Talk:History of the People's Republic of China (1949–1976)/Archive 1

Tibet
I noticed VERY little information in this article about the invasion of Tibet. This seems very strange to me and I was wondering if I was just blind or if this information has been omitted or moved for some reason? -Orionriver

On the conclusion
I removed this:

-- At the 2002 gathering celebrating the eightieth anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, President Jiang Zemin noted a distinction between two eighty year periods in Chinese history, celebrating his party’s modernizing aims. Jiang noted:

"In the first 80-year period, the feudal rulers surrendered the country's sovereign rights under humiliating terms. The whole society was thrown into utter  chaos caused by wars. The country became impoverished and weak and the  people lived in hunger and cold. In the second 80-year period, the Chinese  people, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, have got united and unprecedentedly organized, overcame numerous difficulties, and won one victory after another in their revolutionary struggle. Since the founding of New China the economy and society have developed rapidly; the country has become increasingly prosperous; the people's social  status, living standards and cultural and educational level have risen markedly. The comparison of the two periods of 80 years has made the Chinese people and all the patriotic forces of the Chinese nation fully aware that it is precisely the leadership of the Communist Party of China that has enabled the country to materialize the great historical transformation from the most miserable circumstances to a situation that promises a bright future. Without the Communist Party, there would have been no New China. With the Communist Party, China has put on an entirely new look."

--

We are not here to be the mouthpiece of communist regimes. The article takes a supportive stance of what Jiang says. While some of it is true, most of it is communist propaganda. Was there really a feudalistic society? And was it really the fault of these ''"feudalistic rulers"? Did the communist party bring more good than harm? So there was no starvation under the great leap forward? Was the cultural revolution "unprecedentedly organized"? God, why are we praising the Communist Party here?

The entire section is blatantly POV. It celebrates things from a CPC viewpoint. There is no mention of the growing disparity between rich and poor, the massive enemployment, improvrishment in the countryside as the economic boom has largely benefitted an urban middle class, etc. Any mention of political repression is also left out. I think the entire section ought to be removed if it is not NPOVed soon. --Jiang 22:48, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yep, remove it. It's a cheer squad for Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin.  --Robert Merkel 09:19, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

seconded Jiang's action. BTW, Jiang the wikipedian just removed the comments by the Jiang of POC. NPOV versus CCP, funny isn't it? kt2 23:00, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-- Great, the actions are "seconded" by Robert Merkel, whom I think has not contributed a damn thing to China articles. We have to take into consideration that this is a site dominated by Western contributors, with a minority of overseas Chinese contributors with connections to Hong Kong and the ROC. Thus, the natural equilibrium around here is slanted against the PRC. Despite this natural persuasion, a small group of expert contributors, who probably view the CPC unfavorably, have kept tight control over the China-related articles and maintained NPOV. Kt2, Jiang, and Roadrunner, among the best contributors to China-related articles, are all more than qualified to add content they feel is needed to the article. I suggest that content be added to the conclusions rather than outright attacking the entire article. Otherwise, there's a danger of users not well versed in contemporary China coming here and adding anti-PRC rants in droves. 172 09:29, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

In reply to 172, some simple points:


 * 1) The conclusion states one opinion (and, yes, it is an opinion I happen to dislike, but my response would be the same if it was an anti-PRC rant) of the shape of Chinese history and China's future.
 * 2) Wikipedia should not state opinions as facts.  It should report facts about opinions, including who holds them.
 * 3) You seem to know exactly what Chinese mainlanders think of their government and their country's future.  I know a number of Chinese mainlanders reasonably well, including both permanent emigrants and visitors from the country.  Even well away from their government they tend to be exceedingly reticent about expressing political views on anything.  So my personal experience does not tally with your certitude about one billion-odd Chinese viewpoints.
 * 4) The conclusion is highly speculative.  Speculation tends not to be a suitable topic for encyclopedia articles in any case, particularly on Wikipedia.

It is for those reasons I think the conclusion needs serious work, and why I think consideration should be given to excising the speculation completely.

