Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 7

More information on his massacres?
This isn't PRC propaganda-leaning. It's PRC propaganda. I don't know if it's paid PRC propaganda or just some "independent" Communist apparatchik: "Although, any, perhaps as many as 100 million, did suffer..." The 100 million murdered is euphemistically referred to as having "suffered" in an introductory clause. The entire entry is hysterical which is why I will not, nor should anyone else, expend any effort to clean it up. It functions best as is as an example on why Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia, ESPECIALLY in politically sensitive issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is not nearly enough information on the many millions of deaths caused directly by the policies of Chairman Mao on this page; it really seems highly PRC-propaganda-leaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.93.52 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with determining the death toll of this era as sources vary significantly, making it hard to reach a consensus.MarquisCostello (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You won't reach consensus, but posting different estimates may be helpful. Some research hints towards more than 70 million dead under his "leadership". Of course, Chinese historians will never agree with that. They can't. Would they do it, they'd disappear in a camp. Apart from that, consensus is not the goal of historic research, nor of science in general. Akinaka (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice scare quotes. You don't know anything about modern Chinese politics, do you? The establishment is quite critical of Mao these days, which makes sense since many of their policies are antithetical to his.--71.36.32.18 (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but lets not forget that most of the numbers quoted include a vast majority of deaths from famine and a small minority of deaths from deliberate extermination or execution and thats even if you take into account his long and bloody civil war and participation on the most bloody front of WW2. Sure, he killed a lot, but the vast majority died from mistakes and not direct orders. This is pretty similar to Stalin, for example, but to give figures as large as 70 million "Killed" is to mis-represent the facts especially to the lay-person who may think Hitler only killed 6 million since thats the figure most high school history classes mention in the West. Also, lets say hypothetically it is considered legitimate to point out the 'upper' estimates of the casualties of Mao's rule, does that also make it legitimate to point out the same estimates for US presidents? Nixon 'mistakenly' ordered Suharto to invade East Timor and as a result 200,000 died ... by being shot. This is about as close a link as the deaths by famine that Mao was responsible for and these are readily lumped into the same estimates without even the slightest understanding of the rates of death in China before and after his rule.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course there is an important difference between deaths due to intentional extermination, and those due to failed policies. I still agree with Akinaka though that some estimate is a good idea.  I made an edit putting the death toll at between 40-70 million and ascribed the deaths to both "policies and purges".  I think that is reasonably fair description of the general consensus.--NickCT (talk) 12:07, 04 Aug 2009 (UTC)

You better reconsider it. The most extreme Chinese source I have seen was 30 million, and even that was considered a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.134.226 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, there simply is not enough information on his killings. This time, can we please get some information (if even just speculations) on the page instead of arguing about it? 96.254.113.223 (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NickCT is completely correct. The deaths from 1958-1976 were mostly by grave error; the purges occurred in the earlier years, when he attempted to rid the country of rightist elements in such campaigns as Anti-Rightist. But nothing unusual: Lenin did the same in the last years of his life as well. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is not enough information anywhere. The most reliable sources would be in the archives of the Chinese secret police, and since China is in no danger of collapsing thanks to the Deng reforms, we are not going to get any info from them any time soon. Commissarusa (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem section
This section: "Historians such as Jung Chang argue that Mao was well aware that his policies would be responsible for the death of millions saying for instance that "half of China may well have to die."" is deliberately misquoted. In China since 1919: Revolution and reform : a sourcebook, Mao stated that: "In this kind of situation, I think if we do [all these things simultaneously] half f China's population unquestionably will die; and if it's not a half, it'll be a third or ten percent, a death toll of 50 million. When people died in Guangxi [in 1955], wasn't Chen Manyuan dismissed? If with a death toll of 50 million, you didn't lose your jobs, I at least should lose mine; [whether I would lose my] head would be open to question. Anhui wants to do so many things, it's quite all right to do a lot, but make it a principle to have no deaths...As to 30 million tons of steel, do we really need that much? Are we able to produce [that much]? How many people do we mobilize? Could it lead to deaths?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.159.224 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mao Tse-Tung
Has any thought been given to including this alternative spelling in the intro so as to avoid the possible confusion? I've only known this spelling until I saw the alternative on this page. Sirvice626 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia's MOS for Chinese. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, have you seen it? WP:ZH agrees with Sirvice. The intro should be in the form English (Characters; Pinyin; Wade-Giles) with other names relegated to the box or in the form Mao Zedong or Mao Tse-tung with all other names in the box. But Mao Tse-Tung is certainly still a very common English variant that should be included in the intro a la Chiang Kai-shek (not Jiang Jieshi) or Sun Yat-sen (not Zhongshan). -LlywelynII (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't imply anything against him. I was saying that he should first look there... ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

About his name......
If this topic is professional, then his naming history should not be omitted --222.64.30.2 (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/14576663

Religion
In the profile it reads "Religion: Atheist", Atheism is not a religion, in fact it's the exact opposite. It should read "Religion: None" or "Religion: None (atheist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.84.204 (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, no. Religion's opposite is irreligion, while atheism is the opposite of theism, both of which are religious positions. Thus many forms of atheism are religious, both by common and legal definition. Mao's militant Communism certainly qualifies. On the other hand, the article could use some sources about or discussion of Mao's stated positions and actual behavior regarding his ancestors and Chinese traditional religion, which many Chinese continue to observe while remaining notionally atheist. -LlywelynII (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Atheism isn't a religion. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods. In technicality, religions that have no gods, for instance taoism and some sects of buddhism, can be called atheist, but there is no one atheist religion. When one says atheism nowadays they generally mean secular humanism or philosophical materialism, or else simply the state of having no religion or particular set of beliefs at all. To be considered a religion it must be a system of beliefs, and the only shared belief of all atheists is that there is no such thing as a god. Don't confuse "religion" with "world-view." With respect to this and similar pages, it should be listed as "none" or "irreligious," or possibly "Chinese traditional religion." "Atheism" is simply too broad. If someone were christian you wouldn't put them down as "Theist," would you? -- Mac  OS X  09:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am against having "religion" in the infobox of any Chinese leaders, as they cannot be handily classified into a religious grouping the same way U.S. presidents can by identifying their Church membership. In East Asian societies like Korea, Japan, and China, religion is a lot more complex - with almost everyone subscribing to a combination of faiths and philosophies, notably Taoism, Confucianism, ancestor worship, Buddhism, and more recently, Christianity. To say that Mao was atheist simply because he is a Communist is a bit rash, not to mention an inaccurate label. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mao was very strongly anti-religion (see for instance this ref where he told the Dalai Lama that "religion is poison") so I think it makes sense to define him as either atheist or explicitly putting "Religion: none" in the infobox. We could also perhaps add a note to explain in more details his views on religion. It's an important part of who Mao was so I think we should address it in some way. Laurent (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the fact that he was anti-religion in policy. But in private it is known that Mao was quite superstitious in many ways. Like I said, having "religion" in the infobox effectively gives it a label, when the issue is actually a lot more complex. If we want to explain his personal belief system, it's probably best to do it in the "personal life" section. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Laurent, you're making the mistake of assuming atheism equals anti-religion. Some religions are atheistic, in that they have no concept of gods. Also, many atheists that don't belong to religions are friendly to religions. However, that part of the box is specifically referring to his own religion. Anti-religion isn't a religion, and neither is atheism. His views on religion should be addressed in the article, but the infobox should list his religion as "none," unless it can be shown that he identified with a particular religion, such as the traditional chinese folk religion. George Washington's infobox simply lists his religion as "Episcopal," but it doesn't mention what he thought about Judaism or Baptism or the eternal Tao.-- Mac  OS X  00:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Section blanked
I wish to bring into notice the following section blanked by Wikilaurent :

Supporters of Mao credit him with advancing the social and economic development of Chinese society. They point out that before 1949, for instance, the illiteracy rate in Mainland China was 80%, and life expectancy was a meager 35 years. At his death, illiteracy had declined to less than seven percent, and average life expectancy had increased to more than 70 years (alternative statistics also quote improvements, though not nearly as dramatic). In addition to these increases, the total population of China increased 57% to 700 million, from the constant 400 million mark during the span between the Opium War and the Chinese Civil War.

