Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 5

message: The article states that Mao Zedong was one of the co-founders of the Communist Party of China, which from my readings is in no way true. Although he did get an early start as a supporter, it took Mao decades to rise to the top of the party. User:Courthead 05:41, 19 November 2007 (GMT -5)
------------
I would concur with the previous poster, something is wrong with this information clearly as it directly contradicts information in the other Wiki entry for the CPC itself which says that the CPC was founded by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao.  It states that Mao was in Shanghai, but was in a much lesser position at the time (and therefore, not a founder).71.189.73.222 (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On July 23, 1921, Mao, age 27, attended the first session of the National Congress of the Communist Party of China in Shanghai. Two years later, he was elected as [omit: one of the five commissars] a member of the Central Committee of the Party during the third Congress session, and named head of the Organization Department. . Later that year (1923), Mao returned to Hunan at the instruction of the CPC Central Committee and the Kuomintang Central Committee to organise the Hunan branch of the Kuomintang.[8] In 1924, after Mao apparently had joined the KMT, he was a delegate to the first National Conference of the Kuomintang, where he was elected an Alternate Executive of the Central Committee. In 1924, he became an Executive of the Shanghai branch of the Kuomintang, and Secretary of the Organisation Department.
Source: Hollingworth, Clare, Mao and the men against him (Jonathan Cape, London: 1985), p. 34. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The CPC

message: This part of the article is a total mess. It very often deviates from its purported subject matter, and seems more like a debate betweem pro and anti-Mao advocates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.255.1 (talk • contribs) 23:20, November 17, 2006
I totally agree with this. It only mentions in short bursts. Some people are merely trying to put their POV in there.
Thirded, right now it is one-sided for mao, and it wall probably change again before too long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.172.38 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: I find this article almost totally to be a product of editions by completely anti-communist fanatics. People having some knowledge of history and dialectics should step forward to correct this. Srijon 12:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Step Forward to Combat Anti-Communist Propaganda

message: Does anyone know where this citation is from?:
At the 1958 Party congress in Chengdu, Mao expressed support for the idea of personality cults if they venerated figures who were genuinely worthy of adulation:
“ 	There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality cult, that is, to worship men like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind worship. 	”
It appears in the "cult of Mao" section on this page.  It'd be nice if we knew the exact source for this quotation, besides just the 1958 Party congress.  Can this quote be checked or verified?  Fifthcolum 07:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult of Mao

message: The phrase "seeking to achieve, by means of his political philosophy, the ideal of a strong, prosperous and socially egalitarian China" is uncited and completely POV; it ascribes positive motives to some of Mao's most destructive policies.
It would probably be easier to cite and support a claim along the lines of:  "He instigated several major socio-political programmes (some through collectivisation), including the Anti-Rightist Campaign, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, seeking to achieve, by means of his political philosophy, complete control over the Chinese economy (which was almost totally based on agriculture at the time), the brutal suppression of all domestic political opposition, amassing the means to build a military capable of projecting power abroad, etc."
I'm not suggesting the above should replace what is there but that once uncited motives are ascribed, POV is almost inevitable; the best thing would be to simply remove that phrase. Jimg 14:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The motive is obviously positive. No leader in the world seeks to destroy his own country. It is failure that made it destructive. Common sense. Aran|heru|nar 12:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.  Many leaders, now and in history, have been driven by motives which most would consider to be negative.  Egotism, greed, thirst for personal power, for example, are motives which have driven many leaders.  None would be considered to be positive.  There is nothing sensible about claiming that all leaders have always intended the best for the countries they rule. Jimg 00:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No. The goals and results of his actions are more important than the actions he made. As for the motives, let's just say that a leader of a country won't try to destroy his own country, as he could not survive without it either. Eliminating opponents is to ensure that he has enough power to carry out his plans which he obviously believe to be good for the country, and one of those plans is military expansion. That said, the motive of Mao is obvious, though the effectiveness is in question, which is why the sentence included "by means of his political philosophy". Aran|heru|nar 06:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No what? Where did I attempt to argue he wanted to destroy his own country?  The argument is simple; you can ascribe positive or negative motivations to his actions and it is POV to present one interpretation of his motives and not the other especially when there is widely published analysis to support both.  To claim that by definition that a leaders' interests are aligned with that of the countries they rule and so it's fair to include just positive motivations is sophistry. Actually I've noticed the offending sentence has been removed which renders this discussion moot unless someone resurects its again. Jimg 22:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro again

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Mao Zedong]] 

message: The article on Luo Yixiu states that she died in 1910 while this article implies that she was still alive when Mao married Yang Kaihui.  Which is correct?  Richard Pinch 23:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriages 

message: I'd like to know, why isn't there written anywhere that Mao is considered by most of the people on earth, to be a dictator? Is this too politically incorrect? (I saw the word dictator isn't even mentioned on the pag about China)
*What do you mean by dictator?  Even if Mao Zedong was worshipped, he could not act alone.  He could pit one faction of the communist party leadership against another, and he could mobilise the mass, but I doubt that he was ever all-powerful.  ----user talk:hillgentleman 08:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel something is wrong 

message: This article and the corresponding Chinese counterpart were featured on the front page of the 30 Nov 2006 edition of the IHT. The leader was "In China, a restrained Wikipedia" and the article was mentioned to illustrate how censorship operates in China. The conclusion is that the Chinese Mao article is guarded by the average product of the education system.
Personal anecdote: One very interesting point made in the article is the prominent role of the education system in establishing the party-approved version of history. I have had met some very educated and well traveled young Chinese, and the article is spot on: they really believe the tripe that Mao was a great man and that he saved China. My friend is doing a Ph.D. in physics at Waseda University in Japan, he speaks Japanese well, and speaks, reads, & writes English marvelously. To boot the guy is learning French as a hobby. Nevertheless when I pointed out that (even if we took the high end estimates for Nanking) Mao's Great Leap forward killed more people then did the Japanese my friend answered "it's OK to be killed by your own people, it's wrong for the Japanese to come and do it". Well, dead is dead but how can you reason with someone who thinks like that? You can't. More interesting even is when my friend went back to Shanghai for Chinese New Year and met up with his high school chums, some of them had moved abroad and had done a 180 degree turn; they went from being good Nationalist Chinese to (silent) opponents of the regime who would never return to live in China. Vincent 00:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what the same Chinese gentleman thinks of the quote by Deng Xiaoping, that Mao's actions were "seventy-percent right and thirty-percent wrong". Obvious, killing one's countrymen is not in the 30% wrong, in his opinion. Not remembering (or understanding) the history of China makes it much more likely that another Great Leap or Cultural Revolution will be repeated. - Ryanjo 03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IHT was inaccurate and misleading. We've been discussing it on the Chinese Wikipedia, and frankly most people are disappointed at this complete misrepresentation of what the Chinese Wikipedia really stands for. After all, we've been blocked three times by the Chinese government, but have never made any concessions to them. :zh:User:R.O.C has sent an email to the foundation-l mailing list: , listing the inaccuracies in the IHT report. -- ran (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: See also the blog entries by Chinese Wikipedia editor Roadrunner, who was interviewed and then found his remarks misrepresented: . -- ran (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, I've just brought the intro section of this article in the English and Chinese Wikipedias to sync with each other. -- ran (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is why should Wikipedia make any concessions to the Chinese government? For that matter, how could it make them given that Wikipedia is by definition freely editable and peer reviewed? Vincent 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, Wikipedia shouldn't make concessions to anyone in matters of fundamental policy, and the Chinese Wikipedia hasn't. As for your second question, the Chinese Wikipedia is freely editable and peer reviewed like any other, the only barrier being the block that the Chinese government has put in place. -- ran (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The International Herald Tribune, 30 November 2006

message: I restored him to the article, because he was at least as important as his father.  You'll find him in the index of most large-sized book about Mao, including Chang & Halliday.  --GwydionM 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao Yuanxin 

message: The Wen Qimei article as it is, is nothing more than a note saying she was Mao's mother she was a devout buddhist and she was illiterate. Unless she did something far more noteworthy this could all be provided on this page.--Matt 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why she needs her own page. In fact I don't see why she needs to be discussed, other than  a simple reference. John Smith's 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She doesn't seem to need her own page (based on what's on there at the moment) - the info that's on there could be transferred to Mao's page pretty easily. I'd say go ahead with the merge. --Cricketgirl 09:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought hard about how to approach Wen Qimei in the merge and I decided on doing it in the genealogy section, I felt that as there were already issues regarding citation in her own article, that I was within Merge guidelines cleaning it up. I doubt that her literacy is relevant unless tied into an abiding affect it had on Mao, such as him making an attempt to educate everyone as a result of her illiteracy. I would be inclined to add a citation tag to that piece of information now however I will leave that to another editor if they feel it is neccesary.--Matt 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: I was surprised to find that two of the bloodiest campaigns of Mao's rule (in terms of deliberate killings, anyway) were omitted from the article. I added a paragraph on these joint campaigns of repression with a plethora of sources. I'm sure it will be edited many times and perhaps deleted altogether. Although I personally view Mao as a homicidal tyrant, I did my best to avoid using POV terms such as "mass murder," "slaughter" and "genocide" --C.J. Griffin 15:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the detail and references that you supplied, I doubt that any deletion attempt would succeed. I wish we had more citations for the rest of the article. - Ryanjo 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Imagine, all these unsubstantiated sources, even an entire government agency! I guess all I need to see is some information proving your contention of bias. Ryanjo 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to the several editors who reverted 68.126.252.131 (talk)'s deletion rampage. Ryanjo 14:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see the banned vandal and sockpuppeteer Jacob Peters is at it again. I like the way you put it: "I'm afraid that we cannot accept these blatantly biased sources." Are you referring to your many sockpuppets, perhaps? It is interesting that you failed to mention in your inane tirade my other sources - Stephen Rosskamm Shalom, Philip Short, John King Fairbank and Roderick MacFarquhar – hardly right-wing anti-Communists. And you only provide one source – a clearly biased one at that. All you did was basically copy and paste his words. Anyways, I would also like to thank the editors who restored my contributions  to this article.--C.J. Griffin 05:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  land reform and the suppression of counterrevolutionaries 

message: has removed cited material from the article with this edit: . I do not believe this material should have been removed; however, I do not wish to edit war, and therefore I'm bringing it here for discussion. Heimstern Läufer 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP has been blocked as an open proxy used by banned User:Jacob Peters. Heimstern Läufer 05:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Rather than removing discussions, archive the page. Λυδαcιτγ 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited material removed by anon 

message: Mao's image presented on this article is clearly not neutral and towards a positivistic point of view.
Considering direct and indirect deaths caused by Mao's government we have 40 Million deaths on the Three years of Natural Disasters- a lame explanation for the government failure to provide basic human rights and needs to the population as stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Years_of_Natural_Disasters 
The other negative side that is not clearly posted in the article is the number of deaths caused by the military actions and prosecution of landlords in china.
"According to Mao: The Unknown Story, "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader" and claimed that he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom."- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story 
I have many friends from china here where I do my masters degree and I usually ask them about Mao's legacy and the answers are always biased and leading toowards a positivistic view. Most of them fail to provide any information about the invasion of Tibet and the deaths caused by Mao's regime.
I do believe that the problem in this article is that this facts are being considered not be neutral but the evidence ( even from official figures ) is more than enough to state this facts clearly thus being neutral - facts -.
It should also be stated clearly that the Chinese government impose a censorship over the negative sides of Mao and also hides them from the chinese population.
I do recognize that Mao made great improvements for the country but the negative sides should be clear.- As if any dictatorship could be good -
Thanks for your consideration.
125.63.217.116 09:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another posting by an unregistered user who finds fault with the article (but obviously didn't read the article in detail, since they missed the recent addition on the "prosecution of landlords"). Also, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday are cited in the article and their statements from the book referenced several times. Statements of Halliday & Chang such as "he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom" are exaggerations, impossible to back up with cites,  and thus don't belong an encyclopedia article. As far as the "Three years of Natural Disasters", blaming the Yellow River flood in 1959 and the South China drought from 1958-1962 (documented by Encyclopedia Brittanica) on Mao really attributes supernatural powers to the man. The fact that Mao's policies caused millions of peasant deaths during the Great Leap forward is very well documented in this article (as anyone who took 10 minutes to read the posts in this discussion would discover). This article will not benefit from uncited claims on how many million deaths we can blame on Mao. Find citations for the information already present in, or for what you want to add to, this article. Ryanjo 19:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and Deaths 