Finally, it is a misinterpretation of Wikipedia ethos to write an article telling one side of the story, and let partisans for other sides of an issue fill in their views. Read the neutral point of view policy, specificially the bit about writing for the enemy. If you're going to write an article about a topic about which you know of viewpoints different to your own, please do your best to include them. --Robert Merkel 14:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- The only opinion in the concluding paragraphs is a quotation by Jiang Zemin from speech well-publicized in both the mainland and abroad. If you have something of value to add, then feel free to add it. Please, add some content. If not, please do not harass me with your personal opinions concerning the PRC. Other than the quotations, tell me what statistics and facts in the concluding paragraphs concerning life expectancy, poverty, disease, and growth are questionable. 172 14:11, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you think that this article is one-sided, take a look at a section that I personally added:


 * Despite the glowing statistics of growth, Zhu has been tackling deep-seated structural problems: uneven development; inefficient state firms and a banking system mired in bad loans. Observers think there are few substantial disagreements over economic policy in the CPC; tensions focus on the pace of change.


 * The PRC leadership is struggling to modernize state owned enterprises (SOEs) without state sector without inducing massive urban unemployment. As millions are losing their jobs as state firms close, Zhu has demanded financial safety nets for unemployed workers. It is a necessary aim in a country of 1.3 billion. China needs 100 million new urban jobs in the next five years to absorb laid off workers and rural migrants.


 * Deep-seated structural problems. Doesn't sound so one-sided, does it? 172 14:15, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No one is harassing you. You are free to leave this page alone. I'm not attacking the entire article--just the conclusion. I will try to add content as soon as I get to it. The problem with the conclusion is it has pro-PRC government comments all in one place. Such accomplishments must be qualified with the accomplishments of others (Japan, Germany, Asian Tigers, etc). We should avoid making the predictions that China will continue to grow so well and become so prosperous. Some 20 30 years ago, they were singing the same praise to Suharto in Indonesia. Who knows what will happen? And if you have kept the problems mentioned elsewhere, why not mention the accomplishments there too? --Jiang 19:09, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I wish this article could be developed without bickering and reversion. Whatever the dispute is, let's find a way of handling it, okay?

For example, if two Wikipedians were to disagree over the number of Chinese civilians murdered by the communist authorities during the 20th century, we could say, "Estimates of the number of people murdered range from 25 million to over 100 million. Source A said 25 million. Source B said 60 million. Source C said 105 million." --Uncle Ed 18:57, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The current edit war is over inserting the dispute warning. This situation obviously qualifies as a NPOV dispute. --Jiang 19:09, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, if even one Wikipedian disputes the neutrality of the article, then indeed "the neutrality of this article is disputed". I suggest we leave the "neutrality...disputed" thing in. What else? --Uncle Ed 19:13, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The conclusion is disputed, for reasons mentioned above. --Jiang

Before we proceed further, I think this article should be broken into two because it is too long. How's China under Mao and China after Mao? --Jiang 21:34, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * No comments? Okay, I'll proceed. --Jiang 22:57, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do we need "Conclusion"? Strange for encyclopedia.

wshun 21:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I will not object to the concluding paragraphs being removed. However, the content in them, which detail a number of important facts and statistics, has to be recycled and moved to relevant sections of the article. In other words, a reorganization is more appropriate than removing large chunks of text in a single edit. 172 22:55, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jiang: please wait before splitting the article. 172 23:06, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * why? --Jiang
 * I don't know if China under Mao and China after Mao is the best name. Perhaps it could be split between History of the PRC (1949-1976) and History of the PRC (1976-present), or perhaps it could be spilt into more than two articles, like the History of Brazil series, which includes an an summary on a single page. 172 23:30, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I proposed an entire History of China series at Talk:History of China but am not sure how it can be divided. I'm looking at how History of the Soviet Union is divided into two articles within the history of Russia series. I think we should go by your article titles. --Jiang 23:41, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Although I was the one to spit the Soviet history article, the response wasn't entirely favorable. 172 23:46, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * BTW, would you be interested in summarizing Wshun's additions and better weaving them into the rest of the text? 172 23:51, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article is longer than what is suggested so a split (somehow) is necessary. (There is more content I would like to add.) Yeah, I'll take a look at Wshun additions. --Jiang 00:44, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Anyone else? I would really like to see this split as soon as possible. --Jiang

Okay. If you insists putting the conclusion back, I made no objection then. wshun 23:54, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily insist that it stay, I just think that it would be best to recycle the content and move some of the sentences around rather than removing relevant facts. If you have a better organization in mind, please present it. 172 23:58, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Corruption and economic conflicts, media control, and Taiwan independence are ongoing issues, so they shouldnt be restricted under the third generation section. Other potential topics: environment, political reform, social disorder. Have two separate sections (rename conlusion with accomplishments and put the other sections under problems) or weave? --Jiang 00:50, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah. But pan-green coalition wins the election during the period of the third generation. wshun 17:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That was just one event in a larger conflict. The pan green coalition still controls the presidency. It still matters. --Jiang 20:04, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it doesn't matter. I just want to mention that the challenge of "one china policy" becomes mainstream during Jiang's area.  --wshun 20:19, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To be revised and restored:

The charges against mayor of Beijing Chen 陳希同 and a political star Zhu 朱小華(??) are examples.

