Talk:Great Chinese Famine

Spam

Spam

early discussion

I do not think these numbers make sense: "According to China Statistical Yearbook (1984), crop production decreased from 2,000,000 tons (1958) to 1,435,000 tons (1960)." 2 million tons is miniscule for a country the size of China (e.g. if they had 500 million population and everyone very unrealistically ate just 40kg food per year, that adds up to 20 million tons food consumption - and people would be dying of starvation in the process 24.218.100.40 01:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: In one paragraph the population was 678M, and in the next it was "an average of 70M" across the same span of time! There is a decimal point error in the first number, please! SRC

The years 1957-58 saw an occurrence of 'El Nino', though no one knew it existed until the 1960s. This global shift caused abnormal weather in China for the next few years.

Check the Encyclopaedia Britannica Yearbooks for 1958 to 1962: not on-line but a good library should have them. They do speak of abnormal weather, droughts followed by floods. This includes 30 inches of rain at Hong Kong in five days in June 1959, part of a pattern that hit all of South China. This was the classic result of El Nino on Chinese agriculture.

[Official Chinese statistics show a marked fall in the death-rate after Mao came to power, with only the year 1960 coming out worse than the Kuomintang norm.

There is a marked difference between official and ‘reconstructed’ data, the figures that some demographers . Chang & Halliday use some the ‘reconstructed’ data, without bothering to tell the reader that these are not the official statistics. More than that: they appear to mix ‘reconstructed’ and official data, to make Mao look as bad as possible.

The official data shows an inherited rate of 20 per 1000, a norm around just over 1% or 10 per 1000 in the years before and after, and a peak of 25 per 1000. The ‘reconstructed’ data shows an inherited rate of 30 per 1000, a norm around just of 15 to 18 per 1000 in the years before and after, and a peak of 43 per 1000. To get her 38 million, she blends the official norm with the reconstructed peak.

She also muddles a 'demographic shadow' caused by food shortages with actual famine deaths. No one saw famine victims in China in the relevant years, the 'living skeletons' whom we've seen so many other places.

All writers seem blind to the very marked fall in death-rated in the first years of Mao’s rule. Mao regarded the ‘Great Leap’ as a simple extension of policies that had been working very well for the previous 7 or 8 years. Both official and ‘reconstructed’ data suggest a gigantic net gain under Mao, the avoidance of maybe 100 million deaths that would have happened if the Nationalists had stayed in power.

Compare this to the Republic of India, also a success story. "The average Indian male born in the 1990s can expect to live 58.5 years; women can expect to live only slightly longer (59.6 years), according to 1995 estimates. Life expectancy has risen dramatically throughout the century from a scant twenty years in the 1911-20 period. Although men enjoyed a slightly longer life expectancy throughout the first part of the twentieth century, by 1990 women had slightly surpassed men. The death rate declined from 48.6 per 1,000 in the 1910-20 period to fifteen per 1,000 in the 1970s, and improved thereafter, reaching ten per 1,000 by 1990, a rate that held steady through the mid-1990s. Life Expectancy and Mortality in India

Chiang Kai-shek had had 22 years in power and achieved nothing, so the idea that he would have continued to fail is very reasonable. Success in Taiwan means nothing: Taiwan had been thoroughly modernised by the Japanese Empire, which was extremely brutal but very efficient in its modernisation.

--172.201.250.157 18:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Gwydion M. Williams

Shocking propaganda. "Official" statistics are the official statistics of the very murderers who perpetrated this horror. Read a damn book. 72.144.68.227 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am no fan of Chiang Kai-shek, but it must be noted that most of his years were marked by feuding between warlords, Japan's invasion, and Mao's Civil war. That on top of natural floods and famine. Could that be why the death rate was so high During the KMT years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.6.149 (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Though there are a lot of uncertainty about the real number, from many personal memories, it's hard to dispute indeed a lot of people died of starvation during that three years. Even in my hometown, a quite rich place in China, there were many deaths due to lack of food. No one died in my family, though my father said he had very little to eat then. However, my home was in the town, it's believed situation was much worse in villiages.

