Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 9

Anachronism
The article formerly read
 * As a result, he was appointed to run the KMT's Peasant Movement Training Institute, also becoming Director of its Propaganda Department and editing its Political Weekly (Zhengzhi zhoubao) newsletter.[77][78] Through the Peasant Movement Training Institute, Mao took an active role in organizing the revolutionary Hunanese peasants and preparing them for militant activity, taking them through military training exercises and getting them to study various left-wing texts.[79] In the winter of 1925, Mao fled to Canton after his revolutionary activities attracted the attention of Zhao's regional authorities.[80]

which... ok, fine.

Problem is I actually got some sources for the exact dates that he was leading the PMTI and
 * He returned to Guangzhou to run the 6th term of the KMT's Peasant Movement Training Institute from May to September 1926.[77][78] He also served as the director of its propaganda department and edited its Political Weekly (Zhengzhi Zhoubao) newsletter.[79][80] Through the Peasant Movement Training Institute, Mao took an active role in organizing the revolutionary Hunanese peasants and preparing them for militant activity, taking them through military training exercises and getting them to study various left-wing texts.[81] In the winter of 1925, Mao fled to Guangzhou after his revolutionary activities attracted the attention of Zhao's regional authorities.[82]

that doesn't work at all.

I imagine the actual source just says Mao was active in Hunan and an overimaginative editor added the bit about that occurring "through the PMTI" that he actually taught a year afterwards... but I'm not sure. I imagine there are some experts or people with groaning bookshelves who keep an eye on major pages like this. Hopefully one of y'all can clean this up appropriately. — Llywelyn II   17:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again,, for your sharp eyes. I checked Schram and you were right that he does not say that Mao trained Hunan peasants. I tried to fix up the passage, then got caught up in several other places where the text did not follow the sources. Lots more to do, so I hope you keep at it.ch (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. For my own peace of mind, though, I'll probably avoid being too active on Wiki's Mao &c. pages until I'm out of China or TPTB go back to accepting qualified criticism of historical figures. — Llywelyn II   04:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Date format
The article uses the US date format of mm/did//yy, even though such is not used in a China and the article is written in what is described on Wikipedia as 'British' English. Could someone change to (very widely used) format of dad/mm/yy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.183.63 (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Date correction
The article states that Mao suffered his second heart attack in July, before dying in September. Any source I can find that provides an actual date, lists the date of that heart attack as June 26, not July.

Dkfwriting (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * According to Mao: A Life by Phillip Short, p.624: "At the end of June, he had another heart attack, this time more serious." The New Emperors by Harrison E. Salisbury is less specific: "His condition deteriorated rapidly since June, when he may have had a stroke or heart attack."  June appears to be correct, and I think between the 2 of us, there is enough evidence to change the article.  Spence or Short would make fine citations.--Wikimedes (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017
Tomunc (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Images need to be uploaded as per WP:IMAGE. Please follow the guidelines and upload the image to Wikimedia if its licensing allows for it. —   IVORK  Discuss 23:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017
I would like to add an image below your picture of the location of the 1st Party Meeting in Shanghai. It is an image from inside of the wax figures of Mao, Zhou Enlai, etc... I took the image myself. Tomunc (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Images need to be uploaded as per WP:IMAGE. Please follow the guidelines and upload the image to Wikimedia if its licensing allows for it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mao Zedong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090729194758/http://www.hrichina.org/public/PDFs/CRF.4.2005/CRF-2005-4_Quota.pdf to http://hrichina.org/public/PDFs/CRF.4.2005/CRF-2005-4_Quota.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210190821/http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=18328 to http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=18328
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808171854/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY4NWU2ZjY3YWYxMDllNWQ5MjQ3ZGJmMzg3MmQyNjQ%3D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411230653/http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6296363/part_2/systematic-genocide-.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6296363/part_2/systematic-genocide-.thtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mao Zedong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090729194758/http://www.hrichina.org/public/PDFs/CRF.4.2005/CRF-2005-4_Quota.pdf to http://hrichina.org/public/PDFs/CRF.4.2005/CRF-2005-4_Quota.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627092313/http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/chinesehistory/pgp/jeremy50sessay.htm to http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/chinesehistory/pgp/jeremy50sessay.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Maoism
My account isn't confirmed yet because I only started using it again recently, but can someone change "collectively known as Maoism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism" in the intro to "collectively known as Maoism or Mao Zedong Thought." Although Mao's work eventually would influence MLM, the branch of Marxism-Leninism he theorized was Mao Zedong Thought. Alternatively, the reference to MLM can be removed altogether because MLM wouldn't be developed until 1993, nearly 20 years after his death and independent of the Chinese Communist Party. This seems to be a source of confusion for a lot of people studying Mao and thus I hope someone can rectify this.

— Sofi Delicafe (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Mao Zedong China's greatest scholar
Mao Zedong claimed to be China's greatest scholar - because he had killed nine thousand of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.197 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * He was declared an civil war with Chiang Kai-shek, because Chiang Kai-shek had seriously murder curse and corruption problem during he regime in China Mainland the period of time, why?  S A 1 3 B r o  (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "The Holocaust memorial museum puts the death toll between 5 and 10 million."
I have removed the sentence "The Holocaust memorial museum puts the death toll between 5 and 10 million," referring to the Cultural Revolution, in this edit. This was a very recent addition to the article, and cited this page, from the Holocaust Memorial Museum. I question the veracity of this sentence for three reasons.


 * First, this was a transcript of a guest lecture and no where is it indicated that the HMM itself endorsed the statement.
 * Secondly, the lecture was made by a historian by the name of "Merrill Goldman" from Boston University; searching '"Merrill Goldman" Boston University' yields no results on Google other than those of the page on the HMM's website. The name appears to have been misspelt; the historian in question is actually probably Merle Goldman. I am unable to find any other place for the 5 to 10 million figure from any of Ms. Goldman's works. She wrote in the New York Times in 1987 that the estimate for the total number persecuted in the Cultural Revolution was 10 million, but makes no estimation of the number killed.
 * The 5 to 10 million figure is not backed by scholarship -- even her own. In the book China: A New History, which Goldman co-authored and published 6 years after her lecture at the HMM, she does not make any estimation of the death toll of the cultural revolution. I can't find any other scholarship on Google Scholar or Books that also makes any claim on the 5 or 10 million.

