Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 1

Excerpts
The three paragraphs quoted from the book seem to serve no particular purpose. I can understand quoting from, say, Gadsby (novel), since it is both lipogramtical and public domain, but why Mao: The Unknown Story?

The Exile
I have re-edited the reviews to only include serious British broadsheets, from a range of political stances. That should do for now. I am not happy having the Exile review, as it is gravely flawed and biased:


 * Bases the interest in the book on a Tory conspiracy to cover-up for the Empire (WTF??)
 * Completely ignores the fact the book isn't published in the US and so there are only pre-orders on amazon.com
 * Completely ignores the fact that the Guardian, Roy H. et al like the book as well. Having a group of people on opposite ends of the political spectrum rather blows holes in his conspiracy theory.

But more importantly, this publication is a complete joke. What is it? Some weird sort of internet journal. What do the authors get for their work? The smug self-satisfaction that they're not writing for a blog? It is also exceptionally reactionary - anti-American, anti-Orange Ukrainian, anti-Catholic and anti-conservative for one thing. I'm sure it's anti a lot more.

Pasting links to such a heavily biased publication would lower the reputation of wiki. Next thing is we'll have people on the other side pasting links to the Epoch Times. Let's not go down that road, please.


 * Lao Wai, do we really have to bring in such trash? It's pure bullshit and really lowers the tone of discussion. Go and read some of their other artiles and ask yourself if wiki should be associating itself with such rubbish. Jesus, they drew a mocking little stick picture of Pope JP-II. How sad is that?


 * I am not interested in their other articles, nor am I providing a link to them. Just this one and it is a fairly well thought out review (apart from the Empire stuff, which I tend to find amusing).  Not that he said it was a cover up just that people like it for that reason.  It doesn't really blow holes in his theory, it just means that the people who used to defend Mao, the Guardian, Roy H, et al, no longer have the courage to do so.  It is a much better thought out review than Roy H.'s or the Trinidad one (I just admire GD as an author - this review, like most of them, was just lazy). Reactionary?  Anti-American?  Anti-Catholic?  Anti-Conservative?  Come on now.  Sounds like the Guardian to me. Lao Wai 15:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The Guardian doesn't draw offensive pictures of a dead Pope, or pretend to link to a book on amazon.com, but really link to a book called "bullshit". It's a joke of a publication. As I said before, do you think we should link to the Epoch Times? John Smith's 15:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, I know a lot of "left-wing" people who would be very angry about your implication that the only reason they don't support Mao is because they lack courage. If you dared to suggest that to Roy H he'd give you a right earful. John Smith's 15:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I couldn't help but quote this little gem to illustrate my point about how trasy this publication is: Jung and her shadowy co-author. "Shadowy"? What's "shadowy" about him? It's just a simple ploy to try to rubbish the book by discrediting the co-author - who Mr Dolan has failed to mention is a historian. It's as if Halliday's some dodgy MI5 agent. John Smith's 16:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am the one who originally edited in the article from the eXile. I'll defend this now.

"Bases the interest in the book on a Tory conspiracy to cover-up for the Empire (WTF??) Completely ignores the fact the book isn't published in the US and so there are only pre-orders on amazon.com Completely ignores the fact that the Guardian, Roy H. et al like the book as well. Having a group of people on opposite ends of the political spectrum rather blows holes in his conspiracy theory."

Indeed, the part about the Tory "conspiracy" is not to be taken seriously. It's not so much a serious conspiracy theory, but rather a wild guess as to the book's popularity in the UK. It may be a weird accusation, but does that justify its deletion, while the other external links can stay? Let's click them!

As can be seen, literally every single external link besides "Too much hate, too little understanding" is not so much a review of Mao, but rather a repeat of the main arguments of this book. All are dedicated to describing Mao Zedong as a "monster" and the book as "terrible proof that absolute evil can sometimes triumph". So let me get this straight: a critical review isn't allowed because it's from an "alternative" source, but reviews which are for 90% anti-Maoist agenda-pushing or interviewing Chang and Halliday are fine and dandy?

"But more importantly, this publication is a complete joke. What is it? Some weird sort of internet journal. What do the authors get for their work? The smug self-satisfaction that they're not writing for a blog? It is also exceptionally reactionary - anti-American, anti-Orange Ukrainian, anti-Catholic and anti-conservative for one thing. I'm sure it's anti a lot more."

The Guardian, The Observer, the Trinidad and Tobago Express and The Times(or at least their "reviews" of Mao: The Unknown Story) are anti-Mao, anti-communist, anti-socialist for one thing and anti a lot more. OMG DELETE!1!1 Articles and columns in the eXile range from quite good(War Nerd, John Dolan) to bullshit(Eduard Limonov, the fact that there's a logo of the National Bolshevik Party in the footer). What matters though is the review of Mao we're talking about. And that review is equalled in constructiveness by none of the others linked by this article except for the one in The Independent.

"Pasting links to such a heavily biased publication would lower the reputation of wiki. Next thing is we'll have people on the other side pasting links to the Epoch Times. Let's not go down that road, please.

Lao Wai, do we really have to bring in such trash? It's pure bullshit and really lowers the tone of discussion. Go and read some of their other artiles and ask yourself if wiki should be associating itself with such rubbish. Jesus, they drew a mocking little stick picture of Pope JP-II. How sad is that?"

Lots of articles link to criticisms by The Best Page in the Universe. While I personally love this site, I will still be the first to say that THAT is a site which can be regarded as bullshit by some. Which reminds me, WHAT exactly is "pure bullshit" in your eyes? The review of Mao? Really? As opposed to the "Long March to Evil" review that for 90% consists of jumping on the "MAO WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 70 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED, THEREFORE HE IS PURE EVIL!!!!" bandwagon? Or do you mean the eXile as a whole? As said, Wikipedia has linked to worse. Take Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly for example. I'd bet my computer that at least some articles about American politics link to them, even though I'd call their material reactionary bullshit moreso than the eXile.

"Oh, and I couldn't help but quote this little gem to illustrate my point about how trasy this publication is: Jung and her shadowy co-author. "Shadowy"? What's "shadowy" about him? It's just a simple ploy to try to rubbish the book by discrediting the co-author - who Mr Dolan has failed to mention is a historian. It's as if Halliday's some dodgy MI5 agent."

Once again, the same weirdness. So Dolan's review(or the eXile, I'm not quite sure) is trashy because it calls Halliday "shadowy", and that is grounds to not link to the article, but the other reviews are perfectly permitted to stay even though they do all but call Mao a monstrous baby-eating devil? Is there a psychiatrist in the room? Eyeflash 17:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a slight problem with your attitude towards the English newspapers. All bar the Times are PRO-Socialist or left-wing. Roy H. is one of the left's fiercest supporters. Why would they instinctively be anti-Mao? Or does Mao have no friends on the political spectrum bar the ultra-far right wing?
 * The problem with the Exile review is two of the main points, as I have shown, are irrelevant. Now if you want to argue that wiki regularly links to crap, then fine. But I thought we weren't about linking to websites that make line-drawing, mocking pictures of a dead Pope, or pretending to host links to adverts for a book but then redirect you to a book about "bullshit". That indicates to me that they're childish and not professional. If we also put in reviews from places like the Epoch Times, then I can just imagine a stream of Chinese nationalists coming in here and saying OMG HOW CAN YOU POST INFORMATION FROM SUCH A BIASED NEWSPAPER? YOU ARE JUST A CHINA BASHER!!!! If there are articles by really outrageous people, then why not go delete them. I don't see why we have to draw the whole of wiki down to the level of a few bad eggs.
 * I don't think the article is designed to be funny - the author is acting superior. For one thing, why does it matter if Tories like it? Perhaps they know what good books are and have better taste than him. He's using the "Tories are evil so don't trust them" format to rubbish the book.
 * There are some interesting points in there, which incidentily are not easily verified. How does he know then the KGB was set up - was he involved in the process of starting it up? Perhaps the KGB told the truth about when it was set up and no more.
 * I'd also like to point out that I had no problems whatsoever with the Independent article being put in. I didn't put any of the reviews in any of the Jung Chang-related articles. But I don't know what you want them to say. You seem to be annoyed that they don't criticise the book. The Exile doesn't have one GOOD thing to say. He just dismissively says "she's an excellent story teller".
 * You say more than once that these papers are jumping on an anti-Mao bandwagon. Then why can't you find any real publications that criticise the book. We have the Sunday Independent and..... no one else? Not one other real newspaper? Why is that? Is the world's media in the grip of the Zionist conspiracy again? Well, what's your personal opinion of him. Obviously you wouldn't say 70% good, 30% bad. But just out of curiosity, how would you rate him? John Smith's 20:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also the Exile review does not actually drop any massive bombshells on the book. It just makes a few small points and then whinges about the overall style of the book. It is not anymore helpful than the others, because it seeks to find flaws in the book without ever trying to look at the whole. John Smith's 21:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well there is nothing like seeing Exile's supporters to make me sympathise with you, but actually the review is pretty good from a professional point of view. Only the Indie's guy shows any real signs of having actually read the book out of the ones we have so far.  Pretty much all the rest do not give any particular insight into it nor show any signs of reading much beyond the press releases.  The Exile's guy certainly read it and makes a few good points.  Pointing out that her silly claims about the Long March being easy is contradicted by her claims about Mao's treatment of his then wife is pretty good actually.  As for mocking the Pope, well, the Guardian did worse in its time.  Certainly as long as Mao was alive the G didn't print anything critical - look at their Obit for him.  Admittedly the Exile looks to be crap magazine, but again we are only pointing to a single review.  As for real publications criticising the book, Mao is dead, Communism has disppeared from China, most of Mao's friends have changed their tune.  That only leaves real historians and her publishers, as I mentioned, show signs of trying to keep the book away from them - I know one China historian who was "un-invited" to one of her talks and replaced by a literary editor of the local paper.  You will notice that none of the major newsheets except the IoS has given the book to anyone who might be called competent in the field. Lao Wai 10:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I said it before, I don't know how this is so "useful" when it doesn't do anything to really challenge the book. It is no more objective than the others because he's looking for reasons to criticise it. Now the Independent actually made some serious points in a well thought out, mature way. But if you want to put this in, I can't be bothered to stop you. John Smith's 16:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Evil"
"Evil" is not an NPOV word. The NPOV approach is to describe the deeds, and let the reader make up their own mind: we assume our readers are capable of understanding good and evil by themselves. See, for example, the articles on Hitler and the Khmer Rouge to see how this works. We can, however, use the word if it is part of an attributed quote.-- The Anome 17:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
Ok, I cut a lot of that stuff out for a few reasons. I'm not saying it can't go in, just that I think we need to make it more professional. If you look at Iris Chang and Rape of Nanking, you'll see that the article is much more simple. What I don't want to see is a huge article. Let's keep it compact and not try to debate the book ourselves.


