Talk:Great Chinese Famine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Citation style tag

The current article only have a seperated section of references. Please consult Wikipedia:References for the correct way of referencing in wikipedia. --WinHunter (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename article and NPOV

I believe the article should be renamed to "The Great Chinese Famine". Saying the cause of the famine is purely natural is POV. So we should rename the article and describe all possible causes for the famine. --WinHunter (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I put up the npov tag because this article only voiced the Chinese government view. --WinHunter (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think in both cases you are wrong. "Three Years of Natural Disasters" is how it is referred to in China, this is the name for the phenomenon. While non-Chinese may come up with various non-Chinese descriptions, since we are talking about a Chinese phenomenon, clearly the current common name in China (ie. "Three Years of Natural Disasters") should be the title. The writer also gave alternative names in use in China for these events, so they were being completely fair and impartial. Additionally, the article was objective and gave all the detailed references and analyses which any reader can go and research for themselves, so it is not accurate to apply the npov tag. It is also inacurate to say, as you did, that the article only voiced the Chinese government view - the author cited numerous objective sources, and is not trying to slant the article to any one point of view.--Jimhoward72 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In China, Chinese name = CCP view, that is, the official conclusion of the cause of the famine. Rather than a name merely describing the widespread famine, the article name already drawed some degree of conclusion as of the cause. Also, the article exaggerated the role of natural disaster and some side agricultural policies, while some main ones were never mentioned. (e.g. the increased procurement of grain while output decreased.) --WinHunter (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. By that reasoning the Cultural Revolution should be known as the Great chaos and instability period of Chinese semi-civil war. Colipon+(T) 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you meant that to sound absurd. It didn't. Let's not take the party line, shall we? Or do you think the Holocaust was just racial hygiene? 72.144.68.227 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling?

Section 'Outcome', 3rd paragraph uses the word "governtment". I am assuming that this is a spelling mistake, but have not changed it just in case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs1kh (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Official Data"

Amazing to see that someone would give credence to any Communist dictatorship's "official data" - which were as realistic as "official currency exchange rates" and "official news" published by party organs. The purpose of "official data" was not to provide "objective statistics" but to shape internal and external propaganda. The cost in loss of life and loss of productivity and wealth formation was enormous all thru the communist block. --LPfeffer June 18, 2006

It is my understanding that a key part of the Great Leap Forward was a suspension of the laws of science. Part of this was suspending census taking during the 1950s and 1960s. If this is true, how can there be a true count? It is also my understanding that China's granaries were full and the government was exporting grain. (Could export figures be verified?) Is this true? When Zhou Enlai visited his hometown and saw what was happening, he sent grain from the granaries to the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.6.149 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

early discussion

I do not think these numbers make sense: "According to China Statistical Yearbook (1984), crop production decreased from 2,000,000 tons (1958) to 1,435,000 tons (1960)." 2 million tons is miniscule for a country the size of China (e.g. if they had 500 million population and everyone very unrealistically ate just 40kg food per year, that adds up to 20 million tons food consumption - and people would be dying of starvation in the process 24.218.100.40 01:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: In one paragraph the population was 678M, and in the next it was "an average of 70M" across the same span of time! There is a decimal point error in the first number, please! SRC

The years 1957-58 saw an occurrence of 'El Nino', though no one knew it existed until the 1960s. This global shift caused abnormal weather in China for the next few years.

Check the Encyclopaedia Britannica Yearbooks for 1958 to 1962: not on-line but a good library should have them. They do speak of abnormal weather, droughts followed by floods. This includes 30 inches of rain at Hong Kong in five days in June 1959, part of a pattern that hit all of South China. This was the classic result of El Nino on Chinese agriculture.

[Official Chinese statistics show a marked fall in the death-rate after Mao came to power, with only the year 1960 coming out worse than the Kuomintang norm.

There is a marked difference between official and ‘reconstructed’ data, the figures that some demographers . Chang & Halliday use some the ‘reconstructed’ data, without bothering to tell the reader that these are not the official statistics. More than that: they appear to mix ‘reconstructed’ and official data, to make Mao look as bad as possible.

The official data shows an inherited rate of 20 per 1000, a norm around just over 1% or 10 per 1000 in the years before and after, and a peak of 25 per 1000. The ‘reconstructed’ data shows an inherited rate of 30 per 1000, a norm around just of 15 to 18 per 1000 in the years before and after, and a peak of 43 per 1000. To get her 38 million, she blends the official norm with the reconstructed peak.

She also muddles a 'demographic shadow' caused by food shortages with actual famine deaths. No one saw famine victims in China in the relevant years, the 'living skeletons' whom we've seen so many other places.

All writers seem blind to the very marked fall in death-rated in the first years of Mao’s rule. Mao regarded the ‘Great Leap’ as a simple extension of policies that had been working very well for the previous 7 or 8 years. Both official and ‘reconstructed’ data suggest a gigantic net gain under Mao, the avoidance of maybe 100 million deaths that would have happened if the Nationalists had stayed in power.

Compare this to the Republic of India, also a success story. "The average Indian male born in the 1990s can expect to live 58.5 years; women can expect to live only slightly longer (59.6 years), according to 1995 estimates. Life expectancy has risen dramatically throughout the century from a scant twenty years in the 1911-20 period. Although men enjoyed a slightly longer life expectancy throughout the first part of the twentieth century, by 1990 women had slightly surpassed men. The death rate declined from 48.6 per 1,000 in the 1910-20 period to fifteen per 1,000 in the 1970s, and improved thereafter, reaching ten per 1,000 by 1990, a rate that held steady through the mid-1990s. Life Expectancy and Mortality in India

Chiang Kai-shek had had 22 years in power and achieved nothing, so the idea that he would have continued to fail is very reasonable. Success in Taiwan means nothing: Taiwan had been thoroughly modernised by the Japanese Empire, which was extremely brutal but very efficient in its modernisation.

