Talk:Great Leap Forward/Archive 1

Credits
Generally we don't include credits in Wikipedia

The original version of this text was derived from the article on the Great Leap Forward in the Encyclopedia of Marxism at www.marxists.org

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 November 2002

Party structure

 * Despite the risks to their carreers and their lives, some Communist Party members openly laid blame for the disaster at the feet of the Party leadership and took it as proof that China must rely more on education, acquiring technical expertise and applying borgeouis methods in developing the economy. It was principally to crush this opposition that Mao launched his Cultural Revolution in early 1966.

This paragraph fails to adequately characterize the general foot-dragging and lack of enthusiasum of the party structure which resulted from the failure of the main features of the Great Leap Forward. Open opposition resulted in disgrace which occurred to a few, but there was a more broadbased revulsion to any more nonsense from the center and Mao's pronouncements and initiatives where, if not met with open scepticism, were not implemented with much enthusiam. It was this general party-wide malais which resulted in his extraordinary effort to bypass the party with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Anyt comments? Fred Bauder 03:52 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * I my opinion, the Great Leap Forward is absurd, mainly because of Mao's economy policy. So far as I know, a field that time could produce 10,000 kg rice! (even impossible today!) :) -- YACHT 05:22, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * There is actually more than one viewpoint on the justification of the Great Leap Forward. Colipon 22:27, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Death toll?
Didn't a lot of people die in the process? The article seems to ignore the terrible human toll of the project. My history textbook Mastering Modern World History, by Norman Lowe, suggests that some 20 million people died prematurely because of the Great Leap. Now, I don't know if that number is accurate, and some other sources suggest it might be much too high, but the death toll was nonetheless significant. For example http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.TAB8.1.GIF (from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM) implies that 17 million people died due to democide during the relevent 9 year period, giving an annual death rate of some 2 million people. Assuming the Great Leap lasted 4 years, it would have cost around 8 million lives; probably more since the Great Leap years were probably more deadly than the average year during that 9 year period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.226.166 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 31 March 2004


 * Be bold! If you think it's missing something, add it. --Jiang 02:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In all of the Western and Eastern sources I've read on this topic, majority agree that between 1959-1962 about 20 million died of starvation and malnutrition. I personally believe anything above 25 million is propaganda. Afterall, China only had 500 million people in the late 50s.


 * Some actually estimated the toll at nearly 40 million. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 17:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also keep in mind, however, that this was a less than open environment for outside (or inside, for that matter) investigative reporting. There was great incentive for the current -- and even to some extent subsequent -- regimes to allow only the rosiest possible reports to emerge. The fact that such unrosy descriptions and estimates were still forthcoming is quite telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.202.219 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 February 2005


 * There's something you really need to understand before asking for exact figures on the death toll during this time period. Firstly how so many of the masses died in small towns and counties where records of their death couldnt possibly be made. Another is that canabolism was a huge factor during the GLF corpses were being dug up and meat taken from the bodies for the peasants to simply survive. A great historian to find out about the death tolls and Mao in general is Jung Chang. Her estimations of the death toll are as high as 38 million. A reason for her being much more reliable than some other historians is how she has better access to records and archives in China as she is Chinese and as a well known historian the government allows her to see archives that most historians or people never have or will. Simply becuase if they stop her or disallow her to certain places it would reflect very badly on China. Another reason that makes her figures more reliable than other historians is her husband Jon Halliday. A Russian historian who has extensive access to soviet archives which greatly helps Jung Chang create a death toll which seems much higher than most other historians. Read Jung Chang's new book on Mao for more info on the GLF and 100 Flowers campaign, really good especially if your studying China Revolutions for VCE or school. --Chorgy 11:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim for a death toll ignores how much Mao had raised Chinese life expectency from the norm in the Nationalist era. Chang and Halliday treat 1% death-rate as the norm, but it was not the norm under the Kuomintang. --172.201.10.215 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Gwydion M. Williams

How can the introduction to this article make no mention of the staggering number of deaths that resulted? The fact that it is impossible to determine exactly how many millions starved to death doesn't mean the issue should be ignored. Revisionism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.107.126 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 February 2006

The reason for wide differences in the deaths is not due to "incorrect data". The reason for the deaths was incorrect data, but the reason for the variance in the counts of said deaths is because of inadequate accounting of human life. I left it as "variations in data" so that it would not be inflammatory. Twocs 14:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Becker
I've deleted an paragraph on Jasper Becker - who I know a little - which describes him as a 'travel writer' and says he was in the country during the Great Leap Forward, neither of which is true. The article as a whole still needs expansion, especially on the power struggles within the Party; I'll try to do it sometime soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.218.161.69 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 February 2005

Young people don't know about Great Leap Forward firsthand??
Well, obviously they wouldn't because they didn't live through it firsthand. Deng Xiaoping openly criticised Mao for the Great Leap Forward as well as the Cultural Revolution. History is not even a formal subject in China yet, although it is coming back up again and such incidents are portrayed in a very neutral tone. The reason we do not see much of this is because of older textbooks. Public discussion is allowed. CharlesZ 01:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Deng never directly criticised Mao, but rather reversed some of his policies. "Openly criticised" is incorrect. Furthermore, you should be reminded that History is a formal subject in China, one of eight in middle school, along with Politics, the Sciences (bio;chem;physics), English, Mathamatics and Chinese. But that being said, the Great Leap Forward plays a very small part in any high school textbook, and is usually just an overview of policy. Please check on your sources. Colipon+(T) 23:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Took a long time to respond, I know, and I'm sorry for the confusion. I think I'm giving up this area of wikipedia for a while since its just too hard to keep up.  Nonetheless, it is true that history is a subject, but most do not take history and political science seriously, according to most Chinese I know who grew up with the school system.  Even so, I feel like I have no real authority on this subject as I based this on the accounts of friends and family...CharlesZ 03:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Drought during the GLF, true or false?
During my research into the GLF, a well known Chinese historian Jung Chang claimed that there were no droughts during this time and was a fabrication created by the CCP. It was also been claimed by other historians that the weather patterns of this time and in China do not match the claims made by the 'official' statements made by the CCP. Therefore the question is raised that can a statement written on this article be claimed as factual? When it is disputed in a book with ten years of research behind it and writen by a prominent historian. --Chorgy 08:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Check the Encyclopaedia Britannica Yearbooks for 1958 to 1962. They do speak of abnormal weather, droughts followed by floods. This includes 30 inches of rain at Hong Kong in five days in June, part of a pattern that hit all of South China. There was also an occurrence of 'El Nino' for 1957-8, though no one knew it existed until the 1960s.

Don't trust Chang & Halliday; they repeatedly leave out facts that don't suit them. They deny bad weather, but never mention specifics. They complain about food exports but do not mention food imports, or that the USA hindered such imports with it's food embargo.

They are not prominent historians, and 10 years research mean nothing if the researchers have no judgement. Jon Halliday also wrote Korea: The Unknown War, from an anti-US viewpoint. He never mentioned that Kim Il-Sung was a Captain in the Soviet Army during World War Two: if he thinks it untrue, he should say why.

Jung Chang wrote a gripping family history in Wild Swans, but how reliable is it? Read it, and ask how plausible it is that her step-grandfather should have abandoned considerable wealth reduced himself to poverty to resolve a family quarrel. (It would look very nice in terms of 'Class Background', and she is actually the grand-daughter of a Chinese warlord.)

--172.201.10.215 18:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Gwydion M. Williams

W.E.B. DuBois (1959, author of an article "China") visited China during the Great Leap Forward and never supported famine-related criticisms of the Great Leap. Another author visiting China during the Great Leap named Anna Louise Strong wrote a book titled When Serfs Stood Up in Tibet based on her experience. However, critics point out that both these authors had been taken through Potemkin village style tours of China, never travelling outside of the supervision of the authorities. Strong's book is also heavily criticized for its very positive portrayal of Chinese rule in Tibet.

Removed the italicized text. No evidence if provided for this claim. Which critics say this? What proof do they have of their claims? Scrib 14:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Jung Chang is by no stretch of the imagination a 'prominent historian'. 'Wild Swans' is a fictionalized biography, and 'Mao: the unknown story' has come in for a lot of criticism from most major historians working in the field. To my knowledge she has not published any peer-reviewed works in any scholarly journals. --Cripipper 10:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jung Chang book
NOTE: Do not, repeat do NOT rely on Jung Chang's new book on Mao as any kind of historical source. It's extremely sloppy, drawing conclusions without enough data, not providing any footnotes (so it's impossible to know what the sources are), and treating quotes from various people, including known liars like Mao, as if they're facts.

In terms of how many people died in the GLF, she does quote one method for making that calculation: looking at birth rates and census numbers. But there is a key flaw in that method, and that is that Chinese census numbers are notoriously inaccurate, and that is especially true of the 1950s.

The honest researcher will present the death toll as an estimate falling within a range, for example 15-38 million. The specific number won't be known until China opens up its archives, and even then it may never be known.

The important thing is, the number is huge. No matter how you estimate the death toll, it was horrendous. By any measure, the Great Leap Forward was a murderous catastrophe on a scale the world had never seen (and hasn't seen since). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.161.166 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 November 2005

I do not believe that Jung Chang is a proper historian in the first sense. While it is true that she has investigated into such matters, her writing is often biased in a certain 'one- dimensional' way, reducing many characters into all- around- good- guys or otherwise with no further analysis or allowance for complications within the character. This made her writing 'true', maybe, but only from some points one- dimensional of view and thus very much prone to controversy. In 'Mao: The Unknown Story' she pretty much completely reduced this complex character into a single 'Sauron'-like personality without a drop of goodness within his veins. Whilst I would not imagine for a second that Mao was a great people's hero, I would also argue that he was never Satan, so entirely following Jung Chang's writing in the same fashion as that of a neutral historian may not necessarily lead to proper conclusions or judgments. --User:Luthinya 16:25 25 January 2006

Jung Chang as a reliable author
As a strongly anti-maoist writer, using her statistics alone would be folly, her new book does not even disguise her anti-Mao sentiments, and delivers a blistering attack on the regime. For more precise figures you should use authors such as Immanuel Hsu and Li Cunxin if you believe that chinese authors are more reliable. Personally I would put the casualty rate at 30 million which appears to be the most consistant figure in all the books I have read. -Muller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.12.14 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 November 2005

Dr. Ping-ti Ho
I have deleted the following section:

''Chinese expert of demography, Dr Ping-ti Ho, professor of history at the University of Chicago, in a book titled Studies on the Population of China, 1368-1953, Harvard East Asian Studies No 4, 1959, mentions that:

My conclusion is that the claim that in the 1960s a number between 17 [million] and 29 million people was "missing" is worthless if there was never any certainty about the 600 millions of Chinese. Most probably these "missing people" did not starve in the calamity years 1960-61, but in fact have never existed. [4]''

How can a book/pamphlet supposedly written in 1959 talk about the early 1960s in the past tense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cripipper (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 December 2005

Far too short
I would like to nominate this article for Article Improvement Drive, as it is shorter than its talk page, and was a major event in world history. Any thoughts? -Estrellador* 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of confusing quantity with quality. For instance, this which was in: W.E.B. DuBois (1959, author of an article "China") visited China during the Great Leap Forward and never supported famine-related criticisms of the Great Leap. Another author visiting China during the Great Leap named Anna Louise Strong wrote a book titled When Serfs Stood Up in Tibet based on her experience. Strong's book is heavily criticized for its very positive portrayal of Chinese rule in Tibet. This is trivial and extraneous and doesn't deserve space. Removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckyj57 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 31 December 2005

I completely agree. It's very short for such a major world event and also of a frankly low standard. I've read quite extensively on the subject and will attempt to improve the article shortly. Information on the Grreat Leap has been largely downplayed and surpressed in China and particualrly with China putting significant pressure on mainstream media companies to not offend party sensibilities, it is essentail that wikipedia has a better analysis of what went wrong. GregLondon 21:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some additions
Mao retreated after the Great Leap Forward, but did not consider he had been mistaken in his broad strategy. He had also secured an 'ace in the hole' by replacing Peng Dehuai with Lin Biao, which gave him a decisive advantage when he advanced again during the Cultural Revolution. I added a mention of the replacement of Peng, since it seemed important. I didn't go into reasons, or what Liu's attitude was, since those matters are controversial and also outside of the topic.