Supporters also state that, under Mao's government, China ended its "Century of Humiliation" from Western and Japanese imperialism and regained its status as a major world power. They also state their belief that Mao also industrialized China to a considerable extent and ensured China's sovereignty during his rule. Many, including some of Mao's supporters, view the Kuomintang, which Mao drove off the mainland, as having been corrupt.

They also argue that the Maoist era improved women's rights by abolishing prostitution and foot binding. The latter prohibition however made little sense since foot-binding was no longer practised by the 1920s, and, as early as 1906, a Qing decree was encouraging a ban on the practice. At about the same time, groups in China's provinces were militating for the condition of women, half a century before Mao. Prostitution returned after Deng Xiaoping and post-Maoist CPC leaders increased liberalization of the economy. Mao also created reforms that allowed women to initiate divorce and inherit property. Indeed, Mao once famously remarked that "Women hold up half the heavens". A popular slogan during the Cultural Revolution was, "Break the chains, unleash the fury of women as a mighty force for revolution!"

Skeptics observe that similar gains in literacy and life expectancy occurred after 1949 on the small neighboring island of Taiwan, which was ruled by Mao's opponents, namely Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang, even though they themselves perpetrated substantial violent repression in their own right. The government that continued to rule Taiwan was composed of the same people ruling the Mainland for over 20 years when life expectancy was so low, yet life expectancy there also increased.

A counterpoint, however, is that the United States helped Taiwan with aid, along with Japan and other countries, until the early 1960s when Taiwan asked that the aid cease. The mainland was under economic sanctions from the same countries for many years. The mainland also broke with the USSR after disputes, which had been aiding it. In addition, there is considerable difference in magnitude between increasing the literacy and lifespan of a nation of less than 20 million people (Taiwan) and a nation of nearly a billion people.

Another comparison has been between India and China. Noam Chomsky commented on a study by the Indian economist Amartya Sen.

''He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. 

I do not agree with all of these deletions of whole paragraphs. I still think the issues regarding literacy rates and women's rights be noted.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This section is almost entirely unsourced and is full of weasel words, and it has been so for a long time. In my opinion, if you want to restore it, it will have to rewritten, sourced and made more neutral first. Laurent (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the United Nations Population Division, in 1950 life expectancy in China was 40 years, in 1980 average life expectancy had increased to 65 years. In India, in 1980 life expectancy was 54 years, and in 2010 life expectancy in India is 63.5 years and in China 73 years. Aldis 1b (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In 1950, the life expectancy was so low because the country had been at war for half a century. After 1949, life expectancy logically went up when the war ended. In fact, if you compare the time before and after Mao you are basically comparing the statistics during the war and those after the war, so obviously things are going to be very different. How much of these improvements are due to Mao is very difficult to evaluate. Actually, in my opinion, the section "Legacy" already lists all that can be objectively said about Mao's legacy - i.e. his influence in China, his military writing, ideology, etc. The rest is just a matter of POV with the "skeptics" (who?) being opposed to the "supporters" (who are they?). Laurent (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Mao's pronunciation of his own name
Why not include an audio file of his pronunciation of his name? Someone should go to his speech in the establishment of the People's Republic and extract the part where he declares himself as Chairman —— it sounds somewhat closer to the Wade-Giles then it does to that of a standard speaker. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ... which raises the whole question of his inability to speak Putongua (not so unusual among leaders at that time). I have a reference for that (Frank Ching: Another tongue that's not so common after all, SCMP, 9 Aug 2010), but it costs US$1.25 to access. Cossaxx (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Final resting place
There should be at least one or two sentences on his final resting place in the middle of Tiannanman Square, Mausoleum of Mao Zedong ?  Arilang   talk  07:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Place in the political structure
The article would benefit from a section on his relationships with other senior political figures: how his relationship with Deng fell and rose, what were the power struggles, his Henan proteges, the Shanghai clique. He had to work hard to maintain his place at the top, and references currently have to be teased out, eg. sections on 'War' and 'Leadership of China'. Cossaxx (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Little Red Book
I suggest we should mention his authorship of the Little Red Book in the introduction, as it's an indelible mark of his legacy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mao vs. the Khmer Rouge
How can you call Khmer Rouge a maoist party?! Oh, god, Mao never liked the Khmer Rouge! They killed TWENTYFIVE PERCENTS of the people in Cambodia!! 62.16.168.251 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't Moa kill 40 million people? Perhaps Mao didn't like the Khmer Rouge because they didn't kill enough? NickCT (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many scholars refer to the Khmer Rouge as Maoist I've seen no evidence that Mao didn't "like" the Khmer Rouge. In fact, the Chinese Communist Party has been one of their strongest supporters. In this image, Mao doesn't seem to displeased with shaking the hand of Ieng Sary as a smiling Pol Pot looks on. (I'm surprised this image hasn't been added to wikipedia as of yet).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you, do not add personal commentary and analysis onto talk pages. This is not a place to further your politica agendas.Дунгане (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What does a photo prove? Mao shook hands with numerous people, including hardcore anti-communist Richard Nixon. I guess that makes him a supporter of spying at Watergate now? In fact, numerous party members, especially Zhou Enlai, were alarmed at the Khmer Rouge's radicalism and viewed King Sihanouk as a more moderate ally. A few radicals like security chief Kang Sheng supported the Khmer Rouge. The KR's philosophy has its roots in Buddhism, racism, and anti-materialism - its leaders were almost anonymous, as opposed to real Maoists like the Shining Path and the Nepalese Maoists.--PCPP (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Death toll in lede
Recently Cedric88 has attempted to replace the lower estimate of deaths under Mao in the lede with "17,4" million. He apparently gets this estimate by adding together some of the mass deaths during the Mao era given by Maurice Meisner in his book Mao's China and After (1977, 1999): terror against counterrevolutionaries: 2 million, GLF: 15-30 million, CR: 400,000. However, this is an example of OR as Meisner doesn't give an overall estimate of deaths under Mao. So putting the estimate of "17,4" million in the article and attributing it to Meisner is basically putting words in his mouth (especially considering the range of deaths he provides for the GLF). Secondly, this estimate cannot at all be adequate, as it excludes other mass deaths during the Mao era, such as casualties in the Laogai, the Anti-Rightist Movement and repression in Tibet. The aforementioned editor also cited Wang Weizhi's estimate of 19.5 million in Contemporary Chinese Population (1988), presumably as further justification for a much lower death toll. However, this estimate only pertains to deaths brought about by the GLF, and therefore makes it inappropriate as a primary source for the lower estimate in the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree C.J. Griffin. Lower estimate forwarded by Cedric88 is innappropriate. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we separate the death tolls from purges and those from faulty policies? I think if we begin to elevate death tolls from bad policy to the level of intentional massacres, then most leaders of the world would be criminals in one way or another.128.151.24.39 (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should separate them. Other leaders' "faulty policies" don't end up costing 45 million lives. Laurent (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other leaders also didn't rule the world's most populous and famine-prone country that had more than 1800 famines in the past 2 millenia. Four famines from 1810 to 1849 killed 45 million people, the Taiping Rebellion killed 60 million, the Great North China Famine killed 13 million, and Mao wasn't even born then. Mao's rival Chiang Kai-shek oversaw a famine that killed 3 million in 1943, and as well as the deliberatly engineered the Yellow River Flood of 1938 that killed 1 million and displaced 12 million.--PCPP (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it that some people will defend communism and Mao regardless of how many people were killed? It never ceases to amazes me.  Faulty policies?  When these so-called "faulty policies" result in the deaths of tens of millions of people, it is time to question whether they were faulty or whether the goals of the particular regime were accomplished.  Mass death seems to be a feature, rather than a bug, when it comes to communism.  Thank goodness someone had the sense to point out that 45 million+ deaths is a wee bit high to be attributed to a fault in policy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Riiight, is that why no incidences of mass death has occurred in Communist Russia and China since Stalin and Mao's deaths, nor had it occurred in Eastern Europe and other communist states ruled by less totalitarian leaders?--PCPP (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The 40 - 70 million death toll estimate currently cited is appropriate. Regarding the GLP in contrast to other famines, I don't know why it should be necessary to point out that the GLP was a man-made disaster, and that China's historical propensity for devastating famines is beside the point. If in doubt about whether the deaths under the GLP were deliberate and calculated, I suggest taking a serious look at Dikötter's research. Homunculus (duihua) 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because one book released in 2010 and sponsored by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation is the end-all source on GLF. Here is something that says otherwise --PCPP (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The source you cited is to a "socialist magazine." Their own words. I'll trust a well regarded SOAS professor over the denials of communist apologists. Homunculus (duihua) 16:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Newsflash, it's not "communist apologist" just because you disagree with it. It's cited by Google Scholar and used in at least one university publication . Furthermore, it's academically dishonest to dismiss any discussions on weather date and Chinese mortality rate, not to mention that famines caused by the Taiping Rebellion and An Shi Rebellion far exceeds the GLF death toll.--PCPP (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At last check, 45 million > 36 million, the latter being a high-end estimate of deaths under the An Shi Rebellion. Famine-related deaths during the Taiping Rebellion,  while still outrageously high, still pale in comparison to the GLP. It is not my intention to minimize the human tragedy of these events, but I maintain that there is a fundamental difference. Most severe famines are a result of floods, poor weather, or in the cases you cited, disruptions caused by civil war. The GLP did not occur under such conditions;  it was a peace-time event that took place under normal environmental conditions. It was a deliberately engineered famine, apparently designed to invoke terror and subservience to CCP rule. If you would like to argue that more were killed during the Taiping or An Shi rebellions, I suggest you take it up on those pages, or perhaps here. Seeing as you are now well past debating the facts at hand, I am going to leave this discussion. As a parting thought, however, I will warn you not to edit against consensus. Homunculus (duihua) 16:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Chang and Halliday are unreliable, Article on them exposed false claims in their book.
I am not a commie or even a fan of Mao, but i despise POV twisting by some people who have a fetish with Mao and try to twist articles to fit their agendas. Speaking of which, Jon Halliday and Jung Chang hold absolutely no PHDs, degrees, doctorates, or anything in Asian and Chinese history, chinese politics, or even communism. nothing, zilch. Only in linguistics and Russian history, which are unrelated to the book they wrote about. Lets try to limit this article to reliable sources, and not a source written by an author with a personal vendetta.


 * Your use of the belittling term "commie" is suggestive of your political leaning. It's also NPOV.86.138.11.190 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Chang and Halliday falsely claim that Chiang Kai-shek allowed the Communists to escape on the Long March, allegedly because he wanted his son Chiang Ching-kuo who was being held hostage by Stalin back. This is contradicted by Chiang Kai-shek himself, who wrote in his diary, "It is not worth is to sacrifice the interest of the country for the sake of my son." Chiang even refused to negotiate for a prisoner swap, of his son in exchange fo the Chinese Communist Party leader. Again in 1937 he stated about his son- "I would rather have no offspring than sacrifice our nation's interests." Chiang had absolutely no intention of stopping the war against the Communists.

Among other things, it was reported that Chang and Halliday were "appallingly dishonest", and that Chiang Kai-shek never, ever let the Communists escape, contrary to Chang and Halliday's false claims. In addition, the alleged "source" Chang and Halliday claimed they met could not be found, on the contrary, a person who witnessed the battle, Li Guixiu confirmed that the battle had happened, contradicting Chang and Halliday.


 * This is not really new information. Criticism of Mao: The Unknown Story is already widely documented. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked through the article and, in this version, found only four spots that are sourced only to Chang & Halliday (others have additional sources):
 * ref 10 (innocuous claim about Mao's not studying abroad)
 * ref 53 (properly attributed as Chang's opinion)
 * paragraph about the GLF, which cites reference 68 three times
 * ref 91, the "half of China may well have to die" quote, properly attributed as Chang's opinion and followed by an extended discussion from another source
 * Notice that none of these instances have anything whatsoever to do with the Long March, which your long comment above is about. So my question for you is, what exactly are you raising a complaint about here? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Mao hold PHDs, degrees, doctorates, or anything in Asian and Chinese history, chinese politics, or even communism.? Yet we are to trust his word about his life? how many serial killers confess to their crimes? The order Mao created in China still hinders freedom of speech and free travel, just look at the nobel peace prize. And asking such a nation to tell the truth through previously secret documents is like asking joseph gobbels to write the truth about germany 1933-1945. Ofcourse they'll release documents but only scrutinized and to further their own goals. Not to distable their own powerbase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.131.18 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your comment makes no sense. Mao is the subject being judged here, so why does he need any degrees? Last time I checked, you don't need any degrees to be a political leader. And the current Chinese government moved so away from Mao's ideals that it resembles more like Nationalist China.--PCPP (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should "Mao as a 'worst than Stalin' Mass Murderer" be included in the lede?
"If Dikötter’s revised figure of 45 million withstands scrutiny, Mao will have definitively surpassed Joseph Stalin’s overall record as a mass murderer"


 * Frank Dikötter on Mao’s Mass Murders
 * Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder

 Arilang   talk  00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary to use a POV term like "mass murderer", especially in the lead. As long as we mention the death toll, most readers will reach this conclusion by themselves anyway. Laurent (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it that "Mass murderer" be a POV term? And isn't Mao deserve such a term, after all, he did cause millions upon millions of Chinese to die of unnatural death, didn't he? Moreover, it is near impossible to find another "revolutionary leader" and "world leader" like him.
 * Hitler, for starters. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Arilang   talk  05:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am also interested to know how the term "mass murderer" is a point of view, rather than a matter of historical fact. Are Mao's deeds disputed? Or is there some other issue? --Asdfg12345 05:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Beijing government officials. including Zhou Enlai and Mao, increased the food procurement quota from the countryside to pay for international imports. According to Dikötter, "In most cases the party knew very well that it was starving its own people to death." Mao was quoted as saying in Shanghai in 1959: “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” Mao's Great Famine"