For a topic like this I think WP:SCHOLARSHIP must apply, which the sentence does not meet. I would be glad should someone find an appropriate source for the figure, but the sentence in question must not stand as-is. For the record, I hope no one takes this post as being sympathetic to the Cultural Revolution, which my family suffered greatly under. This is merely me checking the sources in the article. Richard Yetalk 03:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mao Zedong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906144248/http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/mirsky_09_10.html to http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/mirsky_09_10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131124840/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/115/CRintro.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/115/CRintro.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209022723/http://mattschiavenza.com/2010/10/08/some-china-book-notes/ to http://mattschiavenza.com/2010/10/08/some-china-book-notes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601001246/http://library.thinkquest.org/26469/cultural-revolution/cult.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/26469/cultural-revolution/cult.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107235535/http://www.shaoshan.gov.cn/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=14617 to http://www.shaoshan.gov.cn/Article/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=14617
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041209035950/http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/mao/index.html to http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/mao/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Blindness
Didn't he go blind or half-blind in the last year or two of his life (possibly due to cataracts)? If so, why is this notable fact not included in this article? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Genocide
No mention of genocide, one can only presume the curators are trying to portray this monster in the best light possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.39.102 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Chinese characters and pinyin
On almost every China-related page there will be a transliteration of the name in Chinese pinyin as well as simplified/traditional characters in the first sentence. I don't actually edit wikipedia stuff but I'm sure someone would want to fix that. 谢谢 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.137.159 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Shorten the introduction with refocus on revolution and death toll
Mao is notable for leading the Communist revolution in China and his contributions to the largest catastrophe in human history as per Washington Post: Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world. The introduction is too long and focused on irrelevant topics, eg introducing him as a 'Chinese communist revolutionary, poet, political theorist' - no one is here for some Maoist poetry, any more than they visit Hitler for his art ;) The intro should be shortened to summarize his original intentions with the Communist revolution, versus the resulting famine and death toll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.125.236 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

A noteworthy portrayal of Mao
In the section "Portrayal in film and television", there should be added the film "The Chairman", which is a political thriller released circa 1969. A great deal of the plot features a fictional Mao engaged in idealogical discourse with a visiting Western dignitary. Mao is played by Conrad Yama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"Kill count" in introduction
"which through arbitrary executions, purges and forced labor caused an estimated 40 to 70 million deaths"

What? Are we seriously trying to claim that under Mao, 70,000,000 people were... "executed or purged"? Really? This isn't even the standard propaganda line of the imperialists. The usual claim is that most of these people died in famine, which somehow is Mao's fault. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You can actually remove away the interrogative sentence, but must be in neutrality by using the WP:COMMONSENSE. For me, I also don't think that Mao Zedong had holocaust over 10 million population, although he had commit some political blunder in the past. This could be the speculation from out side, so I try to remove it now. SA 13 Bro (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Found in passing: http://www.scmp.com/culture/arts-entertainment/article/2142616/mao-zedong-chiang-kai-shek-rare-shots-1930s-china A picture of Mao Zedong in this article circa 1935.  You may wish to contact them should you feel it is applicable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.29.176 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources that give a rough estimate of the number of victims of Mao's leadership and I believe it makes sense to include these in the introduction. Of course, it must be clear that these are rough (!) estimates. Compare also with Stalin. wikitigresito (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2018
Under the heading "Genealogy": Please amend "One of his granddaughters is businesswoman Kong Dongmei, one of the richest people in China.[286] His grandson Mao Xinyu (Kong's half-brother) is a general in the Chinese army" to "One of his granddaughters is businesswoman Kong Dongmei, one of the richest people in China.[286] His grandson Mao Xinyu (Kong's cousin) is a general in the Chinese army". Mao Xinyu's father was the half-brother of Kong Dongmei's mother; Kong Dongmei and Mao Xinyu are therefore not siblings but cousins. 88.144.62.237 (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Here you go:

"Kong Dongmei has been following in the footsteps of her grandfather, Mao Zedong, by promoting literature and culture. Yang Guang reports

Kong Dongmei has the same mole on her chin as her grandfather, former chairman Mao Zedong, but that's not all. She also has the same ambition to promote culture.

The daughter of Li Min, Mao's only surviving child with second wife He Zizhen, Kong is the president of a Beijing culture corporation." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2010-05/11/content_9833328.htm

"Mao Xinyu, the only grandson of Mao Zedong, made a public appearance last week, silencing a rumor that he was among 32 Chinese tourists killed in a traffic accident in North Korea last month.

He is the only son of Mao Anqing, the last surviving son of Mao Zedong." http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180506000063 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.176.195 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2018
Under the heading "Genealogy": Please amend "One of his granddaughters is businesswoman Kong Dongmei, one of the richest people in China.[286] His grandson Mao Xinyu (Kong's half-brother) is a general in the Chinese army" to "One of his granddaughters is businesswoman Kong Dongmei, one of the richest people in China.[286] His grandson Mao Xinyu (Kong's cousin) is a general in the Chinese army". Mao Xinyu's father was the half-brother of Kong Dongmei's mother; Kong Dongmei and Mao Xinyu are therefore not siblings but cousins. Sourced evidence: "Kong Dongmei has been following in the footsteps of her grandfather, Mao Zedong, by promoting literature and culture...The daughter of Li Min, Mao's only surviving child with second wife He Zizhen, Kong is the president of a Beijing culture corporation." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2010-05/11/content_9833328.htm

