Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

→

This discussion page archives discussion for Mao Zedong before 14th September 2006.

Willy Lam Citation

The Willy Lam citation I find problematic, as Willy Lam has been known to be a biased source against Mao and CCP, as indicated in many of his articles. Any sources from this person should be verified by third-parties prior to use. This unsigned comment was made by User:Aldis90 06:36, 31 July 2006

Just because he may not like Mao or the CCP does not mean his points are invalid. Are pro-Mao/CCP sources banned? If you took the attitude that any "biased" source couldn't be used, none would be. John Smith's 10:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, stuff from sources with a biased political agenda need to be verified, otherwise is only heresay and not based on actual facts.

How do you KNOW he has a "biased political agenda" any more than other comments made here? Besides he is not the only person that says the KMT did most of the fighting. Plus history isn't "verified", because there is no one qualified to do such a thing. And please sign your comments. John Smith's 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My point here is that if there are other commentators who said such things, then put it in the article, otherwise it is only a singular assertion, and a look at many of Lam's articles over the years have had assertions that were shown not to be the case (including especially commentaries on internal CCP politics concerning Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin). Also, to say that there is no such thing as a verifiable occurance is false, as interpretations of actions are subjective, but physical actions leave material evidence.

This is ridiculous, the only reference in the Notes section I can see is from this Willy chap. Are people so lazy nowadays they can't go to a library and pick up a good unbiased book on Mao? Also the article seems a little rushed in getting to his criticisms. There's barely any mention of the positive things he did in the timeframe between Oct 1, 1949 to start of GLF.--Lssah 88 17:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" history book. All history is biased one way or another, to different extents. John Smith's 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course all books can't be 100% unbiased, but I would think the average person can differentiate between a well researched, more balanced academic text vs. opinionated CNN mouth pieces...--Lssah 88 20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Given that both my parents were around in china during the cultural revolution, and both my grandparents suffered horrifying treatment by the red guards during that time period, I felt obliged to share some thoughts that my parents and grandparents have passed on to me. These do not necessarily reflect those of my own.

Some points to consider:

Mao was a POLITITIAN. He was not an economist. He saw everything from the view of a polititian, and saw the best ways to do things from a politian's point of view. He did what he thought would have benefited his nation the most politically. He saw his country's political gain as more of a priority than his country's economical gain at that time. Sure Mao did export food as his own people were starving, but he could have done it: a) to prove to his opponents that he was there to help out his allies no matter what the circumstances was; b) to prove to his allies that he is truly a loyal friend that they could count on; and c) his nation was not about to be labelled "mostly harmless". This makes sense considering the time period that was happening, when China was eaten up by invaders from Europe and Japan. Even in the end, politically Mao did get what he wanted. Even though millions of people, including relatives of mine, perished in the famine.

Take a look at the Iraqi war. It is clearly obvious that Saddam was a true nutter, and ruled his nation with nothing but fear. But why does EVERYBODY know about him? Why is no one even remotely concerned with the unjust in AFRICA, such as the Ethiopian politics or the Arabs killing the blacks in Sudan? Why is this? This is because by spreading the information, Bush was more likely to achieve his objective with the people on his side. I stand by my stance with regards to Bush and his thirst for "the black liquid of freedom and peace". Bush simply looked at all the oil rich countries and chose one of the countries that he was most likely to get the people on his side to invade. But in order to invade he must have the people on his side first. The september eleventh attacks provided him with his ideal platform to spread propaganda, and boy he sure did. Even if the propaganda was completely and utterly true, they were still all there to help Bush achieve his own goals. Car bombs you say? Terrorists maybe? What about the west bank and Israel? Assume that China was branded in the same category then by the US as Iraq and North Korea are in right now. China certainly was a great threat to the US at the time due to the atomic missiles it had. Mao certainly did annoy the hell out of the US with vietnam and korea. It is only common sense that Mao was to be targetted by the western world's propaganda. Even though some of these were certainly true, they were also reiterated enough for the whole world, including the chinese themselves, to start turning on Mao, and their own nation. The things in this article, are they really our own collective thoughts summarised from unbiased reasearch and conclusions brought about by complete freewill, or are they just the same slightly exaggerated stories used as political weapons like the ones used for the Iraqi war now? It is clear that Mao was intentionally discredited to avoid people turning to communism. But to what extent? NPOV is impossible on issues with so much propaganda and lies being spread around.

If Mao wanted to live like an Empirer he could have, considering all the power he had at the time. However, in the end he lost 7 blood relatives in the wars that he conducted, and had next to nothing throughout his whole life. His descendents got next to nothing as when Mao died, as Mao just simply did not have anything to leave to them. Sons and Daughters of Empirers were treated like divine gods in "old china", but the daughters (Mao's two sons both died in the wars) of Mao never lived half wealthy lives and are currently living on superannuation. One of these had so little money that she couldnt afford to go to the doctor. I know the details of these can be exaggerated, but the moral still holds

And before you hastely dismiss my argument as naive, communist and Mao-loving, my grandfather on my mother's side, the eldest child of his family, lost both his parent before he turned eleven at the hands of the communists. My grandfather on my father's side was ostrasized and driven to exile for challenging his authorities. I do know what evils the Mao regime has done, and as much as I would like to hate Mao, I do realise that hatred is one-sided, jumping to conclusions can be naive, and that information handed down to us may not be as reliable or as randomly and normally distributed as we thought. RZ heretic 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

China needed him to reunify the country and re-establish her prestige; when he declared the "Chinese people have stood up", the establishment of the PRC signalled the end of the humiliations and foreign bullying China had endured in the last century. He had survived Chiang Kai-Shek's extermination campaigns, the Long March, war against the Japanese, the final showdown with the KMT, and the Korean War. His handling of the Korean conflict is probably his greatest accomplishment as PRC leader: for the first time in nearly a century, China was able to defend her foreign interests against a major power (USA) without conceding. The mistakes he committed thereafter were terribly wrong, but I also find quite human. Given the long list of challenges he had overcome, Mao, like any other human being, succumbed to his own sense of infallibility; he thought he could apply his revolutionary ideals (which had never failed him) to good governance of the country, with disastrous consequences. Ideally, he should have handed power down to moderates like Zhou Enlai to lead the nation, but we all know a person in his position would never have done that.--Lssah 88 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mao as a Historical Personality

It is very hard to remain NPOV when discussing the topic of Mao. Millions of people died as a result of the "movements" started by him. On the other hand, can you say that Mao is a complete Satan who never made a single contribution to the Chinese people? Mao is a complex person and any attempts to judge him as simply good or evil will be seriously biased.

I seriously concur. Luthinya 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

History is based upon what one thinks of the actions presented, and therefore, opinions through research. How does one determine if something is right or wrong, if not based upon one's opinion? There are billions of "ifs" in history, which historians never ask. Would China be in this state of economic growth "if" not for Mao? Why is not Napoleon, for example, disputed for murdering thousands and robbing most of Europe of her treasures? To me, it does not matter how much a person murders, so long as we reach our personal goals (mockery of capitalism). Humans are weak. Every one of you says that it is wrong to murder and that is something you would never do. However, "if" you reach that position of power, what would you do if not abuse it? Every widely read leader in history has used his position to hurt his enemies or create wealth for himself. Can we, as humans, really do better? Greed, selfishness, etc. have endured the test of time while honesty has not. Judge for yourselves then, whether we should blame Mao for protecting his country in the face of disaster (from the US, Japan, and eventually Russia).

The remarks of the previous writer are full of erroneous and subjective assumptions of human nature. "Humans are weak" is not an appropriate conclusion unless one has widely-held objective criteria to measure whether humans, or whatever one is measuring, are strong or weak. "Humans are weak" is essentially a value-based assumption that should not be brought forth in an academic discussion. The writer also mistakenly uses the word "murder." Murder requires malice aforethought, and the majority of leader's actions, including Mao, do not have the requisite mens rea to be termed "murder." Granted, during Mao's time there are many unintended casualties (Great Leap Forward), but that is a completely different category and should not be termed "murder." The writer mistakenly assumes that "every widely-read leader in history has used his position to hurt his enemies or create wealth for himself." Any well-read historian knows that is not so. Gandhi, MLK, Buddha, Caesar Chavez are but a few examples of leaders who have made an enormous impact in their respective countries as well as the rest of the world without resorting to underhandedness. The writer also incorrectly compares greed and selfishness to nationalism, saying that "greed, selfishness, etc have endured the test of time while honesty has not," then asking us whether we should blame Mao for protecting his country. Protecting one's country in considerably more selfless than doing things for personal profit, such as embezzling or eliminating one’s political opponents, and should not be confused. -Disgruntled Chinese-American Malcontent

The first paragraph above is a quite pathetic attempt at trying to excuse a man who was responsible for the death of millions. That is undisputed fact. Your attempts to try and hoodwink people by introducing silly propositions such as "humans are weak" and what ifs etc are obvious. Very transparent I'm afraid....The Great Veritas 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Great Veritas, that war is a crime that should be avoided at all costs and that the writer was extremely incorrect and misleading in his/her analysis. "Humans are weak", is most questionable, for how can we improve ourselves if we do not first open our minds, free ourselves from pessimism, and analyze our mistakes? In addition, there are certainly a number of "ifs" in hitory but it is more important to understand what was the driving force behind a person such as Mao instead of analyzation of the "ifs." Mao is definitely a complex character, as the writer stated in his/her opening paragraph and we should not be biased in our observations. Westerners and the Japanese have done horrific things to the Chinese people in regards to the Opium Wars, Sino-Japanese Wars, etc. but those things are wondered at far less than Mao's crimes. Perhaps Mao is a scapegoat for communism, or why do many modern Chinese people remember him fondly and as a liberator when Westerners speak badly of him? After he dies there would be no real point to fear or remember him if everyone does indeed loath him for his directly and indirectly causing millions of deaths; instead, he is honored even after death. For me, this is an interesting question and brings complex answers. Nonetheless, he did rescue his homeland from disaster more than once despite the many things that were put at stake. As an American, my countrymen and I are probably subjected to great bias after Vietnam, Korea, McCarthyim, etc. but I want the truth to be known and understood. ~Hermes Llecrow~

This may be an unpopular stance to try and defend from a western standpoint, but I do not believe that Mao needs any "excusing" (for the deaths of millions of people). If one is to judge Mao solely from the number of deaths that occurred during his time in power, then Mao indeed is an evil person. However, to characterize him as evil is to ignore all other historical circumstances that Mao and the CCP had to deal with. The ultimate goal of the CCP during the 1950's and 1960's was to create a new society free from the corruptions of the past society. China's story as a whole prior to 1949 was one of oppression and humiliation. China was not ruled by Chinese (it was ruled by Manchurians) since the 1600's. The Qing dynasty was corrupt and incompetent to the point where they could not defend China from external threats, as shown by China's defeat in the Opium Wars, the first Sino-Japanese war, and the dividing of Chinese territories by western powers. Even after the Chinese overthrew the Qing Dynasty, the nationalist government under the KMT was still corrupt and incompetent, embezzling millions of dollars and fighting other Chinese instead of fighting the Japanese during the second Sino-Japanese war. When Mao and the CCP took control of mainland China in 1949, China was a weak nation that rightly did not have the respect of any developed countries. However, in a matter of 2 generations, the CCP brought China from being a negligible developing power to the second greatest economic and military power in the world. Since 1949, China has not been invaded nor occupied by any foreign countries, something that was unheard of less than 100 years before. The standard of living has improved for rural and urban people alike. The illiteracy and infant mortality rate has dropped and the life expectancy rate has risen. Yes, many people died during Mao's time, especially during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. It is regrettable that people die during times of social upheaval. When countries change their social structure, classes of people will be displaced. This holds true even for western countries. However, the deaths the China had to endure were not in vain. China is in a much stronger position than it was 50 odd years ago. Despite the road of modernization it chose, more Chinese would choose to live in China today than China 60 years ago. Mao and the CCP may have been responsible for the deaths of many Chinese people, but they are also responsible for greatly improving the lives and security of many more. -Disgruntled Chinese-American Malcontent

But you are buying the CCP's narrative wholesale without any rational thought. It is wrong to characterise Mao as evil I agree. But it is because they wanted a society purged of the past that they killed so many. The CCP does not accept that the Manchus were not Chinese. The Nationalists were corrupt towards the end, but think of what they did. They restored China's Treaty Rights. They defended China's borders. Despite what the CCP says they fought the Japanese. They won a seat on the UN security council for China. The CCP kept China as a poor and backward country for 30 years until the CCP gave up Communism. Meanwhile the GMD made Taiwan a middle income nation. The living standards for the Chinese only improved after Communism, not because of it. Literacy and infant mortality are laughable compared to the GMD's record. Those deaths were in vain. The PRC has nothing that the GMD did not do better and at lesser cost. Apologising for mass murder is a mistake. Lao Wai 09:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinions and agree with you on most of your stated points. The aim of my paragraph was not to apologize for the actions of Mao, rather it was to show that the issue is more complex than most westerners make it out to be. Your logic is sound for the most part, but I do have some contentions with some of your conclusions. 1) The CCP did not accept the Manchus as Chinese- That much is true. However, the Manchus did not even consider themselves Chinese. That was the reasoning behind why they forced Chinese men to grow their hair in a queue and did not allow Chinese men to marry Manchu women or allow Chinese men to emigrate to Manchuria. 2) The KMT was indeed corrupt at the end, but I believe that you make too light of the situation. Chiang Kai-Shek was considerably more interested in fighting communism rather than the external threat of the Japanese. That is why he was kidnapped by his own officers during the Xi'an incident, to force him to reconsider his views. Even though they did fight the Japanese (defended China's borders) it was a half-effort. They money that the United States sent to the KMT was embezzled by Chiang and his officers rather than to equip the KMT army. 3) The KMT did not "win" a seat on the UN Security Council. They were given the seat because it was recognized that China was an influential power and to ignore its potential strength was to ignore the reality of the situation. 4) China did not "give up" communism, rather they modified it into a rudimentary free market system under the pragmatic leadership of Deng Xiaoping. There are more elements of a free market, but it is still not capitalism 5) I believe that comparing China's illiteracy and infant morality rate to Taiwan's is an unintelligible dyad; their situations were not the same. China had to improve its situation internally, while Taiwan received much financial aid from the United States after the Korean War. The financial situation of Taiwan made it easier for them to improve their domestic situation. In addition to that, the demographics of China and Taiwan and China make it impossible for them to be compared. China has many more times the population that lives in many more times the territory than Taiwan. China's urban literacy rate and infant mortality rate is comparable to that of Taiwan's, but when you take into consideration China's rural population, that complicates the equation quite a bit. My take is that those deaths were not in vain, for no revolution goes without bloodshed. The normative circumstance would be that there be no deaths in revolution, but that is just wishful thinking. The death toll was excessive and at points needless, but when you take into consideration the difficulties of governing as large a territory as China, it is more understandable why things happened the way they did. The means do not justify the end, but like I said before, most Chinese people would prefer to live in today's China than KMT China 60 years ago. -Disgruntled Chinese-American Malcontent

Well Manchu opinion varied on how Chinese they were, but it is not important. The Communists did not play any role whatsoever in overthrowing the Qing. The Nationalist did. Jiang thought that China needed to be unified internally before confronting the Japanese. Entirely correctly in my view. The Second United Front was a disaster for the GMD and more so for China. I reject the idea of corruption within the Central Army until after 1945. Jiang also, entirely correctly in my view, thought that America would and should defeat Japan. India did not get a seat. Nor Brazil. China did. A victory for GMD diplomacy. Especially considering how weak and insignificant a power China was in 1945. Well it is not Communism either. That ideology is dead and China is better for it. China rejected America and hence all the aid that might have been offered. Who is to blame for that? I reject the idea that Taiwan was that much better off financially - what they did not do was waste their human capital by sending down to the countryside to be re-educated. If China has more people, China had more Universities and educated people - the vast majority of Chinese did not leave in 1949. China has failed the peasants utterly. We might agree on that. For someone who does not wish to apologise for Mao what do you think you are doing? The Revolution was a total waste of human life and utter in vain. The Nationalists did not have to kill as many. Most Chinese might so prefer, although I would be interested to ask them. There is not a lot of difference really as China looks a lot like the Treaty Port period these days. But the choice is between the CCP or the GMD and I do not doubt for a second what most Chinese would prefer. Lao Wai 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I didn't think the Manchu point was important either, but you are the one who brought it up. In all honesty, a lot of your logic in your last post is specious and irrelevant. 1) Of course the Communists had no role in overthrowing the Qing Dynasty. The Qing were overthrown in 1911, and Marxism did not gain a foothold in China until the May 4th movement in 1919, close to a decade later. Why you would bring up that the KMT were the ones to overthrow the Qing is beyond me. 2) Chiang may have believed that being united was important, but his decision to fight the communists was counterproductive to unity. His own officers believed in unity as well, that is why they kidnapped him, because Chiang's actions were detrimental to a unified China. 3) You say that the second united-front was disastrous for China, yet you did not cite a single reason why. It is unconstructive to make assumptions in academic discourse without having substantiated reasons to back it up; otherwise it’s opinion vs. opinion. 3) If Chiang felt that it was the job of the Untied States to defeat Japan who was committing hostilities against China, then he and the KMT were not truly defending China's borders, were they? Expecting another entity to fight your battles is not a practice that most respectable sovereign nations engage in. 4) I have no idea while you continually refer to the KMT getting a seat in the UN as proof of the KMTs greatness, or why it is even relevant in this discussion. The five original power seats in the UN security council, with the exception of the Soviet Union, were western powers (Great Britain, the United States, and France) and their ally (KMT China). India and Brazil were not considered of course; India was still a colony of Great Britain at the time the UN was formed; it did not gain its independence until 1947. Why you brought up Brazil I have no idea. And you have to wonder if seats on the UN Security Council are really indicative of actual power. France, who capitulated in a matter of weeks in WWII, was awarded a seat on the council. Besides, China has the seat in the Security Council now. Does that make Taiwan a lesser nation because of it? Of course not. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the KMT's seat on the UN Security Council has any relevance to our topic. 4) China has ideological differences with the United States; that is why they did not receive foreign aid. Values are culturally relative, and China's value system differed from that of the United States, hence they did not get funding. There is no one to "blame" for that. 5) From what I understand about Taiwanese history, Chiang Kai-Shek's policies were just as arbitrary and harsh as the CCP's worst policies. He executed Taiwanese dissidents or sent them into "re-education through labor" camps like the CCP. It was only after he died that the repressive politics ended. This is not to get into a "who was the lesser of the two evils" argument, but it seems like you turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of the KMT. 6) You can choose to reject the notion that Taiwan was better off financially than the United States, but it does not make it any less true. 7) I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that "China (I assume you mean the government) has failed the peasants utterly," nor do I have any idea why you believe that I would think that way. My view is that China is a safer and more prosperous place than it was 60 years ago. To save space on this post, I will not reiterate everything that I have already said in previous posts, but to say that the Chinese government "has failed the peasants is utterly" is to be stubborn to points of view other than your own. 8) I believe you are confusing my discourse explaining that Mao is not evil like most westerners make him out to be with apologizing for his actions. Just because I choose not to engage in Mao bashing does not necessarily mean that I support him, nor does it mean that I am entitled to apologize for his actions either. You may see me pointing to Mao and CCP accomplishments in a positive light, but that is still a long way from an apology. 9) I have no idea why you would do a comparison between who would prefer to live in what country. You said that people would prefer to live in Taiwan than in China. However, more people would choose to live in the United States than in Taiwan, but what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. -Disgruntled Chinese-American Malcontent

