Talk:Mao Zedong

File:Marshallmao.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marshallmao.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

毛匪澤東

Some Taiwanese sources refer to 毛澤東 as 毛匪澤東, i.e. adding the 匪 character to his name, which means "bandit" (~土匪）and reads 'fei'. Why is that so? How widespread is that? Online occurance: [1] and print media (Kinmen Daily) published 10-09-1976 [2] Thanks for any remark 141.24.43.52 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This was originally the Nationalist government's standard way of referring to Wang Jingwei and various leaders of the puppet governments Japan set up in China. Later, when the Nationalist government moved to Taiwan in 1949, most publications there applied it to CCP leaders up until the mid eighties. Similarly, government bodies run by 匪頭 are 偽 "false", or maybe just "illegal". So the National People's Congress was the "illegal" NPC 偽人民代表大会, the post office was the "illegal China Post Office" 偽中國郵政, and so forth. The CCP naturally returned the favor; Chiang Kai-shek was "the bandit Chiang" 蔣匪, and various unfavored political organizations were "illegal," such as the "illegal" People's Conference 偽人民会議 in Tibet in 1952. All this has antecedents that go back to the Qing era and earlier. Rgr09 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Text and sources

The following text is highly problematic and is at odds with rules about reliable sources, attribution, and original research, especially the way parts of one work are combined with others to produce something that does not exist in published literature.

However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution",[39] the number of deaths range between 2 million[39][40] and 5 million.[41][42] In addition, at least 1.5 million people,[43] perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million,[44] were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished.[44] Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas,[45] which were often exceeded.[35] He defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.[46]

This work does not meet criteria of reliable sources because it is published by a controversial political group that has an anti-China bias. There are better, academic sources on the topic. The Mosher book is similarly inappropriate because he studies contemporary Chinese politics rather than Mao Zedong or his historical period. Mosher is also controversial.

"his rule from 1949 to 1976 is believed to have caused the deaths of 40 to 70 million people."

Wikipedia is supposed to represent consensus and majority viewpoints. However, vast majority of Chinese scholars, whose works make up the majority of the published academic literature about Chinese history, make no such claims about Mao, but instead view him in a positive manner similar to Chinese President Hu Jintao, who said: Comrade Mao Zedong was a great Marxist; a great proletarian revolutionary, strategist, and theorist; a great patriot and national hero in modern day China; and a great man of his generation who led the Chinese people to thoroughly change their destinies and the face of their nation. So the above claim needs to be either removed or properly attributed. None of the cited sources for the above claim qualify as reliable sources: Rummel is a political scientist focusing on America, Goldhagen has no expertise on China, Fenby is a journalist with the popular media with no academic credentials, and Jung and Halliday's work is notorious.

"Hong Kong-based historian Frank Dikötter, who has sifted through well over a thousand documents in recently (2005–2009)[52] opened Chinese local and regional party archives, challenges the notion that Mao did not know about the famine until it was too late:"

Dikötter's work is controversial, and its inclusion violates rules about undue weight. See Prof. O Grada's review of the book, where he writes "It is not a comprehensive account of the famine; it is dismissive of academic work on the topic; it is weak on context and unreliable with data; and it fails to note that many of the horrors it describes were recurrent features of Chinese history during the previous century or so."

You say "vast majority of Chinese scholars, whose works make up the majority of the published academic literature about Chinese history, make no such claims about Mao, but instead view him in a positive manner similar to Hu Jintao".

However, as you are no doubt fully aware, Chinese scholars living outside of Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan operate within a highly constrained academic environment in which they risk imprisonment or punishment for significantly dissenting from the official versions of history promulgated by the Chinese government. Past and present (they are airbrushed and changed so often) versions of history promulgated by the Communist Party leadership are of course relevant and can be stated as "official versions", however whenever party propaganda is included here it must be identified as such. The same goes for "controversial political groups" who may oppose Communist Party rule ("anti-Communist Party sentiment" is generally a more accurate description of them than that of "anti-China bias" as you stated above).

Wikipedia itself is often blocked in mainland China for the very reason that it presents historical material which Chinese scholars are not permitted to write. Whilst the individual sources you point to may need review, I remind you that facts and opinion which run contrary to the expediencies of the Communist Party are not automatically "anti-Chinese". On the contrary, it is impossible to imagine a greater demonstration of pride and devotion to China than the actions of a man like Liu Xiaobo, who cared so much for China's future, that he was willing to face imprisonment for challenging the Communist Party.Observoz (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese internet providers can do as they wish, and it's not up to you or I to second-guess their policies. Your bringing up issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the scope of this article.