"Mao Xinyu, the only grandson of Mao Zedong, made a public appearance last week, silencing a rumor that he was among 32 Chinese tourists killed in a traffic accident in North Korea last month...He is the only son of Mao Anqing, the last surviving son of Mao Zedong." http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180506000063 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.176.195 (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC) 79.72.176.195 (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per WP:NOTNEWS.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018
Could someone *please* fix the reference to Kong Dongmei and Mao Xinyu? As indicated in the sources above, they are cousins, not half-siblings. I don't care if you amend it to refer to them as cousins, or delete the bracketed passage, or just delete reference to them altogether, but please get rid of the unnecessary inaccuracy. 79.72.177.168 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. I removed the parenthetical passage. The cited source does not mention Kong Dongmei, let alone describe how they are related. Rivertorch FIREWATER  06:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the obvious controversy surrounding his views on women, isn't Mao's clear-cut categorization as a "feminist" a bit misguided?
I've seen back-and-forth edits of the 'feminist' label on other left wing figures'pages whose views on the issue were grey-area, so I assume this might be a controversial tag. But in this case it really feels particularly far from being clear-cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashitanofrog (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Photo
Can editors please discuss the infobox picture here instead of edit warring.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the photo, but Mao Zedong 1959 (cropped).jpg was the status quo in the article until the back-and forth began yesterday. I'm going to reset to it, without prejudice to a different outcome, while the discussion is pending.
 * For convenience of discussion, here are the images:
 * TJRC (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Mao Zedong 1959 (cropped).jpg is not a old version. Since [|Yeenosaurus's a edit], it is changed to Mao Tse-tung - panoramio.jpg. And Karim Manouar undo it without any reasons!--<span style="line-height:1.5em;border-radius:4em;padding:0 2em;box-shadow:0 2px 9px #ace;background:linear-gradient(40deg,#ff0000 41.5%,#005dff,#005dff,#005dff);color:#fff" >Fire and Ice 01:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A photo should always take a precedence over a painting in infobox picture, assuming that it has reasonable quality. This photo is very good so it is a no-brainer choice here.--Staberinde (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it a while, I would go for the B/W photo. I think it's superior in just about every way, other than the fact that it's not in color. It's well-shot and dramatically lit. It really is a fine photograph.
 * The color image, on the other hand, is low-contrast and a bit washed out; it's a photo of the Tianmen Square portrait (see File:Tiananmen_Mao.jpg); a photo of what seems to be a painting. The blue-pink gradient is not real, and is an effect made for the portrait. I prefer the actual photo, despite it being black and white. About the only thing in favor of the color image is that it's color; and I don't think that makes up for its shortcomings. Besides, the portrait itself, showing its Tianmen context, is further down in the article under "legacy". It doesn't need to be there twice. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The color image, on the other hand, is low-contrast and a bit washed out; it's a photo of the Tianmen Square portrait (see File:Tiananmen_Mao.jpg); a photo of what seems to be a painting. The blue-pink gradient is not real, and is an effect made for the portrait. I prefer the actual photo, despite it being black and white. About the only thing in favor of the color image is that it's color; and I don't think that makes up for its shortcomings. Besides, the portrait itself, showing its Tianmen context, is further down in the article under "legacy". It doesn't need to be there twice. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Mangled Mango fever
I was looking for another Mao event, (his role in messing up pollinators in China) but fruit being fruit ... . The events described do not match the reference materials, with events and participants out of order. Rather than dispute, I've rewritten.

I dislike "spiritual time bomb", and expect that there are subtlies lost in translation. What was author Cynthis Thuma's source? More substantial seems to be Malcolm Moore's 2013 news article, which he based (in part) on an interview with "Alfreda Murck, a scholar at Beijing's Palace Museum whose work forms the basis of the exhibition at Zurich's Reitberg museum". Her book seems to be the start of this section article, even if not well studied as a reference.

GeeBee60 (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

How many wives?
Wives section says Mao had four wives, Siblings section talks about all three of his wives. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Small Edit
I added a fact that stated the number of death's caused by Mao's famine was widely debated. An exact number was never decided upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmoss8917 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Mangoes
I don't think this is important enough to have its own section.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

minor typo
In the section "Mango fever", "They cried out enthusiastically and sand with wild abandonment" should read "sang with wild abandonment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnfnt (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Shanghai textbook
The claim that Mao was left out of a Shanghai history textbook has been disputed: I can't find any other source that has this story. It is now a decade old and might no longer be true. In any case, this is only one textbook and one city. Including this seems to misrepresent the situation in China. I will remove it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No foreign diplomats attended Mao's funeral? Um....
The claim that "no foreign diplomats" (or leaders, for that matter) attended Mao's funeral seems to be contradicted by [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raZmROeAo1o this video.... of Mao's funeral.]

Start around 26:52 and you will very clearly see foreign representation there, and mentioned... LittleCuteSuit (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's obviously wrong. It's not clear to me what the source is actually saying either.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"Zedong"?
For most of my life this man was known as "Mao Tse Tung". His most famous book was published under that name for more than 40 years:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/index.htm

And is still published under that name, today:

https://www.amazon.com/Quotations-Chairman-Mao-Tse-Tung-Original/dp/1547154357/

Suddenly, his name has been posthumously changed to "Zedong" ??

Or is this just another weird Wikipedia affectation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Mao's given name is "泽东". At the time he came to power, the primary way of transliterating that into the Roman alphabet was the Wade–Giles system, in which 泽 was rendered as "tse" and 东 was rendered as "tung". Hence "Mao Tse Tung" or "Mao Tse-Tung". (Another system is Yale). Since then, China has adopted pinyin as the official romanization, and under that system those characters are rendered "ze" and "dong", respectively. Hence "Mao Zedong."


 * A nice comparison chart of the three major historical romanizations can be found here or in Comparison of Chinese transcription systems. TJRC (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinyin is simply the new standard in the PRC. Notice, however, that Chiang Kai-shek is still kept with the Wade-Giles, since the Taiwan authorities continue to use that instead of Pinyin. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Chiang's name is in Cantonese, so it is subject to different romanization methods. His name in Mandarin Pinyin would be Jiăng Jièshí and in Wade-Giles Chiang Chieh-shih. Qwerty12302 (talk &#124; contributions) 08:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019
Mao Zedong has three siblings. We can add that to his personal details! They have played important part in the communist revolution as guerilla soldiers. Legende Legende (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. His three siblings are mentioned and named in the early life section Mao Zedong. <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 21:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Mao as a "controversial figure"?
The paragraph starting with "A controversial figure, Mao is regarded as one of the most important and influential individuals in modern world history" presents Mao as a legitimate world leader who did a lot of good, but who also did some bad, and is thus a "controversial" figure. The man was a monster, responsible for some of the greatest atrocities ever. Is this description of him as "controversial" accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:3002:88CE:E25F:DBFA:1175 (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It's...truly an understatement to say that, Jack. 90.252.95.112 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Frank

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mao Zedong signature.svg

Edit Request
Hi, in the section "Resuming Civil War", there is a qote from Edwin Moise, and in the last line it has "... the contacts with the USA developed with the CPC led to very little". Not a native speaker, but the with/with couple makes no sense to me. Could it be that it should read "...the contacts _which_ the USA developed with the CPC led to very little" ? T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you for picking up the error.--Chewings72 (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Why mm/dd/yy
Why are dates in this article in the mm/dd/yy format when almost all articles regarding Chinese people and politicians use dd/mm/yy? 78.108.56.35 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Articles often have inconsistencies here. In this case, the article uses British English but American date format. According to the relevant style guideline, I think we should change to Day Month Year style. --MarioGom (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Mangos
This issue has been mentioned before but no discussion came of it. In the section "Mango Fever" this sentence is problematic to me:

"When Mao first tasted mangoes in 1968 he was enthused, describing them as a "spiritual time bomb"."

The source for the quote "spiritual time bomb" is a secondary source which does not include a citation for the original quote. Usually not that much of an issue, granted the source is academic in nature. However, the source in question is a cookbook, which may not necessarily meet high standard of research that say a peer-review publication would have. If someone could find the original source of the quote that would be appreciated and preferable to what we have now.