message: I deleted the reference to the Little Red Book from the beginning of the Leadership section.  That book was not published until 1964 and was popularised during the Cultural Revolution, not at the beginning of Mao's rule.  It should be added in the Cultural Revolution subsection, but I'm not sure where in that section it should be added.  However, I do see that the Little Red Book is mentioned in an other section about Mao's cult of personality.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Revolution and Little Red Book 

message: I'm unable to find/correct the vandalism problems on this page; can a more experienced user please remove the vandalism? 
12.160.181.179 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandelism 

message: I've reverted back to what seems to be the original wording ("Mao has been blamed by critics for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese..."). User:A.J.A. and User:HongQiGong, please discuss below. Λυδαcιτγ 23:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mao's policies are responsible for the deaths...
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pov problem here. We can only say he his policies are blamed, not that he is responsible, or it would be OR. And if we say he is to blame according to..., we have to give voice to those who say he is not to blame, or there are other factors that mitigate or bring into question where blame should rest. In anycase, we can only report blame, not state as a fact he is responsible without committing OR.Giovanni33 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what exactly are you saying is OR?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It wouldn't be OR (plenty of people have said that Mao was responsible). Possibly POV, but is there any doubt that his policies were responsible for millions of deaths? I like Hong Qi Gong's wording, although I would put it in the past tense. Λυδαcιτγ 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be OR because we are not attributing this statement of fact to a source that meets the verification requirement. It seems that one is drawing a conclusing based on known facts about policies and results. But, to blame Mao himself one needs to make the connection, and there are different arguments/POV's regarding culpability. At most we can say he as been blamed, or that such and such believes him to be responsible. Saying Mao is responsible is either OR or POV.Giovanni33 23:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsibility 

message: Mao is treated as a folk-hero or even folk-god in some parts of China. Many long haul truck and bus drivers hang portraits (probably more accurately icons) of Mao near the drivers' seat to ward off accidents and bad luck (bearing legends such as "毛大帝在此" "Great Emperor Mao is here". Statuettes of Mao are also popular among some rural areas, and treated similarly to other folk heroes-cum-gods, such as Guan Yu. 
There should be something about this in the article, but I can't find any material on zh.wiki. Anyone know a reliable source that talks about this stuff? --Sumple (Talk) 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's talking about what is basically a cult religion surrounding the worship of Mao as a deity (ironically, since he was an atheist).  Some taxi drivers and truck drivers in China believe that hanging a picture of him in the car will prevent them from having accidents.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deificiation in folk mythology 

message: I've been reading the Jung Chang book and I came across this: "Mao famously refused to take a bath for quarter of a century." What was going on? Was he showing prolitarian solidarity? Is this a Hunan tradition, why they have such spicy food? No wonder all his flunkies asked him to swim in the Yangtse! Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate was also famously unbathed. I suspect Genghis Khan had personal hygene issues as well. We could create a category: Unbathed World Leaders. Kauffner 03:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: stop reading Jung Chang. geez. (Like your user page btw) --Sumple (Talk) 05:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Sumple, did he bathe frequently or not? John Smith's 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How on earth do I know? More to the point, how on earth does Jung Chang know? --Sumple (Talk) 10:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe she asked the people she interviewed. Those that lived with him would know his routine. John Smith's 00:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or maybe she just made it up. --Sumple (Talk) 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, surprise-surprise - she didn't. Maybe if you'd read the book you'd have seen her source. John Smith's 10:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes, Jung Chang is renowned for the veracity and third-party verification of her sources, and her openness to opposing views. Silly me. Thanks for remindming me. I will make sure I believe whatever she writes about whoever she met next time. --Sumple (Talk) 10:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sumple, you made an assumption and got caught out on it - don't sulk about it. If you paint her the same way she is alleged to have painted Mao then by the logic of her greatest detractors you're no better than her. John Smith's 12:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made no such assumption. I know she cites sources for these dubious claims. These sources are usually very dubious. This is no different. It's funny that you should accuse me of caricaturising, because it seems to me that you have gone out of your way to exclude as much criticism of Jung Chang as possible from these articles. --Sumple (Talk) 12:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you assume she never has any credible sources - I'm not sure that's any different. And I don't censure any criticism of her. In some cases it's very justified. Whereas I haven't seen you ever say a good thing about her, so I don't think you can lecutre me on that point. John Smith's 12:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Chang writes: "Mao did not like getting into baths, or showers, and did not have a bath for a quarter of a century. Instead, his servants rubbed him every day with a hot towel." (p. 406). Her source is a Chinese-language book entitled Following the Red Sun -- I was Mao Zedong's Valet for 13 Years by Li Jiaji and Yang Qingwang, (Harbin, 1994). Kauffner 07:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why wouldn't Mao take a bath?