Actually it looks like you brought the Manchus up, not me. I do not see that fighting the CCP was counter-productive to unity. The CCP was down to 10,000 solders in 1936. One more push would have crushed them and finally reunified China. The Manchurians kidnapped Jiang because they listened to CCP propaganda about fighting the Japanese, not fellow Chinese - a nationalist line the CCP had not bothered to use in Jiangxi. Those soldiers were traitors to the GMD and China. The reason why is obvious - the CCP was saved from disaster and the Second United Front, prompting a Japanese invasion in 1937, led to the victory of the CCP and hence 60 million pointless deaths. You do not bother with evidence, why should I? Jiang fought from 1937 to 1941 without any significant American help. After 1941 it was clear that the Japanese were going to lose. Having bled so much why would Jiang throw more of his soldiers' lives away. The Americans wanted Chinese people to die for America, I do not see why Jiang should have agreed with them. It was and is American military doctrine to get other people to die for them (the Nixon Doctrine), so your comment is amusing. The fact that the GMD, without no real military force at their beck and call, were able to defend China's borders, reclaim land and obtain a seat on the UN is proof of their skills and dedication - and they did not even have to kill 60 million people to do it. You claim it was because of China's "potential strength". Brazil had that. So did India. Neither got a seat. China was the only non-White country to win a seat. Hundreds of countries were allied with the UN. Only China got a seat on the UN. And yes, France in 1945 was still a major power. It does make the ROC a lesser nation. Look how they are treated. No doubt you wish to ignore the GMD's achievements to support your view that great things can only come through mass murder. The GMD proves that wrong. The CCP did not have a values clash, they wished to destroy the US and create Communism all over the world. They chose to fight the US and have paid the price. They are to blame. I do not deny that the GMD did a few bad things in Taiwan - 228 for instance. But they did not kill 60 million people. They did create a free and prosperous society. You keep harking back to 60 years ago - when China was recovering from foreign invasion and a devastating war. How about comparing it to Taiwan 50 years ago? In the last 20 years China has become richer. But in 1980 the peasants were probably as poor and as poorly fed as they were in 1950. In what sense has the CCP delivered a thing to China's peasants? Given them land? No. Given them free health care? No. Given them good education? No. Elections? Free speech? The right to move from their villages? The CCP made them serfs and oppressed them for 30 years. I do not think Mao was evil, but you are clearly doing something odd wrt his actions. I did not say they would prefer to live in Taiwan. I said I think they would prefer to be ruled by the GMD. They are not dumb. Lao Wai 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Its very hard to have an intelligible academic discussion when you continue to put words in my mouth or put me in a false position. It also does not help that you continually use false historical evidence to try to support your claims. For example, you believe that it is the position of the United States government to try and get other countries to die for America. First of all, the Nixon Doctrine was put forth in 1969. The Chinese Civil War took place from 1937-1949, meaning that the Nixon doctrine in no way guided the actions of the United States during the Chinese Civil War. In addition to that, nowhere in the Nixon doctrine does it advocate that foreign peoples should die for them. The Nixon doctrine expressed the expectation that foreign countries are expected to provide for their own military defense. Where you get your information or conclusions is beyond me. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that I advocate that great things can only come through mass murder. Please feel free to read previous posts in order to gain a better understanding of where it is that I stand. I do not appreciate being slandered or having my words taken out of context, and I know that you do not either, which is why I go through great pains to carefully choose my wording to quote correctly and prevent needless offending. I know that we have differences in terms of ideology, and it is apparant that neither one of us is going to convince the other one any time soon. However, I have enjoyed this correspondence, as it has reaffirmed my beliefs, just as I am sure that these discussions have reaffirmed yours.- Disgruntled Chinese-American Malcontent

I have yet to put words in your mouth and I suggest the real impediment to sensible discussion is your insistence on personal insults. The Nixon doctrine is simply the formal statement of existing American practice. I can trivially find WW2 examples if you like including, most notably, Admiral King. I agree that the Nixon doctrine had nothing to do with the Chinese Civil War and I did not say it did. I said it had a lot to do with the Second Sino-Japanese War. Which it did. What the Nixon doctrine means is that if America's is fighting a war elsewhere (as they all are) the people elsewhere ought to do the fighting and America ought to pay them. It is precisely as I described it. Perhaps you are unaware of what your fingers type "My take is that those deaths were not in vain, for no revolution goes without bloodshed. The normative circumstance would be that there be no deaths in revolution, but that is just wishful thinking. The death toll was excessive and at points needless, but when you take into consideration the difficulties of governing as large a territory as China, it is more understandable why things happened the way they did." I do not need to put words in your mouth. You describe my argument as "specious and irrelevant" but now claim to go to great care to avoid insults? Please let me know when you decide to let rip. Lao Wai 07:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to chip in here and say that whilst I have disagreed with LW on some issues related to Mao, I cannot fault anything that he said in his last post. The KMT did the bulk of the hard work out of the challenges China faced when it took power and during its time "in office". The CCP had a much better platform to work on than they did, but they managed to screw it up big-time. And, more importantly, if there was anyone that caused it, it was Mao. Mao even went behind the Party to re-establish control by launching the Cultural Revolution after his fall from grace due to the GLF. He betrayed his own organisation in a hugely destructive temper-tantrum that set China back decades. After all this article is about Mao, not the CCP. John Smith's 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. My view re. Mao is somewhat similar to that of "DCAM", so call me biased if you will. Mao is very much a part of Chinese history, and there are some positive legacy that he's left the Chinese, all of which has already been stated by "DCAM". Whether the good things he did, in terms of improving health care delivery to the countryside, prolonged average lifespan, building industrial infrastructure, raising women's status in society etc, were circumstantial or not, is irrelevant. History happened. It is entirely useless to speculate who was going to do better with what. There is no way to prove anything one way or the other. For what he did for the Chinese, it will always be remembered, even if they are ignored in the west. His social experiments led to the suffering of an entire Chinese generation, if not two. Millions died because his experiments got out of control. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands more died in his struggle for power inside the party. For what crimes he committed against the Chinese, they will always be remembered as well. But to say it was all mass murder is, in my opinion, undeserved. Manipulative tyrant and anarchist, yes. Mass murderer, I don't think so.

I find it funny that TW is being compared to China as if Chiang would have been able to turn China into what TW was at the peak of its glory back in the 80's and 90's. No one mentioned the land reform Chiang initiated in TW, after the communist model (granted, he did it with less bloodshed, but he also had more means). No one mentioned the American aid provided to KMT in TW. No one mentioned that most capitalists and prominent families fled ML China with their money, which they promptly invested elsewhere, mostly in HK, SE Asia and TW. No one mentioned that the implimentation of national policy was heck of a lot easier in TW, than it was in ML China, due to its poorly organized government infrastructure and vast size. No one mentioned that during large part of his rule in ML China, Chiang was just as corrupt as any other corrupt Chinese regime, not to mention inefficient. CCP is not the only ones to tell the stories of KMT corruption. Their American allies attested to it as well, as did some members in Chiang's own party. For their part, they did what they could in China, failed, and was driven out.

By the way, those who kidnapped Chiang are not Machurians by race. They were Chinese.(mean 06:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

There is absolutely no justification for killing human beings. Whatever excuse you want to offer, break with past, whatever, you are 100% wrong. If Mao wasn't evil, then evil simply does not exist.

Whitemanners 23:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Are You Sure??

"During the Cultural Revolution, Mao encouraged the wholesale destruction of a large part of China's cultural heritage." Now many westerners have misconceptions of the Chinese,if some Chinese itself can tell me that this is true,I would be satisfied.Prateek01 17:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very unfortunate for my beloved homeland, yet nevertheless it is the unfortunate truth. During the Cultural Revolution many propogandist campaigns came into use, many of which aimed at innocent and ignorant young people- Mao's ardent supporters- concerning the destruction of the Old World, thus inextricably linked to the preserved ancient Cultural heritage. I myself could remember, despite my young age, travelling along an ancient road leading to the Xia Dynasty Museum in Yinchuan, and seeing upon the way many ruined statues that were once so tall and fair. They were the statues of the wisemen of the past, and Mao's ardent supporters had destroyed them during those ten years as a campaign against supposed 'Rightist' influences. Despite Mao's fondness of history, the vintage of power and the fear to loose it had now poisoned his mind too deeply to even preserve such as these. So no- this is not one of the many Western misconceptions, but a ghastly truth I have seen with my own eyes, though the government are trying to disguise certain evidence and clearing up the debris. Luthinya 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I can not believe someone removed the NPOV tag from this article. On this talk page alone there are now over 2 pages filled with people complaining about the fact that Mao's crimes and mistakes are barely mentioned. Given that, how can anyone claim that this article is neutral? Mao Zedong had millions of dissidents murdered. His 'Hundred Flowers Campaign' for example was most likely just a plot to expose, and exterminate, critics. His acricultural reforms cost the lives of tens of millions more. Pretending that was just a slight economic mistake, or claiming these famines were mainly the result of bad weather, are gross violations of the truth. Mao was not stupid, he knew what he was doing: He was murdering millions upon millions of peasants. For failing to mention all that, this article deserves a NPOV tag. Diadem 02:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Someone removed the POV tag and archived the ongoing discussions with the comment that "the talk page is degenerating into an internet debate forum." I believe it was an attempt to close the ongoing debates. It is patronising to disregard from other people's opinions like that.--Ezeu 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hundred Flowers Campaign, Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution are all addressed in this article. Further detail is found in related entries. I strongly dislike Mao myself, but an anti-Mao rant on the talk page is not grounds for putting up an NPOV dispute. 172 05:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are mentioned. The problem with this page is not that it is not complete. The problem is that it is not neutral. It mentions those events, but it either ignores or glosses over Mao's mistakes and crimes in them. Perhaps an anti-Mao rant on the talk page is not enough for putting up an NPOV dispute. But 2 pages full of people complaining about the fact that Mao's and mistakes are not given enough attention in this article ought to be a pretty damn good indication that something is wrong. Anyway, I do not feel like starting an edit-war, so I won't revert your revert. But I sure hope either you or someone else will. Diadem 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag again. It's obvious that this page is not neutral. The summary on top is already lacking important information and has a subjective intonation:

"Mao is widely credited for creating a mostly unified China free of foreign domination for the first time since the Opium Wars. However, critics point out that Mao's ineffective economic policies in conjunction with the Three Years of Natural Disasters caused the massive famine of 1959–1961. Mao has also been criticized for his contribution to the Sino-Soviet Split, his establishment of a one-party state, and initiating the Cultural Revolution."

"critics point out" --> I don't think this covers the situation, it sounds as if most people are proponents of Mao and his regime and only sóme people have sóme criticism. For what I know, Mao is a famous dictator and responsible for very, VERY many deaths (like diadem already said). The reverse would sound far more realistic, and therefore, more neutral, to me: Proponents (some people) point out that Mao created a mostly unified China free of foreign dominantion for the first time since the Opium Wars. However, Mao is also known to be responsible for (....insert ineffective, criminal, negligent decisions and politics etc.). "

Another example of biased information are the links:

Mao Zedong Biography From Spartacus Educational The Mao Zedong Reference Archive at marxists.org The Encyclopedia of Marxism gives a Trotskyist view of Mao's life. Parts of this article are based on it. The Encyclopedia of Marxism gives a Marxist (Trotskyist) view of Mao Zedong Thought. Collected Works of Mao Zedong at the Maoist Internationalist Movement Mao Zedong portal from the PLA Daily; includes some photos and poetry Mao Zedong on propaganda posters Set of propaganda paintings showing Mao Zedong as the great leader of China. MIM Maoist Internationalist Movement, a sect of Maoism (their theories are NOT the same as all Maoists) CNN profile Mao: Ten Parts Bad, No Parts Good by Gwynne Dyer, a critical opinion on Mao A forum discussion on Dyer's text

They almost all lead to marxistic or maoist websites. Writing "NOT" in capitals seems patronizing to me, and it also clearly shows the article's author's personal, emotional stance on maoism. . What caught my eye especially is this: "gives a Trotskyist view of Mao's life. parts of this article are based on it". Doesn't seem like an objective, trustworthy source to me.

I don't think the NPOV tag should be removed unless the page is at least changed (it could use an extensive make-over). After all the NPOV tag doesn't claim that the article is subjective, it merely warns that it's subjectivity is questioned / debated. And it currently is, so removing the tag would be removing valid, objective and important information. -Silvia

This article is missing some important things. For instance, the many purges during the 40s and 50s are ignored. And it fails to mention that the land reform campaign really involved the liquidation of class enemies and state control over everything. Nothing about foreign policy is mentioned outside the Sino-Soviet split. CJK 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Being neutral towards Hitler does not mean that you can over- exaggerate his political strength and ambitions while saying absolutely nothing of his genocide towards the Jews! That is not being neutral. It is being overtly biased and ignorant. The same case may very well apply here. --User:Luthinya 21 January 2006

Comment by 129.98.212.60

I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and I was shocked and offended to discover that the page on Mao has no mention of the millions of people he's verifiably responsible for murdering. I am a Religious Jew and I wanted to look up Mao for a research paper I'm doing on genocides such as the Holocaust and I can honestly say that based on all I've read about Mao, that this man is the worst, most evil human being to ever live. I hate comparing evils, and I understand that saying anyone is more evil than anyone else seems trivial and childish, but in this context I find it necessary to point it out because it's an outrage that Mao's evil is not mentioned in this article on him. My grandmother is a Holocaust survivor and I can still say with conviction that Mao committed more crimes and murders than the Nazis. Shame on Wikipedia for even allowing this article to stay on, there's no chance they'd allow such a neutral article on Pol Pot or other murderers. Anyone out there interested in lobbying Wikipedia to change this? How can we contact them directly? Jews, thank God, mostly live in Democratic countries where we have the right to raise awareness about the Holocaust and so Hitler is appropriately vilified in the public sphere, but most Chinese still live in the oppressive China that Mao created and can't speak to the world of their suffering. The rest of us therefore have a moral responsibility to raise this type of awareness about Mao as well. I encourage all people of good conscious, and especially Chinese people living in the free world, to protest this slanted, amoral biography —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.98.212.60 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 January 2006.

Oh please, just because your granny supposed to have survived the Holocaust doesn't give you any qualifications to judge Mao. May I remind you of the many atrocities committed by the Israeli government on the Palestinians? And the fact that historically, the Israelites wiped out entire tribes such as the Amalekites "in the name of the Lord". Such massacres are well documented in your precious Torah. Don't think that you speak for China, we Chinese don't need foreigners to tell us what is right and wrong.

You are welcome to edit the article. You cannot lobby Wikipedia to change this article, because we are all (you included) responsible for this article. Since you are a frequent user of Wikipedia, you too share some of the blame. --Ezeu 07:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There are ambivalent reactions about him. After all, he did set up the Eighth Route Army's initial code of honour and had quotes such as "Bombard the Party Headquarters!" and observed the fact that "the bourgeosie in a communist country is the Communist Party itself"; a lot of the millions of casualties which are attributed to famine or the natural disasters, are probably caused somewhat by his mismanagement, but by death by direct execution is a disputed figure. Anyhow, let me remind that the figures of "millions" is never stressed as Mao's explicit order, that after all, the entire administration was to blame. Furthermore, the pressured officials under Mao had to fulfill fantastic quotas and had to extort all the food from the population in order to fulfill them, but Mao wasn't responsible for the famine deaths per se. The Cultural Revolution of course, is something entirely different. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what sources you read, because of course Chang and Halliday say that he deliberately exported food during the famine - thus he would be directly responsible for those deaths during that period. In addition the Great Leap Forward was his idea. Taking peasants out of the fields to work in the factories, rather than collect the harvest, was obviously going to severely hit food production. John Smith's 21:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It said it was a blunder - mismanagement; was it intentional murder, or criminal negligence, would you say? If you brought Mao Zedong to a jury under charges of criminal negligence for the famine itself, would you think they would convict him? As I recall, Mao Zedong was so alienated from the actual real situation, especially unaware of what kinds of extortion his officials were doing to fulfill the quotas (the quotas were of course, his fault). A criminal of idealism perhaps. The Cultural Revolution again, is something different. -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

129.98.212.60, our backgrounds are similar. My grandparents were all killed in the Holocaust, except a maternal grandparent who died before 1939 who was run over by a horse-driven cart. Nevertheless, we must all try to keep our emotions from working their way into articles, passionately try to follow the dispassionate policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other contents related to ensuring encyclopedic qualities in articles. Further, I second Natalinasmpf's very well formulated comment above and urge you to review it closely.172 08:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I too am doing research on the lives of famous dictators from the modern world on an essay in which I attempted to analyze the similarities in their personalities. In addition to this I am also Chinese, and being educated in China for many years I have often despaired when examining my textbooks only to find relentless articles on leader- worship in relation to Mao. But even in China now the tides are turning, so I am rather unpleasantly surprised when I found that this 'free' encyclopedia still harbours such neutral and plain language while describing the infinite atrocities Mao had brought unto his own country, just like the way they did in China a little time after the Cultural Revolution was still fresh upon the people's minds. 'Some critics claimed'? 'criticized'? I fee that they hardly touched the surface of the horrors present in Mao's day. He was responsible for the deaths of nearly seventy hundred thousand Chinese, not including corrupting many more innocent people and ruining a China that just began to see some hope on the horizon, plummeting it immediately back to the 'third world'. During the Cultural Revolution we were cut off from the rest of the world for ten long years. Ten years- A lot could happen in that time and a lot did. There were endless suicides as of the famous author Lao She, foul and perverse lies, growing power struggle and increasing paranoia amidst all his subjects, for Mao did not even fool himself really into thinking that he took power unwillingly and will relinquish it when the time comes, as is the Communist way. He was insensitive to suffering- possibly through his own, twisted logic and history with wry humour and in many ways appeared as a new Chinese Emperor in Mao suit, spreading fear in the air and destroying all those who dared defy him. There was no arguing over Mao's personality cult except destruction, his and his own decision mattered and everyone else melted into a faceless mass that had to suffer to reach his own illusory economic success. He forced man to do what it could not, while all the while the newspapers lied with fantastic quality, for it had no alternative to choose. There are many more such horrors I may describe, and frankly I feel rather offended that this article only seemed to portray him as a quite an nice old gentleman who just made a few mistakes that everybody could make. Perhaps he have made mistakes through terrible misjudgments and ill- beliefs, yet these mistakes were committed at the cost of thousands of lives of ordinary Chinese which he seemed, quite frankly, to care nothing of. Even now many of the modern Chinese present would seek so much as to claim that the way he ruthlessly ruined China when he came to absolute power was even worse than what China had suffered during the Japanese invasion, though I do not exactly agree with this opinion. These years were filled with shame, while Mao's heavy and monstrous face leaned upon us as if to whisper- 'Ignorance is Strength.' To think of how the Japanese ruined the women in Nanjing with countless rapes, one may very well go back to Mao's own terrible sexual appetites and those prevailing his own court at the time. At least the women in Nanjing knew that they were raped by an enemy, while Mao's women did not comprehend and even felt an honour to sleep with the 'Great Helmsman'! Later on all these young women became corrupt and supercilious, and Mao had ruined their early innocence with his hands. What he did to them was many times worse than what the Japanese could have done. And yet this article was edited as though all these horrors were but the blink of an eye, a small detail in the big scheme of things that did not deserve too much attention. This I see as a great imbalance of style.

