Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Some thoughts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mao as a Historical Personality

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Are You Sure??

message: I have added NPOV and attention tags; there are obvious issues with the beginning of the article. I know it can be hard to be totally NPOV especially in this article, but some statements are visibly NPOV here.--Nicsilo 18:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a troll problem to put it lightly. John Smith's 18:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible NPOV Tag Removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Book of Quotations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Can't Single Out Sources

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Introduction 

message: "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)
thread_title:  RMB portrait 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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). HenryFlower 10:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of "Private Life" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Noam Chomsky

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Haha -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|666 01:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sino-soviet Split

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Worst Mass Murderer in History 

message: 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)
thread_title: A RETURN TO THE ISSUES

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poetry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GLF once more 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mao is indeed a mass killer