Talk:Mao Zedong

Mao vs. the Khmer Rouge

How can you call Khmer Rouge a maoist party?! Oh, god, Mao never liked the Khmer Rouge! They killed TWENTYFIVE PERCENTS of the people in Cambodia!! 62.16.168.251 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Moa kill 40 million people? Perhaps Mao didn't like the Khmer Rouge because they didn't kill enough? NickCT (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Many scholars refer to the Khmer Rouge as Maoist [1] I've seen no evidence that Mao didn't "like" the Khmer Rouge. In fact, the Chinese Communist Party has been one of their strongest supporters. In this image, Mao doesn't seem to displeased with shaking the hand of Ieng Sary as a smiling Pol Pot looks on. (I'm surprised this image hasn't been added to wikipedia as of yet).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, do not add personal commentary and analysis onto talk pages. This is not a place to further your politica agendas.Дунгане (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

its not, its disscussion of the article. he caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. dont try to silence constructive disscusion here, this isnt a communist talk page. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Death toll in lede

Recently Cedric88 has attempted to replace the lower estimate of deaths under Mao in the lede with "17,4" million. He apparently gets this estimate by adding together some of the mass deaths during the Mao era given by Maurice Meisner in his book Mao's China and After (1977, 1999): terror against counterrevolutionaries: 2 million, GLF: 15-30 million, CR: 400,000. However, this is an example of OR as Meisner doesn't give an overall estimate of deaths under Mao. So putting the estimate of "17,4" million in the article and attributing it to Meisner is basically putting words in his mouth (especially considering the range of deaths he provides for the GLF). Secondly, this estimate cannot at all be adequate, as it excludes other mass deaths during the Mao era, such as casualties in the Laogai, the Anti-Rightist Movement and repression in Tibet. The aforementioned editor also cited Wang Weizhi's estimate of 19.5 million in Contemporary Chinese Population (1988), presumably as further justification for a much lower death toll. However, this estimate only pertains to deaths brought about by the GLF, and therefore makes it inappropriate as a primary source for the lower estimate in the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree C.J. Griffin. Lower estimate forwarded by Cedric88 is innappropriate. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we separate the death tolls from purges and those from faulty policies? I think if we begin to elevate death tolls from bad policy to the level of intentional massacres, then most leaders of the world would be criminals in one way or another.128.151.24.39 (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should separate them. Other leaders' "faulty policies" don't end up costing 45 million lives. Laurent (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that some people will defend communism and Mao regardless of how many people were killed? It never ceases to amazes me. Faulty policies? When these so-called "faulty policies" result in the deaths of tens of millions of people, it is time to question whether they were faulty or whether the goals of the particular regime were accomplished. Mass death seems to be a feature, rather than a bug, when it comes to communism. Thank goodness someone had the sense to point out that 45 million+ deaths is a wee bit high to be attributed to a fault in policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Chang and Halliday are unreliable, Article on them exposed false claims in their book.

I am not a commie or even a fan of Mao, but i despise POV twisting by some people who have a fetish with Mao and try to twist articles to fit their agendas. Speaking of which, Jon Halliday and Jung Chang hold absolutely no PHDs, degrees, doctorates, or anything in Asian and Chinese history, chinese politics, or even communism. nothing, zilch. Only in linguistics and Russian history, which are unrelated to the book they wrote about. Lets try to limit this article to reliable sources, and not a source written by an author with a personal vendetta.

Chang and Halliday falsely claim that Chiang Kai-shek allowed the Communists to escape on the Long March, allegedly because he wanted his son Chiang Ching-kuo who was being held hostage by Stalin back. This is contradicted by Chiang Kai-shek himself, who wrote in his diary, "It is not worth is to sacrifice the interest of the country for the sake of my son." Chiang even refused to negotiate for a prisoner swap, of his son in exchange fo the Chinese Communist Party leader. Again in 1937 he stated about his son- "I would rather have no offspring than sacrifice our nation's interests." Chiang had absolutely no intention of stopping the war against the Communists.

Among other things, it was reported that Chang and Halliday were "appallingly dishonest", and that Chiang Kai-shek never, ever let the Communists escape, contrary to Chang and Halliday's false claims. In addition, the alleged "source" Chang and Halliday claimed they met could not be found, on the contrary, a person who witnessed the battle, Li Guixiu confirmed that the battle had happened, contradicting Chang and Halliday.

This is not really new information. Criticism of Mao: The Unknown Story is already widely documented. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I just looked through the article and, in this version, found only four spots that are sourced only to Chang & Halliday (others have additional sources):

1. ref 10 (innocuous claim about Mao's not studying abroad)
2. ref 53 (properly attributed as Chang's opinion)
3. paragraph about the GLF, which cites reference 68 three times
4. ref 91, the "half of China may well have to die" quote, properly attributed as Chang's opinion and followed by an extended discussion from another source

Notice that none of these instances have anything whatsoever to do with the Long March, which your long comment above is about. So my question for you is, what exactly are you raising a complaint about here? rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Mao hold PHDs, degrees, doctorates, or anything in Asian and Chinese history, chinese politics, or even communism.? Yet we are to trust his word about his life? how many serial killers confess to their crimes? The order Mao created in China still hinders freedom of speech and free travel, just look at the nobel peace prize. And asking such a nation to tell the truth through previously secret documents is like asking joseph gobbels to write the truth about germany 1933-1945. Ofcourse they'll release documents but only scrutinized and to further their own goals. Not to distable their own powerbase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.131.18 (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

