User talk:Luthinya

Mao
First, I must congratulate you on coming to Wikipedia and deciding to share your knowledge base. You and I do share some things in common. We're both born in China, and have both came to the West, being opened to almost an enlightenment. True enough, Mao's image to me, ten years ago, when I first moved to Canada, seemed largely negative. However, after doing more reading on western literature on the subject, I was able to find a middle ground on this complicated Chinese leader that portrays him as neither a bloodthirsty power hungry maniac, nor a great people's hero. I'm sorry I don't have the time to say alot right now, but I am very much interested in editing articles such as Mao Zedong. I'm glad your generation of people are concerned.

PS, It is typically taboo to state your year of birth or age on the internet, so I suggest you should fix that first. I find it hard to believe your age, perhaps because I don't know how fast kids are growing up these days. Thanks for your insight.

Colipon+(T) 20:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

More on Mao
Hi, I don't know if I can satisfy all of your needs. But I can give you some of my thoughts on the issue in a condensed form. Truly understanding Mao is a challenge to all of us. We can only make a few judgments based on the things he did. It is intersting you chose to write a paper about Mao. It is not an easy task. Mao is one of the most controversial leaders in the 20th Century. On one hand, he united a divided China ravaged by 60 years of war, and on the other, he impeded Chinese economic progress and his policies led to the death of tens of millions. I think Mao's abilities as a tactician, general, and political thinker and philosopher, not to mention poet, are all very commendable, and even admirable. The unity of a country like China with such complicated democraphics and geography is not something anyone could just achieve. On this part, Mao was brilliant. Do not misunderstand me in thinking that he used the most human or moral of principles. He did not. His fight with the KMT and Chiang Kai-shek and struggle against the Japanese were very tactical manoevers in a process where many lives were lost, and many of his political opponents sacked. But he came out on top. I.e. we must differ an intelligent person with a person who is typically considered "good".

Through my years of study, I realized gradually that there is no black-and-white in history, that great leaders in history cannot be classified as "good" or "bad". I hope you can do the same while writing your essay. Let's take the Great Leap Forward for example. No one doubts it was a real disaster. Aside from it being completely flawed from an ideological perspective, we can never doubt that it had some good intention. Mao did not want to starve his people, he simply wanted a quick fix to his political problems, and in the process show the West China's astonishing development under a communist regime. It is very unfortunate that the organizational structure of such a big movement could not be effectively controlled, resulting in misconceptions by Mao and others that the campaign was actually going well, thus eventually resulting in... well... 20 million or so deaths. It is safe to conclude that Mao was not an economist. His abilities in politics are far greater than his understanding of economics.

On my views of Mao, I often sum it up with one sentence: had Mao resigned in 1953, he would have been seen, both in the west and in China, as a people's hero, revolutionary, and a bright mind in history. As for whether Mao deserves pity, I don't think pity is the right word. I think he deserves some degree of respect. We cannot conclude that Mao was a heartless maniac who killed innocent people, but rather see both sides of the man. He is not to be hated. Hatred is a very strong term. One has to realize that things don't just happen because a dictator said so. There were many reasons Mao's policies were what they were. Like I said, the complicated history and demographics come into play again; China's history from 1949-1976 is not "Mao's history", it is the history of the people.

I will tell you one thing. Mao was obsessed (for the lack of a better term) with ideology. Everything, he thought, can be resolved through some kind of idea (-isms), or intricately planned method. He often failed to see the practical side of his policies, and was not exactly far-sighted. I understand the situation you're in, not able to find a just source on the Great Leap Forward. Sometimes you really just have to read quite a few sources before you actually have an idea of what happened. My suggestion is to read the sources that provide facts, not opinion, and derive your own opinions from that (we all love Wikipedia, don't we). I suggest you stay away from books such as Chang and Halliday's Mao, an Unknown Story. It is one of the worst biographies of Mao ever written. It is best, also, to consult some Chinese sources. Sorry I can't give too much specifics.