You talk about "party propaganda". However, you fail to note that Chinese historians engage in healthy, constructive discussions about all sorts of issues. For example,

The evaluaton of the Hundred Regiments Campaign has been a troublesome issue for the CCP. In 1984, Chinese historians still openly disagreed about the campaign. Some argued that "militarily the Hundred Regiments offensive violated the strategic direction set by the Party Center for the period of strategic stalemate, exceeded the limits of strategic defense, and because of errors of comand, caused heavy losses which could have been avoided." Other Chinese writers, while not denying these points, extol the objectives and results of the campaign.

Now, for the above subject, what exactly is the Communist Party's "official view"? Because here you are making these claims about history being dictated by the state and that historians are not allowed to debate issues. But the above text clearly contradicts this.

The consensus of historians around the world is that Mao's legacy is a positive one for China. This article is dominated overwhelmingly by those who are out of touch of the majority view and consensus as established by scholars of China's academy of sciences and other institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.160.99 (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no such consensus on Mao. And the fact that Chinese academics and historians operate under restrictive conditions in which information is highly censored (including on wikipedia and the internet) and can face punishment for dissenting from government positions is highly relevant to the issues you have raised.

Certainly there is consensus that Mao is a significant figure in both Chinese and world history and there is also consensus that he was an effective guerilla campaigner and political strategist, but none of this suggests consensus that he was "positive for China".

Certainly there are also debates about Mao: at least among historians who are at liberty to investigate and objectively comment on such matters without fear of punishment (ie, those living outside the mainland PRC). There is debate about the extent to which Mao can be held personally responsible for disastrous episodes like the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution - that is to say, was he in it up to his ears... or only up to his neck?

In China there is debate about Mao too, but publishing such material is risky. As you know, the CCP itself vacillates on the extent to which debate can be permitted in China and there are many Chinese who are willing to dissent from government positions even though they know the potential consequences. But ultimately all academics, authors and historians operate on the understanding that if they publish material which contradicts significant positions expounded by the CCP, they can be punished - and they are all aware that few matters in the history of modern China have been subject to greater mythologizing than the character of Chairman Mao.Observoz (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your personal, unsourced views on the matter are not very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.160.99 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your attacks and slurs against the CCP are contradicted by the content of this article, which confirms the fairness and objective nature of Chinese historiography about China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.160.99 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The article cited says nothing concerning fairness or objectivity in Chinese historiography. It consists only of comments from several foreigners interviewed in Beijing on the 30th anniversary of Mao's death. Also, the quote above on the Hundred Campaigns, which I assume is yours since the ip address is the same, does not appear in the link given, nor does it appear in google searches. Please cite relevant material and use citations that can be confirmed.Rgr09 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm. It seems the contributor has been banned as a sockpuppet. Oh well. Whoever added materials from Dikotter should still address O Grada review. Also still curious about where the Hundred Campaigns quote came from. Does anyone know? Rgr09 (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that a particular commenter wants us to believe that any source that correctly points out that Mao is responsible for the deaths of millions is, ipso facto, "controversial". Even worse is the fact he backs such an accusation with statements from Hu Jintao, as if a current or former leader of the most oppressive state in the history of mankind somehow stands as an adequate rebuttal witness. Stating that Mao is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people is no more controversial than the statement that Josef Stalin engineered the deaths of millions via famine or that the the Nazis used the term "Final Solution" in reference to the systematic extermination of the Jews. Those statements are widely accepted as historical fact. The notion that the majority of historians throughout the world accept that Mao's rule was a positive one for China is a deliberate falsehood, period, and such assertions do not merit a mention in an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just read something here that I never thought in I would encounter in a million years. Someone actually wrote the following:

Your attacks and slurs against the CCP are contradicted by the content of this article, which confirms the fairness and objective nature of Chinese historiography about China.

