Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 5

Critique in the External Links section?

I'm curious - why is the link to Jin Xiaoding's critique of book in the External Links section? I read the critique, and all seems to be unverifiable research (especially since it cites no sources other than the book itself and, I assume, the author's own personal knowledge). So, it seems Jin's essay doesn't really meet the standard of external links guidelines. Additionally, I suspect that a reporter for the state-owned media agency (Xinhua, in this case) might not be the most unbiased of sources. Is there a good reason why we should keep the link?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is neither needed nor desirable. It makes some very biased claims, as well as some that are clearly inaccurate - I'll list them if necessary but would prefer not to for the moment as I don't have the time. When I tried to talk with the author (who had inserted it himself) he disappeared after I raised some initial concerns.

There are plenty other good reviews that are not nearly so POV so this is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination.

The author is neither a commentator nor an academic - it hasn't even been published in a mainstream media outlet, just strung up on a free webhosting server. John Smith's 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a debate and consensus that the link be included, mainly because:

1. It has been noted in news reports
2. It has been acknowledged by Chang herself.
3. It is referenced

Verifiability, reliable sources, NPOV and all that are requirements for Wikipedia articles, not external links: the point of external links is to present material other than can be includedi n Wikipedia articles for one reason or another.

Even if this document is only an attack piece (which I don't think it quite amounts to), it presents a significant, if not majority point of view (at least in the Chinese-speaking community), and is notable for having been reported upon and having been acknowledged by Chang herself.

If, after reading the original discussion, you still feel the link should be removed, you are welcome to open a new discusison on it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus - it is not the same thing as a majority. We've been over this before PG. As for external links there are rules about what should and should not go in. There is no requirement to throw any old rubbish in. John Smith's 07:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we have been over this before. There was a consensus, a consensus based on the rules concerning external links, a consensus from which you, John Smith's, were the lone objector.

I am aware that Folic Acid is now taking an interest, and there may of course be a different consensus in future. If Folic Acid feels the need, after reading past discussions on the topic, the discussion can be re-opened. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PG, I am trying to assume good faith but you are making it difficult. I was not the sole objector. If I had been maybe I would agree with you, but I was not.

Now if you want to imply a majority in a mere RfC constitutes consensus, then we should ditch the Gao reference because that had majority opposition. Please choose one or the other - you can't have your cake and eat it. John Smith's 07:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the archives - and you are right, you weren't the only objector. The other objector was User:Xmas1973, who posted an opinion entirely devoid of regard to policy nor any of the arguments presented before - who, in fact, made statements which we had seen in earlier discussion were precisely not what the policy on external links were about, and who, as usual, parrotted exactly your opinion.

If you think one objection and one parrot post denies the existence of a consensus, then sure, there was no consensus. There was merely a 75% majority.

You are, as always, free to re-open the disucssion if you wish if you have any new arguments to put forward. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to dismiss other people's objections. You can complain that Xmas1973 didn't express a "valid" objection, but it isn't for you to claim that consensus was reached because of your personal view. The rules are quite clear - a majority does not constitute consensus. If you wish to dispute otherwise it is for you to go seek a third-party view on the matter - maybe on the consensus policy/guidelines page or User:Daniel as head of the mediation group.

As for "re-opening" the discussion, it was never closed. It was part of mediation and is being discussed again here. John Smith's 09:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither does consensus require unanimity. My view is that consensus was reached and the case was closed. Your view is something else. At least we know we don't have consensus on this. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CON does not require unaminity, but it does not allow simply voting either. Consensus is about all parties being able to accept something, even if they don't agree. I suggest you actually refer to WP:CON directly rather than just say "my view is that xxxxxxxxxx" - policy is non-negotiable. John Smith's 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What WP:CON says and means is what we would call "a question of law". Whether the facts exist to qualify for a consensus within the meaning of WP:CON is what we would call "a question of fact". I am perfectly qualified to put forth my view on a question of fact, thank you very much. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The original RfC on this article was before I was aware of the dispute here but I looked back at it. We can quibble about whether there was "consensus" to keep the link or not but there were 5 in favor vs. 2 against, so clearly the best course of action with the end of the RfC was to keep, not remove. Of course it can be revisited now. I do think the current description of the link, "A Critique of J. Chang and J. Halliday’s Book," is very unhelpful and needs to be changed if we are going to keep it. A little bit of back story would also be very desirable. Folic Acid said above that the author was a reporter for the Xinhua news agency (if there's a source for that that would be useful, I did not notice anything about the author's affiliations in the review article itself). So was this in some fashion an "official review" or just merely this reporter acting on their own? It's quite interesting that Jung Chang chose to respond to the review and even read it "carefully", but why exactly did she do that? I'm a bit foggy on the specifics. Obviously this is not an academic review by a scholar published in a reputable journal, but it appears to be just about the only reaction we can link to from a Chinese citizen which was actually published somewhere and which evinced a reaction from the author herself.

I guess therefore I think it's probably worthy of inclusion in the external links section (not the main article). Incidentally, ultimately I think we would want a whole section on reaction to the book in China as that develops. We'll need good secondary sources for that, but perhaps we can at least provide a bit of the flavor of how some in China might react to the book by keeping the external link and explaining to our readers the obvious POV of the author in a quick sentence after the link.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Folic Acid was not saying the author is a journalist - he is/was just a student somewhere. He was referring to a reporter that supposedly made reference to the "review". This is one reason I objected to its conclusion. Everyone and their dog, as it were, has an opinion on the book. Can you imagine what wikipedia would be like if everyone who wrote a review on a pdf file hosted on geocities could have them posted in articles as external links? The credibility of the project is already very low - including a work like this is hardly going to help. John Smith's 11:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with your basic point, I'm just unclear about the publishing history of this document. The author claims it was published on Duoweinews.com, which according to Alexa has a fairly high traffic ranking. Jung Chang apparently then did an interview with this publication in New York and responded specifically to the review (if we can believe the original author, which I'm inclined to do at this point). I'm not sure but I'm guessing that web site primarily serves the Chinese-American population in the U.S., or perhaps even primarily the east coast (it's controlling company seems to be based in Long Island, New York). The author is thus probably a Chinese expat, which is slightly less interesting than if the author was actually living in China and published the criticism on a Chinese web site. It would be an example of the viewpoint of a Chinese expat in the US though published in Chinese-American media, and if that's true it would be worthy of an external link I think.

I don't read or speak any form of Chinese, but it would be great if someone who does could look in the archives of Duoweinews.com and try to figure out what was going on with this review and with Chang's response to it (John I'm not sure if you know any users offhand who would be able to do this). It's possible that it is a somewhat notable review, or that it is not. We need to clarify the basic facts behind this thing which are very fuzzy right now, but I agree with you that if the review was actually not published (or if Duoweinews.com is somehow an unreliable source, though that seems unlikely) and is rather just someone's random musings then we should remove the link. I'm off to a Wiki-meetup, but if someone with Chinese language skills could clarify some of the facts on this maybe we could bring the issue to a swift resolution.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Jung Chang was asked about the review by the journalist in question when she did and interview with him. She didn't single it out, more she was confronted with it. In which case of course she would be polite enough to answer a query. In regards to Duoweinews.com, I don't think he was given like a "column". Maybe it was reprinted somewhere on the website or referred to by this mysterious journalist.

What I do know is that this has not come up in any of the English-language Chinese media, nor on sources like the China Digital Times that often include translations. Nor do I believe it was published in the mainstream Chinese media - was it even carried by any other websites? I think basically this one journalist tried to "sponsor" it and didn't get very far.

Then there are also factual problems with the review itself which make it less than desirable in my view. When coupled with the fact the author is (to be fair) neither a journalist nor an academic I think it should be left out. John Smith's 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Chang had read the review in advance (or that's what the reviewer claimed) so perhaps it was highlighted a bit more prominently on the web site than one might think. I still think it's worth investigating if there is someone with the requisite language skills to do that. If we knew more of the facts it would be easier to make a decision about it. Perhaps there's a WikiProject that could help us?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried looking on the Duowei website - there were quite a few interviews with Jung Chang, and some of them are in video form. Haven't found anything unambiguously about this piece yet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BigT, I don't think we can rely on the article itself - we need verification of its claims. John Smith's 11:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I verfied the veracity of its claims regarding Chang's interview and being asked about this paper. It was in the video interview of her I supplied as well as a printed version, albeit all in Chinese. I had it translated. So those claims are accurate, and that is good enough for me to keep it. Also Prof. Gao mentions this students paper in the academic conference he attended with Ross Kaz, noting that the paper has gained widespread e-circulation. Giovanni33 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could re-submit all these links for the benefit of others, rather than require them to take your word for it. John Smith's 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My word is good enough. But, they were all provided in the mediation pages, with the exception of the Gao paper which I obtained separately from Prof. Gao himself, and the organizer of the conference that academics attended. In his paper, which I can send to those who want to read it, he mentions this students paper. I quoted him in the mediation pages.Giovanni33 19:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Giovanni, your word is not good enough. The mediation pages were deleted, so you will need to add the relevant information here. John Smith's 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would the mediation pages be deleted? And yes my word is good enough, esp. since I produced it all there and you read it.Giovanni33 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason given was - This case page and the talk page have been blanked, and their histories deleted. This action is made to protect the Mediation Committee's obligations to the parties of this dispute, set down at Wikipedia:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation.

I remember you posting something, but not what it was. If you refuse to supply this information, which is only fair given other parties didn't get a chance to look at any of it, then we can't even begin to examine the "notability" of this work. If you were able to get the information last time you should be able to do so again. John Smith's 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I take Giovanni (and indeed most folks on Wiki) at his word but if he could actually find links to the relevant video and/or transcript that would be helpful, even if it's in Chinese (someone who knows the language could maybe take a look at it). Also I'm assuming Prof. Gao's comments about the review were not printed anywhere, but rather only something heard at a conference? If his remarks were printed somewhere than that would also be useful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is to ask an admin to look at the deleted version of the mediation page and paste the relevant info over here. I assume someone would do that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been absent from the discussion that I started - I've had a few too many things going on to pay careful attention to the activity here. In any case, I'll jump back in. I apologize for dredging up a subject that's been discussed before, but given the controversial nature of the subject at hand and the strong opinions on either side, I think it's important to vet everything carefully. My thoughts are thus:

1. In reading and re-reading the review, I see that while the paper does reference the book in question, it does NOT seem to reference any other source, other than the author's own knowledge. I'm not saying that the author is necessarily wrong, I'm saying that in my experience, it's highly unusual to critique a particular position when you don't present any evidence to the contrary. Maybe I'm just missing all that, but all I saw were statements like JC says "Mao did thus and so" (pg 203), but how can that be?? Why would Mao have done thus and so when any reasonable person do this and that? To me, the appeal to the reasonable person isn't really a winning strategy in attempting to prove a paritcular belief incorrect. Rather, something like JC says "Mao did thus and so" (pg 203), but in his seminal work on Mao (Mao, the Known Story), Dr Someting-or-other of Oxford University clearly demonstrates that Mao did NOT do thus and so. would be much more concrete. Does that make sense? That kind of leads to the point about external links...
2. In the external links guidelines, #2 under "Links normally to be avoided" says: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". In light of that and point #1 above, it seems that much of the author's research into his critique is unverifiable, since he cites no sources.
3. I actually had assumed that the author of the critique was a Xinhua reporter, as there is a reporter of the same name, and I haven't been able to find anything else published by Jin Xiaoding, nor could I find anything about him (his nationality, his occupation, where he studied history, etc.). That leads to the following question:
4. It's been said that this review has gotten wide circulation and a lot of attention in the press. Like BTP, I don't read a word (or character?) of any sort of Chinese, so I'll have to take your word for it. I am a bit curious though - given that I haven't found anything else that seems to be published by this same author, and given that this review doesn't seem to have been published anywhere other than the author's own Geocities site, how is it that this paper has gotten so much play? Again, in my experience, one has to struggle to get a published work noticed by even one's own academic peers, much less receive mentions in the popular press (and that's when your work is even bound in a handsome leatherbound volume). Again, perhaps I'm missing a crucial step, but but I haven't seen how or why this paper has been given as much credence as it has.