--172.201.250.157 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Gwydion M. Williams

Shocking propaganda. "Official" statistics are the official statistics of the very murderers who perpetrated this horror. Read a damn book. 72.144.68.227 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I am no fan of Chiang Kai-shek, but it must be noted that most of his years were marked by feuding between warlords, Japan's invasion, and Mao's Civil war. That on top of natural floods and famine. Could that be why the death rate was so high During the KMT years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.6.149 (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Though there are a lot of uncertainty about the real number, from many personal memories, it's hard to dispute indeed a lot of people died of starvation during that three years. Even in my hometown, a quite rich place in China, there were many deaths due to lack of food. No one died in my family, though my father said he had very little to eat then. However, my home was in the town, it's believed situation was much worse in villiages.

Monthly Review Press

With this edit C.J. Griffin has removed the source Li. Minqi and related material. The edit summary was:

Removed radical Marxist polemical source published by Monthly Review Press (Marxist publisher).

Wikipedia has a core policy of neutral point-of-view. We do not exclude sources or points-of-view because they are "Marxist". Besides Monthly Review Press is a highly respected publisher from New York. I am restoring the content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

POV-section?

C.J. Griffin has tagged the section Great Chinese Famine#Alternative perspectives with a {{POV-section}} tag. I cannot see a valid reason for this. As the title says and Wikipedia policy demands the section presents points-of-view that differ from those presented in the core part of the article. Wikipedia policy demands that all relevant points-of view be presented. It is clear from the content that these are exactly that, alternative POVs. There is no need to emphasize this with a maintenance tag - especially as no maintenance is needed. I am removing the tag. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Griffin is still trying to discredit these sources he dislikes, here [1] he made some extreme POV ad-hominem attacks on the author's positions, Mobo Gao is labelled as "director of the Confucius Institute", that his work is "controversial" and "published through Pluto Press, one of the world's leading radical publishers", and Li Miqi "became a Marxist after extensive reading of the works of Karl Marx and Mao Zedong". I fail to see how are these relevant - for instance Dikkoter's book was published outside the academia and received funding by the Chiang Ching Kuo Foundation, yet the article does not mention this, and I find it just as irrelevant.--PCPP (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Change article title to THREE YEARS OF NATURAL DISASTERS

Hello friends. This period is more commonly referred to as the "Three Years of Natural Disasters" in China. I propose we change the title to 'Three Years of Natural Disasters', to reflect the most common way of describing this period. Only in the West is it referred to as the 'Great Chinese Famine', which is basically an ideologically loaded term. The famine was in no way 'greater' nor the suffering greater than Chinese famines in the past (this is reflected in the average mortality rate during this period, with the worst estimates of this still below typical mortality rates in pre-revolutionary China.

Many more people in the world refer to this period as the Three Years of Natural Disaster, and this is the way the Chinese refer to this period, so anything else is really not a neutral POV. I move that we change the title to reflect this.

What do other people think?

Paramanami (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As this article says, "Three Years of Natural Diasters" is also a loaded term for implying that the disasters were 'natural'. But more importantly, "Great Chinese Famine" sounds plausibly closer (I hedge here because this established usage is not made clear by the sources used in this article) to the name that policy requires: "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources". Quigley (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Spam of sockpuppet

"I believe one reason he continues to engage in sockpuppetry, a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, even after being blocked indefinitely is because he knows those who agree with him on ideological grounds will restore his edits."

Clearly Prairespark's views are NOT frince - in fact there are more people and academics which hold to views which align more with prairespark's than there are people whose views are like Dikotter's. Dikotter is most definitely a fringe author - who believes drugs are OK, who believes the opium war was OK, that Japanese imperialism should not be condemned 'root and branch, and that Chinese feel physically 'inferior' in front of whites.

Just because Dikotter is Western and white does not (or should not) make his views automatically more worthy of respect than people like Minqi Li and Mobo Gao.

I am restoring the page to my last edit.

Griffin should offer more justification than just ad hominem's accusing others of being 'fringe'. And bringing in 'Front Page', a website which engages in right wing polemics and openly admits to being so is different from referencing academic works like those of Minqi Li and Mobo Gao.