Yes, that is right, someone is actually attempting to use Xinhua "news" to contradict supposed "slurs" and "attacks" against the Chinese Communists, with slurs and attacks being euphemisms for "correctly pointing out that dissent is not exactly highly prized amongst Chinese historians in regards to Mao". Xinhua, to use its own words, is the "official state news agency of China" and according to Wikipedia, Xinhua "...reports to the Communist Party of China's Publicity and Public Information Departments." Not only is Xinhua mentioned in this section of the talk page, there is a particular commenter who has mentioned Xinhua on multiple occasions in other sections to provide justification for minimizing Mao's role in the death of tens of millions and to try and establish that Mao was actually "beloved" by the populace. As for the "O Grada review", the notion that one negative book review somehow constitutes a consensus that should lead to the dismissal of a widely accepted work is asinine. And attempting to dismiss Mao's actions by pointing out similar "horrors" occurred in the past is akin to dismissing charges against Hitler by claiming what he did was just a manifestation of the " uniquely German character". That Chinese history is full of tyrants is completely irrelevant when determining Mao's level of culpability in the mass-murder of tens of millions.

Jan 26 edits

It seems an anonymous users has made substantial edits to the page[3], removing nearly all accounts of persecutions and deaths under land reform and removing references. In the place of the previous content, user has added glowing accounts of land reform sourced to Chinese government websites. I haven't reviewed the edits carefully yet (they are substantial), and will wait for user to post a reply before attempting to address them, but I hope to see a good explanation.Homunculus (duihua) 19:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC) An Addendum: some of the content that was removed probably deserved to be rewritten somewhat. As difficult as it may be for people affected by such things, it is both possible and desirable to describe these campaigns in a more dispassionate manner. That said, major changes should be made with care and high quality sources.Homunculus (duihua) 20:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reducing the early years of the PRC to nothing but a massive bloodbath is contrary to rules about NPOV, as there is a lot of literature out there showing that concrete, positive changes took place. The agrarian reform, as this summarizes[4], did away with China's feudal system and benefited more than 300 million peasants by distributing land to them. However, instead of discussing the effects of land reform and noting how the landlords were merely brought down to a more equal level with the rest of the rural population rather than condemned to death, this article reduces the process solely to anecdotes about how "significant numbers of landlords and well-to-do peasants were beaten to death" And what's the source for this? It's a self-published book by Philip Short that does not have footnotes or endnotes for readers to verify his claims. Short's book may be valuable about some details about Mao's life or personality, but is not useful as a general overview of Chinese political and economic history: there are far more helpful sources for such areas.

Regarding the struggle vs. counter-revolution, this article again conjures up stories about an indiscriminate bloodbath, summarized with "there was also the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries,[35] which involved public executions". There is not a single word about how China years after the founding of PRC in Oct. 1949 was still in a state of Civil War against pro-Kuomintang forces, local bandits, etc that operated in a large part of the country's territory; Han Suyin says that these forces numbered more than 400,000 men. Xinhua perfectly summarizes the situation here and here. Chinese historians would argue that revolutionary Chinese forces took legitimate self-defense measures against the violent enemy i.e. pro-Kuomintang forces.

And then there's the claim

"Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas"

Which amounts to blatant OR. The cited source comes from a Chinese think tank[5] based in the West - not reliable . Such claims should at the very least be properly attributed, and consideration should be given to counter-arguments.

"A climate of raw terror developed"

Above again is from Short, who is given undue weight in the article.

And then there's a whole bunch of sloppy estimates cited, with sources combined to produce stuff that doesn't exist in published literature.

Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949–53.

The source for this is an article by Yang. He cites a speech by Mao, which has been translated in English and is available online. NOWHERE in this speech does Mao refer to any such figure, so the above sentence does not belong.

However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution",[39] the number of deaths range between 2 million[39][40] and 5 million.[41][42] In addition, at least 1.5 million people,[43] perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million,[44] were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished.[44]

Han Suyin discusses the struggle vs. counter-revolution in her book Wind in the Tower. She says that there was a "brief reign of terror" and that the number of repressed amounted to "800,000 people were shot, jailed, sent to labor camps", including 11,000 executed in June 1951. None of the other sources are of comparable quality on this issue, but instead amount to the compiling of claims from other authors. The book by Mosher that's been cited is inappropriate because his book focuses on entirely different areas. Xylophage (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For the love of God, who in the world keeps mentioning Xinhua as a reliable source of information concerning Mao Tse Tung? In one of the first comments of this section, an imbecile actually states that a particular book is not a good source for unbiased information on the actions of the early communists, but Xinhua is. For crying out loud, XINHUA IS A STATE MEDIA OUTLET in a country that doesn't even have a semblance of a free press. Citing Xinhua is as idiotic as claiming Pravda is a good source for unbiased information on the Soviet Union. I'm sorry, but anyone who puts forth Xinhua as a source on Mao deserves to be ignored, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Changchun siege

