Talk:Red Star Over China

message: Most claims by Chang and Halliday have not been accepted by experts.  I'm quite happy for their view to be included, but in its own section. 
I changes the description of Snow to 'left-wing'; he was quite critical of Communism.  I also fixed the link to 'Unknown Story', which was a dead end.
--GwydionM 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jung and Halliday has been accepted by quite some experts but sure, as they criticize such a high profile person as Mao not everyone is going to be happy about what they write. Have made the quote a lot shorter, hope you're happy with that?
That looks like a good arrangement; I should have thought of it myself.
I deleted the sentence saying that the book is out of print, as Amazon lists it as being in print. --cwh 15:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: That stupid unknown story book has wormed its way into every single article even remotely related to Mao or china. Theres more from Chang on this page than snow, the criticisms take up more than half the freaken page! A 2006 pop history book is triumphing over a 1935 classic! For God's sake its a extremely recent, incredibly biased book written as popular history and on George W. Bush's reading list. If ten years from now it becomes the main source on China's hsitory then wikipedia should follow suit but in the mean time wikipedia's entire China section needs substantially rewriting since it simply parrots Changs views. Chang's views belong in the unkbnown article not in every sing article about china!!!!--Gary123 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of oddities concerning Chang & Halliday's book.  It is full of obvious goofs, yet most reviewers praised it, using much the same terms, as if they had been copying from some handout.  ('Free' media are commercial media, obviously.)  The trouble someone went to shows that someone still fears Mao's legacy, and also that they can't get anyone clever to write a 'knocking' biography.  Only an idiot attacks everything without the slightest explanation of how a man can get everything wrong apart from continuously succeeding.  So don't let it get to you.  --GwydionM 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only "virus" is Gary, who is spamming talk pages with the same post..... John Smith's 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown VIRUS

message: Does anyone know if the Chinese version was available while Mao was ruling China?  It definitely appeared in Chinese soon after Snow's book appeared, maybe pirated.  And it is available now - unsurprisingly, since it suits the Dengist vision of Mao.  But was it available to ordinary Chinese in the 1950s and 1960s?  I did a 'google' but could find no information on this point.--GwydionM 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability in China 

message: Actually, Snow published substantial parts of the book in Chinese magazines even before the book came out in English. 
Don't know why my correction of the revised ed. was removed and replaced with the mistaken info that the revised edition was 1972, after Snow's death  -- did I misunderstand something? I have the revised edition of 1968 in my hand, and the info can be verified at Amazon.com. Also, I wonder why there is a citation of a recent expensive reprint, when the Grove edition ISBN-13: 978-0802150936 is still in print. Unless somebody corrects me, I will go ahead and restore. Apologies if I am wrong. cwh 06:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of revised edition 

message: I tried to put things together to include the various points of view and remove the repetition of a paragraph. There are actually several more books on the Long March which I would like to reference, but I don't have time right now. Please pardon me for removing the references to Chang & Halliday at least temporarily, but there are other critical studies which I would like to add from Brady's book, which I added to the references.
As a further point, I assume that Wiki policy is to avoid POV characterizations such as "left wing," which are hard to define in a neutral way. But we can convey information by saying "critical of the KMT" or "sympathetic," both of which are demonstrable and which Snow would have accepted. This way readers are supplied with information and we do not substitute our judgments for theirs.
Peace!
cwh 06:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original edition mentioned that his transcript had been checked by Mao - entirely normal when reporting the views of a major political figure.  He doesn't mention anything important being changed.  So why is this mentioned as a 'recent discovery'?  --GwydionM (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, Snow mentions that Mao checked the transcript and doesn't mention anything important being changed, but Brady argues (p. 47), on the basis of letters that Snow wrote which are in his Kansas City Archive, that important things were in fact changed both before publication and then in later editions. But this is a touchy area, and you are quite right to question.Both this article and the rather begrudging article on Snow need to be filled out so as to put him in the context of his times (not using hindsight) and to show the range of reasonable criticisms. ch (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment and Criticism Section

message: Substituted at 04:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment