Talk:Great Leap Forward

Credits

The original version of this text was derived from the article on the Great Leap Forward in the Encyclopedia of Marxism at www.marxists.org

• Despite the risks to their carreers and their lives, some Communist Party members openly laid blame for the disaster at the feet of the Party leadership and took it as proof that China must rely more on education, acquiring technical expertise and applying borgeouis methods in developing the economy. It was principally to crush this opposition that Mao launched his Cultural Revolution in early 1966.

This paragraph fails to adequately characterize the general foot-dragging and lack of enthusiasum of the party structure which resulted from the failure of the main features of the Great Leap Forward. Open opposition resulted in disgrace which occurred to a few, but there was a more broadbased revulsion to any more nonsense from the center and Mao's pronouncements and initiatives where, if not met with open scepticism, were not implemented with much enthusiam. It was this general party-wide malais which resulted in his extraordinary effort to bypass the party with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Anyt comments? Fred Bauder 03:52 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I my opinion, the Great Leap Forward is absurd, mainly because of Mao's economy policy. So far as I know, a field that time could produce 10,000 kg rice! (even impossible today!) :) --YACHT 05:22, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

There is actually more than one viewpoint on the justification of the Great Leap Forward. Colipon 22:27, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Ping-ti Ho

I have deleted the following section:

Chinese expert of demography, Dr Ping-ti Ho, professor of history at the University of Chicago, in a book titled Studies on the Population of China, 1368-1953, Harvard East Asian Studies No 4, 1959, mentions that:

My conclusion is that the claim that in the 1960s a number between 17 [million] and 29 million people was "missing" is worthless if there was never any certainty about the 600 millions of Chinese. Most probably these "missing people" did not starve in the calamity years 1960-61, but in fact have never existed. [4]

How can a book/pamphlet supposedly written in 1959 talk about the early 1960s in the past tense?

"Disaster Center"

"Disaster Center" is not org or edu but only a individiual website.

Also, the number in the article - 30 million deaths resulting from the flood - does not match the 2 million cited as dead during that flood by this so called Disaster Center.

Recent swing towards Maoism?

The contents and the tone of the article have been significantly changed between 26th of July and 2nd of August. See this comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=69539367&oldid=65880553

It appears that information that portrays chairman Mao in a negative light has been edited out and new information praising Mao has been added. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but this article needs to be protected from edits that swing it too much towards one viewpoint or the other.

In addition to that, sources are not properly quoted; for example, a webpage such as re-evaluationmao.org is not a proper source, even if it may contain proper sources.

Inflated Death Toll

The death toll of 20-40 million is flatulent. Data presented in the 1983 Statistical Yearbook of China shows the following death rates. They amount to about 12 to 13 million excess deaths. It should be taken into consideration that these were released while Deng conducted a staunch anti-Mao campaign. Deng had nothing to gain by minimizing these but had everything to gain by maximizing them.

Crude death rates in China:

1955: 12.3

1956: 11.4

1957: 10.8

1958: 12

1959: 14.6

1960: 25.4

1961: 14.2

1962: 10

1963: 10

Jacob Peters

Addition of Category:Communist genocide

I was just wondering, it the Great leap forward widely considered genocide? Because considering it as such seems terribly POV. Triplestop x3 15:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, basically no-one was hurt by the Communist regime? Peltimikko (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you even know what a genocide is? 'Fred' 163.1.234.221 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Genocide refers to killing people because of their ethnic identity, so generally speaking the Great Leap Forward was not genocide. Instead the deaths caused intentionally or by willful negligence fall under the broader category of democide, which is murder by government. If groups of people were starved to death because of their ethnic identity, then that portion of the Great Leap Forward democide would be considered genocide. Wikimedes (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Transcript of the discussion from the Content noticeboard

This edit history documents what I am complaining about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Leap_Forward&diff=385999654&oldid=385996585

Five reputable sources identify that "Great Leap Backward" is a phrase used to describe China's "Great Leap Forward", including the Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar (acknowledged as a major Chinese history expert and author of a well-regarded book on this period in China's history), historian Huaiyin Li of the University of Texas, two popular media sources (Time and the New York Times) and a guide to the AP World History exam, edited by historian Deborah Vess at Georgia College and State University, explaining the "Great Leap Forward" to would-be takers of the AP test. All five of the sources specifically use this phrase to contradict the assumption built into the term that China experienced some sort of leap forward during this period in history.

The main reason given for the deletion of this segment of the lead is that referring to the period as a "Great Leap Backward" constitutes taking a side and establishing a point of view (WP:POV). The phrase "Great Leap Forward" itself, however, involves a point of view. That is why these historians and journalists have gone out of their way to use this phrase to directly contradict this built-in premise.

Because WP:COMMONNAME specifically allows non-neutral terminology to be used in titles of articles, my previous efforts to find a more neutral title for the article have been rejected. This being the case, I have made an effort instead to ensure that the lead reflects that there do exist persons who reject this term's accuracy. My concern is that people will be confused by the title and end up searching somewhere on the page for clarity about whether the "Great Leap Forward" actually involved some kind of a great leap forward for China. The AP World History exam prep book I cited as a source specifically contradicts this because of the pretty clear concern that those first learning about this period in Chinese history would get the wrong idea because this term "Great Leap Forward" is used to describe the period. Wikipedia never contradicts this assumption that would otherwise likely be made.

It has also been suggested that my additions violate WP:CHERRY. If this were true, then there would be some collection of sources that establish that the "Great Leap Forward" really involved a great leap forward, which I am ignoring, and instead substituting a small number of sources more conducive to my viewpoint. To my knowledge, there are a tiny number of sources, mostly from committed Maoists, that argue that the "Great Leap Forward" was not uniformly horrible, but I am unaware of any large number of reputable sources making the claim that the "Great Leap Forward" involved a great leap forward. There are, on the other hand, numerous sources suggesting the contrary. So that argument doesn't seem plausible.

Comments also suggest my additions violate WP:EDITORIAL. This seems to be based on the idea that it is in-bounds to say that the Great Leap Forward movement "ended in catastrophe" (the actual language currently on the page) but observing that numerous historians and journalists therefore call it a "Great Leap Backward" is out-of-bounds. These are both objective statements. It did end in catastrophe, and notable historians and journalists have termed it the "Great Leap Backward" as a result.

It seems to me that any edit which expunges from the record five sources derived from the analysis of China/world history experts and world affairs journalists demonstrates a pretty clear lack of respect for WP:RS sourcing. Wikipedia is in a scary situation when people delete a statement with five proper and reputable sources because they contradict the assumption built into the article's misleading title. Wikipedia is supposed to reveal facts, not conceal them.

Can editors please look in on the debate at Talk:Great Leap Forward? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is utterly false that "historians and journalists have gone out of their way to use this phrase"—that is, Zachary's favorite new phrase he is using to advance his "truth", "Great Leap Backwards"—when referring to the Great Leap Forward. An instant search on Google web, Google books, and Google Scholar will tell you that much. No one is arguing (not even the Chinese government) that the Great Leap Forward was actually a great leap forward, but the neutral description of the famine and deaths already gives the requisite clarity, as the description of the Hundred Years War (which really wasn't a hundred years) does for its subject. This argument for the inclusion of Zachary's contentious statement, with reference to sources, is relatively new; the bulk of the argument for his changes is that Wikipedia should promote "truth": sources were fished out to support them later, as the article and talk history shows. Quigley (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

May I request to know whether, by using the word truth in quotes in the above comment, Quigley is accusing me of lying? If he is suggesting that I believe certain things are true and capable of being verified, then of course I do. But if he is suggesting that my "truth" is not the real one, then he's saying I'm lying. I think that would, in that case, properly count as a WP:UNCIVIL remark. May I ask which implication he is making? Zachary Klaas (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No; I was directly quoting you from this edit, in which to people who said that neutrally stating the facts of the deaths and not editorializing was adequate, you replied, "Saying the truth is saying the truth, but admitting that it's the truth is horribly slanted." You have made it clear that the name you are pushing is The Truth, in contrast to the sources' name, which is The Lies. This advocacy is antithetical to Wikipedia. Quigley (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask whomever is ultimately to be responding to this dispute to read that edit Quigley just posted. It's quite clear from the context that's not what I was saying. I have no more access to The Truth in capital letters than anyone else. I was saying that it seemed odd to me that numerous examples of how bad the Great Leap Forward was could not be followed with an acknowledgment that, indeed, historians and journalists have drawn that obvious inference. The analysis of WP:RS sources is from where we should be drawing our conclusions, and I provided five examples of how historians and journalists, in fact, did draw that inference. That not every article or book that's ever been written uses the phrase "Great Leap Backward" is not the point; the point is that several did, and indeed some are written by reknowned China experts. I must say that I'm the most upset that the reference to Roderick MacFarquhar, who is listed at the end of the article as the author of a well-received book our readers are suggested to consult for further information, was deleted. Dr. MacFarquhar is a Harvard political scientist who has written extensively about Chinese politics. Note his Google Scholar citation list, with numerous highly-regarded works on Chinese politics and history. Here's what MacFarquhar said in the reference I added:

Looking back on those grim days, Chinese economists are harsh in their condemnation. Hsueh Mu-ch'iao, now the doyen of his profession, has talked about the "colossal waste and disproportion". Sun Yeh-fang described the leap as a "disruption of socialism". Lo Keng-mo, once a Vice Chairman of the State Planning Commission, has said "the great leap forward became a great leap backward". The figures confirm that judgment.

As you can see, an acknowledged Chinese politics expert - as clear of a WP:RS source as there ever was - is quoting a senior Chinese official using this characterisation. And then he, in his professional opinion as a political scientist, confirms that the term is a reasonable characterisation. There is no part of this that indicates that anyone is making a "joke" or a "pun", or even that this is meant as a "pejorative". It's a serious and professional characterisation of how the "Great Leap Forward" was, in fact, the opposite of what those words mean. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are stretching it too far. Mr. MacFarquhar did not make any comment about the appropriateness of the term "Great Leap Forward", nor did Lo Keng-mo, who actually even used Great Leap Forward literally in the "characterization" to describe the initial years (the GDP did grow for a time). Mr. MacFarquhar did not endorse the term; he simply did not disparage it. Its use, as exemplified by the the AP test guide, is as an easy-to-remember catchphrase to quickly categorize the event as "bad". It helps none in understanding the event, which as with all events, had good elements and bad elements. Luckily, unlike politicians (whom Mr. MacFaquhar ultimately quoted), or exam pamphlet makers, Wikipedia can explore the nuances of the Great Leap Forward and neutrally describe the consequences, without making any judgments about whether they were progress or regress, attributed or not. Quigley (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not stretching it at all. "The figures confirm that judgment" is what he said, and the judgment he was referring to is the judgment that "the great leap forward became a great leap backward". I am quoting him directly. Your interpretation of what MacFarquhar "really meant" is WP:OR, if that term has any meaning at all.

Can I just ask when any editors plan on getting involved in regulating this dispute? Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: this is not "what MacFarquhar" said, it is what he quoted, and he quoted the Chinese Vice Chairman of the State Planning Commission, who was the one who actually used the phrase, speaking in capacity of the government. I don't need OR to know the government's recent position on the GLF; because they are quite open about it, and I wrote about that a bit on the article itself. Quigley (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is as plain as it could be that MacFarquhar was both quoting the official and agreeing, in his capacity as a political scientist, with the substance of what the quoted official was saying. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No; saying that the figures support that it was a sharp economic decline is not implicitly commenting on the propriety of the phrase. That phrase only appears once in his book, and that is in that quote of the Vice Minister. If he "agreed" with it, and felt that it was an imperative framing device as you seem to believe, wouldn't he have used it more in the book? He didn't, because explaining the details of the Great Leap Forward is enough; no need for petty name-calling. Quigley (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. What MacFarquhar actually said is what is at issue here. He was not equivocal on the matter. He agreed unreservedly with the official he was quoting. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

He absolutely did not "agree unreservedly with the official he was quoting"; his quote was quite sanitary and detached from his professional endorsement. Quoted, "The figures confirm that judgment". That is, that the Great Leap Forward at one point went into sharp decline. He didn't say, "The phrase 'Great Leap Forward' is misleading, and I recommend people use 'Great Leap Backwards' instead"; that must be your interpretation. Quigley (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Continuation

I think we should continue the discussion here where the other editors can see it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a really a logistical nightmare; cut-and-paste duplicating the content in two areas. At least find some way of transcluding it so it updates automatically on both pages. Until then, I will continue to reply at the content dispute page on this particular discussion. Quigley (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to do that? If so, go ahead and do it. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, bear in mind that the content dispute page specifically says to keep comments short on there and we've already gone way past doing that. So perhaps it would be better to keep things here. But up to you. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It does say that, so I will switch my comments to here. In retrospect, not introducing whole new arguments on that board, and just linking to an active discussion here could have kept it really short and not provoked reply. Quigley (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Return to the debate

Okay, picking up from your last point - how you get that "the figures confirm that judgment", when applied to a comment suggesting that the "Great Leap Forward" had become the opposite of a great leap forward, isn't a claim that the name "Great Leap Forward" is misleading, I can't fathom in the least. Also, the sense of this doesn't have to be "I recommend people use 'Great Leap Backwards' instead." At no point have I attempted to change the name of the page to that, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. But if the name remains an unqualified "Great Leap Forward", not "Great Leap Forward movement" or "Great Leap Forward (campaign)" or something along those lines, then I think it's our responsibility to reflect that the title of the page represents a misnomer because the very opposite of a great leap forward happened. I have no problem calling it the Great Leap Forward movement or campaign because that's what it was. Calling it "Great Leap Forward" gives Wikipedia's endorsement to the idea that it involved a leap forward, and people disagree about that. WP:COMMONNAME is not a license to completely slant the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

These words are not being parsed literally. "Great Leap Forward" means something different than each individual word combined, "great", "leap", and "forward"—that's why they're in capital letters. It's not only me; your sources also understand this and thus don't need to go into a discussion about the name. If someone did parse the words literally, they wouldn't make sense. How great? Leap from what? Forward in which way? So there is no endorsement of any idea. And the article is not slanted, at least in the way that you're thinking. Quigley (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

At last we agree on something. If someone parsed the words literally, they indeed do not make sense. This, however, was my point the whole time.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

However, most people literate in English realize it is a proper name and don't. That was my point. Quigley (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that you are not suggesting I am not literate, and thus I await your withdrawing this comment, which is WP:UNCIVIL as written. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I just ask you why you think the heavens will fall down if the name of the page were changed to, let's say, "Great Leap Forward (campaign)"? Was it not a campaign? Have I changed the words Great Leap Forward? Also, there is a Great Leap Forward disambiguation page which distinguishes, for example, "Great Leap Forward (band)" or "Great Leap Forward (The 4400 episode)". This would satisfy me, and, if you think about it, it probably should satisfy you as well. How does such a title for the page misrepresent anything? Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguator parentheses are not needed because this page is what most people want to get to, and is the most referenced subject when people mention the Great Leap Forward. The first clause of the first sentence mentions says that it was a campaign anyway. Quigley (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's such a reasonable compromise. I'm going to continue to try and find some kind of way to establish some balance on the page otherwise - perhaps not the things I've tried, but something (you can pretend to be as shocked by this as you want to, but let's face it, I'm not going to let this rest). This is a compromise which causes no misrepresentation and which would clearly satisfy me, but you're just going to shove your opinion on this down my throat to teach me a lesson not to mess with important editors such as yourself? If you're suggesting that people would regard the page as non-encyclopedic because it contains the word "(campaign)" in parentheses after the title, aren't you just being melodramatic? Isn't the problem merely that you perceive me as having a personal agenda, not that any such agenda would be really be served by the change? Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary do you really take proper name titles so literally that you think they need to be debunked as titles? This continued discussion that the title endorses some false truth is just... preposterous. It is named what it is named. That's all it means. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

When they're policies that resulted in (as the conservative estimates have it) more than ten million people dying, then yes. I'm not aware that the punk band to which you're referring caused any deaths. This title, however, is a euphemism, suggesting there was some possible "up side" to a policy that, as all concede, resulted in famine and misery. "War is Peace." "Freedom is Slavery." And "China had a Great Leap Forward." You're damn right it needs to be debunked as a title. It's doublethink. Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And I think you know making the point the way you just made it was designed to present my opinion in a cartoonish sort of way instead of taking my viewpoint seriously, which is WP:UNCIVIL. (People who don't know to what I'm referring should click on the words "proper name titles" in what Schmucky just said to see what that links to.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary, I don't get the urgency of this request. Is or is not campaign in the first sentence of the article? Can't anyone who reads the lead understand that GLF, like other proper nouns, was the name of a camapaign? The lead doesn't claim "China had a great leap forward called the Great Leap Forward," it documents "China had a campaign called the Great Leap Forward and it was a deadly catastrophe." Such clarifications are not essential to other politically dubious, common names such as Manifest Destiny, Missile gap, or No Child Left Behind, but rigorous discussion of the facts is. Quigley, I would prefer that some summary of outside evaluation, beyond the CPC-internal reviews, be included in the lead, preferably by economists, political scientists, and historians. It's possible that "great leap backward" is the best summary, but I'm not convinced yet; perhaps something less like a slogan and more like an overall characterization. Maybe you two could come to meaningful summary that you can agree on.--Carwil (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your examples, I think, all show what I would hope would be done with this article. The Manifest Destiny article refers to the defined term as a "belief" which "fell out of favor by 1960". The Missile Gap article refers to the defined term using this characterisation: "Like the bomber gap of only a few years earlier, it is believed that the 'gap' was known to be illusionary from the start, and was being used solely as a political tool, another example of policy by press release." The No Child Left Behind article is actually entitled "No Child Left Behind Act", which was its formal name as an Act of Congress, and which serves to make the distinction that it is not a fact accepted by all viewpoints that "no children have been left behind". All three of these clarifications put the title in the proper context. We do not have something similar in this article. It is possible for someone unacquainted with the topic to read the article and still ask the question "well, then why was this a great leap forward for China?"

I'd like to think Quigley and others will take your suggestion that a summary of outside evaluation be added to the lead. I'm not sure they will given the state of discourse in here, but I hope that they will. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the reason that the No Child Left Behind Act is named that is because it is an Act of Congress, and by convention (not on Wikipedia, I mean) acts are named this way. It has nothing to do with debunking the title. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My fear is that no language, no matter how supported by economists, political scientists or historians, will be accepted if it makes the case that the "leap" involved retrogression rather than progress, hence falsifying (or at least qualifying) the claim of the title. People have made it pretty clear that they consider even scholarly arguments to that effect editorialisations. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't imported any scholarly arguments to the page, and by this I mean figures etc. All that you want to add are simplistic denunciations to refute the title.