As for deaths, the death-rate had been falling rapidly during the early years of Communist power, thanks to methods not very different from those used in the Great Leap. Over the whole period of Mao's rule, death rates fell rather more rapidly than in the Republic of India.

There was definitely some unusual weather, see Three Years of Natural Disasters. The backwash of an El Nino, as we can now recognise. The death-rate doubled, reverting to what it had been before Mao, though only briefly.

As for Jung Chang, she has a lot of sources, but makes a jackdaw collection of only those facts that suit her oppinions. Her 38 million deaths during the Three Years of Natural Disasters is based on blending figures from two different sources to get the maximum possible excess of deaths compaired to a normal year.

If you took the norm as the death-rate when Mao took over, or the average death-rate for a developing nation, then you'd conclude that tens of millions of lives were saved or extended because of Mao's overall approach, errors included.

Most people now assume that China was stagnant under Mao and only became prosperous when Deng took over. But you won't find a single economic expert who says this. China under Mao was one of the world's fastest-growing economies, exceeded only by Japan and the East Asian tigers, which had free access to the world market and US technology.

--GwydionM 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of this paragraph is a hopelessly blinkered view of world history written by a school boy who fancies himself as a Marxist sage. To describe the replacing of Peng as an "ace in the hole" is a travesty.  Please actually study some economics before making ludicrous claims about Chinese economic growth prior to Deng's reversal of mao's policies. 82.44.17.16 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Additional Sources
These have rather more detail on what the GLF intended to do, party decisionmaking, and when and how things went wrong. It's time to move this article beyond a "dumb communist ideas wrecked China" narrative, especially since that makes the next two decades a bit incomprehensible. I've given author links so you know who they are.


 * Meredith Woo-Cummings, |The Political Ecology of Famine: The North Korean Catastrophe and Its Lessons, ADB Institute Research Paper 31, January 2002.
 * Nigel Harris, The GLF and After in The Mandate of Heaven: Marx and Mao in China.

--Carwil 17:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures, photographs, illustrations
Would be nice, I think there may be some here, but I don't read Chinese and I don't know about Copyright during that era. It would be good if someone versed in Chinese (language, copyright) could take a look and if they are unhindered, upload them to commons, or contact me and I'll do it (I think some could do with some photo editing. Would be nice to have translations of the captions too. - FrancisTyers 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. They said that some of these pictures are from other website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.170.44 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 January 2006

"Disaster Center"
"Disaster Center" is not org or edu but only a individiual website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.170.44 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 January 2006

Also, the number in the article - 30 million deaths resulting from the flood - does not match the 2 million cited as dead during that flood by this so called Disaster Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.32.215 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 12 March 2006

I'm confused
I hope more professional people work on it, at least can read Chinese. I'm doing some research on it and find it's very complex. So many rubbish information disturb my work and reliable resources are quite different.

population change

1958	659,940,000

1959	672,070,000

1960	662,070,000	-10,000,000

1961	658,590,000	-3,480,000

1962	672,950,000	+14,360,000

1963	691,720,000

http://www.cpirc.org.cn/tjsj/tjsj_cy_detail.asp?id=199

10,000,000+3,480,000=13,480,000 It should include a large number of normal death and "the death toll" ought to be much less than that. "the death toll somewhere between 25 and 60 million people" seems to be impossible.

--Gleader 22:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No population census was carried out nationalwide between 1954 and 1963. Estimations of the population between this period are usually based on the 1953 census, plus various models. See here.--Skyfiler 01:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Backwash from an 'El Nino' event
This can now be recognised as the backwash of the El Nino event of 1957-58, the first to hit China since the 1920s. This was not realised at the time, the pattern was only discovered later.

“The increasing preoccupation with the weather, which began when vast areas in north and northeast China suffered a lack of snowfall and spring rain, grew steadily with the constant threat of floods throughout the southern provinces and a persistent plague of locusts in the region along the yellow river… The deluge in June (which brought 30 in. of rain to Hong Kong in five days) moved northward, flooding the countryside as it moved, so that the greater part of the country south of the Yangtze was seriously affected.”  (Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the year 1960).

The Yellow River also dried up, a very unusual event. The bad weather happened while Chinese agriculture was being massively re-organised—a process that in the longer term succeeded. But after several years of genuine success, local officials started lying when the weather turned against them. Mao let himself be misled.

Regarding deaths, it all depends what you define as 'normal'. You did not get visible deaths from famine; there were plenty of experienced observers who spoke Chinese and noted widespead hunger but not famine.

Official Chinese figures show the death-rate rising to 25.5 per thousand in 1961, having been brought down as low as 10 or 11 per thousand in the first years of Communist rule. This compares with a norm of 21 per thousand under Chiang Kai-shek, and a norm of 24.6 in the Republic of India for the same period. At the start of the 20th century, India had had a death-rate as high as 48 per thousand.

Chang & Halliday claim 38 million excess deaths, but on a very vague basis, comparing a norm of 10.8 per thousand to an alleged high of 43.4 per thousand. They seem to be taking their norm from the official figures but their high from alternative ‘reconstructed’ figures. The whole calculation lurks in a footnote to pages 456-457, with no indication of the complexities and no details of sources.

If one accepted their rather odd figures but took 20 per thousand as a normal death-rate for a poor country, then there were 7 million less deaths in 1957-62 than the Third-world norm.

An assessment of famine and disaster should anyway look at deaths per thousand, allowing a sensible comparison between big and small countries. The alleged 38 million deaths in a population of 650 million would be 59 per thousand, a middling sort of disaster. The Encarta reckons that the Irish Potato Famine killed 1 million out of 8 million, 125 per thousand, with as many again forced to emigrate. Among German military personnel, the Encarta’s figures indicate a shocking 163 per thousand for the Great War, but an even more shocking 180 per 1000 among the ethnic Germans called up for Hitler’s war. Genocide by mostly-Anglo settlers against inconvenient natives reduced them by several hundreds per thousand. Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe typically suffered death-rates as high as 800 or 900 per 1000. Some communities have no known survivors: this is true of both Jews in Europe and native peoples in areas of European settlement; I refuse to put the two human groups in separate categories.

--GwydionM 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Library of Congress
All of this text is in the public domain. I would encourage people to include it and remove when included. - FrancisTyers 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

History
China The Great Leap Forward, 1958-60

The antirightist drive was followed by a militant approach toward economic development. In 1958 the CCP launched the Great Leap Forward campaign under the new "General Line for Socialist Construction." The Great Leap Forward was aimed at accomplishing the economic and technical development of the country at a vastly faster pace and with greater results. The shift to the left that the new "General Line" represented was brought on by a combination of domestic and external factors. Although the party leaders appeared generally satisfied with the accomplishments of the First Five-Year Plan, they--Mao and his fellow radicals in particular-- believed that more could be achieved in the Second Five-Year Plan (1958-62) if the people could be ideologically aroused and if domestic resources could be utilized more efficiently for the simultaneous development of industry and agriculture. These assumptions led the party to an intensified mobilization of the peasantry and mass organizations, stepped-up ideological guidance and indoctrination of technical experts, and efforts to build a more responsive political system. The last of these undertakings was to be accomplished through a new xiafang (down to the countryside) movement, under which cadres inside and outside the party would be sent to factories, communes, mines, and public works projects for manual labor and firsthand familiarization with grassroots conditions. Although evidence is sketchy, Mao's decision to embark on the Great Leap Forward was based in part on his uncertainty about the Soviet policy of economic, financial, and technical assistance to China. That policy, in Mao's view, not only fell far short of his expectations and needs but also made him wary of the political and economic dependence in which China might find itself (see Sino-Soviet Relations, ch. 12).

The Great Leap Forward centered on a new socioeconomic and political system created in the countryside and in a few urban areas--the people's communes (see Glossary). By the fall of 1958, some 750,000 agricultural producers' cooperatives, now designated as production brigades, had been amalgamated into about 23,500 communes, each averaging 5,000 households, or 22,000 people. The individual commune was placed in control of all the means of production and was to operate as the sole accounting unit; it was subdivided into production brigades (generally coterminous with traditional villages) and production teams. Each commune was planned as a self-supporting community for agriculture, small-scale local industry (for example, the famous backyard pig-iron furnaces), schooling, marketing, administration, and local security (maintained by militia organizations). Organized along paramilitary and laborsaving lines, the commune had communal kitchens, mess halls, and nurseries. In a way, the people's communes constituted a fundamental attack on the institution of the family, especially in a few model areas where radical experiments in communal living-- large dormitories in place of the traditional nuclear family housing-- occurred. (These were quickly dropped.) The system also was based on the assumption that it would release additional manpower for such major projects as irrigation works and hydroelectric dams, which were seen as integral parts of the plan for the simultaneous development of industry and agriculture (see Agricultural Policies, ch. 6).

The Great Leap Forward was an economic failure. In early 1959, amid signs of rising popular restiveness, the CCP admitted that the favorable production report for 1958 had been exaggerated. Among the Great Leap Forward's economic consequences were a shortage of food (in which natural disasters also played a part); shortages of raw materials for industry; overproduction of poor-quality goods; deterioration of industrial plants through mismanagement; and exhaustion and demoralization of the peasantry and of the intellectuals, not to mention the party and government cadres at all levels. Throughout 1959 efforts to modify the administration of the communes got under way; these were intended partly to restore some material incentives to the production brigades and teams, partly to decentralize control, and partly to house families that had been reunited as household units.

Political consequences were not inconsiderable. In April 1959 Mao, who bore the chief responsibility for the Great Leap Forward fiasco, stepped down from his position as chairman of the People's Republic. The National People's Congress elected Liu Shaoqi as Mao's successor, though Mao remained chairman of the CCP. Moreover, Mao's Great Leap Forward policy came under open criticism at a party conference at Lushan, Jiangxi Province. The attack was led by Minister of National Defense Peng Dehuai, who had become troubled by the potentially adverse effect Mao's policies would have on the modernization of the armed forces. Peng argued that "putting politics in command" was no substitute for economic laws and realistic economic policy; unnamed party leaders were also admonished for trying to "jump into communism in one step." After the Lushan showdown, Peng Dehuai, who allegedly had been encouraged by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to oppose Mao, was deposed. Peng was replaced by Lin Biao, a radical and opportunist Maoist. The new defense minister initiated a systematic purge of Peng's supporters from the military.