Paramanami (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

sockpuppet content removed

User:Prairespark has been banned for sockpuppetry. His edits constitute vandalism and therefore should not be reinserted into the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By your logic, the Mass killings under communist regimes article must also be deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet. Regardless of his behavior, his sources are well referenced, and follows WP:RS per RS Noticeboard.
This is wrong for two reasons. First, two wrongs don't make a right. Secondly, that article is now completely different from the one original, even with a different name. It as if a new article has been created. Also, there are numerous flaws with the content. In addition to the sources being fringe, those in the lede being originally published by "People's Democracy" and Monthly Review Press respectively, it appears that the portion in the lede is OR, unless it can be shown that the latter is referencing the former: "However, other researchers have questioned the methodology used to arrive at such a high number of excess deaths, pointing out that the excess mortality would be more fairly calculated relative to the mortality rates that prevailed throughout the rest of the developing world at the time of the Great Leap Forward, or even the mortality rates that prevailed in China prior to 1949 - not the very low official figure for the year 1957 provided by the Chinese govenment.[5] Calculating excess deaths in this manner, the total number of excess deaths for the year 1960 has been put at 4.9 million."[6] Not only that, but it should have been noted who exactly is stating this, not just "other researchers..." The content as introduced by a permabanned troll must be removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If Prairespark had been banned at the time he made edits you could argue that you are free to revert them. You are however not free to revert PCPP without a valid reason. Well, Prairespark was not "banned" when he made the edits. Besides he is not banned, he is blocked. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I believe that Prairespark contributions should only be removed on sight if its A) clear vandalism, and B) added by a sockpuppet after being blocked, which neither is the case. CJ Griffin doesn't hide his clear dislike of the sources, first adding a POV tag with no discussion [2], then using "radical publisher" as an excuse to remove them [3], then marginalize the sources with ad-hominem attacks on their publishers and political orientation [4], and now is using the "sockpuppet" excuse [5]. This highly smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and ironically, Griffin has no problem adding equally polemic right-wing sources such as Dikkoter [6] (being sponsored by the Chiang Ching Kuo Foundation), and the controversial Black Book of Communism [7].--PCPP (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Dikotter is a professor who teaches courses on both Mao and the Great Leap Forward Great Chinese Famine at the University of Hong Kong [8] and his research was ALSO funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and the Economic and Social Research Council, and in Hong Kong, the Research Grants Council. His unprecidented access to Chinese archival materials on the event makes his book highly significant. The book was published by a company that, while not academic, doesn't have an axe to grind on the issue. The Black Book of Communism, which is not even cited as a source in this article, was written by a team of scholars and published in the US by Harvard University Press. By contrast, the sources in the lede were put forth by fringe publishers which clearly do have an axe to grind, and as I stated before there are clear POV and accuracy issues with this portion, which have yet to be addressed. If I were to post equivalent sources from the other side they'd be something like FrontPage Magazine or The New American, but I refrain from citing such extremist sources on Wikipedia, and have reverted others for doing so in fact in other articles. It also appears that Prairespark persists in his sockpuppetry as evidenced below, clearly the behavior of a vandal. As John Smith's noted in his revert, this behavior should not be rewarded. For these reasons and the others I stated in my previous posting the content must be removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe one reason he continues to engage in sockpuppetry, a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, even after being blocked indefinitely is because he knows those who agree with him on ideological grounds will restore his edits. Therefore it is imperative that all contribution made my Prairespark be removed immediately and permanently, regardless of when they were made.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, sockpuppetry usually indicates that no one but the sockpuppeteer would restore the edits, and therefore xe feels that xe has to do it xirself. But this talk about sockpuppetry is a distraction: there is no proscription on making a particular edit to an article just because another editor who is now banned has also made it. When a legitimate editor adds the same text, that legitimate editor is taking full responsibility for its contents. So address the content issues please and not the original contributor, because they are separate. To start, how about substantiating your argument that the Monthly Review Press is "fringe" and that it has "an axe to grind", when several other editors have pointed out that it is actually a respected publication, and while nominally socialist, it did not hew the party line or get into sectarian struggles, and that its writers are independent. Also, if you have problems with the POV or accuracy of some parts, be patient in discussing them on the talk page instead of removing the accompanying edits wholesale. Quigley (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
So, basically, banned/blocked sockpuppeteers can continue contributing to Wikipedia if other legitimate editors happen to agree with the content posted and restore it, is that right? Why bother banning socks at all? And Monthly Review Press is a far-Left [Marxist/Socialist] publisher, no? Would you consider far-Right publications like Frontpage Magazine as fringe? If editors start filling the lede of this article with content from FPM articles such as this (Leftwing Monster: Mao Zedong by Steven Mosher), you would not take issue with that?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to wonder or make assumptions about the blocking policy, because you can read it yourself. Persons are banned or blocked, not text or viewpoints. And to be clear: those editors that are restoring the material do not necessarily agree with the scholarly assessments presented, but recognize that they help make an article complete and balanced.
I'm not convinced that a socialist orientation makes MRP "far-left". I would not necessarily reject a review of this book from FPM, actually, if the author was credible, and if it had a novel take on things with an explained research methodology. The character assassination piece to which you linked is not a serious or scholarly consideration of the facts of the famine, or of any of the events in Mao's life for that matter. Quigley (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I am generally familiar with Wiki blocking policy, but your assertion that banned editors reverted contributions can be restored by legitimate editors was new to me. After skimming the page you linked (I don't feel like reading the entire thing at this time), I failed to see any mention of this. Perhaps you can quote the relevant portion for me. Regarding the other issue, I believe what I posted below makes the case that MRP is fringe, as it publishes works by those clearly on the fringes of society, such as convicted murderers and former members of violent revolutionary organizations. The title of the book (The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy) indicates it is polemical work. Citing such a source that is giving a controversial and minority POV in the lede is giving that view undue weight. And nobody addressed the other source, which was Utsa Patnaik's article. It was originally published by something known as "People's Democracy." After doing a google search, I believe this must be the organization in question: People's Democracy: Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India. If this is the case, the article source must be considered as political propaganda and removed from the article entirely.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The banning policy says that (1) while unhelpful edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted, and (2) Wikipedians should not post material at the direction of a banned user, (3) they may be able to add material along the lines of that contribution if it is verifiable and they have independent reasons for doing so. Quigley (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, some of those who have written articles published by Monthly Review Press include Bernardine Dohrn, leader in the Weather Underground, which strived for "the violent overthrow of the US government and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat," convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Che Guevara, who really needs no introduction. Nothing fringe there at all....--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)\
Re: To start, how about substantiating your argument that the Monthly Review Press is "fringe" and that it has "an axe to grind"... After recently viewing the articles Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward? and What Maoism Has Contributed, both in Monthly Review, it seems to me that they do indeed have an axe to grind on this issue. Recently they've published The Politics of Genocide, which apparently asserts the genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda never occurred! This blatant genocide denial book was absolutely eviscerated by Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) here: Denying Rwanda: A Response to Herman & Peterson. This, in addition to what I've already discussed above, demonstrates that Monthly Review are not only far-left, they are as fringe as they come. And Minqi Li is an outright advocate of the Chinese New Left, which means he's ostensibly "in favour of the restoration of Maoist-style socialism." This demonstrates that he also has an axe to grind in regards to Mao's legacy. Bearing all this in mind perhaps Li's book shouldn't be considered as a reliable source on the issue of Maoist famines. I won't remove it at this time, but will tag it as an possible unreliable source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Li Minqi is not just some random leftist nutjob, but a professor of economics at the University of Utah, which means he's a reliable source. Even if he takes a leftist approach, there is no problem here in balancing him out with other scholars. And I must laugh at your suggestion that "Li has an axe to grind", as opposed to people funded by the Chiang Ching Kuo Association. So far you haven't demonstrated any substantial arguments on why Li isn't reliable, only association fallacy arguments.--PCPP (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to remove Amartya Sen's reference