 * If Mao and Zhou Enlai and the Communist Party knew that Chinese were being starved to death in the millions, yet they keep on exporting food to oversea, then Mao and Zhou deserved the term "mass murderer".  Arilang   talk  06:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree the term describes him well, I don't think it looks serious in an encyclopedia article, and it makes it look like we are trying to push a POV more than we need to. If we look hard enough I'm sure we can find sources stating that Mao was an evil man, a selfish man and so on, but do we really need to mention all that? It should already be obvious from the text. Also I think most historians (let alone encyclopedia) don't bother with such terms, only journalists do so as to have catchy article titles. Laurent (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mass murderer" is definitely a negative POV statement. It also assumes that he physically killed people, which he did not. His policies led to the death of millions of people, but he didn't murder them in cold blood.  Also, the sources you are using for the term are not representative of a broad view of things; they are opinion pieces.  Them  From  Space  07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What Mao, and his communist friends, did was really Genocide, and Mass killings under Communist regimes, crimes which are much more serious than "mass murder". Even though he did not murder someone in cold blood, “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” he had virtually signed the death warrant of ten of millions of Chinese. And certainly it is not POV to those millions of dead Chinese.

"The first large-scale killings under Mao took place during land reform and the counterrevolutionary campaign. In official study materials published in 1948, Mao envisaged that "one-tenth of the peasants" (or about 50,000,000) "would have to be destroyed" to facilitate agrarian reform.[60] Actual numbers killed in land reform are believed to have been lower, but at least one million.[59][61] The suppression of counterrevolutionaries targeted mainly former Kuomintang officials and intellectuals suspected of disloyalty.[62] At least 712,000 people were executed, 1,290,000 were imprisoned inlabor camps and 1,200,000 were "subject to control at various times."[63]"

Mass killings under Communist regimes  Arilang   talk  07:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So I agree with Wikilaurent about "letting the facts speak for themselves". No need for such a charged word, I suppose; better to describe what he actually did. --Asdfg12345 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mass murder may sound charged but its really just a simple fact- he caused the deaths of millions of people. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "may sound charged" is the reason why "Mass Murder" may well be used in a flashy editorial but not in an encyclopedic entry. "Mass Murder" is used for a wider array of murderous crimes, mostly associated with a more "hands on" approach and therefore not very precise in describing Mao. For the same reason you won't find it in this article either: Adolf Hitler  --194.24.158.1 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mao Izhar Bagus
The picture has the above as its title rather than Zedong. What does Izhar Bagus mean? It's not mentioned anywhere else on the google-indexed internet.

188.222.188.169 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes
I have no knowledge of computers and stuff, but there are plenty errors in this text, which are for sure deliberate. Mao died in 1976, not "until his death in 1986", he founded maoism, not daoism, and People's Republic of China, not The Great Wall!!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.120.2 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mandarin or not?
Under "Early life" it says that Mao never learned how to speak Mandarin due to living in a Xiang-speaking community. However, under "Personal life" it says that he spoke Mandarin with a heavy Xiang accent. Someone please reoncile the two statements. When did Mao learn how to speak Mandarin, if he didn't grow up with it? hbdragon88 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
Mao had been in poor health for several years and had declined visibly for at least 6 months prior to his death and he quite possibly died from Lou Gehrig's disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glomaster (talk • contribs)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
The ref to Mao's eldest son should be reverted back to Mao Anying from Joseph Regina, as it was until today. A reference, by the way, to both this and the following "citation needed" (Yang Kaihui's arrest and killing) is Mao: The Unknown Story, Jung Chang and John Halliday, Afred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, pp. 81-82. (Both are dealt with on both pages.) Page 82 of Chang and Halliday, however, state that Anying was taken by their uncle early the next year to Shanghai to attend a secret Communist Party school. The book is somewhat controversial but has plenty of sources for the basic storyline. Better, anyway, than the sources for the separate article on Mao Anying. Thanks. SeoMac (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Upgrayyed?
I think this is a vandalism, does any one know how to fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.214.202 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Captions
Why are most of the captions in this article so bad? Most of them make no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.107.112 (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC) It seems to be a user called Wliiam·Shakespeare, I think all his/her "contributions" need to be undone. --Yerkschmerk (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Image Caption Gibberish
The English used in the captions is almost universally garbled (sometimes to the point of total incomprehensibility - some of the captions are total gobbledegook), presumably because they've either been translated from Chinese or written by a non-English speaker using an automatic translator. Can anyone help decipher and correct them? Fosse8 (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

New images added with garbled captions
DOZENS of new images have been added that seem to both crowd the page and contain unreadable captions. Should they be removed? I noticed at least one of the readable captions was wrong (using the wrong picture) and others seem to be pro-Mao and unbiased. Not to mention the fact that they're all candidates for "speedy deletion"!

I don't even know where to start. There have been so many different edits, including some good contributions that it's impossible to simply revert back!

Help? Peter (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of the images added. Peter (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you handled it correctly. If a few of those images (coffin, red book crowd) are saved from deletion they could be useful, but many weren't helpful and had awful (and long) captions.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I've moved the coffin image to the mausoleum article because that's quite a valuable picture. I don't want to move it to this article though. Peter (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Peter, I just saw that. I might have previously added a copy of the mausoleum picture to the article. I hope that isn't the one you removed. If it is, feel free to move it back and I apologize. However, I think it's a nice addition to the article. --98.154.0.48 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute regarding introduction
Greetings, I am IP98 from the Mao edits. I do not agree with Redthoreau's revision from 20:02, 29 July 2011

First of all, Mao was much more a guerilla warfare strategist than a military strategist. His greatest accomplishments were associated with the mobilization of relatively small armed groups within China to effectively achieve certain goals through... guerilla warfare. I'm not sure why you insist that the word "guerilla" be avoided. It is much, much more accurate. "Based on the basic strategy and tactics of warfare as described by Sun-tzu, Mao stresses the importance of guerrilla warfare tactics in a revolutionary war". The term "military" implies warfare through larger, more organized troops, which was less prevalent than guerilla strategy, under Mao's command.