Anyway, I hope that all of that is understandable - I'm happy to clarify any point that isn't clear. Regrettably, I never saw the links for the translated versions of Jung Chang's interview in the Mediation pages, so if they are available somewhere (from Giovanni or anyone else), I'd be grateful if someone could repost them. Finally, I realize that this is a very touchy subject and one that's been contentious for a long time, so I hope that others will take my comments in the good faith spirit in which they were given. Cheers!  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Folic Acid, thank you for your points. You've constructed a very good argument for why the link should not be included. The lack of citations is not good, as the author has no qualifications to assert his own views. Besides, asking endless questions about "why would X do Y" is rather pointless and doesn't contribute to the article. As you've said it also seems to violate point #2 of the guidelines you referred to.

As for circulation, no one can make a statement like "it has wide electronic circulation" because it's impossible to gauge. Are we to believe that whoever made that statement has tracked down every single person who has read it? Obviously not - either he/she was parroting someone else or didn't base the statement on any facts. Besides, so what if it was? Anyone can have their work circulated by e-mail - doesn't it's a quality piece of work. Many jokes are bounced around every day on the internet - does that mean they are good and tasteful? John Smith's 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Folic Acid for the thoughts. I think the link is good and should be kept and I will respond to your points. The first point, I think misses what this critique is about. Its not a scholarly article, like we would expect to see in a reference work. His appeal to the reasonable person is fine for particular lines of argument, esp. logical ones. For factual questions, it makes sense to reference experts, but the strength of this paper is in its appeal to logical arguments, including common sense, contradictions, and generally attacking the methodology of the book. Therefore it not a question of being factually inaccurate. I see no misleading, factually inaccurate substance in the paper. As far as "unverifiable research," its claims regards claims that the book makes, and that is verifiable; he cites page numbers for the various claims. His arguments are mostly logical, and therefore does not pertain to factual claims that require references. The author also does cite other sources at the end which supports his overall view of the book. About widespread circulation, this is a result of the media exposure it obtained and evidenced by the fact that Prof. Gao at an academic conference on Mao and the Cultural Revolution, mentions this students critique stating that it has had widespread e-circulation. These simply speaks to its notability. Of course not enough to be mentioned in the body of the article itself, but enough for an external link. For external links it doesn't need to have any notability--only be able, in the case, to represent a good argument/critique or POV position paper--but that added degree of notability tips the tables in this papers definite inclusion as a very topical external link for the subject matter.Giovanni33 09:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I guess what I'm saying in the first point is - in the rebuttal of a historical text like Jung's book, one can't simply appeal to reason and hope that's enough. If I say "X happened" and provide sources for it, while you say "How could X have happened - no reasonable person would believe that!" then I'm going to win the argument, because I've got evidence, and you don't. I don't mean to imply that Jung Chang's claims are correct, or that Jin Xiaoding's rebuttals are incorrect. All I'm saying is that in my experience as a historian (that's what I studied in university) and as an analyst (my profession), one cannot simply make claims about something and hope they stand on their own. One must always cite sources to be credible. I think that in a controversial subject such as this, that holds especially true. As to the paper at hand, I know that it's been said that the paper does cite sources (I wasn't clear if they were sources other than the book), but I must be blind, because I can't see them. There's no list of footnotes or endnotes, and nothing that I can find that references any other historical work that would reinforce Jin's arguments. While he does address the methodology and some logical points, he also does address factual claims too - things that, IMHO, need to be backed up with proof to be acceptable.
2. As for the notability and media exposure - I'll have to take your word for it. I'm still not sure why a paper that doesn't cite any sources or have any other features of a scholarly historiographical paper would receive wide media circulation or the attention of a scholar like Prof Gao. Surely as a notable professor, he's written something that'd be a more worthy critique?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I don't think you have adequately addressed FA's points. Anyone can write about what they believe to be "common sense". Wikipedia isn't a forum for people to host their thoughts about what is "logical" to them. It is a poor excuse to say the fact it is based on "common sense" means it is ok.

As to misleading information, it is there. The author does make lots of factual assertions without backing them up. There are more examples than I have time to list, but a couple are as follows.

First, it ignores civilian deaths caused by the war, through killing, illness, economic hardship and starvation etc, which often account for a larger part of the loss of life in long lasting wars. (page 4) And his evidence that this was the case is what, exactly? Yes, people die in many ways but if you want to allege her numbers on murders are wrong by querying about other causes then you need to provide evidence for how many people were recorded as dying that way.

First, for anyone with military training, it is not difficult to distinguish whether a troop of 9,000 is moving to somewhere or attacking someone. (page 14) Does this guy have any military training he's told us about? Has he been in a battlefield situation? Not that we know of, nor has he given any evidence to support that.

Many, if not most, of the 700,000 people were executed for their military actions during the war, and cannot accurately be described as victims in peacetime....... (page 19-20). Zero facts or references to back that up.

None of his political challengers was executed. (page 34) Certainly misleading. Liu Shaoqi was dragged off to prison having committed no real crime other than to be in charge when Mao was not and died there - it was essentially a slow execution.

Then after a quick victory, he ordered all the troops to return home in days on page 32. Indians will argue that China was forced to retreat, rather than chose to do so.

Then there is the rather daft rant about how there was no corruption in Communist China until Jung Chang got into university (page 36)! I shouldn't even need to explain why that is ludicrous.

I also note, Giovanni, you still haven't said if you will provide the evidence of "notability" or not. If you continue to assert that such status means the difference between inclusion and not then you really have to provide hard evidence. I've already said that electronic circulation is impossible to gauge, so an argument like that is not valid. John Smith's 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, if Giovanni cannot find the old information about notability he posted why not just ask an admin to copy it over from the deleted mediation page? The page could stay deleted, but an admin could copy over the relevant info here. If that information does demonstrate some notability than we could keep the link (after, I would think, giving a better explanation of what it is and where it was originally published) and if it does not and no other info about notability is forthcoming then we could delete it. Seems like an easy resolution to me that would hopefully short-circuit an endless debate over a relative triviality, so I suggest John or Gio contact an admin and ask about that (I assume they were both parties to the mediation so they should be the ones to ask for info from it). In any case, it's really not a big deal what we do with the link, and personally I'm not really going to put any more time into this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link because Giovanni hasn't responded with hard evidence in regards to points made by myself and Folic Acid. It's up to him (or someone else) to supply the information we need, to counter points about misleading factual statements, etc as I raised in the discussion. John Smith's 13:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to restore it. The evidence was provided and can be seen via an undelete option as suggested above. I probably have the material, as well, but will need some time to go look for it, again. I'm on a wikibreak of sorts now anyway. Until then, keep the status quo regarding the link in question.Giovanni33 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're on wikibreak, that's your choice. That said people on wikibreaks don't check pages. Being "on a wikibreak of sorts" and the fact you came back very quickly to restore the link suggests you're using it as an excuse not to provide the material requested and avoid the concerns raised.

If it's as easy as you suggest to get the mediation page undeleted, why don't you do that? Trying to claim there's an easy option but that you need lots of time to do as you've been requested isn't credible. Personally I think the link should stay out for now - that will give you the drive to answer our points fully rather than stay "on a wikibreak of sorts". John Smith's 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're on break, you're on break. Enjoy your time away. But the article can not be put on hold. Picaroon (t) 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the points claimed by Palaceguard at 00:32, 1 November 2007 proven. "1. It has been noted in news reports". Where? "2. It has been acknowledged by Chang herself". When? "3. It is referenced". I see no references except those to Chang's work itself. What other references are present in that pdf? Pretend I know nothing about this dispute (I still know relatively little). Will someone please answer the above three questions for me? Thanks. Picaroon (t) 16:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In regards to point 1, I haven't come across anything in the English language media, Chinese or otherwise, nor translated works such as on the China Digital Times. I don't know anything about point 2. In regards to point 3, as far as I can see there are no references apart from page numbers of the Chang-Halliday book. John Smith's 18:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Then your memories fails you since I provided the links to the published interview with Chang from a mainstream media source, including a televised interview in which she was asked about this students paper/critique, and in which this link was discussed. True, it was all in Chinese, and I didn't see it translated anywhere else, although I had it translated myself for verification. When I get back from camping, I'll look for this material again, or you can find it in the deleted mediation pages. This includes Prof. Gao's statement that this paper has received widespread e-circulation; his comment itself is indication of this, being a scholar on the subject.Giovanni33 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked mediator Daniel to undelete Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2, and he did. Picaroon (t) 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Picaroon. It doesn't look like there's much substance on the first one, so I read over the Issue 3 section of the second one, and I see the evidence that Giovanni presented about notabilty. I can't speak Chinese, so I'm taking for granted that the interview and article are dealing with the book in question. While that does add some public reference to Jin Xiaoding's critique, I'm still not really seeing where this critique has gained "wide circulation." From what I gather, it's been mentioned in the interview by Duowei news and the blog post (also Duowei news). Also, it apparently was seen by Profs Kaz Ross and Mobo Gao. I tried doing a Google search for "jin xiaoding critique" and "critique jung chang" and, other than the critique's page itself and links to en.wikipedia, I got exactly one other blog that mentioned the critique. In my mind, it hasn't been proved that it's gotten wide circulation at all.

So, I guess the question remains in my mind - why is this critique on here? Surely Prof Gao or Prof Ross has published something, or someone with some academic standing has written something about it that we can link to?

Also, I'd still be interested, as a historian (albeit not a very good one), to dig deeper into the historiography of the critique. On what evidentiary basis is Jin Xiaoding making his rebuttals?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  04:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm, as far as I can see, the critique was not hosted on the Duowei news website, as some people mistakenly believed. It was that it apparently was mentioned by a journalist, which is not nearly as notable - if it is notable at all. John Smith's 07:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction, it was originally hosted on the Duowei news website, as the paper itself links too, however that link no longer works/expired so its now found on the journalists own page. I think people are missing the point that this is only in the external link section and the standards are much lower than inclusion into article space. If Prof. Gao or Ross mention something in a link we can quote them in the main article space. This paper on the other hand is a polemical critque that does a good job at presenting a certain critical point of view, and its a paper that, for better or worse, has gained attention within the field, the author of the book has been questioned about it, and its been reported in the media. This is why it should be, in the very least, in the external links section. If I followed this book closely, looking at all the discussion and debates pro/con, I would know about this link, and I'd expect WP to have it in its external links section.Giovanni33 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If the website does not have the article on their website it's not possible to verify what was on there, how it was posted, etc. So let's move on from that.

Just because this is not being used for citations does not mean there are no decent standards to apply. I've already listed several points about misleading/inaccurate assertions made in the article that conflict with the guidelines on which links to not include - I'm still waiting for a response on that front.

Again you persist with this nonsense about it being "reported in the media". It was allegedly hosted on a single news website, which we can't now confirm. That is not "the media" - that implies at least several notable, mainstream publications. I also strongly disagree that anyone following the book would expect to see the link on this article - I've yet to come across anyone who's heard about it, apart from yourself. The only real way it is currently gaining notability (if it is) in my view is through it being on Wikipedia, which is clearly wrong. John Smith's 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually all you have done is show how you disagree with the interpretation of the facts that the paper argues. This does not make it factually inaccurate, its only inaccurate to you. I would support many of those points the paper argues and argue that your POV is what is misleading and inaccurate. But that is not a debate for us to have. The POV the paper provides is a reasonable one and many people share it. There is no illusion that this paper is a neutral and NPOV presentation of the topic--its a polemical and critical critique, which is just fine. You don't have to agree with it. Your other point about no one knowing about this link except through wikipedia is just plain false: everyone who attending the academic conference in Hong Kong would have known about it because Prof. Gao, for example, talking about this paper in this presentation. These would be filled with people following the issues in this book. So its really impossible for anyone who follows this book not to know about this link and its a disservice for WP not to provide this in its external links section.Giovanni33 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, the simple fact is that the linked work makes plenty of factual statements without providing a single shred of evidence for them. If you want to you can claim they're all true, but without even one independent source to back them up it's not credible in that respect.