Amartya Sen's statement is irrelevant and out of context, should be removed. Arilang talk 09:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Amaratya Sen's reference is not only out of context but also mis-conveys ideas of Amaratya Sen as he has written on this topic -

"Indeed, no substantial famine has ever occurred in a democratic country—no matter how poor. This is because famines are extremely easy to prevent if the government tries to prevent them, and a government in a multiparty democracy with elections and free media has strong political incentives to undertake famine prevention. This would indicate that political freedom in the form of democratic arrangements helps to safeguard economic freedom (especially free- dom from extreme starvation) and the freedom to survive (against famine mortality)." (Amaratya Sen Development as Freedom Page 51)

Another noteworthy point is that this article's current reference to Sen, which basically is nothing but another author quoting a line from Sen's book is misrepresentation of whole Sen Ideology. It is good to quote a line or two but the lines which are quoted should represent the author's stance in general which in this case is not present.

So either- A- We should remove it as it doesn't reflect Sen's ideology. B- We should post a quote/reference that is representative of Sen's ideas. For example the above mentioned passage or

"The connection between political rights and economic needs can be illustrated in the specific context of famine prevention by considering the massive Chinese famines of 1958-1961 . Even before the recent economic reforms, China had been much more successful than India in economic development in many significant respects..... Nevertheless, there was a major failure in China in its inability to prevent famines. The Chinese famines of 1958-1961 killed, it is now estimated, close to thirty million people—ten times more than even the gigantic 1943 famine in British India. The so-called Great Leap Forward initiated in the late 1950s had been a massive failure, but the Chinese government refused to admit that and continued to pursue dogmatically much the same disastrous policies for three more years. It is hard to imagine that anything like this could have happened in a country that goes to the polls regularly and that has an independent press. During that terrible calamity the government faced no pressure from newspapers, which were controlled, and none from opposition parties, which were absent." (Development as Freedom, Amaratya Sen Page 181).

Swift&silent (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems a ridiculous line to end the article on; what factual basis is there for 'in no democratic ... famine'? It's as though the deaths of the Dust Bowl or Appalachia or the west in the US or many famines in island nations currently just don't exist because they're insufficient to be a famine? It's contentious and possibly misleading. 67.169.49.52 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Utsa Patnaik reference

The reference for Utsa Patnaik is linked to a site which is not reputed at all. It is linked to a site's "Akhbar" section which in Urdu means "Newspaper" I, however, am confused as this site has articles on very irregular basis, it was active for just a couple of years and most importantly the Latest Issue is 9 Years old! The site is ripe with Anti-BJP (one of the political parties in India) news, which seems like an reaction to communal riots of that time and this most likely is an party bashing site as almost all articles heavily criticise BJP while don't even touch other parties or matters which can't be a coincidence. And the last issue 'grieves' over re-election of BJP in Gujarat and states that it is an 'sad day for south asia'. So I believe that we can't treat that as an trusted source. We shall remove unreliable material from wiki to maintain verifiability. Swift&silent (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any source which is in violation of WP:RS should be removed. Arilang talk 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Article

This article presents a lot of extreme POV's as factual. Can someone work to make the "Alternative Views" section a little less intense? The introduction also seems a little biased. Niisapu (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Title NPOV?

Is this title the commonly accepted name in English or just some made up term by Wikipedians? I have never heard of this English name and it is not a direct translation of the Chinese name, though that might just be my ignorance. I understand the "official English name" is NPOV, but lots of things have NPOV names, for example the People's Liberation Army or Great Leap Forward, but no one bothers to contest those because it is what it is. --167.167.15.254 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism

I’ve added a section on reports of cannibalism – Great Chinese Famine#Cannibalism, in this revision. As this is a taboo subject, this may be a point of controversy, and we should use careful sourcing and wording. The best English-language reference, as far as I can tell, is Hungry Ghosts, Jasper Becker (1997), which is primarily about this topic. A more recent book, on the famine more generally, which also includes a brief discussion of cannibalism, is Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–1962, Frank Dikötter (2010) (chapter 36. Cannibalism, pages 320–323). Please help improve the current brief section!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism has been rejected by Chinese media and the government. The oral reports may have been exaggerated in order to get the government to respond to the desperate lack of food during the famine. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you statement is not supported by any sources, but the statement currently removed by IP was supported by RS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


There is a mention of it on the page now, but no section; on the Great Leap Forward page there are a couple of mentions. It's not immediately clear which parts of the issue this page is to treat and which parts the Great Leap Forward page is to treat. I will have a bit of a closer look. I think it should be very obvious to readers why there are two pages, and how they differ. If it's not we need to make it so. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I placed it back. Welcome to improve. I quickly looked in a book. According to an eyewitness, peasants exchanged their children prior to killing and eating them. And the book does mention the role of pseudoscience by Trofim Lysenko.My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Mobo Gao references to be removed

Michael Rank:

"But Gao's attacks on Chang are sometimes uncomfortably personal, while his defence of the cultural revolution failed to convince me." The revolution, revised by Michael Rank at guardian.co.uk

Gregor Benton:

""A powerful mixture of political passion and original research, a brave polemic against the fashionable view on China. ... Aims a knockout blow at Jung Chang's recent book on Mao, which Bush and the conservatives rave-reviewed." Gregor Benton, Professor of Chinese History, University of Cardiff.

The above two reviewers would about sum up the Western mainstream academic view point on Gao. I have spend hours doing Google search on Gao's book, hoping to discover some "positive" reviews, unfortunately, I failed. Looks like The Battle for China's Past: Mao & the Cultural Revolution has been more or less ignored by the general academic world.