In addition, the introduction itself was, and still is to some extent quite unbalanced. I simply moved a couple sentences up/down, but didn't actually modify the text's content. Previously, the "negative" side was diluted with several pro-arguments, while the converse did not apply. I must say that even the current article maintains a pro-Mao light, simply by comparing the size and detail of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the introduction. In the future, this bias should be further softened, but my edits so far have only dealt with organization. Finally, it should be noted that the last two sentences of the 2nd paragraph summarize the views of his strongest supporters, while the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph similarly asserts the referenced opinions of historians who are not supporters. It should be clear why this is much more balanced than before. 98.154.0.48 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I support your changes to the lead. I agree that this current revision is much less biased. I see that you have mainly reworded and changes text around and I think it should be left at this length for the time being. I think there should be no further changes to the lead now unless those changes are discussed here first. Peter (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to add a "However" to the beginning of the third paragraph because of its contrast with the second paragraph (which is almost praising Mao). I'm only adding this one word though and it's a minor edit. Hope you don't mind! Peter (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to see the significant changes because a lot of the wording is shifted around, but a major change I noticed is that IP98's version added "Some historians claim that Mao Zedong was a dictator comparable to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin,[6][7] with a death toll surpassing both.[8]" to the lead. Such language is more inflammatory than informative. ::Quigley (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IP98, Quigley, Peter et al, first "guerrilla warfare" strategist is fine. Now, (1) I share quigley's concerns regarding IP98 adding the lead sentence that "Some historians claim that Mao Zedong was a dictator comparable to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, with a death toll surpassing both". Setting aside the WP:NPOV Reductio ad Hitlerum, Godwin's Law violation, and use of "some" (when "Some" historians also praise Mao in many positive ways); I would say it is WP:Undue for inclusion in the lead. (2) As for delineating the paragraphs down into #2 positive and #3 negative, that is not how the WP:Lead should be written. The lead should be a summary of the full article not an internal debate. (3) Rather than making large changes to a lead that has been fairly stable for quite some time, it would be best if we dealt with these changes one at a time, with accompanying rationales, instead of en masse.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said, so the Stalin/Hitler comparison was returned to the center of the article. While it was suggested that no changes to the lead be made until further discussion arises, someone else had already reverted the lead to include my edits. So, at that point, it was necessary that I add detail to the framework which already existed. Please verify that the new lead is fair and balanced. Previously, Mao's accomplishments were actually unfortunately incorrect. China became a world power much much later, after the death of Mao. I had to replace those points with contributions and reforms which are more widely accepted. Hopefully this is agreed upon. In addition, to balance the detail of Mao's positive accomplishments, it is necessary that the source of his controversy is introduced with similar clarity. "40-70 million people died" simply does not suffice, compared to what was listed about Mao just before. After my edits, as a result, both the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are equally lengthy, with more verified information for both viewpoints. Redthoreau: I agree the lead should summarize the article and not become an internal debate. However, the introduction must present a clear, summarized picture of Mao. Because this historical figure remains so controversial, here it would be much more difficult to introduce him without contrasting accomplishments. Much of the article is devoted to Mao's rule and the deaths involved, even in gruesome detail. It is incorrect if the introduction does not reflect the article, which was unfortunately the case before these edits were made. An exception must be made in this case, to provide the clearest, most balanced and unbiased picture of Mao, because it is quite summarizing that controversy exists. --98.154.0.48 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

More Changes to lead
The current lead is extremely biased and any changes made to it are reverted to some so-called "stable version", so I'm going to list here the changes I've made. If you disagree, please discuss here:


 * Later, through his policies, he laid the economic, technological and cultural foundations of modern China, transforming the country from an underdeveloped peasant-based agrarian society into a major industrialized world power.

Unsourced and there are too many issues with this sentence. The disastrous effect of Mao's major policies is well known so writing that he made such positive transformations is incorrect. Also China was not and industrialized world power when Mao died.


 * Mao is credited with commanding the Long March and leading the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Kuomintang (KMT) in the Chinese Civil War, defeating an assortment of powerful regional and ethnic warlords in the process of unifying China, and helping repel a Japanese invasion. Mao also enacted sweeping land reform, by overthrowing the feudal landlords and seizing their large estates, before dividing the land up among the people who worked it.

The end of it sounds like communist propaganda. I'm sure the millions of peasants who starved to death would have preferred to keep things as they were. Moreover, Mao was pretty much hiding in the mountains and preparing his troops, while the KMT was fighting the Japanese and warlords on their own. Crediting him with the defeat of the Japanese is also CPC propaganda. Writing that "Mao is credited with" is POV.


 * The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are often criticized as failures, and are blamed for millions of deaths.

There's no argument among historians that these two movements were massive failures so we can write it plainly:

Laurent (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were catastrophic failures, and caused millions of deaths.


 * Laurent, as you should have seen the introduction was already being discussed here on the talk page, when you decided to make a range of changes and then post a new thread about it (which was not helpful). By "stable" version, I mean that the intro as it previously read was pretty much in that condition for several months without any verbal objections from the thousands of people each day who read the article and thus had the opportunity to comment. Now this could be a result of nobody caring enough to comment, but it could also be the result of people finding that it correctly balanced both the positive and negative aspects from Mao’s time as Chairman. However, just because you have disdain for Mao, and specifically find the introduction "extremely biased", doesn’t mean that you then get the ability to unilaterally make large disputed removals and then just keep reverting until they are accepted. Per WP:BRD, after you were reverted, the intro should have returned to its original state and then editors discuss the issue here on the talk page to see if we can reach a WP:Consensus per Wiki policies.


 * As for your edits, a number of your statements are problematic and display that you may think this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND or have a problem following the WP:NPOV policy. (1) First, calling it "communist propaganda" and "CPC propaganda"; while stating that Mao was "hiding in the mountains" and "starved peasants" would have liked to keep it the way it was – shows that your own bias might prevent you from compiling an objective introduction. (2) Using "catastrophic" would be a WP:PEACOCK adjective, and definitively calling the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution "failures" would be against WP:NPOV. Although some historians consider these events complete failures, others do not. (3) Writing that Mao "is credited", is actually an attempt to be more neutral from your side of the ideological spectrum. This is because some historians point out that he did not lead from the very start of the Long March, although he is usually "credited" as being the sole leader (which he was not). (4) As for your objection to the phrase "Mao also enacted sweeping land reform, by overthrowing the feudal landlords and seizing their large estates, before dividing the land up among the people who worked it", which you call "CPC propaganda", the utilized reference is the 2005 A&E Network’s Biography (TV series) entitled Mao Tse Tung: China's Peasant Emperor. A&E is hardly a bastion of apologetic Maoism, and having entered the sentence and reference in question originally, I can vogue that the documentary makes this exact claim. Keeping in mind that we are interested in WP:VERIFY not WP:TRUTH - which is subjective and open to many interpretations. (5) There is little debate that Mao transformed China from an underdeveloped peasant-based agrarian society into a major industrialized world power – the debate is centered around the amount of lives lost or killed making this transformation, and the amount of labor or effort squandered to do so. This could be sourced many times if you like, although ideally, it would be explained in detail in the article, and the lead only act as a brief summary. (6) Lastly, I don’t know if you meant to reinstate a Reductio ad Hitlerum i.e. a Hitler comparison in the lead of a Wikipedia article not about Hitler or the Nazis, but this is probably the text book definition of WP:POV. Moreover, if you think the current article is biased, I would point you towards the --> Encyclopedia Britannica article on Mao, so that you can see that if anything, this article is slanted too much against Mao, not for him.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw there was a discussion going on but it was not very active so I went ahead and made the changes. You say the current lead is stable but it doesn't seem so since many people disagree with it and in fact, the lead used to be different and less biased. I'm not sure at which point it was changed but it needs to be changed again to a more neutral version. To reply your comments: (2) Please provide sources where non-Chinese historians call the GLP and CR successes. In fact, even the Chinese (including Mao) consider these movements failures. (3) Writing that "Mao is 'credited' for defeating the KMT" is POV because it implies that the KMT was a bad thing for China. It might or might not be but to keep it neutral we can simply leave "credited" out. (4) I called it CPC propaganda, because like propaganda, it only tells a part of the truth. Mao did enact these policies, but what we are omitting is that thousands of landlords were tortured and killed in the process. We are making it sounds like justice (taking to the rich to give to the poor) when there was no justice at all. (5) I agree there is a debate on the number of lives but the current range we agree on (40 to 70 millions) is high enough to leave out language like "are often criticized as failures", "are blamed for", etc. They were failure (even 1 million deaths would be a failure, let alone 40 millions) and they did cause famine, etc. Laurent (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Update on lead reform
I returned the Hitler/Stalin comparison to its original setting in the center of the article, under legacy. I'll agree that this point of view is not appropriate for the introduction, though it is a significant point of view which deserves to remain in the center of the article where it has dwelled for quite some time.