Militancy on the domestic front was echoed in external policies (see Evolution of Foreign Policy, ch. 12). The "soft" foreign policy based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence (see Glossary) to which China had subscribed in the mid-1950s gave way to a "hard" line in 1958. From August through October of that year, the Chinese resumed a massive artillery bombardment of the Nationalist-held offshore islands of Jinmen (Chin-men in Wade Giles but often referred to as Kinmen or Quemoy) and Mazu (Ma-tsu in Wade-Giles). This was accompanied by an aggressive propaganda assault on the United States and a declaration of intent to "liberate" Taiwan.

Chinese control over Xizang had been reasserted in 1950. The socialist revolution that took place thereafter increasingly became a process of sinicization for the Tibetans. Tension culminated in a revolt in 1958-59 and the flight to India by the Dalai Lama, the Tibetans' spiritual and de facto temporal leader. Relations with India--where sympathy for the rebels was aroused--deteriorated as thousands of Tibetan refugees crossed the Indian border. There were several border incidents in 1959, and a brief Sino-Indian border war erupted in October 1962 as China laid claim to Aksai Chin, nearly 103,600 square kilometers of territory that India regarded as its own (see Physical Environment, ch. 2). The Soviet Union gave India its moral support in the dispute, thus contributing to the growing tension between Beijing and Moscow.

The Sino-Soviet dispute of the late 1950s was the most important development in Chinese foreign relations. The Soviet Union had been China's principal benefactor and ally, but relations between the two were cooling. The Soviet agreement in late 1957 to help China produce its own nuclear weapons and missiles was terminated by mid-1959 (see Defense Industry and the Economic Role of the People's Liberation Army, ch. 14). From that point until the mid-1960s, the Soviets recalled all of their technicians and advisers from China and reduced or canceled economic and technical aid to China. The discord was occasioned by several factors. The two countries differed in their interpretation of the nature of "peaceful coexistence." The Chinese took a more militant and unyielding position on the issue of anti-imperialist struggle, but the Soviets were unwilling, for example, to give their support on the Taiwan question. In addition, the two communist powers disagreed on doctrinal matters. The Chinese accused the Soviets of "revisionism"; the latter countered with charges of "dogmatism." Rivalry within the international communist movement also exacerbated Sino-Soviet relations. An additional complication was the history of suspicion each side had toward the other, especially the Chinese, who had lost a substantial part of territory to tsarist Russia in the mid-nineteenth century. Whatever the causes of the dispute, the Soviet suspension of aid was a blow to the Chinese scheme for developing industrial and high-level (including nuclear) technology.

Economy
China The Great Leap Forward, 1958-60

Before the end of the First Five-Year Plan, the growing imbalance between industrial and agricultural growth, dissatisfaction with inefficiency, and lack of flexibility in the decision-making process convinced the nation's leaders-- particularly Mao Zedong--that the highly centralized, industry-biased Soviet model was not appropriate for China. In 1957 the government adopted measures to shift a great deal of the authority for economic decision making to the provincial-level, county, and local administrations. In 1958 the Second Five-Year Plan (1958-62), which was intended to continue the policies of the first plan, was abandoned. In its place the leadership adopted an approach that relied on spontaneous heroic efforts by the entire population to produce a dramatic "great leap" in production for all sectors of the economy at once (see The Great Leap Forward, 1958- 60, ch. 1; Rural Society , ch. 3; The 1950s , ch. 6). Further reorganization of agriculture was regarded as the key to the endeavor to leap suddenly to a higher stage of productivity. A fundamental problem was the lack of sufficient capital to invest heavily in both industry and agriculture at the same time. To overcome this problem, the leadership decided to attempt to create capital in the agricultural sector by building vast irrigation and water control works employing huge teams of farmers whose labor was not being fully utilized. Surplus rural labor also was to be employed to support the industrial sector by setting up thousands of small-scale, low-technology, "backyard" industrial projects in farm units, which would produce machinery required for agricultural development and components for urban industries. Mobilization of surplus rural labor and further improvements in agricultural efficiency were to be accomplished by a "leap" to the final stage of agricultural collectivization--the formation of people's communes.

People's communes were created by combining some 20 or 30 advanced producers' cooperatives of 20,000 to 30,000 members on average, although membership varied from as few as 6,000 to over 40,000 in some cases. When first instituted, the communes were envisaged as combining in one body the functions of the lowest level of local government and the highest level of organization in agricultural production. Communes consisted of three organizational levels: the central commune administration; the production brigade (roughly equivalent to the advanced producers' cooperatives, or a traditional rural village), and the production team, which generally consisted of around thirty families. At the inception of the Great Leap Forward, the communes were intended to acquire all ownership rights over the productive assets of their subordinate units and to take over most of the planning and decision making for farm activities. Ideally, communes were to improve efficiency by moving farm families into dormitories, feeding them in communal mess halls, and moving whole teams of laborers from task to task. In practice, this ideal, extremely centralized form of commune was not instituted in most areas.

Ninety-eight percent of the farm population was organized into communes between April and September of 1958. Very soon it became evident that in most cases the communes were too unwieldy to carry out successfully all the managerial and administrative functions that were assigned to them. In 1959 and 1960, most production decisions reverted to the brigade and team levels, and eventually most governmental responsibilities were returned to county and township administrations. Nonetheless, the commune system was retained and continued to be the basic form of organization in the agricultural sector until the early 1980s.

During the Great Leap Forward, the industrial sector also was expected to discover and use slack labor and productive capacity to increase output beyond the levels previously considered feasible. Political zeal was to be the motive force, and to "put politics in command" enterprising party branches took over the direction of many factories. In addition, central planning was relegated to a minor role in favor of spontaneous, politically inspired production decisions from individual units.

The result of the Great Leap Forward was a severe economic crisis. In 1958 industrial output did in fact "leap" by 55 percent, and the agricultural sector gathered in a good harvest. In 1959, 1960, and 1961, however, adverse weather conditions, improperly constructed water control projects, and other misallocations of resources that had occurred during the overly centralized communization movement resulted in disastrous declines in agricultural output. In 1959 and 1960, the gross value of agricultural output fell by 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively, and in 1961 it dropped a further 2 percent to reach the lowest point since 1952. Widespread famine occurred, especially in rural areas, according to 1982 census figures, and the death rate climbed from 1.2 percent in 1958 to 1.5 percent in 1959, 2.5 percent in 1960, and then dropped back to 1.4 percent in 1961. From 1958 to 1961, over 14 million people apparently died of starvation, and the number of reported births was about 23 million fewer than under normal conditions. The government prevented an even worse disaster by canceling nearly all orders for foreign technical imports and using the country's foreign exchange reserves to import over 5 million tons of grain a year beginning in 1960. Mines and factories continued to expand output through 1960, partly by overworking personnel and machines but largely because many new plants constructed during the First Five-Year Plan went into full production in these years. Thereafter, however, the excessive strain on equipment and workers, the effects of the agricultural crisis, the lack of economic coordination, and, in the 1960s, the withdrawal of Soviet assistance caused industrial output to plummet by 38 percent in 1961 and by a further 16 percent in 1962.

Agriculture
Once collectivization was achieved and agricultural output per capita began to increase, the leadership embarked on the extremely ambitious programs of the Great Leap Forward of 1958-60 (see table 11, Appendix A). In agriculture this meant unrealistically high production goals and an even higher degree of collectivization than had already been achieved. The existing collectives were organized very rapidly into people's communes (see Glossary), much larger units with an average of 5,400 households and a total of 20,000 to 30,000 members on average. The production targets were not accompanied by a sufficient amount of capital and modern inputs such as fertilizer; rather, they were to be reached in large measure by heroic efforts on the part of the peasants.

Substantial effort was expended during the Great Leap Forward on large-scale but often poorly planned capital construction projects, such as irrigation works. Because of the intense pressure for results, the rapidity of the change, and the inexperience and resistance of many cadres and peasants, the Great Leap Forward soon ran into difficulties. The peasants became exhausted from the unremitting pressure to produce. The inflation of production statistics, on the theory that accuracy mattered less than political effect, resulted in extravagant claims. Disruption of agricultural activity and transportation produced food shortages. In addition, the weather in 1959-61 was unfavorable, and agricultural production declined sharply (see fig. 9). By the early 1960s, therefore, agriculture was severely depressed, and China was forced to import grain (during the 1950s it had been a net exporter) to supply urban areas. Otherwise, an excessive amount of grain would have been extracted from rural areas (see Economic Policies, 1949-80, ch. 5).

Law
With the Anti-Rightist Campaign of mid-1957 and the Great Leap Forward (1958-60; see Glossary), a new mass line emerged. The Anti-Rightist Campaign halted the trend toward legal professionalism, which was seen as a threat to party control. The party leadership resolutely declared its power absolute in legal matters. The Great Leap Forward sought to rekindle revolutionary spirit among the people. The mass line, as it affected public order, advocated turning an increasing amount of control and judicial authority over to the masses. This meant greater involvement and authority for the neighborhood committees and grass-roots mass organizations.

The Anti-Rightist Campaign put an end to efforts that would have brought about some degree of judicial autonomy and safeguards for the accused, and the country moved toward police domination. By 1958 the police were empowered to impose sanctions as they saw fit. The party gave low priority to the courts, and, as many judicial functions were turned over to local administrative officials, few qualified people chose to stay with the still-operating courts. The number of public trials decreased, and by the early 1960s the court system had become mostly inactive. One unexpected by-product of the shift from formal legal organs to local administrative control was that criminal sentences became milder. Persons found guilty of grand theft, rape, or manslaughter were sentenced to only three to five years' imprisonment, and the death penalty rarely was imposed.

During the Great Leap Forward, the number of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions increased as the police dispensed justice "on the spot" for even minor offenses. Still, the excesses of the Great Leap Forward were milder than those of the 1949-52 period, when many of those arrested were summarily executed. Persons found guilty during the Great Leap Forward were regarded as educable. After 1960, during a brief period of ascendancy of the political moderates, there was some emphasis on rebuilding the judicial sector, but the Cultural Revolution nullified most of the progress that had been made under the 1954 state constitution.

- FrancisTyers 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In 1949, rural China had been stagnant for centuries
The Great Leap Forward happened after a series of similar policies had achieved great success. First removing a mass of parasitic landlords who lived off other people's work and gave nothing back: there was no such thing as an 'Improving Landlord' in Chinese culture. Then eradicating banditry and opium cultivation, long-term problems. Then considerable mechanisation and collectivisation.

Chiang Kaishek in 22 years of rule had done nothing for the rural Chinese, where condition had got worse. There was a small growth of modern industry, but Chiang was committed to preserving the parasitic landlord system and the warlord system, the actual basis of his power. No land reform was attempted till after 1949, when US money allowed them to buy off the landlords in Taiwan.

The death-rate during the so-called famine was no higher than the norm under Chiang Kaishek. There was bad weather, and Khrushchev chose that time to cut off aid. Visitors agreed that there was a lot of hunger but no actual famine. Most of the blame went to local officials who had gone on reporting successes when things turned bad.

By the end of Mao's rule, the economy had tripled and the population had doubled - impressive for a quarter century of rule in what had previously seemed a 'basket case'. There's lots of things that might have been done better - including encouraging birth control and not allowing the population to double. But any criticism should recognise the immense difficulty of achieving anything at all.

--GwydionM 14:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I support some of your views, GwydionM, please do not make all your arguments seem completely biased in favour of Mao. That is unreasonable. Colipon+(T) 05:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do, from a British viewpoint, is apply the same sort of assessment to recent Chinese history that British historians normally do for British history. Those who did a lot to make Britain stronger get praised and forgiven all sorts of misbehaviour. Even Oliver Cromwell has more supporters than critics.

