dissent. My problem is that saying "tens of millions" really doesn't provide proper emphasis to the fact. Imagine if the lead for Hitler said "Hitler eliminated millions of people in concentration camps". It just doesn't seem to me to provide due weight to the factoid. I appreciate your point, but I think there is good consensus on the 40 - 60 million figure. I'm going to revert, but would like to hear back from you on this. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well okay, but I think this will result in an edit war. Personally, If I had to pick an estimate I'd put 40 - 70 million. China experts such as Fenby and Schram seem to think this is the best figure.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that if numbers are going to be used then the cited median average of 45-52 would be most prudent. When an estimate begins to have a +/- of 30 million or 75 %, then it begins to resemble more of a guess than an estimate.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, it may be beneficial to provide a percentage in order to gage the full proportional context of the figure. For instance China in 1950 (when Mao took over) had a population of around 552 million, so 40 million would be about 7.2 % of the total (see Demographics of the People's Republic of China). Your average novice reader may see 40 million and if they come from a nation of 70 million in Europe - may assume that half (or more) of all Chinese people died during this time. In fact the figures show exactly the opposite, as China's population exploded under Mao's total reign from around 550 million in 1950 when he began his time in power to 924 million by 1975 (the year before his death) according to the CIA (not the CCP). This is why the "death-stimates" in Mao's China become so problematic, begging the question how a nation which according to popular opinion is starving or outright killing most of their people - ends up almost doubling their total population in around 25 years. In fact a Mao apologist (of which I am not) would argue that his policies (especially in the area of rural development, industrialization and creating access to basic healthcare) led to a net gain of hundreds of millions of people (i.e. for every 40 that died, 400 were born in their place). All matters I believe should be considered in creating an accurate article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first comment Thoreau, but I have trouble in seeing the validity of the latter. One doesn't talk about the holocaust in terms of the pertentage of Europe's Jews who were murdered. One doesn't talk about the Rwandan genocide or Leopold's Congo in terms of percentages. I agree it adds context, but it seems it would be messy to include. What do you say " 45 to 52 million people, or roughly 7 to 10% of the Chinese populace"? NickCT (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

NickCT (et al), your proposed wording could work. Although I try my best to avoid historical analogies (especially ones involving the emotionally charged Third Reich), in response I would contend that one doesn’t discuss the Holocaust in percentage terms of European Jewry because it liquidated or sent into exile the vast majority of them. Utilizing the 6 million killed figure would amount to 78 % of the 7.3 million Jews in occupied Europe at the time (per Atlas of the Holocaust, 1988). For relevance with our current Mao example, if for instance only 500,000 Jews (7% of European Jewry) were killed during the Holocaust – and yet by the end of the ordeal the Jewish population in Europe nearly doubled to 12 million from 7 million, then it would be rational to assume that the event would not be known for it’s horrific attempt to systematically eradicate an particular entire subsect of people. Many historians have noted that part of what gives the "Final Solution" its "unique" and insidious tinge, is precisely that it was an engineered, deliberate and calculated plan to efficently (in theory) eliminate 100 % of an entire ethnic/religious/cultural population (and as we all know this included additional “undesired” groups to Jews as well – i.e. gypsies, homosexuals, Jehova witnesses, dwarves, mentally handicapped etc).      However, the situation with Mao’s death counts are far different – with the vast majority of them being attributed to famine and a severe decrease in food production – and those deliberate systematic attempts to directly murder populations were relatively low scale and geared towards intellectuals, large land owners, resisters, dissidents, "counter-revolutionaries" etc. Thus when one uses the phrase "The Nazi’s killed 6 million Jews" it is not entirely analagous to saying "Mao killed 40 million Chinese" (for a myriad of reasons). For starters Mao is an individual, and more importantly every death from disease, malnutrition, hunger, overall poverty etc is not usually attributed to a nations leader (regardless of how much authoritarian power they control). Moreover, there is not agreement amongst historians of how much the central government in China was aware of during the famines – as a fairly underdevolped nation at the time with poor infrastructure it might take weeks to even get information from certain parts of the countryside. Additionally, the decentralized CCP also carried out many initiatives at their own behest, and thus if a local communist official in a remote village 1,000 miles away from Beijing decided to confiscate all the rice of his particular village and execute 50 local people – do those deaths get pinned on Mao himself, who may have had no knowledge of the event before or after they took place? ---- Sorry for the length, however I believe this is a complex issue – which usually makes it difficult to outline in 2 sentences of an Encyclopedic lead.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Red. Indeed a long response. Let me try to cover all your points. 1) If I could paraphrase your first point, I think you are trying to say "Relatively speaking, Mao did not cause as much destruction to the Chinese population as Hitler did to the Jewish population." To this I say; sure! I'd agree with that. But I still think that 40 million people are 40 million people. It seems to me that in talking about percentages you are simply trying to qualify the statistic. While I'd agree it's important to add context, it's also important not to detract from the enormity of the tradgey. 2) Regarding your 2nd point; I absolutely agree that many of 40-50 million were not "systematicly exterminated" in the sense that Jews in Europe were; however, I would point out that a signifigant number were "systematicly exterminated" ( I think this definition could be applied to at least a few million deaths). Furthermore, I'd point out many deaths may have not been "systematic" or intentional, but were directly attributable to Mao's callous disregard for human life. Take for example Mao's order that refuges not be allowed to flee Changchun during the CCP siege in the Chinese civil war. An estimated 300,000 starved. I think most agree that Mao gained little or no military advantage out of this, and I would say that the blood of those 300,000 is on Mao's hands. It might as well have been "systematic extermination". Finally, obviously I understand that famines would have occured in China during Mao's time frame regardless of who was in charge, but this is not the point. The point is that Mao's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution can be directly attributed to the Great Famine and other hardships wrought on the Chinese populace. I think it is fair to say that deaths occuring as a result of Mao's domestic policies can be attributed to Mao, especially when he was aware his policy changes would result in deaths and he enacted them anyways. In conclusion I think if you add those who were "systematicly exterminated", those who died as a result of direct orders from Mao, and those who died as a direct result of Mao's poor domestic policy, you will get that 40-50 million figure.NickCT (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mao Suggested the Creation of Berlin Wall

Anyone have a link on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.192.42 (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Chang and Halliday

I have read about three or four chapters of this rather shameful excuse-of-a-biography and just could not do it anymore. If Wikipedia stands on NPOV, then Chang and Halliday is the worst enemy of this article. Chang herself is emotionally invested in the era and therefore does not have a trace of neutrality when writing about Mao. Even his personal habits such as his dental hygene is scrutinized and criticized beyond reasonable limits in this book. Therefore I really question some material that are sourced to this book being part of the article. Colipon+(Talk) 10:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Devil or angel

User Colipon, to really understand Mao, is not a easy task. The West know Mao only through Han Suyin, Edgar Snow, Agnes Smedley, the last person was known to be either a Comintern or KGB agent. Then you have Chang and Halliday, who had read thousands(or tens of thousands) of files related to Mao, and interviewed hundreds of relevant persons, before they finished writing the book. Readers will have to make up their own mind, like who they can trust, who were telling lies, or making up stories. Do we trust Agnes Smedley, Edgar Snow, or Chang and Halliday?

For me, I am fortunate enough to be able to read Chinese text. After I search, and read, all these articles, and put them into wikisource, I tend to be on Chang and Halliday side.

Please read:

• (in Chinese)s:zh:用戶:Arilang1234#中國共產黨中央委員會
• Zhen Fan Arilang ^talk 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reader User:Arilang1234 has made major contributions to many articles on the basis of wide reading, so I hesitate to disagree. But I would respectfully point out that our present views of Mao are not so much shaped by the books of the 1930s as by careful scholarship by a global network of scholars and several generations of research in Chinese sources and archives. This is subjected to critique and debate, not simply accepted blindly. These findings are presented, for instance, in the edition of Mao's works edited by Stuart Schram, in research monographs on specific topics, and in the pages of such peer reviewed journals as China Quarterly The China Journal, and Modern China, where other specialists keep watch. In turn, these findings are presented in more readable form in biographies such as those by Ross Terrill, Mao: A Biography (New York: Harper & Row, 1980; rev. and expanded: Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2000); Philip Short, Mao: A Life (New York: Holt, 2000). Stuart R. Schram, Mao Tse-Tung (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books; 1967); Jonathan Spence, Mao Zedong (Penguin, 1999); Michael J. Lynch, Mao (London; New York: Routledge, 2004). These are all widely available and should be used for Wikipedia articles rather than relying on one book. ch (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But Chang/Halliday is def. not simply 1 more book on Mao. Schram and Needham were serious scholars, also people like Spence, but wasn't Terrill one of the complete Maoist nuts of the 1960s? and Agnes Smedley (great life, but probably a rather terrible person) and Edgar Snow (as "Leys" has shown) did not even know real Chinese.

It also seems a bit "racist" to excuse Chinese, but not German or even Russian mass murder, to find one good reason after the other to excuse Mao, in a way not thinkable, outside small and lunatic circles for Hitler or even Stalin.--Radh (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Mao committed some serious errors in judgments during his time at the helm and brought about destruction to Chinese society and the Chinese people. But it is possible to look at this in an objective light without taking every opportunity to paint Mao as the worst human being ever lived. This is what I found irritating in the book. It will chronicle some history, then suddenly spin a part of it into "and this is why Mao is a terrible person", and then come back to the history. It uses all sorts of anecdotes that seems to serve only one purpose - to assassinate Mao's character - and it takes every opportunity to do so. The book has been criticized by numerous prominent sinologists and if used on this article, should be backed up by another source. Otherwise phrases like "According to Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's biography Mao: The Unknown Story, Mao had great personal wealth and was 'the only millionaire' in Mao's China." seem to be childish rhetoric that no historian will take seriously. Colipon+(Talk) 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User Colipon, if you read:http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1724301,00.html, you may be able to see how June Chang feel about Mao when she began to collect relevant info. As she told www.dw-world.de, she herself was caught surprised when she was facing massive amount of first hand historical material which pointed to the negative side of Mao.

德国之声：您开始搜集资料的时候，有没有想到会有这么多的新发现呢？

张戎：没有。简直没有想到。我以为写毛传不会很 难，可能几年时间就够了。我以为我对毛泽东相当了解。我没有想到会有那么多跟我们现在所知道的历史截然不同的东西。长征中间还有一点使我非常吃惊的，就 是，遵义会议上并没有确定毛泽东的领导地位，不象中共历史所说的那样。是毛泽东在遵义会议以后耍手腕，才得到张闻天的幕后操纵人这么一个地位的。遵义会议 完了以后，毛泽东坚持不肯进四川，去跟张国焘会师。他怕会师以后，张国焘资历比他老，当时手下的红四方面军比他的强，他怕张国焘会理所当然地当上党的领 袖。为了躲避跟张国焘会师，毛就带上中央红军绕了一个大圈，多走了三分之一的路，多走了4个月，把红军从突破湘江时候的4万红军拖到剩下筋疲力竭的不到1 万，这是我从来不知道的。跟张国焘会师以后，因为红四方面军还是比他强，毛又尽力地破坏红四方面军，而且独霸打通苏联的道路。这也是我感到非常吃惊的。毛 整个的战略设想，怎么夺取中国，他主要想的就是要靠苏联，他在1923年就说，共产主义要在中国胜利，非得苏联红军从北边打进来不可。所以整个的长征吧， 他们也就是为了到北边去靠近苏联，打通苏联，接受武器援助。毛泽东为了把张国焘甩在他后边，也耍了很多手腕，对红四方面军做了极大的破坏。这些我都觉得是 闻所未闻，非常吃惊的。

What she was saying, is the official Chinese communist party version of Mao, is a completely different from the real Mao, when she began to read and analyze previously secret Russian (KGB?) files, as her husband happen to be able to read Russsian. Another fact I like to point out is June Chang was herself a Chinese communist member, and she felt that the Communist government had cheated so many people for so long, it is high time for someone like her to reveal some real stuff about Mao, that is why sometimes the tone, and the angles of attack on Mao himself seem to be too ferocious. User Coliphon, and most of the editors working on this article, including me, may have not be living under the Bamboo Curtain, so we may never know the true emotional feeling of author like June Chang, and the true feeling of Chinese Baixing living under Mao's rule. This is why we may not like the June Chang's version of Mao . Which is quite understandable. Arilang ^talk 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#Criticism. While the book has received acclaim by some book reviews in newspapers, it has been generally agreed upon the academic community that the book is not objective, and does not qualify as 'academic scholarship'. In fact, it doesn't even try to hide the fact that is sole purpose was to destroy Mao's reputation. Sensationalist read, perhaps, but reliable source? That's questionable. Colipon+(Talk) 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User Colipon, I would like to dispute your statment:"Sensationalist read, perhaps, but reliable source? That's questionable.", simply because neither some so called China Experts, nor CCP itself, has yet to come forward to point out any error in Mao:The Unknown Story , or come up with any counter-claims. Doesn't it say something?

On the other hand, if readers care to do some research on CCP, there are plenty of CCP original documents to show that Chang/Halliday are not liers; on the contrary, they are telling the truth. One important CCP document s:zh:蘇區中央局關於蘇區肅反工作決議案,which deals with the topic of Anti-Bolshevik League incident, which is yet another solid proof that Chang/Halliday's book is not only Sensationalist read, it is also telling the truth. Arilang ^talk 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead deletions ?

User:TheFix63 you have removed several terms from the lead twice now 1 & 2 and so I figured I would open up a conversation for you to provide rationale for why you find their continued inclusion problematic.

[1] You seem to object to stating that Mao's legacy is "contentious" and "ever-evolving". Is this something you dispute? Do you somehow find this favorable, as these remarks are usually held by those who actually believe Mao's legacy will get "worse" over time? [2] You want to delete the entire statement:

Many Chinese also believe that through his policies, he laid the economic, technological and cultural foundations of modern China, transforming the country from a backward agrarian society into a major world power.

Do you dispute the factual accuracy of this? What is your problem with inclusion of this easily proven statement?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

first wife and second wife

in section 1

"despite an existing marriage arranged by his father at home, which Mao never acknowledged.".

The fact is that Mao's first wife was died in 1910, he married with Yang Kaihui in 1920. TEN YEAES!--刻意(Kèyì) 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

More on childhood

I was looking at the Early Life section and I think more information should be added about his childhood. It just seems to start off at his joining the military. I little is known about his youth then it should be duly noted. --Melab±1 ☎ 21:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

About Mao's official perception in China.

Yes, he held all those titles already mentioned, but the CCP has decided, in conference, to conclude an official statement that he had made flaws especially with the Cultural Revolution in his elderly years. These actions have been criticised by the CCP and the Chinese people take it as such. To say about his official perception as just a composition of positive propaganda phrases of the past is Western propaganda in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.58.49 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section

There's a WP:NPOV issue in this section as many paragraphs are introduced by "Supporters of Mao state..." but who are these supporters? Are they part of the CCP? And how many are they? All these POVs need to be attributed properly in order to make the section neutral. Laurent (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link

Citation 24: ^ The famous Mao slogan, that he never even used, SCMP, Sep 25, 2009 Does anyone know where the actual article is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woken Wanderer (talk • contribs) 04:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"They also argue[citation needed] that the Maoist era improved women's rights by abolishing prostitution and foot binding. The latter prohibition however made little sense since foot-binding was no longer practised by the 1920s, and, as early as 1906, a Qing decree was encouraging a ban on the practice."

This is incorrect. Some coastal areas had abolished foot-binding by the 1920s, but in remote areas it didn't disappear until after the Communist takeover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.73.80 (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's more or less right, it was curtailed and dropped off sharply at the time of the fall of the Qing and was completely eliminated by the Communists but there were people alive who had had it done to be subjects of documentaries I've seen on it. Those individuals must have had their feet bound in the teens, twenties, or at the latest the nineteen thirties. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)