Sometimes the investigations becomes difficult if it draws international attention, it is because the somehow negative image of the Chinese government in the West. Two examples are Yang Bin (楊斌), who had a Netherlands passport and was appointed as an Executive Officer by North Korea, and Lai 賴昌星, who is still in Canada.

But the worst of all is the frequent petitions of grassroots. The measures meant to protect the poor people are not worked efficiently, partly due to enforcement problems and the corruption of local officials. The number of people involves in petitions could be in thousands and those petitions could be changed into violence, leading to social unrest.

The number of people that died in the famine after the agricultural reforms 'Great Leap forward' is very significant when compared with other huge tragedies in the world - it would deserve to be added. The (non-english) sources I have mention about 20 million starved, but they likely are biased, and the accurate number would be greater probably.

intro
The article was 50kB (waay to long), so I split it. The page now looks barren. Does anyone want to write a general intro paragraph? --Jiang 23:30, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why's the PRC's flag here? Any special use? I believe that happened in History of United States, but it's removed. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 16:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It's there to occupy an almost blank page. I think flags are also at History of the Soviet Union and History of Brazil. --`Jiang 20:05, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * The series on the histories of Russia, Brazil, China, the US, and Germany have been my pet-projects of sorts. I removed the flags from the US series since, for some reason, I could not keep the series box, table of contents pop-up, and flag from floating over the text without removing the flags, but could keep the flags on the others. I'm inept with computers; so maybe someone else can give it a try. It was not a political statement or anything. 172 01:56, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I c. But i think the position is not good. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 01:41, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I gave up, it seems more ugly to be posed on the right or left. :p --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:09, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

- Would anyone be interested in making a footer for Chinese history like the one below? 172 03:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Death toll
172, what is wrong with the death toll estimate of 20 million? Why are you reverting that addition? --Jiang 00:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The estimates are with in a mind-blowing range of estimates (some are twice the 20 million figure, others are a small fraction of that figure). A reference to "millions" as opposed to an offering of a single estimate will be acceptable, though. 172 01:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mao's legacy
Does anyone think that this section goes a little easy on Mao for the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward? Considering the millions (at least) that died, this section is a little fawning. --Tom3 22:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Numbers, Numbers ...
I was checking some numbers and found absolutely no proof for the claim that the "life expectancy had increased to more than 70 years" at the time of Maos dead (1976). Internet sources show numbers 60-63 years - see for example the website of the United Nations development program:. Either somebody can show some statistic proving this number or the sentence should be changed to "more than 60 years"

Also the figure of "illiteracy had declined to less than seven per cent," is questionable at best, since according to UNICEF such a rate of literacy hasn't even been reached in 1990. Unless somebody can find some source for this figure the sentence should be deleted.

In addition I believe that Chinas support for North Koreas attack on South Korea should be mentionend on this page - afterall this was a war that killed more than two million people, at times putting ~400 000 chinese troops against an US-led United Nations force. North Koreas dictator is a part of Maos legacy.

The same is true for Chinas 1950 invasion of Tibet. The continuing occupation of Tibet and destruction of Tibetian culture is a part of Maos legacy.

Also Chinas attack on India in 1962 might be worth mentioning.

cu

vlacek

Mao
This article is far to nice (you can call it neutral, but confirming the holocaust isn't POV towards Hitler) to Mao Zedong. I especially dislike the quote: "From 1960 to 1961, the combination of poor planning during the Great Leap Forward and bad weather resulted in famine." Resulted in famine? Even the most conservative estimates indicate millions of deaths. Even the Great Leap Forward article agrees with this as the bottom estimate. I seem to remember changing this myself long ago, only to have minor edits (such as a single word change) reverted for no reason.--User:naryathegreat(t) 21:08, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Partial Rewrite
Although some stuff on here is well-written, there are certainly missing events that were crucial in PRC history ignored. The Korean War for one. Other events, such as SARS, take up as much space as the Cultural Revolution part. We can't put up a whole new section every time something new happens, the article will look fragmented and disorganized. I suggest the division of the series in the Mao Era, Deng Era and Modern Era. Colipon+(T) 07:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5000 yrs
5000 yrs of chinese history and we start with mao? that makes no sense.