Also, maybe my language wasn't clear in the past, but the details of the CPC assessment is not in the lead; it just explains the consequences for the government and how it transitioned to another period in Chinese history. If "outside evaluations" add something unique, for example, if one historian explored the effects of the GLF on agriculture in China, or on the subsequent GDP changes, that would certainly merit inclusion. What's being proposed here are not evaluations like this, but a condemnation of the GLF using hyperbolic and derogatory language, hiding behind authorities. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For a general view for historians, please consult this link, representing pages from the Cambridge History of China. Note at the bottom of page 483 continuing on to page 484 the following statement:

In many respects, the best comparison of the degree of disruption in the Great Leap and Cultural Revolution period are the figures for the productivity of investment (capital-output ratios) in Tables 14 and 15 in the following section. As these figures indicate, enormous amounts of investment produced only modest increases in production or none at all. The growth of national income for the entire 1958-65 period was less than half of the 1966-78 period, and it took almost twice the level of investment to produce a given increase in output in the former period as in the latter. In short, the Great Leap was a very expensive disaster. The Cultural Revolution at its peak (1967-8) was a severe but essentially temporary interruption of a magnitude experienced by most countries at one time or another.

Skipping ahead to Table 15 on page 493, you can see that the period of the Great Leap (1958-1962) was the only period in which there was no growth for the Chinese economy (a negative growth rate of -4.3%), and hence for which no capital-output ratio could be calculated (using the methodology they use of dividing the elements in column 1 of the table by the elements in column 2, this would be a capital-loss ratio of -7.16).

There was no leap. Even the numbers in industry reflect that there was a decline during this period, not an advance. We need language that says this, in so many words. Frankly, directly quoting the Cambridge History of China as I have done here, would satisfy me that we have explained things well. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to adding such figures to the lead, which are surprisingly absent in an article about an economic campaign (too much focus on starvation). However, it should, as any paragraph in the lead, summarize a part of the article's content (which means adding to the economic effects section, and fixing some of the contradictions—right now the article says that iron production increased for a time) Also, the presentation should be just the facts. Presented neutrally, it will likely have the intended effect of solidifying that the GLF was not an economic advance for the reader, but you must not indulge the temptation to add your own complaints about the title in the text. Quigley (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is the kind of stuff you're amenable to adding to the article, I will not have any complaints. I have no objections to continuing to represent that factoid about iron production increasing for a time if you have no objections to presenting that nevertheless, the overall effect of the "leap" from 1958-1962 was negative - that the government spent a lot and things did not only did not improve in some large-scale way but measurably regressed. The language of the Cambridge History of China describing this is straightforward, and I will have no problems with the title if such language, or something similar, is used. Would you like to propose some changes to the page and I'll see if we can come to some mutual arrangement? Sounds like we might actually be getting close to that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I might (but not so soon), but you can as soon as you wish. As a guide, what we should be adding are facts, rather than debating points. Quigley (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer you do it, since my "facts" seem to be your "debating points". I want to see what kind of language you would accept. It would be easier if you could propose some. Zachary Klaas (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That blockquote from page 483-484 of the Cambridge History of China is an example of language I would accept. Of course, we cannot just copy the quote, because that would be copyright infringement. But notice the tone that I like: strong figures, but not strong rhetoric. Appropriate context is given; it doesn't simply say "this event was bad", or spend time arguing about the semantics. If no one gets around to it before I do, I will draft some improvements to the economic effects section and summarize it in the lead, but I don't feel a strong sense of urgency against the current version as you may feel, and I am not editing WP for as long as I did when we started this discussion. Quigley (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The important question is whether you accept that these figures demonstrate economic regress. I don't want to put in something along the lines of this quote, comment that this quote supports the view that 1958-1962 was the only surveyed period in which the Chinese economy was, overall, regressing, and then get attacked for original research for summarising exactly what those figures demonstrate. I think the readers need to have the point emphasised that this was a period of economic regress, to have their attentions drawn to that fact so they can then make the judgment about the title with some context. Will an edit based on this quote be shot down if I do call attention to "economic regress"? My view is that this is pretty much the whole of what I'm fighting to get included. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Could I get an answer to this question? If you can give me some guidance on whether you will accept my calling attention to "economic regress" during the 1958-1962 period, then I will go ahead and make the changes. Otherwise, I'm concerned about possibly being reverted the minute the changes are made. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it at all controversial that the country went through a period of massive economic regress during the GLF? I didn't think so. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the debate is not about whether the GLF was economic regress, but about whether, quoting Zachary, "readers need to have the point emphasised... so they can then make the judgment about the title". Of course, that's euphemistic, because Zachary really believes that the title needs to be heavily refuted, even though it has been explained that with just neutral information and neutral presentation, readers with a modicum of intelligence automatically see the irony of the title without having it forced down their throats. Quigley (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quigley, you answered TheSoundAndTheFury's question, but not mine. And yes, it is about emphasis - but as I see from TheSoundAndTheFury's comment, it is emphasising a point which is not doubted. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the figures that you pulled out are interesting and merit inclusion [according to proper weight] in an encyclopedia article, but your thesis about the name of the event is not. These two are strictly separated in my mind. Quigley (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I just scanned the above discussion. Sorry to have said anything. This is totally stupid: the name needn't be changed at all. I am with Quigley here. If there are some other facts about the breakdown of the Chinese economy, that's fine, include them; but that has nothing to do with the name of the article. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quigley, can you please clarify your comment. I asked you specifically if I can use the phrase "economic regress" to summarise what is being said by those figures. You have not said yes or no about that. I will not feel comfortable adding a word to this article until you tell me whether you will accept specifically those words. Why are you not directly answering the question? If it's no, what could your reasoning possibly be? The figures demonstrate that regress.

