Talk:Mao Zedong

Personal Life more info?

We can add more information for example, what did he do on personal life? Interesting little tidbits?

Also I know the memoir by that doctor was challenged by people who worked with him also.

Paracite (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

hi

wo The introduction states some pretty powerful--and true--facts about Mao, but before one even gets the remotest idea of who he was or what he did--it's painfully clear whoever wrote it was determined to portray Mao in a negative light--and if the facts support it, which they do, I say, let's do that. However, it would be nice to know the bare facts of his significance and existence--ie, he ruled China, was leader of the Communist Party, etc., and for however long, before finding out he shares traits with Nazis.

Just sayin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.221.107 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! That's a lot better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.19.44 (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

question

I wanted to point out a sentence that I think is confusing and suggest that someone maybe rewrite it to be more clear. In the section "Cultural Revolution", in the second paragraph, the sentence is:

Under the pretext that certain liberal "bourgeois" elements of society, labeled as class enemies, continue to threaten the socialist framework under the existing dictatorship of the proletariat, the idea that a Cultural Revolution must continue after armed struggle allowed Mao to circumvent the Communist hierarchy by giving power directly to the Red Guards, groups of young people, often teenagers, who set up their own tribunals.

Just a suggestion.

Thanks, Kelshew (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Kelli

Small intro edit, hopefully the last.

I myself have been making additions to this page for over two years (and others have been just as long if not longer, and I know who you are as well). As always the introduction remains one of the most edited parts of the article. Overall, I feel this article is becoming a great one. With that said I have made one addition. While the high end death totals have been noted in numbers in the introduction (which some feel should be so) nothing next to those numbers states them as controversial and debated. I have simply added this fact. Almost every negative thing on this page is a result of one questionable book. I'll be glad to give sources (Li Zhishi, and J. Spence to name two) as to show this controversial view fact by the historic community, though I think they are already peppered through out the article. If anyone has any issue, please debate here. (Majin Takeru (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Once more, As long as numbers of the people who died in China during Mao's rule are in the intro, the fact that those numbers and Mao's involvement are disputed should be left in as well. Jung Chang is not the only source on Mao, though sadly too many people think it is. Easy to cite the dispute, as even people who were not fans of Mao (once more Li Zhishi, and Philip Short) even dispute those numbers and his involvement. Not to mention some of the more pro Mao writers. (Majin Takeru (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Why does the intro no longer mention the hundreds of millions he was involved in killing? Less sympathy for j00s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.152.20 (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for MND / Parkinson's?

I note that there are templates here listing Mao as someone with Parkinson's disease and also as someone who died of motor neurone disease. Is there any evidence supporting either of these statements that could be incorporated? Apologies if this has already been discussed. --PaulWicks (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Li Zhishi was the one who said Motor Neutron Disease. He was Mao's private doctor for over 20 years, as far as Mao's health is concerned no other account that challenges his should even be considered, barring some extensive new research. He states this in his book (states Mao had MND), "The Private life of Chairman Mao". (Majin Takeru (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Article Locked - Please add IPA pronunciation

Please add IPA pronunciation, which I believe is: /mao tsə.toŋ/ or /mao tsə.tuŋ/

(I would avoid pitch accents, and use period/full stop as the syllable divider, for practical reasons.)

The current .ogg sound file is unplayable on many computers -- and not very useful for the deaf either.

Although actually, we really ought to give the Anglicized pronunciations as these are what should be used in normal English speech. This will be too long for the opening sentence though (a big Wikipedia issue in general -- we need a "pronunciation widget" at the top of articles), and should go as a sentence of its own somewhere in the first paragraph:

"The common Anglicized pronunciations of the name are /ˈmaʊ tseɪˌtʊŋ/ (residually from the older spelling Mao Tse-Tung), or /ˈmaʊ ziˌdɔŋ/ or /ˈmaʊ dzeɪˌdʊŋ/ from the Pinyin spelling Mao Zedong. The Standard Chinese pronunciation is /mao tsə.tuŋ/." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.204 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

when will you unblock it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandamir (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article locked - The section on his death should specify the official date and time of death - Ten minutes past midnight on September 9th 1976 [1] Woolly6 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mao's view about women

At the legacy section positive things are written about Mao and Chinese women. However, we should at least comment Mao's attempt to trade 10 million Chinese women to USA during a discussion with Kissinger (hopefully this was a joke, but we do not know for sure).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7243500.stm

[Mao] lamented the dismal state of trade between the two countries but remarked that China had an excess of women. He suggested sending tens of thousands to the US, but later in the conversation increased his offer to 10 million. The remark provoked laughter and was clearly meant as a joke, but Mao went on to complain that Chinese women were giving birth to too many children. If they were sent to the US he said, they would flood the country with disaster. When discussing the possibility of a Soviet invasion of China, Mao complained that too many Chinese women didn't know how to fight.