 * First, don't have long quotes like that. Perhaps the newspaper reviews need to be cut down as well, but it would be better to cut them a bit, rather than have such a long quote. But the essence is still there.
 * Second, I've removed anything that had SOME PEOPLE SAY. Let's keep this to X says. So find some names of Chinese critics and perhaps some Chinese supporters as well. References as well. I'm sure SOME Chinese people claim the book is damaging modern China. Probably the same people who call criticism of the CCP by foreigners racism.
 * Third, Chang's account of Luding Bridge has not been contradicted by any veterans' diaries. Because they were all published before. No one has actually come forward yet and directly contradicted the evidence she's put forward. Also it is debateable as to whether it matters if someone is the first to discover something. There's always someone who has to challenge the status quo.
 * Fourth, historians are not trained as you might think and then given a certificate of "historical research". To go through the system means to have to pick some things up, but a historian is someone who researches and/or studies history. So the fact she doesn't have a history degree isn't relevant.
 * Fifth, the CCP has been criticised by other people, I believe, for its activities during the war or lack thereof. If Joseph Stilwell said the Communists were efficient, that doesn't mean they did much fighting. Can we please have a quote, source, etc where he says they did a lot of fighting?
 * Sixth, Mao was great friends with Stalin, even if he was annoyed with him for taking the factories. In any case that happened AFTER the war. They were very close during it.

I really think we should make this a compact section. If however people want to look at the book in-depth, then perhaps we should do just that. Make it an integrated article. We can look at one issue, say "oh that's odd because x says that never happened" and then possibly say what the book has to offer. But as I said, please don't post annonymous comments. This book is banned in China, so how could any PRC academics even read it? Also I have a fair question. Short is in the PRC as well, so where did he get his copy of the book from? Or did he just attack it because it was "one-sided"? John Smith's 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, another edit. What's exactly the problem with what she said about the Korean War? Are people objecting because she used that phrase. The PLA did use numerical superiority to overwhelm the UN taskforce. They did not have good weapons - the reason they were slowed down was that they had virtually no mechnised equipment to get their supplies moved up to the front. John Smith's 09:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell she has no evidence for her claims on the Luding bridge apart from an interview with an old woman who claims to have seen the whole thing. So that does kind of contradict all those other accounts.  And actually historians are trained and given a certificate of historical research.  Usually an undergraduate degree but sometimes a little bit more than that.  All history course include training in what real history is (and is not), what historians can (and cannot or should not) do.  This is why David Irving gets so much stick.  In none but the loosest sense is a historian merely someone who researches or studies history.  It is a profession and it takes skills.  The fact that I have fixed a dripping tap doesn't make me a plumber.  The CCP has not been criticised, as far as I know, for lack of activity during the war except by some ROC historians.  And Paul Johnson.  It is the GMD that has a better and improving press rather than the PLA going down.  The evidence that Stilwell thought highly of the CCP is very strong and easily available.  You only have to look at the distribution of Japanese soldiers to see what the CCP was doing.  Mao was never friends with Stalin.  He never met the man until after the war.  They were not close - Stalin supported Mao's rivals.  It is not hard for PRC people to read the book.  They go to Hong Kong.  They buy one.  They go out on the street and buy one from a vendor.  Harry Potter was out in China three months before it was published there.  In Chinese.  Come on now, her views on the "human wave" myth is laughable.  And she cites that well known military expert Michael Caine.  This is silly. Lao Wai 20:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I listed her evidence on the Luding Bridge talk page. Go read it yourself - it includes Nationalist battleplans that show there weren't actually any troops deployed at the bridge at the time. So how could there have been a battle?

Yes, historians can be trained. But "historian" just means a student of history. Iris Chang is called a historian on her page and people don't bitch on her articles about how she didn't have a history degree.

Harry Potter was out in China in a dodgy, inaccurate translation - it had Gandalf and characters from other fantasy books in it. If that's what Chinese people have access to, then I don't think they're going to get an accurate perception of Chang's arguments. Also I doubt many academics have the money to just fly to Hong Kong to buy a book. In any case, as I have said I still haven't heard what these mysterious Chinese academics have to say or who they are.

I'm not sure whether Mao and Stalin were friends, but Mao admired Stalinism.

What human wave myth? So you're saying the PLA drove back an American-led UN taskforce with their superior technology? Because they were super-human ideal Communists? It had nothing to do with the fact they had numerical superiority? You can criticise her language if you want, but that's all. John Smith's 13:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to noted, the 'Harry Potter' you mentioned was actually Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon which is a pirated copy. To say that this is the translation of a real Harry Potter books shows how little you know of modern Chinese society.--211.30.251.187 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about me? I know it was a pirated book. LaoWai was implying that China's piracy allows it to get accurate translations quickly. The real translation was not out as early as he/she implied it was. John Smith's 12:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read the Luding bridge talk page. How does it contradict anything I have said? If anything it reinforces the fact she is more or less alone on this? Personally I do think it is one of her saner comments, but of course the vast majority of diaries contradict her account. You are using that word in an interesting way. Nor am I convinced by the Nationalist battle plans - you are only relying on her word for it, not on copies of the plans themselves. The GMD was not the best organised in the world and so it is unlikely their battles were well documented. But as I said, it is one of her saner comments. There have been a lot of doubts expressed about the Luding bridge incident before.

Actually a lot of people bitch about Iris Chang and her lack of basic historical skills (or in my opinion professionalism). I am surprised you missed that on her talk page or on the Rape of Nanjing page because they have archives of the stuff. She is not a good historian and for very similar reasons to Halliday and Chang - they all made their mind up before coming across any evidence, they all reduce complex issues to simplistic black and white kindergarden history, they do not use their sources appropriately. Although the late Iris Chang was better at the mundane stuff like footnoting. They both share a common approach to over-hyping their work as well but that is probably their publishers.

I have not read either the Chinese or the English version of HP so I cannot comment on the quality of the translation. I did like Bill Clinton's biography when translated into Chinese. The things I never even suspected! It hardly matters what the translation is like. The point is that China in 2005 is not like China in 1965. The Party cannot control what people read any more. For many Chinese it is not a matter of flying down to Hong Kong but walking across the border (if they live in the south), or catching a train. Academics are poorly paid in China but not that poor paid. And again there is nothing to stop someone getting a real Chinese language version published in Taiwan or HK. If C&H had anything to say you really think it is impossible for a group of historians to get together and send someone to HK or Taiwan? I have never made any comment on what Chinese historians do or do not say. I'd like to know what Chen Yongfa (a Taiwanese historian) has to say.

Mao was a Stalinist to a certain extent. In fact he did not much care for Stalinist economics although that did not make him a moderate. So what? He still wasn't a friend of Stalin.

There is ample documentation on the way the PLA fought and, no, of course I am not saying they drove back the Americans with superior technology - that was childish of you. What they did do was learn the lessons of their guerilla campaign, so they moved light and off the main roads, they always tried to surprise and flank, they travelled at night where possible and moved as fast as they could. The Americans were surprised at that and tried thereafter to avoid any direct fighting where possible. The Human Wave is well established as a myth. C&H do not do anyone any service by trying to resurrect it. I am not that interested in her language so much as pretty much everything else she does. It is polemic, it is not history. Lao Wai 08:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Right so if these Chinese academics do have access to her book, why haven't we heard a peep from them? I have consistently asked for names of Chinese academics who criticise her. So why don't you have any for me?
 * I KNOW that people bitched about Iris Chang on the TALK page - but not on her main articles. The articles don't list criticism after criticism - they just inform about the work rather than pass judgement on it. If you're so determined to have criticism of Chang and Halliday published in detail and you think Iris Chang is bad as well, why aren't you going there and trying to do the same to her articles? You said the Mao Zedong article was biased - and you haven't done anything about that. Practice what you preach - why not go sort those articles out first and show me you just haven't got a chip on your shoulder about Jung Chang (as is evident from your continued assertions that her family has bent in the wind whenever it had to). John Smith's 12:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. I have not looked for comments from any ethnic Chinese historians. Nor do I see a need to do so. I am not sure why you have such a fixation on it. Actually they do pass judgement on it in a mild sort of sense. Of course IC's fans outnumber her detractors by a good few thousand or so, so of course the article is fairly positive. I have only so many hours in the day and the Rape of Nanjing is not a subject I care to get involved in. I am not out for criticism - I am for balance. You seem to want to make this a puff piece for the book. You have been accused of having a thing for Chang. I doubt that. I have pointed out how your quotes are very similar to her quotes and to some of her press releases. I have said the Mao article is biased and I have made a few changes. None lately. Again there are only so many hours in the day. It is clear that her family has been very flexible. That is not a chip on my shoulder so much as a statement of the obvious. Your "practising what I preach" is childish again. This article ought to present a balance overview of her book. It is getting better but it is not good. It is still basically an advert for the book. Perhaps you might like to tell us all where you work? Lao Wai 13:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, for someone who accuses me of being childish, you're not exactly being mature yourself. As I have said many a time, I have not written this article. If you think the author of the article works for her publishers, I suggest you check the edit log before making petty comments. Without giving you my street address, real name, etc I can put my hand on my heart and say that I do not work for Jung Chang, her publishers or anyone else that has an interest with her. Ok?