In 1948, under direct orders from Mao, the People’s Liberation Army starved out the Kuomintang forces occupying the city of Changchun. At least 160,000 civilians are believed to have perished during the siege, which lasted from June until October. PLA lieutenant colonel Zhang Zhenglu, who documented the siege in his book White Snow, Red Blood, compared it to Hiroshima: “The casualties were about the same. Hiroshima took nine seconds; Changchun took five months.”

The above claim will be removed because of policies on NPOV, attribution, and reliable sources. The source for the above passage is New York Times, hardly qualified to investigate Chinese history.

Chinese Wiki summarizes the work of Chinese scholars on the topic:

" 共产党方面则认为，造成大量平民饿死是国军不肯放粮给城内市民所致。作为围城方，解放军不可能突破防线放粮给人民。而国军宁肯眼睁睁让大量饥民饿死也不肯交出城池。 "

--With Google translating the above that the Chinese Communist Party observers believe that the hard situation was caused by misguided Kuomintang strategy. If Chinese-speaking editors can help elaborate, it'd be great.

Contrary to claims cited in NY Times, Chinese sources show that rather than starving people, the Communists provided relief to the people, as this image shows

These Chinese sources elaborate on the liberation of Changchun: [6] [7] . Xylophage (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This must be a joke. The New York Times is not a reliable source for Chinese history and should be replaced by the NPOV statements of the Chinese Communist Party? Is this contributor the same one who was banned as a sockpuppet last week? Consider yourself user checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgr09 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New York Times is not a reliable source of Chinese history. The Times primarily focuses on America and is a quality source for current events, but not Chinese history because there exist hundreds of sources about the Chinese Revolution by experts on the topic. The cited article refers to a controversial book from a discredited, disgraced military officer who has an agenda to push, stating his disputed allegations as the Truth. There are plenty of other sources, as shown above, showing how the KMT was largely to blame for the hard conditions of Changchun, none of which are considered in the article, which is contrary to NPOV rules. Either all sides about the Changchun battles should be mentioned in the article, or else the biased version of events that currently exists should be removed. My Chinese is not good, so I cannot improve that part by myself.Xylophage (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm skeptical, and will look into this in more depth when I have a moment. Chinese sources, written under the CCP, are notoriously unreliable on such things. Generally speaking, NYTimes is considered reliable, though if there is a demonstrable reason why it is not in this particular regard, we can take that into consideration. Would you care to explain why you stripped Dikötter out of the page[8]? His work on the GLP is the best source available. Before making such massive revisions, I would advise trying to establish consensus with other editors. Homunculus (duihua) 21:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dikotter's book is controversial and is given undue weight, with lengthy block quotations.

You state that pro-CCP accounts are "notoriously unreliable". Such stuff may or may not be wrong, but we're not here to decide that. Since there are different opinions about Changchun, they should all be summarized in the article for NPOV. For example, "Chinese dissident officer argues...But Chinese Communists and historians argue..."

Concerning the NY Times, all the article does is repeat the claims of a dissident Chinese career military man and states them as truth. There is no consideration given to other views of the Changchun battle. An editorial from the NY Times is not reliable for Chinese history, but is a good source for many other things.Xylophage (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing how, according to a few commenters here, any source that points out just how prolific Mao's mass-murdering was is all of a sudden "controversial" with no reason given for why we are to believe it is controversial. Even better is the fact that the supposedly "controversial" statements are rebutted by, get this, statements from Chinese Communists. Yes, that's right, statements from Chinese communists are being put forth to rebut claims that the patron saint of Chinese Communists is responsible for the deaths of untold millions of people. What are you going to do next, go to the entry on Hitler and furnish quotes from Joseph Goebbels in order to refute claims that Hitler was a horrible mass-murderer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

40 to 70 million killed

This claim would have to be described as fringe. It is highly disputed and not supported by a consensus of scholars on the issue. For example, see

Chang and Halliday’s charge that Mao was responsible for over 70 million civilian deaths during peacetime is based on several factors, many of which prove overestimated, manipulated, and at times horribly exaggerated...Harry Wu estimates that the total labor reform camp population for the first forty years of the PRC was 50 million people. His more reliable figures for the post-Mao years suggest 500,000 sentenced each year in the post-Mao years, which would suggest about 7-8 million from Mao’s death to the publication of his study. That would leave about 43 million in labor camps under Mao.[6] By this calculation, Chang and Halliday’s figure of 27 million deaths represents a mortality rate of 63%. That would seem rather implausible.

Also Professor Mobo writes in his book (p.72)

There are numerous claims of this nature made in the book without supporting evidence. For example here is the first sentence in the book: ‘Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth-century leader’ Xylophage (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it is pretty amazing how, when defending communist tyrants, the views of two scholars is said to represent a consensus. As for a mortality rate of 63%, given the conditions, that doesn't seem implausible at all. There is a reason dozens and dozens of scholars claim that Mao is responsible for the deaths of AT LEAST 35 to 40 million people. By the way, I love the sleight of hand you use when you cite a source that states the 70 million figure is exaggerated, yet you head the section "40 to 70 million" killed, rather than just "70 million killed". That is analogous to a holocaust denier heading a section with "6 to 15 million killed". I hate to burst your communist murderer-loving bubble, but the claim that Mao Tse Tung is responsible for the death of at least 40 million people is not fringe, and you have not even remotely made the case that it is. And since the authors of the Mao entry have provided an abundance of sources backing that figure, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, and you clearly haven't even come close to meeting that burden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"officially held in high regard by many Chinese"

The lead has "officially held in high regard by many Chinese", which doesn't make any sense and attempts to mask how large numbers of Chinese without any political background hold Mao in high regard. Mao is not merely praised by CCP officials, but by ordinary Chinese as well. See this article,

More than 20,000 people visited Mao Zedong's Mausoleum on Tian'anmen Square Wednesday, the 33rd anniversary of the death of the former Chinese leader.

"I've been waiting for many years to come to Beijing to see him. He is the man that I respect the most in my life," said Wang,65, a native of Jiangxi Province in east China.

Also here,

My father and grandfather were wronged and persecuted for 5 and 20 years, respectively. But I still think that Mao's merits outweigh his demerits ­.We can never forget that he helped lay the foundation for the growth of the People's Republic of China.

Mao Zedong is a great man in China's history, matched by no ancients and contemporaries.

Finally (p.90), there's this

:::"...Many people regard Mao Zedong as a deity...Many taxi drivers hang a picture of Mao in their cars in today.s China. Many people, particularly peasants, even worship a picture or statue of Mao Zedong in their shrines built for idols or ancestral tablets. Xylophage (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course, in a state with no free press and essentially no civil liberties, statements in Chinese-run media outlets should be taken at face value. Because as we all know, no in China has ever been punished for not being sufficiently ardent in regards to their reverence of Mao or past Communist leaders and the "accomplishments" they were able to "achieve" in the name of Marxism, such as a standard of living that has been enjoyed in the West for the better part of a century or two. Wow, such "achievements" certainly outweigh the deaths of sixty million people. Seriously, you have to be nothing short of an imbecile to cite quotes, without a hint of skepticism, from state-run media sources in the most oppressive state in the history of mankind and use them to make your case that Mao is beloved by the Chinese peasantry, as if Xinhua news would now report wholly negative comments regarding Mao, if you could even find someone who didn't value his life enough to much such statements(this is particularly true when you consider state reverence of Mao is currently at a level not seen since the mid-1970s). Using Chinese media sources to make your case regarding views of Mao is akin to using "man in the street" quotes from Thai media outlets in order to establish how beloved the King of Thailand is. And if that example goes over your head, perhaps you should consider the dubiousness of citing N. Korean media sources that have queried the poor citizens of that hell-hole in regards to the illustrious "achievements" of Kim Il Sung. Given the inability to freely speak one's mind without fear of repercussion in China and N. Korea, such a project would be inherently dubious, regardless of the sources used. In today's China that someone even used the term negative in a printed quote concerning Mao is nothing short of miraculous. The lengths defenders of mass murderers will go to in order to defend such tyrants is quite simply breathtaking to behold. I guess when you claim to be murdering under the aegis of left-wing utopianism, all sins, no matter how great, can be forgiven. To paraphrase an infamous quote, you have to break fifty to sixty million eggs to make an omelet, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)