TheSoundAndTheFury, it is evident that you scanned the discussion - if you had read it instead of scanned it, you might have understood it better. I am no longer trying to change the name of the article itself. I am trying to work out what language should be in the lead of the article with Quigley. What I want is appropriate language making it clear that there was no economic "leap". I was asked to produce figures supporting that view. I have done so. You yourself admit that "the country went through a period of massive economic regress during the GLF", so how you can have any objection to language saying exactly that is beyond me. Do you really bear so much of a dislike for me that this causes you not let me add wording to the article that you admit reflects the truth of the matter and that clearly follows from the quote I've provided above? Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the insinuations. As I repeated I-don't-know-how-many-times, the point of dispute is about the article title and whether it needs to be explicitly refuted and condemned. I have never had a problem with "economic regress" or other things. So yes, you can use "economic regress" BUT! in this format: "the GDP dropped from x to y in z years. Based on this, professor A called the GLF an economic regression." This way it is not original analysis. Quigley (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can deal with that. The Cambridge History of China is a collective project, so I guess I will have to cite the editors Roderick MacFarquhar, John K. Fairbank and Denis Twitchett, as well as the specific author of that chapter of the volume containing the quote, who is the Harvard professor of political economy Dwight H. Perkins. I will note that the Cambridge History considers the years 1953-1985, and I will say that Perkins argued that 1958-1962 was the only period of economic regress, as measured by the growth rate - all the other periods surveyed in the Cambridge History show positive growth rates but this period. I hope we at last have consensus on this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, done. Can you tell me if you're satisfied with the change? I hope so. Consensus-building is tiring.  :) Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary, thanks for doing the spade work on this. I think the text is good Wikipedia content, and belongs in the article. However, I'd like to see slightly briefer summary in the lead, where I don't think that book titles and data-compiling historians belong, except as footnotes. If that seems too vague, I'll pitch in in the next couple days. I've downloaded the chapter but haven't looked at the data yet. By the way, when I look, I'll treat this sort of sequence of growth rates--2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%--as "stagnation"; and this sequence--2% 2% 0% -1% 2%--as "regress", though I will look for per capita growth, which might make the former into the latter.--Carwil (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why some of the information couldn't be in the body of the article rather than the lead, if conserving space is your concern. Suggestions for how to do that are welcome, of course. (I notice the bit that you added to the previous paragraph further makes the case for moving some of the quoted material to the body of the article because it supports the point I was trying to establish.) Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Space is not the only concern. Lead sections in Wikipedia articles, according to the Manual of Style, should briefly summarize the article's contents, not add new information. Quigley (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I would regard you deleting what I just added to the lead as being in bad faith after I spent considerable time above saying "I'm about to add this information to the lead. Could you please tell me if you have a problem with me specifically adding this kind of wording to the lead." You knew the whole time why I wanted to add this specific information, and specifically to the lead. Besides, if we transfer some of the information to the body of the article, then what remains in the lead will be a summary of what is found in the body of the article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What?! I did not delete what you just added to the lead, nor was my comment above a suggestion to do so. I was expressing agreement with Carwil that it is too long, and needs to be moved to the body, and summarized in the lead. Quigley (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that I must have misunderstood you, then. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliance on backyard furnaces

The last phrase of this sentence appears to be false:

In the August 1958 Politburo meetings, it was decided that steel production would be set to double within the year, most of the increase coming through backyard steel furnaces.

Lardy in the Cambridge History of China states, "Although small-scale industry was a highly visible part of the investment drive, most increases were channeled into medium and large-scale state projects." Anyone care to substantiate it? If not, I'll remove it. Backyard steel furnaces might be the most colorfully stupid aspect of the Great Leap, but they were not the center of its industrial plan. (p.s., I've tried to provide a complete picture of industrialization during the Great Leap, something which was missing. A second source might be nice, though.)--Carwil (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and find you something in the next couple of days. Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Beginning to look now. I took you to mean that you wanted further sources on the "complete picture of industrialization", and specifically how industry fared during the GLF - here are a number of sources that say "Not well". I will look for something specific about the extent to which the "backyard furnaces" campaign specifically was part of the industrial plan in a bit.

Here is another source representing Columbia University's explanation of the period. On page 157, the characterisation of the author, R. Keith Schoppa, is that "The campaign so destabilized the Chinese economy that both industrial and agricultural production suffered drastically."

Also, Edwin Pak-Wah Leung's "Modern Chinese History Essentials" says on page 114 that "The Great Leap Forward Campaign was an economic failure. In early 1959, amid signs of rising popular restlessness, the CCP admitted that the favorable production report for 1958 had been exaggerated. Among the Great Leap Forward Campaign's economic consequences were a drastic shortage of food; shortage of raw materials for industry; over-production of poor-quality goods; deterioration of industrial plants through mismanagement; and exhaustion and demoralization of the peasantry, intellectuals and party and government cadres at all levels."