This article is for PRC history, not Chinese history.--220.245.178.131 02:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

New Intro

 * In a political sense, the People's Republic of China had, for several decades, been known as the political entity that is often synonymous with Mainland China. Historically, the same name but implies the most recent of historical eras in Chinese history that was preceded by thousands of years of imperial dynasties and the Republic.

Is it just me, or does this make any sense? -Ajshm 09:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh... you're welcome to fix it. The older introduction wasn't very good. My version of the introduction was much to do with the way Chinese official history is grouped. Older parts of Chinese history often uses "X Dynasty". Republican history on the mainland is technically 1912-1949, while the whole period after that is considered part of the History of the People's Republic. In China, however, the two are often termed, somewhat confusingly, "Minguo Shi" and "Gongheguo Shi", which can both mean "Republican history". In China, the "history of the PRC" is much too tedious of a term to be used in history books. To avoid it being ambiguous, I added the explanation as a form of introduction, perhaps the way I meant it to sound wasn't as clear as it should have been. Colipon+(T) 19:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It is clear as you explain it, but not so clear from the intro itself. I understand the rest of it, it's only the first two sentences that are unclear to me. I would re-write it like this:


 * The People's Republic of China has, for several decades, been known as the political entity that is often synonymous with Mainland China. (As a historical term,) the history of the PRC implies the most recent of historical eras in Chinese history that were preceded by thousands of years of imperial dynasties and the Republic.

But then again, I am no expert. What do you think? -Ajshm 09:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll work on it. Colipon+(T) 04:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

splitting is ugly
Summary has a better solution than having 4 pages; we should work towards providing a single page, with subpages. It's feasible, can work, and we just need to split off parts of the articles into subarticles. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. This is so far the only I have seen that has employed this terrible technique. joturner 11:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge Request
Support Merge: This is simply not the way to split up large articles (see How to break up a page). joturner 11:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the table of contents on this page isn't a true table of contents. joturner 12:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