I'll leave the sentence there for now, so discuss can take place.

Also, the Mango Fever section in general seems very out of place in a biographical article and would seem to be more appropriate in the article about the Cultural Revolution. Thoughts? Jp16103 20:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it is out of place and should be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2016-09-10 Beijing Panjiayuan market 35 anagoria.jpg

I propose adding "mass murderer" to the intro
I would add to the intro of the entry.

Mao Zedong[a] (/ˈmaʊ (d)zəˈdʊŋ/;[2] December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976), also known as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese communist revolutionary who became the founding father of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which he ruled as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. Idelogically a Marxist, his theories, military strategies, and political policies are collectively known as Maoism.

to:

Mao Zedong[a] (/ˈmaʊ (d)zəˈdʊŋ/;[2] December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976), also known as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese communist revolutionary, and mass murderer, who became the founding father of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which he ruled as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. Idelogically a Marxist, his theories, military strategies, and political policies are collectively known as Maoism. 66.177.231.180 (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ Unsubstantiated change. Please, check our verifiability policy. --MarioGom (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Rather than add "mass murderer", why not simply use more direct (non-obfuscated) language in some of the information that is already given? For example, in the intro, in this:
 * campaigns against landlords, people he termed "counter-revolutionaries", and other perceived enemies of the state."
 * "campaigns against" could be changed to "mass killing of".


 * I already made that change. But it was reverted. I would like an explanation of why it was reverted. Tom Haws (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree needs to explain the reason of their revert. I've reverted the revert for now. -Zanhe (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I was trying to keep it consistent with the other article on the topic. The way it is now is fine. Jp16103 22:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have returned it to what it was. It is stupid to describe the Chinese Land Reform as simply "massing killing of landlords". It is stupid to say 'people he termed "counter-revolutionaries", and other perceived enemies of the state' were simply killed. Many of them weren't. Deng Xiaoping went on to be leader of the country. The word "campaign" is accurate; "mass killing" is not.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What is he known/notable for?
 * Where in the intro do you propose mentioning the dozens of millions of killings? Do you propose another sentence as after the Great Leap Forward? I was trying to balance brevity, notability, neutrality, durability and all the Wikipedia values. How would you do better?
 * Please note that you are veering dangerously close to personal attacks.
 * Tom Haws (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * One could argue that Mao did not intend to kill the tens of millions who perished in the Great Famine of the Great Leap Forward (they died from his gross negligence), and that he did not directly kill the millions who died in the Cultural Revolution (he merely unleashed the chaos that resulted in their deaths at the hand of the Red Guards). But when it comes to the Land Reform Movement, he indeed ordered the mass killing of the landlord class, whom he regarded as class enemies. He even set minimum kill quotas for localities. This is discussed in great detail in The Cambridge History of China, among many other works. Just because he spared Deng Xiaoping (whom he never considered a "class enemy") does not mean he did not kill many others. -Zanhe (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the proposed text equates land reform with mass murder, and that it also implies that everyone termed a counter-revolutionary or an enemy of the state was killed (which isn't true). I think that anyone who supports these edits is not here to create an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If an order to exterminate a large number of people is credibly known to have been given out by Mao and then carried out, then I think that information is something that should be mentioned in the lead section. I would say write it in the way that similar events are mentioned in Hitler's lead section. Hitler isn't called a mass murderer in the lead section on that page, but there is direct reference to the Holocaust in the first paragraph. That's my opinion- just trying to give some input- no disrespect to anyone intended. Let the facts speak for themselves. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which order are you referring to?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @OP. Mass murderer? Much in the same way Douglas McArthur, Harry S Truman, Lyndon B Johnson, and countless others, except for the fact that Mao did it not for own ego but to leapfrog China ahead. 2100s (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Higher range of 20 million deaths for GPCR is way too high
There is NO consensus in scholarship for inflating the number to this extent. If you can find academic sources which claim this estimate, present them here. Scholarly sources such as Mao's Last Revolution (2006), one of the most authoritative accounts of the GPCR, puts the death toll for the GPCR at between 750,000 and 1.5 million (p.262). Similarly, Frank Dikotter's recent book The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962–1976 puts the total death toll at between 1.5 and 2 million (p. xvi). Even the vehemently anti-Mao biography Mao: The Unknown Story allows for a total of 3 million deaths (569). If the 20 million estimate were at all credible, The Chang/Halliday book would have certainly mentioned it. Including the high estimate of 20 million in the lede and the third paragraph of the GPCR sub-section undermines the credibility of the article, as it is clearly not the consensus among Sinologists and scholars of the GPCR, and it smacks of propaganda.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not have much time to dig through book sources page by page, but the claim of 20 million from Ye Jianying is quoted from History.People.com.cn as follows: "粉碎“四人帮”之后，叶剑英在一次讲话中沉痛地说：“文化大革命”死了2000万人，整了1亿人，浪费了8000亿人民币." The source makes no mention of the precise context (purpose, date, location, etc) of the meeting at which Marshal Ye was quoted from. This alone seems to be a problem of WP:UNDUE weight given to non-scholarly sources (see the lede) such as the South China Morning Post and The Atlantic. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above editors that the figure of 20 million deaths during the Cultural Revolution is ridiculously inflated and have removed it accordingly. Unless academic specialists supporting such an estimate can be found, it should not be restored, especially not to the lede.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020
Since Mao was Chairman of the PRC state [People's Republic of China], change chairman to president. 45.58.91.229 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Why? <b style="color:black">CptViraj</b> (📧) 09:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Four Pests Campaign is missing
As per my information Four Pests Campaign was one of major movements started my Mao. In this article there is not even mention about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.154.225 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was part of the Great Leap Forward, and we mention that.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, it should have been mentioned under Great Leap Forward, pointing to Four Pests Campaign page. The Four Pests Campaign page clearly mentions its link to Mao Zedong and Great Chinese Famine so it would be very appropriate here to have mention of the page in this article & also along with its link to Great Chinese Famine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4042:200C:3B3C:DD7B:643D:58EA:9FD (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

1947 elections
I can't find any mention of the 1947 elections in this article, or any explanation to why Mao chose not to participate in the elections anywhere on Wikipedia. Alec Gargett (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, do you have any sources which indicate this belongs in this article? Secondly, you have to remember the context that Chiang Kai-shek was a military dictator and China was nearing the end of a civil war which he would lose. Thirdly, this article is about what happened, not what didn't happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Go to wikimedia sir Andrew Athini (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect links(maybe)
I noticed that when you click on, "2nd Chairman of the PRC" it takes me to this page, "President of the People's Republic of China." I understand that the Chairman of the PRC was the leader/head of state of the PRC de facto, before not anymore, but that does not mean that it is the President of the PRC. I do not remember but after some time they created the President of the PRC as the head of state making it de jure. Today they still have the Chairman of the PRC but it does not hold as much power anymore. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on any of these statements. I just wanted to bring this up because it did not sit right for me. LucasA04 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Qinyuanchun Changsha.JPG

Nixon
I've removed this from the lead:
 * in particular, in 1972, Mao welcomed U.S. President Richard Nixon in Beijing, signalling the start of a policy of opening China to the world.