Please do not twist what I said. I never said no one knows of it except through wikipedia - I said that its inclusion on wikipedia was disproportionately gaining it notability. You keep saying anyone who follows the book will know about. I follow the book, as do others I know, and none of them knew about this. I'm sure some people do, but who knows about it is unverifiable. Electronic circulation cannot be calculated.

As I think tariq asked you (and you failed to answer) before mediation was closed, what exactly does this link add that another critical review linked or cited does not? As far as I can see it's just asks lots of "why" questions, which is rather weak and amateurish. John Smith's 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You might think they are weak but I beg to differ. Not only me but Prof. Gao shares this view, who I quote as an answer to your question about why I think this paper is quite excellent: Dr. Goa's paper entitled Chinese Biographical and Memoir Writings about Mao, the Cultural Revolution and the Emerging Counter Acts in the E-Media, states on page 17, "Another widely circulate critique of Chang is by a science student Jin Xiaodong studying in the UK. Jin lists 17 questions of internal contractions within the book to challenge Chang, but Chang and her brother who participated the e-media exchange could not come up with any good answers."So here we have a scholar in the field testifying to the papers notability, and ability to raise internal contradictions. So it brings up the logical problems, showing internal contradictions, on top of the fact that the author herself could not answer them (nor her brother who said he would), adds to this fact. The fact that the author of this book engaged this paper in an media e-exchange itself gives notablity to the paper. Whatever weaknesses the paper has, its overcome by the many facts I've presented about it. And, yes, anyone wo has followed this book--but more importantly--the issues the book deals with, will have read and come into contact with this critique, the way scholars who study the subject have. And, not only that, they felt it was worthy enough to include in their paper and presentation in an academic conference. Like it or not, these are the facts. Its not for us to judge, its for is to report. And leaving this in the external links section, suffices for now. If the link gets any more notability, i.e. published in a scholars book (which actually is being work on as we speak), it will be enough to include mention of it in the article.Giovanni33 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you keep repeating yourself - this is so tiresome. There is no reason why anyone cannot possibly avoid coming across this link. Or more importantly even if they come across it, that doesn't mean it is notable. I get junk coming into my inbox every day - I wouldn't include it in wikipedia. Gao mentioned it? Oh, wow - I'm so impressed. I think he needs to take a lesson from Andrew Nathan when he talked about collecting jade and plastic alike - this is certainly plastic if I ever came across it.

I certainly don't think the link should be included for the reasons I've mentioned, which you've repeatedly failed to address, and should definitely not be included in the main body even if it gets more mentioned. That clearly is an attempt to wedge it in later when this supposed book by Gao comes out. That's rather shabby, given previously you said that its supposed notability had just tipped it into including it in the external links. To now imply getting a bit more notability will allow it to go into the main body is not logical. John Smith's 08:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Defending my link

Hello, everybody! This is Jinxiaoding. I am sorry for not being able to come for a while. I have just realized (not too surprisingly) that the external link to my review of Jung Chang’s book “Mao” was removed by John Smith, again.

The external link to my review was established in May 2007 when the page was still protected and no one could insert anything without the authorization of the Wikipedia administration. It was arranged by a Wikipedia administer Nishkid64, through a democratic voting process after a long and serious debate (readers may refer to the discussion on the page of Jung Chang for more information). Now John Smith who participated in the earlier debate inverts this collective decision unilaterally without a similar legitimate procedure.

His main justifications to delink my review seem to be: (1) lack of notability in the media, (2) lack of academic references, (3) non-academic status of the author, (4) lack of new contribution, (5) misleading information. I will respond to them one by one and prove they are all groundless.

(1) Lack of notability in the media

(i) The Wikipedia policy does not even require an article to have any notability in the media, not to mention an external link.

(ii) Jung Chang herself noticed my review. She said in an interview: “I have read it, and read carefully. Some questions are quite good.“ Readers can find more information regarding this interview at: http://blog.chinesenewsnet.com/?p=3467. This is the personal page of Mr. He Pin, the interviewer and the founder of a Chinese website Duowei where my review first appeared. The entire interview video can be seen at: http://www.berm.co.nz/cgi-bin/video/play.cgi?lz1JaUtTdSM.

(iii) After I type “Jinxiaoding” in Chinese (“Golden Little Man”) on google (see http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E9%87%91%E5%B0%8F%E4%B8%81&hl=en&filter=0), I find more than 200 listings concerning my review (I only sent it to a couple places). I do not see any of them with a Chinese government affiliation.

These listings are not English media. However, Chinese people’s opinions about Mao are at least relevant as that of westerners. A review widely noticed among Chinese deserves attention by non-Chinese too. It can facilitate communication between the two groups, help to reduce the gap and build a consensus in the future.

Hence my review should not be denied an external link simply because it has not been published in mainstream English media.

(2) Lack of academic references

(i) The Wikipedia policy does not require any formal references, especially for an external link. Most references and external links on the page of book “Mao” do not have academic references. It is unfair to treat my review differently.

(ii) Good articles, academic or not, do not cite references for the sake of “citing references”. They do so when it is necessary to support their conclusions or verify their evidence. If one criticizes my review for lack of references, she or he should point out which part of it is unconvincing without references.

My review almost exclusively relies on Jung Chang’s own materials to find logical inconsistencies in her book. There is no need to use outside sources to verify those materials provided by Jung Chang. If a reader trusts these materials, she or he needs only to check if I quote them honestly and if my analysis is logical. If one does not trust them, she or he cannot take the book seriously. In either case, there is no need to provide academic references.

(iii) Not relying on extra references is not an omission, but my intention. There are two ways to discredit a history work, either by pointing out its factual errors or its logical inconsistencies. While a logical story may not be true, a true story has to be logical. If book “Mao” is logically inconsistent, it cannot be true.

On the other hand, if I rely on academic references to disprove Jung Chang’s 17 claims, the review will be extremely long. Very few western readers would have patience to read such a lengthy review by an obscure Chinese. Moreover, even if some of them do, they probably cannot understand those references in Chinese. Finally, even if they do understand Chinese, they may not have confidence in the references provided by Chinese who live or lived in China.

Hence, the only and most effective way for me to help western readers to see the errors in the book is to find its logical inconsistencies. This is certainly not a conventional approach in history study, because extremely few, if ever any, historians would provide enough facts contradictory to their own conclusions in the same book. Fortunately, Jung Chang is an outstanding exception.

Since the evidence provided by Jung Chang is so strong and complete, none of my extra information is essential for finding her logical inconsistencies. I have kept such information at the minimum and easy to be verified by western readers.

Hence, if my review quotes Jung Chang’s words accurately and does not contain logical mistakes, it should not be denied an external link simply because it does not have academic references.

(3) Non-academic status of the author

John Smith justifies his removal of the external link to my review by questioning my academic qualification. Indeed, such quality would be desirable if readers need faith to swallow an author’s opinion without seeing how it is derived. But this is not the case for my review. Readers need not to accept my opinion relying on my academic credential or reputation. All essential information can be checked in Jung Chang’s book, and the whole analysis is presented step by step, from Jung Chang’s sensational claims to her contradictory facts.

Thus, even if I am a dishwasher in a Chinese restaurant, my review should be judged by its factual accuracy and logical rigorousness, or lack of them, not by my status. If it passes this test, it deserves an external link since it represents a view widely noticed and shared among Chinese, but totally unheard of in western media.

Furthermore, I would like to draw readers’ attention to the current composition of contributors on this highly controversial page. Among 29 references (not including two repeated ones), all but two are from westerners, and the two Chinese entries are not about the book at all. Moreover, among 13 external links, 10 are from westerners, two Chinese ones are again not about the book. Only one external link relevant to the book is from an ethnic Chinese, but he has never lived in mainland China.

One should not forget, Mao is a Chinese, the book “Mao” is mainly written by a Chinese. The Wikipedia page dedicated to this book has no single entry from Chinese citizens on the topic, which is more relevant to them than anyone else. Is this normal in a democratic and free society?

(4) Lack of new contribution

John Smith claims that my review does not add anything new to what the public already knows. It cannot be further from truth. As I wrote in the review in 2005: “This review differs from those of Western writers in two aspects. First, it shows the total fallacy of the book, instead of just a few inaccuracies. Secondly, it demonstrates the book’s major flaws without substantial references regarding Chinese history, only using the information of an elementary level. In fact the information and references mainly come from the book itself”.

This statement is valid today as it was more than two years ago. In the western media no one has suggested that Jung Chang’s book “Mao” is totally wrong and demonstrated this by questioning her 17 major claims.

Also, no one has shown this purely based on Jung Chang’s own words. This is important because the current controversy around the book does not seem to be close to an end, as people from opposite camps cannot reconcile their differences even regarding many historical events. My review can help us to reach a concensus about the book without resolving those diferences first.

Currently, the support to Jung Chang and her book “Mao” is still dominant in the western media. My review raises a serious question: whether such a popular support is factually based and warranted. The answer to this question has profound implication not only on the judgement of Mao, but also on the understanding of China in general.

Therefore, if my review is factually correct and logically unassailable, its contribution must be new, unique and significant. If one criticizes my review for lack of new contribution, she or he first needs to prove my review is wrong. Otherwise, she or he can still disagree with me, but should not deny the external link to my review on the disguise of “lack of new contribution”.

(5) Misleading information

On this issue, I totally agree with John Smith that, a review does not deserve a place in Wikipedia if it presents misleading information. The question now is whether my review is guilty of such accusation made by John Smith. I quote his words here:

As to misleading information, it is there. The author does make lots of factual assertions without backing them

up. There are more examples than I have time to list, but a couple are as follows.

Then, he provides six examples of my “misleading information”. I will present each of them and discuss them one by one.

(i) “First, it ignores civilian deaths caused by the war, through killing, illness, economic hardship and starvation

etc, which often account for a larger part of the loss of life in long lasting wars”. (page 4) And his evidence that

this was the case is what, exactly? Yes, people die in many ways but if you want to allege her numbers on murders are

wrong by querying about other causes then you need to provide evidence for how many people were recorded as dying that way.

Mr. Smith, does the book talk about civilian deaths on this issue? If yes, show me. If no, why can’t I say, “it ignores civilian deaths”? Furthermore, do you agree that civilian deaths “often account for a larger part of the loss of life in long lasting wars”? Yes? Then why is my statement misleading? No? Then, ?! . . . God bless you.

You ask my evidence “is what, exactly?” Please allow me to tell you exactly now. Immediately after the sentence quoted by you, I wrote: ‘During that period Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek launched five “annihilation expeditions” against Ruijin, one of which involved “half a million troops” (p. 125). At one time the Ruijin base “had been reduced to a mere several dozen square kilometers” (p. 103) from “50,000 sq. km” (p.104). . . . Chiang’s army was not known for treating civilians with mercy. Even before the Red state came into existence, “tens of thousands of Communists and suspects were slaughtered” during Chiang’s campaign in 1927 (p. 47). Given all these factors, civilian deaths must have been significant’ (the bold words are from Jung Chang’s book).

Given the information from the book, it is very likely that “civilian deaths must have been significant”. If, against the odds, very few civilians had died “through killing, illness, economic hardship and starvation”, it is Jung Chang’s responsibility to convince readers this unlikely case. Otherwise, it is not convincing that all population reduction is due to Mao’s murder, apart from the “martyrs”.