"Official Data"

Amazing to see that someone would give credence to any Communist dictatorship's "official data" - which were as realistic as "official currency exchange rates" and "official news" published by party organs. The purpose of "official data" was not to provide "objective statistics" but to shape internal and external propaganda. The cost in loss of life and loss of productivity and wealth formation was enormous all thru the communist block. --LPfeffer June 18, 2006

It is my understanding that a key part of the Great Leap Forward was a suspension of the laws of science. Part of this was suspending census taking during the 1950s and 1960s. If this is true, how can there be a true count? It is also my understanding that China's granaries were full and the government was exporting grain. (Could export figures be verified?) Is this true? When Zhou Enlai visited his hometown and saw what was happening, he sent grain from the granaries to the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.6.149 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename article and NPOV

I believe the article should be renamed to "The Great Chinese Famine". Saying the cause of the famine is purely natural is POV. So we should rename the article and describe all possible causes for the famine. --WinHunter ^(talk) 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I put up the npov tag because this article only voiced the Chinese government view. --WinHunter ^(talk) 12:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think in both cases you are wrong. "Three Years of Natural Disasters" is how it is referred to in China, this is the name for the phenomenon. While non-Chinese may come up with various non-Chinese descriptions, since we are talking about a Chinese phenomenon, clearly the current common name in China (ie. "Three Years of Natural Disasters") should be the title. The writer also gave alternative names in use in China for these events, so they were being completely fair and impartial. Additionally, the article was objective and gave all the detailed references and analyses which any reader can go and research for themselves, so it is not accurate to apply the npov tag. It is also inacurate to say, as you did, that the article only voiced the Chinese government view - the author cited numerous objective sources, and is not trying to slant the article to any one point of view.--Jimhoward72 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In China, Chinese name = CCP view, that is, the official conclusion of the cause of the famine. Rather than a name merely describing the widespread famine, the article name already drawed some degree of conclusion as of the cause. Also, the article exaggerated the role of natural disaster and some side agricultural policies, while some main ones were never mentioned. (e.g. the increased procurement of grain while output decreased.) --WinHunter ^(talk) 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. By that reasoning the Cultural Revolution should be known as the Great chaos and instability period of Chinese semi-civil war. Colipon+(T) 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you meant that to sound absurd. It didn't. Let's not take the party line, shall we? Or do you think the Holocaust was just racial hygiene? 72.144.68.227 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation style tag

The current article only have a seperated section of references. Please consult Wikipedia:References for the correct way of referencing in wikipedia. --WinHunter ^(talk) 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling?

Section 'Outcome', 3rd paragraph uses the word "governtment". I am assuming that this is a spelling mistake, but have not changed it just in case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs1kh (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article

Should this information all be included under the "Great Leap Forward" rubric? I don't see a major difference in the concept or content. The Great Leap was the famine, including the policies which induced it. Should they be separated? Anyone able to explain? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As the article Great Leap Forward states, the "Great Leap Forward" refers to the five year government plan. This article is about one of the consequences of that plan. You could argue the particulars, but separating this as a "sub" or "effect" article is certainly allowed under Wikipedia:Summary style. If you really want to propose a merge, see the guidelines and process description at Wikipedia:Merging. - BanyanTree 23:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I neglected this; yes, I do propose a merge. I'll look at those guidelines. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, after all this time I am now back to this page wondering why there are actually two pages. So I actually do still have to carefully check that merge policy and propose a reason why this should be merged. I sense it, but I will articulate it in policy and add the template. The actual Great Leap Forward article has already information about the aftermath, so the crossover here is such that they are indistinguishable. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Monthly Review Press

With this edit C.J. Griffin has removed the source Li. Minqi and related material. The edit summary was:

Removed radical Marxist polemical source published by Monthly Review Press (Marxist publisher).

Wikipedia has a core policy of neutral point-of-view. We do not exclude sources or points-of-view because they are "Marxist". Besides Monthly Review Press is a highly respected publisher from New York. I am restoring the content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

POV-section?

C.J. Griffin has tagged the section Great Chinese Famine#Alternative perspectives with a {{POV-section}} tag. I cannot see a valid reason for this. As the title says and Wikipedia policy demands the section presents points-of-view that differ from those presented in the core part of the article. Wikipedia policy demands that all relevant points-of view be presented. It is clear from the content that these are exactly that, alternative POVs. There is no need to emphasize this with a maintenance tag - especially as no maintenance is needed. I am removing the tag. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Griffin is still trying to discredit these sources he dislikes, here [1] he made some extreme POV ad-hominem attacks on the author's positions, Mobo Gao is labelled as "director of the Confucius Institute", that his work is "controversial" and "published through Pluto Press, one of the world's leading radical publishers", and Li Miqi "became a Marxist after extensive reading of the works of Karl Marx and Mao Zedong". I fail to see how are these relevant - for instance Dikkoter's book was published outside the academia and received funding by the Chiang Ching Kuo Foundation, yet the article does not mention this, and I find it just as irrelevant.--PCPP (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

sockpuppet content removed

User:Prairespark has been banned for sockpuppetry. His edits constitute vandalism and therefore should not be reinserted into the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

By your logic, the Mass killings under communist regimes article must also be deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet. Regardless of his behavior, his sources are well referenced, and follows WP:RS per RS Noticeboard.