message: Mao: the Unknown Story is no more than a anti-china propaganda book.
There no evidence show that 30 million people died in the famine happened between 1959 and 1962. The issue have been widely debate in chinese forums and many think that the 30 million death theory is created inside the PRC government to undermine  Mao's achievement and make more chinese support PRC's change to capitalism.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.161.7.63 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chang is a hugely popular author and her book got glowing reviews from a long list major publications. Certianly she has a POV, so her views should be balenced with opinions from elsewhere. Figures from China's State Statistical Bureau show a population decline for 1959-62 and the 30 million death toll estimate is derived from this. This number exaggerates the actual death toll somewhat because some people must have put off having children because of the famine. But this is the same technique used to arrive at the estimated death toll of 6 million Jews from the holocaust. Kauffner 06:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This wiki article of Mao is extremely bias.

message: A little misspelling can get alot of importance.  I think the Mao & Nixon pic needs to be larger and Nixon's visit more important.  Nixon opened up alot in Foreign Relations.  68.14.163.83 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Impotence

message: I seriously doubt Mao Zedong is known for being a "Poet of the People's Republic of China".  And he has no connection to the Republic of China at all.  --R1es 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from the article, "Many of Mao's poems are still popular in China and a few are taught as a mandatory part of the elementary school curriculum." Mao's philosophy is also still studied, I'm pretty sure. Λυδαcιτγ 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate categories 

message: I've been doing some editing of the Opium article, but I really know very little of Chinese history.  One of the better references I've cited is Yangwen Zheng, "The Social Life of Opium in China", 1483-1999, Modern Asian Studies 37,1 (2003) DOI:10.1017/S0026749X0300101X - which says that opium use persisted at high levels in China until Mao ruthlessly stamped it out in 1949.  But I find myself with some lingering questions.  Why did opium use also decrease in Taiwan?  How much of the decline (from a 27% adult male addiction rate!) was due to the earlier Qing anti-drug efforts, Christian missionaries, or other efforts?  China had very severe penalties for opium centuries before - so why did prohibition work this time?  What sort of chaos ensues in a country when millions of addicts are abruptly denied their drug?  And given the previous success in ending opium addiction, why is it said to be increasing since 1979?  Is that increase real or only the result of increased freedom to discuss the problem? Mike Serfas 16:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Mao stop opium use? 

message: I do not understand why we can not find even ground on this article. I really do not think Mao's biggest detractors, Rummel and Chang, need to be in the introduction. The view that he is a "Most prolific mass killer in history" Is definitely disputed. And the death tolls should show the extreme low end, if they are going to show the dubious 70,000,000 (Which Mao must of course have been so very instrumental in the deaths of these 70,000,000...) that Chang puts forth. It is ridiculous to see Chang thrown into every paragraph of this article. It is fairly well known now her book is disputed by many well known historians, least of all Short. (Majin Takeru 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  How do you propose we revise the intro?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  There are much better sources.  Li Zhisui's book and Jonathan Spence's book, for example.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the intro is quite negatively biased. I'll try to fix some of the more obvious problems... Kaldari 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao Zedong Intro (again) 

message: :His body was later placed into the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong, although he wished to be cremated and had been one of the first high-ranking officials to sign the "Proposal that all Central Leaders be Cremated after Death" in November 1956.
Hi guys.  I recently tried to verify a quote regarding this very bit over on Ten thousand years.  Well, I came to the conclusion that the quote was bull and one of the reasons was this date -- November 1956.  In actuality, Mao signed this (according to official CCP sources) on April 27th, 1956.  Check out Talk:Ten thousand years#Quotation for links and references.  If you can read Chinese, you'll find that the date is confirmed in lots of other articles, too.
I'd change it myself but I can't edit this article.  Cheers!70.132.13.192 05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you get a username, you will be able to edit the article in 4 days. In the meantime, any other established username can edit the article if they agree with the change. Admin help isn't required. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate date regarding proposal re: cremation in the Death section, please change 