It's good to see I'm not the only one who is amazed at the bias of the previous "stable" lead. With our recent edits, the article presents a much more balanced picture of Mao. We shouldn't seek balance by repressing certain points of view. Instead all points of view should be clearly present and visible, so that the reader may conclude appropriately. I am amazed these reforms are only happening now. Britannica's bias should not imply the same fate for Wikipedia, which is based on democracy.

I'll have to agree with laurent: It is certainly propaganda if Mao is introduced in praising detail as a visionary, with the mentioning of war accomplishments, philosophical/poetic/literary contributions, and societal improvement, with only a single sentence devoted to the deaths he encouraged. I have thus added additional detail to the methods through which millions were killed under Mao. Since this is the primary cause of controversy for the figure, it is important that it is stated clearly and succinctly in the introduction, and not simply mentioned briefly as "he also killed millions". Otherwise, his positive accomplishments must be reduced to a similar brief summary.

The Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward are almost always considered failures. It would be misleading to paint them otherwise. For this reason, it would also be misleading to claim that "through his policies, he laid the economic, technological and cultural foundations of modern China, transforming the country from an underdeveloped peasant-based agrarian society into a major industrialized world power". China was not an industrialized world power when Mao died. Instead, those developments came afterwards. He set the stage for the future policies and developments which would modernize China, but he did not make those policies himself... he was dead. --98.154.0.48 (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright everyone, I just spent many hours making several contributions to the article, and I'm finally done. The lead is much, much more accurate and balanced. Mao's legacy is usually an interesting combination of both good and bad, which even the "legacy" section touches on. I feel that the introduction summarizes that legacy much more clearly, through the inclusion of both the best and the worst. The lead is neither pro-Mao or anti-Mao. Unique to this figure, this summary requires a clean division of "good" and "bad", but we can counter that by making sure both colors are painted equally. In other words, there's no way an introductory summary of Mao can avoid internal debate / controversy, so we have to instead bring all big points about Mao and present clearly and fairly. It seems like this is the best we can do, to have (1) a clear summary, (2) a sufficient summary, and (3) a balanced/unbiased summary. I have made several other edits on consistency, flow, and grammar. I extracted two quotes which were buried in the references, because these quotes are a significant part of Mao's negative modern interpretation, which proposes a similarity between Mao's China, and both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Without those quotes present in the article, readers will not understand a major modern point of view of Mao (that single buried sentence was not enough for such a major part of this figure's historical interpretation). Other than this, the article maintains flow in that neither viewpoint (good or bad) monopolizes any section, as redthoreau reminded us regarding Wikipedia's rules, to avoid too much internal debate. Only in the introduction is there a clear distinction between good/bad viewpoints, for the reasons I previously listed. In addition, I brought a few additional pictures and moved them slightly for aesthetics. I hope everyone is pleased with these edits. --98.154.0.48 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 98, I found many of your additions helpful, and hopefully a sign that we are making progress (the few I didn't I have adjusted slightly, while keeping all the content). I think the lead as it currently stands is acceptable and written according to WP:NPOV. However, this is only after I have reverted a string of Laurent’s edits which I believe violate our neutrality policies. Laurent, it is important that we also continue to use the TP, to prevent edit warring. Now, would you like to explain what you did not like about IP98’s lead?  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for a few details I have no problem with the IP's edits; only yours are biased. Laurent (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

IP 98, just to correct one of your assertions, Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. However, I think we are making progress through collaboration. Red thoreau -- (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My turn, I guess
It seems that now all 3 of us have taken a shot at revamping the lead. Please review --> my version (which has attempted to keep IP98's edits, take into consideration Laurent's edits and concerns, and balance out the pro and con). It will undoubtedly need to be tweaked more by all of us, but I hope that through all of us adding our own ingredients to the meal - that hopefully we are getting somewhere. Red thoreau -- (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting there. Still a few things I'd like to tweak but I will wait for IP98's input first. Laurent (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear Laurent. I have made some additional tweaks and wiki-links in the --> latest version, and will now await your and IP98's reviews of it.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits look great, it's good that so much progress has been made. I'm currently tweaking the lead. Aside from minor grammar issues, here are the main points of my edits: 1. Where it mentions "damage to chinese culture", I think it could be specified, briefly, that historical relics/sites were ransacked. Otherwise it's ambiguous to the reader; it seems damage to culture is argued only because people died. I'm pulling a sentence from the cultural revolution article and I'm modifying it for that position. 2. I moved the population increase + death toll higher, where "millions of deaths" are first introduced. this provides for a better flow... less choppy in my opinion. Also, what do we think about these issues (I haven't made changes here): 1. "Damage to the chinese economy" was previously removed, not sure when. This is certainly debatable, and I'd love to hear what you guys think. From the Great Leap Forward article: "During the Great Leap, the Chinese economy initially grew. Iron production increased 45% in 1958 and a combined 30% over the next two years, but plummeted in 1961, and did not reach the previous 1958 level until 1964 ... Liu Shaoqi made a speech in 1962 at Seven Thousand Man's Assembly criticizing that 'The economic disaster was 30% fault of nature, 70% human error.'" This is also particularly notable: "The Great Leap also led to the greatest destruction of real estate in human history, outstripping any of the bombing campaigns from World War II.[56] Approximately 30 to 40 per cent of all houses were turned to rubble". I'm not incorporating those points right now. I'm not sure if "damage to the economy" should be mentioned in his introduction. 2. Are we certain we should keep, from the last lead paragraph, "—and the rapid industrialization that began during Mao’s reign is credited for laying a foundation for China’s development in the late 20th century—"? 98.154.0.48 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks IP98, I am glad to know that you believe we are making progress. I agree, and believe the same. I believe that all of your edits mentioned above (1 & 2) are fine and aid the lead. As for the second set of 1 & 2, I'm not sure about the "economy" line, because although there were environmental devastations as you mention, overall the one "positive" that even Mao's critics usually acknowledge is the elimination of inflation, full employment, development etc. The critique is usually not the economic "ends", but Mao's violent and costly "means". I think the lead does a good job of showing this dilemma. As for #2, the last line about industrialization was included because it was part of the statement by Encyclopedia Britannica. I would favor keeping it, as it is commonly mentioned that Mao "set the stage" (many would say brutally) for China's ascendancy from a developmental standpoint, and then unleashing capitalism built on that foundation to bring China to where they are today.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) -- (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, that makes sense. I think the current lead is fair and balanced enough to remain stable for some time, unless compelling arguments continue to arise. Compared to the old lead, the new lead isn't only more balanced, but it actually illustrates Mao's greatest achievements much more clearly. It provides the reader with a superior framework for understanding the figure, by expanding on both the "good" (why people respect him, health care, life expectancy) and the "bad" (why people died, how culture was damaged). As I have already said, because Mao remains such a controversial figure today, it would be difficult to provide a clear, correct, and fair summary without separating these contrasting points in the introduction. It's almost impossible to avoid any debate when speaking of Mao, but the current lead does a good job of summarizing the most commonly accepted dilemma regarding his accomplishments. The last paragraph of the lead sufficiently ties together the general consensus on the figure. I apologize for remaining anonymous this entire time, as I don't plan to edit articles on Wikipedia. I guess at this point it would be polite if I revealed a little educational background on myself, since I don't have a wiki page. I'm an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, where I'm double-majoring in Mathematics and Philosophy, with a minor in French Literature. After graduation I seek to pursue a PhD in Economics, specializing in either international development or labor economics. Thanks everyone for remaining mostly objective and fair. I enjoyed debating this page while learning more about the Wikipedia process. I'll probably continue to check this article as time permits, since I'm curious to see what happens next. 98.154.0.48 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * IP98, it was nice working with you, and I am glad that we were able to reach an agreement – hopefully Laurent will share our opinion that the lead does a nice job of demonstrating both pro and con. I share your belief that the current lead is much more informational from both sides, ideally the article will in time now catch up to the lead. Polarizing political figures are the hardest topics to edit on Wikipedia, and as an IP novice, you did quite well. Hopefully for the sake of your continued studies, you won’t get too much of the Wiki itch – but believe me, editing Wikipedia can become contagious and addicting :o). If you are interested in learning more about the project, I would shamelessly recommend my own WP:REDWISDOM page which you might find helpful. As for your background and studies, good luck with them and I hope you see it through to completion.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) -- (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Redthoreau, your most recent edit removing "statesman" and replacing it with "theorist" is fine, but is there a big-enough distinction between "theorist" and "philosopher"? At the moment it seems redundant. Perhaps we should remove theorist, since philosopher would probably encompass more of Mao's theoretical contributions. We could also use "political philosopher", but Mao was indeed a philosopher beyond pure politics, so that might be too narrow. 98.154.0.48 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 98, please see my recent attempt to fix this.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) -- (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Just curious, why do you feel both theorist and philosopher should be listed? 98.154.0.48 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I removed philosopher.  Red thoreau  -- (talk) -- (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What, no criticsm?
More than half of Berslusconi's page is made up of his legal problems and controversies, yet Mao, the greatest of the totalitarian mass murderers, doesn't even deserve a tiny criticism sub-sub-sub-section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.52.41 (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:criticism sections. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is enough criticism in this article for it to be considered mostly balanced. What this article doesn't have is a criticism/controversies section and I don't think it should have one, for the reasons given in the Wikipedia guide, cited by Paul B. Good articles have criticism throughout the article where appropriate. - Peter (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with OP, other question: why is no reference made to Mao's pratice of bedding virgins? I came here to find some solid info, but ended up finding it on other sites. Don't tell me the article is being kept "neutral" in the sense that anything offensive to Chinese should be removed?! --129.175.149.10 (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How about you stop inserting nonsense into the article. This isn't a place to insert heresays or whatever bullcrap Americans made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.14.143.119 (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with you, I am half-Hunanese myself and I'm pretty shocked that there's no criticism on Mao ZeDong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiatai (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with what is stated above, I feel that the man responsible for a genocide larger than Adolf Hitler deserves some sort of criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.99.200 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What is controversial about Mao's kill count? There is no debate about that, it's practically common knowledge. I noticed that the last bullet of the above "to do list" requires concrete evidence of all claims in order for them to be included in a wikipedia article; well, Mao's systematic eradication of tens of millions of his own people is very well documented. I would advise to please look harder for the needed proof. Afterall, we are talking about the greatest killer of all time, and so the scale of his heinous acts should not be omitted merely due to the lack of breadth and/or depth of the required research.