This is not reflected in the body of the article. Firstly, why say "in particular"? Secondly, in fact, it was Nixon who reversed the US policy of excluding China. Mao's government was not recognised as the government of China for decades. And Australian leader Gough Whitlam had visited China prior to the Nixon visit. Mao's China had links to the world from 1949 onwards. Thirdly, linking to the Open Door Policy is appalling as the Open Door Policy was an imperialist policy which Mao did not support. The Open Door Policy article does not (understandably) mention Nixon at all. Nor did Mao welcoming Nixon foreshadow Deng's market reforms. This sentence gets almost everything wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead trimmed
I've cut out the "tinker, tailor, soldier, spy" bit in the lead. He was primarily known as a politician. You can buy books anywhere on Mao the politician, but you're hard pressed to buy books of his poetry. That he wrote poetry is not really relevant to this page or his life, because anyone can do those things.

I've also suggested tweaking it to say he was a highly influential person, because "one of the most" doesn't explain where he fits in with everyone else. E.g. Kennedy, Deng, Gorbachev, Thatcher, Reagen, Roosevelt, the list just goes on and becomes somewhat meaningless. I know one book referred to him that way, but it's a bit much. But if someone wants to change that particular bit back I don't mind. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Anyone could write poetry (I guess), but Mao was a published poet and known as a poet. We have a page on the Poetry of Mao Zedong. There is a book of his poetry in print. There is no reason not to mention this in the lead. It is not lengthy and does not require "trimming". Simply because he is known as a politician, does not mean we shouldn't cover other aspects of his life. This is not an article about what "everyone knows" about Mao.


 * With regard to the second point, the Time source says, "Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in history and was named by TIME as one of the 100 most important people of the 20th century". This is somewhat contradictory. The Oxford source says, "By all reasonable standards of historical judgment, Mao Zedong must be counted among the half-dozen most important political actors in modern world history". The Oxford source doesn't define "modern world history". The text in this article (which is repeated under "Legacy") has a link to modern history, which defines "modern history" as beginning in 1500. I think this judgment is questionable, but we do have two sources. I will change "modern world history" to twentieth century, because I think that is closer to what the sources mean.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above, I don't think it is clear who Mao influenced. Apart from the short-lived Khmer Rouge, there was no regime which had allegiance to Mao's China. This is in contrast to the Soviet Bloc, which included many countries, and had the allegiance of many more Communists worldwide than Mao did. Was Brezhnev a more influential figure than Mao? It is true that Maoism was in vogue c. 1970, and that some insurgents (notably in Nepal and India) still have allegiance to Mao, but does this make him one of the most influential figures in recent world history? In his own country, many of his policies have been abandoned and even condemned. In any case, many of his ideas came from Stalin. People like Sun Yat-sen also have a claim to have made today's China. What actually makes him influential? Who actually did he influence?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * How about saying separately that he was decribed by Time as that? Also who regards him as a visionary and in what regard - Maoists? His economic policies were undeniably disasterous for China, not really the sort of vision most people want. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have removed "visionary" because I think "political intellect, theorist, military strategist, and poet" covers that. I have removed "influential" because I think "important" covers that, and I don't think the article justifies a claim for him being influential in recent world history. The fact that Time says it in a confused way is no reason for us to repeat this claim.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mao's alleged concern for the majority

 * During the early 1960s, Mao became concerned with the nature of post-1959 China. He saw that the revolution and Great Leap Forward had replaced the old ruling elite with a new one. He was concerned that those in power were becoming estranged from the people they were to serve. Mao believed that a revolution of culture would unseat and unsettle the "ruling class" and keep China in a state of "perpetual revolution" that, theoretically, would serve the interests of the majority, rather than a tiny and privileged elite.

Jesus, are we really doing this? Source is Mao: A Reinterpretation, which Wikipedia describes as "a work of historical revisionism that sought to highlight what Feigon saw as the positive aspects of Mao Zedong's political leadership." Academic reviews of this book are pretty negative overall, with comments like "contrarian and unpersuasive" and "a simplistic vision of Mao that cannot convince." Bruce Cumings did like it. Obviously there is other reliable-source scholarship interpreting Mao as a cynical Machiavellian, his objections to elite ruling classes as obviously ludicrous given his own position, the GPCR as his weapon against Party rivals, etc. We should separate interpretation from fact and certainly never take a fringe revisionist work as authoritative. 74.15.32.60 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the text or the source used. Obviously, you are free to edit the article using other sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Something from a source like that that has been criticized by other experts should have WP:In-text attribution, as a minimum. Crossroads -talk- 02:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Has this piece of information been criticised?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Visionary poet?
How about mass murderer?? This Wikipedia page makes it sound like he is one of the greatest people in history with a few minor blemishes on his record. I mean, this article admits he persecuted (killed) 550,000 people in one period of history and then hundreds of thousands to tens of millions in other parts of his rule. Most accounts I’ve read by historians say he killed 30-50 million Chinese to include dead babies left on pitch forks and spears. How can you such flattering commentary in respect to this guy?? 2601:6C3:8200:5160:28A6:EC5D:502C:3B0C (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because this is not a ultra-right cartoon propaganda site.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He has a point though. There are some people that see terrorists as heroes. It doesn't mean it should be mentioned on their Wikipedia pages. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This article does not say Mao was a "hero". It attempts to document his life in a neutral way and cover all aspects. See comments below.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Being a does not mean said envisioned constructs are all-benign. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Li's book goes into much detail about Mao's preference for underage girls as sexual partners. Why no mention of that in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to be wp:bold and insert a referenced mention of it in the articleBrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 02:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ordered mass killings of landlords
See Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 9.

To be clear about my position:
 * I have very rudimentary exposure to this topic, and I could easily be wrong about any of the facts, so correct me if necessary.
 * I oppose putting "mass murderer" anywhere in the article.
 * I support a concise and clear (if abbreviated) reference in the intro to Mao's setting quotas for killings of landlords if that's a non-controversial historical fact.
 * I suggest something like the following wording: "In the following years he solidified his control through ordering mass landlord executions, suppression of "counter-revolutionaries", "Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns" and through a psychological victory in the Korean War, which altogether resulted in the deaths of several-million Chinese."
 * I think the "altogether resulted in the deaths of several-million Chinese" clause is weak in failing to attribute proactivity to Mao (sounds like it all may have been a big blunder like The Great Leap Forward), but it's better than nothing..