Another source is William Joseph's Politics In China: An Introduction, which characterizes the GLF on page 402 as something which "ended in one of the worst famines in human history and an industrial depression that wiped out nearly all the economic gains of the CCP's first years in power."

Marc Blecher's book "China Against The Tides" says "Industrial output value rose rapidly through 1960, but then went into free fall." Since the GLF started in 1958, this indicates that within two years the investment strategy had failed. There is a table to support this claim, but I cannot access this from Google Books, unfortunately. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Zachary, I wanted an answer to the simpler question: were backyard furnaces the principal initiative of the GLF industrialization. My own edits were based on evidence that industrialization didn't go well, although will more emphasis on transformation (30 million new urban residents) and less on evaluation. Any idea about the relative scale of backyard furnaces and new factories?--Carwil (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Mobo Gao

http://www.confucius.adelaide.edu.au/people/mobogao.html

Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story#HanBan employee Mobo Gao

Mobo Gao is officially an employee of HanBan, which is a propaganda apparatus of the Chinese Government, so his opinions reflect official Chinese communist view points. Arilang ^talk 04:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User PCPP, you know that when come to topic such as Great Leap Forward and Great Famine, official Chinese government versions do not worth anything, because they are all propaganda stuff. We need to have a bit of common sense. Arilang ^talk 07:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your arguments borderline WP:LAWYER and WP:OR. None of the sources even come from the PRC government, with at least one source being published by academic sources such as University of Hawaii and Pluto Press.--PCPP (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PCPP, if you trust Mobo Gao, you would have to trust this:

File:1958 肥猪大象.jpg

肥豬賽大象．只是鼻子短．全村殺一頭．可以吃半年

Arilang ^talk 08:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ariland: and you ask everyone to trust Frank Dikotter - someone who is pro-drugs, pro-colonialism, and is funded by the Chiang Chingkuo foundation????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prairespark (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternative interpretations

Having had a look at this article, I think this section needs work. It has a lot of "others say x", which is really awkward. Can I recommend that all such terms be removed and the section just be reworked to say "person X says this" and "person Y says that". If more than one person makes a similar point, refer to both.

Also please be careful of transposing opinion into fact. Is it really 100% correct to say that this toll has to be evaluated in light of the overall impressive achievement of Maoist China in dramatically improving life expectancy? Did China under Mao's rule really do what no one else could have done? If not, then it's not really that impressive, it's just what should have happened. To me it sounds like someone is regurgitating what Gao Mobo said in his book.

Finally the section title sounds awkward. These aren't interpretations, they're points made in mitigation as to why the Great Leap Foward wasn't so bad. Why not have a title saying something like "mitigating points", "defending the Great Leap Forward", etc? As currently titled it sounds rather meaningless. Perhaps the whole section should be removed and the text incorporated into the existing sections that deal with the relevant topics. Then if people read about something like death counts, they can see that Ming Li said that the death rates weren't unusual. John Smith's (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is, there are quite a few pro-Beijing editors around, they are all very busy trying to paint a rosy picture of their beloved motherland. Arilang ^talk 12:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Indian/Chinese death toll comparison

It looks silly to have this kind of comparison at all. What purpose does it serve? Are they saying, tens of millions Chinese were starved to death, hey, doesn't matter, there were more dead Indians around. This kind of "content" does not help any readers at all.

And this statement is very strange:"net positive value of 35 billion extra years of life to the Chinese people." Just how did he come up with such a number? Arilang ^talk 12:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It is cited to relativize the horrors of this event, which is described by many reliable scholars as one of the worst tragedies in this country's history. And now some unregistered user by the name of User:Zaidaluseung (which I suspect is a sockpuppet of another editor already making these sweeping controversial additions citing the most radical sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zaidaluseung) is placing this in the lede. Such extreme views should not even be present in the article IMO, but now that they are should be relegated to the "alternative perspectives" section. I can no longer revert or would be violating 3rr.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say that there's a double standard here to classify Yang and Dikotter, the latter being sponsored Chiang Ching Kuo Foundation, as "reliable sources" and not Li Minqi, Economics Professors at the University of Utah. The purporse of the article is to inform, not your presonal playground to "expose the horrors of communism". I believe in the spirits of WP:NPOV, alternate perspectives should be introduced.--PCPP (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User PCPP is always busy trumpeting official Chinese government view points, as if Xinhua is not loud enough. Arilang ^talk 02:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Just how did he come up with such a number"

The reference has been provided.

"What purpose does it serve? Are they saying, tens of millions Chinese were starved to death, hey, doesn't matter, there were more dead Indians around"

Its simple. It allows the situation to be put into context. India had a mortality rate of around 23 per thousand at the same time - not much less than the GLF. Yet these are not assumed as famine deaths. Famine deaths are something that are relative to a particular standard. The tens of millions of GLF deaths are obviously wrong, because unrealistic pre GLF mortality rate has been assumed. Providing the Indian numbers allows the reader to make up his own mind, about the relative severity of the GLF.