That said, first of all, Gao's references should be removed from this article, according to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, and editors are welcomed to join this discussion to reach consensus. Arilang talk 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you simply managed to find two reviews, and that somehow it discredits his entire research? Sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Mobo Gao's works are already found to follow WP:RS in the reliable sources noticeboard [9].--59.167.141.97 (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I just removed from the page the view of Wertheim, which was sourced to this Asia Times article[10] but did not appear in it. If someone wants to reinstate this individual's views, they should find a reliable source that has published them, and explain something about their significance. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This article

Should this information all be included under the "Great Leap Forward" rubric? I don't see a major difference in the concept or content. The Great Leap was the famine, including the policies which induced it. Should they be separated? Anyone able to explain? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As the article Great Leap Forward states, the "Great Leap Forward" refers to the five year government plan. This article is about one of the consequences of that plan. You could argue the particulars, but separating this as a "sub" or "effect" article is certainly allowed under Wikipedia:Summary style. If you really want to propose a merge, see the guidelines and process description at Wikipedia:Merging. - BanyanTree 23:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I neglected this; yes, I do propose a merge. I'll look at those guidelines. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow, after all this time I am now back to this page wondering why there are actually two pages. So I actually do still have to carefully check that merge policy and propose a reason why this should be merged. I sense it, but I will articulate it in policy and add the template. The actual Great Leap Forward article has already information about the aftermath, so the crossover here is such that they are indistinguishable. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of 1946

George Silks pic File:Child famine Great Leap Forward.png is of 1946, see: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/9f07f5d7d21a6b95.html. The Picture is also shown in Great Leap Forward.--Goesseln (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fringe view

"Li argues that based on the average death rate over the three years of the Great Leap Forward, there were several million fewer lives lost during this period than would have been the case under normal mortality conditions before 1949"

This is fringe view by a dissident "super-communist". It contradicts all other sources including the official view by Chinese government (sourced in this article) that millions indeed died from hunger due to Great Leap Forward policies. This must be removed per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite Li is a super-communist or not, it is keeping the sentence down there reflects the NPOV policy. NPOV means not to be partial, the article should state views from both sides. Beside, Li Minqi didn't contradict or deny the fact, he just believe the death rate was much higher before 1949 in his counting. Honestly, I think this point of view has a great popular market in China but it is described so little in the article, comparing with other views.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 10:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
According to policy, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". I do not know what market are you talking about, but this is only one source that clearly contradicts all other sources. Essentially, it is construed to tell than people did not die from hunger, whereas all other sources consider this to be one of the most significant man-made famines of 20th century. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I meant to say the sources about this argument is too few in English. Try to follow this link. The author of Reconsideration before a disaster(《在一场大灾变前的反思--重申“灾变论”》), Ren Bumei 任不寐, is a Christian, not a super-communist. Here is another link with one source coming from the official paper of then ruling party (Kuomintang), Central Daily News. In wikipedia there also exists an article of Chinese famine of 1928–1930, but there is still too much to be done. What I'm trying to explain is that the argument is reasonable, and popular actually among some Chinese. Besides, no one consider this is not the most serious man-made disaster. I think the argument of Li is "fringe", but it can exists here after more lines. I'll try to add some.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I followed "this link" you provided, and it tells that "prior to 1949, an annual average of 300 - 700 people died of starvation in China". All right. Is it more that 15 to 30 million who died during Great Leap Forward? My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Translator's problem, the death number varies from 3 million to 7 million (300万到700万, you can copy these characters to translate seperately) per year, so there does exist a possibility. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 03:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Current text tells: "death rate over the three years of the Great Leap Forward, there were several million fewer lives lost during this period than would have been the case under normal mortality conditions before 1949". This is not about another famine. Can this claim be supported by any published data, such as yearly mortality rate in China? My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
We should go by the best scholarship available, not just any old stuff on a Chinese website. Frank Dikotter and Yang Jisheng have done extensive archival research. Beats the heck out of the source above. Simply because someone has said something does not mean it must be repeated on Wikipedia. The claim on its face seems to be a bit silly. Claims like these are factual claims. They should be based on historical facts, not just stuff people say. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree with what you said. I am not the expert of this so I cannot find scholar resource to support this view. Plus, this is still a restricted area of researching in China. What should I do to save these lines? Or should I just remove them because of lacking authoritative support?--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 03:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It tells: "Minqi Li... has produced data showing that even the peak death rates during the Great Leap Forward were in fact quite typical in pre-Communist China". What exactly "data" and how they were produced? Please provide quotation with pages. Regardless, I checked an academic book about this, and it tells with numbers that mortality rate during the famine was dramatically increased (of course). Yes, fringe positions like this should be removed per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Li Minqi's book was not cited by me so I'm sorry that I don't know details. The reference I added also has no detail pages to offer, as I said it is still a restricted area. If you are a history scholar and really have time, you can check books which you suspected. And if so, I hope you could find some references supporting the side you are opposing. The idea of "fringe" should be defined by readers instead of editors; otherwise the denial of Holocaust or Nanking Massacre could also be removed because it is also "fringe" in my point of view, but it must be stated there just as stated here. I want to deliver our debate to WK:NPOV/noticeboard for someone who are not involved in to give some suggestion.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 03:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Wwbread, when you say that this is a restricted area, is that because you're behind the great firewall? Normally the burden of proof is on the editor trying to include the material. So, in this case, we would normally would ask that you point us to the publication and page number where we could find Li's data and assess its suitability for inclusion. But I understand that this may be difficult for you due to censorship concerns. By the way, are you familiar with the authors mentioned above (Dikotter and Yang Jisheng)? Their archival work is pretty impressive. Of course the archives they used are now closed to the public, but if you can find a copy of Yang's 墓碑, I highly recommend it. Homunculus (duihua) 05:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Homunculus. I have to repeat again the reference was not added by me, so I really have no idea and no time to read Li's book to get which page it cited. I mentioned "restricted area" is to tell that it is still restricted in China to research the history of the Great Leap Forward period. So the data varied, so the denial happened. If you could help to search some reference of denying the death rate (like 《在一场大灾变前的反思--重申“灾变论”》 by Ren Bumei)I'll be very appreciated, since I found you are a scholar in this field. I could only find some words from website like this, and the links above. I suggest some people (including one of my classmate) agree with this idea, and Li Minqi is only one of them.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 13:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
All right, I looked in the book by Li, thanks to your link. Figure 2.3 (which is based on the official communist government statistics) on page 41 explains everything. It does show a large peak of death rate during the famine, which results in 16 million actual deaths (these are not unborn children), as Li admits. According more academically solid sources, that was more than 16 millions. Strangely enough, the curve has a number of gaps, but it shows another peak of deaths during three selectively chosen years in pre-communist China. So perhaps the death rate in pre-communist China was very high due to epidemies, wars, rebellions, whatever, but this is not related to the subject of this article. So, basically this source is consistent with official Chinese sources, but it only provides a typical propaganda "argument", something like this, "Hey, a lot of people died in China. So what is the big deal about this famine which killed 16 million?" Remove per WP:SOAP. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Wwbread, I understand your situation. I have not (yet) read Li's book, but if he's arguing that the morality rate fell during the Great Leap Forward...well, that's quite an extraordinary claim, and one that diverges very significantly from the mainstream scholarship. That doesn't actually seem to be what he's claiming, though his estimates on the death toll are still much lower than the best estimates available. From the looks of it, his book was published by a "socialist magazine," and not in a reputable academic press. Moreover, the book is not actually about the famine, but more about what he believes to be the inevitable triumph of socialism over free market capitalism.
MVBW, we were in an edit conflict just now. Thanks for looking into it. I think your summary of Li's argument sounds about right. Insofar as Li's narrative is representative of the approved viewpoints in China, the ideal situation might be that we find a good, neutral scholarly source who discusses official Chinese discourses on the famine, and cite them. It would be valuable for readers to know how the party treats this aspect of its own history, but we would need to contextualize it properly. Make sense? Homunculus (duihua) 21:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I want to say "Hey, a lot of people died in China. So what is the big deal about this famine which killed 16 million?" is not the propaganda, it is the effect of it. Li's idea is extraordinary, but don't forget there are many Maoists in China still. They need a space in this article. Secondly, the famines in the late 1930s to the early 1940s were really horrible, millions died in 1942 in one single province Henan[11]. It was related to the Sino-Japanese War, but we were talking about famine, so it must be compared with this Famine. I think they are related to the comments of this subject. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 11:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Less reverting, more talking