-Tom Haws (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, there is no source cited which says Mao set quotas for the killing of landlords.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That doesn't matter: 1. I am just referring to what the article says: "Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas". 2. This specific is not core to my position; it's a distraction since I clearly gave this an example and said "if ... fact". 3. My suggested wording ("ordering mass landlord executions") does not mention quotas. Tom Haws (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mao's regime "has been called autocratic and totalitarian"
To phrase this as if it were an attributed POV is absurd. There is no dispute whatsoever in reliable sources that Mao ruled an autocratic and totalitarian regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "has been called" hedging is totally bizarre. There is no dispute in the (extensive) scholarly literature that Mao's regime was autocratic and totalitarian. Neutralitytalk 05:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Mao's supporters say he was awesome" propaganda in the lead
Why on Earth does the lead list what Mao's supporters say about his regime? It is absurd to list what partisans are saying about what he did when there is an enormous literature that documents what he actually did. We should obviously focus on the latter rather than recite what his supporters and opponents say about him. It is also a blatant NPOV violation to have content in the lead that specifically focuses on what his fans say about him when it doesn't include the rhetoric of his opponents. That said, neither should obviously be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What you're saying is a blatant NPOV violation. Of course his supporters should be mentioned.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They aren't even necessarily his "supporters", but scholars who give a more balanced assessment of Mao.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

New content introduced in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
We should not give equal weight to revisionist histories by Mao apologists to rebut mainstream scholarship. The claims sourced to these revisionist histories are extraordinary (the Cultural Revolution led to the great economic growth commonly attributed to liberal reforms) and no pages are cited for them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Cultural Revolution was actually great" is a complete misinterpretation of the text. The text is simply saying that there were some positive strides made, that is all.PailSimon (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Snooganssnoogans and Des Vallee (who also reverted); that is WP:UNDUE. Crossroads -talk- 23:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In what sense? PailSimon (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I struggle to see how this is WP:UNDUE if they're actually backed by the sources, and accusations that historians are "revisionist", "apologists" or fringe based on editors' POV hold no water whatsoever. , can you provide the pages / direct quotations? Changed title according to WP:TALKHEADPOV and WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 22:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE sources out of step with academic consensus are not reliable. No one said anything about their own POV; they assessed sources for reliability which is what we do. Crossroads -talk- 05:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that Lee Feigon and Mobo Gao fall within such category. Furthermore, what requires attribution is attributed: «They hold [...]». -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 06:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are they from an academic publisher? As for attribution, WP:FALSEBALANCE applies. Crossroads -talk- 06:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not really. «They hold that the Cultural Revolution period laid the foundation for the spectacular growth that continues in China» needs to be removed, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, but the rest can be mentioned. For instance, here, on p. 29, p.35, p.73 and it says:
 * "Although it is true that direct relief was limited to those who could not be helped by the family, the process of collectivization did dramatically change access to public goods for many people in the countryside by providing rudimentary public health, education, and irrigation projects [...] Under Mao, the welfare system was seen as subservient to the demands of the economy and to the pursuit of socialism [...] At the same time, the organization of the collective in the countryside and the inconsequentiality of cost meant that for its developmental level, rural Chinese enjoyed good preventive healthcare and basic education systems"
 * "This registration guaranteed access to a number of benefits denied to the peasants, such as secure employment, affordable housing, inexpensive medical care, and retirement income."
 * "When the trade unions were abolished during the Cultural Revolution, the system ceased and free healthcare became part and parcel of the benefit package of working in a SOE."
 * So we should probably make a new reference that includes these 3 pages on healthcare during the cultural revolution. This and scientific discoveries can remain. On the reliabilty of Gao, this work is cited 193 times in Google Scholar, page on jstor and here are academic reviews on The China Quarterly (peer reviewed journal). This is a WP:RE. Taking a direct quotation from this last source:
 * "That China could develop without capitalism was proven during the Cultural Revolution as the living standard rose for the majority of the population – the third-line industrialization policy had a positive effect on bringing progress to remote areas of the PRC and agricultural production increased. All these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China" -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 07:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face. As usual, this is all just cherry-picking. As for the first source, Palgrave Macmillan is also a trade publisher, not just academic. Also, WP:UNDUE applies. Stick to the WP:MAINSTREAM view of these things. Crossroads -talk- 17:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a peer-reviewed journal, don't disregard it just because of your personal POV. What's the WP:MAINSTREAM view of "these things"? I have accessed a widely distributed academic book on Chinese healthcare and it literally backs the healthcare point, which was the one I was reticent about. I also find it hard to believe how big scientific and technological achievements are WP:UNDUE. I doubt a WP:FRINGE source would be cited 192 times by works cited even more. You have to demonstrate your claims. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 18:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what happened now. That quote from the peer reviewed journal is from a book review of Gao's book where they are describing the book's POV. It is not a peer-reviewed claim of the journal. The book by Gao is openly a revisionist history and is not by an academic publisher but by Pluto Press, a publisher that calls itself radical left-wing. Citation counts don't mean much since Google Scholar counts citations by unreliable sources like other political books; also many of those citations could have been negative (e.g. 'for a Maoist perspective see Gao 2008'). Crossroads -talk- 04:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Using baidu baike as a source
I am unsure if to use baidu baike as a source, because it is officially deprecated. However, it may be useful in describing the official standpoint of the chinese government on events like the great leap forward and the cultural revolution. Since these are both touchy topics in China, they would probably have some sort of censor on baidu, and wouldn't contain vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SherlockHolmes23 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , official standpoint should come from official sources rather than a proxy. Is there evidence anywhere that indicates Baike is an official mouthpiece of the Chinese government? – robertsky (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"increased literacy and life expectancy" in China
Mao ruled China from the end of WWII to 1976. Wouldn't literacy and life expectancy have increased under pretty much any stable ruler who governed a country in that particular period, in particular one that had previously been embroiled in a long civil war and world war? Shouldn't an increase in literacy and life expectancy be compared to similar states rather than be stated as a notable statistic without any context? In my view, this does not belong in the lead unless it can be supported by high-quality academic publications which stress that the increase in literacy and life expectancy was notable in its own right and in relation to similar states or the counterfactual of any other ruler. Of the academic studies that actually try to assess the counterfactual, they see Mao's rule as a failure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, Trump oversaw improvements in the U.S. economy, but the relevant context to that improvements is that the economy was mostly just a continuation of the improvements that had gone on since the start of the recovery from the Great Recession. By just stating "the economy improved under Trump's tenure", relevant context is omitted. Context which would make the accomplishment seem less notable, less impressive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's highly suspect. I note that neither of those sources are academic publishers; it's also possible they present caveats which are not being presented. Crossroads -talk- 17:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source for the material being challenged here, "increased literacy and life expectancy" in China, is the book 49 Myths about China, published by Rowman & Littlefield, which is an academic publishing company. I'd say it's a reliable source, but we can always take it to WP:RSN if necessary. I'd be stunned if it was deemed an unreliable source given the publisher and that the authors are both academics. Of course there are other reliable sources which have made the case for this as well, such as this study from 2015 published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Population Studies which opens with "China's growth in life expectancy at birth from 35–40 years in 1949 to 65.5 years in 1980 is among the most rapid sustained increases in documented global history (Banister and Preston 1981; Ashton et al. 1984; Coale1984; Jamison 1984; Banister 1987; Ravallion 1997; Banister and Hill 2004)." Sounds pretty significant! It took less than 10 seconds to find that, and I'm sure I could find plenty more given the time. I'm considering adding material from this to the article at some point as I read through it.