Hope this helped, Colipon+(T) 23:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Your entry in the FAQ
Hi. The Contributing FAQ is for general questions about wikipedia, and not for specific ones. That is why I removed your entry from it. I not completely certain about the answer to your question, so I've copied it to help desk where an answer will develop. Happy editing, Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Even more on Mao
Just a note to say your comments in the "Death" section of the Mao discussion were very well pointed and placed. While I can not say I agree with all of your thoughts, I can say that you do share something in common with me, and that is a great deal of knowledge about; and a willingness to learn about this extremely complex character. Again, excellent job there. (Majin Takeru 15:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Well, you left me no choice but to come back and compliment you once more. While I still do not quite understand some of your thoughts on Mao; your most recent post in the Mao Zedong discussion arena was much more, length and content wise, than I would expect many to write. Well done. /applause (Majin Takeru 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for correcting my spelling errors ;-).(Majin Takeru 01:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Good to see my comments can be of some assistance. Thanks for fixing the spelling errors on my user page, heh ;-) .(Majin Takeru 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Third person
Luthinya... this user finds your user page puzzling... he wonders why your user page is written in third person? Did someone else write it(parents,vandals,elves)? Sorry about wasting your time and space, its just very strange. As for Mao, this user agrees with Colipon. Wikipedia is a bit bias, Mao is a good person; but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Please see Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 2, section 8, Mao succeeded where many others had failed. Pseudoanonymous 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening
Luthinya, this is a writing on some of my thoughts and the way I view Mao in history, per your request. Let me start by saying for someone so young, your level of knowledge on the subject is surprising. It is good to see young people like yourself, born in China, are still interested in learning about the Great Helmsman. Before I go forward, I will let you know off the get right, I am mildly biased. My political alignment is to the left (though not radically, of course if I were born earlier this could be different as you will soon read), and I do not shy from the label of a communist. Now, that does not mean I do not have an open mind, (as I am sure you have realized from reading my posts) as I do fault leaders, institutions, and parties of the past, for the mistakes they have made. As a matter of fact, if I were in China circa 1970, I would probably have been called a Capitalist roader. However, on the other hand, I would not have learned from the mistakes that the comrades in question have made, if I were alive at the time. Now it is easy for me to look back and say "Well, they should have done this or that", after reading texts and standing on the shoulders of others. I do not like to do that often, but it is almost natural. I think, given the circumstances, China is doing what needs to be done. Essentially, there are many reasons why a Soviet style economy did not work, and will no longer work (though with the right modifications it could very well, I am no economist). I hope this brief introduction will help you understand my views on Mao, at least to the extent to which you can understand them, as naturally, it is difficult if not impossible to understand another fully.

Note: You will notice I say "Possibly", or "It is probable" etc., when talking about Mao. This is due to the fact that I do not like to say what another was thinking or what the reasons were for their actions often; although with this type of writing it is difficult. You will note a good example of someone doing this to often, when I speak on Jung Chang's book later in this writing. Also, this text may seem running into nothing at times, but it all falls together. I wrote it in a fairly short time ;-)

Knowledge of Mao
I would not call myself a historian; however politics and history are my "forte". As far as Mao is concerned, I have read over 10,000 pages of text regarding him (paper and online sources included), or subjects closely relating to Mao. I have read the flattering (Red Star over China), to the obviously biased (Mao: The Unknown Story), and have formulated thoughts and opinion's by compiling all sources, and then analyzing them. As well, I have studied the obvious military, political, and poetry works Mao himself had penned. In my opinion, the most informative; and "closest to the truth" total work that has been done on Mao to date, is Dr. Li Zhisui's "The Private life of Chairman Mao". Personally, I feel I know as much about Mao Zedong as one can in my current situation. (I.E. Never having traveled to China (Although I am supposed to be attending a school in Harbin at this moment; so it is not for lack of trying) and not being there during his lifetime).

Thoughts on Chang's Book
This must be added due to the controversy this book has brought. No offense to Chang, as the book makes for a good story. She claimed to have studied Mao for 10 years, and to have researched XXXX pieces of text. The problem is, as you probably know, she went around getting interviews from people who had something against Mao, and people who no one else can seem to find after the fact. She also has a tendency to try and tell you what Mao was thinking constantly. Some of the lines in her book almost read like this: "As Mao looked up to the sun from a street in Changsha, he was thinking about how he would conquer China, then the world, and enslave the entire population of earth". A little exaggerated, but not much and you see the picture I am painting. Some how I doubt the soviet records she and her husband accessed had anything to do with what was on Mao's mind, at such and such points in time.

Another issue I have is the fact that in her book Wild Swans, she talked of how horrible pre-1949 China was, and how some of her family had their feet broken and bound and then were sold to warlords as concubines. All the while Warlords where fighting across the country, foreign powers stepped upon the Chinese and she even mentioned body's strewn about the country side. During the writing of this book apparently she did an "about face". She now spoke of pre-Communist China as a place where one could live in complete bliss, occasionally jumping out of the path of an incoming bullet or piece of shrapnel here and there. Simply put, I have read and researched a good amount of works as well. She tried way too hard to turn Mao into a something he most likely was not, so she could sell books. I have no problem with books listing his faults, but to use some of Phillip Short's words, turning Mao into a two-dimensional card board cut out of Satan is unnecessary and ridiculous. Like I say, I give her props for writing another good story. I could not have written it. However, be careful with what you take from this story, because I think that is exactly what it is, a story, not history.