While I would certainly recognize good in Mao for his unification of China in extricating herself from Imperialistic influences, I believe his personality and absolute power has corrupted out of him- at least in the latter years of his political domain- much more evil upon China than lasting good. This is a wound- like the Japanese invasion- that time would not be able to heal. This article has not expressed such a bitterness, as was present within all those who knew Mao as he really was behind the scenes, as long as the observers had the slightest education and were not so innocent. On the contrary, though I agree that this article definite spoke with an anti- Mao slant, it has only scratched the surface upon his darker side. Personally I would urge a complete re- editing drawn from more creditable resources than what the government cared to give, although as I understand these sources may not always be entirely believable. I personally believe that this should be a time of awakening for this article. Yet this is not a momentary bitterness drawn from an overtly passionate heart- I have discussed this with many that went through the Cultural Revolution themselves as Chinese who saw the atrocities of the Red Guard against the valuable ancient Chinese cultural heritage and heard Mao's ridiculous and illogical speeches. This is a man who made modern China, but he had simultaneously pretty much ruined it all. Mao is a deep and profound tragedy, yet he was only expressed in this article as a man that made small, mend-able mistakes. While I believe that he rests on our pity- and I myself pity him often- such 'forgiveness' for the relentless disasters he had brought onto China still seemed to me currently unacceptable. He was never a Satan, and even Lucifer had done much good unto the world ere he fell, yet he fell in flames and destroyed his own hopeful creation, into perhaps an even worse state than before. I leave it for others to judge upon such a man, for myself he is only a tragedy.

User:Luthinya ,11 January 2006

If ones analysis has been already predisposed with a POV, then changing articles for that purpose is hardly a didactic benefit.

Yet personally I also believe that what now remains in the article is also a POV, for it overtly stressed the goodness of Mao in creating a united China with hardly any emphasis on how he has also brought this country to a higher destruction. To my way of thinking, in uniting China only to destroy it once more he has made it many times worse than it was during the Japanese invasion, and a closer judgment would certainly clarify him- in later political domain at least- as more of something like '70% bad and 30% good'. I do not seek to create Mao into a Satan, and I would certainly defend against any sort of such intentions, but I simply do not believe that the article contained even one thousandth of what was enough to depict how the terrifying poison of absolute power seized Mao's mind at that time and made China what it was today- a once so hopeful country now struggling still to come to terms with its utter defeat during the era of Mao. There were certainly many successes to counterbalance these, but not nearly enough in greatness or number, and I stand by the belief that China would have been a much more successful country today had Mao not been so very much corrupted with Power. He was the man who made modern China, yet he was also the man who destroyed it- I do not know how that should be judged except only as a tragedy. While this article recognized the making bit it has failed utterly to describe the horrors of the destruction- and personally I believe this has went beyond neutral- it has become biased in just the way the Communist Party would wish it to, and many within that group till this day knew nothing really of Mao's true past and China's. Even if only on an innocent cause I believe that there is already enough unreliable information on the media today than such an article. Not to criticize, but I think it is time for us all to completely re- edit the article and attempt to become neutral in a sense more correct to historical terms. There would not be so many here busily typing if we are all under the incorrect influence of POV. There may be no point- to my way of thinking at least- in clarifying the percentage of good and bad within Mao as that is frankly impossible, yet that does not mean that it is not worthwhile to display what the corruption of absolute power did to him, and learn from the historical experience. --User:Luthinya 12:22 21 January 2006

I very much agree with Luthinya. The difficulty is that she is a rather exceptional Chinese in having pretty much completely removed the scales from her eyes in her assessment of Mao. Unfortunately the present Chinese government believes that it's against its interest, which it identifies with that of China, to have a complete reassessment of Mao along the lines of Stalin in Russia as this would undermine its own legitimacy. It has therefore attempted to limit and control criticism of Mao and encouraged people to believe that some of the criticisms of Mao are somehow insulting to China and the Chinese people. This makes it difficult for an open source encyclopedia to maintain a stable view on someone as controversial as Mao as many Chinese feel that strong criticism of Mao is highly insulting. Things are even more problematic for proprietary encyclopedia's such as Encarta, as M$ simply cannot afford to risk annoying the Chinese Government by publishing a fair analysis. This is a very serious issue as the misinformation and propaganda surrounding Mao and in particular the Great Leap Forward, can be seen as an important factor behind the adoption of similarly disastrous policies in a series of other third world countries including Cambodia, Vietnam and North Korea. GregLondon 01:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I see your point. You have corrected a teenager's brashness. Still even so I believe we should all collectively strive for historical truth rather than cower in front of political correctness, whose power, I promise you, is crumbling in China as we speak. --User:Luthinya 12:56, 25 January 2006

Luthinya. It's not appropriate to compare Mao's sexual antics to the Rape of Nanjing or the thousands of other rapes that took place during the Japanese invasion. There has been no suggestions that Mao's "dancing partners" were forced into sleeping with him and doubtless many were hugely flattered by the relative wealth and status they would have received. What is totally unforgivable however was that whilst he was cavorting with his collection of beauties in various villas, there were millions of his countrymen, who he was supposed to be leading, starving to death and in many cases being reduced to cannibalism as a consequence of his policies whilst he deliberately avoided finding out what was going on and doing something about it. He would not be the first powerful leader to take advantage of his position to seduce a bunch of young women, so I think we can forgive him his efforts to sow a few wild oats. If you start to focus on minor but salacious issues, the impact of your overall thesis is reduced and those inclined to defend Mao will focus upon the weakness of this part of your argument to undermine the legitimacy of your main points. GregLondon 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was wrong to compare such events together, since they may not be totally identical in theme or purpose, yet I was merely trying to suggest the idea that while Mao was spending excessive time spreading the propaganda that 'things are better than they used to be' and 'we are totally different from our enemies and thus will help to build a better China', he himself was becoming extremely corrupt and doing himself all those things that were supposed to be the characteristics of an enemy, unconsciously submitting himself into the same Fall while spreading lies among the public of the government's sexual purity and frugality. Perhaps my sources concerning his astounding sexual appetites were incorrect, and I shall be very much sorry if they are, yet supposing them true I do not think pure forgiveness for Mao can still come so easily in that respect. He has betrayed China in such despicable acts, he has betrayed his women with his hands and made them corrupt and supercilious, and moreover he has ruined their early innocence which he himself knew not. Their pride in such ugly positions is one of the worst tragedies in China, should such sources be proven true. Perhaps it is because that I am yet only a teenager, yet my horror for these acts went beyond the simple rapes, I wept for these women for the fall of their innocence. As I stated above, at least the victims of the Japanese rapes knew that they were being disgraced and would try to fight back if they can, yet Mao's women knew nothing and in that respect soon became his dupes and fools.

Yet I agree with you on the similar information concerning the luxury of Mao's life while the many common people of China are outside his courts and starving. Again, it is a similar case of 'tight upon the others, but loose upon oneself'! --User:Luthinya 12:06 26 January 2006

To Luthinya, having been one who has been told repeatedly about the 'evil' of Mao, I know of far too many people who criticize for the sake of their own political agendas rather than attempting to understand the conditions and circumstances that led to Mao's actions, with associated effects. To imply that things were made worse than the Japanese invasion serves to support political pundits who use that to justify Japanese militarism, nor is it an objective assessment. Just as Qin Shi Huang made many brutal actions, his actions were what made Chinese unification and development possible in the first place. People need to understand that you take what you can get and work with that, rather than wishing for an ideal situation. This doesn't mean that things couldn't have been better worked out nor expressed, but this sounds more like moralizing than an neutral assessment.

I understand your meaning, sir/madam, and I was always afraid someone might interpret my assessment as follows. I am a native Chinese accustomed to such schooling as was given, and once you have had such schooling it is almost impossible not to be permanently branded with an eternal hatred of Japan as they have not apologised to us properly yet concerning the atrocities of the WWII. Though I most definitely do not hold this what I believe to be a very narrow-minded view and neither would I give up hoping until Japan has made a proper apology, I would never dream of supporting the atrocities they had committed against China during the War, for that would be a terrible betrayal to my nationality. What I am trying to suggest when I said that what happened under Mao's regime after the War was quite worse than what it had been during the Japanese invasion was concerning a unison in our purposes and desires. During the War, at least most of China was able to focus on Japan as the main enemy and try to fight back as much as possible; Yet when Mao finally took charge, even when he created such devastating disasters upon China most of the population would still not dare to say that he was wrong and try to rebel against him, for the very few who did met very bad ends. In this fashion China was thrown into the most frightful turmoils, which was made even worse comparing to how successful it had just been when the People's Republic was formed, and the people were too much wallowed in fear to try to grasp their vanishing freedom as yet another Emperor had emerged from the cycles of time. At least during the Japanese invasion you have political freedom and may curse them however you like, yet in this brand new era this freedom is taken away, and not by some foreign imperialist, but by our very own Communist leader, a Chinese himself. This situation I perceive far more devastating than any foreign invasion, for the preying of countryman upon his own countryman suggests a wound that runs far deeper than any 'bullying-form' invasions. And yes you are right- it is like moralizing, but if a man may not judge with his morales, then what does he judge with?

For political leaders, moralistic judgements are not as effective as other elements in judging a leader's value, for morality does not necessarily equal to effective leadership in many cases. A leaders intentions, actions and outcomes as a whole would lead to a more accurate picture than subjective ruminations of some other commentators.

In general I would very much agree with you, but I think this is where we draw the line between romanticism and society. An efficient leader, such as perhaps even Qin Shi Huang himself, may not always be able, or even need, to build a community in which most of the people may be happy in the truest sense of the word, as that is the subject to which many romantics had regarded as the optimistic Utopia for leadership. And you are right- perhaps in the sense of this imperfect world of ours, such attention to morality is not even necessary! --Luthinya 12:51 01 February 2006

I was very interested in your comment concerning Qin Shi Huang though. This was a point that Mao raised very often in his own court to make his own ways more legitimate of governing. Yes, I appreciate VERY MUCH in Mao just as in Qin Shi Huang for making China unified and I am extremely grateful for such evidence as these, yet they created a country only to ruin the people once more with sometimes crushing cruelty, and I believe this inappropriate in a leader, if a leader's purpose is to govern his people to happiness and nature, according to my way of thinking. As for me I really do not know what to say to a 'talented' little brother who collected an army of ants only to roast them to a terrible death with a magnifying glass, except only 'tragedy'. If that is the nature of human beings then I have nothing more to say to these men other than that I pity them, for it is against their nature to change and this tragedy is built for all men. Yet if such a thing as free- will exists and they have abused it, I will say that I still pity them, yet just because they unified China and made everything possible in the first place does not mean that they may abuse their responsibilities and fracture the country once more with tragedy. The common people love and deserve peace, and I believe giving this gift to a people however small, is far more beneficial than spending time unifying a country that is meant to be dignified, only to put it to shame once more by destruction.

Also I'm adding this as a point of interest- I am trying to analyse the inner mind of Mao that was working the schemes behind the political events we see on the surface of China. Like all such analyses the results is bound to be biased according to how one reads a source- but take care- a neutral point of view is also a point of view! --User:Luthinya 12:30 36 January 2006

I think Luthinya's reaction to Mao's sexual exploits is very interesting. Anyone interested in this area needs to read Zhisui Li's The Private Life of Chairman Mao. Li was Mao's personal doctor for 22 years, but seems to have played a far greater role in Mao's life than we would normally expect a Doctor to play, it being his job to follow him around pretty much continuously. Mao seems to have been an incredibly isolated and lonely man and Li seems to have been one of the few educated people mao could turn to for a chat. The English language version of the book describes some of Mao's sexual antics, apparently these are edited out of the Chinese language version. The book kicked up quite a storm in China and there is an open letter floating around the internet signed by numerous Chinese luminaries attacking the book. From a non Chinese perspective the astonishing thing about this attack is that they concentrate almost exclusively on the apparent affront to Chinese dignity that these sexual claims make. There is almost no discussion of what I would see as the main importance of the book which is to give some insight into the psychology and motivations of this otherwise almost card board figure in world history. From a western perspective it seems almost unbelievable that many millions of Chinese are prepared to forgive the guy for leading their great country into 30 years of economic stagnation and maybe 20-60 million deaths through starvation, torture, summary executions etc, yet when confronted with evidence that he was also a hypocrite and womaniser, this is seen as something which must either be vigorously denied, censored or as in Luthinya's case is deemed as one of his major failings. Of course Luthinya's reaction is itself an explanation for why the CCP wishes to censor this view and why the regime's appologists are so keen to attack Dr Li. Many mainland Chinese (at least those not from families who had family members murdered by the regime) take the view that what is important is earning money and creating a happy future for themselves now and that it is pointless to examine too deeply the past. The educated people in the cities were largely spared the horrors of famine the peasants suffered in the countryside. For many of them whether 15 or 30 or 45 million peasants starved to death is a meaningless statistic in what they see as an already overcrowded country, which does not impact their lives. The peasants in whose memory the famine remains largely lack the perspective education allows in assessing the causes and extent of the tragedy have no voice as they generally lack access to media and an ability to communicate with the world outside China. The CCP has sought to maintain its own legitimacy by allowing the myths surrounding Mao to be deflated only slowly as it reinvents itself as a nationalist rather than communist party. For this reason it has sought to muffle the emerging view as Mao as a hypocrite as well as a tyrannical murderer. 82.44.17.16 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

82.44.17.16., I agree with you very much. Sexuality is still currently very much an unspeakable subject in China, and if once brought up against Mao will make sure that the Communist government never has peace again. People must be prevented to have knowledge, or even-as you have mentioned- the eagerness to obtain such knowledge, that might in any way undermine the Communists' legitimacy to rule, and thus came the 'happy home' syndrome where most people believe that the stomach is a happier choice to life than the brain. In certain ways they are right- the competition for life in China is still far too violent to allow much purpose besides 'grabbing the food bowl', as we say in China. In one or two ways Mao himself was the cause of such a desperateness in life. He discouraged birth control within China, and declared that 'the more people we have, the more strength we shall possess'! According to the Chinese tradition the people can't help agreeing, because it was common knowledge that 'the more children the merrier'! In less than a century the Chinese population tripled. And now the land is bursting with humanity with little room for living in each- and by living I mean more than breathing.

Perhaps this is actually handy for the Communist party, because they had one or two more generations in which to suppress all attempts to discover Mao behind the scenes, and spread even more propoganda after the last generation that knew times before the Long March had disappeared. On the other hand we still have to be careful in related discussions concerning Mao's sexual apetites- this is an information that some sources listed but others have clearly excluded. We are not exactly sure what to believe in that respect and it is best not to form any hasty conclusions. Yet most people I knew did agree that Mao philandered away from the people, the stray from the consensus was to what extent did this happen. --User:Luthinya 16:49 26 January 2006

82.44.17.16 was me. Yes Luthinya I think it's perfectly clear that the smart people at the top of the CCP (as opposed to the low quality sycophantic toadies, of whom there are doubtless also plenty) knew then and now exactly how terrible Mao was. When he died it's clear to me that they would have made a conscious decision not to allow the myth to deflate too quickly and to place most of the blame on the Gang of Four. This chimed in well with the traditional Chinese view that the Emperor is always right though sometimes ill advised and deceived by bad subordinates. In terms of the sexual stuff, I've read Li's book and it reads very plausibly to me. I think some of the sexual points were edited out of the Chinese version and it may well be that they were talked up a bit in the Western version and suppressed in the Chinese version, maybe in an effort to not have it banned in China. If you think about it in Mao's position - with one of the world's most dreadful wives and unlimited access to as many beautiful girls as he could cope with, many men would do what he did and many a lot worse. However many innocent young girls in modern China may be shocked and find it particularly offensive behaviour, so it would definately make sense to suppress this information. Moreover, I think many older Chinese would find it somehow insulting to China.

Yes I think it is quite possible that Li talked the sexuality of Mao up a bit in the Western version, as this style is much more easily accepted in the West than China itself even currently. This may possibly undermine the legitimacy of this work, although I have no real reason to suggest so, since I am using the work as a main source for my own paper analysing the personalities of dictators anyway (if this name actually applies to Mao). Indeed many of the old people would find it positively appalling towards the reputation of China, since they were born in the days where you would find it hard to even say 'pregnant' in public. I have heard from two people now that in Mao's position it really is hard to resist the temptation to philander, and while I may agree upon this point of self- control only in part I think one of the premises you used to base upon this argument requires a little more consideration. There are very little documentation concerning what Jiang Qing was like before she married Mao, and we have no reason to suggest that she was already of a rather unpleasant personality even from then. Recording, again from Dr.Li, we recognize her sense of absolute dependence upon Mao, her constant fear of being deserted by him and her own serious neurasthenia caused by eternal boredom of never being able to be of any use to anyone. If she was a personage of strong ambitions- which I do not know, this suppression could only make her worse. Most healthy women, treated with such conditions constantly by their husbands, would eventually also become sensitive, sudden of temper, showering their own inner frustrations forever upon others and may even turn violent of nature, as in the case of Jiang Qing. I remember a clear epitaph from Li that struck me:'Perhaps Jiang was really nice when Mao first met her. Perhaps he had corrupted her too.' To my way of thinking this postulate sounds extremely plausible. Mao does not seem to comprehend that no woman wishes to see her husband philander with any other, yet Jiang still managed to convince herself that she was too dependent upon Mao to depart from him (however difficult that may be) and end this true mental torture forever more. --Luthinya 13:35 29 January 2006

In many ways the much more substantive question is the attitude towards the millions who died in the Great Famine. For many Chinese it's something that they really don't want to think or talk about. Moreover because we are talking about anonymous Chinese peasants rather than the European Doctors, musicians and writers who were among Hitler's victims, few in the West are really interested either. I think this is a great tragedy firstly on that the moral grounds that just because these people were uneducated peasants, doesn't mean we should forget about their unnecessary deaths. Secondly because the control and direction of the media and suppression of news that seems damaging to the regime which was at the heart of the Great Famine, continues in an admittedly diluted form in modern day China. This impacts the lives not only of those in China, but also as the narrow miss with SARS and the potential for disaster over Taiwan show this suppression and manipulation of truth has the potential to devastate all our lives. GregLondon 00:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with you, sir. One of the most deadly criticisms against Mao still available in China currently has been the eternal attitude of reckless insensitivity to which he has always reacted against the masses in their vast numbers of unnecessary sufferings and deaths. I remember from a certain memoire concerning a meeting between Krushchev and Mao before the Sino- Soviet split, in which the former was seriously alarmed at Mao's discussions concerning the development of the atomic bomb, during which he calmly brushed aside the possible millions of deaths that may result within the Chinese population should such developments result in dangerous errors without the experts required. Also another thing which struck Khrushchev was how little Mao seemed to care for the incredible destruction such a bomb may do upon the woeful city where it is dropped, saying once more that the masses has enough to die to serve the needs of the more far- sighted. China has enough people to spare and sacrifice, he argued, and once the weapon was developed none will dare to harm that land again.

Such an insensitivity is dangerous. Perhaps Mao has lost so many people in his lives to fight his battles that he no longer cared or understood the sufferings of the many. Before him the Chinese humanity seemed to melt into a faceless, thoughtless human labour machine, made to die and suffer at his will and ready to combat all with their enormous 'brute strength' (which reduced the ideological need for intellectuals). After all, the ending is glorious and can only serve the few, so what does the deaths of the millions matter? Even should Mao's economic agendas be not so unrealistic, the little love in which he felt for the entire Chinese people seems to me frightening and highly inappropriate in a leader. If a man knew not to love his people, how could he be trusted to govern?

Also I completely agree with you upon the point that most Chinese people would rather not contemplate such devastating events, which is another form of a rather unpleasant 'inoculation' programme the Communist Party has used so most of the population would not dare to defy against them or make trouble. The truth is that we must face our past, no matter how terrible, to make sure that humans do not continually repeat themselves as Voltaire says. Yet what struck me as most terrifying of all was the devastating resemblance of all this towards George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty- Four, in which he imagined the terrible socialist Disutopia within future England. Although we have good reason to be glad that events have not yet converged to such an appalling consequence as yet, but the way the CCP is preventing people from contemplating such matters concerning Mao is almost like the newspeak crimestop , in which the mind automatically stops itself from thinking of anything that could have led to supposed thought- crime. This is a terrible vision, not to mention that certain incidents of doublethink is also encouraged within the country to help with the political difficulty. If this is so then what freedom do we have? The thought is not encouraged to be free. It must stay between certain boudaries. Records are being manipulated to suit the Government's ends. Like Orwell himself said: 'There was no longer any past or future; only an endless present in which the party always right.'

My attention to Mao's private life is virtually for the same purpose: how a man may behave at home can sometimes discretely reflects upon how he reacts with society. --Luthinya 14:12 29 January 2006

As ever, Luthinya has made some very perceptive points. Your point regarding nuclear weapons is extremely important. Thankfully they were never used, but it does seem that Mao was ready to contemplate using them in the knowledge that even if 10m Chinese died, plenty more would survive. GregLondon 19:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible that this ruthless butcher gets a whitewashed bio like this? Compared to Stalin's page, for example, this is milquetoast.

I think you need to be more careful in reserving your judgments here. Simply seeing what the decisions of various political leaders have on the world directly may often offer only a limited view. The dimension of Mao as a ruthless butcher, as is often the case of Hitler or Stalin, offers viewpoints too simple to fully comprehend the minds and designs of these complex characters. To judge correctly one must combine these decisions with other social and political images in order to obtain a fuller comprehension, rather than merely agreeing to the identity of a ruthless butcher simply from the death toll. True, these sources may be important, but politics is a mysterious and hypocritical game, and nothing within it can be judged quite so absolute. Further considerations may reveal ideas more correct to the situation than a simple black- and- white: 'We are good, he's bad, let's fight him.' Luthinya 13:08 16 February 2006

This is a moot point. Even if Mao had wipedi out 95% of the chinese, we would still have to display his good sides as well. If this article is "milquetoast", it seems to be NPOV, so maybe we should go the the Stalin page and make that NPOV... Even if you don't like the rules, ya gotta live with them until they change... 204.10.221.254 17:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC) (it's at a school, and I'm not gonna bother to log in.)

speak for yourself you mao haters out there

Please do not insert unnecessary messages here, for it should be spared for rational discussion. Further deletions may be liable if you fail to comply with this rule. Luthinya 09:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Leap Forward

This is in reply from discussion carried over from /Archive 2, as well as the comments above. Here's the way I see it. Throughout the Great Leap Forward, Mao had relied and trusted excessively local authorities. The way the CPC controlled China was through an intricate and hierarchical system of governance, stretching 5 levels from the Central Government down to the People's Communes, which oversaw production of specific goods. I.e. production records have the chance of being tampered with 4 or 5 times before reaching the Central Government, who receives an entirely inflated and inaccurate progress report, misleading further decisions on the economy. In part, these inaccuracies, along with natural disasters, had caused the millions of deaths during that period. The Great Leap Forward was ideologically flawed, this part I agree with. However, it seems unfair to say that the Great Leap Forward had ill intentions, and was a single-handed campaign by Mao to murder millions of his fellow countrymen.

Again, in my view, it may be more reasonable to suggest that the Great Leap Forward was in reality more of a legacy-related political move by Mao, or an aggressive move to pounce on Liu Shaoqi and Deng's economic policies, which were more successful than his. This method of reasoning would probably have more logical backing. Would you say here, then, John Smith's, that we have reached common ground?

In reply to 129.98.212.60's comments, I don't think it's fair that you examine any historical personality in black and white. Chang and Halliday's work, which I have yet to read, and will as soon as I grab a copy, seems somewhat subjective and biased to me, and puts the overall emphasis on the famine and deaths. I wouldn't suggest it as a good source for a research paper. Have you read any of Stuart Schram's books on Mao? Perhaps the earlier versions? It might be of help.

Colipon+(T) 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has tried to claim that Mao set out to try to kill other Chinese in the GLF. However he was certainly negligent as to their welfare. Yes, local authorities cheated on their reports to try to please the central party. But then again, who would have believed them? They were so impossibly high - what about the reports of the giant vegetables?!? A good leader would have investigated such ridiculous claims. Given that Mao didn't, he was either incredibly naive or suspected that they were wrong but decided not to do anything about it because it would prove his plans were flawed.

In modern society we recognise the principles of "corporate manslaughter" and "gross negligence manslaughter", so Mao is at least partly responsible for the debacle that was the GLF. John Smith's 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a fundamentally weak argument, if valid at all, that Mao was fully responsible for the entirety of GLF-related deaths, especially using the point that Mao could have figured out everything that was wrong with reports. What Mao saw was merely provincial progress reports on a comprehensive scale, and these were probably modified by central authorities before they were shown to him, to make it look more believable and appealing. As for giant vegetables, peanut shells with 5 peanuts, and planting cotton on mountains, etc., these were isolated incidents that were filtered out by local authorities, and never reached Mao until later years. Again I say the GLF is ideologically incorrect. But Liu Shaoqi was one of its biggest advocates, I wonder why. But alright, you choose to believe that Mao is a naive incompetent ruler, fine, but your case has grown weaker and weaker.

I read part of Chang and Halliday's book today, for the first time, and will probably have more input after I have read far enough to make educated inferences about the validity of the book. Colipon+(T) 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mao have learnt from the Soviets? (Collectivization in the USSR) Even disregarding Holodomor, collectivization had already proven to be a colossal failure. {{User:Vacuum/sig}} 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

At least according to Dr. Li Zhisui, Mao had long possessed a deep and terrible mistrust against the Soviets, doing his every action in order to resist modern China in being completely modelled on the Soviet ideas of Communism. Mao believed that such a complete model could force China to become enslaved into the Soviet mode of thought and thus eventually be utterly controlled by that nation, which is actually -according to his view- the secret plan of the Soviet union against China itself. This curious policy of Mao's was said to result from ancient Chinese military wisdom, which states that :'Be friendly with those that are far (in Mao's case, secretly the West and America etc.), yet be reserved with those that are near (the Soviets).' Furthermore Mao insists on a cult of personality centered upon himself. If anyone ever advised him to learn from an enemy introduced in a way that would make him suspect an effort to 'reign him in', he would burst with outright refusal because he could not endure the force of another personality upon his. This results in many innovative yet rather reckless rebellions and movements such as the Great Leap Forward.

Furthermore as the current situation in China results in a huge unbalance of numbers between the peasants and of the supposed 'upper-class', i.e. the huge numbers of the landless and wealth-less set against a couple of extremely wealthy landlords, Mao had reasons to believe that if the wealth was evenly distributed among the people then the peasants, who are the ones that are believed to be really able to work, would be able to have access to more property and wealth and thus be able to work harder in improving the economics of China. However Mao also underestimated the powers of endemic corruption, managements, and intellectuality against his clearly unbalanced favour in 'brute strength', and thus came the enormous economic declines that characterized the Great Leap Forward. --User:Luthinya 22 January 2006

Thanks, Luthinya. I've read more about the Sino-Soviet split now. {{User:Vacuum/sig}} 22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the major point that Colipon misses is that Mao was the one who set up the information system he relied upon to monitor what was going on. If you set up an information system where subordinates live in terror that if they bring bad news they and their families may be instantly dismissed, humiliated and possibly executed whereas if they tell you what they think you want to hear, they are promoted, then you cannot turn around and say, well "I didn't do anything about the disaster because nobody told me what was going on." In fact the case against Mao is even worse than that, as at least one important figure, Minister of Defence, Marshall Peng Dehuai did have the courage to stand up and say what was happening in 1959. Mao chose to denounce Peng at the summer 1959 summit in Lushan where these matters were discussed and intimidate those such as Liu Shaoqui and Zhou Enlai who sympathised with Peng into keeping quiet. Peng was arrested shortly after and executed early in the Cultural Revolution. GregLondon 00:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact in Mao's most vicious moments he would judge a person's loyalty solely on the innocent- yet offensive- behaviour of the moment rather than the person's overall behaviour over the years. As far as I know Marshall Peng Dehuai has always been in favour of Mao and would never dream of speaking against the revolution, yet he is also one of the only people in the Politburo who dares to object to Mao's decisions at all. This time things came to a head, and coupling with Mao's growing paranoia against his colleagues he took actions against Peng immediately, regardless of all his sacrifices to Mao especially during the Long March. Sources show that Mao was still under enormous political stress during that time from both Khrushchev's attack against Stalin and the disastrous consequences of the Hundred Flowers Campaign, and under such circumstances Peng is unwise in speaking up to Mao of objections, however admirable such courage may be. --User:Luthinya 12:18 25 January 2006

I think one has to remember that Peng was the only leading member of the regime to ever have personally experienced famine. When reports started to come through of things going dreadfully wrong he made it his business to go out to the countryside and assess the situation. Peng was from Mao's home district and given his loyalty to the party may have felt that he could risk speaking out. Unfortunately Peng was a brave soldier and not a cunning politician and he failed to make sufficient alliances within the Politburo among the realists to out smart Mao and his more sycophantic followers. GregLondon 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This information has been unbelievably helpful to my research. --User:Luthinya 12:38 26 January 2006

Hi GregLondon, I think you missed the greater part of my statement. I'm not trying to make an argument for or against Mao, I'm just basically saying what happened. You can't just see the fact that Peng spoke against Mao as a simple matter. I don't know if you've read publications on Peng's actual statement to Mao, but it was less a criticism than something on the lines of "you're right Chairman Mao, but maybe we should also try this." I think your views on Mao are much too simplistic. For one, a system and its resulting product cannot always directly attributed to its leader, but rather the complicated sociological, economic, and historical background that composed China. Mao struggled with economic concepts more than anything else. Colipon+(T) 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Mao at that time, to my way of thinking, is that he was suffering from growing paranoia against all his colleagues that they will try to undermine him from power. Within his personality cult he would resist all attempts to supposedly 'rein him in' (obvious in the Yangtze River incident), since his decisions are meant to be supreme and final. No matter how cordial and sincere Peng's suggestions may have been -and I'm sure they were, yet Mao's defence was immediately raised because this suggestion was not made by his own mind, but by someone else's that may even be exaggerated to be against his own will. Adding to his paranoia he would immediately see this as an attempt to 'rein him in' or even control him, thus marginalizing his power. No matter how faithful Peng would have been and no matter how wise his suggestions, his words came at an inopportune time and would definitely raise an unsuppressable defence within Mao against Peng, which as can be seen did not disappear until near the ending of Peng's life. Marshall Peng may be a wise general and outspokenness is always a good quality for the colleagues of a great leader to possess, yet personally I believe that Peng was not politically capable enough at that time to see that his innocent suggestions may bring upon him great ills. Even later when Mao repeatedly undermined him would he not understand, and was even confused and outraged by the suggestion. --Luthinya 14:32 29 January 2006

Hi Copilon. I think I can see and understand where you are coming from, but still disagree. I think you are annoyed with the people who portray Mao as a bloodthirsty mass murderer of the same type of Hitler or Stalin, who deliberately sent millions to their deaths. I would agree with you on this and I think the article as currently structured does not make this simplistic error. However, I think you, (and it is a very common position for Chinese) make a major error in being too forgiving for Mao's mistakes. I think we can all agree that Mao was a very bright guy from an uneducated peasant background who read a lot of Marxist theory and Chinese history. He saw himself as a visionary who could see a way to transform his country into the powerful nation it once was but with widespread prosperity. He was a brilliant tactical politician and seems to have had some charisma. However his understanding of economics, science and sociology was almost non existent. Having hardly ever travelled overseas he had almost no understanding of how the modern world works. Faced with these weaknesses a sensible, responsible leader would rely on a team of the best experts in the country for advice on scientific and economic matters. However Mao thought that scientists and other intellectuals could not be trusted. The result was that he ordered the country to pursue what almost everybody else could see were completely crazy policies that lead to economic disaster and mass starvation. People like Peng were timid in their criticisms because they had seen (following the Hundred Flowers policy) what happened to those who were critical to Mao. Mao surrounded himself by sycophants. When it became obvious to everybody that things were going disastrously wrong, Mao rather than facing up to the situation hid himself away, partying with his harem of young girls, afraid of losing face whilst millions around the country starved. Although the extent of the disaster was covered up for the first few months, by 1960/61 it would have been obvious to everyone. Even the people in Mao's entourage were on low rations and Mao himself gave up meat. Sure he didn't order millions to their deaths like Hitler and Stalin, but from the perspective of peasants reduced to swapping their children with each other for something to eat, I suspect that was not of much comfort.GregLondon 14:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to include information on Mao's actual enlightenment on the situation (GLF). From what I have read in Li Zhishi's book (And Dr. Li does not exactly paint a flattering picture of Mao) is that Mao knew very little of exactly how bad the situation was, until he eventually imported grains. Granted, his system may have been reason for the all around lying to please of party members, however; it should still be noted in this article as well as him giving up meat. I do not think either of these notes are POV, and both would fit in the article. Comments please. (Majin Takeru 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

References

I like how the references listed on the article pretty much all have an anti-Mao slant. Research well done. Colipon+(T) 06:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for having an anti view on a mass murder. well done you.

Mass murder? Wow, do some research; some research other then Jung Chang's book. (Majin Takeru 20:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

There has been a wealth of writing on Mao, from people other than Jung Chang, that describe the millions of deaths under Mao's regime. Although a majority of that number can't be said to have died as a result of "mass murder", they did die needlessly. And many others were murdered. John Smith's 20:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood. This is my point. Many deaths under leadership, does not equal mass murder. No one can argue that many died while Mao was in power. However, many can easily argue the extent of Mao's knowledge of the situation, and his involvement in these murders. As far as the books reference, many authors have written books, but how many of them have called Mao a mass murderer? (Majin Takeru 21:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps the terminology indirect mass murderer or ideological mass murderer might be more appropriate in relation to Mao here. Luthinya 11:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not a huge fan of either of those terms, when applied to Mao, but the possibly is there for them. Better then mass murderer. Either way, like Colipon has stated; the references were mostly anti-Mao. Do not want this conversation turning into something else. (Majin Takeru 19:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

People are going to have different ways or extremes to which they express that Mao did not act responsibly enough towards his people, but I think I am right in saying that maybe most of us would agree on this point? Of course it is important to recognise any good things Mao did, but at the same time recognising the price at which they came. James.