Oldhand 12, some editors think there are problems with your recent edits. Can we discuss this, here, on the talkpage? bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

the question of whether the "famine" was intentional

as with the ukrainian genocide (which is now widely recognized as such), there have been consistent scholarly reports questioning whether the "mismanagement" in the famine was actually a purposeful mass depopulation policy. this is obviously quite ghastly, but there is no deficit of scholarly literature that takes this perspective. it should consequently exist here, if this article wishes to be scholarly. i'm going to refrain from writing a section because my experience with wikipedia is that it's more effective to start something like this here and leave the process to people that are more integrated into the wikipedia community. that is, i expect any contribution i would provide to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no scholarly evidence to show that the famine was genocide. It is in fact impossible for the Three Bad Years to have been a genocide campaign since 1) there is no evidence of the intentionality of famine; 2) there was no ethnic target group and the famine occurred over large areas. In fact, effects of the famine were practically non-existent amongst ethnic minorities because the government made absolutely sure that they had food (minorities historically being basically left to die in the millions of famines in China preceding Communism)-- was the CCP really trying to wipe out Han? For reference, read first-hand accounts of this time period in William Hinton's books "Fanshen" and Through a Glass Darkly", the latter being a concise and thorough criticism of the unscholarly, politically motivated myths about this place and time. This commenter is trying to force a very negative POV into the article. If this user has made any edits they should be considered for deletion, in the interest of NPOV. 76.189.245.220 (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Great Leap Forward

See discussion at Great Leap Forward. ··gracefool💬 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Great Chinese Famine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Chinese Famine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Frank Dikötter

Dikötter's opinions/accusations should not be mentioned so high on this page. He made a career ($$$) doing exactly what's needed to get attention & sell books in the West: make massive estimates about what happened under Mao. In the end he's just another guy with an estimate & his opinions should be lower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.165.159 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

His book is based on Chinese estimates, read it before you go on to accuse him of making up the numbers. Other estimates are far higher than his, and those come from Chinese sources. ImreK (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Survival in 1959-61 China

This really is a bizarre op-ed section and not even close to Wikipedia's WP:TONE. Pinging @Infocidal and @Mathglot as a courtesy. I'm inclined to blank, but willing to discuss salvaging content that's not already covered further in the article. Blackguard 06:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; the tone is beyond the pale. Since there are three refs, the question is, whether there's something we can salvage from any of them. Ref[8] (Mao's Great Famine) and ref[11] are Wikipedia links, so that's not a reliable source and can be disregarded (and should be immediately deleted, regardless). The Mao bio (just past the half-way point) has four allusions to the famine, not sure if there's anything new there that hasn't already been covered. The history site mentions starvation (3x) and the last one is the book review from the NYT, which is certainly reliable and perhaps something could be picked up from there, although it is a duplicate reference of [6] and [15]. If you decide to blank quoting your first sentence above in the edit summary, I won't contest it. Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to shoehorn any referenced content into the article, since most of it is already covered. Blanked for now. Blackguard 22:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Government distribution policies"

The entire section is completely unsourced. There is not a single citation in the entire section backing up even one of the claims made in this section. Shouldn't it therefore be deleted for the time being, as there is no way of verifying that the information it is providing is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KronosAlight (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Chinese Famine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Misconstrued Famine: A Short History

The source says that the estimates of the hostile government sources is 50-60 million. The 15 million figure comes from projections from official data that the source says is "almost certainly too low". The sentence as it is now says "the Chinese government at this time was taken over by market reformers who were strongly opposed to the Great Leap Forward", which is not only not in the source, but presents the matter as if the 15 million figure is something cooked up by pro-market elements. This is just straight misrepresentation and probably not a NPOV. I added a 'failed verification' tag because I don't feel like I know enough about the subject to adjudicate what should really be written there. Artificialintel (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed. Does not reflect anything in body and really quite meaningless bald statement. sirlanz 00:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Refs in Terminology section

The references in the Terminology section need improvement. As it stands, they don't appear to be of very high quality, and it's not even clear if they support the assertions. These refs came over from the Chinese article (ver. 47826959) in this edit, and the sources (a dissertation, and an Economist article) are in English, so perhaps either the Chinese editors didn't understand them very well, or those refs were brought over in turn from some other en-wiki article (in which case attribution belongs to the latter, if they substantiate the text). The Economist article quotes the Dikötter book, so perhaps that will substantiate the assertions in the section, if a page number can be found. The thesis ref needs a page number, as well. Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Government Distribution Policies Revisited

Hello colleagues,

I was wondering if we should redo this section completely? There is not much to it right now and the last two paragraphs (there are only three) could easily be combined together. The government distribution policies is a large discussion of the famine and it would be nice to see it reach its potential as an educational section. I would not have any qualms with undergoing this project and my BA in History was focused around Modern Chinese History with an independent study on this famine. Let me know what you think! Seanhaupt (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree. It is the core controversy. And parts of what is there now are lacking in sourcing, anyway. Go for it. sirlanz 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
What about also merging the Political Movement section in with it? More in thought with a section dedicated to the illusion of superabundance, governmental & political policies, & power relations that all influenced the famine? Seanhaupt (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC) **Update - I am going to add in what I have now. Please feel free to make corrections, flag materials, or undo it completely if wanted. I am also going to be adding in citations one at a time over the course of ten minutes as I am part of the #1Lib1Ref Campaign and have been requested to do so. I am terribly sorry for the incoming spam on the edit history page.

Mao's Shanxi commune visit

I've removed the following paragraph from section #Cover ups:

In one famous example, Mao Zedong was scheduled to tour a local agricultural commune in Shanxi province during the depths of the famine in order to assess the conditions for himself; in preparation for his visit, local party officials ordered hundreds of starving peasants to carefully uproot and transplant hundreds of thousands of grain stalks by hand from nearby farms into one "model field", which was then shown to Mao as proof that the crops had not failed.[citation needed]

because after searching all over, I cannot substantiate it.

If someone has a source for this, please put it back. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Found a similar story, but for Henan province, not Shanxi, and added it to the article. Perhaps similar events happened all over, but I still can't find a source for an event like this in Shanxi (which borders Henan to the north). Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Geographical extent

Is there any information (or a map) about the extent of the famine -- which provinces or regions were hit hardest? Brutannica (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Great Leap declared over in 1962

Yes, it was declared over in 1962, but that does not mean the famine did not decrease before the Great Leap was over. While some policies of the Leap were very harmful, such as Mao's decision to starve some so others could have plenty, other policies such as building dams and canals were actually very effective at preventing future droughts. As has been written before, droughts in later years had much less mortality, and there is plenty of evidence to show that the dams and canals Mao built are among the causes of why later famines were less deadly even though precipitation was worse.GalantFan (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

To just give you one example of the dams built during the Great Leap Forward: 1975 Banqiao Dam failure. SCreditC (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You should know that there are many Chinese literature and videos which have not been translated into English. And the famine was relieved in later 1961 because many regions in China secretly refused to continue the policies of Great Leap Forward and People's Commune. Many rural places secretly gave the lands back to the peasants who cultivated the land with high passion. SCreditC (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed rollback to April 14

In the last ten days, there has been intense edit warring on the article and walls of uncivil, tendentious discussion on the Talk page (above). I am proposing a rollback to revision 950853888 of April 14 by Materialscientist (talk · contribs) just before this all began, until this can be sorted out in a proper manner according to WP:DR and WP:TALK. Pinging top contributors @SCreditC, Oldhand 12, Seanhaupt, C.J. Griffin, Gog the Mild, Prairespark, GalantFan, Mathglot, LucasGeorge, Henri Rauhala, and Sirlanz:

If there is further edit-warring or uncivil behavior, I will ask for the article to be semi- or fully protected. Note: this discussion section is about a proposed rollback; content disputes should be addressed elsewhere. Attempts to derail this topic will be collapsed or reverted. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll

  • Support – as nom. This is needed to restart from the last agreed version before the strife began. Mathglot (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Listed at WT:TALK and WT:DR. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have the emotional capacity right now to wade through and engage with what looks like a lot of ugliness, but WP:STATUSQUO is the relevant shortcut here. If you do revert, try to retain any technical/uncontroversial changes made since then, so as not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Also, given how contentious things at this page seem to be, shouldn't it be semi-protected? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    Sdkb, what you say makes a lot of sense to me. Otoh, I don't know how one evaluates that, in order to come up with the uncontroversial kernel, especially since we're talking about 136 edits (so far); or what volunteer uninvolved editor (or group) would want to take that on. Let's see what others say. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose : Please note that the edit war (which has come to an end to my knowledge) was not about all the improvements I have made ever since, but was about a relatively small topic (the significance of natural disasters in the famine) among the changes. The current version is much better structured and contains many important details than the previous version on April 14 (just compare [12] and [13]). Contents are all well sourced, as one can check, while the previous version contained several unreliable sources and factually wrong statements (such as "1959 Yellow River flood which killed 2 million" - it simply does not exist at all). Therefore I don't think it makes sense to fully roll back to a previous version. Besides, it took a long time to search for the reliable sources and improve the writings in this article. So a complete rolling back will be a disrespect towards the work I have done. If anyone wants to dispute a particular topic in this current version, we should discuss it here on the Talk Page and make further improvement, instead of rolling back everything. Again, the edit war was not about every improvement that has been made ever since. SCreditC (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose : I believe the well supported facts should be included as much as possible. More care should be placed on NPOV and not removing well supported information.GalantFan (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