In John Smith’s opinion, however, a critic has to “provide evidence for how many people were recorded as dying that way”, but the historian has no need to explain why she treats this number as zero. For God’s sake, is this fair?

(ii) “First, for anyone with military training, it is not difficult to distinguish whether a troop of 9,000 is moving to

somewhere or attacking someone”. (page 14) Does this guy have any military training he's told us about? Has he been in a

battlefield situation? Not that we know of, nor has he given any evidence to support that.

I am puzzled why my statement must be wrong unless I got military training or was in a battlefield. Do we really need to be trained in military in order to believe that a man with such training can “distinguish whether a troop of 9,000 is moving to somewhere or attacking someone”? Apparently John Smith insists he does. I sincerely hope he is not serious.

(iii) “Many, if not most, of the 700,000 people were executed for their military actions during the war, and cannot

accurately be described as victims in peacetime....... (page 19-20)”. Zero facts or references to back that up.

“Zero fact or references”? Mr. Smith, could you please look at my writing immediately before the quoted sentence? It reads: “When the People’s Republic of China was established in October 1949, almost half of its territory had yet to be liberated. Military campaigns continued into 1950 and even 1951 in certain parts of China. The Campaign to Suppress Counter-revolutionaries and “the land reform in the newly occupied areas, where some two-thirds of China’s population lived” (p. 337) were closely related to the last stage of the bloody civil war”.

Probably John Smith never looks backwards. Then, could you please look forwards? Immediately after your quote, you can read: ‘In a large part of China, bandits existed since the time people could remember. Mao’s army cleaned them up almost instantly. Killing, unfortunately, was necessary to provide Chinese the “peacetime” then. . . . Moreover, “China was hurled into the inferno of the Korean War on 19 October 1950” (p. 380). The war lasted three years till “an armistice was finally signed on 27 July 1953” (p. 394). During this period, especially at the early stage, Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan called on his loyalists in the mainland to rebel against the Communists in every way possible to welcome the forthcoming liberation by the U.S. army and his own. Many answered, carrying out acts of subversive organization, propaganda, espionage, explosion, poison, arson, murder and even armed uprising etc. These acts also account for a significant part of these 700,000 executions”.

John Smith disregards my words both immediately before and immediately after the sentence he quoted, and confidently declares “Zero facts or references to back that up”. Is this the same person who accuses me of presenting misleading information?

(iv) “None of his political challengers was executed.” (page 34) Certainly misleading. Liu Shaoqi was dragged off to

prison having committed no real crime other than to be in charge when Mao was not and died there - it was essentially a

slow execution.

According to John Smith, since “Liu Shaoqi was dragged off to prison, . . . and died there - it was essentially a slow execution”. Then “essentially a slow execution” becomes a real execution. Following his logic, everyone who died in prison was executed.

The fact is, Liu was in house arrest, not in prison. No problem, John Smith can still insist that Liu was “essentially” in prison. “Certainly misleading”, Mr. Smith.

(v) “Then after a quick victory, he ordered all the troops to return home in days” (on page 32). Indians will argue that

China was forced to retreat, rather than chose to do so.

I am totally confused. Even if “China was forced to retreat”, does this contradict to my statement? Mr. Smith, did Mao, forced or not, order the troops to return? If no, the Chinese soldiers must have retreated on their own wills. Do you really believe that? If yes, in which sense is my statement misleading?

(vi) Then there is the rather daft rant about how there was no corruption in Communist China until Jung Chang got into

university (page 36)! I shouldn't even need to explain why that is ludicrous.

This angry accusation refers to my appendix A, which reads: “When the door of entering a university was opened in 1973, JC’s mother arranged a slot for her in the Sichuan University’s Department of Foreign Language, an ideal place particularly for those no good at science. Such behavior of ‘going through back doors’ marked the beginning of the Communist corruption in China.”

First, my phrase of “such behaviour of ‘going through back doors”’ clearly refers to a behaviour of many, including Jung Chang’s mother, but not exclusively.

Second, John Smith’s inference of “no corruption in Communist China” is an unwarranted twist of my phrase, “the Communist corruption in China”. Of course corruption always exists in China. My phrase, “the Communist corruption in China”, though, refers to a systematic corruption of the Communist party.

This kind of corruption indeed did not exist in China before the time “Jung Chang got into university”. If John Smith believes “that is ludicrous”, he may explain to us why. It is not helpful to proclaim that, “I shouldn't even need to explain why”.

After answering all John Smith’s accusations of “misleading information” in my review, I would like to conclude this section by presenting a piece of real misleading information from him regarding myself on this very page. John Smith asserts:

“When I tried to talk with the author (who had inserted it himself) he disappeared after I raised some initial concerns”.

John Smith probably forgets something. Before I disappeared, I had answered all his concerns publicly on the discussion section of the page of Jung Chang where Jonh Smith’s “initial concerns” are posted. Since Mr. Smith has lost his memory completely, I feel responsible to remind him and post his “original concerns” and my replies to them one more time here (in [ ]) (Also can be seen at the aforementioned page).

[ Now I will answer each of your criticisms following your words. You wrote in the discussion page a few days ago about my review:

I can see various points that could be considered as "factally inaccurate material".

(i) "This claim was immediately accepted by the western media" No, it wasn't. Some publications loved it - others didn't.

The Financial Times and Independent on Sunday (as examples) had critical reviews.

In my review, the phrase “this claim” clearly refers to, in the previous sentence, “the central theme of the book” i.e., “to condemn Mao as an evil monster.” I did not say that every detailed aspect of the book was accepted. The Finacial Times and Independent on Sunday articles do not object “the central theme” (e.g., FT: “Chang and Halliday . . . bring the monster alive”; Independent: “Let me make it clear that I fully share the authors' view that Mao was a monster”.) They only question the way Jung Chang presents her materials and point out that China made some progress under Mao.

(ii) "Jung Chang has become the authority on the Chinese history." Really? Where has anyone said that?

This statement is based on the fact that, no other single person has more direct influence on the British public regarding the Chinese history (related to Mao) at the moment of my writing (2005).

(iii) "A person, who asked challenging questions during one of her seminars, was deemed by others as ‘an obvious Maoist’

and could not finish his questions." Again, really? Where, when was this said, etc?

This incident occurred in Glasgow, June 2005. I apologize for not providing full information on every detail which is unessential to my argument against Jung Chang’s claims. The review would be too long (as you already complained). If this is the reason not to link my review, I would be happy to take it away.

(iv) "In so doing, the review raises a further question: why did all media and experts in the UK fail to see these

obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in the book?" Again, not everyone loved it. The author is either ignorant or

deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

Again, I did not say “everyone love” Jung Chang’s book. I said that no British media expert “see these obvious inconsistencies and contradictions” as listed in my review.

(v) "If it cannot be excused by the ignorance of Chinese history, it has to be explained by the profound pride and

prejudice towards China." So basically, English people didn't criticise her books because they hate China.

This sentence follows from the previous one, and clearly refers to “media and experts in the UK”. Apparently, you equate “media and experts” to “English people”, and further interprete “pride and prejuduce” as hatred. I respectfully disagree, although I am not a native English speaker.

(vi) "Although this review met absolute silence in the west" Why would anyone have latched onto it? The author has

no profile. Why would a critic who properly understands the material quote some student from St Andrews? Part of the

statements made in the article seem to be motivated because he didn't get any attention in Europe/Americas.

I simply do not understand why my statement of “this review met absolute silence in the west” "could be considered "factually inaccurate" by you.

(originally posted on 24 April 2007 in the discussion section of the page of Jung Chang) ]

After I posted my reply to John Smith on the discussion page, he deleted it right away. His excuse was that this is a “personal communication”. Thanks to God, a Wikipedia commentator Giovanni restored it and protected my right to publicly answer John Smith’s accusations posted on the same page. Afterwards, John Smith “disappeared” from this open debate for a considerable time.

Now, John Smith forgets all these events, and tells readers proudly that I simply disappeared after he raised his questions. Isn’t this misleading?

Mr. Smith, with my assistance, I hope you can recall that, you have tried twice to convict me of presenting “misleading information”. Each time you brought up six examples, and I have answered all of them. I expect you to make another attempt at least, probably with six examples again, to have a “lucky” number.

I can hardly wait to answer your new challenges. It is really really fun, I tell you (this is accurate, not misleading, but only my point of view).

To finish my long non-guilty plea, I would like to ask the chief prosecutor John Smith a simple question: What is the real reason for you to object the external link to my review so ferociously?

If my review, as you repeatedly claim, is merely a bundle of ungrounded opinions from a man with “no profile”, no one will take it seriously, especially given the overwhelming media support to Jung Chang. Why do you worry? If at worse, it is full of errors, you can easily discredit it, just as I wish to do to Jung Chang’s book. Then, the public will see an obscure Chinese fool (“Little Man”) humiliated by a famous English genius (“John Smith”). Why don’t you let it go this way?

I am sure you are proud of your western values of democracy and freedom. Then, you should feel repulsive to anyone who desperately prevents another person’s voice from reaching the public, even through a tiny tube, such as an external link. If so, can you still feel good about yourself when you look in a mirror?

Jinxiaoding, 2008.01.12

PS: My review, a critique of an ordinary Chinese, can be seen at:

http://www.geocities.com/jinxiaoding/ReviewMaoEnglish.htm.

Actually, it was removed by User:Folic Acid from this page - it was removed from the Jung Chang article because if it were to be included, it should be here. But other editors, not just myself, didn't think it warranted inclusion. So don't talk rubbish about whether I can "look in a mirror" - that is also a personal attack and liable to get you blocked.

As for our discussion, you did disappear without answering my points on your talk page. According to your edit summary, your last post (before today) was on 25th April 2007 at 18:02. My response that was posted on your talk page was posted on 25th April 2007 at 23:50. Can you please explain how you answered my queries before I had even posted them?

Also I have never deleted any comments made by you. I moved some to my talk page because that's where I thought you wanted to put them - we were having a discussion that I thought was one-to-one.

In regards to your points raised today, I'll pick on just one to show how you either are still misleading everyone or have an extremely poor grasp of English.

(iii) <“Many, if not most, of the 700,000 people were executed for their military actions during the war, and cannot accurately be described as victims in peacetime....... (page 19-20)”. Zero facts or references to back that up. >

“Zero fact or references”? Mr. Smith, could you please look at my writing immediately before the quoted sentence?......

You did not provide any facts or references to back up the claim that I quoted. Trying to explain what you think happened is not fact or a reference - it's an opinion or a view. You need things called sources like books, war records, etc to back up the point that you made. I do not see any sources quoted by you to establish your claims about those 700,000. So my point stands. Do I have to go through the rest as well, or would you like to rethink what you wrote first and present in a more tidy fashion - it's a bit of a mess at the moment. John Smith's (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you said:

The external link to my review was established in May 2007 when the page was still protected. It was arranged by the Wikipedia administration (Nishkid64), through a democratic voting process after a long and serious debate (readers may refer to the discussion on the page of Jung Chang for more information).

The Wikipedia "administration" did no such thing - Nishkid64 added on his own accord. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a democracy - it is governed by consensus. There was no consensus to add the link. Later on no one objected to its removal by User:Folic Acid on 13th November, which did establish consensus to keep it out. John Smith's (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reluctant to respond to these words from John Smith. It is too unchallenging. The errors are so obvious for readers to see that make my respond probably unnecessary or even an insult to the readers. But for the benefit of a special few, including John Smith, I have to make a couple points.

(1) John Smith writes: “Actually, it was removed by User:Folic Acid from this page”, and again mentions “its removal by User:Folic Acid on 13th November”. However, on this very page earlier, one can read John Smith’s own words:

“I've removed the link ---------------- John Smith's 13:54, 12 November 2007”

Putting his words together, we have to believe what he really meant is: “Actually, Folic Acid is John Smith”. Wow, that makes a perfect sense!