Thoughts on Mao, as well as His Historical Achievements and Mistakes
Generally, I comply with the "7 parts good, 3 parts bad" line that the PRC has put forth. However, I go much deeper. I think those 3 "bad parts” included exceptionally big mistakes. What we have next, in general, is fairly usual when people argue about Mao. They look at the total number of deaths and then say he was a power hungry maniac, and everyone who died during his reign must have been murdered by Mao directly. Well, he did want personal power, which I see as something that happens quite often. However, how can those people say his goal, along with that personal power, was not to make China strong and assist the people? The Great Leap Forward was a huge disaster, and this is now obvious. The reasons the GLF should be placed on his shoulders are 4 fold. A) It was his plan, B) He was the leader of China, C) He did not like dissent from his opinions, and finally D) He believed the positive lies of the comrades under him far to often. From what I know, I can say Mao's goals for the GLF were most likely the ones always stated. To catch up to Great Britan, feed the masses, and make China strong in a short amount of time. I will give you a quote from Li Zhisui (Who as you know did not paint a very flattering picture of Mao).

'"But I do not think that when he spoke on July 2, 1959, he knew how bad the disaster had become, and he believed the party was doing everything it could to manage the situation".

Of course, he was horrible in the field of economics, this was a horrible plan, and many people died. Mao was not aware just how bad the situation was, until it was out of control (as noted in the quote above), and it took another year before he "bit the bullet", stopped the GLF and imported grain. The fact that he gave up meat whether it may be small to some, is huge to me. Would Stalin ever give up meat in private because others had none? I think not. That right there should make naysayers stop the comparisons. While the disaster can surely be put on Mao, those are also the reasons I do not find Mao directly responsible for every single death during the GLF. The bottom line is, he did not want, or intend for so many to perish, and all of the blood is obviously not on his hands (In this case there was not actually much blood, we are talking starvation, though that does not make the deaths any less tragic).

I think another huge problem Mao faced was his eventual dedication to orthodox Marxism-Leninism. It would seem he eventually came to think, that an answer to any real world problems could come from applying Marxist theory (and later with his own theory's as well) without any modification. This is a problem of course. The world changes, the economy changes. You must make changes to succeed, and I am not sure he understood that. Revisionism was needed at the time. And, after the Sino- Soviet spilt, he most likely saw himself as the champion of orthodox Marxism-Leninism. He saw Krushchev's changes and secret speech about Stalin as a blow to the communist movement, and he decided to pick up the flag and continue to tow the old line. This would increase his (and China's) power internationally, and adhere to Lenin's version of Marxism. In these ways, his pride, desire for power, and dedication got the best of him.

And then comes the the Cultural Revolution. Mao did not want to lose power, and at the same time he possibly wanted China to be the next Soviet Union in the world (The leading country in the communist bloc). A powerful country that could apply Marxist theory to its government, and lead the masses to a high standard of living. As you know, the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" led to many tragic occurrences. The economy came to a stand still, half the country was criticizing the over half and many lives where ruined. The GPCR also led to his "personality cult" being put into over drive. Although Mao many times said he did not want to be revered, of course he probably liked it. Who would not, really? A large difference here compared to other countries was the actual adoration for Mao that the people had for him. People can argue the fact all they want, the adoration was a legitimate one for many. Even Jung Chang was a Red Guard, and I can tell you she was probably not forced to put the armband on at gun point. She was caught up in the revolution and Mao, and followed suit like so many others. The idea of the GPCR was obviously ridiculous and grand. How many other "dictators" would have dared to put so much power in the hands of the people? Mao knew it would not affect his power, but it would definitely affect the power of his establishment. I am sure not one Red Guard was displeased by the new found power and benefits that came along with the title. (Free train rides all around the country, free lodging, etc). Like other movements Mao had introduced, it was all too late when he decided to stop it (or when he thought about stopping it). He probably thought he would die, China would be built from the ground up, strong, united, completely dedicated to Marxism-Leninism as an ideology, and he would go down in history like the emperors he loved to read about in the past, as a great leader, or at least a powerful one who is respected.