Right, well I think the new version of the "criticism" section is both tidier and has much better grammar, while still being more even-handed. John Smith's 12:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Luding Bridge incident has been directly challenged by The Age Newspaper, Melbourne, in [|this article].


 * Ross, you need to put such information in the ARTICLE. I've done it this time, but please can you put it in yourself next time? It's not very helpful if you don't cite references. John Smith's 20:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a blog
While we are not short of white space for either the article or this talk page; please be aware this is the talk page to discuss an article. And the article is about a book. The book is about Mao, not this talk page or its article. And quoted opinions count, not ours. Further, cutting quotes short is censorship. I hope everyone thinks, "I knew THAT!" 4.250.198.151 13:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Cutting quotes is not censorship. For a start they are owned and it is wrong to post them without the copyright-holder's permission.  Lao Wai 13:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Many sources but no scholarship
She never questions a source that says something bad about Mao. She never mentions any anti-Mao story that she regarded as unproven or unlikely.

The much-quoted figure of 70 million deaths is never actually explained.

China's economy tripled under Mao, after having stagnated for centuries. Critics of Mao mostly avoid specific figures about the GNP, because the net results do justify his ruthlessness.

She denies the role of the Red Army in chewing up the Japanese lines of communication during their invasion of China. It's hard to find another history of China that thinks that. The USA noted their effectiveness compared to Nationalist inefficiency.

She claims that Mao won the Chinese Civil War because of Soviet help. Most historians dispute even if the Soviets wanted Mao to win.

She blames Mao for accepting Outer Mongolia as independence, though it had established a modern state on purely Mongolian territory. She also blames Mao for asserting that Tibet was part of China, which is unambiguously the case under International Law, and which the Dalai Lama accepted.

'Blame Mao' is her only coherent rule.

Her claims of tens of millions of dead in the famine years is based on comparing the death rate in the worst years of Mao's rule to the best. If you compare the average death-rate under Mao with the average death rate under the Nationalists, this suggests maybe 100 million less deaths than if the old system had continued.

She denies there were natural disasters, but does not mention numerous sources that claim specific natural disasters at specific times and place. Nor does she mention the role of the USA in discouraging trade and stopping China getting credit for food imports (which were considerable).

Regarding the Sino-Indian War, she talks as if Mao wilfully ignored an agreed colonial boundary. You can find from the Wikipedia etc. that the McMahon Line had been rejected by all Chinese governments. The immediate cause of the war was Indian anger at the Chinese building a road across the Askai Chin, land they claimed as part of Kashmir. It was anyway next to Pakistani Kashmir, and Pakistan readily agreed to the Chinese definition of the border.

Mao was married three times. She counts four, including Mao's father's attempt at an arranged marriage. If there is no sex and no agreement, it could not possibly count as a marriage.

She's the grandchild of a warlord and the great-grandchild of a police chief serving a corrupt government. And it seems she's gone back to her roots

Gwydion M Williams--172.216.27.87 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Original research
I have come across a number of factual errors in this book but am unsure of how to edit them in in accordance with with Wikipedia's customs. P. 327 says "land redistribution was not the main aspect of Mao's land reform. The part that really mattered was...'struggle against the landlords,'.which in reality meant violence against the relatively better off. (In China, unlike pre-communist Russia, there were very few large landowners.)" yet it is established fact that landlords constituted about 4% of the population and owned 39% of land prior to reform.

Would it be appropriate to state it as a fact in the article (provided there are citations)? It would seem like a better idea to say something along the lines of "Chris Bramall has reported that..." but all of the sources I know of for these figures were published prior to this book and one of the people in the criticism section said that certain material couldn't contradict her work "Because they were all published before." This seems like a clearly incorrect assertion, but is it some wikipedia custom?

By the way, my sources ("Mao: The Unknown Story" gives no source for their statement) for the statement on the extent of landlordism prior to land reform are Joseph Esherick'"Number Games," Modern China, 7.4 (October 1981) and  Chris Bramall, "Living standards in pre-war Japan and Maoist China" Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21. (1997):556-557. Bramall's article cites Esherick and also includes a provincial breakdown based on other more recent sources.

Furthermore, the land reforms only marginally reduced the income and property of rich peasants (not landlords) who generally had incomes baout 1.5 times the average. This data as well as statements from Mao and others on the need to not take from the rich peasants can be found in Chris Bramall "Chinese Land Reform in Long run Perspective" Journal of Agrarian Change, 4.1. (2004)

Is it okay to put this in the criticisms section, because I am unaware of anyone (other than myself, and I haven't published my disagreements anywhere) calling C&H on this issue?

Also, the statement "it has also been argued that average Chinese death rates dropped during Mao's rule" needs to be changed. No one "argues" that average Chinese death rates dropped during Mao's rule. That they did is a well known and indisputable fact. Official census data gives the death rate (per thousand) at 20 in 1949, 17 in 1952,9.5 in 1965 and 6.3 in 1978.

What is argued is whether or not Mao's policy were the cause of the decline in mortlaity. Since one of the people in the discussion page says that the people who argue something should be named, I think it should probably changed to say "Judith Banister, among others, has argued that Mao's policies caused the significant decline in mortality rates during his rule." I chose Banister because she is well respected and cited both by those sympathetic and hostile (such as Jasper Becker) to Mao. -unsigned

This is an article about a book, not about the topics IN the book. You comments are original research and belong on the talk pages but not the article pages. Any quote about the book (not about the subjects in the book) from a reasonable source (not something you create as an excuse to be able to quote it) is fair for consideration in being in the article. Quotes about the subjects in the book belong on wikipedia articles about THAT subject. Further you have NOT disproved what is in the book. A "factual error" is not where the author says something and you argue against it. A factual error (in this context) would be something the author would agree was wrong when the error was pointed out to them. "Judith Banister, among others, has argued that Mao's policies caused the significant decline in mortality rates during his rule," if properly sourced could POSSIBLY go in one or more wikipedia articles: China, Mao, Mao's policies, or Banister. But not on an article about a BOOK. WAS 4.250


 * Willy Lam is one such person who agrees that the KMT did most of the fighting versus Japan and not the CCP. John Smith's 21:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

67.188.135.166's deleted additions.
John Smith just deleted 67.188.135.166's recent additions. I came within a hair of deleting them myself. Minor editing would be needed to fit them in - not a problem. My main problem with them is the lack of a provided source for the claims advanced. How does the reader know the claims are not just made up? John finds they don't add to the article and I agree mostly. I wouldn't have reverted on that ground alone but MANY wikipedia editors do. WAS 4.250 13:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well if any wiki editors reverted, they'd be dragging this website down. I had no idea WTF the anon IP was on about, so I had no idea how to edit it. Indeed I doubt most people on wiki would know what to do with it. It's unverifiable hearsay, so on that grounds I think it was fair to delete it. John Smith's 20:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Who is on first?" Let's see if I can straighten out this almost funny misunderstanding. You said "Well if any wiki editors reverted, they'd be dragging this website down." and I thought "What's he talking about". The prior sentence reads "I wouldn't have reverted on that ground alone but MANY wikipedia editors do." I meant by that this: "I wouldn't have reverted (the article as John did) on that ground (the ground of not adding to the article) alone but MANY wikipedia editors do (revert on the basis of a contribution being relevant but not particularly on point i.e "adding" to an article)." You are the editor refered to and you say your own edit dragged down the site. What a ridiculous miscommunication. Almost funny. Anyway we both agree it can not come back without both sourcing and a better indication of why it should be in the article at all in the first place. WAS 4.250 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of editors as in the admin-type people - and I mean reverted to the anon IP's version. Nvr mind. John Smith's 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Syed Badrul Ahsan's review quote
reference google her name and communist duh!

She's a member of the communist party of Bangladesh.

I'm sure we could find some great reviews of "Mein Kampf" by some nazi's but they shouldn't be in wikipedia.

Biased isn't kosher.

--Capsela 02:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice that review - thanks for drawing it to our attention. It was rather extreme to say the least! John Smith&#39;s 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

So what if she's communist? A Bangladeshi communist does not necessarily reflect opinions of Chinese communist or Mao.

Unknown or Unknowing?
Mao: The Unknown Story is a thoroughly silly book. It has been hyped in the British media, perhaps because it fits the current agenda of imposing Anglo values on the rest of the world.