(2) To my statement that I answered his “initial concerns” before “disappeared”, John Smith replies: “you did disappear without answering my points on your talk page.”

Mr. Smith, are your points on my talk page your “initial concerns”? If so, I must have answered your "initial concerns" BEFORE you raised them. Sorry, I am not that smart.

(3) John Smith to me: “I have never deleted any comments made by you. I moved some to my talk page”.

Mr. Smith, does your word “move” mean “to delete something from one place and put it somewhere else”? Without the first part, it would be called “copy”, not “move”, English man.

(4) Regarding my statement of “Many, if not most, of the 700,000 people were executed for their military actions during the war, and cannot accurately be described as victims in peacetime”, John Smith still insists that, “You did not provide any facts or references to back up the claim”, despite I remind him what I wrote immediately before and after this statement.

I never intend to prove exactly how many of these 700,000 “cannot accurately be described as victims in peacetime”. But I provide facts and references from Jung Chang to support (“back up”) my statement that they are “many”.

Mr. Smith, is the time of these deaths shortly after the civil war a fact? Is the large-scale land reform associated with the war a fact? Is the sudden disappearance of widespread bandits a fact? Is the simultaneous Korean War a fact? Is Chiang Kai-shek’s calling for rebellion a fact? Is the response from his followers as I described in the review a fact?

If, as you told me, “you need things called sources like books, war records, etc to back up” these simple facts, the only book you really need is a high school textbook. I don’t think most readers share your need.

If the above are facts, is it likely that many deaths during the “campaign to suppress counter-revolutionaries” are not pure peacetime victims? If so, these facts support (“back up”) my statement.

(5) John Smith denies that my external link was established legitimately, and claims that, “Nishkid64 added on his own accord”.

So, John Smith’s story changes from that I inserted the link myself on this page to someone else acted “on his own accord”. Is this person a Wikipedia administrator and entitled to do so or not? No further comments.

Xiaodingjin (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith in your comments. I suggest that you try being more polite rather than jumping to conclusions and making silly comments.

1. I did not say I never removed the link. I indicated that Folic Acid removed the link and subsequently it stayed out. Thus if you want to complain about its final removal I suggest you talk to him, as he was the one that appeared to establish consensus. If you believe we are the same user you can report it, it will be looked into and you will be proven incorrect - otherwise don't be silly.

2. The fact remains that I posted a series of comments on your talk page which you failed to respond to prior to your departure from Wikipedia. You can try to dance around the issue but that is a simple fact.

3. Yes, the word "move" does mean to take something from one place and put it in another. Would you like a dictionary definition?

4. The fact people were rounded up as part of a "campaign to suppress counter-revolutionaries" does not equate to guilt. Indeed the term "counter-revolutionary" is so vague that it can mean anything. To assert that "many, if not most" were not victims requires detailed referencing.

But I provide facts and references from Jung Chang to support (“back up”) my statement that they are “many”.

I thought the whole point of your argument was that it was not a reliable source - how can you criticise it on the one hand and then try to use it as proof of your position? If you use it as a reference you are lending credance to its qualities. Now I believe you had a page reference to the book. Would you be so good as to briefly quote the part of that page which supports your assertion that "many, if not most, of the 700,000 people were executed for their military actions during the war, and cannot accurately be described as victims in peacetime".

5. I have never asserted that you inserted the link onto this page - you added it to the Jung Chang article. John Smith's (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Smith, I have no desire for endless quarrel without meaningful resolutions. I write this reply only to conclude this round of debate, regarding your five points above.

(1) Your statement implies that you did remove my link. This confirms my words: the link “was removed by John Smith”. No need for further discussion.

(2) Your statement implies that I did answer your “initial concerns”. Your claim, “he disappeared after I raised some initial concerns”, is not true. The case is closed.

(3) Your statement implies that you did delete my comments/reply to your "initail concerns" from this page. Your assertion that “I have never deleted any comments made by you” is not true. Period.

(4) (i) I never said 700,000 deaths are not victims. I said they “cannot accurately be described as victims in peacetime”. You should not ignore the phrase “in peacetime”.

(ii) Let me explain the logic of my argument again. I first hypothetically accept Jung Chang’s claims and “facts”, and later find inconsistency between them. Then I reject the earlier hypothesis and conclude that either her claims or “facts” are wrong. In either case, her book is not reliable. This approach is called “proof by contradiction”, which can be learned in high school mathematics. Apparently, you never heard of it. No surprise.

(5) At the beginning of this page, Folic Acid wrote: “why is the link to Jin Xiaoding's critique of book in the External Links section?” Obviously, he refers to the link on this page, not the page of Jung Chang.

Then you replied: “When I tried to talk with the author (who had inserted it himself), he disappeared after I raised some initial concerns”. Your answer clearly implies that I inserted the link onto this page, which is false. Xiaodingjin (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Xiaodingjin, I have no idea if you will ever see this again. I know I probably never will so I will talk to all concerned. I just want Xiaodingjin to know reading this argument displays tremendous ARROGANCE on his part. All Xiaodingjin continually displayed towards John Smith was tremendous disrespect. Considering the complete lack of any true scholarship in Xiaodingjin's critique (I even went ahead and read it), this disrespect seems completely unfounded. It seems as if Xiaodingjin found himself so enamored with what he wrote that anyone pointing out why it rightly does not deserve to reside in an encyclopedia (no sources, no academic journal, no serious scholarship) is contemptible. Just the impression I got.

This should be the litmus test if a source should be in here. And it is easy for ANYONE who has ever written anything semi-serious for a history class, poli sci class, or whatever. If your teacher would laugh at you for including a citation and mark you down for shoddy scholarship, does it deserve to be in here. Easy. Xiaodingjin's polemic obviously does not pass the test.

And this is directed directly towards Xiaodingjin. Xiaodingjin remarked that no mainland Chinese criticisms or critiques of the book are included in this article. Xiaodingjin then goes on to imply this makes the review unbalanced unfairly towards the Western perspective and that it is "undemocratic." Xiaodingjin uses this disparity in sources to bolster the case why his review belongs. The claim about a Western perspective overwhelmingly being represented here may very well be true, but think about how ludicrous the basis for the claim is in the first place. Take a minute if you have to.

OPEN DISCUSSION OF MAO!?! MAINLAND CHINA!?! Ridiculous! Of course there is no discussion of this book in China, the entire subject is taboo! I cannot corroborate it, but I would place a large bet this book is not even published in China. Dont blame wikipedia for not "democratizing" the discussion of Chang's book, blame the Chinese government. How can an open discussion about the history of Mao, let alone this book, happen if the government wont even admit some of the most basic falsehoods of the myth of Mao?

24.8.143.172 (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Big changes to response section

I've been a bit bold and significantly changed the response section. My apologies for not getting around to this sooner. The changes were discussed ad infinitum above and John Smith's and I worked on these additions extensively in my sandbox so I think it's okay at this point to simply add it in and hash out any differences there. To John, as you can see what I've done is simply retain the categories "praise" and "criticism." I know you said above that you were amenable to this and I think it's the best way to deal with our disagreements. I do make it clear that the real criticism has come from academic experts, but also that some academics have supported the book. I didn't take a position on whether Yahuda was an academic expert or not--he's in the praise section with obvious non-experts and obvious experts. I re-added some of the material I initially had put in my sandbox which you deleted but kept a number of changes you made. I hope you're okay with what I ended up with or at least 90% okay with it. I'm trying to achieve some closure on this and just decided to dump it into the article and go from there--I'm sure you agree that on the whole it's a significant improvement on what we had.

To those who were not following the creation of the new material here's what's different. A number of less than ideal sources have been removed. Rummel is no longer there in the praise section, and Short, Pomfret, Bernstein, and Gao/Ross were removed from the criticism section. A review from the New York Times and an academic review were added to the praise section. The biggest change though was to the criticism section, which is now heavily sourced to academic experts including several reviews in academic journals which are not freely available online. The criticism is quite strong and I think it more than makes up for the deletions of the above figures, who either were non-experts or who did not actually write full reviews (the Gao source was particularly controversial, but the arguments expressed there are now made by scholars in academic journals which are clearly excellent sources). Feel free to tweak what's there of course and/or talk out any major problems here. Hopefully we can put this to bed fairly soon.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping the academic sections - that was one of biggest sticking points as far as I could see. I'll have a look at it and see where we can go from here. John Smith's 20:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think you'll be okay with most of it as I said.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bigtimepeace. I'll review the changes and maybe make some tweaks. I think Ross/Gao should be mentioned as they qualify as academics within the field, but I'll look over the content as it stands. I also think that a clear demarkation between experts in the field and the popular press should be made. Hopefully that point stands out strongly, already. Thanks.Giovanni33 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they need to be included. As has been pointed out before, Gao says nothing to be quoted on and Ross is not required given other critics put their views across much more eloquently and (as BigT has said) in peer-reviewed journals. I have made some quick changes as promised. John Smith's 23:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made my changes, and included the important views of these two experts in the field, as its cited and has been part of the article. There is no consensus to remove them. Gao says a lot to whose who want to research what he has to say about the book. Its enough that he discussed the book at the academic conference along with Katz and has a similar point of view. The idea is to show there is pretty much an academic consensus among experts in the field that the book is sub-standard in many critical ways. I also made clear the intro sentence that should state the big difference in the reponses between what the popular press and qualified academics.Giovanni33 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There was never any consensus to add them either.

I made my changes as promised. I've put the blockquote back in because Perry Link's extract is a long one. I also tried to remove some repitition over the reference to the D-V Code - it should read better now. Also the use of "experts" again is unnecessary - just call them Sinologists or academics in the field in question as I've done. On the entry to the response section, there's no need to talk about "some academics....". People can be more critical whilst still supporting something overall. By saying Sinologists are more critical it leaves the meaning flexible. John Smith's 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a compromise edit, leaving in most of yoru changes but restoring the material you deleted from the criticism section. I also left in your reversion to the introduction sentence to the sections. Hopefully this compromise will be stable.Giovanni33 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you've broken your revert parole by making a partial reversion. Please revert your last change - I would prefer it if I did not have to report you. John Smith's 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually John you've technically broken your rv parole as well (you rv'd on October 30th and again today), but I have no intention of reporting you or Giovanni and think we should just let the matter slide since it's not at all disruptive and I think we can come to agreement. Let me have a look at the changes you both made and see what I think and then I'll comment here. If we can agree on most everything I can make the necessary changes so neither of you have to risk violating the rv parole.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything - I made various changes. It was Giovanni that reinserted material and twice. If he doesnt want to revert his changes then he should be blocked. I apologise if I did anything that could constitute a revert, but as Giovanni reverted I can't undo my changes. He still can. John Smith's 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting means undoing the actions of another editor. You reverted both myself and Giovanni (albeit only partially) with this edit. As I say I have no interest in having either of you blocked, but your actions are the same as Giovanni's. I see you've already essentially reported him to Picaroon and I'm going to comment over there now and try to dissuade him from blocking either of you since I don't think that would be helpful. This is an unfortunate distraction. If you are turning in for the night we can resume this discussion later, though I might try to convince Giovanni to undo a couple of his changes or undo them myself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If that edit was a revert then almost any change to an article counts as a revert unless it is simply adding new material - I don't think that's logical. John Smith's 07:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied re: this issue on Picaroon's talk page so hopefully that editor can clarify the issue on reverts (either way I think Picaroon has agreed not to block either of you regardless of whether there was a violation which is good). I'll be offline for awhile but I think we can finish this up very soon. Giovanni is probably right that the Bernstein bit can and should stay in but I don't think the Gao is really necessary (I personally don't have a problem with it, but it is contentious and does not make an especially novel argument about the book). Otherwise I think we're dealing with relatively minor wording issues. Let's either let Gio self-revert when he gets back online (which I think he should since it's no big deal), or if he doesn't I think we can just let it sit as is as I will probably change a bit of what Gio just changed anyway. When I get back online give me a chance to tweak a couple of things and then we can hash out any final disagreements here. Obviously neither you or Gio should edit the article for awhile but I don't think that will be a problem--we're very close to wrapping this up I think and after we discuss it here I can implement any final changes we agree on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gao Mobo is NOT quoted by any of the sources provided, and therefore I removed him due to WP:V violations. Also, I went ahead and removed some subjective words added by a Wikipedia editor, such as "sharply" and "conspiracy". Please make sure everything is sourced, and don't add your personal opinions into this article. Thank you.--Endroit 16:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing Gao is fine, but I reverted your last two edits. I can only assume you have not read the Goodman article yet you feel you are able to comment on it. Goodman does indeed use the word "conspiracy" to describe the book and compare it to the Da Vinci Code--that is not my terminology and it's odd for you to assume that it was (the word conspiracy is actually in the title of the article, so I can only assume that not only did you not read it, you did not even look at the footnote closely). I believe it is completely accurate to call this review "sharply critical" and not merely "critical." It is sharply critical--he argues that the facts in the book are no more reliable than the facts in the Da Vinci Code and that it had sacrificed its intellectual reputation to achieve celebrity--that goes well beyond mere criticism so I think a modifier like "sharply" (or "harshly") is not only appropriate but necessary. I also see no reason to remove the phrase "Like other reviewers." It is a fact that other reviewers have made the same criticisms--it's described in the same section--and thus I am merely putting Goodman's views in the context of other reviewers in the same section. I don't need a source to do that. It's not a huge deal either way though and I mainly reverted that because it was easier to revert your other edit that way.