A.Cython (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly sure this wasn't taken very seriously, not sure if it needs to be in the article, however if it is it should be shortened and include a reference to jest. (Majin Takeru (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC))

Well, I would agree with you that this is not serious if he had stopped the joke once they started laughing (at 10 million). But Mao went on reflecting his opinions about women, which is important for understanding the real Mao. A.Cython (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Molestor

Can someone put something in there about charges of him molesting children? It's clear everyone who wrote this thinks he's a demi-god, but I've read otherwise and I thought Wikipedia was fair to both sides.

35.8.218.205 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reliable sources as to such a thing. While Tom Clancy makes that accusation in several novels, those are works of fiction.

LordShonus (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Mao as a poet

"Mao is also recognized as a poet and calligrapher".[6]^ Short, Philip (2001). Mao: A Life. “Mao had an extraordinary mix of talents: he was visionary, statesman, political and military strategist of genius, philosopher and poet.”

Are there any other historians who agree about it, or is it just Short's opinion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.115.42 (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you should learn Chinese, after that you will find out what he said is true. No matter what he did, he cannot be denied to be recognized as a poet and calligrapher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.79.2.90 (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mao's death?

In the section about his death, it jumps right from "he was revived" after he was moved over on his left side to "his body was displayed..." with no intermittent description of how/when he actually died. It doesn't even mention in the "Death" section that he died on Sept 9th, as noted at the beginning of the article. I suppose that the reader can use information from throughout the article to conclude that he died on Sept 9th due to a complication from his heart attack, but it would be useful to explicitly put that right in the "Death" section. --Nichenbach (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a better description at the article on the Cultural Revolution. Colipon+(T) 09:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Graffiti record holder

I first read this on Banksy's website but I later found it on the BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/07/asia_pac_graffiti_artists_in_beijing/html/1.stm, apparently he used to write revolutionary slogans on walls and holds the record for the largest single piece of graffiti which he wrote on the stalls of his universities bathrooms. (Lenerd (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

mao was a vandal?

Did you know that Mao was a vandal? See the image below: http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/images/landscapes/centrepointtag.jpg 68.223.2.140 (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

References to Chang and Halliday have been removed because their controversial work is not reflective of scholarly discourse. Chang does have the appropriate academic credentials to write history on China. Laogai.org and hrichina.org do not qualify as reliable sources because these are the mouthpieces of partisan advocacy groups. An encyclopedic entry on history should contain references from established scholarship rather than pushing the agenda of political organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.101 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

References to Chang and Halliday have been removed because their controversial work is not reflective of scholarly discourse. Chang does have the appropriate academic credentials to write history on China. To cite Rummel is fallacious because he is not a specialist on China. Rather, he specializes in political science. Nor is the "Black Book of Communism" reflective of scholarly discourse for the simple fact that it has been largely dismissed by the scholarly community as a polemic. If a controversial source is to be cited, it must be appropriately attributed. Examples of acceptable sources on the subject include historical surveys of 20th century China by Meisner and Chesneaux.

Laogai.org and hrichina.org do not qualify as reliable sources because these are the mouthpieces of partisan advocacy groups. An encyclopedic entry on history should contain references from established scholarship rather than pushing the agenda of political organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.210.101 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Very few books have been reviewed as favorably by as many publications and Chang and Halliday's book has.[2] It's certainly controversial and needs to be balanced with material from other sources. It's sounds like your idea of RS is "pro-Mao," which is a not a mainstream point of view outside China. Kauffner (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Black Book" and many of the other unreliable POV sources utilized in this article have been continually included by the hyperbolically-overzealous User:C.J. Griffin. To say that C.J. was on a "one man mission" to 'propagandize' wikipedia would unfortunately be an understatement. If you have any doubt about his "motivations" to NPOV ... then simply review his own personal website that he links to from his wikipedia account. There is also his own personal Amazon page (which he proudly links to on his wikipedia page) where he declares: “Communism is the greatest murder machine in the history of the world ... I refuse to allow the radical Left to sweep the unprecedented imperial Communist holocaust under the rug. Never forget the 100 million.” --- Now I'm no "Perry Mason", but something tells me that C.J. may not just be editing on wikipedia out of scholarly interest?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro

It reads (as of Oct 17th):

Early life in China

Mao was super crazy and guided by... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.196.252 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

60.242.159.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is insistent on inserting plagiarized text into the article. I reverted the first edit, which had content from this book. Undeterred, the same IP address decided that it would be alright to plagiarize from another source with this edit. I have revert this as well, since the material was lifted from this book. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

How did I plagarise anything? The text was clearly sourced, and in the second edit I've reverteed the paragraph in question. I find it offensive that you referred to me as an "IP vandal" when that is clearly not my attempt.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism is whenever text is copied without directly attributing it to the source. If you are directly quoting something, then you need to identify it as a direct quote. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

It is late in the country where I reside and I am unable to figure out how to revert edits without totally messing up the page. I'm sure someone will notice the vandalism before they read about it here. Sorry I couldn't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesoliloquy (talk • contribs) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the edits. Can we get this page semi protected please? Yialanliu (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 1 months. Thanks for undoing all the vandalism. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} I've found one instance where it calls him "Mao Da Boss", can someone check for any other vandalism and reverse it?

Fixed. I didn't find any other vandalism. --Skunkboy74 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

I removed the following sentence, If Mao had kept to his earlier policy of non-intervention in economics and end of class struggle, China would have been spared much trouble, and would have probably became a world power years ahead of schedule. from the legacy section, since it seems to be speculative. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

scrolling boxes

I was browsing around and noticed that the Muhammad page had a scrolling box for Notes, of which there were many. I thought the scrolling box made the page a lot nicer, and I thought I would seed the idea on different pages, hoping it would catch on. It can easily get reverted if popular opinion disagrees, so I thought I would find out what others think of using this format on extra-long pages such as Mao's.JW (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

KMT/Communist fighting against the Japanese

It seems that the following uncited passage has snuck in: "Sustaining more casualties does not necesarily entail greater involvement, it could in fact mean your forces performed more poorly. However, the nationalists did less fighting proportionally than the communists, they deliberately held back their resources to fight the communists after the war while the communists fought as hard as they could on both fronts against the japanese and the nationalists."

Uncited points: poor nationalist fighting, proportionally less fighting, nationalists deliberately holding resources, communists fought as hard as they could 66.212.202.251 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Those some of those uncited points can be found in materials related to General Joseph Stilwell, who was sent to China in 1942 as a military adviser. He openly criticized that Chiang was holding back resource unless it was absolutely necessary.

I do agree that the passage lacks the necessary support and is no more than a personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenity529 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mao fought from 1915 to early 1917 in a Bersaglieri regiment. He wasn't a sniper, he was a fusilier, an ordinary infantryman. I have read his war diary and there is no mention of sniping. Later in the war Mao was trained to use a trench mortar, and he was in charge of a mortar squad when one of the shells they were shooting at the Japanese misfired and Mao got wounded. So I can't see where that bit of information comes from. It is not in the Chinese entry on Mao, which is thoroughly documented. I do not think that MS Encarta is a reliable source when it comes to this kind of details.--213.140.21.227 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You are totally 100% correct. That is insanity to suggest that the crafty editor of newspapers was also a trained sniper. I have over 10 biographies on Mao ranging in time and scope and none of them mention him being a sniper. I have updated the World War I section and used legitmate references from a British Ambassador who was a contemporary of Mao, Ivone Kirkpatrick. Mao is too fascinating a figure to be left to such shoddy citing and crazy claims. It is time to clean this page up!!!--213.140.21.227 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ussr supported ccp?

my (rather terrible) ib textbook, by john l tomkinson, published by anagosis, called single party states, says that the ussr supported the gmd and NOT the ccp because stalin believed that shiek and the gmd would easily be overthrown.

is that how it was or is the article right?