SCreditC, thanks for adding your perspective, above. Speaking only for myself, I would be fine with that, if others are. Do you have any thoughts about how we can get through this? Do you think the article can move forward now, or is there still a sticking point between you and GalantFan (talk · contribs) (previously pinged) that is preventing further progress? Because the recent history on the article, as well as here on the talk page, doesn't look promising, but perhaps you resolved the main problems? Do you think the two of you can work it out, or does it need additional input from uninvolved editors? Would starting an Rfc help? What about third opinion? If one or both of you could succinctly state the locus of the disagreement, preferably as an either-or choice if possible, that would be helpful. Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your efforts. I am confident that the majority of the content in this article is of good quality now and we can move forward. They are informative and are well supported by reliable sources, as anyone is welcomed to check. The original issue between the other editor and I was whether the natural disasters were the major cause of this famine, rather than the policies like the Great Leap Forward. But after extensive discussions and more sources being provided, I believe the edit war had ended and no further intervention is needed at this time. As for the part of the Talk Page which doesn't look "promising" to you, it actually involves something that has little to do with the content of this article (e.g., the other editor had continued to argue about the positive sides of the Great Leap Forward and Mao Zedong's policies like building dams, and repeatedly attacked others as "political hacks"), and that's why I stopped responding above. So I guess there is no further action needed at this time, unless the other editor wages edit war again in the future. SCreditC (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, since you and GalantFan both oppose a rollback, and you believe the sticking point is resolved, that would seem to wrap it up. I'm glad that a rollback is not necessary, and look forward to following this article more closely. Hopefully any content disputes in the future can be resolved calmly, and with assumption of good faith all around. Thanks to everyone who gave their feedback. Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Normal weather for China

When Yang said that the weather during the Great Famine was normal, that does NOT mean that there were no droughts and floods. If there had been no droughts and floods during that time, that would have been extremely unusual. Without any irrigation reservoirs or dams, just depending on rainfall, the fields in some areas dried up and the rivers in other areas flooded ALMOST EVERY YEAR. Having droughts and floods WAS normal. And that is the reason why the Great Leap was begun in the first place.GalantFan (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Your words are beyond absurd. No one here ever claimed there was no drought or flood. But their severity and influence on the famine are disputed and people have expressed their disagreements. Many reliable sources there, so I won't repeat. Now, the issue with reservoirs or dams are mentioned in the article where I have provided reliable sources in either English or Chinese. "And that is the reason why the Great Leap was begun in the first place." I just don't want to comment on your ignorance of history anymore. And stop acting like a paranoid person. SCreditC (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"Yang claimed that he investigated other sources including a non-government archive of meteorological data from 350 weather stations across China, the weather from 1958-1961 was normal in China, meaning that there were no big areas of drought, flood, or low temperatures."
Before the dams were built, floods and droughts were a frequent occurance. After the dams were built, the mortality rate fell below half of what was before 1949.GalantFan (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
"...meaning that there were no big areas of drought, flood, or low temperatures." Do you see the words "no big areas of drought..."?? You are just making non-sense here are there.
"After the dams were built, the mortality rate fell below half of what was before 1949." Where are the sources explicitly saying that the mortality fell because of the dams built during the Great Leap Forward, and "the" dams, which dams? Huh? Other progresses in China between 1949-1957 did not contribute to the fall of death rate?? Huh? Waste of my time. SCreditC (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
LOL at all your sources saying more irrigation made the famine worse. Bunch of political hacks. Steady water supply for farming was the single most important progress in all of human history. Before dams, every big river, Yellow, Mississippi, Nile, Amazon, whatever, had floods frequently. Every field with no water supply but rain goes through droughts regularly. When Great Leap was over, dam building continued and made more difference than anything else ever in human history.GalantFan (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
LOLL, calling other people "political hacks" only disqualified you as a neutral Wikipedia editor. Building dams and canals is one thing, building dams and canals with poor quality and non-scientifically (e.g., not considering the local geographical and ecological conditions) is another, not to mention the fervor of building dams as a way to show "more revolutionary". You are obviously some far-left political zealot who almost completely do not understand Chinese history but somehow still try to argue something out of nowhere. Given that these topics are not directly related to the Famine, nor are they constructive in any way, I will stop responding here unless really necessary. But you shall not assume any consensus has been reached on these irrelevant topics and your personal analyses. SCreditC (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The fact that you do not understand how these topics are related to the famine shows the fundamental lack of understanding and the effects of false propaganda. Any civil engineer, farmer, geologist, climatologist, etc. who knows anything about rivers will look at this and understand. There is a widespread misconception that everything was just peachy if that dummy Mao hadn't come along with his crazy ideas. THAT IS PROPAGANDA. Before Mao, there were hardly any dams in the vast nation. Anybody educated on trying to farm with nothing but rainfall to water the crops knows what the problems are. GalantFan (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
So many people complaining about dams, but it is impossible to have a large civilization without dams. https://www.thegef.org/news/sand-dams-save-lives-improving-water-access-enhancing-farming-response-somalias-drought They complain about effect of a dam on topsoil, but without a dam, there was no way to depend on the river. Often all the water and topsoil comes down the river after the crops are planted. I hope that will be some yummy top soil because all the fields are gone and you will be hunting for weeds and fish to eat until the next year.GalantFan (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Chinese_Famine/Archive_1&oldid=1136775422"