Mr. Colipon, there is no motive to defend a monster, or at least there should not be. I believe Mao was the worst human being in history. Hitler and Stalin ain't got nothing on him. So, if he is such a monster, what would motivate you to defend him? Think about it. Whitemanners 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If you link every death to an indirect action, Truman is a mass murdering monster. Hell, you could link millions of millions of deaths in the past few years to economic sanctions approved by various leaders and countries, INDIRECTLY. People need to stop being idiots for five seconds, for whatever reason. I am not calling people out, but I am tired of hearing people call economical disasters and bad policy the equivalent to someone like Hitler killing anyone who was a Jew, Communist, anyone who was mentally disabled, or not this or that, period killing. Or even Stalin DILEBERATLY starving people. If you can not stop, and think about what you are saying for five seconds, and look at reality and facts (or the best facts we have) you are stupid as hell. KILL ALL THE JEWS does not equal, LET’S USE A STUPID ECONOMIC PLAN TO CATCH UP TO INDUSTRIAL POWERS WITHEN 15 YEARS. Stop, think, then write. Or else, you really do just come off as an anti-communist with an axe to grind, or at the least, anti Mao, with no point. Think about that. (Majin Takeru 01:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Death

Mao Zedong died around midnight September 8th. The Chinese Government did not announce it, until well after Midnight (supposed hours after he died).

Actually, according to Dr. Zhisui Li's account, it was very nearly a week later before it was finally broadcasted on the radio and the news announced to the wider Chinese public.

You're saying then, that Mao died on September 1st? Colipon+(T) 19:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstood me. I agree that Mao died sometime around September 8th, but it was nearly around September 16 before the Chinese public heard anything of such an event, or at least so I remember from Dr. Li Zhisui's The Private Life of Chairman Mao. The same book contained an interesting account concerning Mao's body preservation that raised several controversial issues as well. --User:Luthinya 12:29, 21 January 2006

Uh. No. As far as I recall I woke up on the 9th September to hear the radio station clouded with the heavy tones of mourning music that literally dragged on for the entire morning. As I was eating my breakfast the 7'o clock morning news informed the nation of Chairman Mao's death, saying something along the lines of "The Great Proletarian Revolutionary, Militarist, and Philosopher, The Great Leader of the Communist World, the Great Helmsman, Guide, and Teacher of the Communist Party of China, the People's Liberation Army of China, and the People's Republic of China: Mao Zedong, passed away at several minutes past midnight. The people mourn... etc. etc." Life was paused for about a week after that. I suggest you consult Dr. Li's book again. The event that the public was kept in the dark about was Lin Biao's death. Colipon+(T) 05:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have consulted Li's book again and I think you are right. Many apologies for the misreading and you are welcome to delete these comments if you like, since they are not really useful to Wikipedia. --Luthinya 15:40 29 January 2006

I think you have misinterpreted many of the opinions inscribed here. If browsed carefully you would have certainly learned that many who participate in the discussions here do NOT support Mao, at least not as ardently as would clearly blinker their idealisms of thought. However, it is also clearly inappropriate to simply marginalize Mao into a coldblooded Satan without a drop of human mercy, who would kill for simple longing of the smell of blood. Politics, as I repeat, has its own powerful, hypocritical and mysterious ways, and through politics it is often impossible to judge anyone more or less correctly, so blinded are we merely by the effect and not by the causes and their relative circumstances. Just as it is inacceptable currently to worship Mao as a god, it is also highly inaccurate to demonize him into a one- dimensional Lucifer, if only for the simple reason that the man is far too complex and mysterious for such debasements. Mao's history is also the history of a people, and merely focusing on the effects of his decisions and not their derivational circumstances will not offer a suitable conclusion. While we may all agree, for instance, that it is completely ludicrous to attempt another social division of setting the peasants above the rich, yet considering the current situation of China with a huge unbalance in the overwhelming majority of the poor set against the wealthy, it is small wonder why Mao might have tried to use this majority in order to bring out his dreams of supposed 'socialism'- a kind that would fit China, that is. Throughout his unthinkable idealistic distortions/misunderstandings/paranoia, such dreams have taken a devastating end. However we should remember that Mao was not Satan, and no matter how much he lusted for power for himself, at the back of his mind he wished China to be strong, to be the glorious country she once was, and not only on the cause that it will bring extraordinary advantages to himself. I am not trying to force the CCP's policies of 70% good and 30% bad on any Wikipedian here, indeed I myself do not hold it, I was merely suggesting that Mao's inner minds, till today, retain still very much of their original mystery and complexity, and any judgments into this 'shit' should not yet be so hurried. The death toll may be a useful piece of evidence into this study, but it is not the only one. One must attempt to place himself in Mao's directions and try to comprehend his misguided judgments, however uncomfortable and terrible they may be. I do not forgive Mao easily, alas, as his tragedies and treacheries are too many, yet to marginalize these mysterious and complicated events into a one dimensional 'he's evil- he should be dead' still seem to me an evil mood. No -one on earth ultimately deserved death, not even Mao with 70 million dead, for had he resigned when New China was formed he might just still be remembered as a great people's hero. As I repeat, though he leaves many yawning abysses in his wake, the complexity and the shadowy history of this man defies the simple category of pure, absolute and Satanic evil.

As to why we care about when he died, I should think that this forms a central part of understanding the CCP psychology. If indeed they had faked the date of Mao's death- which to my knowledge they have not- why in the world would you think anyone would do such a thing? Is it not likely, then, that they will try to use Mao's image as a Big Brother type of Orwell's Nineteen- Eighty- Four, a heavy, eternal face to keep the people under their thrall, to keep the nation from reconsideration as every man was convinced that a dead man was still alive? Though such questions have yet thankfully not come to pass, one can see immediately why they might lead to interesting considerations. And that is what essentially constitutes of our attention in this matter. (Not to patronise, but keeping cool in heated discussions is also very important, as it makes intelligent comments more probable). Luthinya 11:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said, indeed. (Majin Takeru 15:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Possible NPOV Tag Removal

Due to the many changes which now make themselves evident upon the article and the intensity of the discussions upon this talk page, I believe that presently the Mao Zedong article has become much more balanced in style and judgments upon a historical context than it was when I first visited it upon January 11. Although I understand that a completely neutral assessment is not presently possible due the freedom of interpretations for various sources and the continual mysteries that still surround Mao's own infinitely complex character, I believe that this Wikipedia article has now become as historically neutral as that seems currently possible, balancing between the many complicated facets of Mao and controlling the overtly strong emotional voice whenever possible. Further improvements would of course be still welcome, but personally I believe that the article has now become neutral enough in a historical context to remove the NPOV tag it has borne for so long.

It may be possible that soon a consensus could be reached on the talk page concerning when the tag should be removed, or whether this should be done at all. From a personal view only I think that certain sections of the article requires further historical information- especially concerning his early life, perhaps more information could be added concerning the young Mao's own emotional relationships at home, rather than pretty much just being a simple list of the various schools he attended etc.? It would be a great help to interpreting the early developments of his character and thus improving also upon the understanding of his extremely influential political career later as a whole. I personally do not seek to claim any knowledge or expertise on the subject, but perhaps those who do can spend a little time making this article even better?

If a consensus has been reached and the tag taken away, it may also lead to the archiving of several discussions currently available on this talk page, since they will no longer be so relevant. Discussions on this subject may also soon be available. --Luthinya 12:03 30 January 2006

Good idea, wait for a consensus first. 198.169.140.30 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed the NPOV tag, as I feel it is no longer necessary when another user has added an even stronger POV check tag. However, this contributor has not yet written upon the talk page concerning the reasons of why he/she felt that this article should need to be checked upon, as is the Wikipedia policy. Please respond quickly and state your reasons for placing the tag, and we shall all be very happy to discuss it. Otherwise a removal of the tag may result from the absence of known/legitimate reasons in placing it. --Luthinya 18:11 02 January 2006

I have now removed the POV check tag, since the user has still not listed upon the talk page concerning his reasons for nominating the article even after a week has passed since its initial nomination. Please talk back quickly if you have any other objections and feel free to add the tag again, as long as you state the proper reasons. Many on this talk page would interested to discuss these points of views. --Luthinya 10:34 09 February 2006

I agree with Luthinya, the article is now in pretty good shape considering the controversy surrounding the matter. There appears to be one person who strongly disagrees and is trying to rewrite the article on an almost daily basis without having the capacity or intellectual honoesty to argue his points on the discussion pages first.GregLondon 09:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

We can always ask an admin to lock it for a while. I've just reverted one edit right now. John Smith's 13:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could we please get the admins on this? I've already reverted twice today. But I don't know how to raise the issue, so could someone with knowledge do it after reverting back? John Smith's 17:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection (so only signed in users may edit) requested on Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Hopefully our ~~comrade~~ friend will make a user page, and you can reach some kind of compromise. Good luck. GRuban 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Hopefully this'll encourage the anon editor to come discuss things. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Katefan 0. John Smith's 23:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to semi-protect? From what's going on, only 1 anon user is consistently reverting to his favoured version, so I suggest we semi-protect it to allow normal editors to work on the article. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!}

Semiprotection is only intended for vandalism, not for preventing anons to engage in content disputes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless action is taken against him, I think it wouldn't hurt to have a cooling off period for a little while. When the protection is lifted/changed, he won't have an excuse if he starts wrecking it again. John Smith's 00:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Book of Quotations

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this, but the Book of Quotations is the second highest-selling book of all time behind the Bible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beckerb (talk • contribs) .

Hmmm - interesting, citation? And did the Chinese people in the Cultural Revolution period have any choice as to whether they bought the little red book? Camillus (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the following article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao_Zedong . However, it would not be a bad addition to this article as well. As for it being a choice, I do not think it was "mandatory" per say, as at the time Mao was rather cherished. However, I have read that it was close to it, according to some. Majin Takeru 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know- at least during the Cultural Revolution- the owning of Mao's Book of Citations was mandatory at least one per family, and certainly essential for anybody planning to join the CCP. It was one of the primary requirements to own at least one copy each and to carry the little book with them close wherever they go. Luthinya 11:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Well, that didn't draw the anon in to talk, so I'm going to go ahead and unprotect. Hopefully he's gotten tired of his game. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

POV and Biases

Wikipedia's credibility is based on providing articles to all from a Neutral Point of View. It doesn't matter if the article is about Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, or Martin Luther. All information must be presented in a NPOV and be UNBIASED whether you like it or not.--Secret Agent Man 16:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But wikipedia does have a POV in some respects. The Holocaust article is an example of that - where are the pages of Neo-Nazi denial? There aren't, so the article is POV. If you want to tone down the language change the odd word around. But don't remove entire chunks just because it is direct in saying what actually happened. If you want to edit more than minor changes then I suggest you actually post the relevant sections here and say what is wrong with them.

By the way this is in the wrong place, so I'm moving it to the bottom where it should be. John Smith's 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Mao created a totalitarian one-party-state, contributed to the Sino-Soviet Split, and initiated the Cultural Revolution, which purged, tortured, and publicly humiliated millions. These millions included many of those fellow Communists who had forced Mao to end the policies that caused the famine of 1959–1961. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao encouraged the wholesale destruction of a large part of China's cultural heritage. Why is this wordy paragraph needed if everything is explained below? People read the introduction for main points so just get to the point. "After taking power, Mao initiated the disastrous Great Leap Forward, heavily contributed to the Sino-Soviet Split and began the 10 year Cultural Revolution" <-----this is simple and to the point. Whatever needs to be explained further are explained below in the body.--Secret Agent Man 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't Single Out Sources

Also what I find improper is that users constantly single out one source of dozens of sources and just say that single source is accurate and all others are irrelevant. A good example would be the death toll of the Great Leap Forward on this page. There are literally tons of sources on it yet someone continues to single out ONE source specifically by Chang and not mention at all about the figures from other sources. It is completely wrong procedure to assume one source is somehow more accurate than the others out there. There is no basis that all the emphasis should be placed on Chang only and everybody else like Rummel or Hammond or Walker be ignored. Singling out sources is just not right.--Secret Agent Man 18:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you strongly and I am sure most people here are trying their best to see multiple dimensions into these problems- but as our mind are, at many times, such singular and concentrated thinkers, it is often difficult to perceive all ends and add them to one's equations as part of a fair judgement. Nonetheless this is a very good policy that deserves much wider attention than it is receiving now. Luthinya 12:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Chang and Haliday

I put a link in the article which I thought added to its encyclopedic value. If you would like to discuss before reverting, please do. Mccready 12:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Would be glad to discuss it here. Mccready, it is fairly obvious why those comments were changed. There have been many historical works on Mao, and none of them are mentioned in the opening paragraph. Chang's book has it's own article. Also, I would hardly call her book a historical text, and many historians (Philip Short for one) seem to say the same thing. That would be like me putting "According to Dr. Li Zhisui, Mao gave up meat during the great leap forward, because the masses had no meat" in the opening of the article. Changs book is more POV then History. (Majin Takeru 12:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

would you agree that most historians say Mao was responsible for the death of millions of people. if not, what is your position and why? Let's not get into a revert war before this is sorted. At the moment the article is unbalanced because it doesn't reflect what I think is majority historical opinion. Mccready 13:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

or perhaps you'd prefer a quote from short. NY Times said "Short's Mao emerges as a vengeful, manipulative tyrant, increasingly delusional, disarmingly self-critical at times but asplike in striking down those posing a threat to his power, whose detachment from reality had reached alarming proportions as early as 1957." mao was a nutter according to short. Mccready 13:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that many died while Mao was in power, and many historians note that. However, being leader during a famine does not equate to signing death exection orders by the thousands (Stalin). No one can deny many died while Mao was in power, but many can argue how invovled he was in these deaths/murders. Also, the article refers to Changs book many times as it is and her book is obviously biased. I could go into depth on the book, but I will just say (I do not know if you have read it) that it is a better story then it is a history book. From what I can tell, for all the people who hated Mao during his life time, an equal amount adored him. Propaganda, excuses, whatever the case, it was a legit adoration. Chang herself was a red guard. I could go open up books and get quotes too if needed. You atleast understand the point I am making. Also I agree, I do not want a revert war. (Majin Takeru 13:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Also, this the book has been held with controversy since it's release. This is nothing new. However, you can not cite one source because you agree with it more and throw something like that in the beginning of an article. Manipulative Tyrant? Maybe. That is Short. The only person who has put forward mass murderer for 800 pages is Chang. Simply put, I do not think her book needs to be mentioned every 3 paragraphs. As said before, it is obviously biased, and many have questioned it's actual historic value. (Majin Takeru 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

fair enough. thanks for your goodwill. I'm happy to drop chang from first para, but would like some words capturing the idea that Mao was a tyrant and responsible for death of millions. most historians of famine will tell you that the problem is usually distribution of food, not lack of food. what words would you like to suggest? Mccready 14:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agian, I do not think the majority of historians hold him directly responsable for all of those deaths. I would like to see what you have in mind though. Something to the effect could be added, but at the same time, I am sure we can both agree, Mao's goal with the GLF was definitly not the same as the actual outcome.(Majin Takeru 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Majin, does that mean you don't believe in leaders being responsible for things that happen during their governance? There is such a thing as corporate manslaughter, you know. Not to say that Chang and Halliday have it all right, but they're correct to cut out some of the bull about Mao. The primary criticism is their referencing system, not that they're "wrong". Some historians like to talk about Hitler's love for his dogs, patting blonde Aryan girls on the head in propaganda photos, etc - that doesn't mean he was any less of a nasty piece of work.

However I don't think that we need any more info in the "pre-intro". The real introduction is below and it mentions how he is responsible for a great deal of suffering. John Smith's 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with not citing a single source in the opening (this and other sources are mentioned later in the article anyway). But, without being sarcastic, it is most important to point out all of his main achievements in the beginning. And intentionally/or not intentionally being responsible for millions of dead chinese is a "main achievement". Mao´s decisions and directives led the way to those deaths. It is, taking the number of people involved, one of the main historic events in history. The difficulcy here is that we do know that he intentionally ordered the killing of a few people in other contexts and that he didn´t care much about casualties, no matter how many. But we do not and most likely will never know whether he intentionally let millions die for his ideas. As a compromise I suggest adding: Mao´s political and economical campaigns led to the death of millions of chinese, mostly by famine. (I am not a native speaker, so someone else might find better words). (Rsne 19:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

John, You misunderstood me. Ofcourse I hold leaders responsible for many things. Mao, is in many ways responsable for many deaths. You hit the nail on the head, saying something like corporate manslaughter or gross neglegance, is much much different then calling someone a mass murderer. That is the bottom line. Even with the GLF, Mao was trying to better China. That is in no way comparable to Hitler liquidating Jewish people. Like I said, the only author who calls Mao a mass murderer in the first paragraph is Chang. That is why everyone from Russia to America grabs that and then wants to make it an authority on the subject. You seem like you are well versed in the subject, so I assume you have read more then just Changs book. Thank you for your insight, and now maybe you can understand what I am saying here a little better. (Majin Takeru 20:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I concur with Mr. Takeru. The reasons for Mao's actions, however devious and evil they may seem to the rest of the world now, are still yet much too complicated to get a one- dimensional pin down as 'mass murderer', as Chang and Halliday does. Mao's history is that of a people and needs to be responsibly studied, focusing on every aspect of his regime- if you can use this term-, their responses and other spherical changes that have resulted from many unheard decisions and ideals. To approach the history and powerful mind of Mao with a responsible and even slightly respectful ideology is to as one attempt to revere and begin to comprehend the Chinese culture and its many turns. As you so rightfully mentioned above, while there may still be 70 million dead, we have to be very careful in associating the causes to these deaths to Mao, since many of them reveal a cause far more profound and sinister, and there is a subtle yet great difference between the sort of Jewish genocide which Hitler attempts and Mao's own corporate- yet for many parts indirect- murders. To marginalize him immediately as only a 'mass murderer' by the type of Sauron or perhaps even Hitler is extremely irresponsible in relation to this great leader, and needs to be carefully approached.