This is wrong for two reasons. First, two wrongs don't make a right. Secondly, that article is now completely different from the one original, even with a different name. It as if a new article has been created. Also, there are numerous flaws with the content. In addition to the sources being fringe, those in the lede being originally published by "People's Democracy" and Monthly Review Press respectively, it appears that the portion in the lede is OR, unless it can be shown that the latter is referencing the former: "However, other researchers have questioned the methodology used to arrive at such a high number of excess deaths, pointing out that the excess mortality would be more fairly calculated relative to the mortality rates that prevailed throughout the rest of the developing world at the time of the Great Leap Forward, or even the mortality rates that prevailed in China prior to 1949 - not the very low official figure for the year 1957 provided by the Chinese govenment.[5] Calculating excess deaths in this manner, the total number of excess deaths for the year 1960 has been put at 4.9 million."[6] Not only that, but it should have been noted who exactly is stating this, not just "other researchers..." The content as introduced by a permabanned troll must be removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If Prairespark had been banned at the time he made edits you could argue that you are free to revert them. You are however not free to revert PCPP without a valid reason. Well, Prairespark was not "banned" when he made the edits. Besides he is not banned, he is blocked. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I believe that Prairespark contributions should only be removed on sight if its A) clear vandalism, and B) added by a sockpuppet after being blocked, which neither is the case. CJ Griffin doesn't hide his clear dislike of the sources, first adding a POV tag with no discussion [2], then using "radical publisher" as an excuse to remove them [3], then marginalize the sources with ad-hominem attacks on their publishers and political orientation [4], and now is using the "sockpuppet" excuse [5]. This highly smells of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and ironically, Griffin has no problem adding equally polemic right-wing sources such as Dikkoter [6] (being sponsored by the Chiang Ching Kuo Foundation), and the controversial Black Book of Communism [7].--PCPP (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dikotter is a professor who teaches courses on both Mao and the Great Leap Forward Great Chinese Famine at the University of Hong Kong [8] and his research was ALSO funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and the Economic and Social Research Council, and in Hong Kong, the Research Grants Council. His unprecidented access to Chinese archival materials on the event makes his book highly significant. The book was published by a company that, while not academic, doesn't have an axe to grind on the issue. The Black Book of Communism, which is not even cited as a source in this article, was written by a team of scholars and published in the US by Harvard University Press. By contrast, the sources in the lede were put forth by fringe publishers which clearly do have an axe to grind, and as I stated before there are clear POV and accuracy issues with this portion, which have yet to be addressed. If I were to post equivalent sources from the other side they'd be something like FrontPage Magazine or The New American, but I refrain from citing such extremist sources on Wikipedia, and have reverted others for doing so in fact in other articles. It also appears that Prairespark persists in his sockpuppetry as evidenced below, clearly the behavior of a vandal. As John Smith's noted in his revert, this behavior should not be rewarded. For these reasons and the others I stated in my previous posting the content must be removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe one reason he continues to engage in sockpuppetry, a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, even after being blocked indefinitely is because he knows those who agree with him on ideological grounds will restore his edits. Therefore it is imperative that all contribution made my Prairespark be removed immediately and permanently, regardless of when they were made.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, sockpuppetry usually indicates that no one but the sockpuppeteer would restore the edits, and therefore xe feels that xe has to do it xirself. But this talk about sockpuppetry is a distraction: there is no proscription on making a particular edit to an article just because another editor who is now banned has also made it. When a legitimate editor adds the same text, that legitimate editor is taking full responsibility for its contents. So address the content issues please and not the original contributor, because they are separate. To start, how about substantiating your argument that the Monthly Review Press is "fringe" and that it has "an axe to grind", when several other editors have pointed out that it is actually a respected publication, and while nominally socialist, it did not hew the party line or get into sectarian struggles, and that its writers are independent. Also, if you have problems with the POV or accuracy of some parts, be patient in discussing them on the talk page instead of removing the accompanying edits wholesale. Quigley (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, banned/blocked sockpuppeteers can continue contributing to Wikipedia if other legitimate editors happen to agree with the content posted and restore it, is that right? Why bother banning socks at all? And Monthly Review Press is a far-Left [Marxist/Socialist] publisher, no? Would you consider far-Right publications like Frontpage Magazine as fringe? If editors start filling the lede of this article with content from FPM articles such as this (Leftwing Monster: Mao Zedong by Steven Mosher), you would not take issue with that?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to wonder or make assumptions about the blocking policy, because you can read it yourself. Persons are banned or blocked, not text or viewpoints. And to be clear: those editors that are restoring the material do not necessarily agree with the scholarly assessments presented, but recognize that they help make an article complete and balanced.