Final
Mao, to me, was one of the greatest political leaders to have lived. Although it sounds like rhetoric (sadly), I really do believe that his achievements outweigh his mistakes; and that he had China's best interests almost at the top of his list, next to his interests. He may have been a dictator, but as far as I am concerned I like to apply the term "enlightened despot" to Mao. You must look at the situation he was placed in. This was not America, this was China. Broken apart by foreign powers, and being invaded by another at the same time. He used communism as a way to unite the country, and he paved the path (albeit a rocky one) to where China is today and that is most likely the closest thing to the next super power as you can get.

He began to think he was infallible, due to his personality and the sometimes blind dedication of those around him. Being dogmatic, which he said he reviled, was one of the main factors that led to some of his biggest mistakes. If you take away the starvation deaths in the GFL, Mao is nowhere close to anyone like Hitler or Stalin. I do not take them away, but I do not attribute every single one to him; as I mentioned earlier. The thing is, he did not sign death orders and steal food from the masses like many others. I will argue rigorously against any claims that Mao was a mass murderer for that and other obvious reasons I have stated here previously. He did not expect the people to follow the state, he expected the people to follow communism, which while it may have been a lesser offense, it was another mistake. I myself am torn by my admiration for Mao, and the fact that some of those mistakes are unforgivable.

Mao once said that China never had a man in it's history comparable to George Washington... I think Mao was China's George Washington, in a different context. Not even George Washington was selfless in his duties. All too often others seem to forget, for lack of a better term, people are people. In my opinion the biggest problem most have with Mao is that he was a communist and he was one of the few who ended up doing a great deal of good for his country to go along with the bad, and people want his image to fall along with communism's and Lenin's. Then, they try to turn him into Hitler or Stalin. The Third Rich lasted a decade, and was run on dubious beliefs; I do not even see how it is comparable to Mao's China. The Soviet Union is gone, too many purges, and to much hold onto an outdated system. Mao's Communist Party is still kicking, and at least making it seem like they are helping the people (a good example is, they just abolished the 1200 year old agricultural tax recently... I know they have errors, but that would not happen in my country). Mao united a fractured country, which was backwards and overrun by foreiners, and turned it into a united major regoinal power, now on the verge of becoming the only other superpower next to the US. He ended the prostitution and foot binding of the previous centuries, while literacy rates and GDP per capita rose substantially. Really, once all of the BS is put aside, ask yourself this: Was Mao really the worst thing that could have happened to China? And who could have done better? If Mao did not unite China, and stand atop Tiananmen Square in 1949, where would that great country be today? Would it even be one country, better, ruled by foreigners or an even more corrupt Chinese government? Indeed, we will never know. I guess the only thing left to say is Mao Zhuxi Wensui.

I hope this mild re-run of history, and some of my quick thoughts, assist you in some way. Hope the length does not bother you, hehe erase if you would like, once you read. :p (Majin Takeru 01:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Trapezoid
I have recently removed the trapezoid's area formula which you added. This may seem a bit harsh, but my reasons are as follows: I hope you understand and don't take it personally or anything like it. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The formula, as you have written it, is incorrect. This can be seen immediately with dimensional analysis. Please double-check your formula and the way you typed it.
 * 2) It is not that much different than the other formula. As you probably know, $$\sin\cos^{-1}x = \sqrt{1-x^2}$$, so if your formula is developed and polished, you'll eventually get to the first formula. So this one isn't really "harder" or more advanced, just a bit more convolved. One formula definitely suffices - And the most polished one should be picked. By the way, it is somewhat presumptuous to think of it as original research; It has almost surely been developed many times, but only published in its more polished form.

Yeah, I figured you're the enthusiastic self-taught young talent type by seeing your comments and your age. In fact I used to be (and in some way still am) pretty much the same. But when I was in high school, I simultaneously studied mathematics in a university, and have actually finished a bachelor's degree before I finished high school. The beauty of mathematics is timeless, but some of the magic dissipates with age. I think you'll see that things that now seem to you fascinating and mysterious, will in time become obvious and banal. But it is amazing how enormous the amount of mathematical discoveries that have been made is. One could study mathematics all their life and not know everything that is currently known. This means you can always learn new and interesting things. This also means that the chance of young people like you (or myself, for that matter) to discover something that has never been done before, is very small. So one should indeed always be enthusiastic, but keep it within reasonable bounds.