Jung Chang told an interesting gossipy tale in Wild Swans; but was gullible and unrealistic when not talking about family matters. Jon Halliday is one of many former New Leftists who have ‘flipped’ since the Soviet Union collapsed. His previous books include Korea, the unknown war, which is just as silly as his Mao book, though he was then in possession of a different Eternal Truth. This Halliday (brother of Fred Halliday) ignored the standard story that Kim Il-sung was a Captain in the Soviet Army who was simply slotted into place by Stalin when the USSR was given control of North Korea. He didn’t give reasons why it shouldn’t be believed; he just ignored facts that didn’t fit. Whether praising Kim or damning Mao, he doesn’t let his beautiful theories suffer damage from unwelcome little facts.

Chang & Halliday’s biography of Mao has the lease accurate summary of Chinese history the I’ve ever encountered. The May Fourth Movement gets half a sentence and is not in the index. They summarises Yuan Shikai’s career without mentioning his attempt to make himself Emperor—rather as if one were to summarise Hitler’s career by saying “he was President of Germany from 1934-45”. They ignore Yuan Shikai’s role in the coup against a reforming Emperor in 1898, and his servile willingness to submit to Japan’s 'Twenty-One Demands', the start of the Japanese campaign to conquer China. They also show a bizarre fondness for the warlord regimes that succeeded Yuan Shikai’s failed leadership, the warlords whom Chiang Kai-shek compromised with when he broke the Kuomintang-Communist alliance.

They claim that the Chinese Communist Party was actually founded in July 1920, with the date later shifted to the First Congress of June 1921 to boost Mao's importance. They cite reports in Moscow of such a foundation. Robert Payne's Mao Tse Tung: Ruler Of Red China gives an account of this 1920 meeting (page 71). The 1920 gathering was a mix of assorted left-wingers, not all of them Marxists and with little wish to found a Communist Party. It got wrongly reported, but Comintern delegate Pavel Miff investigated and found that no party had in fact been created. Explaining why the 1921 meeting was called the First Congress, which would be rather puzzling if it were the second such meeting.

Chang & Halliday do cite Payne in another context, as the source for Peng Dehuai supposedly not remembering the famous incident at the Luding Bridge. This is based on a ludicrous misreading of Payne's book. Peng was apologising after having confused two different battles on the Long March. Earlier in the same paragraph, Payne remarks about the different versions of the Luding Bridge crossing that people remember "The crossing of the Tatu River [Dadu River], told by three separate people, seemed to be three separate crossings..." He then says "The stories of the battles were even more difficult to piece together", and it is in this context that he mentions Peng's error. (Mao Tse Tung: Ruler Of Red China - page 139).

Elsewhere, they typically cite one source as if it were undisputed, ignoring contradictory evidence and alternative accounts. The Sino-Indian War of 1962 is blamed on Mao, ignoring the way in which the Indian Army was pushing into disputed territory along a border that had never been marked very clearly. Likewise the Amethyst Incident is blamed on him, though it remains disputed who fired first. Always supposing the Chinese People's Army did choose to fire on a British warboat sitting in the middle of a Chinese river, why assume that Mao knew anything about it before-hand? The British and other foreign powers had been playing an opressive and shameful role for the past century, repeatedly intervening in Chinese cviil wars, mostly to support whichever side was most likely to obey them.

On these two points, Mao is seen as too nationalist. But Mao is also blamed for conceding the independence of Mongolia, the former province of Outer Mongolia. This had been conceded in principle by the Kuomintang, provided a referendum confirmed their wish for independence. Though the referendum recorded an improbably 100%, there is no serious doubt that the Mongolians did wish to go their own way.

I suppose this method makes it very convincing to those who wish to believe. And who do not notice the various omissions, distortions or dogmatic statements on highly complex points.

--GwydionM 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "It has been hyped in the British media, perhaps because it fits the current agenda of imposing Anglo values on the rest of the world."
 * Thanks for pushing your usual pile of propagandist tripe on wiki. We'll consider it then promptly throw it in the bin. John Smith&#39;s 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As opposed to pushing anti-Chinese anti-Communist aganda by the "historian" Jung Chang and you?

Current article is POV, slanted against the book
The article is not balanced. Opposition to the book is given a large volume of space, with virtually nothing provided supporting the book. The current article cites to 13 criticisms of the book and excerpts them, spanning several pages. Not 1 line is provided to support the book and balance these criticisms. Either balance should be provided by providing "equal time" to points of view supporting the book, or the many criticism excerpts should be deleted and moved into the links section as further reading under the criticism category.

People come to this article wanting to learn about this book. The controversy surrounding the book, because the book challenges official historical communist propaganda regarding Mao, is apropriate for the article, but right now only one side of the story is being told. I don't expect the situation to get any better to be quite honest because Mao-loving critics have far more incentive to make edits supporting their point of view than do the less-passionate supporters of the book.

Now that it has been reported that President Bush loves the book, all the anti-Bush people will be wanting to slam the book as well. Wikipedia needs to rise above this petty partisanship and provide a balanced article. Setlak 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't think you have READ this article.
 * 2) I don't think you know the meaning of the word "critical". (Hint: Look it up.) (Hint:"critical acclaim" is not an oxymoron)
 * 3) I think this article and it's main contributors are very anti Mao. WAS 4.250 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. Objectively speaking, far more space is dedicated to criticisms of the book than to anything else. At the time I wrote the above paragraphs, there were 13 reviews provided which criticized and attacked this book, with none provided defending the book. If you can't see that, then you are blind.

As for your ludicrous claim that I don't know what critical means, here is what merriam-webster online has to say: "2 a : inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably b : consisting of or involving criticism ; also : of or relating to the judgment of critics " I used the word properly. Perhaps you don't understand how the English language works, but in English sometimes words have multiple meanings and intelligent people must apply CONTEXT to understand which of those meanings is appropriate. In the case of my post, the meaning was exceedingly obvious. Only a profoundly stupid person would attempt to argue that "critical" does NOT mean A because it DOES mean B. You have a lot to learn. Setlak 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Reviews
Please do NOT just keep re-inserting all those reviews. I deleted them originally because the article was just turning to one big collection of reviews.

What we need to do is:

a) Discuss more what the book SAYS - there is not enough on what the book deals with, so I see where Setlak is coming from. A lot of the content was added simply to discredit the book, rather than to try to discuss it objectively. b) If we want to use some of those reviews, put one or two sentance quotes from a few.

John Smith&#39;s 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't discuss what the book says because that would be original research. You cannot, and should not, speculate about the motivations of the people who add stuff - try and assume good faith.  The fact is it is a crap book which is not worth the paper it is written on.  Not because Mao was a good man, but because it is a crap book that is not worth the paper it is written on.  It is worth pointing out how crap it is.  Is is perfectly objective to point out how bad a bad book is.  It is of interest.  You have demanded historians who say it is crap.  They are slowly publishing accounts proving just how bad it is.  What is wrong with making that clear?  This article is not overly long yet.  Let's wait until it is and then cut bits.  Of all things, professional historians discussing a book on a page devoted to that book is relevant content.  You want to find a real historian who has read it and likes it? Lao Wai 12:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No I say that we need to actually say WHAT the book says. That is not to evaluate it, merely to actually put forward the main ideas and arguments of the book. I think that could be done a little more fully. This is supposed to be an informative post on the book, not just a platform to slate it (or praise it). Also there is plenty of "primary research" in the debate section - most of the comments were made by wikipedians and not historians (at least when they were posted). In accordance with your desire to remove "original research", I have deleted points without any referencing. If someone could be so kind as to bring in external sources that have criticised Chang and Halliday on those points then we can put them back in. If no one can, then as original research we can't comment on it.
 * I have never said that the article can't have criticial points. There is already lots of negative commentary - I have not deleted any of it. The links are there for people to read. And more importantly I'm not sure that it is legal to simply reprint all that info from those newspapers and magazines. A quote here and there is one thing - long extracts are against the wiki spirit. John Smith&#39;s 12:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As an update I have removed two comments that didn't have a reference. If you can dig them out then please put them in with the original quotations/views. John Smith&#39;s 14:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

STOP PUTTING THE REVIEW EXTRACTS IN! IT IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE MEDIA GROUPS' COPYRIGHT REGULATIONS!!!! John Smith&#39;s 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Laowai, I removed two points that had no referencing. The bit about the ten-point critism and Spencer's bit. Provide a LINK to the articles please, so that they can go in. Nathan's review is still there - I even expanded it slightly. I also moved views of the book down to the relevant section. What's wrong with that? John Smith&#39;s 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Other books of the same genre
Shouldn't there be a mention about other books like this one for example, Aroup Chatterjee: Mother Teresa. The Final Verdict (Meteor Books, 2003). ISBN 8188248002 Full text (without pictures). Critical examination of Agnes Bojaxhiu's life and work.
 * Not really. It would have to be related to books about Mao or Communist China. John Smith&#39;s 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

John S. Baker
I deleted that bit because there was no proper indication of what the quotation was, there was no link to wherever that comment was made and there was no indication as to who he was. If that is the wikipedian that made the comment, then I'm afraid wiki policy doesn't allow us to comment like that. John Smith&#39;s 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Red Mole Triggers China-Japan War"
Someone write a bit on the controversy surrounding this chapter. -- Миборовский U 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have any non-wikipedians commented upon it yet? John Smith&#39;s 17:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but it is a chapter that has caused controversy... -- Миборовский U 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well just to remind you that we can't use original research ourselves. I've fallen foul of that rule in other threads. If is that serious a comment then there must be some non-paranoid-Zionist-conspiracy-following loons that have talked about it. John Smith&#39;s 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See this. -- Миборовский U 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then why did you answer "no"? If you want to add something go ahead, but be careful - he calls it "shaky proof" and nothing more. John Smith&#39;s 00:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just found it, k? I'll write up something for it. -- Миборовский U 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Willy Lam's "support"
There is none.