splitting is ugly
Summary has a better solution than having 4 pages; we should work towards providing a single page, with subpages. It's feasible, can work, and we just need to split off parts of the articles into subarticles. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 02:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. This is so far the only I have seen that has employed this terrible technique. joturner 11:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I move that a comprehensive article be written on the PRC's history, but the current four sections be kept in its entirety (similar to History of the United States series). The PRC's history is appropriately divided into Mao Era, Deng era, post-Tiananmen, and New Generation of leadership, thus the four-way split. Colipon+(T) 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Template
Template:History_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China I just made a template based on the History of Hong Kong template, and I'd like some input and improvements (specifically images) before being bold and replacing the lovely History of China template for the PRC history pages. -Easytoremember 07:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalization of this page
What's with the constant deletion of sourced material? 65.185.190.240 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't, either, understand why an experienced editor is edit-warring with an anon rather than discussing on talk.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it doesn't look like I'm dealing with an editor interested in discussing the subject on talk. I expect an unregistered user who inserts highly POV material in articles, accuses an expeirenced editor of "vandalization" (which is not even a word) in a page header, and makes rude edit summaries to get blocked eventually. The Chung citation does not belong in the section on land reform in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Chung's book is not in the mainstream body of professional historiography on Chinese land reform. 172 | Talk 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Chung is citing a speech made by Mao, I did not include her own description. If you have citations that better describe the executions, then present them. Here is a list of sources I found in less than two minutes. 65.185.190.240 20:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading one best seller and looking at a webpage does not make you a China expert. I see insuffient support for the claim that he was referring to land reform in the late 1940s and early 1950s. 172 | Talk 02:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she wasn't. It doesn't say so. It just says that was the number executed during that time period. I will clarify to say that it may include anyone, not just landowners. 65.185.190.240 00:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit still sounds partisan, lacking clarity and context. It is still unclear if he is using communist jargon to describe causalities stemming from civil strife (in other words the kind of political conflict that was also normal during the civil war years under Nationalist rule) or if he is referring to summary executions his political opponents. The sentence is written in a way to suggest that Mao was presiding over something like the Stalinist purges in his early years in power, which would be false. The period immediately following the revolution was not characterized by nearly as much repression as the period between the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. 172 | Talk 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The source definitely says "executions", I will clarify that. Since the figure of one million would mean that 1/550 people died, it wouldn't be proportional to the millions killed in the Soviet Purge. It's probably more comparable to the Red Terror. The figure is corroborated by numerous sourced on the cite above.65.185.190.240 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source comparing the early years of PRC rule in China to the Red Terror? I'm a professional historian, and I'm unfamiliar with the comparision. Further, assuming Chung is your sole source, I hope you do understand how insisting that an article be written from such a controversial, strong point of view goes against Wikipedia's principle of NPOV. 172 | Talk 03:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Chung is not the sole source. For the 100th time, she is is quoting Mao. I hope Mao isn't too controversial for this article. 65.185.190.240 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Chung is the choice for the translation, interpretation, and what is meant by "this period." Do not reinsert the sentence unless you can elaborate on what it means and offer other sources. 172 | Talk 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what it means. It means the consolidation period, the rural and urban purges of 1949-56. Do you have a source that puts the death toll less than 500,000? Do you have a source that states no one was killed in the so-called "social reformation"? Do you believe that Mao did not execute hundreds of thousands in 1949-53? Chang did not specify "this period", but the 700,000 figure is provided in the Chapter which references the period from 1949 to 1953. The "campaign to suppress counter-revolutionaries" formally began in October 1950, and Chung states that it lasted one year, killing 3 million. Next to that, an asterick references Mao's statement of 700,000, although Mao is not directly quoted. Perhaps Chang is deliberately mis-interpreting Mao. However, the burden is on you to prove that she has done so, not me to prove it is accurate. As for providing additional sources, I have already done so above.65.185.190.240 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The burden is not on me to prove that she has done so. A higher burden of proof is required for inserting material, which is what you are doing, than not inserting material, which is what I am doing. It is better not to upload material at all than to upload it when we are not absolutely certain of its balanace and veracity. 172 | Talk 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. 65.185.190.240 20:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Historians disagree with each other all the time. So while a particular claim of a particular author is "verifiable," presenting it is the final word on the subject is a violation of NPOV. I believe your claim that you got the figure from Chung. I am still not convinced that Chung's interpretation of the comment is the only possible interepretation, as the claim is quite a grotesque thing for any politician-- even Mao-- to admit. 172 | Talk 03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you have different figures please add them. There are tons of sources in my citation above that corroborate that sort of death toll. As for your thoughts about how Mao could admit to that, I would suspect that it was disclosed to the Communist Party and not made public at the time. 65.185.190.240 01:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I would suspect" -- that's the problem. If you are posting something in an encylopedia, you must be certain about it. Just stumbling across it in a best seller like Chung's book, and thinking it sounds interesting, is not a reason to keep inserting it in an encyclopedia article over and over again, day after day, without any regard for the reservations of the main author of the article and a very experienced editor. 172 | Talk 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I respect the author more than you. This is particularly outrageous since that is the only thing sourced on the article. People with no expertise whatsoever (like Chomsky and Blum) get sourced all the time--why not this person? Are you trying to say we can't source anything from a controversial book? Would you be happy if I gave you the cite Chang used instead so you can look it up yourself? 65.185.190.240 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Chang is much too biased to be respected in literary circles after the writing of Mao: the Unknown story. I read about 40 pages and put it down. Everything seemed to deamonize Mao.

Chang and Halliday don't know what they're talking about. Stop sourcing them. Colipon+(T) 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of corse they are biased. But they researched the matter, and thus I respect their book a hell of a lot more than your opinion. 65.185.190.240 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I agree. my opinion sucks.


 * At the same time, I'd like to recommend that you read some reviews on the book (hell, just do a search on Google). Most historians with credentials (Chinese & western alike) consider the book to be an unfair protrayal of Mao. Colipon+(T) 05:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% that it is unfair. At the same time, it is stating a specific number that was specifically mentioned by Mao, and that can't be discounted just because the authors citing it are anti-Mao. 65.185.190.240 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Without resorting to more hostility or any preliminary judgments, could you provide the exact quote as it's written from the book? I am but curious. Colipon+(T) 00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: ''No offense, but I respect the author more than you. This is particularly outrageous since that is the only thing sourced on the article. People with no expertise whatsoever (like Chomsky and Blum) get sourced all the time--why not this person? Are you trying to say we can't source anything from a controversial book? Would you be happy if I gave you the cite Chang used instead so you can look it up yourself? 65.185.190.240 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)'' 65.185.190.240, you are correct; authors "with no expertise whatsoever (like Chomsky and Blum) get sourced all the time" on Wikipedia. So, why not this person? Regardless of the poor quality of many Wikipedia articles, we should try to produce something better. I have removed citations of Blum and Chomsky many times in articles on my watchlist. I expect to do the same many times again in the future. Wikipedia should rely on historians with credentials published in reputable academic journals or presses. Just because many editors consider it acceptable to use poor sources does not make it is not acceptable to use poor sources. 172 | Talk 18:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 172, I have provided numerous sources apart from Chang that corroborate the fact that hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the 1949-1953 period. This crime of Maoism will not be erased from history, unless you are able to cite historical assessments which refute the charges. 65.185.190.240 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If what you have in mind is not being written into history in this article, it's because you need to learn to clarify your writing here. Insert better sources than this webpage (much worse than Chung) and be more specific. Which specific campaigns are you talking about? What about those campaigns led to the number of deaths you cited? 172 | Talk 01:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "land reform" period after Mao took over when landlords and anyone else Mao didn't like were executed for crimes they supposedly comitted and their lands nationalized. C'mon 172, this is common knowledge. I have provided a link to nine sources, I don't know what more you need. 65.185.190.240 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me say this much. Mao is controversial. Your viewpoint is obviously slanted towards Mao's negative side. I added in the pieces about what occurred with Land Reform, etc, before you inserted the bits on how many were killed by "maoist crimes". Notice that I am trying to provide NPOV here by not specifically linking what happened to Mao's decisions alone. You, by the IP of 65.185etc., like Chang and Halliday, and many other sources, feel the urgent need to prove that Maoism was not morally sound and brought catastrophic economic failure, as most would like you to believe in the west. Chang and Halliday simply perpetuate this misinformed notion. My great-grandfather died in prison after being labelled a counter-revolutionary, and my family has, for decades, felt great animosity towards Mao's policies. But unlike Chang and Halliday, we are willing to look at Mao from an objective point of view.

You say Mao and Maoism is just bad. I say he is controversial. Done. Colipon+(T) 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't care what you think. 65.185.190.240 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Cauz you don't have any more valid arguments to make. Colipon+(T) 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Purge vs. Kill
Is there a difference? It seems like the term purge is just trying to skirt the issue, almost to the point of being a euphemism. -Easytoremember 09:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See, purge is the act of subjecting someone to unequal treatment, usually an act of demotion, which may incorporate bodily injury and perhaps, death. Killing, however, stipulates murder. Mao's decision was to purge elements of society, not to murder individuals. That distinction must be made clear. Colipon+(T) 00:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The intention of Mao's decision is 1) impossible to prove, 2) irrelevant. It is like saying that Hitler intention was to solve the jewish problem not to killed 6 million in concentrations camps. kill is more factual. 83.229.21.4


 * "Purge" implies killing (among other things), so it's not letting him get away with anything. "Purge" as I understand it involves the effects (sp?) of an action as well as its intentions, so whether or not Mao intended anything is beside the point. In effect, he purged groups of people. Besides, purge sounds more political. 67.101.101.21 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deng's reputation
I suppose it is inappropriate and inaccurate to claim that "Although standards of living improved significantly in the 1980s, Deng's reforms were widely criticized". He and his work is rarely criticized by the Chinese, and is in fact highly appreciated and respected in a genuine manner. - Lavender 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, when Deng died in 1997, many people wanted to go out and celebrate. I'm not saying I myself am critical of Deng's policies, but that is case, just so you know. Colipon+(T) 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a Chinese, I have never heard of the thing you mentioned. Did I live in a different China? Sinolonghai 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Different friends, perhaps. I was living in beijing at the time, lots of bei da friends, and many of them did not like deng *at all*. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

First five-year plan
The article missed the first five-year plan, which is very important for China's industrial development. It is from 1953-1957. If my memory is correct, Soviet provided ~10000 experts for technical assistance, and 156 projects were built with the helps from Russia. This five-year plan focused on the heavy industry and laid a very solid foundation for further industry development. The success of this plan had another serious outcome -- Mao was encouraged so much that he initialized the Great Leap one year later. Someone should add it to the article (I will worked on it if I have time). Sinolonghai 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Added. Add more if you feel it is appropriate. Colipon+(T) 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First generation leaders.JPG
Image:First generation leaders.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —  Κ aiba 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the People's Republic of China (1949–76). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425051946/http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/07/425/0742540545ch1.pdf to http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/07/425/0742540545ch1.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of the Chinese Communist Party (Pre-1996).svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * PRCFounding.jpg