There is also a current trend, in both the USA and Britain, to grant forgiveness for things that earlier generations accepted as errors - such as the Opium Wars and the Irish Potato Famine.

What I'm saying here is that Mao's overall success must be allowed for. In Anglo culture it is now generally believed that China stagnated under Mao and only progressed under Deng. Which is not what any economic expert says: they have to admit that the economy did grow quite fast under Mao. You can confirm this from a work called The World Economy: Historical Statistics, if you've not consulted it already. It also confirms the stagnation of the pre-Mao era. And also a population dip in the Three Bitter Years: I don't dispute that things went badly wrong there.

If you want to see my wider view, check here. Undoubtedly Mao was extremely ruthless, crushing dissenters who'd have been tolerated in a more secure society. But British society wasn't tolerant before it was secure. Check the period of the wars against Revolutionary France - radicals were crushed or scared into silence. Even the 'Chinese' method of expressing dissent by praising an out-of-favour leader happened then - check the case of Caroline of Brunswick.

--GwydionM 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No social program is worth a cost of 30m souls deliberately done to death. Westerners who persist in excusing Mao are more concerned with preserving their fond memories of their own misplaced youthful idealism--not any love or concern for the endlessly mulcted Chinese masses. The article could be 100% anti-Mao, and it still wouldn't do justice to the horrors he visited upon China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.128.78 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 May 2006


 * I said once already, "The death-rate during the so-called famine was no higher than the norm under Chiang Kaishek." --GwydionM 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tripling of the economy in 25 years is actually not all that impressive, considering China's economy grew over 10 times in the same amount of time or less since Mao. Just about every country in the world grew comparatively rapidly from the early '50's until the mid '60's. In any event, while it would be fair to point out in an article about the economic history of China the tripling in 25 years, it is irrelevant to the GLF. Chinese govt. sources showed the economy shrinking in 1960. They quite readily admit the GLF was a failure and a mistake, and that's what we're discussing here. The GLF reversed whatever (admittedly considerable) gains were made between 1952 and 1958.

Re: "the norm under Chiang Kaishek," I don't know if the norm you refer to takes into account the fact that the Japanese were destroying half the country during some of the period and that the Chinese were destroying each other in civil war during the rest of the period. Using the Nationalist period as a comparison for death rate is not setting the bar very high. A better comparison would be the periods from 52-58 or 62-66. That is when the majority of the tripling in the economy took place and when there was no really large scale political violence.

Blaming local officials is somewhat apologistic. It's true they did misrepresent yields. But they did it in part because they were given ridiculous quotas by the central planners, and because the central leadership created an atmosphere where local officials where encouraged to appear as "red" as possible. Finally, under democratic centralism in a Leninist system, once a policy is in place, it is not to be questioned by party members and leadership. So it required evidence of massive failure to reverse the policy, and Mao stalled the first attempt at reversal at Lushan. Branny76 04:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Inflated Death Toll
In "Famine in China, 1958-1961" by Basil Ashton, Kenneth Hill, Alan Piazza, and Robin Zeitz, the figures for registered deaths are as follows:


 * Fiscal year 1957-1958: 7.230 million
 * Fiscal year 1958-1959: 8.389 million
 * Fiscal year 1959-1960: 13.924 million
 * Fiscal year 1960-1961: 13.782 million
 * Fiscal year 1961-1962: 7.534 million

Excess deaths or deaths above normal from 1959-1961 therefore amounted to just 14.2 million compared to the flatulent 30 million estimation from the West.

The article in concern can be accessed [here]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.131.45 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 April 2006


 * Zvesda, good effort, but the link doesn't work. Also you don't give the normal death rate.  --GwydionM 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010629212130re_/64.23.9.82/wh/famine/Research/Ashton84.pdf

Zvesda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.211.115 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 24 April 2006

Falsified weather?
I'm surprised at the recent change regarding bad weather. Beijing certainly gave out grain production statistics that were wildly wrong. But how could they falsify a report of five inches of rain in Hong Kong, then under British rule? Or fake the Yellow River drying up, reported by foreign residents. The reported pattern also matched the normal backwash of an El Nino event, though no one at the time knew about such things. --GwydionM 19:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not credible account of clamed impressive improvement in iron production
The article includes the entry:

'''During the Great Leap, the Chinese economy initially grew. Iron production increased 45% in 1958 and a combined 30% over the next two years..'''

The impression one gets by reading earlier entries in the article is that the only initiatives taken to promote metal production was to have farmers melt down productive home utensils into useless clumps of pig iron, using small, homemade furnaces.

So where did this remarkable increase in production come from?

--Philopedia 11:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Great Leap Forward was an important development in China and had many positive outcomes - the account given in this section is a serious misrepresentation of facts and opinions relying in large part on unsourced and unverfied statemnts. Is it really possible that not one person in China believed there was any benefit at all in the Great Leap Forward? This whole section needs re writing to eliminate unwarranted statements and introduce more facts into the description of the Great Leap Forward. This is difficult for individuals to do because of the authoritarian nature of the editing process of wikipedia which does not require verifiability for negative statements about the Great Leap Forward and removes  statements of positive outcomes. This needs to be addressed urgently.

Having just re-read this section I think it worse than ever - who is writing this rubbish? Is it a hobby of western propagandists to put sheer nonsense in here? Wiki is dead! Comment added at 18:15:27 by I.P.	85.94.188.236

Just had another look - there is a serious problem here. Who is editing this page? The CIA?

Well then, why don't you go ahead and tell us what positive things you would like added? Cripipper 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reiteration of death toll
All points of view have to be accomodated. The Chinese suggest 14 million died. Western estimates using manipulated demographic components have doubled this figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.37.13 (talk)


 * What is the big problem with pointing out that the sources for the higher figures are Western? (Even the figures for Chen Yizi - which are not even worth the effort to consider - and Jin Rui are taken from Jasper Becker's book, which is a western source.  As it currently reads it is not accurate, saying 'scholars estimate', since Chinese scholars estimate the death toll to be lower.  I cannot amend it because of 3RR, but as it currently stands it is inaccurate.  The 'sources' are Western; scholars is not acceptable because some of the figures listed on that website do not come from scholars.  And yes Mr. Niohe, I can read very well, and in several languages; I also write.  You may have read me.  Chen Yizi and Jin Rui's numbers were quoted in Japer Becker's book - therefore the source for these figures is Jasper Becker's book, and that is western. Cripipper 14:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why I asked if you can read is that in the hyperlink that you base your claims on, it is stated that Jasper Becker quotes two Chinese writers as sources of his estimates. Chen and Jin may very well exaggerate their claims, but the very the fact that Becker quotes them doesn't change the fact that his sources are "Chinese". I hope I don't have to argue with you on the difference between primary and secondary sources.
 * Chen Yizi and Jin Hui may not be academic enough to be called scholars, what about the Chinese demographer Peng Xizhe? In his article "Demographic Consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China's Provinces," Population and Development Review 13, no. 4 (1987), 639-70, he estimates that the death toll to be 23 million.
 * In any case, this invalidates the whole argument that this is a simple conflict between "Chinese" and "Western" estimates. Contributions to the debate on the death toll should be judged on the merits of the arguments and the sources used, not on the basis of the national origin of a contributor. To insert claims that a certain estimate of the excess deaths caused by famine are "Western" is at best distracting and at worst it is a case of weasel words.--Niohe 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is all well and good, but Peng Xizhe is not referenced in the Matthew White website, which remains a list of Western sources. Directly reference Peng, and any other Chinese scholars you care to, and the 'Western' tag can be removed - hell, we can even call them scholars - but until then what we have is a list of western sources. And don't you dare accuse me of weasel words - my edits to wikipedia are always of complete integrity. Cripipper 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great that we have an agreement, I will insert the source. In the meantime please review WP:CIV.--Niohe 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rightbackatcha. Cripipper 23:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, who exactly is Matthew White? What degree does he hold in any field of history? Material from an amateur web site is not permissable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskra1 (talk • contribs)


 * While not an academic source, the information contained on the site seems to be a fairly accurate summary of the sources he cites. Cripipper 22:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Monthly Review Article by Joseph Ball
I dont know whether this is the right place to put this, but I came across this article: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm In summary, Ball disputes the methodology and figures commonly associated with death toll during the GLF, and that these figures are inflated for political purposes, both inside and outside China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.12.252 (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Rain in South China
I noticed this line...

This includes 30 inches of rain at Hong Kong in five days in June 1959, part of a pattern that hit all of South China.

...and laughed. I lived in Hong Kong in the New Territories from 1993-1996. That happened in Hong Kong any time a Typhoon hit us squarely and typhoons hitting us squarely was by no means an unusual experience.

In those days my children stayed with me summers. I think it was in 1994 or 1995 that it rained pretty much continually the whole six weeks they were with me.

Lots of typhoons come ashore in South China every summer. When they do you get lots and lots of rain. :-) Plaasjaapie 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Initialisms
This page uses a bunch of initialisms (PRC, CCP, and I don't know if there're more) which go unexplained in the article. I don't know what they mean, but can someone please put there a notation in parentheses--or a link to another wikipedia article--of their meanings?Claystarling 23:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Contradiction
I recently read a book "China and her Shadow" by Tibor Mende (whose discussion of the rest of the world revealed no apparent political affiliation) written and published during the Great Leap Forward. His picture was a lot different to the one here. He does say a lot about how hard the Chinese would work, and the degree of sacrifice made in their bid for industrialisation, but he also describes how supportive the Chinese seemed to be of the governments new economic policies and in particular, he said at one point off-handedly (I paraphrase here) that although in many Asian countries signs of malnutrition were painfully obvious, he never saw any evidence of it in his time in China. This apparently through what seems to have been the greatest famine of all time. It certainly confused me when I read the book Woscafrench 15:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably depends on which part of China he was in. And that it was considered a great famine is mostly because there's a sudden drop in population count in the Chinese census at the time.  A lot of historians infer that all those people (30 million) died of starvation.  Research for the Great Leap was basically retroactive because it didn't come to light until China opened up.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its also hard to ascertain how much of what was brought to light upon Deng's return is exaggerated or not. People forget, that Deng's return to power, and the eventual execution of the Gang of Four, was about as apolitical as Khrushchev's destalinization. And as seen by the respective movements of each of those leaders, (the invasion and suppression of Hungary in 56, and the crushing of the students in 89) to crush dissent they found politically inopportune, one needs to take what they say with a grain of salt. SiberioS (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dariusisdaman link spam
This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dariusdaman - I am undoing his link spammage. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

POV
This article is rife with POV, and even on the talk page there is lots of POV "facts" with no reliable references to cite anything. I can say I just found alien poo in my fireplace, doesn't make it true. 220.253.18.103 (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

omg... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.139.5 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've referenced the only fact-tagged sentence in the article. If you have continuing objections to the article's factuality or neutrality, tag the specific statements (and/or list them here) and re-add the relevant banners. --Xiaphias (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

whats the problem with leaving fields fallow
the article says "Even more disastrously it was argued that a proportion of fields should be left fallow." and fallow links to an article that shows that crop rotation is actually a good thing. This sentence should be removed or explanation should be given to how this particular policy of leaving fields fallow was wrong, as it is not wrong in general 91.110.44.228 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This is discussed in detail in "Shenfan: The Continuing Revolution in a Chinese Village", by William H. Hinton, based on interviews with peasants and local political leaders.