In the future I would ask you to actually familiarize yourself with the source you are talking about before accusing me (or anyone else) of injecting my own opinions in the article. I've given what I think is a very fair account of the Goodman review, and it's odd for you to cry foul on NPOV and suggest that I've injected my own opinion when you have not read the original article (again I'm assuming here, but I think I'm on safe ground).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also apologies on the last edit as I screwed up the edit summary in Twinkle. I meant to submit a more complete summary and also did not intend to mark it as a minor edit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict). To Endroit, --we do not quote Gao in the article, however we do report what the source says about Gao, which is verifiable and cited. Thus, there are no violations here with mentioning Gao. It clearly only quotes Katz. In anycase, I'm willing to compromise and keep Gao out (for now until his book on the issue is published--he devotes an entire chapter to it).

As to the revert parole violations issue, I'd be happy to self revert but it now since there have been other edits since then, its impractical. I saw that John Smith violated it first by clearly making two (partial) reverts but instead of making fuss about that and report him, since I saw that as a distraction to the major progress we were making, I opted instead to follow his lead and make a further compromise edit in the spirit of progress. Its unfortunate that he did not take the same high road, but I'm glad that no blocking was necessary this time. I hope John Smith understands that he did violate the terms, and that undoing any other editors work does count as a revert. Now, lets focus on the content and not these distracting issues.Giovanni33 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If Gao is publishing a book with a whole chapter on the Chang/Halliday work we should obviously include that when it comes out. Until then I don't think there's any need to mention him. Giovanni I'm wondering if you would also mind taking out the Kaz Ross quotes. They don't really add anything not already said and it comes from a review which does not seem to have been published. She's also not the ideal critic as, although she is a China scholar, Chinese politics and history do not appear to be her bailiwick. I don't think it would be a great loss, and since it has been contentious we could avoid arguing about it endlessly. I agree with you that Bernstein quote belongs there as he is clearly qualified and his quote about the book is quite striking--I don't even know why I removed that.

I'm wondering what other outstanding issues we have at this point. I think most of the possible differences can be found in this diff which is a change made by Gio to some of John's changes. The intros to the criticism section are slightly different and Gio's is what we have now. I'm actually fine with reverting to John's version, though I think the word "alleged" should be taken out as several reviewers do point out selective use of evidence, they do not simply "allege" it. Sometimes we have to call a spade a spade and I think using the word allege unnecessarily waters down what are extremely strong arguments that evidence was used selectively. There was also disagreement about the "undercurrent of conspiracy" language but I think Endroit and I may have worked out a compromise on that or are about to.

So, if the Gao and Ross can stay out (until Gao publishes his book), the Bernstein can stay in, and the intro to the criticisms can go back to John's version minus the word "alleged" (or maybe changing the language some other way), are we basically in agreement? Are there objection to the proposals in the previous sentence, or any other current problems?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not in agreement. If Gao writes a book then we can come back. He shouldn't be included because he is supposedly writing something which may get published at a later date. Maybe we could include Kaz Ross briefly if we decide she expresses views that are not discussed by another party. If you start including everyone that has expressed a public view on the book (commentator, academic, whatever) then we'd have a huge mess. The external links are there for a reason - we can always put Ross' article there. John Smith's 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets leave Gao out completely, and lets just briefly include Kaz Ross, as you suggest. Lets leave the paper for the external links section. When Gao finally comes out with the book, after its published, then we can incorporate his material. Until then I'm willing to let go of this point.Giovanni33 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec with Giovanni) John I think you misread me. I agree with you that Gao and Ross should not be included for now (hence "If Gao is publishing a book with a whole chapter on the Chang/Halliday work we should obviously include that when it comes out. Until then I don't think there's any need to mention him.") In my previous comment I was asking Giovanni if he could be persuaded to remove Ross, and he seems to have agreed to leave Gao out for now. I think you may have misread our previous comments. So assuming the Gao/Ross thing is agreed upon, are there any other issues?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, B. I had just got in and dashed off a response. I think it would be best to put Ross' review into the external links along with the rest and keep Gao out - obviously there would then be no need for a bit on the conference. As for other issues I do have an issue with an external link already in there (as you may have seen from an earlier conversation). Can you give me some time to look over where we are - we've had a lot of edits recently, and I'm a bit busier than usual at the moment. John Smith's 21:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason why Prof. Ross should be mentioned despite the fact that others have said essentially the same thing is that it helps to convey the academic consensus that exists. I'm ok with shortening it and removing reference to the conference, but I see it as beneficial to quote Kaz Ross in this context, echoing the other academic that she follows.Giovanni33 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, glad I read that first, I thought you were saying Gio that you were okay taking out Ross and just putting the link to her paper in the external link section. What do you have in mind specifically in terms of what you want to include from her in the article? Can you propose a shortened sentence? I real don't care either way whether we have a short thing from Ross or nothing at all but let's try to agree on it one way or another and bear in mind it's a pretty small issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with making it brief, shortening it to something like this:

The Chang and Halliday book was discussed by Kaz Ross, a Professor of Asian Studies from the University of Tasmania, along similar lines, stating that it was only the latest in the genre of "faction' – history told by fictional narrative means," and argued that the book was "full of factual errors, poor and misleading referencing.... The story of Mao Zedong is more interesting and more complex than that presented by Chang and Halliday."[24] Giovanni33 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as a unique observation that is somehow necessary to the article - I think David Goodman's review is far more eloquent on that point. It just clutters the page to have this Ross' bit - it's including her for the sake of it. John Smith's 22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the whole point, that is not a unique observation. I'm ok with shortening it more but I want a sense that this is a POV that several academics in the field have expressed. We could state that and then give Prof. Ross's quote as an example that makes this point. I don't see it as cluttering up the page, as I see it as making an important and effective impression/point that should be made.Giovanni33 22:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Two is not several. She can be included in the external links quite easily. John Smith's 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The point about it being fiction-like seems the relevant one (almost everyone has mentioned errors and bad referencing), so what is we just said something like:

Kaz Ross of the University of Tasmania agreed with Goodman's points about similarities between the style of the Mao book and techniques used in fiction, deeming Chang and Halliday's work "'faction' – history told by fictional narrative means."

That shortens it quite a bit but preserves what I take to be the key point. Another alternative would be to put something like this in the footnote, as a way to illustrate the point that Goodman is not the only one to make this argument, which does seem an important point to make now that I think about it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How would you propose adding it to the footnote? I guess you must mean Goodman's reference. Or do you mean a fresh footnote? John Smith's 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant adding the text to the end of the Goodman footnote. I don't know if that's considered good practice on Wikipedia, but obviously in academic articles it's common to say "authors so and so also agreed with this position" and cite their work, rather than listing everyone who ever argued the position in the article text. I don't really see a problem with keeping the shortened sentence (it could probably be worded better) in the article itself, though I'm hardly going to go to the mat for that or for any point-of-view on this question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its a practice I've seen employed here in WP and either of these suggestions are fine with me.Giovanni33 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So what do you propose for the footnote. Maybe put it on your sandbox so I can see what you have in mind? John Smith's 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See here for a proposal on the footnote. Would that work?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Thanks!Giovanni33 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put my own propsal in. John Smith's 11:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine (better even). I'm going to go ahead and change the article accordingly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's very simple.

Giovanni and John Smith's - obviously the two of you are hell-bent on opposing each other's edits, whatever they may be (I stopped paying close attention). So before the two of you make any edits, here's a suggestion - agree on it with each other first. It's not rocket science you know. At this rate, it's as if you plan to keep reverting each other within the limits of the revert restrictions you were placed on. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we've been disputing the link for a long time. Though of course if you want to push Giovanni to leave the link out before we both agree on what to do, be my guest. John Smith's 08:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter that you've been disputing for a long time? The reason the two of you are placed on revert restrictions is because you were edit warring with each other. Either keep arguing with each other or leave the whole thing alone. Both of these options are viable and more preferrable than reverting each other's edits. And don't get me wrong, I'm not addressing only you when I say this, I'm addressing both you and Giovanni. I mean, I'm pretty stubborn myself with my edits, but the two of you have seriously carried on with your disputes far too long. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated lead

As the previous version was uncited/uncitable, I thought the version propsed for the Jung Chang page would be more appropriate, being well cited and balanced. John Smith's (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links

Please discuss removal of links and addition of new ones if they're not in English - what was wrong with the BBC links and what did the new one add? John Smith's 08:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the external links currently included, I'm not entirely sure why we have so many non-English ones - they're not helpful to most people who read this page and very much a waste of space. If anyone wants to include specific links, please make a case for each. John Smith's (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

it is a pity that xiaoding's link has been destroyed. agree, the method was unique, but it was based on aristotelian logic deduction rather than on quotations as done traditionally. the author is clearly science based or mathematics based for i must say it is very difficult to destroy jung chang's "work" with her own words, by revelealing her contradictions. thus, a bright mind is worth much more than battling with quotes. unfortunately, the article was written for unbiased and logic friendly readers, a level prob. not met by the common wikipedian or even administrator which is a tragedy. please put it back. it is the only source which both jung chang and her brother responded to. how rare is that? now documentation or rather easy accessibilty requires multi-linguality to the before mentioned fact and patience for the stupid self-destructive chinese censorship, which as stated destroys that which might do china good. let us be scientific and let systematic proof reign our minds and not bias against the ruling communists. please, if not we are no better than the chinese who censor indiscriminately, for we have censored unjustly ourselves. china is a very complex topic; however, to judge correctly one must have the proper boundary conditions. 2+2 does not equal 5 mr. smith! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariusdaman (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This user had few/no edits outside this topic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if its a meatpuppet or not, but I agree this is a valid link for the external links section as discussed above. It has received some media coverage, and has been discussed/responded to by the author of Mao, the Unknown Story. This makes it notable, and quite relevant. So I will be restoring it.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, the lack of suitability of the link has been discussed at length. You did not object to its removal by User:Folic Acid last year and withdrew from the conversation subsequently. By withdrawing you allowed consensus to form for it not being included per Wikipedia:Consensus. Thus I have removed it. Please establish consensus for its inclusion next time. John Smith's (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. It doesn't quite work that way. At no time was there ever consensus reached on this issue. Folic Acid only removed it pending further discussion about the link and for some consensus about it. I did not agree with having the default position to be without the link, but I did not revert him, with the understanding his action was not permanent. I never "withdrew" and consensus on the issue was never obtained. So, its perfectly fine for me to restore this link now, and if enough editors agree, it should remain--at least until clear consensus on the question is obtained. From my last count more users agreed to have this link here than not have it, even counting the Rfc of last year.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy - voting doesn't achieve consensus. You didn't have to agree with the link being removed, but given you did/said nothing for two months your silence (both in action and word) meant you consented. You now need to achieve a new consensus to restore it. John Smith's (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say voting equaled consensus. I said there was no consensus on the issue. And, no, it does not mean I consented. You are making up new policy now? This invention is not policy, and you can hardly have a new consensus when there was no old one to begin with. If the link is to be kept out it will be when consensus is reached making that clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If voting does not equal consensus, why talk about how many people agreed to have the link?