 * The 2013 biography Mao: The Real Story is cited for the material which precedes what is being disputed here: "Mao has been credited with transforming China from a semicolony to a powerful sovereign state..."


 * This discussion brings to mind a review in the The Sydney Morning Herald of the controversial biography Mao: The Unknown Story, which was ripped to shreds by sinologists and historians for omitting any positive aspects of Mao's rule and sought only to blacken his historical reputation:


 * "'While no one is minimising the cost of Mao's follies - notably the 30 million dead from famine caused by the Great Leap Forward - scholars point out that in the sane interludes between these campaigns China showed remarkable economic growth and dramatically improved indices of social welfare, with life expectancy doubling in the 1950s . . . None of this gets a mention in Mao: The Unknown Story.'"


 * What Chang and Halliday did in their book is precisely what some want to do here it seems. At least to the lead anyway.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that this is a bit late, but I'm still curious about this. It seems like a topic that is highly nuanced, but which no one wants to approach with nuance. The source you mention recommends The “Mao: The Real Story. I see it's already mentioned here, but I just thought I'd note that.--  Gen. Quon   (Talk)  21:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Mao's supporters say he was awesome" propaganda
There is a lot of this in the article that turns it from neutral to a revisionist history which is not accurate. His supporters are all over the article. They should be removed. The whole got this all over it, in lots of places that are not sourced. It is completely NPOV'd. The only people who should comment in this article, are independent historians who are taking a balanced and neutral view.  scope_creep Talk  11:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, the idea that "the only people who should comment in this article, are independent historians" runs counter to Who writes Wikipedia? What areas do you see that are problematic or "revisionist" (I cringe whenever I hear this word)? To my mind, it isn't controversial to say that his supporters lauded him; that seems like an objective summation of their subjective opinion. In addition, the article has a massive section on his legacy, which begins with the hardly laudatory line "Mao remains a controversial figure". (And note, I'm no where near a "supporter" or "fan" of Mao.)-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  14:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Romanized" or "Romanised"?
According to the talk page, this article is in British English, so why is "romanisation" and "romanised" spelled as "romanization" and "romanized"? ReaIdiot (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can change it.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  14:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments about women
I really don't find the section that begins with "Despite being considered a feminist..." is necessary or relevant, especially considering the fact that as is, the claim is relatively unsubstantiated. 2 of the 3 cited sources have broken links, and the third is a short blurb that mentions no sources besides a mysterious US State Department document supposedly published 35 years after the fact. Would we consider, for instance, Chinese Intelligence documents which make disparaging claims about US presidents to be a reliable source? Obviously the US State Department is biased.. Breeby (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Things that Mao's supporters say he did
Things that Mao's supporters say he did in the "Legacy" section:


 * 1) "Supporters generally credit and praise him for driving imperialism out of China" – Not sourced to a RS, but to something called blog.eteacherchinese.com.
 * 2) "having unified China and for ending the previous decades of civil war" – There are several issues here: 1. Winning a civil war seems different than ending a civil war. 2. China was not unified. 3. It seems strange to praise Mao for ending imperialism in China while expanding into places that were not China. 4. Unsourced.
 * 3) "In December 2013, a poll from the state-run Global Times indicated that roughly 85% of the 1045 respondents surveyed felt Mao's achievements outweighed his mistakes." – Seems strange to cite a poll from a country where there dissent isn't allowed and the poll is by authoritarian government in China.
 * 4) "However, supporters point out that, in spite of this, life expectancy, education and health care improved during his period of rule" – This is sourced (provided that the page numbers are correct), but it's unclear whether Mao did better than the counterfactual (e.g. what was happening all around the world during the same time period).
 * 5) "His supporters claim that he rapidly industrialised China" – This is unsourced. Again, this should be compared to the conterfactual.
 * 6) "His supporters claim that his policies laid the groundwork for China's later rise to become an economic superpower, while others claim that his policies delayed economic development and that China's economy underwent its rapid growth only after Mao's policies had been widely abandoned." Again, the claim that Mao set the foundation for China's economic rise is unsourced. An extraordinary claim like that should be well-sourced.
 * 7) "Mobo Gao, in his 2008 book The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution, credits him for raising the average life expectancy from 35 in 1949 to 63 by 1975, bringing "unity and stability to a country that had been plagued by civil wars and foreign invasions", and laying the foundation for China to "become the equal of the great global powers".[271] Gao also lauds him for carrying out massive land reform, promoting the status of women, improving popular literacy, and positively "transform(ing) Chinese society beyond recognition."[271] " - This is not sourced to an academic book
 * 8) "Scholars outside of China also credit Mao for boosting literacy (only 20% of the population could read in 1949, compared to 65.5% thirty years later), doubling life expectancy, a near doubling of the population, and developing China's industry and infrastructure, paving the way for its position as a world power.[264][8][9]" - The cited sources are academic but it's primarily one book with 9 citations that off-hand makes this claim in a section where it argues against a claim that Mao was a "sadist". The authors do not substantiate the extraordinary claim that Mao paved the way for China's rise.