message: Under the postage stamp of Mao shaking hands with Stalin, the words "Handshake of the Tyrants" are written.  I highly doubt that's the actual title of the stamp. I didn't want to just take it out because there's a small chance it is, but just bringing that up. 75.69.81.189 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It was probably vandalism - the link was done wrong and there was a grammar error, thanks for pointing that out.--danielfolsom 02:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: First off, remember to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~), second off, the reference says he did - and the reference is more trustworthy than you or any wikipedia editor.--danielfolsom 15:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is wrong; Mao never studied in the US, and in fact, never even travelled there. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handshake of the Tyrants? 

message: What referance is that? None of the biography books I read said mao Left China except in his trip to the soviet union. (Red aries 05:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference given? What do you mean what reference? Do you know how references are put in wikipedia? It's done in foot notes, look next to the statement.--danielfolsom 05:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't provide the source (obviously someone else did) - but either way there's no reason to doubt the accuracy of the source - follow Wikipedia policy. Just because you haven't been taught a fact doesn't mean the fact is wrong.--danielfolsom 05:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mao in USA

message: Dude, look up the facts before rebutting me. Saying Mao went to USA is like saying George Washington started World War II and lead the Communist Revolution in Russia. This is not just some minor error, its a serious mistake of making up stories and changing history into a fictional story. (Red aries 08:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao in USA 

message: Hi
I've removed this from the intro: 'a military and political genius'
It's already a pretty generous opening para, the repetition of CPC propoganda doesn't help NPOV. You've still got referencese to great leader and philosopher, poet and calligrapher which are up for debate. Could be balanced further IMO, but taking this out does help with neutrality.  Adamjamesbromley 09:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually adam that is npov - you'll notice that the first part said "great revolutionary". Technically that isn't npov either - because it says "great", but that's allowed (and so are a military and political genius) because it's how he's regarded - there's a difference between having an opinion and stating the opinion exist.--danielfolsom 14:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the sentence - it says that in China he's regarded - it doesn't say he is one.--danielfolsom 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Mao Zedong (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976) (also Mao Tse-tung in Wade-Giles; ) was a Chinese Marxist military and political leader and philosopher, who led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against the Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War, and served as leader of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. Mao is also recognized as a poet and calligrapher.
Regarded as one of the most important figures in modern world history, Mao is still a controversial figure today, over thirty years after his death. He is held in high regard in China where he is often portrayed as a great revolutionary leader and a military and political genius  who defeated Chiang Kai-shek in the Civil War, and transformed the country into a major power through his Maoist social and economic reforms. Although still officially venerated in China, his influence has been largely overshadowed by the political and economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping and other leaders since his death.Burying Mao: Chinese Politics in the Age of Deng Xiaoping by Richard Baum
132.185.144.121 11:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made small change to intro to make it more NPOV 

message: I think that's a misreading mixed with wishful thinking. Please note now Chinese high school textbooks may vary from region to region, and the textbook discussed is most likely the one used only in Shanghai, in which the emphasis of the modification is to "drops wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization", and reducing coverage on Mao is just a side effects. Mao isn't a saint anymore ever since 1979 so reducing his coverage isn't that big a deal if sufficiently justified.
More importantly, the text discussed is the World History textbook. Besides World History, the curriculum typically also requires 1) Ancient Chinese History and 2) Near and Modern Chinese History, all three requiring the same credit hours, and Mao is most likely covered in the Near and Modern Chinese History text, which I think is appropriate.
The textbooks getting the highest official endorsement are published by the "People's Education Press" and are all online. In the history section, Mao is mentioned in all related places, and there's a full section titled "Mao Zedong thoughts" dedicated to him in Book 3, Unit 4 "Important Chinese Thoughts and Theoretical Results since the 20th Century".
http://www.pep.com.cn/gzls/jszx/kb/ls3bx/dzkb/200703/t20070305_284613.htm
In any case I don't think there's an official repudiation or even distancing from Mao. If there is any, it's the adjustment from the Cultural Revolution style textbooks that all topics have to be associated with Mao. That's out of fashion soon after 1979.
Also, Mao is quite popular in China. Every time the current government is caught doing something wrong you'd hear people saying such and such would not have happened under Mao. Hwuubheain 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officially remove Mao from textbook? 

