" 

 ==Excerpts== 
 The three paragraphs quoted from the book seem to serve no particular purpose. I can understand quoting from, say, Gadsby (novel), since it is both lipogramtical and public domain, but why Mao: The Unknown Story? 

 ==The Exile== 
 I have re-edited the reviews to only include serious British broadsheets, from a range of political stances. That should do for now. I am not happy having the Exile review, as it is gravely flawed and biased: 

 *Bases the interest in the book on a Tory conspiracy to cover-up for the Empire (WTF??) 
 *Completely ignores the fact the book isn't published in the US and so there are only pre-orders on amazon.com 
 *Completely ignores the fact that the Guardian, Roy H. et al like the book as well. Having a group of people on opposite ends of the political spectrum rather blows holes in his conspiracy theory. 

 But more importantly, this publication is a complete joke. What is it? Some weird sort of internet journal. What do the authors get for their work? The smug self-satisfaction that they're not writing for a blog? It is also exceptionally reactionary - anti-American, anti-Orange Ukrainian, anti-Catholic  and anti-conservative for one thing. I'm sure it's anti a lot more. 

 Pasting links to such a heavily biased publication would lower the reputation of wiki. Next thing is we'll have people on the other side pasting links to the Epoch Times. Let's not go down that road, please. 

 :Lao Wai, do we really have to bring in such trash? It's pure bullshit and really lowers the tone of discussion. Go and read some of their other artiles and ask yourself if wiki should be associating itself with such rubbish. Jesus, they drew a mocking little stick picture of Pope JP-II. How sad is that? 

 ::I am not interested in their other articles, nor am I providing a link to them.  Just this one and it is a fairly well thought out review (apart from the Empire stuff, which I tend to find amusing).  Not that he said it was a cover up just that people like it for that reason.  It doesn't really blow holes in his theory, it just means that the people who used to defend Mao, the Guardian, Roy H, et al, no longer have the courage to do so.  It is a much better thought out review than Roy H.'s or the Trinidad one (I just admire GD as an author - this review, like most of them, was just lazy). Reactionary?  Anti-American?  Anti-Catholic?  Anti-Conservative?  Come on now.  Sounds like the Guardian to me.   

 :The Guardian doesn't draw offensive pictures of a dead Pope, or pretend to link to a book on amazon.com, but really link to a book called ""bullshit"". It's a joke of a publication. As I said before, do you think we should link to the Epoch Times?   

 :By the way, I know a lot of ""left-wing"" people who would be very angry about your implication that the only reason they don't support Mao is because they lack courage. If you dared to suggest that to Roy H he'd give you a right earful.   

 :Oh, and I couldn't help but quote this little gem to illustrate my point about how trasy this publication is: Jung and her shadowy co-author. ""Shadowy""? What's ""shadowy"" about him? It's just a simple ploy to try to rubbish the book by discrediting the co-author - who Mr Dolan has failed to mention is a historian. It's as if Halliday's some dodgy MI5 agent.   

 ::Okay, I am the one who originally edited in the article from the eXile. I'll defend this now. 

 ""Bases the interest in the book on a Tory conspiracy to cover-up for the Empire (WTF??) 
 Completely ignores the fact the book isn't published in the US and so there are only pre-orders on amazon.com 
 Completely ignores the fact that the Guardian, Roy H. et al like the book as well. Having a group of people on opposite ends of the political spectrum rather blows holes in his conspiracy theory."" 

 Indeed, the part about the Tory ""conspiracy"" is not to be taken seriously. It's not so much a serious conspiracy theory, but rather a wild guess as to the book's popularity in the UK. It may be a weird accusation, but does that justify its deletion, while the other external links can stay? Let's click them! 

 As can be seen, literally every single external link besides ""Too much hate, too little understanding"" is not so much a review of Mao, but rather a repeat of the main arguments of this book. All are dedicated to describing Mao Zedong as a ""monster"" and the book as ""terrible proof that absolute evil can sometimes triumph"". So let me get this straight: a critical review isn't allowed because it's from an ""alter