Warlords, United Front
Which Chinese warlord did Mao eliminate during the second sino-japanese war?? Almost every chinese with guns were busy fighting the japanese, with the possible exception of MAO who was more interested in aggressively recruiting (i.e. use of force) anti-japanese militias into the CPC's 8th Route Army while letting others (KMT, regional warlords) suffer the wrath of the mighty IJA. Anyone with a basic knowledge of modern Chinese history knew that warlords were subdued (but not eliminated) during the Northern Expedition led by Chiang Kai-shek, so unless someone can show me a credible citation that substantiate this claim, I am going to eliminate warlord from the lead paragraph. Plus to claim that Mao "formed" the second united front with the KMT is misleading, the CPC was barely hanging on after suffering tremendous lost during the long march. If the Manchurian warlord Zhang Xue-liang (whose army was assigned to wipe out the CPC by Chiang) did not kidnap Chiang, the second united front was never going to happen. I propose changing this sentence to "making peace with the Nationalists in the second united front to repel the Japanese during the second sino-japanese war." DCTT (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Special section on Mao's foreign policy needed
I was surprised by the little amount of information on Mao's foreign policy. I'd create a special section, but I'm not an expert on Chinese history and politics, so someone should start working on that; it seems to me that Mao was very much a Trotskyist believer in world revolution in his foreign policies, sending armies in Korea and Vietnam and generally supporting insurgencies and rebellions in Cambodia, Philippines, etc. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed
To avoid the practice of these new 'Chinese Trolls' who are paid about 5p per positive post they make about Communist China we need huge amounts of citations especially on pages like this. Please cite Sources for every fact you make. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7783640.stm 90.193.90.129 (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mao amulets and evil spirits
A sentence on the use of Mao's image to ward off evil and ill fortune was deleted from the article on the grounds of its being unsourced and implausible. Unsourced it was, but not implausible; this was certainly in practice in the 1990s, if not later. As Orville Schell wrote in 1992,


 * Wherever I've gone in China during the past few years, I've heard tales of people who have allegedly been saved by Mao. "People say because Mao has become divine like a god, he can bring good luck," a shopkeeper in Wushi explained as she wrapped up some Mao pendants I had just bought. "Some people say the old guy can even protect you from bad fortune!" She shrugged and gave an embarrassed laugh. I've heard stories about drivers who claim that the protection afforded by a Mao amulet allowed them to walk away uninjured from the scene of a hideous crash while those without one were maimed for life, and tales of street vendors who escaped robbery and even murder because they had fortified themselves with a photo of Mao. I was hardly surprised to hear that huge numbers of destitute peasants in southeast China bought Mao talismans after the catastrophic floods of the summer of last year.

And from Reuters in 1996:


 * "Pictures of Mao still are thought by many to ward off evil spirits. They hang from the rear view mirrors of many vehicles as an amulet against accidents and adorn the walls of many homes." 