As an additional comment concerning the fashions in which my own studies were approached, were there ever, in this sorrowful world of ours, where a leader with as great a power as Mao has sustained no indirect murder under his name, and remembered with complete purity? No, even the republic governments nowadays can hardly ever be free from this stain- just read today's newspapers. It is hard, or perhaps even impossible, for beings such as our own making to resist such illusional lusts as Power or Greatness offers, and even the very wise cannot perceive all the ends of their decisions. Before we should attempt to discuss Mao's own failings and moral disintegrations, think of our own as beings capable of the same Fall- is it really very possible for our nature to do very much better than what has been achieved? Placed in context, are we really capable of controlling ourselves? Take care before you speak! Luthinya 12:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not concour with either Mr. Takeru or Luthinya. Taking a question from Luthinya: "is it really very possible for our nature to do very much better than what has been achieved?" my answer is: yes. If we don´t think so, life, politics, or even this discussion would be over. Because there would be nothing left to do. Mao is a complex historical figure, but there is no way of denying that his regime, under his guidance was responsible for millions of deaths. And taking other not so favorable aspects of his personality, there is reasonable doubt in the Great Leaders good intentions. I prefer having people told right at the beginning about all relevant facets of mao. (Mara747 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I take side with Mara747. We cannot create an article-intro of a political leader without mentioning that millions of people died during his reign. There is no bigger responsibility of a country´s leader than the wellbeing of his people. And Mao failed. In "total numbers" he failed bigger than anybody else in history. (Rsne 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Mara747, if you read closely I said many people died while Mao was in power, no one is arguing about that. Rsne, I would have to disagree with you, I would hardly call Mao a failure. Oh, I like how you bring up the numbers game... Let me bring up another numbers game. China has the largest population in the world, as did it while Mao was in power. I think the number of people in China around the time Mao was in power was inbetween 600-700 million. So yea... According to your numbers game he failed bigger then anyone else in history...Let's forget the huge diff in total population. How about we try percentage to population? Much more accurate. Let me give you an example, Pol Pot in Cambodia, leader of the Khmer rogue, had a death toll of an est. 2 million out of a 7 million total population while he was in power.(Also, those deaths were much more directly linked to him then anything involved when talking about Mao). Not to mention, the fact that we really do not know how many deaths Mao was directly responsable for. Going to solely numbers in this situation simply does not work. More or less, does not make the deaths any less horrible, as well, it does not prove who was responsible for them.(Majin Takeru 22:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Once again I concur with Mr. Takeru, and would like to add a message of my own. Yes, our common personae as human beings make us supsceptible to the allusion and Lust of Power, though this may not be evident to those of milder spiritual temperaments and removed from all source of authority, yet nonetheless it is very much possible that eventually Absolute Power corrupts everyone absolutely. I do not think I will need to find examples to illustrate this, since there are far too many and only contributes to the griefs of this world. In this sphere too was Mao unhappily drawn from his personality cult, and this obsession twisted his spirit and clouded his mind with paranoia lest anyone should undermine him of it. In this way perhaps you may doubt of his 'good judgments', but there are some powers in the world whose strength you can only overcome by degrees, yet neve wholly. Our nature is often one. It is comfortable to sit here and say 'yes, we'd refuse everything a hundred percent', but placed in context of suffering and insurmountable lust I should expect to see much more treachery, and we should all be taking our words back very soon. Yes it is very easy to think one would refuse, but this power bears a corruption graver than yo know, and with Mao's already early twisted personalities he would have fallen easy prey.

Like Mr. Takeru I would hardly call Mao a failure, only that if he had not hanged on to Power when New China was formed- his military strategies beforehand were indeed excellent-, he might just still be remembered as a great people's hero. Political correctness is not of the same concerns as that of moral correctness, and one must be very careful in reserving judgments should this sphere of understanding be chosen.

Although many of Mao's later strategies were deceptive/simply unworkable, from many starting ideological routes I could mention they actually fit into China's background rather well, and thus not wholly nonsense. But Mao's distrust of technology, his insensitivity to life and innocence and his growing allure to Power all contributed to cloud his judgments into terrible consequences. All this varied information, again, would find themselves having a hard time trying to squeeze into the little introduction so the plan of an average introduction is rather hard to bring off. One must also remember that, whatever may appear, in Mao's heart of hearts he was fiercely patriotic, like Hitler, and wish to see his country restored to former glory, not only for the reason of bringing advantage to himself. The idea of good judgments here have become rather ambiguous- I am sure that I could find evidence that counts both ways, depending on each meaning of the word, and we'd still be as hopeless as ever. Such doubts need to be carefully expressed, and I think the simple ideals of moralistc Good and Bad will not suffice here.

I am no real supporter of Mao, but I do carry a strange respect and pity for him so that it is easier to see critically. And, as to whether I really think our nature would have availed us to do better in these circumstances, my answere is very much uncertain except for the definite corruption of power, yet its speed and strength shall depend very much on the history and temperaments of the person. And no- it is not the end to anything should our spirits be not able to achieve the ultimate salvation; for the world we live in is gray and harum- scarum, and all that we may to do is endeavour to be noble enough, hoping for the best outcomes for everyone, though even the very wise can't see all ends. For those who Fall on their way to this mission- as we always do, as Mao did and Hitler did- we offer them our pity and healing, for we see in them a picture of ourselves, distorted perhaps beyond recognition. Again, he who approaches Mao's spirit perceives humanity at both its very best and very worst, and let him beware- for he faces a power greater than his own. Luthinya 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Death intro

Suggestion for intro to prevent revert wars: Millions of people died during Mao's period in power. Deaths occured as a result of the Great Leap Forward and various political campaigns and purges. Mccready 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with your addition to the intro. It has to be mentioned in a way. (Mara747 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I am happy with it too. (Rsne 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I think that may work.. (Majin Takeru 14:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

New Introduction

This part of the intro is not worded very well:

However, beginning from the 1950s until his death, Mao initiated various economic and political campaigns, such as the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Also, the article has came to focus more on Mao's mistakes and barely mentions his accomplishments at all now, in the introduction that is. Not very NPOV. Seems as it has turned into "Mao founded the PRC, insert killing people here". (Majin Takeru 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

I am bringing up this another time or two before I revise. The mentioning of millions of deaths due to policy is at the very least worded badly. A good example, would be someone including "His policys were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in various countries" under the introduction to George W. Bush's article. I really think this is common sense. Input, please. (Majin Takeru 21:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

What a load of BULLSHIT.

If the reference of the WIKIpedia on Mao Ze Dong's private life are mainly from that selfclaimed confidant doctor and fictional works like "Wild Swan" then NPOV is nothing but a lie.

huh? Could you back up your claims. Shit, I don't even know what you are talking about. --Mboverload 23:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's right. This article is poorly sourced. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citing some of the things from Chang's book. The problem here is, there is something from her book thrown into every part of the article, as if it is all truth. As I have mentioned before, her hundereds of sources are hardly all reliable. Another problem I have, is with the introduction. So you want to mention the deaths in the first paragraph, fine. Then there should be no problem mentioning some of his accomplishment's in the opener along with them. His accomplishments can be disputed, sure, but it is widely known to anyone who has studied Mao that any deaths placed on his shoulders have been and are widely disputed as well. On another note, thanks for the welcome M. (Majin Takeru 19:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Also, the entire Private Life section needs cleaning up. It's littered with run-on sentences, fragments, and improper tenses. Basically, it's a mess.--Jack 02:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now whoever wrote their parts based on the "Private Life" and "Unknown Story" are treating their respective books as the ONE BOOK (tm) TO ~~RULE THEM~~ EXPOSE MAO ALL, when it's clear that both books are surrounded by controversy and are not viewed as accurate or reliable by many. Claims that are created by these 2 books need to be clearly marked as such. (And so do other claims, you know.) Anyway, sources = good. No source = boo. You're welcome Majin Takeru. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is probably nothing explicitly wrong in stating some words from Dr. Li or Jung Chang, they all represent the variety of opinion proposed on the subject. However I do agree that in many ways these two sources, especially the former, are being used in the article too frequently for their own worth and sometimes with no references- i.e. stated as almost indesputable facts. Many other varied opinions require inclusion, which, although it would make the article quite long, one cannot deny that it deserves this length in order to provide the best circumspect view of this politically and historically mystifying figure. However, no matter how many ideas we may introduce it is important not to really put too many of them in the centre spotlight, since as far as I know we are still a long way from unravelling the enlightened Chinese dictator and any explicit biase upon Wikipedia on which source contains the truth is rather inappropriate, since that has still not yet brought in the extent of human knowledge, the banner of Wikipedia. I would change the article had I the ability- but my only other knowledge besides the somewhat controversial works published in the West are strict history manuals and flattering Chinese textbooks, which doesn't really help at all. The Chinese textbooks also stop at the exact time he becomes Premiere- probably they didn't felt too keen to let young people know the things aspiring after that so soon.

However I'm afraid I can't appreciate your point in saying that BOTH Li and Chang were writing books mostly for the sake of a controversial yarn rather than a true historical documentary. While I understand that personal opinion is heavily built into them, especially Chang's work, I think this might have been a little debasing for Li. I suppose the only problem with him is that so few people seem to know that he existed in the position he did even after Mao's death, but besides that I am totally at loss of suspicion. Luthinya 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right, if two people, out of billions of Chinese, see fit to malign Mao well there must be some truth in it. I would feel a lot more comfortable if the assertions in this article could be backed by serious academic history, rather than pop fiction. As it stands, this article is nothing short of outrageous. Mgekelly - Talk 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I could hardly agree with you on them being the only two Chinese who have agreed on Mao making some exceptionally large political errors. I will not speak of Chang now- there's a discussion above- since much of her novel is, as we say, pretty much just a good story. Obviously Li has probably went to some depth to edit his book in order to fit the commercials, and we could hardly rely on just one person's opinion, but nonetheless we may observe that his book has certainly not attracted quite so much controversy as Chang's. Yes, you may very well say that the sole reason he published it was to attract public attention, but though he did not present a very flattering picture of Mao, he certainly did not demonize him into Satan. In fact, through the mazes of bitter assertions one actually finds that he aims praises at Mao, particularly of his military strategems and personal charisma, even if the praises were disguised like poison. As long as he mostly still talks in opinioned history and not straight demonology, some of his material is definitely suitable for serious treatment.

In my opinion had Li only concentrated on the public face of Mao and viewed it critically, he would have arrived at pretty much the same conclusions as most serious Western Chinese historians have today, and probably not too much different from the CCP's either, if only allowing more liberty in discussion. The problem is he did not simply confine himself to politics- he pierced into Mao's inner life as well. Politicians, unfortunately, also make good actors, so how Mao behaved offstage may often be darker than when he was on Tian An Men Square, and certainly not the kind of material the CCP would shed into the public willingly- it would be too humiliating for any power base. The same failures of acknowledgements happened in Russia immediately after the fall of Stalin- and in many respects for the same reasons continuing on today. I am not trying to say that all the terrible assertions made against either of these men are true, merely that some failures of acknowledgements, from official sources especially, must be understood as more than the sources are simply lying.

And there are certainly more than 2 Chinese, though they continue to be the minority in population, that does not see Mao quite as the complete Messiah he would have them see. They acknowledge him as the great uniter of a nation, but after that his power, paranoia and pride often got the better of him. And I must point out that most of these Chinese are in the educated sector and some directly involved in the politics of that age- whereas those who took Mao for whatever he said tend to live, let it be said, an ignorant life in the countryside and hardly understood the political battles shaking BeiJing. Luthinya 10:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

RMB portrait

"On March 13, 2006, a story in the People's Daily reported that a proposal has been made to replace Mao's portrait on currency with that of Sun Yat-sen and Deng Xiaoping." is not an accurate summary of its respective article.

Well it does not say explicitly that the Mao banknotes will be removed, just that the new ones might have Sun and Deng. But that would mean the old banknotes would cease printing. So they are replaced. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Private Life" section

I have removed this slanderous section, which is poorly sourcesd and written in an anti-Mao manner. All such material are attributed to the book "The Private Life of Chairman Mao". Such work is merely the POV of Mao's physician, and should not be attributed as fact.--PatCheng 00:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you take that attiude, then half of wikipedia should be deleted. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it should be automatically axed. It is quite possible to tidy something up. And what is "anti-Mao" differs from person to person - some people think it is "anti-Mao" to criticise him at all. Does that mean we should remove all criticism of him? John Smith's 10:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But I think those of us still willing to interpret Mao within his historical circumstances fairly will wish to acknowledge that the section is extremely poorly sourced. All of the material has been, namely, taken from the single tome written by Dr. Li, and while I do not personally have any pockmarked complaints against his work, nonetheless I feel that this overemphasis is somewhat undeserved and to no describable advantage to Wikipedia, which values itself on the closest expressions to neutrality even in the heart of controversy. I understand all too well that with such an enigmatic and enormously influential (both positively and negatively) figure as Mao have been, neutrality has always stood as the closest relative to impossibility itself, but to replace entire sections simply with the opinions of one man seemed to have reached rather surplus extents. Although the freedom of speech is perfectly unobliterated with Dr. Li as with any other being endowed with its rights, in the complex and often enshrouded world of politics and history we need to be careful what we remove from even the most verified form of source; for sources are contributed to by people and thus prone to their own opinions and understanding at the time of composition. I am certainly not in a position to comment on the neutrality or the existence of lost "truth" itself within Dr. Li's work, since I'm obviously no historian, but nonetheless I do not think it is superfluous to name it as rather opinionated, bearing different extents of this characteristic to different viewers. Yet to devote entire sections of an encylcopedia to a singled out and somewhat opinionated source still seems to me to be rather excessive. I shall be adding a tag questioning on the values of neutrality for that section in due course- feel free to remove it but please discuss it here first! Luthinya 12:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the section needs to be cleaned up. But Pat wants to delete the whole thing because he doesn't like the fact it reflects so badly on Mao. That is what I disagree with. I don't mind how the section is changed, so long as Dr Li's comments are not censored just because people don't like what he had to say. John Smith's 12:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Much of what is here regarding Dr. Li's book should stay. The man was Mao's personal docter for more then 20 years (and from what it seems much more at times), it would seem to me he is more reliable on many accounts then some modern historian. His work should be mentioned before any I would say. (Majin Takeru 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

The section is written in an anti-Mao POV and horribly biased. If such things occured then how come no one besides Dr Li come up? And who are you to judge that "Mao showed no emotions for deaths". I will continue to delete this section until you bother to edit the section for neutrality.--PatCheng 01:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a violation of WP:POINT and constitute disruptive editing, which is liable to be blocked. I suggest that instead of threatening to delete sections you try to improve them yourself. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

M has made the correct point. And as far as me agreeing that Mao showed no emotions etc, you misunderstand me. Simply put, it is common sense that Dr. Li was in a very unique position in regards to Mao, and his work seems fairly truthful, barring his thoughts on what Mao felt at such and such a time. The article can be cleaned up though, sure. (Majin Takeru 12:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Yes, I think that will be fairly agreeable to all parties concerned. Luthinya 09:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire section is a copyright violation- [1]--PatCheng 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? As far as I know the source is in public domain and applicable for use in Wikipedia, so unless you are speaking emblematically I'm afraid we are totally at a loss to understand the meaning of your words. Luthinya 12:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I agree that the section is not neutral at all. It's even said in that section that "The Private Life of Chairman Mao" is 'controversial'. Why use such a self-admittedly 'controversial' book as the sole source of the section? --A Sunshade Lust 19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of books are labelled "controversial". It doesn't mean that they are worthless. As I keep saying, the solution is to improve the section not just delete it. Pat has a chip on his shoulder about something, which is why he's got a bee in his bonnet about removing it. Pat, the book is in the public domain. If you want to say otherwise, give us the evidence to that effect. Plus that site requires login details, so it's useless for you to link to it. John Smith's 10:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To judge someone entirely on lifted sections of one book is hardly neutral. The fact that such a section is allowed to remain further questions the credibility of certain editors. And the site can be accessed via a free trial at [2].--PatCheng 01:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and now you're making personal attacks against wikipedians, eh? Will if you have something to say I suggest you say it rather than make vague, unfounded allegations. If you really have a problem with someone, there are formal channels to go through. The fact you haven't done anything shows that you're just trying to find an outlet for your frustration. I suggest you treat the other members of this community with more respect. John Smith's 09:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is this book, and why do we think it's in the public domain? (I can't log in to that site, so the link is no help to me). Henry ^Flower 10:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be kept but it needs to be edited with more sources. Didn't other of Mao's collegues write books in defense to that one? I'm personally of the point of view that Mao was corrupted by wealth, as for his early days I'd say wrong, misguided but this section only supports the point of view that he's corrupted - not became corrupted but that he's corrupted, which is very POV. I don't know enough about Mao to participate much in this article though but I expect that the section will be modified soon. --A Sunshade Lust 19:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, here we are again, trying to stop the CPC supporters in their quest to banish any criticisms of Mao whatsoever. It is pathetic and symptematic of what is going on behind the "Great Firewall Of China" today, namely the elimination of any kind of comment that puts China or Mao in a negative light. I cannot believe that some fool on this page tried to say you could not not deem Mao a "murderer". That sums it all up for me. This article on Mao here is doomed. It will be plagued by the Chinese propoganda army in their campaogn to attack all negative statements regarding China. It's pathetic.(The Great Veritas 13:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Three comments. One: the neutrality of Dr. Li Zhishui's book is indeed disputed, at least that's what I gather from Chinese sources. There are stories of how Li's book came into being, calling into question whether slandering (mostly about his sexual life) was deliberately added at a later date after most of the manuscript was written. Two: just because someone is abroad and anti-CCP, does not mean that they are necessarily telling the truth. Chinese "democratic movement" overseas has as bad a reputation in the Chinese community as CCP does. Three: not all CCP apologetics are necessarily a part of CCP propaganda machinery. You'd been surprised how little some of them has been reading CCP propaganda.(mean 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

removed material by JohnSmith's, sources asked

Since you asked, here are some sources for my additions regarding India and China comparisons, which you removed. They are pretty well known, and not at all contentious, except for the conclusions that are drawn from them. But reasearch and data is widely known and not in dispute. The famous study comes from award winning Indian economist Amartya Sen, ofcourse. Here I will quote Noam Chomsky, who charactrizes his conclusions and findings:

"He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when "the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed," thanks to the market reforms instituted that year." http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

This site next site, although a Maoist site, provides some numbers, again not in dispute, in its comparision and sites other scholarly works that can be referenced for the same point: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/violencept2.html

Lastly, here is a site that has studied the question again, which clearly states that..."communist-ruled China raced ahead of democratic-capitalistic India in virtually every measure of economic development over the last quarter of the 20th century..." http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/tortoiseandhare.html

I hope this is enough to substanciate my edits regarding this point. So, I will reinclude the removed material.Giovanni33 11:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I will dig up some sources about Taiwan comparative advantage upon starting, how the Kwomingtang government, which once controlled all of mainland China before the 1949 Chinese Revolution, took as much money as they could before fleeing to the island of Taiwan, was helped by the United States to build up an infrastructure, how the PRC faced numerous difficulties the moment the new nation was founded--for instance, the war was fought with peasants and extremely outdated technology, and the nation was basically in poverty after the Revolution, and that Taiwan did not face a great deal of economic difficulty after its formation. In other words, Taiwan had a huge head start in this "race," if you will, and one cannot directly compare results at face value in situations such as this.