I am not making up policy. In the past I have been told that silence equals consensus. If a link such as this stays out for a period of months and there is no complaint/attempt to remove it (unless one is involved in formal mediation/under instructions not to take action for a time) then, as far as I know, that is consensus by default. When we were talking about it, I made the last comment - you left the matter as it was. If you don't believe me go see how many people on the Consensus project say that leaving the link out for those months and not commenting further was a sign there was not consensus.

If there was no consensus on the link to begin with, it should stay out. Where does it say that consensus is needed to remove something instead of including it? John Smith's (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering, and that is not helpful. If there is some proposed resolution and the opposition remains silent, then in most cases we can assume the acquiesce, unless and until they speak out. Then no assumption is necessary. In this case, there was no resolution and it was left out clearly under the terms that there was yet no consensus and that such action was at best temporary pending reaching some resolution. So there was no need for anyone to make any assumption about consent for inclusion vs. not. I disagree it should stay out, and think it should stay in, based on the valid arguments for its inclusion (in my opinion, and others), and that it should not be removed until there is consensus to do so. If most editors on here support a position and if you are the only one who doesn't, then that is consensus nonetheless.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am hardly wikilawyering, I am repeating what I have been told. If someone objects and then leaves the discussion without explanation, consensus cannot be put on hold indefinitely. If Folic Acid removed the link pending the outcome of the discussion, then your withdrawl without explanation (I commented and you did not respond further) meant that you by default consented and thus consensus was agreed.

You can object now but given the link is out and has been without comment for months you need consensus to restore it. Again, as I suggested if you do not like that interpretation of the rules go and ask for comments from the Consensus talk page. If you refuse then you are suggesting you know the response will be more supportive of my position than yours. John Smith's (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the rules and this is not the rule. It is only an opinion. If there is a rule that says this, then please quote it. I also wonder how is "withdraw" exactly defined. I did not withdraw, and consensus was never placed on hold--there was never any consensus. If you have consensus for removal of the link then that will be clear by the arguments and number of editors agreeing with you. This is not the case, so far. So you should not remove the link as that is simply edit warring violating the spirit of your probation.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is wikilawyering now, Giovanni? And opinion counts for a lot on Wikipedia, because that's how it works. It isn't run by machines who follow programmes. You withdrew because you stopped talking - otherwise you're implying consensus can be vetoed by someone objecting and then finding something else to do, which is clearly nonsense.

I was not violating the spirit of my probation by removing the link as I was protecting the consensus on the page, but according to your logic you were certainly doing that by putting it back after it had been a source of dispute both before and after the arbitration case.

This argument is going nowhere. I suggest you talk to the boys on consensus because I know what I think and I'm sticking to it. I really have wasted enough time with you over the last year or so debating nonsense. Get some input from the real experts and use dispute resolution - stop reverting. John Smith's (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, its based on rules, and interpretation of them. What you are saying is your own invention and merely opinion, not a rule so stop quoting that as if it has weight. Again, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, there was no consensus, thus its impossible for you to revert to "protect consensus." Instead you are reverting to protect what you want, which is the same thing you have always been doing that led to your probation restrictions. You've been warned already so the next step would be a block, if you continue. As far as experts, I am an expert, although it doesnt take one to realize there was no consensus reached on the link in question.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of rules is opinion. And it can't be my invention if I was told it by others - unless you are accusing me of lying.

If I am reverting to protect what I want, the same applies to you. That you call yourself an expert and refuse to get input from others goes to show you are not editing in good faith. Who are you to give yourself that status? John Smith's (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My point about expert is that this too is just a matter of opinion. Its your opinion that someone who told you their opinion was an expert. This is not so complicated an issue that we have certifications. My experience editing here for years is sufficient expertise for me to know about this basic policy. And, what your saying is not reflected in any policy, or even guideline. So, I would drop that line of argument. I won't revert, but I expect you not to revert either, if some other editor restores it again. Do you agree with that? That is until there is clear consensus on the question (which there is not now nor never was).Giovanni33 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said the person who told me was an expert - I said that the people on the consensus page were. And if you really were an expert on consenus you wouldn't be under a revert parole, would you? John Smith's (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents...

a) Consensus can change. What was fine N months ago doesn't necessarily have to be acceptable to everyone today. But at the same time, continuously rehashing the same old issue(s) is non-constructive (if not destructive).

b) If a link is not a source it has no reason to be the article (Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link farm).

-- Fullstop (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Student says what?

CWH, thanks for your interest in the page, but I don't think that we can use this student as a reliable source. I had a look for "Tom Worger" and I can't see anything that says he is notable. So, really, I'll have to remove it. There are so many students out there who probably have something to say on this book - it would be ridiculous to open the floodgates.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources has a lot that would bar this very limited web-page - both the sections on scholarship and self-published sources. I'm sure that there are more scholarly sources out there that can make a similar point in a much better way.

On an unrelated point I am removing the last two "external links" because they're not external links, nor are they references used in the article. John Smith's (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that that does not seem to be a reliable source and removal was therefore appropriate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for adding this without thinking it through. You have a sound point, but there does seem also to be value in making this available to our readers. We don't want to open the floodgates, but we don't want to dam up good analysis either. It does seem "notable" to show that the most famous sentence in the book doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Technically, the page is not self-published, but published by U San Diego, and, for what it's worth, was cited by the reputable History News Network [1]and in a roundup review of the book.

Maybe Mr. Worger should publish in print, at which point it would magically become citable! ch (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Publishing in print wouldn't resolve the problem as one issue is the individual's notability. And it isn't published by the university, they've just allowed him to host his webpage on their server - something a lot of institutions do automatically.

I stand by my view that good analysis is already available in cited and linked resources. John Smith's (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that HNN mentioned it (and describes what was behind the writing of it) gives that source a bit more credibility, but HNN can be a bit blog-like at times and I still don't think that source qualifies for our purposes (in part because I think we can find something better). It does bring up an important point though, namely that it would be useful to have other sources which assess and/or question the death toll arrived at by Chang and Halliday. I don't remember if any of the reviews I read months ago did this but I could look into it again.

I'd also like to remove the sentence "Other academics and writers have argued that similar numbers of deaths occurred during Mao's rule of China" and the source which backs it up. There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, the web site is not really a reliable source. I have no particular reason to doubt it's veracity, but I also have no idea who "Matthew White" is (clearly not an expert on the subject from what I can gather) and there's no way for us to know if his work is even accurate. Second, and probably more importantly, the statement "Other academics and writers have argued that similar numbers of deaths occurred during Mao's rule of China" is rather misleading given what the source says. Yes, some of the numbers there are similar to the Chang and Halliday numbers, but others are not. A more accurate sentence, based on the source, would be "some of the numbers from other academics are similar and some are different." But that doesn't really tell us anything, and the source itself is still questionable. I really think we need to take this out and replace it with something better - it basically has the same problems as the student piece.

We still want info on this issue, so the best solution is to quote the original sources or a very reliable source quoting the original sources. It would be great to find an article which discusses the ongoing debate over casualty numbers under Mao and which has been written since the Chang and Halliday book came out. I could be wrong, but I vaguely remember that some of those who were critical of the book were less critical of the overall casualty numbers. I'll see if I can turn up anything.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes to this section which I doubt will be all that controversial. In addition to deleting the "Matthew White" source, I also deleted the material from the Asia Times article, which was not by a reliable author. It's possible that the one or both of the sources quoted by that author would be usable (the both seem to be scholars) but I did not look into that closely.

I looked through some of the reviews cited later in the article and partially found what I was looking for in the Stuart Schram review, as it provides a range for the general estimate and also discusses some numbers for the Great Leap Forward, which most seem to agree was the deadliest era.

I think that's much better in terms of sourcing and is a decent base for that section. This is something we should be able to discuss in detail, and I'd like to see more sources, both those supportive and skeptical of the Chang/Halliday numbers. The various reviews in the China Journal were not helpful in this regard but I'm sure there's reliable material out there and we should be on the lookout for it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The changes look good.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BigT, the only suggestion I would make is to change "but Chang and Halliday's estimate is higher than most that have preceded it" to "Chang and Halliday's estimate being one of the highest". It's simpler and to the point.

Can we get a citation for "There is general agreement among China experts that the famine during the Great Leap Forward caused millions of deaths."? I'm not disputing it, but it's worth thinking about. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer BigT's current wording as being less ambiguous, and more precise.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's somewhat problematic in that it implies other estimates were higher. Which are they? My version places the estimate's exact placing a little more flexibly. John Smith's (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care either way about the wording on the "Chang and Halliday's estimate" sentence. I only included reference to those "that have preceded it" to point out that their estimate is more recent and differs from previous ones. I don't mind the alternative version though (either way the difference is negligible - their estimate is very much on the high end and for all I know might be the highest, I just didn't find a source that actually said that).

With respect to the "millions of deaths" during the famine, a source that says precisely that would be good, but I saw that sentence as basically a topic sentence for the paragraph. The sourcing for the claim, as I saw it, was the number from Chang and Halliday, the official estimate from 1980, and the number offered by another Mao biographer. As we find sources with other numbers we could add those and once we have five or six experts offering numbers in the millions I think we're okay. I wasn't too worried about this because there doesn't really seem to be anyone - including the Chinese government - who claims there were fewer than 10 million deaths. There are arguments about who or what is to blame obviously and wide disparities in the numbers, but I don't think anyone of note contests that the deaths were in the millions. The article Great Chinese Famine lists some possible other sources, though I'm guessing only a couple of those are easily retrievable (probably there's online access to the journal Population and Development Review but I don't have time to check right now). Basically I think this is a completely non-controversial claim already partially backed by the sentences that follow so personally I'm not particularly worried about it. Additional sources would obviously be good though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that Worger's piece may not fit the general criterion, although it's not a slam dunk. He did not post it on his own webpage, but rather Professor Esherick posted it and presumably vetted it. Still, I agree it's iffy. If he submitted and got it published it in a refereed venue, then it would not be an issue that he is not notable. After all, it's a Wiki principle that you don't have to be notable, just demonstrably reliable.

But I think the discussion above is getting away from the subject of the article, which is the Chang/ Halliday book, not the famines, which are treated elsewhere. And reading Worger's piece convinced me that the figure 70 million is not derived in a sound way. So I would welcome further digging around to find another way to inform readers of these questions.