Willy Lam does not mention Chang and Halliday, nor Mao: The Unknown Story, in any part of his article. The theory that the communists did not do the majority of the fighting is nothing new, it's what the ROC government and anyone who researched into the Second Sino-Japanese War have been claiming for the past decades. Chang and Halliday merely took other people's research and conclusions as their own, they did not present "their argument", they presented others'. Therefore Willy Lam's article has absolutely nothing to do with either Chang, Halliday or M:TUS. I will be reverting back if you have no more objections. -- Миборовский U 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do object because it has been one thing some people here have criticised the book for saying. It doesn't matter whether he mentions the book or not - that he supports the point in question is relevant. I will edit the titles slightly, but I think you're quibbling over something fairly trivial. John Smith&#39;s 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps trivial to you, but not to me. Willy Lam supports "the point in question". True. But it is not their (Chang and Halliday's) point. It is dishonest to claim that this is "their" point. "Their" indicates possession and originality, both of which they lack. Take ANY book on the Second Sino-Japanese War (minus the official CPC propaganda, of course) and they support "the point in question". Most of these books are published before M:TUS. How do these books support a point that has not been made? Besides, who is Willy Lam? "Willy Wo-Lap Lam is a Senior Fellow at The Jamestown Foundation as well as a Hong Kong-based journalist and analyst." Not a notable historian. Definitely not an "academic", which the article as of right now gives the impression of him being. No different than any author of the reviews of this book which either gushes out praises or delivers fervent condemnations. -- Миборовский U 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say that he is a historian, though I edited it slightly to avoid confusion. And if he has had an article printed in a historical publication then that surely puts him in a better position than someone who simply writes for a newspaper.
 * In any case, just because YOU know the Nationalists did the fighting doesn't mean that other people do. Wiki isn't supposed to just educate people like yourself, you know. It's also supposed to be for those who have been exposed to the propaganda or only known it. John Smith&#39;s 08:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Straw man. Precisely because I know the subject matter better than most, therefore I need to eliminate any untrue statement. You know what is propaganda? Claiming this is Chang and Halliday's "point". The sentence in its current form is less explicit but still implys that it is Chang and Halliday's point. I have modified it to specifically state that it is not Chang and Halliday's point, merely what others before them said, and what some attacked their book with. -- Миборовский U 15:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting
No discussion in weeks and weeks and weeks. I'm unprotecting this, it's time to edit. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of deaths under Mao
"The median of 7 estimates that post-date 1980, when the famine during the Great Leap Forward become known in the West, is 58 million deaths under Mao.[5]"

The website sourced is not a scientific study or comprehensive list of credible estimates of deaths during the Great Leap. You cannot make conclusions based on a randomly selected sample. What was written is not scientifically or statistically significant.
 * The sources are clearly stated.Ultramarine 01:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok so i was wrong about the no original research policy, but you have not responded to the other issues raised Dirtymentality
 * What studies are missing? Ultramarine 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'ms saying the source itself is not a reliable study. The website lists a bunch of studies, and those studies may be reliable. However, the website itself is not a study because it does not follow any scientific or statisticall guidelines on how to select a random population. Therefore, the website you are sourcing is not reliable.
 * Very well. I just instead add individual sources.Ultramarine 01:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how listing a bunch of individual sources on the actual number of deaths helps this article. This issue is similar to the "Many sources but no scholarship" disscussion above.
 * Obviously the numbers found by other scholars are interesting.Ultramarine 02:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But there is a limit. We can go on and list all the numbers that every scholar ever published, but that would make a horrible article. Again, see "Many sources but no scholarship". The aim should be to show that there is controversy surrounding the the issue, but do not try to push reader towards one viewpoint by flooding the page with sources. Dirtymentality 02:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that sourcing the Black Book is a very poor choice. See the critism section of the wiki article. I propose you find another source, in order to give the section more credibilty, but that's up to you Dirtymentality 02:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously we should mention what other recent scholars think. I have never stated that every scholar ever published should be mentioned. The Black Book is written by six leading scholars, including several former Communists.Ultramarine 02:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there is already a source that supports Chang's figure, it is well established that there is a lot of controversey. (I mean 70 million and 30 million is a big difference!) I don't think it is necessary to list support for every increment between the two numbers. Regarding the reliability of Black Book, this is not the right place to disscuss it. I am merely saying that it a very poor choice, considering all the controversy surrounding it. You are in fact, using a controversial figure to support another controversial figure, which doesn't help at all. Again, see the wiki article on the Black Book. Dirtymentality 02:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spare me the ad hominem. No one has shown any serious factual errors in the Black Book. It is certainly a significant view.Ultramarine 02:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Spare me your tireless attempts to validate the Black Book. Read carefully. At what point was I ever attacking the Black Book itself? I'm not saying that the book is wrong. Again, save that for the proper webpage. I'm point out that you are using a controversial source to support another controversial source, which is pointless.Dirtymentality 02:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All sources are going to be controversial to one side. You can certainly add opposing sources.Ultramarine 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote myself: "We can go on and list all the numbers that every scholar ever published, but that would make a horrible article. Again, see the "Many sources but no scholarship" discussion above. The aim should be to show that there is controversy surrounding the the issue, but do not try to push reader towards one viewpoint by flooding the page with sources. " Dirtymentality 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate to only criticze but not mention supporting arguments.Ultramarine 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you shouldn't mention supporting arguments. I'm saying that there is already enough supporting argument: "In contrast, R.J. Rummel published updated figures on world-wide democide in 2005, stating that he believed Chang and Halliday's estimates to be mostly correct.[4]" (How is this not a great supporting argument?) I am also saying that the black book is a poor choice. This page does not need a collection death estimates.Dirtymentality 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view is not an "equal space" policy. All sides should be presented fairly, if they have any arguments. You are free to supporting sources, it you think some are missing. I think the Black Book is a good choice. It is an often mentioned academic book with thousands of references written by six scholars. Obviously we should report what other scholars think.Ultramarine 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, let me put it this way. Your figure of 50-72 million deaths adds nothing to the article. Chang's estimate is already well supported. Your source is not only controversial, but redundant. Redundant is the key word. If we don't try to prevent redundancy, then there is nothing stopping us from listing a bunch of similar sources, turning this page into a collection of links. Dirtymentality 03:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course NPOV is not a equal space policy. If there are many differnt issues relevant to the topic, then they must be mentioned. The only purpose your source is for is to support Chang; it does not bring up a new argument. Supporting Chang with numbers has been done much more effectively by the sentences before your source. Dirtymentality 03:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We should certainly mention that other scholars have found similar figures. Obviously this is not redundancy.Ultramarine 03:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then add the sentence "other scholars have found similar figures." And please stop telling me who wrote the black book.
 * That need a source. I think the original link was quote good, listing many different sources: Ultramarine 03:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although please don't add the "median of 7" part, because it is misleading. -   - OFF topic: (I personally feel that the black book's lack of context is inexcusable. Why do you laud it? Saying Mao killed 70 million ppl is like saying Bush killed everyone who died in Katrina. Both situations arose out of their own incompetence. Mao even admitted that he made a huge mistake, so I really don't see how ppl compare him to Hitler or Stalin. Also, he stepped down from power for the majority of the Great Leap, so "Deaths under Mao" is pretty misleading. I personally don't like Mao at all, but I find it insulting that westerners blindly blame him.)Dirtymentality 03:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mao killed several millions in the purges and in labor camps, like Stallin. Also like Stalin, he created a famine and deliberately chose to ignore it which increased the numbers killed.Ultramarine 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Bush deliberately chose to invade Iraq and killed millions of civilians." This statement is just like what you said, Ultramarine.
 * Also if there is enough food to stop the famine than why would Mao not trying to save the people.Yutong

Well, creating the famine is debateable. There was, for the first time in PRC history, a surplus of food in 1958, and Mao wanted to increase industrial production. Too bad he didn't know sh*t about economics, and was too stubborn to admit it. Most of the deaths occured in 1960 onwards, (more than 73%) and by that time, Mao already stepped down. Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping were assigned to attempt economic recovery. He didn't "ignore" it. Also, you have to keep in mind that the people reporting to Mao often lied about the situation to make themselves look good.

As for the purges, I'm assuming that you are talking about the Cultural revolution. Well, in the words of my parents, "it was chaos". It was pretty much a witch hunt. Millions died because the Red Guards were unchecked. Mao is definitely responsible for the chaos, but it is a far cry from the systematic slaughter of Jews by hitler, or the purges of stalin.


 * I do no doubt that people lied to Mao in general, like to all dictators. One of the controversies with the book is how much Mao know and what he chose to do or not do. If I remeber correctly, the book argues that Mao had to stopped by a mass meeting of Communist officials. Regarding the purges, I am referring to the rural and urban purges after WWII, before the famine. See the figures here: Ultramarine 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, the lack of context is missleading considering that the Chinese civil war lasted until 1949. It was full scale war, millions died from the fighting during that time. Can you provide information regarding this? The only purges that I've heard about, and the only ones listed on the Wiki site for the Chinese civil war are the massive purges that Chiang Kai-shek held against the communists. (Why doesn't anyone call the KMT leaders monsters? Oh right, Taiwan is an ally of the US. It'll look bad for the US to support a mass murder.)