Can you explain why you reverted this: Mao believed that "socialism [was] the only way out for China," because the United States and other Western countries would not allow China to develop along the path of other advanced capitalism, as understood by the theories of Imperialism, described by Lenin. To:

"Mao believed that "socialism [was] the only way out for China," because the United States and other Western countries would not allow China to develop using theories such as Imperialism, as described by Lenin."

Giovanni33 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Because describing imperialism as an advanced form of capitalism is extremely questionable. It is a lot easier to simply mention imperialism - the meaning, from what I understand you were saying, is the same. And if you were implying that Mao "tried" capitalism then that is incorrect/misleading. John Smith's 16:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but since when was India "capitalist" at this time? I was under the impression that under Nehru and Indira Ghandi India opted for a socialist model (nothing like Mao, but hardly "capitalist"). At least that's what History of the Republic of India says. CJK 01:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

..."communist-ruled China raced ahead of democratic-capitalistic India in virtually every measure of economic development over the last quarter of the 20th century..." In the last quarter of the 20th Century, Mao was dead. CJK 01:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mao was alive in into the last quarter of the 20th century, and while he died, the accomplishments of Mao's revolution had already laid their foundation. It raced ahead during his life and continued afterwards, but started to slow down and reverse itself as it reversed Mao's socialistic politicies, as Chomsky notes. The problem with the peaceful revolution in India and the one in China is that the former kept their landlord class, and capitalism, while China had a very throughoug agrarian revolution--and that made a big difference. Also, note that this working here is from one study I found, but I don't rely on it, nor are its contents used in the text of the article. The sources I do use base their comparison during Mao's rule. Giovanni33 03:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What the hell, he died in 1976. That was 24 years before the end of the century. CJK 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mao was alive in into the last quarter of the 20th century, and while he died, the accomplishments of Mao's revolution had already laid their foundation. It raced ahead during his life and continued afterwards, but started to slow down and reverse itself as it reversed Mao's socialistic politicies, as Chomsky notes.

Let me offer some clarifications. First, in the field of comparative historical sociology, there are some scholars who argue that a thoroughgoing agrarian revolution is a necessary precondition of the untrammeled capital accumulation driving the initial stage of industrialization. In this sense, a few of them suggest that the land reforms of the early Mao period were essential in the transformation of China from a peasant-based agrarian economy into a modern industrial one. Still, Giovanni33 is not citing these authors but Chomsky. (And I happen to think that Giovanni33 is over-simplifying Chomsky, though I'm not sure, as I make no habit of reading him.) Chomsky is totally irrelevant here. Chomsky has no expertise on China. He has no expertise in history. He is not a legitimate source for material in this article, and thus not worth considering here on the talk page.

Second, and much more importantly, Giovanni33 seems to be suggesting that China was 'racing ahead' (whatever that means) under Mao. Deng once remarked that China "wasted twenty years." That was an implicit reference to (and gross understatement of) the last 18 out of 26 years of Mao's rule. What was going on during that period? No serious China specialist doubts that Mao was the main instigator of the Great Leap Forward and later the Cultural Revolution, which culminated in some of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in world history. Apologists Mao's rule, at least after his radical turn since 1958, are totally outside any serious scholarly discourse on contemporary China. They have no business inserting their discredited views in Wikipedia articles. 172 | Talk 03:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Read again. I refenced the well known and scholarly study comes from the award winning Indian economist Amartya Sen. I use the famous academic, Noam Chomsky, not as an expert on the subject, andn not for his own views, but quote Chomsky who charactrizes Sen's conclusions and findings from the study. Again:

"He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).

In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when "the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed," thanks to the market reforms instituted that year."

http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

About the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, they were are deemed failures from the perspective of economic gains and development, but not in terms of revolutionizing and changing social relations. Several Marxist analysis show that one of the main purposes of these movements was socialist social engineering, a transformation in conciousness. You might not consider this outside any serious academic discourse on China, but you would be wrong. I personally know a professor at Stanford that taught exactly this in his class on radical economics, which views people and their ideas as important factors an economy whose yardstick radically different than the capitalist one. Your entitled to your POV, but not the suppression of others. Lastly, these points are not even brought up in the article--so why do you make them here? The issue is comparision between China and Taiwan, and the other comparision between China and India. Both are well known comparisions and all POV's are accurately characterized.Giovanni33 07:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Mao was trying to create fucking slaves, like many of the current people who inhabit China and don't think twice.

Kill the people and enslave them with propaganda and fear. A wonderful human being for sure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.144.3 (talk • contribs)

Truths about Mao

I believe it should be made more clear that Mao killed many of people, often, if not always, innocent people. I know for a fact that Mao killed people simply because they were rich. One instance that occured was that a great uncle of mine was killed at the age of 29. Invitations to a "theater" were sent to his family, though they were actually invitations to his execution.

I would like it to be made more clear that Mao killed many people.

This article should not be anti-Mao. However, it should still be more clear about the people he murdered.

That sounds like original research to me, which is not allowed here. Only verifable and legitimate sources, reflecting academic consensus, and use of nuetral/ NPOV language. I studied Chinese history and what are saying does not match up to what I know. People were not killed simply becaues they were rich. They had to commit specific counter revolutionary crimes. There were people who were killed, even those who were innocent but it was not policy or intention. but as Mao said, "A revolution is not a dinner party, its a violent mass insurection whereby one class overthrows another." During the cultural revolution it almost took the form of a civil war. Red guards fighting other red guard factions, even. And, in any revolution, there are always excesses.

Leading often to the betrayal of a revolution due to the implicit failures of human nature? Luthinya 09:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not original research, it is simple and obvious historical truth. Mao was a Marxist. Marxism talks about class warfare and the need for Revolutionary terror. So did Mao. Mao had a whole range of rich people, usually at least one or two in every village, shot. Simply because they were rich. There were no such things as counter-revolutionary "crimes" in the normal sense because there were no definitions. They shot people for "crimes" they did not existed. Mao did not want to kill innocent people, although he did, but being rich meant you were guilty. Lao Wai 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

LW is correct. This isn't original research, even if the points would need to be made in a more appropriate form. The "legacy" section especially needs to be expanded. The most it seems to criticise Mao for is having bad foreign relations and not having any birth control. The tens of millions that died, the social chaos, damage to Chinese religion and heritage, etc is all left out. And I think the "successes" are too easily accredited to Mao, especially given that he was isolated from power for several years. John Smith's 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Marxism is not synonymous with Maoism at all. Communism can be interpreted and achieved in many ways, ranging from pacifistic to violent, from a beautiful idealism to a cruel realism. What we have usually seen with Stalin and Mao was the trying to achieve what is ideal, but through means that are entirely possible - the worst of both worlds. They have called forth the unforgiving reality to bring humanity the ideal - they have used atrocities justified by a promise of Utopia, but when people start to use such force, they too often forget that they can not bring joy through violence.

I could see an alien, right now, and try to edit the page describing what the aliens that have come in contact with humanity look like, and even though I would know it as a fact - it would be original research.

An ecyclopedia is not a place for emotions, and Mao, as a person, probably didn't kill your relative. He may be the indirect cause of his death, but simply saying that he killed many people would be as silly as saying on, say, the Abraham Lincoln page, or the page of any leader in times of war, that he killed many U.S. Americans. He did so in the same indirect manner as Mao, but with different reasons. The article should provide the information and let the reader judge. Saying that "Mao killed many people" would imply that it was wrong. I believe it was wrong, but I should come to that conclusion through truths that I learned of in a neutral point of view. --A Sunshade Lust 04:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's just me, but on these sensitive Wikipedia topics there is constant bickering on talk pages about the same subjects again and again. This is the third or fourth time I've seen the notion that "Mao himself murdered millions of people" on the discussion. There's got to be a way to stop this trend. Colipon+(T) 04:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to whoever wrote or edited the introduction recently, it needs to be changed. This whole article is turning into a POV, this is that, this is right this is not, joke. I am more then happy to write part of the article. Either way, something needs to be done. (Majin Takeru 23:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I've edited the introduction, removing some of the content and making the statement about deaths during Mao's regime more appropriate. I hope it's satisfactory. Though the legacy section still probably needs re-writing. It has clearly been written by two different groups of people with different POVs, so it can probably be shortened and made more balanced. John Smith's 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a good way of dealing with that section would be to split it up, either having "support/criticism" sections, or separating it into themes. John Smith's 15:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is a vile, pathetic(not unlike the modern Chinese nation, mind you) attempt at history. Show the monster for what it(he) was- the man who created more damage than anyone else ever did to human history, culture, and beings!

His name is not Mao Zedong...

...and as long as we keep westernizing the names of people we can't pronounce or spell, we only serve to make ourselves even dumber than we are. As long as we are trying to create the largest database of knowledge in history, we should at least get our info straight. The man's name was Mao Tse-Tung. Yes, there are other spellings, and I don't dispute them, but this is because we have to romanize the name in order to translate it from the Chinese language to ours. From everything I have read, "Tse-Tung" is the closest to the original Chinese name. Whatever it is, it is NOT "Zedong". The hyphenated name structure is an extremely (and in truth, basic) part of Chinese culture. Chiang Tse-Min is not named "Jiang Zemin". We NEED to get rid of this dumbing-down of the Western world. It isn't even that difficult. --DestradoZero

Actually it is that difficult, because that's how the whole of wiki refers to individuals with Chinese names. If you want to put a motion to the committee, or whoever could make a high-level decision, you can do so. But the status quo is accepted practice so simply complaining won't change anything. John Smith's 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the complaint is delusional. Mao Zedong is not a Westernisation. It is Hanyu Pinyin. The official system of the People's Republic of China. What the government thereof uses. The man's name was three characters long and the PRC writes that in Roman letters as Mao Zedong. Read more. The PRC also rejects the use of the hyphen. Zedong, not Ze-dong. Jiang Zemin is certainly written that way in all the romanisations I have seen. Lao Wai 14:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tse-tung is Wade-Giles, invented by two Orientalists at Yale . Zedong is pinyin, invinted by the chinese. If anything, Zedong is *more* correct than Tse-tung.

However, I shouldn't be surprised. The WP article for the man who is responsible for more deaths than any other human being in history is basically gibberish, and the people on the talk page are arguing about NPOV tags and spelling errors. If I had more chutzpah, I would just delete the whole article and start over, or at least cut and paste the rotten.com article about him here. I'm reading a book about Mao now; perhaps I'll be inspired to clean up this deplorable article. But for now, I can just complain. Too bad we put more effort into the talk page for this article than the article itself, eh Lao Wai and John Smith. GuildNavigator84 04:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's always easier to shift all responsibility on a single person.. how else would you point fingers? The point of Wikipedia is to be neutral. Also, the most communication between editors, the better. I don't support Mao, but if anything, the article demonizes him with the private life section. --A Sunshade Lust 05:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Language! First, I was simply making a comment (as uninformed as it may have been). I wasn't considering editing the entire article, seeing as how replacing every "Zedong" with "Tse-Tung" would be more than a bit ridiculous. I do realize now that what I considered a Western attempt to make our own lives easier is actually the PRC's official romanization method. My apologies. HOWEVER...many Chinese and Taiwanese people do still use the Wade-Giles method. One isn't more correct than the other, simply because of who concocted what in one country or another. I understand that "Zedong" is legitimate now, but I am not going to stop using Wade-Giles and start using Hanyu Pinyin simply because the PRC prefers it. I'd rather *not* use it for that reason.

Either way, I'm not commenting on the man one way or another. I was trying to point something out, I was wrong, end of story. I'm glad that John Smith's and Lao Wai pointed out my ignorance (without resorting to names like "fuckwit"). Now I'm just a bit smarter for the effort. Thanks. --DestradoZero 19:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Taiwanese teach their children using BoPoMoFo. There are no roadsigns in the PRC with Wade-Giles on them. Sorry about the language. I was out of line. :-( GuildNavigator84 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the best way to write the name so that it will be pronounced properly by a Westerner is "Tzedong." This is quite close to the Gwoyeu Romatzyh spelling: "Tzerdong" (the "r" indicates second tone). One more reason why GR should be the system of choice for all those wishing to learn Chinese...

Surely his name is Mao Zedong, it's the standard Pinyin spelling of Mandarin, and if you know how to read Chinese it's very similar to the correpsonding characters.

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is not a historian. He is a linguist. Therefore, long quotes by him are innapropriate for the article. CJK 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is a political activist who has published a bajillion books on politics: Noam Chomsky#Bibliography -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he's a historian. But to be honest that's quite irrelevant - I think CJK is right that such a massive quote is inappropriate in the article. If you want to supply a link to the relevant information then that's fine. But the current version is much better. John Smith's 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I suppose that quote by Willy Lam is very relevant? Besides, you need not be a historian to write about what is fundamentally a political position. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not because the politician is dead that the political writer has to give let way for the historians. However, I do believe the quote was inappropriate, but the subject of the quote could maybe integrated in the article. --A Sunshade Lust 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember Willy Lam's quotation being that length. As I said, the size of the quote was TOO LARGE. That doesn't mean you can't have any reference to what he says, but throwing such a massive piece of text in was not appropriate. John Smith's 23:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you reivew what was removed you will see that although it cites Chomsky, its not Chomsky's view that is what is really being cited, so what is being removed as being "irrelvant because Chomksy is saying it" is itself not relevant because what is being said in the quote is only a reference to what Indian economist Amartya Sen wrote, which Chomsky references. This makes it relevant. If we were just quoting Chomsky's own view you would have a point, but we are only ussing Chomsky as an academic who is only describing what Amartya study showed, which is needed for claim. Chomsky is probably the most widely cited as a source, more often than any other living scholar, for good reason. He is the eighth most cited source overall, infact. The section that was removed,

"...on the study of the subject by Amartya Sen, he observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen). In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when "the downward trend in mortality [in China] has been at least halted, and possibly reversed," thanks to the market reforms instituted that year." [3]Giovanni33 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sino-soviet Split

How come so little attention is given to an event as catastophic as the Sino-soviet split? From 1949 to 1960, Red China developed quite rapidly with the help of the USSR despite the Great Leap Forward that started in 1958. Due to Mao's arrogance, China not only lost the USSR as its biggest ally but alienated the entire Eastern Bloc, not to mention it was the Cold War era and the Western Bloc hated China too. The Chinese suffered many tragedies but I think the biggest one was the Chinese losing more than 20 years of development by not having the USSR as an ally. In those 20+ years, the Cultural Revolution might not even have happened, who knows China could've very well have been a very strong global power (not a Superpower though). Alas, all that never happened because of Mao's fault. Mao's disastrous decision in the Sino-Soviet split must be emphasized more in this topic.--Secret Agent Man 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Chinese didn't split with the Bolshi the Americans would never have tried to get China on their side. China would remain bound to the USSR, unrecognised by half the world, (and have no UNSC veto) and would have suffered the same fate as the USSR in 1991. But feel free to expand on that section. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Remember 6/4!} 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. I would say something, but M already said it. GG. (Majin Takeru)

Haha -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|666} 01:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You made a good point but what about this. Who stated that Red China suffering the same fate as the USSR/Eastern Bloc would've been a bad thing? That would be like killing two birds with one stone. Hey it's just something to keep in mind.--Secret Agent Man 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Worst Mass Murderer in History

From what I understand, the title of "worst mass murderer in history" is a heavily disputed title. The article that its linked to democide seems to simply be the personal opinion of one political scientist. For example, in the context of China and the Worlds overall population, it doesn't seem so bad that 80 million died out of several billion. On the other hand, the Genghis Khan article lists the Mongol as having killed almost half of China's entire population. Therefore, whether or not Mao was the worst mass murderer is, in my opinion, as disputed claim. The Gwai Lo 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think that Hitler actually killed more directly through genocide and since he actually started WWII. Therefore, he would be responsible for their deaths as well.

Only if you included every single death in WW2 could you claim Hitler was worse. And if the figure is as high as 80 million, then Mao was worse. Lao Wai 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it is important to evaluate Mao somewhat upon the numbers of death he was reputedly associated with, rigorous definition of his political correctness merely on that basis is rather unsound, as it is with many other dictators, quite apart from the fact that it doesn't say all that much about their advertent policies. Unfortunately, this is how the death totals have always been used in popular history, and that is demonology, not history. Luthinya 11:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Mao was not exactly pleased with the GLF (the reason I mention the GLF, is due to the fact that out of that inflated number of 80 million, about 40-60 were "due" to the GLF) he himself made a few comments, and obviously imported grain in late 61'/62. That, to me, is a tad different then Hitler saying "Hey, let's kill anyone who is Jewish". Actually, him initiating a failing policy seems different then signing death orders as well. Maybe it is just me. (Majin Takeru 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

I consider anyone who say Mao a mass murderer a jerk. Sure, Mao's policy resulted in million's people's death. But did he intentionally killed them? If you claim Mao a mass murderer, by the same logic, Geroge W.Bush's lie that there were WMD in Iraq has resulted 2500 death of U.S soldiers and thousands death of Iraq people, should you say he is also a mass murderer?