--64.228.72.14 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately that is not the case, it was the opposite. The Nationalists did all the fighting, while the Mao’s forces held back. There are historical records of casualty figures in the Republic of Chinas Libraries.

The CCP changed the figures after 1949. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.73.125 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was watching a documentary (凤凰大视野, 2009年01月13日 [3]) on Phoenix TV regarding the issue of relations between the KMT and USSR. Stalin wanted the CCP and KMT to collaborate with each other, however had his own intentions of self-gain. Stalin knew that supporting the KMT would bring a US ally close to the USSR, and so he made a deal with Chiang Kai-Shek that China south of the Great Wall would be granted to the KMT, while the Dongbei Manchuria region would be granted to the USSR, in which Chiang reportedly agreed to (the USSR at that stage had already worked towards the independence of Outer Mongolia in 1921, and through a deal in the Yalta Conference, the USSR was granted by the United States control over certain aspects of land in China, in return for a co-operated attack against the Empire of Japan. With Outer Mongolia separated and the Maritime Province a part of the USSR, what then lied above the Great Wall was Inner Mongolia and the rest of Northeastern China.) Eventually, the Eighth Route Army was granted by the USSR to enter the Dongbei region, and so large masses of troops travelled unarmed to Manchuria via a short sea trip from Shandong. The Eighth Route Army was then armed with weapons and supplies provided by the USSR. What then appeared to Stalin is that, now there was something similar in regards to a "North China" and "South China", with the Chinese Communist-held "North China" acting as a buffer between the Pro-US KMT-held China (somewhat similar to North Korea today; the US cannot attack the USSR from the south, while the USSR cannot attack China from the North.) Mao saw this, and so, initiated the Chinese Civil War. What Stalin did not forsee was that Mao then controlled ALL of China, which prevented the execution of his initial plans. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also good to mention is that, from the documentary in question, Soviet troops were also present in the Dongbei region at the time. For example, there have even been accounts of Red Army troops encountering Joss paper and Hell Bank Notes, in which they did not know what they were. According to a witness, one Soviet soldier believed the notes to be legal tender, and attempted to purchase goods from a vendor, who knew of the notes and so refused the "payment". Assuming that the currency "was not enough", the soldier then gave all his "money", and was still refused. It is until the end of the civil war when all Soviet forces were retreated from China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

While this may sound strange coming from an anonymous user, I'm quite shocked that this article is not semi-protected. Mao Zedong was (and still is) a VERY controversial figure, to say the least. He ranks up there with Hitler and Stalin, and this page is vandalized just as much as those pages are.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cthulhu?

What's the matter with that Cthulhu part in the article?

Mao took up residence in Zhongnanhai, a compound next to the Forbidden City in Beijing, and there he was approached by The Great Cthulhu who planned to grant him the powers of an elder-god, But Zhongnanhai is known for having large amounts of pepper hidden underground. Upon getting a whiff The Great Cthulhu had a mighty sneeze and covered Mao with elder-god boogers, which turned Mao into a communist[23]

Link to page

Reverted it. Clearly vandalism. --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail) 20:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Would someone please be able to fix the signature? I have added File:Mao signature.jpg, however it is too large to fit, and every time I try to change the dimensions, it does not work. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to Hitler

This suggestion has been removed because it does not represent scholarly consensus. Chinese scholars, for example, hold Mao in high regard. And the West's leading authority on China Maurice Meisner made an overall positive evaluation of Mao. Sky01 (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"NPOV" means that all mainstream points of view should be represented in the article, not just the one POV that you have arbitrary designated as "scholarly consensus." Kauffner (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does not meet rules on scholarly consensus. Cite a single specialist from China who compares Mao to Hitler. Sky01 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But it does meet the rules for Wikipedia content. Only accepting Chinese sources would skew things massively. How long does someone who takes a consistently negative view of Mao remain a professional historian in the PRC? William Avery (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that, you won't find any Chinese specialist who'd compare Mao to Hitler. Only suicidal historians in China would do that. Can you imagine what the communist regime would do with a historian who'd dare to do that? Akinaka (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No one's talking about only using Chinese sources. What western scholars actually consider Mao to be comparable to Hitler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.186.177 (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Or comparison to Stalin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legislator (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