Certainly not all the GLF deaths were simply from starvation, anymore than the deaths before 1949 related to starvation. The GLF was a setback in economic development, and this had health consequences for the people. But to say that all the excess deaths were starvation deaths is clearly a gross assumption unsupported by the facts available.

"Did China under Mao's rule really do what no one else could have done? If not, then it's not really that impressive, it's just what should have happened."

Yes they did. In fact life expectancy at the time of Mao's death was 10 years higher than that of India's, the most rapid increase in history. Here is a Yale study confirming this. http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/research/health_improvement_under_mao_and_its_implications_for_contemporary_aging_in_china/

Furthermore a group of Harvard researchers have made a compelling case that the reason for China economically outperforming India over the past three decades is related to the health achievements of modern China. An excerpt from the article:

"However, the authors note, China's economy has exploded, expanding by 8.1 percent per capita per year on average between 1980 and 2000, while in the same time period India saw a sustained growth rate in income per capita of 3.6 percent--a rate that, while rapid by the standards of most developing economies, is modest compared to China's. What accounts for the difference? Part of the answer, the HSPH team suggests, is that dramatic demographic changes in China began decades before those in India. After 1949, China's Maoist government invested heavily in basic health care, creating communal village and township clinics for its huge rural population. That system produced enormous improvements in health: From 1952 to 1982, infant mortality in China dropped from 200 to 34 deaths per 1,000 live births. Life expectancy rose from 35 years to 68." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/rvw_summerfall06/rvwsf06_bloom.html

Furthermore Yang Jisheng and Dikotter themselves acknowledge this impressive achievement. Yang and Dikotter accept as 'normal' a death rate of 10.47 / 10000. Yet Banister and other sources put the 1949 death rate at 38 / 1000. Hong Kong studies of the 1930s put the death rate for urban HK at 32 / 1000. China would likely have averaged about 35 / 1000 before the 1949 revolution.

So from 38 / 1000 to 10.47 per 1000 by 1957, accepted by Dikotter and Yang, would be perhaps the steepest drop in mortality in all of human history. Because other large Asian nations, India and Indonesia, had rates throughout the 1950s of 22 or 23 per thousand.

Therefore, yes, all the evidence, accepted by a variety of sources shows that Maoist China made impressive gains in life expectancy compared to other developing countries. Amartya Sen, has estimated that India had 4 million excess deaths per year over China, in a comparitative study between the two countries, over the Mao years. That is, the Indian model of development killed, relative to the CHinese model of development, 100 million people. Now taking into account the difference between the Chinese and Indian populations, that means that had the typical mortality and life expectancy trends of other developing countries which did not adopt collectivisation and land reform as China did, that means Mao can logically be argued to have saved about 150 million lives (refer CHomsky as well).

So there you have it. A plethora of mainstream researchers from top Universities around the world, Judith Banister, Amartya Sen, and Chomsky as well as official statistics from democratic countries like India, all support the claim that Mao's overall achievements in improving life expectancy were impressive. Perhaps the most impressive in all of human history, given what he had to start with, and given the GDP of the time.

That is more than enough reason to include mention of this in the lede. In fact it must be included in the lede.

If one were to write an article on say, the road deaths in China, giving just absolute numbers would not be enough. Providing the actual death rate on the roads, and comparing it to other countries would provide perspective.

So just saying large numbers of people died in the GLF is not enough. It is entirely reasonable to provide perpsective by providing mortality rates for both pre-revolutionary China, and for other developing countries of the time.

I will now revert the page to include mention of this. Unless one puts up a reasoned argument against what Banister, Amartya Sen, the Yale study, the Harvard study, have concluded, removing this information in the lede should be considered non-contructive and approaching vandalism.

Prairespark (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way Arilang, you obviously read Chinese. Here is the link to a talk by Yang Jisheng, where he states that he considers 10.47 / 1000, the 'normal' death rate for revolutionary China. http://view.news.qq.com/a/20100827/000049.htm#p=2

As the death rate was 38 / 1000 in 1949 (refer Judith Banister's "China's Changing Population), if we accept Yang's claim of 10.47 /1000 as normal, except for the three years of the Great Leap Forward, then that is incredible, because mortality rates typical of other Asian developing countries of the time were 22 or 23 per thousand.

10.47 / 1000 (the level of the US at the time), as claimed by Yang (Dikotter uses 10 / 1000 for his calculations), would point to well over a hundred million deaths saved by the Maoist system, relative to other developing countries.

Prairespark (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"I must say that there's a double standard here to classify Yang and Dikotter, the latter being sponsored Chiang Ching Kuo Foundation, as "reliable sources" and not Li Minqi, Economics Professors at the University of Utah."

Thank you. Exactly. Prairespark (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)