I think most, if not all, of this content should be removed from the article. Or at the very least, be verified with strong sources (e.g. well-known China experts publishing in top presses and journals). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If the material is reliably sourced and verified, I see no reason to remove it. Material backed by academic sources (e.g., #8) should definitely stay. That Mao paved the way for China's eventual economic success really isn't that controversial. Even critics acknowledge he laid the groundwork for today's China.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a column by a pundit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just one example. Will Hutton is also a well respected British journalist writing for The Guardian, not some rando pundit writing in some insignificant blog. But nonetheless a quick google search turns up academic articles making a similar argument, including this one and this one. It seems to me that there is enough written on the subject of Mao's contributions to the development of contemporary Chinese society to justify its inclusion in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First article is from a non-notable journal published by a Pakistani political science department. The other article is in the third volume of a journal with a virtually non-existent impact factor. These are not good sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These are not intended to be included in the article, but examples of what has been written on the subject at hand after a quick google search. I'm sure I could find more but that seems pointless at this juncture. The citations already included for some of the points above are sufficient, and are superior to more than a few of the other sources cited in the same section, most of which are not even scholarship. You call out Mobo Gao as unreliable, but what about Jung Chang? I would say that the academic citations in point # 8 are some of the strongest in the section. The one source you claim fails to provide any substance actually does just that. I would say that boosting literacy rates from 20% to 65.5%, and boosting life expectancy from 35 to 63 years, would have a significant impact on the development of a country, unless you can demonstrate that these statistics are false.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree these claims are not very controversial.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can admit that some individuals did good without supporting them. I'm not particularly fond of Mussolini and Hitler but they built good highways.. Am I a supporter of them? No... --Ruling party (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Bosho71 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC) I agree with most of these points. Especially #3, that's kind of hilarious. A lot of the legacy section is unsourced propaganda. Some of it is sourced... But to CCCP propaganda sites, some of which are broken as of this writing. Why are we including offhand comments from blogs in this wikipage? Or polls taken from a state newspaper in which criticism of the state is not allowed? Or just including biased unsourced opinions? Imagine if someone wrote, "Supporters of Hitler point out that he was half man, half sandwich". That might be something some supporter of Hitler said at one time, who cares? That is not a popular consensus among anyone. Why are we including things like that in the wikipage? Why is this biased statement, "Mao's military writings continue to have a large amount of influence both among those who seek to create an insurgency and those who seek to crush one, especially in manners of guerrilla warfare, at which Mao is popularly regarded as a genius." in this section, unsourced? That is not a popular consensus.

Also, some of these sources have nothing to do with what is being stated in the wiki. Take footnote 264, which is supposed to support the statement, "Supporters point out... [Mao Zedong] improved life expectancy, education and health care". Nothing on the page sourced of Patricia Ebrey's The Cambridge Illustrated History of China, has anything to do with that statement. There is nothing saying that "supporters" of Mao made that particular claim. Maybe you can misconstrue this statement to mean that Patricia Ebrey herself is a supporter of Mao, I'm just going ahead and going to guess no, she isn't. Why was this statement added to the wiki? Why did was this random page of this book that has nothing to do with that statement linked as a source? Why does this section look like parts of it was written by the CCCP?

Portrait date?
On Commons, there seems to be some inconsistency about whether the lead portrait photo was taken in 1959 or 1963. Could someone look into it to settle the matter and make the needed moves/corrections? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Use British English but MDY dates?
Sorry, but that's very odd. Can we switch all dates featured to DMY for consistency? Far easier than to change all spelling to American English. --222.153.41.39 (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Mao's home language (and speech)
On Australian ABC radio recently a serious historian mentioned that Mao spoke a minority dialect that meant he was unintelligible (in speech) to most people in China. --Feroshki (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC) That's a very good point. Please add it if you can (if you haven't already). --222.153.41.39 (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not a minority language, but a local accent that can be understood by most Chinese people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindorx (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"Chairman mao" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Chairman mao and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Centre Left Right ✉ 08:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022
In the second paragraph, change "...and through a psychological victory in the Korean War, which altogether resulted in the deaths of several million Chinese." To "...and through a psychological victory in the Korean War." Or Add a citation. You cannot claim millions of anything without a citation, and I want to read the original source for this information. 184.62.234.0 (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We generally do not cram a bunch of sources in the lede, this information is sourced in the body of the article. See Mao Zedong and read through the section and sources there Cannolis (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Li Min and Mao Zedong 1952.jpg

Good progress, I think
This article seems to be more forthcoming about Mao's controversial deeds than it was the last time I happened by. I don't find the article entirely unsatisfactory any more. Good work. Tom Haws (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Legacy section reads like propaganda
Under this section there are multiple sections that use CCP-linked polling and sources to prove support for Mao within mainland China. That is far from an objective lens. The sections citing polling results from Global Times (links to an Al Jazeera article about it) are questionable at best. 2A00:801:739:41CA:0:0:1114:132F (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree--it is a balanced section that includes a lot of very negative assessments as well as positive ones. Propaganda never allows that sort of balance. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Early revolutionary activity of Mao Zedong into Mao Zedong. The former is largely a carbon-copy of the "Early revolutionary activity" section in the latter, with the exception of a few altered and added sentences that it would take very little effort to incorporate into the latter article. Unlike the article Early life of Mao Zedong, which provides a vastly expanded overview of this period of Mao's life in comparison to the "Early life" section, there is very little in the "Early revolutionary activity" article that currently justifies its existence as a separate article. If this section were to get too heavy for the main article, then there would be a case for splitting, but as of now they are two articles for the same information. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, we do not need two articles with the same content.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with all above. Seems to be the exact same content worded slightly differently. — WildComet talk 06:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom  HurricaneEdgar    04:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, this article and the other are very similar content-wise and should be merged. UltimateGames357 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, It would definitely be a simpler navigation and the Mao article is a bit scarce compared to the other big dictators at the time. -- OmarRihani7777777 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — Further discussion is unnecessary. Because you did not initiate an automated process, this merger proposal has no time limit. However, I think it's safe to say that there is a general consensus to merge. Please merge the two articles if you know what to do.  Centre Left Right  ✉ 00:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Per consensus. Grnrchst (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of "Red Emperor"
Hi. The only reason I added that to the lead is that article is linked to from the Red Emperor (disambiguation) page, and the mention in the body is buried and difficult to find. If the use of the term is uncommon or unjustified, I suggest removing it from the DAB page as well. Other views welcome and I'll leave it to editors of this page, not having time to dig deeper on the matter myself - it was purely a style issue for me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove the link. It isn't a common term for Mao.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Chinese name clarification
This should be added to the top of the article: In this Chinese name, the family name is Mao and Ze is a generation name. Other articles about Chinese people have this at the top to reduce confusion. This article has it out of the way at the bottom when it should be at the top.
 * What I think should be changed:
 * Why it should be changed:

--2601:80:8402:1AA0:643C:EBF7:25A4:4142 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. this has previously been reinstated by other editors, stating it would introduce too many hatnotes, and that it is better to have all explanations about the name in the same place.   Madeline  ( part of me ) 18:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)