message: 165.234.100.99 18:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mao zedong quesins  

message: Mao did NOT study in the United States as indicated in the first paragraph of the Political Ideas section. Mao was one of the few major Chinese Communists who did not have any experience outside of China prior to the success of the Revolution. Mao studied at a normal instititute in Hunan, First Provincial Normal School of Hunan, as is correctly stated in the Early Life section.
Rorionb 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao's Education 

message: Thanks to whoever it was that has revised the intro. Feels much more neutral and appropriate. Adamjamesbromley 14:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro improved  

message: Official time is 12:10 am Sep 9. Some sources in China say he died 10 to midnight September 8, local time. They put down 10 after midnite so the day is better remember, anybody in China, anybody with some inside info, try to find out if he truly died on September 9. Let's not forget General Francisco Franco dictator of Spain, he died before midnite, but put down some important revolutionary day, so it gives a meaning to his death, symbolic power. It might have happened with this mao dictator too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.32 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time of death

message: The article claims that illiteracy after Mao's death was less then 7%, but the article on the Demographics in the Peoples Republic of China states that about 10% of China is currently illiterate. thet would mean that literacy-rate in China is currently dropping which sounds unlikely? Does anyone actually have the sources of the information on the average life-span and literacy rates before and after Mao?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.204.81 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you hear this, do you have evidence or just some rumor?
And he might have died Sep 8 11:50pm find out in china! 9 9, sounds fishy! But literacy 10%, I doubt it...64.107.3.126 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literacy 

message: Erm, what is that garbage "blamed by critics" doing in intro? We dont see such "blamed by critics" in intros of articles about Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Pol Pot etc. Mao initiated Great Leap and Cultural Revolution? Yes he did. Great Leap caused millions of deaths? Yes it did. Even if Mao wasn't fully aware of that how many people were dieing, then it does not change the fact, that his politics caused total disaster for China. But currently it sounds like there is only small bunch of agressive critics who blame him.--Staberinde 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen Victoria did not make policy - ergo she had nothing to do with any famines. John Smith's (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "blamed by critics"

message: According to Rudolph J Rummel and others Mao is the biggest mass murderer that has ever lived on this planet. According to Rummel he and his regime murdered nearly 70 million people - in addition to those killed in action, or killed as a consequence of the policies of his totalitarian regime (hunger and so on). Stalin is the second worst mass murderer in history according to the same numbers. If this is a fact, or something in the vicinity if that is true, something dramatic should be done to this article.--85.165.73.186 (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Mao the biggest mass murderer in world history?

message: If one accepts the communist premise of historically necessary loss of lives, then why not conclude that all of the murderings and killings of this regime has all been unnecessary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.73.186 (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it utterly ridiculous to blame Mao for every death that occured within the years of his rule.--PCPP (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "unnecessary loss of lives"

message: This is a loaded and disputed concept, and its application here is POV. I don't think WP should take a stand endorsing the concept, at all. This goes for all the articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: totalitarianism

message: I think this newly released info about "Chairman Mao proposed sending 10 million Chinese women to US" should be added to article but as I am not an expert of the issue I would not do it myself. One source for it  Farmanesh (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman Mao proposed sending 10 million Chinese women to US 

message: Mao Zedong's predecessor was Zhang Wentian, not Chen Duxiu.
:: Zhang Wentian is correct; I've made the change.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao Zedong's predecessor was Zhang Wentian, not Chen Duxiu 

message: Is it me or is this article in desperate need of references  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theregisteredone (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mao's unreferenced "millions" 

message: In his twenties, Mao was used to sign “二十八画生”(the 28 brush stroke man), since his name "毛澤東" need 28 stroke to be write. Accordingly, can you please complete the article by :
* Hao (pseudonym) : «二十八画生»
source : "28 strokes" et "二十八畫生".
220.135.4.212 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudonym 

message: The article is unclear. He is apparently revived after being placed on 'the wrong side' for breathing. The next sentence informs us of his 'lying in state'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.201.80 (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumstances of his death. 