About leaving fields fallow: Chinese peasants at that time were in the habit of collecting and spreading on the fields every scrap of manure available, both human and animal. Because of the aggressive fertilization, leaving the fields fallow didn't add much to their productivity. The peasants also hoed and weeded the fields intensively by hand during the growing season, which removed the other common reason - weed control - for leaving fields fallow.

The idea of cutting acres to increase crops was inspired by a group living in a the Lüliang_Mountains. They achieved significant yield gains by ignoring unsuitable mountain land and concentrating all their effort and manure on their most fertile land. The idea was mindlessly applied to areas with little or no truly unsuitable land. Much moderately productive land was unplanted and unfertilized, leading to lost production. In addition, the best land, where effort was concentrated, didn't see gains nearly as large as those in the Lüliang_Mountains, since the land was already being intensively farmed before the scheme was applied. Across China, per-acre yields did not go up much, but farmed acreage went down significantly; this contributed to the overall disaster that was the Great Leap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.182.162 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's dead body?
(Pardon any missteps here - it's my first post.)

This article's last section, "Consequences", ends with this sentence: "Mao died by a heart attack cause by having to much homosexual sexual intercourse with Hitlers dead body, everyone then though Zedong was an asshole." It doesn't look like truth to me; at least, there are spelling and punctuation problems ("caused", "too", "Hitler's", "thought"). Being new to Wikipedia editing, though, I'll leave any changes up to you experts. Thanks. Willygoose (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving the page
What would be the best way I could improve this page? Who is in charge of it? I've read a lot about this topic, and it's an important piece of history. Any advice welcome.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the books, I intend to clean up those references, to put all the books under the "bibliography" rubric, and the footnotes in a "notes" rubric. Though I'm new to this, I prize tidiness, and I think this is what the page on citations encourages.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Death toll?
How can the introduction to this article make no mention of the staggering number of deaths that resulted? The fact that it is impossible to determine exactly how many millions starved to death doesn't mean the issue should be ignored. Revisionism?

Didn't a lot of people die in the process? The article seems to ignore the terrible human toll of the project. My history textbook Mastering Modern World History, by Norman Lowe, suggests that some 20 million people died prematurely because of the Great Leap. Now, I don't know if that number is accurate, and some other sources suggest it might be much too high, but the death toll was nonetheless significant. For example http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.TAB8.1.GIF (from http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM) implies that 17 million people died due to democide during the relevent 9 year period, giving an annual death rate of some 2 million people. Assuming the Great Leap lasted 4 years, it would have cost around 8 million lives; probably more since the Great Leap years were probably more deadly than the average year during that 9 year period.


 * Be bold! If you think it's missing something, add it. --Jiang 02:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is definitely something missing! The bodies of the multi millions who died in this period.I am not convinced that cannibalism is the answer.

In all of the Western and Eastern sources I've read on this topic, majority agree that between 1959-1962 about 20 million died of starvation and malnutrition. I personally believe anything above 25 million is propaganda. Afterall, China only had 500 million people in the late 50s.


 * Some actually estimated the toll at nearly 40 million. [[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 17:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also keep in mind, however, that this was a less than open environment for outside (or inside, for that matter) investigative reporting. There was great incentive for the current -- and even to some extent subsequent -- regimes to allow only the rosiest possible reports to emerge. The fact that such unrosy descriptions and estimates were still forthcoming is quite telling.

I've deleted an paragraph on Jasper Becker - who I know a little - which describes him as a 'travel writer' and says he was in the country during the Great Leap Forward, neither of which is true. The article as a whole still needs expansion, especially on the power struggles within the Party; I'll try to do it sometime soon.

There's something you really need to understand before asking for exact figures on the death toll during this time period. Firstly how so many of the masses died in small towns and counties where records of their death couldnt possibly be made. Another is that canabolism was a huge factor during the GLF corpses were being dug up and meat taken from the bodies for the peasants to simply survive. A great historian to find out about the death tolls and Mao in general is Jung Chang. Her estimations of the death toll are as high as 38 million. A reason for her being much more reliable than some other historians is how she has better access to records and archives in China as she is Chinese and as a well known historian the government allows her to see archives that most historians or people never have or will. Simply becuase if they stop her or disallow her to certain places it would reflect very badly on China. Another reason that makes her figures more reliable than other historians is her husband Jon Halliday. A Russian historian who has extensive access to soviet archives which greatly helps Jung Chang create a death toll which seems much higher than most other historians. Read Jung Chang's new book on Mao for more info on the GLF and 100 Flowers campaign, really good especially if your studying China Revolutions for VCE or school.

--Chorgy 11:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems facing those who produce estimates of millions of deaths during the Great Leap Forward is the lack of bodies. To allege that the bodies were eaten is an interesting suggestion! No doubt derived from the common assertion that Communists eat babies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.94.229 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Jung Chang's book on Mao is unmitigated drivel from the first line of the first page to the very end! No one should rely on this as a source for anything except Jung Chang's prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.74.1 (talk) I agree with this. Jung Changs book is good fun to read but bears little relation to the realities of life in China during this period.

The claim for a death toll ignores how much Mao had raised Chinese life expectency from the norm in the Nationalist era. Chang and Halliday treat 1% death-rate as the norm, but it was not the norm under the Kuomintang. --172.201.10.215 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Gwydion M. Williams

The reason for wide differences in the deaths is not due to "incorrect data". The reason for the deaths was incorrect data, but the reason for the variance in the counts of said deaths is because of inadequate accounting of human life. I left it as "variations in data" so that it would not be inflammatory. Twocs 14:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as death toll is concerned, you should also include in the page the fact that "the senior Communist Party official Chen Yizi who in 1979 was appointed by Premier Zhao Ziyang to find out what really happened in 1958–61. Chen led a team of 200 officials who visited every province to examine internal Party documents and records. His report put the total at between 43 and 46 million dead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadrunner (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The death toll is irrelevant in a country such as china, which at the time had a population growth rate of 80 million people/year. So one year it only gained 40 million people due to losing 40 million boo hoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.118.110 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Source please? Everyone can come up with any number, it is the source that matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.217.162.8 (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does the introducion state 200 million deaths whilst the numbers the article are lower? 81.241.147.223 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
the chart asserts that the impact on world growth was entirely from the great famine. that's clearly WP:OR.--camr nag 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Title should be in quotes?
This page is being used to exposit an argument about the |"Ground Zero Mosque". Some people feel the page on this New York City project, which is currently entitled Park51, should be named Ground Zero Mosque because this is a more common name for the project in news media. I challenged people to find an example of a "most common name" for a page which is nonetheless misleading, and I was referred to the example on this page.

What I am wondering is, since the page makes it pretty clear that the effects of the "Great Leap Forward" were not any great leap forward for China, whether the name for this page might be changed to "Great Leap Forward" (in quotes) to indicate that the term, though commonly used to describe the policies, imply positive benefits which are disputed to say the least. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Great Leap Forward is not a descriptive title; it is a formal (and the common) name of a specific political campaign in history. See Neutral point of view.

The name should not be changed. Quigley (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It apparently takes actually doing a change to get someone to respond to you in here. :)  The policy says nothing about the use of quotes for starters.  Also, in each of those examples, there isn't a misrepresentation of facts.  In Boston there was a massacre.  Teapot Dome was a scandal.  Edward was a confessor.  Jack was a ripper.  (Okay, in that last example, we don't know the real name of "Jack", but still, there's no misrepresentation of the subject, who was a mass murderer.)  The Great Leap Forward, however, was not a great leap forward.  Also, the name itself was retained, it was just put in quotes to indicate it is not accepted as true.  Why is that not consistent with the intent of the WP rules? Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy implies that quotes are not necessary. If you'll read the article on the Boston Massacre, you'll find that the facts of the case were controversial, and that "massacre" was a revolutionist spin. It is the job of the title to reflect the common name (as indicated by the reliable sources used in this article), and it is the job of the article text to describe the event. This article is not about the claim that the Great Leap Forward was actually a great leap forward (notice the use of capital letters indicating a name); but about the attempt. The German Revolution was a failed revolution, so should we then call it the "German Revolution"? The title is not making a value judgment on the event. It is just reflecting a name that historians adopted from the official one. Quigley (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the policy implies respect for reality as well. We can talk all day about what policies "imply" without actually stating.  :)  Historians don't largely challenge the terms "Boston Massacre" or "German Revolution", that's why no one is fighting to get them renamed on here.  They do clarify points about those events, but they generally accept that because the people who died were all on one side in the Boston Massacre that the name is not worth challenging, and accept that the German Revolution being subdued doesn't make it any less a revolutionary activity wide-scale enough to be called a revolution.  The Great Leap Forward was, by most accounts, a great leap backward.  That's a little bit different. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually by using quotes you'd promote your POV and Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Another example Salem witch trial it's not Salem "witch" trial. Again, the article will describe the events without the need of using quotes to show what you considered to be incorrect. As mentioned by another editor this is the name of the campaign, while Ground Zero mosque is not the name of the cultural center (which is not at Ground Zero and is not a mosque per se), but we should let the editors involved in that discussion to reach a conclusion, here we talk about this particular article. man with one red shoe 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's not a good argument. The women were put on trial because they were believed to be witches.  It's not an inaccuracy to say there were witch trials.  There were.  As for the comment about it being the "name of the campaign", I would accept that argument (and drop all of this) in a heartbeat if the claim can be supported.  Apparently there was an editorial in the People's Daily on New Year's Day, 1958 which did in fact attach this name to the campaign.  I'd take that as proof that it's just a name and not a statement that China did in fact leap forward somehow.  Though in that case, I'd prefer the title be Great Leap Forward (campaign), or something along those lines to indicate it's the name of the campaign.  Any chance of a compromise here, or are people just going hew unquestioningly to the letter of the WP: standards and not respect their spirit? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The capital letters already do what your parentheses would. And I just don't see a violation of the spirit of the policy here. Quigley (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We already have on this page, though, a request to document a citation for what the GLF actually is. I've seen accounts that say it's the same thing as the Second Five-Year Plan, whereas other accounts say it was a CCP campaign which changed the substance of the Second Five-Year Plan.  From what I've seen so far (still working on this), it seems the second description is correct, as the term doesn't seem to be part of the title of the Second Five-Year Plan, but there was apparently this editorial in the People's Daily inaugurating the beginning of a "Great Leap Forward" campaign.  That needs to be clarified, whether in the title or elsewhere in the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Then that is a content issue. The title can accommodate either the text saying "The Great Leap Forward refers to two things, the ... and ..." or "The Great Leap forward was ...". There is no need for a title change. Quigley (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous entries on this page that have the word campaign in the title. Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And there are a great many that do not. Quigley (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But they're all on a page devoted to "campaigns of the Chinese Communist Party". Do you see a relevant difference between the ones that don't have the term in the title and the ones that do? Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not one that could be generalized so broadly. Most of them use the common name in the English language literature, which sometimes includes 'campaign' and sometimes doesn't. Do you see such a pattern? What are you implying? Quigley (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not implying anything. I think if they're all on a page that says they're CCP campaigns, they're probably all CCP campaigns and should be represented as such.  I did manage to find an entry in William Safire's Political Dictionary with some clarifications about the GLF:

"Mao Zedong's 'Great Leap Forward' began to be mentioned in the Chinese media in 1957, not as part of any five-year plan, but as a special effort to dramatically advance the Chinese economy. It was officially adopted at the second session of the Eighth Party Congress between May and July of 1958, and is generally considered to have ended in mid-1960."