References

User Rjanag, "Speaking of which, Jon Halliday and Jung Chang hold absolutely no PHDs, degrees, doctorates, or anything in Asian and Chinese history, chinese politics, or even communism. nothing, zilch.", well, such a blatant attack on Chang and Halliday really is pointless, especially from a Wiki editor, who has turned a blind eye towards their years and years of visiting Chinese and international archives (档案馆), and translating various documents into English, which were then used as "source" in the writing of their book. User Rjanag, you might have also forgotten the fact that Jon Halliday is fluent in Russian, and the Russian archives is just as important as any Chinese archives when someone is doing research on Communist China history ? Arilang ^talk 02:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User Rjanag, "Jon Halliday is a historian of Russia and was a former Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King's College London.", please tell other editors what you think of this statement. Arilang ^talk 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Should "Mao as a 'worst than Stalin' Mass Murderer" be included in the lede?

If Dikötter’s revised figure of 45 million withstands scrutiny, Mao will have definitively surpassed Joseph Stalin’s overall record as a mass murderer

• Frank Dikötter on Mao’s Mass Murders
• Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder

Arilang ^talk 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to use a POV term like "mass murderer", especially in the lead. As long as we mention the death toll, most readers will reach this conclusion by themselves anyway. Laurent (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that "Mass murderer" be a POV term? And isn't Mao deserve such a term, after all, he did cause millions upon millions of Chinese to die of unnatural death, didn't he? Moreover, it is near impossible to find another "revolutionary leader" and "world leader" like him.

Hitler, for starters. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Arilang ^talk 05:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also interested to know how the term "mass murderer" is a point of view, rather than a matter of historical fact. Are Mao's deeds disputed? Or is there some other issue? --Asdfg12345 05:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Beijing government officials. including Zhou Enlai and Mao, increased the food procurement quota from the countryside to pay for international imports. According to Dikötter, "In most cases the party knew very well that it was starving its own people to death." Mao was quoted as saying in Shanghai in 1959: “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” Mao's Great Famine#Key arguments of the book

If Mao and Zhou Enlai and the Communist Party knew that Chinese were being starved to death in the millions, yet they keep on exporting food to oversea, then Mao and Zhou deserved the term "mass murderer". Arilang ^talk 06:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the term describes him well, I don't think it looks serious in an encyclopedia article, and it makes it look like we are trying to push a POV more than we need to. If we look hard enough I'm sure we can find sources stating that Mao was an evil man, a selfish man and so on, but do we really need to mention all that? It should already be obvious from the text. Also I think most historians (let alone encyclopedia) don't bother with such terms, only journalists do so as to have catchy article titles. Laurent (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Mass murderer" is definitely a negative POV statement. It also assumes that he physically killed people, which he did not. His policies led to the death of millions of people, but he didn't murder them in cold blood. Also, the sources you are using for the term are not representative of a broad view of things; they are opinion pieces. ThemFromSpace 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What Mao, and his communist friends, did was really Genocide, and Mass killings under Communist regimes, crimes which are much more serious than "mass murder". Even though he did not murder someone in cold blood, “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” he had virtually signed the death warrant of ten of millions of Chinese. And certainly it is not POV to those millions of dead Chinese.

The first large-scale killings under Mao took place during land reform and the counterrevolutionary campaign. In official study materials published in 1948, Mao envisaged that "one-tenth of the peasants" (or about 50,000,000) "would have to be destroyed" to facilitate agrarian reform.[60] Actual numbers killed in land reform are believed to have been lower, but at least one million.[59][61] The suppression of counterrevolutionaries targeted mainly former Kuomintang officials and intellectuals suspected of disloyalty.[62] At least 712,000 people were executed, 1,290,000 were imprisoned inlabor camps and 1,200,000 were "subject to control at various times."[63]

Mass killings under Communist regimes#Land reform and the suppression of counterrevolutionaries Arilang ^talk 07:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So I agree with Wikilaurent about "letting the facts speak for themselves". No need for such a charged word, I suppose; better to describe what he actually did. --Asdfg12345 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass murder may sound charged but its really just a simple fact- he caused the deaths of millions of people. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalin, Hitler and Mao: the Three Tenors of Totalitarian Horror

It’s interesting to see that while the articles about Stalin and (obviously) Hitler point clearly their malevolent actions, this article about Mao is quite soft with his biography, treating the many people who died by the regime of Communist China as a mere collateral damage caused by the intrinsically good intentions of the regime. OK, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were destroyed and dissolved, but just because China is the successful Communist-Capitalistoid Sweatshop of the World should we treat Mao as a good guy?--189.62.206.53 (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User 189.62.206.53, though there are a few 50 Cent Party here at English Wikipedia, when compare to Chinese Wikipedia, where nearly all the editors are from mainland China, and all of them seem to be on the payroll of Chinese Communist Party, it is not so bad here, after all. Arilang ^talk 08:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the OP (189.62.206.53). Ceridan (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Go away. This isn't a place to soapboxing about your personal views of Mao and China.--PCPP (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

actually, this is a place for facts about mao. also, as the empires of the other leaders youve named have collapsed, they dont have a ton of people backing them up. there are few nazis or stalanists left. the Communists of china still maintains its iron grip on mainland china, and thus most of its population. this means they have an huge amount of money to hire people such as PCPP to promote positive veiws of Mao. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not make false or unsupported accusations against other editors. Quigley (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

fine, hes probally just overwhelmed with the desire to promote a positive image of a mass murder? or hes a member of the communist which would really make him biased either way. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)