message: Mao Zedong
  (Redirected from Li Desheng)
Huh? DOR (HK) (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsensical redirect

message: http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2008/05/wikipedia-on-mao.html
Wikipedia on Mao
Updated June 4:
Granted, he's a controversial fellow all right, but this hit
piece is just an outrageous travesty of anti-Communist
propaganda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
The discussion page shows the details of the travesty,
including the banning of anyone promoting an opposite point of
view (a typical smarmy Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View"
practice).
My World Book article on China1 and my Time-Life book, China,
from 1962 (height of the Cold War) are vastly more fair than
this. World Book is hardly pro-Communist and Time-Life was
always fanatically anti-Communist.
Fact is, Wikipedia is run by a bunch of little libertarian
shits. Jimmy Wales is a wild-eyed, fanatical libertarian crazy
person, and he's using his evil website to try to poison the
mind of a planet in favor of his libertarian nightmare.
That's his right, but the US "free press" (there is no free
press in the US) really ought to call him on it. I've seen all
sorts of MSM bullshit about Jimmy and jerk-off webcyclopedia,
and every single one of them has been a fawning valentine (as
we call such pieces in the journalism field).
Never once has even one article hinted that Wikipedia is
grossly unfair, or that it is run by various cabals that are
all tied in with the super-cabal of ultra-right libertarian
Hindutva-Zionists around Wales. It might be nice to let the
world know exactly what the politics of him and his creepy
followers really are.
Let them know that Wales was furious that the federal
government had done anything whatsoever to help the victims of
Hurricane Katrina before, during and after the storm in any
way whatsoever. Can you imagine?
In Wales World, there is no role for a government to play in a
world-class hurricane. Need to be rescued? Call your friend
who obviously has a helicopter or pay $1000's for some
Israeli-cum-Halliburton mercenaries to come rescue your ass.
No government help to put up victims afterwards, to clean up
the mess, or even I guess to collect the fucking bodies. Let
the epidemics come. No government help to rebuild the city
afterwards. Let it stay underwater oozing gators, toxic waste,
mold, decaying flesh and ruined structures. All of this is the
proper domain of the private sector! Can you imagine how many
people would have died?
I mean, this is what we got anyway under Libertarian Lite
George Bush, but in Jimmy World, things would have been
incalculably worse.
Look. If that's Jimmy's worldview, no problem. Hell, there are
still dedicated Pol Potists out there. But the world really
ought to know what Jimmy Wales fanatical ultra political views
are so they decide whether or not they agree. They should also
be told how he uses his fake unbiased Webcyclopedia like
Rupert Murdoch uses his media empire, to push reactionary
politics in the name of "fair and balanced" bullshit.
That the "liberal media" MSM refuses to do this is worrying.
It makes me wonder how reactionary they really are. Is the MSM
as ultra-right as Wales, or are they just scared to talk about
it? What's up?
Notes
1. Here is some text from my World Book article on China. Note
how the very rightwing World Book encyclopedia is able to
acknowledge that Mao did many great things:
The Communist government has achieved an impressive record of
economic growth. The Communists have provided widespread job
opportunities, job security and a more even income
distribution to the workers...China's farm output has expanded
greatly under the Communists...Production of chickens and
livestock has improved significantly since 1950...
Under the Communists, industrial production has grown at an
average rate of 12% per year...Since 1950, China has made
great progress in educating its children. The number of
children in both elementary and secondary school has increased
sharply...Communist have conducted mass literacy campaigns so
that now 75% of the population is literate...
All of the Communists' health programs have resulted in a
population that is much healthier than before. The Communists
have almost wiped out cholera, typhoid and many other horrible
diseases that used to kill millions of Chinese every year.
Labels: China, Hurricane Katrina, Libertarianism, Maoism, Vast
Rightwing Conspiracy, Wikipedia
posted by Robert Lindsay at 6/01/2008 01:00:00 AM
::Am I to understand that you feel that Mao hasn't been given proper credit for his role as an educator? You do know that Chinese schools were all closed during the Cultural Revolution? Kauffner (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia on Mao