 * At the very least, we'll need to put this kind of a clarification in. I'm continuing to look for information about what was said at the Eighth Party Congress.  Ideally, to substantiate my point, I'd find something voted on at that congress with "Great Leap Forward" as an actual title, but thus far I haven't found any information about the congress I could check online. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bad idea. Nothing more needs to be said. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Changing the title
Just so everyone understands, I am no longer pitching the quote idea. That being said, coming in and taking one millisecond to consider the question demonstrates bad faith, in my opinion. The title should be changed. Other pages about CCP campaigns have the word "campaign" in them. It's not an unreasonable suggestion to say that maybe this page should follow their lead. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that "Great Leap Forward" is the common language used everywhere in books and newspapers, if you come with references that show that "Great Leap Forward campaign" is more prevalent we'll consider changing the title. man with one red shoe 17:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick look via categories shows that most articles with campaign in the title do so as part of a proper noun. Campaign would not be a proper noun here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Check this out. If I understand your argument, then you should now be willing to support the change of the title to Great Leap Forward movement. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a quick look: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Great+Leap+Forward&word2=Great+Leap+Forward+movement The Great Leap Forward Movement doesn't seem to be as popular as Great Leap Forward, but I'm not totally opposed to this change (mildly opposed), let's see what others say though. man with one red shoe 22:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do it in Chinese, it's a bit closer: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=da+yue+jin&word2=da+yue+jin+yun+dong ... da yue jin is Great Leap Forward and da yue jin yun dong is Great Leap Forward movement.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As funny as it sounds the Chinese name doesn't matter, this is an English Wikipedia, we use names how are they used in English (even if they are a translation from another language). man with one red shoe 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On the other pages about CCP campaigns, the Chinese translation is shown. Why is this one so different? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hiya. You must be new here. I did change the page. It was immediately reverted, and this discussion ensued. Thus, I wanted it to be clear that I had WP:CONSENSUS before proceeding with any changes. It is not yet clear that I have consensus, and indeed most input I have received before your comment indicated that I had not yet proved my point with the three people who indicated they had problems with the last change. (Okay, I know you're not "new here", but the way your comment came off was a little condescending, don't you think? I'm not "learning the ropes", been editing for a while now.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move discussion
I'll go ahead and make the change. My prediction is that, the minute I do, people will be in here to reverse it, despite the fact that I was asking for their input before proceeding and no one deigned to give any. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked for input on your various other schemes, and you got it. "Great Leap Forward" is the common name (in English, but also on the Chinese Wikipedia), and that is the longstanding title. For such a change you knew was going to be controversial, you should have used Requested move to start a discussion which would have also prompted outside input, gauged consensus, and then an administrator would close the discussion properly. But you didn't; and you didn't even clearly propose a move to GLF "movement" here. It's already no surprise to you what I am going to do here, but now you should not be surprised about what you should do next. Quigley (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't. I asked people to tell me what they thought.  One person said make the change.  Everyone else clammed up, including you.  It takes actually making the change to wake everyone up, apparently.  Anyway, I'll go ahead and make the request, as I do think it's justified.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked a question about whether you could "show" the "Chinese translation" of this campaign. You did not ask if you could complete a move to "movement". Quigley (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The title over the entire exchange reads "Changing the title". If we didn't completely understand one another, fine, now we do.  But suggesting that I deliberately misconstrued what Schmucky said isn't reasonable, given that it was clear from the entirety of the exchange that I was trying to get the page title changed. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not clear that you hadn't abandoned your quest to change the title at the time of your question to Schmucky, which was quite unrelated to the move. Quigley (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if you misunderstood me, fine, now we understand one another. If I misunderstood Schmucky, it may have more to do with the fact that he comes in, says one sentence, then leaves. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. This request, as noted by others below, attempts to substitute our own judgment of what the title should be for what the common title listed in English language reliable sources is, which is not in keeping with our naming conventions. In addition to our common naming policy, relevant here is Article titles and Neutral point of view.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Great Leap Forward → — The "Great Leap Forward" was, by pretty much all accounts in retrospect, not a positive development in the history of China, and reputable sources in both English and Chinese often use the term "Great Leap Forward movement" to capture that it was a CCP campaign and not literally a "great leap forward". Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The Great Leap Forward is a proper noun, which was a slogan and a name that historians in retrospect used to describe the various campaigns and movements connected to it. The "movement" is but one characterization of some elements of the Great Leap Forward, and the Wikipedia article has been for a long time broader than that, including for example the Great Leap Forward policy. The current title, as the common name for this period, policy points out, can incorporate non-neutral terms like "Great": as the policy examples, Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor. Quigley (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: One of the arguments put forward to oppose the change is that the term is the most common.  Google is often cited to support this point of view.  However, many of those hits involve use of the term in quotation marks, because people realize the term carries loaded content.  So I contest that this is the most used term for starters, and also note that "Great Leap Forward movement" has a large number of hits in its own right, both in English and in Chinese.  I also used to support my case a source called "A glossary of political terms of the People's Republic of China" which presents the phrase as "Great Leap Forward Movement", suggesting that this is the preferred nomenclature for people who study politics in the PRC.  This is not "cherry-picking" a source, this is presenting a source which goes to the heart of the question of what the term is supposed to be, according to people who study Chinese politics for a living. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, none of the hits in the first few pages of the Google results used quotation marks. That is to be expected; Great Leap Forward is not a neologism, while "Great Leap Forward movement" is. To take the habits of a Hong Kong dictionary and conflate it into "the preferred nomenclature for people who study politics in the PRC" is quite a stretch, especially considering all of the other reliable sources in the article which do not use "movement". Quigley (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are more hits for "Jenin massacre" than there are for "Battle of Jenin", but the Wikipedia article is entitled "Battle of Jenin" because numerous people contest the claim that it constitutes a massacre. If we slavishly followed WP:COMMONNAME, that wouldn't be allowed.  Obviously there are limits to WP:COMMONNAME, and there should be. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Numerous people outside of Wikipedia contested the Jenin's naming as a massacre. This is not the case for the GLF. Besides, as a recent event, the name has not so definitively and decisively been settled as in a historical topic such as this. Quigley (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me that people putting the term in quotes are not challenging the term? With respect, that's nonsense. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "So-called Great Leap Forward" gets 32,300 hits on Google. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily; it could be a stylistic choice, but it is not common practice here to put such names in quotes. Is «so-called "Great Leap Forward"» your new move proposal now? Quigley (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing how much fun it's been to change the title of this page, I'm going to say no. Is there any possibility of getting stronger such language in the body of the article, though?  Or have people just decided they know everything there is to know about how to represent the matter?  Incidentally, one of the "so-called Great Leap Forward" hits is a peer-reviewed article from the journal Modern China called "A Tragedy of Good Intentions:  Post-Mao Views of the Great Leap Forward".  Interestingly, though the subtitle uses the term, the text of the article says "the so-called Great Leap Forward".  So the term can be used by a source and yet be specifically identified as inaccurate by the same source.  Am I really just tilting at windmills here, or is there something reasonable people should be discussing abou the use of this term? Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article, not to mention every mention of the article that links to this article, makes it abundantly clear that the GLF ended in famine and failure. Slanted language is not needed, and it is certainly not encyclopedic tone. Quigley (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should be referring to "phlogiston" on Wikipedia. We shouldn't have a page called "phlogiston theory" because all the people back in the day used to exclusively refer to a substance called "phlogiston" and not to some "theory", and all the links to the "phlogiston page" make it clear that oxygen explains everything that phlogiston was supposed to. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * People in retrospect speak of a phlogiston theory, but people in retrospect still speak of the Great Leap Forward. Quigley (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, except for the ones who say "so-called". But have it your way.  Seriously, I'm dropping this now.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Such a move would be as odd as using the titles Freddy Got Fingered film, Great Depression economic downturn or Slim Goodbody character. Powers T 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I ain't convinced that 'movement' (note, that the proposal has this in lower case, not part of an actual Proper Noun title) has much merit being tacked onto the end of this title. Great Leap Forward is a simple proper noun that works as an article title and there is no reason to complicate it with words that aren't part of the title. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Oppose. We should use the name that entered the English (the most common variant). It's as mentioned by others a common name, I see this explained in the text as "The Great Leap Forward was an economic and social campaign..." instead of "The Great Leap Forward movement was an economic and social campaign..." man with one red shoe 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I'm just fed up with all of you. Powers, all three of your examples are of things no one contests.  Freddy Got Fingered is a film.  The Great Depression was an economic downturn.  Slim Goodbody was a character.  The "Great Leap Forward", however, is generally conceded to have been the polar opposite of a great leap forward.  It's a misnomer.  Schmucky, you were the one that told me to make the change.  Was that just to screw around with me?  Man with one red shoe, this line that you're pointing to that illustrates enough for your purposes that the "Leap" was a campaign is language I put in.  None of you have done anything to forge a real consensus on this issue...you seem to take some perverse delight in screwing with me, though. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the policy that Wikipedia article titles are not prescriptive (making judgments; deciding how events should be described) but descriptive (reflecting the common name used in reliable sources)? Quigley (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not making anything but a descriptive claim to say it was a movement. And you know (because I've already pointed out this page), that other such CCP policies are indeed described as "campaigns" or "movements". Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those CPC campaigns or movements have those in their names because that is the common name for them. This is not the case for GLF. Quigley (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And Quigley, where can I start with you? The lack of good faith you credit my intentions for changing the page title is simply breathtaking.  It's like anyone who changes the name of a Wikipedia page is supposed to flagellate himself for not abiding by tradition.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You said there was no Chinese translation shown. I said fix it.  You said nothing about a page move.  I don't see at all how my response could be perceived as supporting a page move.  Also, you seem to be assigning a POV that because this wasn't a great leap forward it should contain an extra word to implicate it's (perceived/actual/claimed) failure.  Don't be silly.  Common names, proper nouns, simple titles. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * It's not only well-established policy, but common sense that controversial changes should be discussed and consensus reached. I would say that you're the one assuming bad faith for interpreting the consensus against your proposal as everyone trying to "screw with you". Quigley (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Schmucky, go back and read the exchange. What I was saying immediately before your "sofixit" was that the page name needed to be changed.  The title shown at the top of the exchange is "Changing the title".  If you're honest with yourself, you'll see that what you said could have been taken as encouragement to change the title of the page.  Quigley, I didn't say everyone was trying to screw with me.  Read what I said.  I said I thought Schmucky specifically was.  If this is his defense, I'll accept that, but I think a reasonable person might have seen that as a provocative thing to say. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was surprised by the move because I didn't so broadly interpret Schmucky's comment, and I don't think "a reasonable person" would have, either. He was specifically replying to your proposal to include "the Chinese translation" (this became your preferred Chinese translation) on the page: this is clear by the number of colons; see threaded discussion. As for the "screwing with me" comment, quoted, "None of you have done anything to forge a real consensus on this issue...you seem to take some perverse delight in screwing with me, though." You is the pronoun, none of you is the antecedent. Plural. Quigley (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, then. My mistake.  What do you propose to do to forge consensus on this issue?  And, pray tell, will this consensus in any way involve me, or can I expect to be relegated to tinfoil-hat territory?  Probably not, I'm guessing, because of course you concede my good faith... Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not unanimity, nor is it false compromise. Quigley (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, but neither is it what you're doing. I have to keep coming back to how my own edit was used in this argument - we shouldn't change the page title because my edit makes it clear that the GLF was a movement, so we don't need to say so in the title.  Did any of you thank me for making this edit?  Nope.  But you'll use it to sock me with.  That's not a consensus-building environment.  That creates a purely adversarial relationship.  It suggests not only that you won't happen to come to any consensus with me, but that you've already decided it's not worth the bother. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To which edit are you referring? I don't think that specific argument was ever used. And it's not about coming to a consensus with you, because you do not own this article, but about coming to a consensus of editors in line with policy. Whatever you think, I do not see you as an adversary, and I suggest you drop this inflammatory language. Quigley (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, you don't see me as an adversary, and if only I would stop being such an adversary, then I'd see that. Interesting.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth. Quigley (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're satisfied they aren't your words, then so am I. I'm going to go ahead and drop this now - you win on the name change, but I will see if there is anything I can add to this page that satisfies my concerns and doesn't cause people to go ballistic.  I would appreciate it if everyone could be on their best behavior and try to take any future changes in the spirit in which they are offered.  I don't think my concerns are marginal or silly, and I'd appreciate it if they were treated as if it's possible for something I say to have merit.  You don't have to agree with everything, but I'm a person and deserve respect. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Each point of yours was refuted on its merits. And a suggestion: since you don't want to "cause people to go ballistic", discuss potentially controversial changes on the talk page in the future. It's not required, but creates more civility. Quigley (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Oppose. Current title is the most appropriate.--Michig (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose 'Great Leap Forward' is the most common name in the English language. Flamarande (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not POV, not original research
Quigley - 1) The page already used the word "catastrophe" to describe how the Great Leap Forward ended. 2)  A "catastrophe" is the opposite of a "Great Leap Forward" (okay, literally a "Great Leap Backward" would be the opposite, but that's pretty much a synonym for a catastrophe.) 3) The existing explanation for what constitutes a misnomer says that it's "a term which suggests an interpretation that is known to be untrue". 4)  If the Great Leap Forward involves no great leap forward, but indeed the opposite of a great leap forward, then it is a misnomer.