The posthumous deification of Mao is certainly worth noting in the article.Homunculus (duihua) 06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For a start, the Schell article doesn't back up a simplistic 'deification' argument, but puts it in a broader political context. In any case, both sources are rather dated: 1992 and 1996. Any inclusion would need better sources than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The articles speak to a widespread phenomenon of their own time. They would not be used to support an argument that this is ongoing—other sources are needed for that—but they do refer to the fact that the cult of Mao had, by the 1980s and 1990s, been resurrected to a large degree (so much, in fact, that official measures were taken in the 90s to crack down on the pseudo-religious Mao worship, which had been fanned by party conservatives). If the word of a major newswire and prominent China scholar are not sufficiently compelling, you can find more discussion in Geremie Barme's piece here, or this reference text, or from Stefan Landsberger's "The Deification of Mao: Religious Imagery and Practices during the Cultural Revolution and Beyond." Homunculus (duihua) 15:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

毛匪澤東
Some Taiwanese sources refer to 毛澤東 as 毛匪澤東, i.e. adding the 匪 character to his name, which means "bandit" (~土匪）and reads 'fei'. Why is that so? How widespread is that? Online occurance: and print media (Kinmen Daily) published 10-09-1976  Thanks for any remark 141.24.43.52 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This was originally the Nationalist government's standard way of referring to Wang Jingwei and various leaders of the puppet governments Japan set up in China. Later, when the Nationalist government moved to Taiwan in 1949, most publications there applied it to CCP leaders up until the mid eighties. Similarly, government bodies run by 匪頭 are 偽 "false", or maybe just "illegal".  So the National People's Congress was the "illegal" NPC 偽人民代表大会, the post office was the "illegal China Post Office" 偽中國郵政, and so forth.  The CCP naturally returned the favor; Chiang Kai-shek was "the bandit Chiang" 蔣匪, and various unfavored political organizations were "illegal," such as the "illegal" People's Conference 偽人民会議 in Tibet in 1952. All this has antecedents that go back to the Qing era and earlier. Rgr09 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Text and sources
The following text is highly problematic and is at odds with rules about reliable sources, attribution, and original research, especially the way parts of one work are combined with others to produce something that does not exist in published literature.


 * However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution",[39] the number of deaths range between 2 million[39][40] and 5 million.[41][42] In addition, at least 1.5 million people,[43] perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million,[44] were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished.[44] Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas,[45] which were often exceeded.[35] He defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.[46]

This work does not meet criteria of reliable sources because it is published by a controversial political group that has an anti-China bias. There are better, academic sources on the topic. The Mosher book is similarly inappropriate because he studies contemporary Chinese politics rather than Mao Zedong or his historical period. Mosher is also controversial.


 * "his rule from 1949 to 1976 is believed to have caused the deaths of 40 to 70 million people."

Wikipedia is supposed to represent consensus and majority viewpoints. However, vast majority of Chinese scholars, whose works make up the majority of the published academic literature about Chinese history, make no such claims about Mao, but instead view him in a positive manner similar to Chinese President Hu Jintao, who said: Comrade Mao Zedong was a great Marxist; a great proletarian revolutionary, strategist, and theorist; a great patriot and national hero in modern day China; and a great man of his generation who led the Chinese people to thoroughly change their destinies and the face of their nation. So the above claim needs to be either removed or properly attributed. None of the cited sources for the above claim qualify as reliable sources: Rummel is a political scientist focusing on America, Goldhagen has no expertise on China, Fenby is a journalist with the popular media with no academic credentials, and Jung and Halliday's work is notorious.


 * "Hong Kong-based historian Frank Dikötter, who has sifted through well over a thousand documents in recently (2005–2009)[52] opened Chinese local and regional party archives, challenges the notion that Mao did not know about the famine until it was too late:"

Dikötter's work is controversial, and its inclusion violates rules about undue weight. See Prof. O Grada's review of the book, where he writes "It is not a comprehensive account of the famine; it is dismissive of academic work on the topic; it is weak on context and unreliable with data; and it fails to note that many of the horrors it describes were recurrent features of Chinese history during the previous century or so."


 * You say "vast majority of Chinese scholars, whose works make up the majority of the published academic literature about Chinese history, make no such claims about Mao, but instead view him in a positive manner similar to Hu Jintao".


 * However, as you are no doubt fully aware, Chinese scholars living outside of Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan operate within a highly constrained academic environment in which they risk imprisonment or punishment for significantly dissenting from the official versions of history promulgated by the Chinese government. Past and present (they are airbrushed and changed so often) versions of history promulgated by the Communist Party leadership are of course relevant and can be stated as "official versions", however whenever party propaganda is included here it must be identified as such. The same goes for "controversial political groups" who may oppose Communist Party rule ("anti-Communist Party sentiment" is generally a more accurate description of them than that of "anti-China bias" as you stated above).


 * Wikipedia itself is often blocked in mainland China for the very reason that it presents historical material which Chinese scholars are not permitted to write. Whilst the individual sources you point to may need review, I remind you that facts and opinion which run contrary to the expediencies of the Communist Party are not automatically "anti-Chinese". On the contrary, it is impossible to imagine a greater demonstration of pride and devotion to China than the actions of a man like Liu Xiaobo, who cared so much for China's future, that he was willing to face imprisonment for challenging the Communist Party.Observoz (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Chinese internet providers can do as they wish, and it's not up to you or I to second-guess their policies. Your bringing up issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the scope of this article.


 * You talk about "party propaganda". However, you fail to note that Chinese historians engage in healthy, constructive discussions about all sorts of issues. For example,


 * The evaluaton of the Hundred Regiments Campaign has been a troublesome issue for the CCP. In 1984, Chinese historians still openly disagreed about the campaign. Some argued that "militarily the Hundred Regiments offensive violated the strategic direction set by the Party Center for the period of strategic stalemate, exceeded the limits of strategic defense, and because of errors of comand, caused heavy losses which could have been avoided." Other Chinese writers, while not denying these points, extol the objectives and results of the campaign.

Now, for the above subject, what exactly is the Communist Party's "official view"? Because here you are making these claims about history being dictated by the state and that historians are not allowed to debate issues. But the above text clearly contradicts this.

The consensus of historians around the world is that Mao's legacy is a positive one for China. This article is dominated overwhelmingly by those who are out of touch of the majority view and consensus as established by scholars of China's academy of sciences and other institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.160.99 (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no such consensus on Mao. And the fact that Chinese academics and historians operate under restrictive conditions in which information is highly censored (including on wikipedia and the internet) and can face punishment for dissenting from government positions is highly relevant to the issues you have raised.


 * Certainly there is consensus that Mao is a significant figure in both Chinese and world history and there is also consensus that he was an effective guerilla campaigner and political strategist, but none of this suggests consensus that he was "positive for China".


 * Certainly there are also debates about Mao: at least among historians who are at liberty to investigate and objectively comment on such matters without fear of punishment (ie, those living outside the mainland PRC). There is debate about the extent to which Mao can be held personally responsible for disastrous episodes like the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution - that is to say, was he in it up to his ears... or only up to his neck?


 * In China there is debate about Mao too, but publishing such material is risky. As you know, the CCP itself vacillates on the extent to which debate can be permitted in China and there are many Chinese who are willing to dissent from government positions even though they know the potential consequences.  But ultimately all academics, authors and historians operate on the understanding that if they publish material which contradicts significant positions expounded by the CCP, they can be punished - and they are all aware that few matters in the history of modern China have been subject to greater mythologizing than the character of Chairman Mao.Observoz (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your personal, unsourced views on the matter are not very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.160.99 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your attacks and slurs against the CCP are contradicted by the content of this article, which confirms the fairness and objective nature of Chinese historiography about China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.160.99 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article cited says nothing concerning fairness or objectivity in Chinese historiography. It consists only of comments from several foreigners interviewed in Beijing on the 30th anniversary of Mao's death.  Also, the quote above on the Hundred Campaigns, which I assume is yours since the ip address is the same, does not appear in the link given, nor does it appear in google searches.  Please cite relevant material and use citations that can be confirmed.Rgr09 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. It seems the contributor has been banned as a sockpuppet. Oh well. Whoever added materials from Dikotter should still address O Grada review. Also still curious about where the Hundred Campaigns quote came from.  Does anyone know? Rgr09 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)