None whatsoever... he wasn't for the annihilation of any sort of race/ethnicity/religion!?!?!?!?!?!? Was He!!!!!.... I didn't think so (but for more for rebels and others of the sort). I think, although not a very logistic purpose, killing people over there slight disagreement with communism is more of a purpose then being of Jewish faith! Turqoiseturtle (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

consensus! people! Come on! people around me falsely compare Mao to Hitler every time he is brought up! For one I am sure Mao, sittin in his grave doesn't appreciate you comparing him to Hitler, of all people! Well especialy for those of you who respect him as much as I do (not much but enough). Knowing Wikipedia as such a revered source for the uneducated I feel it is a great idea for this article to be in the public eye. Turqoiseturtle (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

More information on his masscares?

There is not nearly enough information on the many millions of deaths caused directly by the policies of Chairman Mao on this page; it really seems highly PRC-propaganda-leaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.93.52 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with determining the death toll of this era as sources vary significantly, making it hard to reach a consensus.MarquisCostello (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Alleged Quotes

It is written,

"During a speech to party cadre in 1958, Mao said: "He buried 460 scholars alive; we have buried forty-six thousand scholars alive... You [intellectuals] revile us for being Qin Shi Huangs. You are wrong. We have surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold."

People who try to commit suicide — don't attempt to save them

Quotations of politicians should be derived from published sources, not on unverified hearsay. This alleged quotation cannot be found in any of Mao's published works. [4]Sky01 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Qing Shi Huang quote is sourced in a 1969 work, but the suicide quote sounds sketchy.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with sources

Many of the sources cited here are inappropriate. For example:

(UTC)Along with land reform, there were also campaigns of mass repression and public executions targeting alleged counter-revolutionaries, such as former KMT officials, businessmen, former employees of Western companies, intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect, and significant numbers of rural gentry.[Steven W. Mosher. China Misperceived: American Illusions and Chinese Reality.]

Stephen W. Mosher is not a professional academic specializing on the history of China. His opinion does not relate tot he subject at hand.

The U.S. State department in 1976 estimated that there may have been a million killed in the land reform, 800,000 killed in the counterrevolutionary campaign.

What the U.S. State Department has to say is also not interesting. It would be preferred if academic sources are used.

Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949–53.[Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. Mao: The Unknown Story]

Jung Chang is not a specialist on Chinese History. Her education is in linguistics. The book "Mao: Unknown Story" has been debunked by the scholarly community.

the number of deaths range between between 2 million and 5 million. [The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press, 1999. ISBN 0674076087 pg. 479]

Even if this book had not generated so much controversy, it would still be inappropriate because the sections on China are brief and selective. Jean-Louis Margolin is not a leading authority on the subject of China. --Sky01 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Points for citation

In the article there are the following quotes:

• 'During his stay in Shanghai, he engaged himself as much as possible in reading which introduced him to Communist theories.'
• 'Mao turned down an opportunity to study in France because he firmly believed that China's problems could be studied and resolved only within China.'
• 'Other important influences on Mao were the Russian revolution and, according to some scholars, the Chinese literary works: Outlaws of the Marsh and Romance of the Three Kingdoms.'
• 'More than one million Kuomintang soldiers were involved in these five campaigns, four of which were defeated by the Red Guard led by Mao.'
• 'In China, the formerly favourable Soviets were now denounced as "revisionists" and listed alongside "American imperialism" as movements to oppose.'
• 'During the Cultural Revolution, Mao closed the schools in China and the young intellectuals living in cities were ordered to the countryside. They were forced to manufacture weapons for the Red Army.'
• 'They attempted to marginalize Mao by taking control of economic policy and asserting themselves politically as well.'
• 'On the afternoon of September 7th, Mao took a turn for the worse. Jiang Qing came to Building 202 where she learned the bad news. Mao had just fallen asleep and needed the rest, but she insisted on rubbing his back and moving his limbs, and she sprinkled powder on his body. The medical team protested that the dust from the powder was not good for his lungs, but she instructed the nurses on duty to follow her example later. The next morning, 8 September, she came again. She wanted the medical staff to change Mao's sleeping position, claiming that he had been lying too long on his left side. The doctor on duty objected, knowing that he could breathe only on his left side, but she had him moved nonetheless. Mao's breathing stopped and his face turned blue. Jiang Qing left the room while the medical staff put him on a respirator and performed emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Mao barely revived, and Hua Guofeng urged Jiang Qing not to interfere further with the doctors' work, as her actions were detrimental to Mao's health and helped cause his death faster.'

Does anyone have citations for any of these extracts of the article? (as i think they are needed). MarquisCostello (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mao Zedong was Korean lies

Please note I am not here to troll, this controversial claim was firstly introduced by Taiwanese nationalists in attempt to make fun at Koreans. Please note this is very controversial claim coming from Taiwanese communities. Please post this controversial event at main article to show this was total lies. --Korsentry 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

This article vs. Britannica

Any editor questioning whether this article is WP:NPOV, should take the time to read Encyclopedia Britannica's Mao article. The glaring presence of WP:Undue editorialized criticism within Wikipedia's entry should be more than apparent. If you compare & contrast the two entries, you would almost think they are referencing two different individuals.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the population in 1900?

Something that bothers me is that I seldom see anything about the way China was using land & the number of people in China in 1900 or 1920 or at some point, wasn't that a big factor in WHY China wanted Communism? Weren't there so many people (close to a billion) that were subsisting on small plots of land that it was more obvious there than it was in America, which had a small population & lots of empty land, that the ideal for China would be to have Communism, where large communities would all live & work on the communally-owned land by large groups of people working together, possibly working fewer hours for each person? I've never seen the 'why' in the reason China wanted Communism. But maybe I've missed that & I haven't read a million books so maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like that would make it more clear as to why China wanted Communism. Stars4change (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And also, weren't they fighting against the few "richest" elite owners of the largest amounts of land, factories, etc, in China whom they had to "overthrow", which led to the violence? And couldn't some, or all, of that violence have happened because they had poor communication at that time (no TV, radios, & other faster means of communication) to teach all people at once how communism would work, which might not have anything to add to this, but I wanted to ask. Stars4change (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

US population in 1900 was only 76,000,000, & 2009 only 300,000,000 it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States Stars4change (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mao biography by Michael Lynch states that the Chinese population doubled to half a billion between 1800 and 1900. (Michael Lynch: Mao. London: Routledge, 2004. P. 3. --ChristopheS (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheist?

I searched the page for "Atheist", "Atheism", "belief", "God", "religion" and "faith". But I only "religion" and "atheist" in that summary box at the top. Are there sources confirming that??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.253.191 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

red guard and red army are very different things

Red Guard = 红卫兵,volunteer student organizations during the Cultural Revolution Red Army = 红军, Red Army fight with KMT in the Civil War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.161.185 (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Genealogy

Hello, In this article it is written:

Mao Zedong had several wives which contributed to a large family. These were:

1. Luo Yixiu (罗一秀, 1889-1910) of Shaoshan: married 1907 to 1910 2. Yang Kaihui (杨开慧, 1901-1930) of Changsha: married 1921 to 1927, executed by the KMT in 1930

On the Luo Yixiu page, it says:

Luo Yixiu (simplified Chinese: 罗一秀; 1889-1910) was the first wife of Mao Zedong from 1907 until her death in 1910.

On the Yang Kaihui page, it says:

Yáng Kāihuì (traditional Chinese: 楊開慧; simplified Chinese: 杨开慧; courtesy name: Yúnjǐn (traditional Chinese: 雲錦; simplified Chinese: 云锦); 1901 – November 14, 1930) was the first wife of Mao Zedong from 1920 to 1930.

Both the first wife of Mao? What's the deal here?

Ventolin (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mao biography by Michael Lynch contains a chapter "Mao and Women", with the following overview:

Miss Luo - betrothed in 1908 but marriage unconsummated.

Yang Kaihui (1901-30) - married Mao in 1920 - divorced 1928 - killed by the Guomindang - 3 children: (...)
He Zichen (1910-84) - married Mao in 1928 - divorced 1938 - 5 children: (...)
Jian Qing (1914-94) - married Mao in 1938 - died of throat cancer while serving life imprisonment (...)

The above list can be found on page 213. On pages 24-25, Michael Lynch writes that Mao refused the marriage his father had arranged for him with Miss Luo, but that she still moved into the Mao household. She became Rensheng's concubine, after which Wen Qimei (Mao's mother) left Shaoshan to live with her own family. --ChristopheS (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article need to be summerised by expert

Expert help from able editors needed to turn this article into a better one. Arilang ^talk 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I have added this because I believe the article skims too quickly over allegations of human rights abuse etc made against Mao. That is not to say that I necessarily believe he did anything wrong. However, there are many sources to suggest he did, and the article must include greater mention of these in order to be balanced and neutral. At the moment, the article is a little too like a propaganda piece of the Chinese government.

Please discuss here before removing the tag.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm bit confused about your concern here. In the article itself, Mao said himself that he killed millions to secure power, almost the entire sections on his leadership of China after 1949 contains mentions of the millions that were starved, killed or imprisoned by his socialist programs. We all know, by examing this article, that he killed millions of peoples for power. Do we need to publish everyone's death and Mao's involvement to their casue of death to make it NPOV?

As for why his human rights abuse was skimmed before 1949, given that most records were in Chinese and most English sources published in those eras were favouring the Communist due to Sino-Japanese War, its hard to find reliable sources that mentions his misdeeds at that period. Just because he is evil does not mean we must publish unverified claims.

The POV tag for the entire article is unjustified IMO. We need more expert attentions on Mao's history before 1949, with expansion on the legacy section about how and which "historians claim that Mao Zedong was a dictator comparable to Hitler and Stalin". But saying this article "a propaganda piece of the Chinese government" is a bit insulting to people's intelligence. Jim101 (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is already highly critical of Mao, especially the War section.--Bule55 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me how the term "Red Guard" was used in the War Section?

I'm just utterly confused by the term Red Guard in the War section...

• ...Mao joined his army with that of Zhu De, creating the Workers' and Peasants' Red Guard of China, Red Guard in short...Isn't it called Red Army in Chinese?

• ...among whom the most prominent was Li Wenlin, the founder of the CPC's branch and Red Guard in Jiangxi...I'm not really into Chinese history that much, so is it the Red Army or some other unknown orginzation called Red Guard?

• ...Mao's Guerrilla Warfare and Mobile Warfare was based upon the fact of the poor armament and military training of the Red Guard...Is this talking about peasent guard units in each Chinese villiage that could be considered "Red Guard" or the Red Army again?

• ...More than one million Kuomintang soldiers were involved in these five campaigns, four of which were defeated by the Red Guard led by Mao...Again, peasent "Red Guard" or the Red Army?

• ...the Red Guard had no less than 45,000 soldiers, with a further 200,000 local militia acting as a subsidiary force...Mao said in his books the peasent army composed of guards, militias and army, all Red. Which one is which?

• ...Chiang Kai-shek, now openly against the Communist Red Guard (led by Mao Zedong) in the civil war for control of China...Are we talking about People's Liberation Army by now?

• ...Kuomintang forces suffered massive losses against Mao's Red Guard...Red Guard troops laid siege to Chengdu...PLA or not?

Finally, definition of Chinese Red Guard: a mass movement of civilians, mostly students and other young people in the China, who were mobilized by Mao Zedong in 1966 and 1967, during the Cultural Revolution....Isn't that 40 years later than 1927, where this article stated when Mao formed his first Red Guard units?

Utter confusion... Jim101 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty to replace the term Red Guard with Red Army or PLA depending on he time periods. But there are still a lot of Red Guard organizations in CPC within its history that I encourage experts to take a look at this issue. Jim101 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Red Guards (红卫兵) were creatures of the Cultural Revolution. William Avery (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They were creatures? What do you mean?--Bule55 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Metaphor.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mao's ethnicity

It says Chinese, surely he was something more specific? Faro0485 (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Biographies

This article would be improved by including material from several biographies of Mao that have appeared in recent years, such as Chang and Halliday's "Mao: the Untold Story," "The Private Life of Chairman Mao" by Li Shi Zui, or "Mao ze Dong: A life" by Jonathan Spence (a well-respected China scholar. Some of these works are referenced in earlier comments, but some issues that are presented in the article as unclear or in dispute have been been resolved outside of wikipedia, and in other cases, there are omissions that can be rectified with new material from these sources. 01:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)