Are you just bound and determined that no pointing out of anything related to the obvious falsehood that this term packs into it will be discussed on the page? Or is there anything you can do to help craft a version of this that you can accept? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a perfectly ironic name :) The main reason that I see you are hung up on this and you don't accept what other editors say is that "Great Leap Forward involves no great leap forward", however you have to understand that names don't need to be true to exist Hundred Years' War comes to mind. It's a name, the fact that it didn't last 100 years is explained in the article, the same with this Great Leap Sideways.... misnomer or not that's the name in English.  man with one red shoe 23:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The facts speak for themselves. Wikipedia doesn't need to pass on judgment; it would violate WP:NPOV. Quigley (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to convince me, Quigley, talk to me more as the Red Shoe Man is doing at the moment. I appreciate that, Red Shoe Man.  It's like my arguments actually matter to you, even if you disagree.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To respond...if someone did add the statement that "Hundred Years War" is a misnomer, I don't think people would go as ballistic. People would probably say "well, yeah, I guess it is" and leave the statement. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people would think I was taking a point of view on the Hundred Years War or something, or challenge me to document that a reputable source made this claim. Maybe someone would say I'm defending the view of either the English or the French. :) But I think not.  It's manifestly a misnomer and I think people would accept that.  My point is that the same is true here, only to say it out loud, I guess, suggests that I'm stridently anti-communist, and we have to be fair to the communists, after all...but I don't think even the most determined Maoist would make the claim that there actually was any kind of a great leap forward from 1958-1961, so I'm not sure what the big show to have the appearance of neutrality is even for.  It strikes me as a true-or-false statement.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors don't maintain a neutral tone to satisfy English, French, or Maoist constituencies; they do it to uphold the quality and reputation of the encyclopedia. Whether such a pompous note would survive on the Hundred Years War article or not, it is clearly unnecessary, as the lead says that it lasted 116 years, as this lead says that the GLF ended in famine; such a note would only serve to editorialize. And of course your arguments matter to me, Zachary. Haven't I replied to every single one? Quigley (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not nicely, no. But yes, you have replied.  To respond to what you've said - there's no constituencies to be satisfied on either question.  I'd have to look long and hard for people who think either "Hundred Years War" or "Great Leap Forward" factually represents what happened (if they know history).  For me, the difference is that millions of people died as a result of these policies that were supposed to represent a "great leap forward", and it somewhat profanes their memory not to challenge the language being used.  (Okay, maybe obliquely, we could say the same about people who died in the last 16 years of a war that in fact took 116 years to fight...but I think you get my point.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But don't you see that because the title is in all capital letters, that is a signal to English language readers that it means it is a proper name for something and not a choice description of it? That when it is mentioned in all the other articles, that it is as a terrible setback? That the lead makes the history obviously clear already? That often the translations from Chinese campaigns of the time use such over-the-top Soviet-style language that cynical English language readers don't even need to read to have a negative impression? There is simply no confusion, and if there is, it is resolved in seconds. Quigley (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to ask "Then why the fuss about a sentence that says so directly?" but I know that argument wouldn't get anywhere. I think it's more that the suggestion is being made not only that "that's what they called it", but "that's what we and the rest of the world call it" as well.  For myself, I'll never say that phrase without a quote around it or some kind of a qualification.  I wonder, if they had a campaign to convince people rain is dry, would the page be entitled Rain Is Dry, rather than Rain Is Dry movement, or Rain Is Dry campaign or "Rain Is Dry"?  How far does the statement have to be at variance with known facts before a reasonable editor has to do something to qualify it?  Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the further the statement is from the facts, the less qualification is needed, because the reader will obviously detect the falsehood; whereas subtle manipulations are more dangerous. Quigley (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This discounts the possibility of people floating "Big Lie" kinds of statements (for example, like "Barack Obama is a Muslim", which 1 in every 5 people in the US believe despite this being a gigantic and easily proved falsehood), but I do understand your point of view on the subject. Anyway, where it stands now is that I'm very little convinced by most of what was said, but I can also see I'm not convincing anyone either.  Suffice it to say I don't think Wikipedia is doing its job when it doesn't do its part to debunk things that are this clearly false.  I know there are competing schools of perceived "truth" on many issues - but there's also real truth, and we owe it some respect.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But this is not a "big lie" repeated in earnest. Even modern historians inside China condemn this (and the Cultural Revolution; don't take it as an invitation to try to change the title of that too). As I outlined above, with this specific topic, it is extremely unlikely that someone reading this article or about this article would get the impression that the subject was indeed a "great leap forward". Quigley (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, just reading the Hundred Years War page...there were two periods of peace lasting 9 and 6 years...so I guess it might be the 101 Years War... :D Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiworld sure is strange
So, according to Red Shoe Man's last edit, calling the Great Leap Forward a "Great Leap Backward" is an editorialization, but calling it a humanitarian crisis and economic disaster isn't. That's kind of a weird double standard. Saying the truth is saying the truth, but admitting that it's the truth is horribly slanted.