You make a wise point. It seemed that all through history it has been absolutely impossible to accept a rigorous position of power without resorting to killing on some large scale- and that's either forgotten or overtly stressed, depending on what else the person did. All too often people forget their own biological heritage- we are homones sapienses, not dei sapienses, because, unfortunately, it is just so much easier to focus a "natural" emotion such as hate upon one person and be intent to dissipate it upon him alone, rather than logically and deeply consider what one is in truth doing and attempt to overcome the self before another. BTW, lighten up, and try not to use terms like jerk... I am not trying to patronise but it tends to lead most civilised discussions into the dung hills. Luthinya 09:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Revolution 1

Mao was mentioned in the Beatles "Revolution 1". The line is "But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."

A RETURN TO THE ISSUES

By what standard is a leader who "allows" his subjects to die of starvation superior to one who "causes" them to die of starvation?

By what standard is the attainment of "economic progress" a justification for the destruction of millions of people, deliberately or passively? Does this "economic progress" console those who died or their families?

Was Mao a tyrant merely because he was able by fiat to decree actions by subordinates which caused great harm to many and because he was able to suppress dissent by terror and by eliminating his adversaries?

Does a tyrant cease to be a tyrant because some “good” comes of his acts and omissions? If so, what level of “good” is sufficient to convert a tyrant into a visonary statesman?

Where are the economic miracles Mao's "revolutions" have wrought? Where are the social miracles? Where is the system of law, the right of private property, the right to freedom of expression, the right of freedom religious belief?

Are these questions answered by a comparison of the economic and demographic data on India with the data on China? Or Taiwan? Or were all of these regimes incompetent, corrupt and indifferent to the welfare of the "masses"?

Instead of asking the important questions, the authors of the various comments herein engage in the sort of discussion of collateral matters that lawyers use when they cannot address the real issues in contention.

There is much debate about how to spell Mao's name, for example. Does the spelling of his name alter who he was and what he did? Or does a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Does it matter that Mao did not bathe or brush his teeth? Is personal hygiene the measure of goodness? If so, it should be noted that Hitler reportedly bathed several times per day.

Is Noam Chomsky a great and reliable scholar because he is widely quoted? Or does the fact that he is widely quoted merely reflect that people who quote him share his views? Does it matter that Chomsky is indisputably a thinker in great sympathy with the Left?

Are Chang and Halliday biased? Is Mao's personal physician biased? Or is it generally considered part of the fodder of historical research to consider oral and written histories of contemporaries of the subject. Is it not generally the process of gathering history that all of the available data to be taken as merely that, to be factored together to reach an overall conclusion?

Lastly, where is the outrage that one reader has taken upon himself the "right' to censor the article written with great care by its author? The article may not be authoritative in every aspect, but the censor offers no scholarship, merely his opinion.

Where is the recognition that all totalitarian regimes have relied heavily on supression of information. Where is the awareness that this "censor" has unilaterally exercised the censorship characteristic of tyrants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.228.40 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like a bunch of questions with a hint of POV. What is your argument/point here exactly?(Majin Takeru 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

All views are fraught with POV and we must be prepared to accept that in historical studies- even the notion of non-opinion philosophically still live under its shadow. I think he is attempting to summarise the vast amount of topics that have been dealt here on these pages, but because there is lack of further expansions it is difficult to decide where to mark off on these points. Luthinya 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, he should attempt to summarize a little better ;-) (Majin Takeru 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

Poetry

I have merged the entire intro to an article on Mao's poetry. The section I have not merged consisted of annotations to individual poems. These were not discussions or explanations or descriptions, but comments such as: "New Year's Day (1930.01) Line 1: Ninghua, Qingliu, Guihua are all places in Fujian Line 4: Wuyi Mountain is a mountain in Fujian." Such comments are useful in a book of poems, and may be found there. But seem rather unhelpful as an article in itself. SilkTork 19:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

GLF once more

I have edited this section. I left the Chang and Halliday remarks, but moved them down some lines. The Li Zhishi remarks were strategically moved to a few lines down, after mentioning Chang, Halliday, and then saying some things about propaganda. Also, if anyone can prove the "Mao knew of and dismissed" the GLF deaths, other then by using Changs obviously and noted biased book, feel free to do so. Otherwise, this edit stays. (Majin Takeru 03:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Mao Zedong, mass killer?

The page on Mao Zedong is grossly unbalanced. The idea that Mao was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions has not been proved anywhere. :The Chinese death rate figures that 'prove' this allegation only appeared 20 years after the event, during an ideological campaign by Mao's successor Deng Xiaoping against the Great Leap Forward. Even Judith Banister, one of the demographers who has done most to promote the 30 million deaths figure, expresses extreme doubts about the sources for it. She describes death rate data gathered before the 1960s in China as 'non-existent' or 'useless'. Yet without these figures there is little in the way of hard evidence to prove that such a massive famine took place. There were no credible reports of such a massive famine when it was meant to be occurring. See www.re-evaluationmao.org for sources for this. I am going to include this alternative view in the entry for Mao Zedong on wikipedia. If anyone wants to remove this alternative view can they please state why. It seems to me that contributors to wikipedia are just recycling crude anti-communist propaganda as fact.

Right. Because anything that says Mao Zedong was bad has to be propaganda, right? The very fact you make such a tired stereotype about critical sources undermines your argument. John Smith's 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If I see this historically revisionist site touted again, I will immediately delete it and alert Wikipedia editors to its revisionist nature and prompt banning of the individual posting it.

1) Its authorship is in no way whatsoever indicated

There is a lone e-mail address of one "josephball," but as the proviso below states, "encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

2) The site is unabashedly biased

"The approach of modern writers to the Great Leap Forward is absurdly one- sided. They are unable to grasp the relationship between its failures and successes...They cannot grasp that the work that was done in these years also laid the groundwork for the continuing overall success of Chinese socialism in improving the lives of its people."

The author also implies that conflicting Western estimates of deaths during the Leap indicate that famines did not take place at all. Preposterous.

3) The site questions Western as well as Chinese sources

Since Western sources may be subject to charges of bias and Chinese government figures are notoriously unreliable, a first-hand Chinese account has been added to the Great Leap Forward page to forestall any future attempts at whitewash by this poster.

Socrates Abroad's 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mao: Mass Killer? (2)

A monkey could lead China better than Mao did—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MAOZEcriminAL (talk • contribs) .

Most of the serious criticisms against Mao are simply anti-communist propaganda (by serious I mean allegations that he killed 30 million people in the Great Leap Forward etc.) Check out www.re-evaluationmao.org for a discussion of this. All the evidence that Mao 'killed tens of millions' emanates from figures released by the Deng Xiaoping regime in the 1980s, during a political campaign against the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. By the way, why are you reversing all my edits of the Mao page? The basic principle behind wikipedia is that it is meant to be neutral. The insane anti-communist propaganda on this page is hardly neutrality. My edits do not hide any of the allegations made against Mao, they just put another side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Re-evaluation (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8th August, 2006

Criticising someone is not POV. If you took the issue of neutrality that far, one couldn't say ANYTHING about what people, governments, countries, etc. did. One could only list a timeline of events and that would be it. John Smith's 14:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The site mentioned by the poster is historically revisionist.

The revisionist site's obvious flaws have been dealt with previously on this page.

Not all criticism of Mao and the Great Leap is "simply anti-communist propaganda"

Mao's 1958 crackdown leading to 550,000 deaths, for instance, is documented by U of Chicago Assistant Professor of Political Science Dali Yang (Yang, incidentally, is from rural China - full cite on Great Leap Forward page). In Calamity and Reform in China: State, Rural Society, and Institutional Change Since the Great Leap Famine (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), Yang supports the 30 million death toll, labeling the event the 'Great Leap Famine' (1959-1961) as does U of Manitoba Distinguished Professor Vaclav Smil in China's great famine: 40 years later.

Socrates Abroad's 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mao is indeed a mass killer

Mao is indeed a mass killer, one who is more wicked than Hitler

I am not anti-communist but I have read all materials concerning all the terrible things done by Mao and how he uses the Cultural Revolution to take full control of the minds of all the Chinese people in the 60's and 70's. This so-call cultural revolution is actually a cracy internal civil war in China where millions of intellects and talents were destroyed. Neutrality doesn't mean you have to hide the fact. Can I tell you here that Hitler didn't kill 6 millions Jews in the holocaust? Unfortunately, neutrolity deals with fact but not mercy.

My rating of their 'evilness' would go something like this: Mao < Hitler < Stalin The latter two designed policies with intent to exterminate large groups of people, one of them being the cause of WWII.--Comrade Conrad 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a TV celebrity show - we don't rate the dictators of the 20th century. We examine their actions without thinking "what was X like". John Smith's 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

JS, I do not agree with much you say, but I agree with the last statement. Anyways, Sadly, people still think bad policy, equals exterminating groups of people intentionaly. I doubt anyone can give serious proof that Mao's intent was to kill millions of Chinese. Most likely, his intent was to make China a strong country. Either way, the whole "Mass Murderer" arugument is a bit played and sad. I could rant for days, but I have done it for hours on end in this page. I am all for mentioning that Mao was the leader when millions died of starvation. I am very much agianst saying Mao "Murdered" millions intentionally, making him a mass murderer. And with the cultural revolution, sadly, most of the people supported Mao indeed at that time, and the people supporting Mao (For whatever reason) "ruining" intellectuals lives, has very little to do with labeling Mao a mass murderer. Why is common sense logic not common sense? (Majin Takeru 02:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Mao worse than Hitler?

Allegation: 30 million died during the Great Leap Forward.

Fact 1: The Chinese death rate figures that 'prove' this allegation only appeared 20 years after the event, during an ideological campaign by Mao's successor Deng Xiaoping against the Great Leap Forward.

Fact 2: Even Judith Banister, one of the demographers who has done most to promote the 30 million deaths figure, expresses extreme doubts about the sources for it. She describes death rate data gathered before the 1970s in China as 'non-existent' or 'useless'. Yet without these figures there is little in the way of hard evidence to prove that such a massive famine took place. There were no credible reports of such a massive famine when it was meant to be occurring.

see www.re-evaluationmao.org for references.

It is ridiculous and offensive to say that Mao is worse than Hitler. I have nothing against people discussing the evidence that is meant to show this, thin that it is. However, I should be able to give the alternative view. If everyone is so certain about their dogmatic views about Mao, why is there a need to constantly censor me and reverse my edits?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Re-evaluation (talk • contribs) .

no, i think this comparison is totally unappropriate. hitler killed people on purpose. mao's intentions on the other hand were good, at least in the period of time we're talking about. this is a generally accepted fact. the government didn't expect femine, but there are various factors that resulted in a femine.

One of the factors being the United States refused to export grain to "Red China" I might add.--Lssah 88 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

With the main factor being that Mao took vast amounts of food from the people by force and shipped it to Russia to pay for armaments including nuclear weapons. He then established a propaganda system to invent record harvests and displayed these inventions to a gullible world. At the same time he managed to deforest China, destroy its stock of farm and domestic implements and cause pollution on a vast scale by forcing every village to produce useless pig iron in backyard blast furnaces. Can anyone find a single quote or other evidence that Mao cared at all if millions starved or if the world endured a nuclear holocaust? -- asmac 07:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF? Now Mao is being blamed for CAUSING FRIGGIN POLLUTION? That crap's from Jung Chang, I assume? -- Миборо в ский 05:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was said, "no, i think this comparison is totally unappropriate. hitler killed people on purpose. mao's intentions on the other hand were good, at least in the period of time we're talking about. this is a generally accepted fact. the government didn't expect femine, but there are various factors that resulted in a femine." This is absolutely correct. Mao did not intend to kill people, but Hitler did. This is an unfair comparison. --Ionius Mundus 05:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mib, don't use the edit summary to slag authors or users off - that's really childish.

I know members of the CCP (in local government) that have read Jung Chang's books and found at least some truth in them. She is neither completely right nor completely wrong. I know you have a chip on your shoulder the size of the Pacific about her, but I suggest you not put that prejudice aside so as not to insult great swathes of the general population. Did you perhaps consider that people will read Jung Chang because they want to make up their own minds about her? I guess not. John Smith's 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to using the talk page itself?

Well, fortunately great swathes of the general population does NOT read Jung Chang, and they certainly don't come on Wikipedia making 4 edits each one with at least one expletive. The CPC banned Jung Chang's book, so you're going to come up with something more convincing to claim that CPC members are breaking the law and reading banned books... Perhaps you have been taking my use of the word "read" too literally. I have read Jung Chang myself. :) Think of "read" as meaning "Read once and jumping on the bandwagon to accept everything in the book without second thoughts about the plausibility of events, reliability of sources, historical circumstances of people involved and personal vendettas of the author"? -- Миборо в ский 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

At least on the talk page people can respond to comments.

Oh, right, because CCP members don't break the law, do they? They don't break traffic regulations because they're in official cars, they don't read articles from blocked media sources and they certainly don't screw locals out of sales of their land. The CCP says a lot of things, but they don't always take notice. Reading banned books is not a serious matter anymore (Mao's China has gone) - unless you are an official and stupid enough to do it at work. My friends see nothing wrong in disregarding the more ridiculous prohibitions which, to be honest, no one is going to find out about anyway. The CCP might as well forbid them from dreaming about people other than their spouses!

You could have said something a little simpler, such as "taken Jung Chang's work to heart too much". John Smith's 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, but in your universe the CPC is the evil totalitarian godless nazi/fascist regime right? If you read Jung Chang, you'll find that China today is as demonic as Mao's! Read the BOOK! -- Миборо в ский 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me what I think, nor make silly comments like that. Banning books is a petty, anachronistic policy. It isn't the sign of being "evil". In fact, where have I ever used that word to describe the CCP? Please go and find it, because no one would want to think you're making baseless accusations and throwing your toys out of the pram.

Plus if there is one thing that Jung Chang has always said, it was that things are much better now than they were in Mao's day, so, as it is frequently, your point is irrelevant. John Smith's 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Миборовский, your comments above are not very civil. The sarcastic tone in your posts makes it hard to take anything you are saying as serious, which is not how I believe you want to be viewed. If you have a specific issue, please state it clearly and without deriding the opinions of other editors here as that is not appropriate here. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So now I can't even make fun of some anon who makes personal attacks on my usertalk? Mr JS here quickly jumped to the aid of the said anon (disregarding whatever nasty things the anon said because he's on JS's side) and now I'm the bad guy because I am pissed off that JS is seizing every opportunity he gets to annoy me. He might think this a productive use of his time, but I don't think I want him to waste my time! -- Миборо в ский 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

1. You weren't just having a go at the anon IP (who I have no interest in), you were making a general insult towards anyone that reads Jung Chang and thinks she has anything worth to say. Maybe that isn't what you intended, but that's how it came out.

2. You claim I always "annoy" you, yet you yourself choose a rather unpleasant way to communicate with me. Despite the way in which you frequently "annoy" me, I have asked to resolve the differences between us, but you have ignored that. That would rather indicate that you actually prefer to carry on this way, so you can hardly point the finger at me. Can you not even tell me why you don't want to talk things over? Your silence on that is baffling. John Smith's 23:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You either have a short or a selective memory JS. Talk over, that we did a long time ago. Several times in fact. But nothing good ever came out of it. "Talking things over" has not yielded fruit before and will not likely do so now. I would also like to remind you that it was you jumped unsolicited into the fray... (2 recent examples: this, and the Falun Gong talkpage.) So you can hardly accuse me of trying to annoy you. Furthermore, if I am to argue semantics, you'll find that I was referring to the anon and his like, in other words people like him would read Jung Chang, but not everyone who reads Jung Chang is like him. Happy? -- Миборо в ский 00:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We have never tried to talk about the underlying problems between us, just disputes that we had at the time. Obviously I drop in on this page recently, and that time I just happened to be look at the FLG page because I saw it was locked.

I'm disappointed by your attitude, really. You don't seem to have much empathy. I can understand how you have felt on several issues by what I have said or done. Can you possibly admit that things you have said or done have caused annoyance too? Because if that is the case then you're not very good at indicating that. John Smith's 08:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone invoked Godwin's Law yet? --Sumple (Talk) 11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mib has already talked about the Nazis. John Smith's 13:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, this discussion seems like a personal stoush. Jung Chang is an idiot to those who think so (myself included), and she isn't to those who don't think so. Discussing it won't make any difference. --Sumple (Talk) 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Godwin's Law applies to the first person to invoke the Nazis, which in this case depending on your point of view is either Jung Chang or the ranter at the very top of this section. -- Миборо в ский 07:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I do not think she is an idiot, I just think she is full of s***. Good story though. After I read it; I tossed the book in the fridge to hold up a keg. Though, I still use the nice cover as a placemat. (Majin Takeru 23:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

You tossed it in the fridge? Pretty good. Better then where I keep the Communist Manifesto. I leave next to my toilet and rip the pages for wiping my ass.

Of course, with Das Capital, it's no better. I leave it on the floor as a booger rag. It does great work helping me to count all my snots.

I put Jung Chang on the "Fiction" section of my bookshelf - but seriously, this has nothing to do with the topic. Jung Chang's family was ripped apart by Mao Zedong, and you can't expect a neutral word from her no matter the "ripping" is right or wrong. Let's all have a good look at WP:NOT a soapbox first. Aran|heru|nar 09:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mao was a ruthless criminal. Worship him and you are a pathetic human being!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MAOZEcriminAL (talk • contribs) .

== I japansese maoist. IMO, Mao decent human being. he love the people, he love the peasant.

cuz he was one of ttem. He saw Joe run to Moscow, so he run to Beijing. He saw Joe kill, so he kiille too. hehe.......................

me think mao greatest man. he greatestsest of man! Makin Takeru 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly sure the usr "Makin Takeru" is an obvious impersonation of me. My page has been vandalized and I have been impersonated much recently.. (Majin Takeru 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

my page has been vandalised too... what's wrong with these people. i don't even like mao! --Sumple (Talk) 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It reads Jung Chang... Are you expecting rationality from it? -- Миборо в ский 05:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that there has been a lot of vandalism in the last day or so, but from different people. Maybe they're the same person. Ah, the wrath of a fanboy - I'm glad I never annoyed the "Holy Brigade of Iris Chang worshippers" :D John Smith's 09:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And who would that be, pray tell? All of us know what you are trying to do by dragging Iris Chang into this, your intentions are laid bare. So please, spare us. -- Миборо в ский 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, stop being such a kill-joy. John Smith's 08:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)