The article on the Great Chinese Famine covers the ground but misses much of the standard stuff which deals with the famines: Thomas Bernstein, "Mao Zedong and the Famine of 1959-60: A Study in Willfulness," China Quarterly 186 (2006); Carl Riskin, "Seven Questions About the Chinese Famine of 1959-61," China Economic Review 9.2 (1998). The standard popular book, which raises questions of its own, is Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine (NY: The Free Press, 1996; Reprinted: Owl Books, 1998.) A general overview is "Food and Famine Under Socialist Rule, 1949-1990s," Lillian M. Li, Fighting Famine in North China : State, Market, and Environmental Decline, 1690s-1990s (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2007): 341-376. The most solid overall demographic study is Judith Banister, China's Changing Population (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1987). ch (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On further thought, I think the simplest thing is the best. We can agree on something like this, which is self evident and requires no further documentation: "The striking first sentence of the book was widely quoted even though the authors offered no source or explanation of how they calculated the figure: '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.'" ch (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On the last bit, I preferred the old version. It is arguable that the authors do explain how they came to that figure when they discuss various deaths under the regime, even if they do not have a mathematical table. I think the point about half of China dying is important context.

The same argument applies to the point that they do not say how Mao was responsible. I think Mao's responsibility is clear throughout the book.

although shortfalls in births account for some of the discrepancies What discrepancies?

It is not clear whether they include deaths in prisons camps both in this total of famine deaths and in the prison camp total Smacks of original research - we're not reviewing the book.

a specialist on Mao's political thought What does that mean? Is he only focused on that? Too tightly focused.

Also, why did you delete Schram's comment on deaths? That is a good point that shows the death estimate is high but still within a "window". John Smith's (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There seem to me to be two questions: 1) the explanation for the number 70 million. There's no reference in the notes, I searched the index, and couldn't find one. The numbers I could see do not add up to 70 million. If they do offer an explanation for the total, we should note it. 2)The Great Leap famines, which is not too controversial, so I though it was better to footnote the work of specialists who talk in detail about the problem, rather than a generalist in a review. The "shortfalls in births" is an example of the kind of problem that Schram doesn't have space to get into. Estimates of deaths are derived from comparing projected population with actual population, the the shortfall being the discrepancy, with no way of telling how many were people who died. Some were simply not born and were not technically "deaths." I took my notes on Bannister's book a while ago, but can go back to find page references and quotes if this would help. Probably the whole article should be better sourced.

So I re-revised the opening sentence and put qualifiers. ch (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Revisions

The article seems a little long and repetitious. Perhaps we could change the section "The Book" to "The Argument of the Book," and give the main points, then "The Debate" could incorporate "Praise" and "Criticism," trim some of the comments from the learned professors which are simply thumbs up or thumbs down, then mention the substantive points. We should include a few more of these, such as Mao's attitude to his family, reliance on Stalin, opium revenues, and "sleepers" (only one of whom is mentioned). ch (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article is long - if anything it needs more detail for what the book itself is about. That said the "debate" section needs to be changed because there's no debate in there. Maybe "debate" can be split between "the book" and "response to the book". I would also support a modest trim of comments, provided that it was balanced.

I'll try to look into making some changes over the weekend, though I can't promise to do anything about the layout for the moment. After that we can always use a sandbox. John Smith's (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and deleted the bit on "debate". It was rather superfluous and the section that it headed had little debate, just a collation of different views. I think that for the moment it's a good idea to have one overall section for the book and its content. However this will need to be reduced into several different sections over time, as the use of sub-sections should be rationed. We need more discussion of what the book actually says for one thing.

I have also removed the lead bit under "book" as the part on deaths is discussed on the "number of deaths under Mao" sub-section. I merged the bit on half of China dying in there. Amongst other things I don't like the use of "experts" - too subjective. Scholars or Sinologists is better. I also thought it was pretty irrelevant talking about Edgar Snow's bit on "heroism" - it's enough to say that other accounts don't agree.

CH, if you have any problems please let me know so we can reach a compromise. Maybe we can think about culling the praise/criticism parts if you think they're too long - do you want to open a sandbox for that? After that I think we should focus on the layout overall. John Smith's (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

These edits look good to me, though I think we could go even further in focusing and boiling down to the main points. One minor point -- the quote from the first sentence of the book should read "Mao Zedong," not "Mao Ze-Dong." ch (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Clear Dishonesty

One piece of very clear dishonesty in Chang's book deserves to be noted in any commentary. On page 438 Chang tells us that death rates for 1957-62 were supposedly 1.08%, 1.2%, 1.45%, 4.34%, 2.83%, and 1%. This is clearly a dishonest cross-pollination from varying sources, as can be seen by looking at the sources of demographic data available in the English language. First, in the STATISTICAL YEARBOOK OF CHINA 1986 we were given some initial data provided by the Chinese government as part of an official publication. Their death statistics are given in terms of deaths per thousand (as opposed to percentages) and read as follows:

Year_____Population in thousands_____Deaths per thousand

1949_____541,670__________________20

1950_____551,960__________________18

1951_____563,000__________________17.8

1952_____574,820__________________17

1953_____587,960__________________14

1954_____602,660__________________13.18

1955_____614,650__________________12.28

1956_____628,280__________________11.4

1957_____646,530__________________10.8

1958_____659,940__________________11.98

1959_____672,070__________________14.59

1960_____662,070__________________25.43

1961_____658,590__________________14.24

1962_____672,950__________________10.02

What anyone should notice here is that the numbers for 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1962 in this table look remarkably like Jung Chang's figures for these same years. But the following year in 1987, Judith Banister published a revised demographic study which has since been the prominently cited. Banister's death statistics read as:

Year_____Population in thousands_____Deaths per thousand

1949_____559,545__________________38

1950_____563,253__________________35

1951_____567,659__________________32

1952_____574,991__________________29

1953_____584,191__________________25.77

1954_____594,725__________________24.2

1955_____606,730__________________22.33

1956_____619,136__________________20.11

1957_____633,215__________________18.12

1958_____646,703__________________20.65

1959_____654,349__________________22.06

1960_____650,661__________________44.6

1961_____644,670__________________23.01

1962_____653,302__________________14.02

Now again, although this time it's not quite as exact, we see a natural resemblance between the numbers for 1960 and 1961 given here and those which Jung Chang assigns. It should be clear that somewhere Jung Chang has cross-matched two or more data tables with a deliberate slant aimed at choosing the lowest numbers possible from whatever source can be found for the years 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1962; while doing the reverse and choosing from a different source the highest numbers possible for 1960 and 1961. That serves to inflate the contrast and maximize an alleged famine death toll. In fact, no serious demographic account of China would ever accept such a low figure for the 1957 death rate as 1.08%. China was traditionally known as the land of famine. Walter Mallory, Secretary of the China International Famine Relief Commission, even wrote a book by that name CHINA: LAND OF FAMINE, which was published in 1926 by the American Geographical Society. Death rates in pre-revolutionary China would have been much too high for Mao to reduce mortality down to 1.08% by 1957.

While Jung Chang's manipulation of data is particularly dishonest here, it should also be noted that it is not really honest for one to claim "tens of millions" of deaths on the basis of such data without important qualifiers. Banister herself acknowledges that:

"From a demographic perspective, the PRC has come a long way since 1949. A sweeping mortality decline took place in the 1950s, and after a temporary but jolting setback, slower improvement in mortality occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. Even allowing for considerable underreporting of deaths, China has attained relatively high life expectancy and relatively low infant mortality for a developing country, at least until the rise in female infanticide caused by the compulsory one-child limit." -- Banister, p. 376.

The famine of 1936 is usually estimated as having killed about 5 million (Robert Nash, DARKEST HOURS: A NARRATIVE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLDWIDE DISASTERS FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE PRESENT, p. 734), but this assumes a much higher natural mortality rate in pre-revolutionary China. Jung Chang is asking us to evaluate the famine of 1960 according to the mortality rate of 1957 (although she deceptively attempts to lower that number even more than is allowable). But given the steep decline in mortality achieved by Mao's government between 1949 and 1957, it's a bit deceptive to compute famine death tolls on the standard of 1957 without emphasizing for the reader that mortality in 1957 was already greatly improved over what had existed in the old China. One can only get by with the claim that "tens of millions" died by using the lowered mortality rates of 1957. In terms of absolute mortality, there's no reason to believe that the famine of 1960 was any worse than many previous Chinese famines. However Jung Chang's misuse of this data is especially bad given the way she has cropped numbers from what must have been different sources and tried to combine it together. Readers of her book should be alerted to this dishonesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I would suggest is better saved for the historical pages concerning the events in quesiton. We can include criticisms of established writers, as indeed we have done - but you're leaning towards something different. You seem to be putting forward what would be considered original research, which should be avoided on any page. John Smith's (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a reproduction of statistical data can qualify as original research. Numbers like these are what all claims ultimately lean upon, but there's nothing original about simply reproducing the numbers from the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't just dump numbers into an article - you need to use them somehow. If you're going to make comments like:

What anyone should notice here is that the numbers for 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1962 in this table look remarkably like Jung Chang's figures for these same years.

and:

It should be clear that somewhere Jung Chang has cross-matched two or more data tables with a deliberate slant aimed at choosing the lowest numbers possible from whatever source can be found for the years 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1962

that is original research. John Smith's (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing

I was drawn back to the page by the recent discussion and decided to edit and tighten the first sections to make them easier to read. I don't think I changed the meaning! ch (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

They weren't all that bad, but I had to re-write the text in several places. I think "former" should be included at the start. Also I changed the names around given Chang is more prominent.

The deaths bits didn't read properly because it was set for mass murder. Hopefully this makes better sense.

You should say it took 11 years to research - unless it is actually 10 (I forget now).

GB should be UK.

Don't like having such short paragraphs.

"A number" sounds more accurate - i.e. not all books that dealt with the long march/Communism in China.

The only noticeable bit I changed was your inclusion of the Schram quote. I removed that because it was included to give a bit of information on the number of deaths that happened during Mao's time, not make a stylistic point that I think is not relevant there. I think the criticism later on makes it clear Chang doesn't like Mao. John Smith's (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the further edits, which are improvements (mostly):

1) "Former" Do we need this for the deceased? Maybe change "former" to "long time"? Otherwise we get into saying "George Washington, former president...."

2) the flap of the book says a "decade" and the press release says "ten years in the making."

3) Luding: "Historical works" Maybe change to "Historians" or "Most historians"? or "The historical consensus"? As "a number" sounds like a weak redundancy for the plural. I can't come up with an historian's account of the LM that doesn't depict the battle. Would it help if I added a footnote with references? The verb tenses now do not now match.

4)Short paras: You and I are traditionalists! I thought I was being 21st century.

I won't change anything until I hear from you, but feel free to use my suggestions.

ch (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Ok, I guess it's redundant. "Long-time" is fine.

2. Ok.

3. I wouldn't use the term historians, because I don't think either of the two people cited really were. How about changing it to "In addition to Chinese historical works, publications from outside of China such as those by.... do mention....."?

3a. Which verb tenses? John Smith's (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and make changes 1 & 2, though "long time" seems a little Wikipedian in the bad sense. Here are my thoughts on yours:

3 Good point, as I meant to contrast Salisbury and Sun with "historians," but should have been more explicit. How about: "Standard histories"? We could put a footnote to Stuart Schram, Mao Tse-tung p. 185, Keith Schoppa Revolution and its Past p. 236 (with full citation data, of course). Again, I don't think we could find any earlier example of denying that there was a battle, so saying "some historians" would be misleading.

3a "mention," "relied on" "Sun Shuyun agreed" In general, present tense works better for reporting what's in a book: "The Bible tells us," though in other instances past tense: "The New York Times reported..." ch (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Mao was not responsible for more deaths "of more people than occurred" under Stalin or Hitler, which would include all deaths whatsoever. Maybe "responsible for more deaths in peacetime than either Stalin or Hitler."? ch (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, make the changes and we'll see how it goes. John Smith's (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese language publication

I have restored the Chinese language publication (in part) because I think that it is an important addition to the article. In fact it's key information, really. John Smith's (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Chinese publication info is important and should be included. ch (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)