About trigonometry, it is one of the things that is considered very elementary in mathematics, and in time will seem to you banal. Perhaps you're more familiar with the identity $$\sin^2x+\cos^2x=1$$. If you think about it a little, you'll see why the identity I mentioned before is correct (which actually is best written as $$\sin\cos^{-1}x = \pm\sqrt{1-x^2}$$). About dimensional analysis, it actually means something very simple: You may have noticed that if, for example, a, b and c are lengths, any expression of length will involve only first-degree parts: a + b, 2c - 3a and so on, but never a2 or bc. Area will always be second-degree: a2, bc - 2ab, etc. Volume will always be third-degree: a3 or abc. An expression like ab + c will never make sense in geometry, since you're adding two different things: length and area. The formula you provided has a similar expression, and thus can be immediately seen to be false.

If you want to reply, you can do so here; I'm watching every page I edit. I hope this helped, and good luck. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, my talk page has plenty of space, and I wouldn't delete anything posted in it. However, I can't really say I'm art-inclined enough to fully appreciate your description - But what's important is your admiration for mathematics, which I, of course, share. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationality
Heh, thank you for the complements, but although my user name sounds it, I am not Japanese. However, In the past, much of my studies revolved around Japan. Good to hear from you agian, sometimes flattery can brighten a day. Wo shi Meiguoren, ni ne? ;-) (Majin Takeru 21:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

{{unblock}.}

RE:Request of Information on Mao Zedong...
Yes, I'm aware of your presence on the Mao article.

I'm afraid I can't tell you much about Mao besides my own POV. Mao lies in the periphery of my area of interest (Second Sino-Japanese War) which itself is cursory at best and therefore I have never actually made a deliberate attempt to find out more about him.

Mao actually concedes that it was the japanese who put him in power; that I do not like. At all. That and his claim that the CPC did the fighting and "united the Chinese people".

That Mao is "3 part bad, 7 parts good" is absolute horse manure. As a ultra-right libertarian (and previously a pseudo-fascist) Mao's disastrous economic policies only strengthens my conviction that communism is an unnatural aberration, requiring man to attain the pefection of God before it can ever be implemented. Look at what Mao did in his 25 years and what Deng Xiaoping did in his 25 years.

By the way, it might be worth mentioning that I hate Jung Chang (with whom you have the misfortune of sharing a country of residence) with a passion.

You are correct that my autobiography is not exactly wenyan (I can't write wenyan from scratch) but is merely an adaptation of wenyan biographies using high-falutin words and pseudo-archaic grammar. To be honest, some sentences are quite forced and those are the ones I actually wrote. :x

In any case, for more details on the Capitalist Party of China, read close, and pay attention to who's who in the CPC.

BTW, lighten up, and don't go learning calculus when you're 13... it freaks people like me out. -- Миборовский U 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It freaks me out too... Don't ask me how I stumbled upon your page, because I don't remember. -- WGee 02:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

On our shared interest and a little more
Hey, good comments on the 25th of May, when I have time, I will elaborate on my thoughts, and on what you have said. I could not help but read what M has said, and I will have to argue with him later ;-). I will say this though, compare what Mao did for late 1800's/1900's China to what Deng did with Mao's China. Can't say who wins out, but I can say that you must look at what was gained, other then per capita income :D . (Majin Takeru 00:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

Thanks a lot: any time you like, PLEASE elaborate:

You're user account is not blocked. If you are truly blocked, please post the whole block message below. Sasquatch t|c 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You wrongie, little girl. go to bed. go home take nap. this page only for grownie uppies.

Mao iss best man. he is courage people. he is make China man grow big strong countrys.

Makin Takeru 18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The previous users name, has to be a joke.... (Majin Takeru 00:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Gosh it's always been fun to see what these people have to say- I've even enjoyed replying to them on several occasions. Sorry sir- I was on holiday in China when you said this... didn't catch a clue! Wait- this might look good on the April Fools' Joke- thanks for the suggestion. Luthinya 11:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Luthinya - Holiday in China! Lucky you. Thanks for the new information on the "Cult of Mao". Sounds like what I have been saying all along, regarding adoration. Either way, yes I will get with you on the dictatorship, and this soon. I have not been using Wiki a lot, but I have some catching up to do. (Majin Takeru 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

Mao
Hi. I thought I'd check back and ask you if you've recently gathered more on Mao, and how or if your perspectives have changed since the last time we talked. Again, you very much impress me with your age and understanding of the world. Colipon+(T) 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Looks like someone else smiled also. Cool.

Impersonated
Hey friend, how are you? It has been a while. You have just been impersonated in an attempt to slander me, just like someone else did to myself on your page long ago, haha. Figured I would leave it up and let you see it, before I edit it out, you will probably get a chuckle out of it. Hope all is well comrade. (Majin Takeru (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC))