Talk:Mao Zedong

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)

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

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

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

Opening section reads like CCP propaganda not NPOV

I think the opening paragraph is rather flawed now. In fact, I would go far as to say that is has been deliberately edited to present Mao in a flattering light. A year or so I did some edits and they stood for some time which got this propaganda-style material taken out. To be specific, when talking about Chairman Mao, it is not a little strange to use the term 'ever-evolving legacy' outside of China. He is pretty universally regarded as mass-murderer on a grand scale, as any of the sources listed confirm - even Short who is more sympathetic than most. Yes, one can talk about his other legacies, but the excess mortality as a direct result of his policies is a historical fact - in that no one seriously questions it.

The phrasing 'critics blame' is particularly weasel-worded as it implies that the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution did not necessarily cause millions of deaths. Note the use of the word 'a probable deaths'. It is deliberately ambiguous. The precise death toll from the Great Leap Forward may be debated but two central facts are not debated by any reputable source, apart from the the CCP. Firstly that millions died, secondly that Mao was responsible for the policy. The same holds true for the Culturual Revolution, except the death toll is more in the 100,000s. This paragraph suggests both that Mao wasn't necessarily the author of this policies and that they may not have killed large numbers of people.

It seems even more suspect when you notice the order of consequences: ' severe damage to the culture, society, economy, and foreign relations of China, as well as a probable death toll in the tens of millions'. Feels like a CCP inspired phrasing, to put things like the economy and China's foreign relations over millions of deaths.

Then there is the really odd final sentence: 'A number of the Chinese people regard Mao as the savior of the nation, who laid the military, political, economical, technological and cultural foundations of modern China. Some in China regard Mao as a deity.' So in terms of weighting, this opening sectionm when describing a leader who most regard as in the same category as HItler, Stalin or Pol Pot describes in various terms as a genius, calligrapher and a deity. Then one throway reference to the Great Leap Forward.

Can I suggest a wholescale revision of this opening - something much shorter and with more appropriate balance. Will do an edit shortly as it feels rather urgent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjamesbromley (talk • contribs) 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, the controversies of Mao are listed. Triplestop x3 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adamjamesbromley. Now, Mao is only "controversial". The article is not reliable. Should it be tagged? Peltimikko (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote:He is officially held in high regard in China where he is known as a great revolutionary, political strategist, and military mastermind who defeated Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War, and then through his policies transformed the country into a major world power.Unquoted.

The above sentence should be deleted, since nowaday many Chinese hate this so called Russian-inspired revolution, and when Mao died, the Chinese economy was near collapse. Deng Xiaoping's Open Door policy saved and transformed China, NOT Mao. Mao would ranked among the worst-ever rulers in 3000 years of Chinese history. Arilang ^talk 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that Mao is a very controversial figure. This intro needs to go and a new one needs to be drafted. Colipon+(Talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He is still officially celebrated in China (see famous picture of Mao), and from what I've read often respected as an anti-imperialist even by those who don't like communism–so controversial would be truly correct in this regard. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By your logic: Stalin was the biggest anti-Fascist and he was voted the third most notable personality in Russian history (not to mention new school books in Russia: "great patriot leader, who made just few mistakes"). Should we also respect and consider him only "controversial"? Peltimikko (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. Mao is still officially celebrated as a founder of the modern Chinese state–and while he is criticized by some Chinese, he is praised more often. This is what the situation is–not something I am responsible for. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because the intro doesn't conform to your believes doesn't make it invalid. The claim that " most regard as in the same category as Hitler" show an inherent anti-communist, anti-Chinese bias. Many people in China still regard Mao as a savior of the Chinese state, and thus the intro stands. There's no need to introduce Mao as a cardboard cutout villain the Western academia like to portray, which implies an ethnocentric systematic bias. Let's also not forget the various murderous right-wing dictators sponsored by the US that hardly get the Adolf treatment, eg Chiang Kai-shek, Suharto, Pinochet etc. Hell currently the Chiang Kai-shek intro mentioned nothing regarding his various white terror campaigns.--PCPP (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

@ user PCPP, anti-communist=anti-Chinese? communist=Chinese? Are you coming from the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party? Arilang ^talk 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

'A number of Chinese regard Mao as the savior of the nation' - how many? Qzm (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mao was a cunning plotter, mass murderer, self-appointed emperor

Just look at Shu Fan movement, Zhen Fan, Anti-Bolshevik League incident, any editor would agree that right from the beginning, the Chinese communist revolution was a game of mudering people; and Mao being the most ruthless, most vicious, he had become the top dog. Mao should be presented as himself, and wikipedia should not be used as a communist China's propaganda instrument. Arilang ^talk 03:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the Shanghai massacre of 1927, the 228 Incident and the 1938 Yellow River flood? Chiang Kai shek is no saint either. He murdered 10 million people through his political repression and purges before fleeing to Taiwan.--PCPP (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

@user PCPP, Chiang Kai-shek murdered 10 million people? You need to back it up with reputable source before you can make that claim. Arilang ^talk 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

dude , this is not you speaking

this is bourgouise doctrine combined with bourgouise dirty propaganda and simplifistic primitivist shallow thoughtsa and ideas speaking from you... claming that mao zedong was mass murderer is a child story... every revolution predicts mass murders... most people who he ordered to be killed or killed are political and war opponents... therefore they cannot be considered "innocent victims"

it is war... revolution is not anywhere described as "flower power" and big flashy cheery recreation of humanity... it is war and struggle

communists were slaughtered around world in same meassure

mao was a man who fought hardly for his believes , which many actions he did prove... he wasnt armchair man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.171 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New intro

If editors have ideas, instead of simply criticizing the current intro, please specify which sections need to be changed and what the new revision would look like so we can discuss. Someone can even choose to sandbox an entirely new intro or just edit the article to make it more NPOV. Back-and-forth argumentation is not conducive to making this article any better. Colipon+(Talk) 23:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite should adhere to NPOV policies while noting both his positive and negative aspects. The intro should neither become a propagandic CCP praise nor an anti-communist blackwashing comparing him to Hitler. Referring to the Chiang Kai-shek article, it mentioned nothing about his purges and white terror whatsoever.--PCPP (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The intro as it stands looks like it reads from CCP handbook. The intro is sorely in need of rewrite for NPOV. I may take a stab at it if I find time. NickCT (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NickCT, the above comments refer to the intro as of late August, which was different than the present version. Moreover, your "stab at it" recently only exacerbated the pov problems as you inserted a number of WP:OR caveats to discredit the positive, but none to call into question the negative. Any vastly redone intro should be probably first be placed on the TP for editor approval.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thoreau; I think it's important to recognize here that the state sanctioned version of history in China often bears little or no reality to the truth. I think anyone who is well versed with this period of Chinese history (who is not drawing solely from CCP sources) will have few positive things to say about Mao (besides maybe that he was ruthlessly efficient at grabbing power). We should remember that we are talking about someone who committed democide on a scale essentially larger than any other person ever to have ever walked the earth. The current article clearly doesn't reflect that truth. I will rewrite slowly.NickCT (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NickCT, I am well aware of the differing viewpoints on Mao's legacy and actions. If you believe the article currently is relying on primary CCP sources, then please display them here so we can investigate their validity and potentially remove them. However, you can not just decry any opinion you do not agree with to be CCP hagiography. In fact the article at current reads far more critical than the Encyclopedia Britannica’s version who does not allow editors who may have a strong opinion one way or the other to imbue those sentiments onto the content. Moreover, your conception of "democide" is itself controversial and not universally held. You speak as if Mao himself personally shot 60 million people which was not the case. This simplistic "leader-centric" view of history is common, especially amongst polarizing figures such as Mao; however it disregards the thousands upon millions of people who are also part of the overall collective actions and policies – not to mention the endless amount of variables that encapsulate to cause famine, disease, and death from overall impoverishment or direct murder. Your work on the lead I believe fails WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and lacks WP:RS to support the contentions. Still you are obviously welcome to propose your revisions here on the talk page and see if they can acquire editor consensus and meet the overall muster of wiki policies. However, hyperbole such as a killer beyond "any other human that has walked the earth" would not be appropriate for an encyclopedic article.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 22:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow Red.... Hyperbole? Seriously? Seriously Red?... Ok look.. Obviously Mao didn't personally shoot 60 million. Hitler didn't personally shoot 6 million Jews. It's also true that many of those who died under Mao weren't systematically/intentionally eliminated (as was the case with the Nazis). It is however also true that a large portion of those 60 million were exterminated in a systematic fashion. Furthermore, many of those not systematicly eliminated met their ends due to calous disregard for human life in Chinese leadership, which can be traced directly to Mao. I think it's only a minority of peoples who can be said to be truely unintentional casualities for policy change under the CCP.

Regardless, you restored a section to the lead that was clearly unsourced POV pushing.  I will remove it again.  Please do not restore it again without citations.69.251.189.69 (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Communist genocide

This category was recently added. First of all, I doubt what he did can be considered genocide. It seems terribly POV to call it such. Triplestop x3 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, Mao Zedong had nothing to do with ten of millions of death in China during his regime? I am glad nobody was hurt for example famines or staff like that. Peltimikko (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I REMOVED PART TALKING ABOUT MAO AND HIS FOLLOWERS PUTING GUNS INTO PEOPLES ANUSES AND SHOOTING BECAUSE IT IS BACKED WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE, IS COMPLETELY HILARIOUS , VERY BOLD , AND VERY FAILLING... EXCEPT CALLING THEMSELVES ON 3RD GRADED UNCLE SAM BOOKS ,PLEASE CALL YOURSELF ON ANY VICTIM AND WITNESS OF THOSE CRIMES THAT EVERY LIVED

THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.171 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

commrade, im talking about something that really has no place in professional article

10 million people is really bold number which u will have to boldly back up ... many people died of famine , but ask yourself in what meassure previous bourgouise govrement had impact... in USSR many people died cause of kulaks slaughtering cattle, but that doesnt mean stallin sticked a gun into some man anus and shot

so this part of text is simply provocation which must be removed... also note that it was year 1935 when communists were suppressed with tough force... they couldnt afford themselves walk around country , and if they did , they wouldnt spend that time sticking guns into peoples bleeding asses !!!!

so please tell me that this part has anything to do with mao zedong "objective" article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.171 (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

once again i want to state that it is in noones interrest to turn wikipedia into yellow page website

which it is rapidly heading into —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.47.171 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

The Deaths from motor neurone disease cat is present. Some sources state he died of MND, but some say stroke(s). Is it known for certain what he died of? Qzm (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On Guerrilla Warfare

Someone should add the Chinese version of the title. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned before under his writings, considering how influential it is. ʄ!•¿talk? 02:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Can we please have atheism removed from the info box?

Atheism isn't a religion, for one. And secondly, even if Mao did follow a religion, why would that merit being included in his info box? Roman Catholic isn't used to describe Hitler's religious beliefs in his info box, so why must atheism be used to describe Mao?

It is completely irrelavent.

--92.2.74.87 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was not Roman Catholic. Nazism was his true religion, seriously. Furthermore, it is not irrelevant. The religion of many well-known people is stated, and if they are atheist, that is what should go in the box. It will not be removed.--KatelynJohann (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is problematic to apply this label to someone who is from a Taoist society: its normal implication is one who does not adhere to a monotheistic norm. This smacks of Eurocentrism. Are there any reliable sources for his being an atheist? William Avery (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, an atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods at all. What evidence is there that Mao believed in the "Tao?" Mao's beliefs came from Marx, who claimed that "religion is the opiate of the masses."--KatelynJohann (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remove all of these "atheism" references in the articles dealing with Chinese leaders. It is absurd to suggest that all politicians must be labeled a certain "religion". This emphasis originally came from U.S. President-obsessed researchers who seem to have nothing better to do than classify a bunch of useless presidential stats. We do not have to apply this to all politician infoboxes. Colipon+(Talk) 20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mao was aginst religion, including Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. That he is an atheist is true and should not be removed.--KatelynJohann (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That he was against Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. does not make him "Atheist". It's like saying if one is anti-liberal, one must also be conservative. Colipon+(Talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Chang and Halliday

I have read about three or four chapters of this rather shameful excuse-of-a-biography and just could not do it anymore. If Wikipedia stands on NPOV, then Chang and Halliday is the worst enemy of this article. Chang herself is emotionally invested in the era and therefore does not have a trace of neutrality when writing about Mao. Even his personal habits such as his dental hygene is scrutinized and criticized beyond reasonable limits in this book. Therefore I really question some material that are sourced to this book being part of the article. Colipon+(Talk) 10:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Devil or angel

User Colipon, to really understand Mao, is not a easy task. The West know Mao only through Han Suyin, Edgar Snow, Agnes Smedley, the last person was known to be either a Comintern or KGB agent. Then you have Chang and Halliday, who had read thousands(or tens of thousands) of files related to Mao, and interviewed hundreds of relevant persons, before they finished writing the book. Readers will have to make up their own mind, like who they can trust, who were telling lies, or making up stories. Do we trust Agnes Smedley, Edgar Snow, or Chang and Halliday?

For me, I am fortunate enough to be able to read Chinese text. After I search, and read, all these articles, and put them into wikisource, I tend to be on Chang and Halliday side.

Please read:

• Template:Zh icons:zh:用戶:Arilang1234#中國共產黨中央委員會
• Zhen Fan Arilang ^talk 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reader User:Arilang1234 has made major contributions to many articles on the basis of wide reading, so I hesitate to disagree. But I would respectfully point out that our present views of Mao are not so much shaped by the books of the 1930s as by careful scholarship by a global network of scholars and several generations of research in Chinese sources and archives. This is subjected to critique and debate, not simply accepted blindly. These findings are presented, for instance, in the edition of Mao's works edited by Stuart Schram, in research monographs on specific topics, and in the pages of such peer reviewed journals as China Quarterly The China Journal, and Modern China, where other specialists keep watch. In turn, these findings are presented in more readable form in biographies such as those by Ross Terrill, Mao: A Biography (New York: Harper & Row, 1980; rev. and expanded: Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2000); Philip Short, Mao: A Life (New York: Holt, 2000). Stuart R. Schram, Mao Tse-Tung (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books; 1967); Jonathan Spence, Mao Zedong (Penguin, 1999); Michael J. Lynch, Mao (London; New York: Routledge, 2004). These are all widely available and should be used for Wikipedia articles rather than relying on one book. ch (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But Chang/Halliday is def. not simply 1 more book on Mao. Schram and Needham were serious scholars, also people like Spence, but wasn't Terrill one of the complete Maoist nuts of the 1960s? and Agnes Smedley (great life, but probably a rather terrible person) and Edgar Snow (as "Leys" has shown) did not even know real Chinese.

It also seems a bit "racist" to excuse Chinese, but not German or even Russian mass murder, to find one good reason after the other to excuse Mao, in a way not thinkable, outside small and lunatic circles for Hitler or even Stalin.--Radh (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Mao committed some serious errors in judgments during his time at the helm and brought about destruction to Chinese society and the Chinese people. But it is possible to look at this in an objective light without taking every opportunity to paint Mao as the worst human being ever lived. This is what I found irritating in the book. It will chronicle some history, then suddenly spin a part of it into "and this is why Mao is a terrible person", and then come back to the history. It uses all sorts of anecdotes that seems to serve only one purpose - to assassinate Mao's character - and it takes every opportunity to do so. The book has been criticized by numerous prominent sinologists and if used on this article, should be backed up by another source. Otherwise phrases like "According to Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's biography Mao: The Unknown Story, Mao had great personal wealth and was 'the only millionaire' in Mao's China." seem to be childish rhetoric that no historian will take seriously. Colipon+(Talk) 10:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User Colipon, if you read:http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1724301,00.html, you may be able to see how June Chang feel about Mao when she began to collect relevant info. As she told www.dw-world.de, she herself was caught surprised when she was facing massive amount of first hand historical material which pointed to the negative side of Mao.

德国之声：您开始搜集资料的时候，有没有想到会有这么多的新发现呢？

张戎：没有。简直没有想到。我以为写毛传不会很 难，可能几年时间就够了。我以为我对毛泽东相当了解。我没有想到会有那么多跟我们现在所知道的历史截然不同的东西。长征中间还有一点使我非常吃惊的，就 是，遵义会议上并没有确定毛泽东的领导地位，不象中共历史所说的那样。是毛泽东在遵义会议以后耍手腕，才得到张闻天的幕后操纵人这么一个地位的。遵义会议 完了以后，毛泽东坚持不肯进四川，去跟张国焘会师。他怕会师以后，张国焘资历比他老，当时手下的红四方面军比他的强，他怕张国焘会理所当然地当上党的领 袖。为了躲避跟张国焘会师，毛就带上中央红军绕了一个大圈，多走了三分之一的路，多走了4个月，把红军从突破湘江时候的4万红军拖到剩下筋疲力竭的不到1 万，这是我从来不知道的。跟张国焘会师以后，因为红四方面军还是比他强，毛又尽力地破坏红四方面军，而且独霸打通苏联的道路。这也是我感到非常吃惊的。毛 整个的战略设想，怎么夺取中国，他主要想的就是要靠苏联，他在1923年就说，共产主义要在中国胜利，非得苏联红军从北边打进来不可。所以整个的长征吧， 他们也就是为了到北边去靠近苏联，打通苏联，接受武器援助。毛泽东为了把张国焘甩在他后边，也耍了很多手腕，对红四方面军做了极大的破坏。这些我都觉得是 闻所未闻，非常吃惊的。

What she was saying, is the official Chinese communist party version of Mao, is a completely different from the real Mao, when she began to read and analyze previously secret Russian (KGB?) files, as her husband happen to be able to read Russsian. Another fact I like to point out is June Chang was herself a Chinese communist member, and she felt that the Communist government had cheated so many people for so long, it is high time for someone like her to reveal some real stuff about Mao, that is why sometimes the tone, and the angles of attack on Mao himself seem to be too ferocious. User Coliphon, and most of the editors working on this article, including me, may have not be living under the Bamboo Curtain, so we may never know the true emotional feeling of author like June Chang, and the true feeling of Chinese Baixing living under Mao's rule. This is why we may not like the June Chang's version of Mao . Which is quite understandable. Arilang ^talk 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

traditional characters

this article used to have Mao's name in traditional character, aswell as simplified. Who removed the simplified and why? I wil put them back, as in parts of China, the traditional form of his name is widely used, aswell as in Hong Kong and Macau. It should never have been removed.Guitar3000 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)