About the deaths, between 1950-1957, China was a war ravaged country, and did not have enough resources to feed itself. Many people died during this time, but deaths became rare once industry and agriculture slowly caught up. This is why many people claim that Mao actually reduced the death rate of the Chinese. I am very skeptical about the claimed purged figure, because the Black Book likes to blame all deaths on the communists, without looking closely at the reasons behind the deaths.

I suggest reading the Black Book for more detail. However, here are Rummel's estimates and his sources, in great detail. They are from his book published in 1991, but still interesting: Also from Rummel: "Perhaps the best known of these movements was that of "Land Reform." China was and still is a land of farming villages. Traditionally, much power in the village had rested with the gentry and relatively rich landowners. They were a largely independent power base, historically moderating between the peasants and the power of the local and central governments. This was not a feudal, peasant-landlord class system as had existed in Europe. The Chinese peasant was independent and often owned his own small piece of land. Acting through the Party's organization, officials, and cadre, Mao's method used to destroy this free agricultural market was simple: create class hatred of what landlords there were and of the "rich" and then give him their land and wealth. Moreover, if the Party also could incite the peasant to kill or participate in killing the landlord, his fear of revenge or of losing his new land would cause him to support the Party. Therefore the Party's directive to cadres:
 * Adopt every possible measure to rouse the hatred of the people and excite them into frenzy and hysterical animosity against the landlords. The high-ranking cadres responsible for the Land Reform Movement must not hesitate to allow the Land Reform Squads a free hand in executing landlords ....3

The technique was for a group of activists to occupy a village, and then within a few days to select the victims, and arrange a "trial." The cadre would then haul the victims out of their beds at night, beat, humiliate, insult, and spit upon them, and eventually bring them before a "tribunal" seated at a table, and comprising Party activists, one or two local sympathizers, and if possible some person with some judicial experience to lend legal color to the proceedings. Then there would be the "jury," a crowd of local peasants who the activists had already aroused against the victims. Peasant faces would show manufactured hatred based on fear, for their cadres were watching them for compassion for the victims or lack of enthusiasm for the proceedings. Amid cries of "enemy of the people," or "counter-revolutionary jackal," or "imperialist lackey," cadre would force the victim to face his "jury" with his hands tied, and with prompting from the "tribunal," to recite his crimes against the revolution. Then a member of the "tribunal would say that the victim's punishment should be death, at which the coached "jury" would shout widely "Death!" Then the cadre would immediately shoot the victim, or wait until after they dug their own grave. 	 The Party officially ended "Land Reform" in 1953, and according to the Party affected around 480,000,000 of about 500,000,000 million peasants; almost 114,000,000 acres forcibly changed hands. Under this guise of redistributing land to the peasants, the party destroyed the power base of the gentry and rich peasant, and got the acquiescence, if not support, of the poorer peasants. 	 How many landowners and their relations the Part murdered or caused to commit suicide in this vast and bloody campaign we can never know. A reasonably conservative figure is that about 4,500,000 landlords, and relatively rich and better-off peasants were murdered. As fantastic as this human toll may be, the words of the highest party rulers give it credibility. In official 1948 study materials about "agrarian reform," for example, Mao instructed cadres that "one-tenth of the peasants [about 50,000,000] would have to be destroyed." Jen Pi-shih, a party Central Committee member, had also said in a 1948 speech to cadres that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed." (for a breakdown of mass murder-democide--by period, see Table 8.1 of my China's Bloody Century)"Ultramarine 04:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. I know what you are talking about. However, let us look at the situation. Historically the Chinese peasants were savagely oppressed, and the situation was similar to feudal europe. Mao lead an revolution, and the reason why the communists won in the end was the enormous support that Mao had from the peasants. Centuries of oppression ingrained a deep hatred in the hearts of the people for the land owners and the rich. Decades of war and starvation further hurt the peasants. This is a similar condition to the French Revolution. (remeber the horrors that caused? And the french didn't have a central political figure to rally around.) Peasants rallied against the aristocracy, and for the first time, they had the power. And, just like the French revolution, that power was not fairly excercized, and the peasants took revenge upon the landowners. Such violence on the part of the oppressed has happened throughout history. I don't see how this is unique to communism, and again, its another failure to put things in perspective by the BLack Book.Dirtymentality 04:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bascially, what I'm saying is that class struggles and revolution are always bloody, espeically so because there's so d*mn many chinese. It really wouldn't have made an ounce of difference if somebody else was in charge. Dirtymentality 04:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Land redistribution usually happens peacefully, like in Japan and South Korea after WWII. Only in Communist states have there been this enourmous death rate, since landlords or "kulaks" are seen as an enemy class that must be eliminated.Ultramarine 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That example is totally off. Japan and South Korea didn't have a revolutions. Their nationalistic governments were still in power, and there was no class uprising. Let me again point to the French revolution: The roman catholic church was a major land owner, and look how many priests were massacred. Priests! I'd assume that priests were generally nice people, and technically, they weren't even the landowners! Historically, class uprising = mass violence, no matter what type of government is behind the wheelDirtymentality 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Relatively few people were killed, certainly not millions like in Communist states. Regardless, rich peasants were only a small group of those killed. Have a look at this: Ultramarine 04:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote your source: "There are few parallels in history for what the [Chinese] Communists did [when they first came to power]. The French Revolution had many victims, but it did not institute a lasting political system. The October Revolution in the Soviet Union was not a peaceful affair, but the mass killings did not come till years later, during Stalin's collectivisation... In China, the terror - what else can one call it? - was widespread and saw the beginning of a lasting system. " In all three cases, there was a revolution and the land redistribution was extremely violent. This only supports the fact that it does not matter what type of government is in place. Even the french, who did not have a lasting government, also went through this phase. It is also ridculous to say that "relatively few people were killed" considering that the population disparity between the two countries is enormous.

Let me put it this way: often, a large group of people are oppressed, they rise up and start a revolution. EVERY revolution is notoriously violent. This has been happening in China for eons. Every dynasty collapses at the feet of millions of peasants in the form of a blood bath.


 * Again, relatively few were killed in France, even if looking at the population. Most of Europe relatively peacefully dismantled the feudal system, without having to kill millions of the aristocracy.Ultramarine 04:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The scale can be explained because fewer people had more wealth, and that most of the aristocracy escaped to other countries like Britain. The point that I was trying to make is that EVERY revolution is bloody, irrespective of the government. Lots of European countries did not have revolutions, therefore, no bloodshed. See the connection between revoltuion and bloodshed? Now saying that revolutions are unique to communism is ridiculous. Dirtymentality 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The American revolution, the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa, and the Independence movement in India are just some examples of major changes without having to kill millions of internal enemies.Ultramarine 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you missed the point. I stressed that this is unique to class struggles and land distributions. South American is unique because they did not end apartheid until late 1980. India wasn't a class struggle. It was people of all classes repelling a colonial power that was drastically weakened by WWII. Even today, there exists remnants of India's age old caste system, which separates people's social status through birth. No class struggle here. Again, american civil war was not a class struggle, nor was there large scale land redistribution between classes.

Again, all revolution caused by class oppression results in violent land redistribution. french revolution shows that such horrifying behaviour is merely human nature. We are all capable of such acts, irrespective of the governing body or philosophy. It is definitely not unique to communism.Dirtymentality 05:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But why must we have revolutions killing millions os people? People live quote happily in democracies, certainly much happier than in the Communist nightmares. There have been many land redistributions without violence.Ultramarine 05:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, there can be peaceful land redistribution, but not when it comes with class struggle and revolution. People resort to violent means to overthrow a government because they see no possible way to do it peacefully. The feel they must TAKE the land or forever remain oppressed.

Democracies have plenty of blood on their hands. Here's a quote: "Democracy is 3 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner." It was democracies that nearly wiped an entire race of people off of the face of the earth. I live in north america, and I have never seen a Native American in my life. They used to own this entire vast continent. Black people couldn't vote in the southern states until the late 60s. South africans violently oppressed black demonstrations, once killing hundreds of ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN on a peaceful demonstration. Democracy is the best system today because we have learnt from the mistakes of the past, and we have evolved. America is a MUCH better place now than it was in the 60s Dirtymentality 05:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So if democracies can learn from mistakes and there can peaceful land redistribution, why must there be revolutions killing millions of people? Ultramarine 05:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, those revolutions happened many many years ago. Again, America now is much better than the America of the 60s. Similary, China is a much better place than it was even 20 years ago. However, China still lags FAR behind western democracies. People estimate that China will become a democratic country once the GDP per capita reaches $10000 (20-30 years). This is the same time when South Korea and Taiwan became democracies. Both these countries used to be one party authoritarian states. Taiwanese didn't get the right to vote until the 90s.Dirtymentality 05:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us hope so. I hope it will occur sooner.Ultramarine 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think an important thing to point out is that there is a very very strong anti chinese sentiments in the west. People don't think very hard when they hear numbers and allegations. For example: the Falun Gong alleges that the government stages mass organ harvestings on its members. Well, it turns out that it was all lies. The Americans and the Australians investigated and found no evidence whatsoever. It turns out that the hospital that allegedly performed the operations was owned by Malaysians! Yet the falun Gong and their newspaper, the Epoch Times, keep on publishing this stuff. Don't even get me started on Tiananmen and western biasDirtymentality 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As a side-note, I deleted all the parts that said "it has been said.....", as it is clearly personal research without commentary. Please drop some sources in (that comment on the book) if you want to have this. Otherwise the removed parts will need to be very carefully reworded.

On the other hand, what is this bit about Mao stepping down in 1959? How does that prove he was not still running the show? It doesn't. John Smith&#39;s 12:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I understand this. At about the same time that the Great Leap Backward starts, there is this awful weather which produced the greatest famine in world history and ends about the same time, incidentally, that the Great Leap ends. This weather pattern is never seen again. Does this guy take us for complete idiots?

You're acting like an idiot, 65.185.190.240, cuz its kinda hard to fake flood of biblical proportions. John Smith: Ever heard of Deng Xiaoping? Mao purged him three times cuz he was totally against Mao's policies. Deng was in charge of recovery after 1959. He wouldn't have been purged by Mao if he was Mao's lapdog. and it DOES prove Mao wasn't running the show cuz Mao was COMPLAINING that HE WASN"T RUNNING THE SHOW. That's what the CULTURAL REVOLUTION was about: Mao REGAINING POWER. Stop DELETING stuff you don't like!!!!!


 * Hey, anon IP, don't make personal attacks, k? :)
 * I don't mind any of that stuff going in. What I object to is it being used to say people criticise Chang for x,y&z. If someone criticises it, then put their name and a link to where they said it. Otherwise stop throwing them in all the time.
 * Just because Mao complained he wasn't in charge didn't mean he wasn't responsible for what went on afterwards if the cause of later problems had already been started. You can't stop an economy on a penny! John Smith&#39;s 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * John, I'm not saying its not his fault. The point I was trying to make is that Mao realized his mistakes at a point where <20% out of the total # of people have died, and stepped down to allow other leaders to attempt recovery. This is inconsistent with Chang's description of a homicidal tyrant who's willing to sacrifice anyone. Dirtymentality 22:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

John Smith: It is my understanding thatcritism of the book has its own section, so I did not include any more sources in the /*Number of deaths under Mao*/ section. In the critism section, it is already established that people criticize Jung Chang for her habit of taking things out of context and ignore any facts that defends Mao. If you feel these sources are inadequate, I have more in depth reviews of this book's severe shortcomings; but I fear that adding more sources that criticize this book will encourage Chang's supporters to post more positive reviews, turning this page into a collection of links.

Finally, I realize that my additions are not perfect. However, Wikipedia is collaboration, and the articles are works in progress. My additions are made in good faith, and I expect other people to contribute to it, to improve it, not to delete everything I write because it's missing bits and pieces. If you delete every nascent idea, how can anything worthwhile ever be written? In any area where you feel that source is missing, please add "citiations needed", to help me and other people improve this article. Again, I implore you not to simply delete everything I write, but help me correct my mistakes.

Dirtymentality 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I just don't always have the time to do that, so try to get contributors to do it instead. Often people will throw things in and then refuse to back them up. However I'll have a look at see if I can improve it. But understand that my deletions are no more severe than ones handed out by people that don't like the book as well - same happens on other articles. It's not because I don't hate the book. John Smith&#39;s 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New Format
The new format is not good, because it is repeating content. There are two options:

1. Go back to the original format 2. Remove the bottom section and put them all into the relevant categories

Which do you want? John Smith&#39;s 12:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that right now the "views of the Book" section is kind of a mess, and putting its information in new categories will be clearer and make the page easier to read. I'm not quite sure how to organize it though. Maybe Rummel's restimates can go into "Reliablity of Sources"? Also, I'm thinking that personal opinions of the book should be kept its own section, separate from specific, scholarly conclusions on the book. How about keeping Perry Link, Yahuda, Philip Short, and Thomas Bernstein's beliefs in the current section, "Views of the Book", or change the title to "Opinions of the Book"? Or, positive and negative opinions can have their own categories?
 * Thanks for the help, Dirtymentality 06:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I tried to make it work and it won't. It's too POV, because it just sets out to discredit the book. It's much easier to pull something down than build it up. So really it's not nearly NPOV enough to have such a massive amount of time devoted to saying why the book is "wrong", when it's very difficult to describe its good points in such a way.
 * Wikipedia is not about personal research. When talking about books, we need to only put in information described by credible authors, etc. So, although you might have "a point" in some of the things you want to say, this isn't the place to put them.
 * If you want to mention Chan's review in the "views" section, then please find a useful extract and add it in in the same way the rest are done. Cheers, John Smith&#39;s 16:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about "responsible for mass murder on a scale similar to, or greater than, that committed under the rule of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin." Seems to me that 70,000,000 is more than a bit greater than 6,000,000. Truly a nasty, evil man who makes Hitler look like a petty tyrant and Stalin like a man with a heart. This portrayal of Mao is easy to believe if only because the effects of his rule are easily seen to this day. Why should this book be a surprise? One fundamental difference between Mao and his peers is this: Mao apparently intended absolutely nothing constructive or positive whereas Hitler and Stalin -- not to downplay their 'misguided' policies and evil nature -- seemed to have some positive (if perverse) goals somewhere and did not simply aim to destroy everything. asmac 1:04, 21 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Unknown History VIRUS INFECTING wikipedia one article at a time
That stupid unknown story book has wormed its way into every single article even remotely related to Mao or china. For God's sake its a extremely recent, incredibly biased book written as popular history and on George W. Bush's reading list. Everything from the Korean War to the Sian incident to the sinojapanese war has been infested. But Red Star over china was the last straw! why not just post her whole damn book on wikipedia and split it into articles??? The Encyclopedia Brittanica's most recent edition states that for the time being Deng's official verdict of Mao being 7 parts good 3 parts bad seems the most accurate. (and isnt emulating the EB Jimbo's dream) Maos a complex individual not a comic book ogre! A Robepierre not a Hitler. If ten years from now it becomes the main source on China's history then wikipedia should follow suit but in the mean time wikipedia's entire China section needs substantially rewriting since it simply parrots Changs views. Chang's views belong in the unkbnown article not in every single article about china!!!! --Gary123 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree completely! -- Миборо в ский 03:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopedia Brittanica?! Lol, no serious academic uses that for historical opinions! When was the last time you saw it quoted in any serious historical work? Even when I was at school we were told to stay away from it and not use it for anything other than who people were, when things took place, etc. Even then we always had to verify using another source. John Smith&#39;s 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia?! Lol, no serious academic uses that for historical opinions! When was the last time you saw it quoted in any serious historical work? Even when I was at school we were told to stay away from it and not use it for anything other than who people were, when things took place, etc. Even then we always had to verify using another source. -- Миборо в ский 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * lol. Colipon+(T) 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, Mib - couldn't agree more. Of course the thing about wikipedia is that it can be edited and improved easily enough, so we don't need some rubbish about how the "70% good, 30% bad" verdict of Mao seems the most accurate. So there is a reason to stick around here. John Smith&#39;s 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What unknown story? American mothers have been warning children that if theyre not good Mao will eat them since the 1950s. "Mao is an ogre" Wow! that really changed what Americans thought about Mao. Stupid Republicans you thought that Mao was a gentle giant just stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Wow this must have really opened Americas eyes. After 50 years of America's infatuation with Mao I'm glad that someone finally had the courage to stand up to Ametrica and say Mao wasnt a nice guy. What arrogance its one thing to say that maybe someday wikipedia will be equal to the EB but to say who trusts the eb when you have wikipedia? --Gary123 18:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * nah. the book sucks.
 * Mao's controversial. end of story. Colipon+(T) 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if we dont turn this into a debate about the book itself and assume that there was no controversy over it and thats its universally lauded, a 2005 book thats not exactly scholarly shouldnt influence every article on wikipedia. Why does her biography get a special spot on every Mao page why not do that for every biography of Mao for that matter why not have a paragraph about every biography for every historical figure??? well if anyone wants to do any "research" as opposed to beach reading or googling, the latest Encyclopedia Brittanica is always at your local library, check out what the macropedia:mao article has to say about the tyrant under evaluation. Then remember that Jimbo's dreams is for wiki to aspire to be the next EB.--Gary123 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's start a Mao-style witch-hunt, wikipedia needs its own leap forward!--4.245.254.230 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________ Frankly, this book is nothing but the rantings of a woman who had a shitty time during the Cultural Revolution (as did my parents and millions of other people), but decided to slander the name of one of the greatest Statesmen and Guerilla Leaders of the 20th Century as a form of twisted revenge. My grandparents were persecuted during the Cultural Revolution and they speak more positively of Mao than this bitch does. I propose we make a new term for her...instead of running dog, "Running Bitch"


 * "Running bitch" sounds awesome. Will add to my propaganda vocabulary. Your grandparents seem to have a a similar experience with mine, LOL. -- Миборо в ский 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mib, this is the same guy that said "My great grandfather was part of the IJA in China and he can confirm that this never happened." One minute you're insulting him, the next you're joking with him. Do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrite"? Or are you just as blind as a bat? John Smith&#39;s 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So if I joke with you I'm a hypocrite? Man you have no sense of humour. Could the reason simpler than: I didn't bother to go to history to check who made the edit? I judge people's comments on what they say, not who said it. But you have to admit, "running bitch" is an awesome double entendre. -- Миборо в ский 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's low-brow humour.... John Smith&#39;s 06:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese version out?
While on gmail today I saw an advert in my top bar for the Chinese translation of this book. This would be notable, no? -- Миборо в ский 19:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing Link
Please don't remove the link from the China Study Group. The first time you removed it, you did so without mentioning it in the edit summary. From there, you removed it because it "barely discusses the book." The review contains the term "Mao: The Untold Story" 16 times! How many times does it need to be mentioned for it to meet your unspecified standards? Paragraph after paragraph is about not only the book, but an analysis of the reviewers as well!

you said:

"that "review" barely discusses the book - it lacks real credibility, so should be removed. The author is some crackpot that writes for a Socialist pile of rubbish)"

From the China Study Group Webpage:

"China Study Group is a New York based non-profit organization formed in 1995 to facilitate networking of scholars/activists, and promote dissemination of info and research works, with a view to providing alternative perspectives and assessments on issues pertaining to China - both its revolutionary past and today's China in the context of globalization. Members of the CSG support the broad goals of the Chinese revolution that triumphed in 1949, and seek to stimulate knowledge and debate regarding its achievements and limitations, as well as to offer a critical perspective of the radical changes that have occurred in China over the past 25 years and an ongoing analysis of its role in the world today."

About Robert Weil: Source: (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0606weil.htm)

"Robert Weil is the author of Red Cat, White Cat: China and the Contradictions of “Market Socialism” (Monthly Review Press, 1996), and other articles and papers on Chinese economic, political, and labor conditions. He is a lifelong activist in labor, civil rights, antiwar, international solidarity, and environmental movements. He is currently a staff organizer for the lecturer and librarian union on two University of California campuses, where he has also taught in sociology and related fields. Publication of the full report is scheduled for summer 2006."

Is he a socialist? Probably. Does this in any way diminish what he has to say, when he is backed up by facts and verifiable statements? Not unless you're a POV pusher trying to censor wikipedia.

At this point I can really only assume that you either a) have acted hastily without proper research or b) have acted in bad faith to remove a viewpoint inconsistent with your own. --Detruncate 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because he's a Socialist doesn't mean he isn't a viable source. Some of Mao's strongest critics are Socialists. The issue is the publication for which he writes. The Monthly Review is full of some of the most ridiculous tripe I have come across in a while. And just because the CSG is an NGO doesn't mean it's credible either. It's mission-statement is particularly suspect - sounds like a group of apologists to me. Having read more of their articles makes me think they're even less suitable. I doubt very much wikipedia editors would look kindly on someone posting a review from a group of neo-Fascists for the sources section of a book on Hitler.
 * The "review" itself does not properly discuss the book. It picks up on comments already made by reviews listed, but is completely one-sided, as it discounts anything positive said about it. I liked the snide comments about the authors. I actually happen to know where they live in London - does Robert Weil? The "review" is basically a rant about how wonderful Mao was. If you wanted to put it in the Mao Zedong article I wouldn't complain. But really we have enough proper reviews looking at the book already here - we don't need some bitter hack whining about Jung Chang. John Smith&#39;s 01:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On a side-point, what on earth do you mean by "a viewpoint inconsistent with your own"? The article has a good number of highly critical, in-depth criticisms of the book already. Do you see me cutting them all out? There is such a thing as quality-control on wikipedia, you know. And as I said above I don't think the link you want is of the quality and utility that it should stay. John Smith&#39;s 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must disagree. The vast majority of the existing links slavishly concur with the conclusions of Chang. The criticisms made about the the other reviews in the China Study Group article are interesting and notable. One could say that Mao: The Untold Story has no place in the Mao article, because we already have enough perspectives on mao - we don't need some bitter hack whining about Mao Tse Tung. I've noticed a pattern in your evaluations of sources. Instead of evaluating the article, you evaluate the entire publication, discrediting articles by vague claims about other articles rather than the article in question. Characterizing the article as a "rant" is unproductive. That's entirely your own POV. I could describe Mao: The Untold Story as a "rant" and I would be no more correct. You're on especially unsteady ground when discounting things because you consider them "one sided", given the content of this book and many of the reviews. Does "Mao: All parts bad, no parts good" sound balanced? The China Study Group is certainly as credible as The Economist, an explicitly pro-capitalist, anti-communist publication. This isn't some angelfire page or blog. This is an actual organization hosting an article by a notable researcher in the Contemporary China field.

I do not believe we are going to be able to reach an agreement on the acceptability of this source by ourselves, though I would like to avoid burdening official arbitration with this matter if possible. Any suggestions for resolution you have would be appreciated. Detruncate 02:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is the China Study Group as credible as The Economist? Most people have heard of the latter - how many do you think have heard of the former? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim or is that just an opinion? I think you will find Ec's credibility is actually quite high.
 * The vast majority of the existing links do not "slavishly concur" with the book's conclusions. Please identify which do. And at the same time please tell me what is so crucial that this particular review discusses about the book which the others did not.
 * The reason the book is mentioned in the Mao article is that it has kicked up a big storm, more than anything. Simply ignoring it would mean failing to address some very serious allegations made. On the other hand I honestly don't see what would be lost by failing to link this article. John Smith&#39;s 01:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why I'm going to be requesting outside arbitration/review. I believe you are wide off the mark here in removing the link. This review discusses the other reviews in depth, something which the others largely do not do. It's lengthy, sourced, and reasonably well written. There's no reason not to include it. Your comments have already revealed your opinion on this matter, but I do not believe your opinion represents wikipedia standards in this case. Dixi.

Detruncate 12:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But I haven't removed the link - again. It's still there. What are you complaining about? The fact I would like to see it removed? If you think I'm going to start deleting it again just because we can't reach an agreement, then you're dead wrong
 * And I don't see why we need arbitration now when you are still refusing to tell me what this article does that the others don't. You claimed it was important because it did things the other articles didn't, so please tell me what they are so I can read it more closely. If you don't then you're wasting the arbitration committee's time. John Smith&#39;s 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, you're right. My mistake. I thought you had, when you've merely reshuffled it to the bottom for unspecified reasons. Are our links sections like a chain letter then, with the most recently added ones going on the bottom? If so, no one handed me that memo. The link below it literally doesn't even mention Mao: The Untold Story, and all the ones after that are in chinese, and I think we're both a bit baffled about what purpose they serve here. I don't mean to sound snide, really. The placement doesn't bother me overmuch. Concerning the article itself: Just throughout, it raises some interesting issues not addressed elsewhere, about the reception of this book against the backdrop of Chinese society and politics today. I think there are some interesting excerpts. Sorry if they seem a bit long:


 * "It is therefore important to address the climate out of which Mao: The Unknown Story and those who have so eagerly embraced it come and to which they in turn contribute. Clearly, this work fits perfectly into the pattern that Mao himself already anticipated in his essay, "To Be Attacked by the Enemy . . . ," as it "attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue." It is this entirely one-sided approach that the majority of reviewers have eagerly embraced and unquestioningly adopted as their own, blinding them to any more balanced analysis of his role. Like many others, I responded with anger and dismay at the issuing of this "poison weed," as Professor Mobo Gao of the University of Tasmania in Australia has termed Mao: The Unknown Story—the book, as well as the many laudatory reviews of it, are already being challenged and disparaged by some initial readers, both Chinese and Western, on the web and elsewhere. But once my immediate reaction had passed, I was left with the more basic question: Why this book, and why now?"


 * "For the same campaigns in which many died, primarily during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, also saw the introduction of health care and other social programs for the working classes, and especially the peasants, that saved and extended the lives of tens of millions, and raised China to unparalleled levels of life expectancy and literacy compared with such similarly poor Asian countries as India and Indonesia. Thus both the gains and the costs that the Chinese experienced during the revolution were closely interwoven, but Mao: The Unknown Story totally ignores any positive accomplishments. Still, a more thorough confrontation with and refutation of the claims of Chang and Halliday will have to await a broader distribution of their book, and especially access to it in China. Such a detailed rebuttal will take time, and require a very sustained and determined struggle."


 * "The attempt by Chang and Halliday to dismiss Mao as "never a Marxist" says more about their own approach, therefore, than about the Chinese leader himself. Their interpretation of his report on the Hunan peasant uprising, for example, reduces it to nothing but a supposed discovery by Mao of his love of violence (41-42). A similar treatment allows them to avoid any hint, much less an indepth analysis, of the impact of his writings on the class struggle and policy conflicts not only in China, but around the world. That a virulent animus pervades their work and biases all of their interpretations has already been noted by some of the more middle of the road and "balanced" reviewers of their book, such as James Heartfield who, while by no means rejecting every aspect of its conclusions, made a well researched effort to expose the distortions contained in their account."


 * I think it's fair to say that the Weil writes from a specific perspective, even a biased one, but by offering a link at the bottom of page, we're not endorsing this as an "objective" viewpoint, merely one worth knowing about that contains some real information. Furthermore, Weil is not attempting to hide his own viewpoint, so it's not as if readers will be "tricked" or confused by it. I'm afriad it does require a closer reading, as upon casual glance, it can be difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Still, the China Study Group really exists, and Weil really is a published author, so his perspective is at least notable enough to get a link. If you feel it neccessary to add any caveats/descriptors to this link (or any others) I would not object. Detruncate 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quotations - it will be easier for me to understand your side now. I'll disgest them later if you don't mind.
 * I re-ordered the list chronologically - non-reviews are placed below the first "list". The Lam article is about the CCP's historical revisionism, as one allegation against Chang and Halliday was that it was unfair they dismissed the CCP's contribution to the Sino-Japanese war. The Chinese links are interviews with Chang/discussions about the book, if I remember correctly. John Smith&#39;s 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)