When are people going to admit this isn't about neutrality but a kind of phony appearance of neutrality. The fact is, it is generally conceded to be a "Great Leap Backward" and something should say so. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that says it was a "Great Leap Backwards"?  Is there a reliable source that calls it a humanitarian crisis and economic disaster?  If there are reliable sources for either of them then the descriptions belong.  If no sources exist that call it those things then the descriptions do not belong.   GB  fan  14:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're really asking me to find those, GB...I found a reliable source (a peer-reviewed article in the journal Modern China) which refers to it as the "so-called Great Leap Forward" and that wasn't considered good enough. But I'll look.  There might be.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you to do anything. I was just trying to explain how the strange wikiworld works.  It looks like you have found something to help.  Information, especially on a contentious article like this, does not belong unless a reliable source makes those statements.  I am not even sure how this got to be on my watchlist because the subject does not interest me.   GB  fan  15:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * After two minutes of searching I found this... http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,827739,00.html - is that enough, or does "Great Leap Backward" have to outnumber "Great Leap Forward" in Google hits before any acknowledgment the term is a misnomer appears in the lead? Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed that Great Lean Backward because I thought it was your interpretation, but if you have a reference please put it next to it. man with one red shoe 14:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll accept that with the reference? Then I'll put it in.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant, as long as it's clearly referenced and not something twe coined it's acceptable. Thanks. man with one red shoe 14:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely the words "Great Leap Backwards" would only appear as attributed to a source, not as a serious description of the political movement in question, right? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think the source needs to be identified, go ahead and identify it. I'm content to let it remain as a description of the political movement because (and I know this annoys people) in truth it was a Great Leap Backward.  At the risk of quoting Sarah Palin, calling it the "Great Leap Forward" is putting the lipstick on the pig.  But I won't contest any change you propose to make in terms of making the source more apparent.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a small change along those lines. Update: I also removed the phrase later in the article, to stop a simple repetition of the same point. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the term still in the article? I don't think it is notable enough to be included and it doesn't really help understand the movement either. It's a term that a journalist came up with, that's fine, but we are not improving the article by mentioning it. Laurent (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not since the time of this writing. I replaced that paragraph of angry polemics with a paragraph about the PRC government's assessment of the GLF after it happened, and how it lead up to the next item in the accompanying history sidebar, the Cultural Revolution. Quigley (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to replace the paragraph, could it be with something that doesn't sound like a rationalization for the Great Leap? The paragraph you added made it sound like a slight mistake for which Mao was rapped on the fingers, and a pretext for evil "capitalist roaders" (*cue melodramatic music here*) to take power from Mao and lead China. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest not changing the paragraph, however. Numerous sources now document the use of the term "Great Leap Backward" to describe what the GLF was.  It's clearly a widespread characterization, used by scholars and laypersons alike, as well as by contemporary Chinese officials.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, anger about the effects of the "Great Leap Forward" doesn't make one non-neutral, it makes one human. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, "Great Leap Backward" sounds like a joke and I doubt it's used by so many scholars. I've never seen it in any recent book about China anyway. The GLF was a disaster and I think the article makes that very clear. I just don't see how adding joke terms is going to improve the article or help readers understand the movement. Laurent (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's an ill-informed opinion if you're not basing it on the sources that are linked, none of which present this term as a joke. But addressing your wider point, this article, outside of this specific edit, continues to refrain from pointing out in any direct way that the Great Leap Forward was the opposite of what it claimed to be.  These articles I've cited all do so directly.  The people who wrote these articles are making what they think is a necessary point, that referring to a "Great Leap Forward" without directly noting that it wasn't one is like referring to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 without directly noting that it isn't one.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, specifically with regard to your "I've never seen it in any recent book" comment: Huaiyin Li, Village China Under Socialism and Reform: A Micro-History, 1948-2008, Stanford University Press, 2009, p. 81.  That's last year.  Recent enough? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I also disagree with the need to use "Great Leap Backward," especially in the lead. It's a kind of pun. Why is that important? Cut it. Anyway, Zachary Klaas appears quite determined on the matter, so I say no more.The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the only allowable edits are done by people who don't care about what they're editing? Your own user page (User:TheSoundAndTheFury) says that you are interested in Chinese politics. Does that mean we should be saying "no more" to you?  Just looking for a little consistency here.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how what you said is connected with what I said. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You said you "say no more" because I was "determined" to edit the page a certain way. I am enquiring whether being determined is itself considered evidence that the edit is not to be allowed.  I am enquiring whether caring about what I edit is enough to get it deleted.  You evidently care about Chinese politics, so I am also enquiring whether the fact that you care about what you edit is enough to get it deleted.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He was conceding that since you appear to be unmoved by most of the other editors' strong arguments against inclusion, that he'll just let you push these silly puns and wantonly remove the information (such as the paragraph about the post-GLF CPC assessment) that you disagree with. Of course, this makes a mockery of Wikipedia, and if this persists, it might have to be brought out of this talk page. Quigley (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Put the post-GLF CPC assessment back in if you're that attached to it. I'll expect, since you're not being disingenuous here, that you'll not just use that as an excuse to delete the element I have added (with five supporting sources).  Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, independently good reasons to delete your element are all over this page, five cherry-picked sources or ten. Quigley (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Splendid. I'll just wait while you tell me what they are.  By the way, when you replace your "post-GLF CPC assessment", please leave the part out about capitalist roaders, as according to that page, that is hardly a neutral term - the term is defined in Maoist thought and are not necessarily considered as anything else but jargon by non-Maoists.  This is why the first words of the Capitalist roader page say "In Maoist thought, a capitalist roader is..."
 * Just another small concern here. Neither Liu Shaoqi nor Deng Xiaoping is on record as being either capitalist or "sympathetic to capitalism".  Could you make it clearer to what you are referring by claiming they were "sympathetic to capitalism"? Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The pipe to capitalist roaders was intended to give background information to the reader about a specific faction of the CPC. Of course I did not use the jargon in the main text. If that confuses you, I have removed the pipe until I can think of a better way to present the material. I have also made more technically correct the characterizations of Liu and Deng, although I am sure you know what I meant in the original wording. Quigley (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did know, yes, but the average reader coming across this page would not know. The term "capitalist roader" is a term Mao used to denigrate his enemies, somewhat along the lines of "counterrevolutionary", and it's certainly imprecise to describe Liu and Deng in any event.  Indeed, though Deng did open China up somewhat to some market processes, he never represented what he was doing in terms of being anything less than Socialism with Chinese characteristics.  The precision is important here.  Anyway, you responded appropriately to my concerns and the article is better now that this is clarified.  Thanks. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why so much focus on the introduction? I think the term might be fine in the section or subsection on consequences. The intro already states, quite plainly, that it was a monumental failure so I don't understand the devotion to increasing the level of criticism and pushing the use of this term. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * As a general comment on Wikipedia and not a speculation of Zachary's motives, many casual readers will come to a Wikipedia article and read only the introduction. Also, what people read first (in the lead) affects their interpretation of what comes next (in the text). So the lead is often a battleground of opinion where the article text may not be. Quigley (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed what people read does influence interpretation, and this is why people unacquainted with this period in Chinese history will want to know in what way China leapt forward and be somewhat confused by what they're reading. The title makes it appear as if this were a period characterised by some kind of movement forward.  We've already decided (for narrow WP:COMMONNAME reasons that seem to me to apply the letter but not the spirit of the rule) to do nothing to alert the reader that this was a movement calling itself "Great Leap Forward" rather than an objectively real forward leap of some kind.  Barring any direct statement that there was no leap forward (and quite the opposite), yes, smart readers might conclude by the end of the lead that the term is at best ironic and at worst a misnomer, but readers a bit more slow on the uptake might continue reading down the page for something that might explain to them why it was a leap forward.
 * I thought it was very interesting, in particular, that a guide to the AP test in world history specifically called the GLF a "great leap backward" because they thought this was the salient point about what happened that the would-be test-takers needed to know in order to "get" this period in history. Why doesn't Wikipedia realise it has a similar responsibility to educate people about the salient point here? Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have a viewpoint. It's crystal clear already. From the lead, "The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, triggering a widespread famine that resulted in possibly more than 20 million deaths." Much more useful to the reader than punny pejoratives. Quigley (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's not a pun. See that link to tell the difference.  It's not even a play on words, it's a straight-out statement that the "Great Leap Forward" is the opposite of what it says.  Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A semantic argument with you would be even less productive than a content argument. However, I did improve your "element" by noting that "Great Leap Backward" is a coinage by select publications, replacing your vague and unsupported assertion that this was a "widespread" name. It still is a POV statement to make in the lead, no matter how it is presented, and it should be removed. Quigley (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrific. I'm glad we could come to a consensus on the sentence.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, there is a consensus for removing the sentence, which you are filibustering. That I modified the wording of your sentence does not mean that I agree with its inclusion; I have been very clear in that regard. Quigley (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Then you're going to remove it?  And all five of the sources? Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You would probably revert it if I did. I would like to see a more permanent solution, the best scenario being that you graciously accede to consensus. Quigley (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't. Go ahead.  Delete away.  Five sources confirming.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did; I sure hope this wasn't a trap! :) Quigley (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the following language from WP:COMMONNAME, which was ignored in our previous debates about renaming the page as it is being ignored now in this current debate: "The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more common. For example, tsunami is preferred over the arguably more common, but less accurate tidal wave." It is not inaccurate to call the subject of this page the Great Leap Forward movement, for that was what that movement called itself. It is inaccurate to say there was a Great Leap Forward in China from 1958-1961. Everything I have tried to do on this page is an attempt to get the page to reflect that. I regret nothing I have done in that regard, and in retrospect, I should have found this part of WP:COMMONNAME earlier than I did, because it completely supports what I have been trying to do. Whoever surveys this talk page should take this particular part of the WP:COMMONNAME rule into consideration when making decisions about how content should be handled on this page. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are cherry picking the criteria from WP:COMMONNAME to make them fit your point of view. "Great Leap Forwards" certainly satisfies the Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness and perhaps even Consistency criteria. The particular example you've picked is a very subtle case that doesn't apply to the change you're trying to make. Tsunami - unlike "Great Leap Backward - IS a common name, it's just perhaps a bit less common than "tidal wave". What you're trying to do is different - you want to replace a common name with a non-common one. Laurent (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When we discussed this originally (look at the preserved discussion) I showed that "Great Leap Forward movement" is also quite common, in both English and Chinese. Also, I'm not cherry picking from the policy, this was buried so far down in the policy that I didn't even know it was there.  However, it is, in my opinion, the only part of that policy which avoids the problem we've otherwise been having here.  My question to you:  are you contesting that "Great Leap Forward" is inaccurate?  If so, where was this great leap forward - in what part of Chinese history was there such a leap? Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When GLF "movement" appeared, it did so not as a whole structure, such as "Great Leap Forward Movement", but as a description of the Great Leap Forward (small m). In other words, "the movement called the Great Leap Forward" says the same thing. People sometimes also say "Solidarity movement", but of course the name is just Solidarity. Zachary, you must realize that the argument has never been raised here that "Great Leap Forward", translated literally, is a good description of the events. However, it is the common and proper name for the event, used as such by historians. According to Article titles, a single common name for a subject can be non-neutral, like the Boston Massacre. "Tsunami" is a different case because the term has long fallen out of favor with the geologists and other professionals, who actively discourage it, and that is reflected in the literature. What you're trying to do on Wikipedia is to pre-empt the vast majority of secondary sources on which we rely, and introduce a new term (and later scrounge up sources that support your favorite neologisms). This kind of activism is a no-go. Quigley (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at what you've just typed. The link for Solidarity you've just included links to "Solidarity (Polish trade union)".  That's exactly the kind of title I think would clarify things here.  I would gladly accept "Great Leap Forward (CCP campaign)" or something along those lines as a rename for this page.  By the example you've just directed us to, the name of this page should have been changed. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note: Solidarity has that parenthetical explanation to disambiguate it from other Wikipedia pages.--Carwil (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note noted. There is also a Great Leap Forward disambiguation page.  The main page for Solidarity is a page describing what the word means (i.e., what sociologists would describe as a solidaristic relationship).  This page is the main page for Great Leap Forward despite the fact that it refers to a period in Chinese history during which no great leap forward took place. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that silly Great Leap Backward catchphrase is now gone. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you mean that you're glad that catchphrase is gone. If you meant that "silly" catchphrase is gone, this is a pretty obvious example of WP:UNCIVIL - baiting another editor and belittling his contributions. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the irony is intended, but right now you are doing precisely the wikilawyering about which you complain. The Sound and the Fury did not "belittle your contributions"; he was referencing the content; the phrase. Unless by this you let slip that the phrase you said was your own original contribution, and not the phrase that "historians and journalists have gone out of their way to use". Ruh-roh. Quigley (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I presume he will call Harvard political scientist Roderick MacFarquhar and University of Texas historian Huaiyin Li "silly", as their works both use the phrase, and as a serious and professional characterisation of the outcomes the "Great Leap Forward" led to, not as a "joke", a "pun" or even as a pejorative really. They meant that, in their professional opinion, the "Great Leap Forward" was literally the opposite of what those words mean.  I think anyone who takes a serious look at this exchange will know that it was an uncivil comment and that I am owed an apology. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Even those lofty academics could not use the term seriously. The only reason it appears in MacFarquhar's work is because he quoted a senior Chinese politician who used it, in the context of post-GLF assessments by the government (which by the way I expanded, but you removed because you thought it was —who owes whom an apology?). Li also uses it in quotes, treatment that distances the author from the term unlike Great Leap Forward, which appears repeatedly unquoted. They were obviously aware of the fact that this term is not part of the academic or common lexicon, and so made no comment about the naming of the GLF at all; only mentioning your phrase in passing. Quigley (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit used the phrase "capitalist roader" in the article. Capitalist roader is a Maoist jargon term (as is made clear on the Wikipedia page of that name).  I stand by that characterisation of your edit.  We did work out that particular issue, and now the article appropriately identifies Liu and Deng as people not on the same part of the political spectrum as Mao, but not "capitalists" (Deng self-identified as being in favour of a "socialism with Chinese characteristics").  Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Capitalist roader" was only a wikilink—article titles can be non-neutral as I pointed out before—and was entirely appropriate, because after all, I was chronicling the heated debates and purges of the CPC in the aftermath of the GLF. Demanding fidelity to self-identification with the jargon "socialism with Chinese characteristics" in the same edit shows a lack of consistency.


 * Perhaps more dangerous than being "Maoist", before that edit, the article misleadingly implied that the GLF is seen as disastrous only "outside of China", thereby perpetuating an ugly stereotype about an insular China. You repeat this canard in a watered-down form, pretending that you are fighting a tiny contingent of "Maoists" that have a positive view of this event. The Chinese government's assessment must have been an embarrassing revelation. Quigley (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening para
This comment was originally pasted on Talk:Great Leap Forward/to do - I moved it here.  Chzz  ► 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not all that well surrounded or trained for historical research, but I would like someone else to clarify the opening passage under the heading of The Great Leap Forward - The Great Leap Forward;

The Great Leap Forward was the name given to the Second Five Year Plan which was scheduled to run from 1958-1960, though the name is now generally limited to the first three years of this period.

I have been led to think the Great Leap lasted closer to the five years originally suggested. Also, how can there be a first three years of this period, which is only two years long? (Probably just a bit of confusion, 1958-1960 is three years long, 1958, 1959 AND 1960, even though it appears only two years) I'm pretty sure, however long it took for the policy to disolve, that 1960 is an innapropriate date for the purposes of this passage at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.19.67.42 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 May 2006

Russia
This comment was originally pasted on Talk:Great Leap Forward/comments - I moved it here.  Chzz  ► 15:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that it was saying that the plan was basically a modified version of the 5 years plan in Russia. It was known that china and Russian communism ran parallel with each other. I believe that was the message of the disputed sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.82.17 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 May 2008