I'm not convinced that a socialist orientation makes MRP "far-left". I would not necessarily reject a review of this book from FPM, actually, if the author was credible, and if it had a novel take on things with an explained research methodology. The character assassination piece to which you linked is not a serious or scholarly consideration of the facts of the famine, or of any of the events in Mao's life for that matter. Quigley (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am generally familiar with Wiki blocking policy, but your assertion that banned editors reverted contributions can be restored by legitimate editors was new to me. After skimming the page you linked (I don't feel like reading the entire thing at this time), I failed to see any mention of this. Perhaps you can quote the relevant portion for me. Regarding the other issue, I believe what I posted below makes the case that MRP is fringe, as it publishes works by those clearly on the fringes of society, such as convicted murderers and former members of violent revolutionary organizations. The title of the book (The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy) indicates it is polemical work. Citing such a source that is giving a controversial and minority POV in the lede is giving that view undue weight. And nobody addressed the other source, which was Utsa Patnaik's article. It was originally published by something known as "People's Democracy." After doing a google search, I believe this must be the organization in question: People's Democracy: Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India. If this is the case, the article source must be considered as political propaganda and removed from the article entirely.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The banning policy says that (1) while unhelpful edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted, and (2) Wikipedians should not post material at the direction of a banned user, (3) they may be able to add material along the lines of that contribution if it is verifiable and they have independent reasons for doing so. Quigley (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, some of those who have written articles published by Monthly Review Press include Bernardine Dohrn, leader in the Weather Underground, which strived for "the violent overthrow of the US government and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat," convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and Che Guevara, who really needs no introduction. Nothing fringe there at all....--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)\

Re: To start, how about substantiating your argument that the Monthly Review Press is "fringe" and that it has "an axe to grind"... After recently viewing the articles Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward? and What Maoism Has Contributed, both in Monthly Review, it seems to me that they do indeed have an axe to grind on this issue. Recently they've published The Politics of Genocide, which apparently asserts the genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda never occurred! This blatant genocide denial book was absolutely eviscerated by Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) here: Denying Rwanda: A Response to Herman & Peterson. This, in addition to what I've already discussed above, demonstrates that Monthly Review are not only far-left, they are as fringe as they come. And Minqi Li is an outright advocate of the Chinese New Left, which means he's ostensibly "in favour of the restoration of Maoist-style socialism." This demonstrates that he also has an axe to grind in regards to Mao's legacy. Bearing all this in mind perhaps Li's book shouldn't be considered as a reliable source on the issue of Maoist famines. I won't remove it at this time, but will tag it as an possible unreliable source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Li Minqi is not just some random leftist nutjob, but a professor of economics at the University of Utah, which means he's a reliable source. Even if he takes a leftist approach, there is no problem here in balancing him out with other scholars. And I must laugh at your suggestion that "Li has an axe to grind", as opposed to people funded by the Chiang Ching Kuo Association. So far you haven't demonstrated any substantial arguments on why Li isn't reliable, only association fallacy arguments.--PCPP (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Change article title to THREE YEARS OF NATURAL DISASTERS

Hello friends. This period is more commonly referred to as the "Three Years of Natural Disasters" in China. I propose we change the title to 'Three Years of Natural Disastr', to reflect the most common way of describing this period. Only in the West is it referred to as the 'Great Chinese Famine', which is basically an ideologically loaded term. The famine was in no way 'greater' nor the suffering greater than Chinese famines in the past (this is reflected in the average mortality rate during this period, with the worst estimates of this still below typical mortality rates in pre-revolutionary China.

Many more people in the world refer to this period as the Three Years of Natural Disaster, and this is the way the Chinese refer to this period, so anything else is really not a neutral POV. I move that we change the title to reflect this.

What do other people think?

Paramanami (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As this article says, "Three Years of Natural Diasters" is also a loaded term for implying that the disasters were 'natural'. But more importantly, "Great Chinese Famine" sounds plausibly closer (I hedge here because this established usage is not made clear by the sources used in this article) to the name that policy requires: "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources". Quigley (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam of sockpuppet

"I believe one reason he continues to engage in sockpuppetry, a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, even after being blocked indefinitely is because he knows those who agree with him on ideological grounds will restore his edits."

Clearly Prairespark's views are NOT frince - in fact there are more people and academics which hold to views which align more with prairespark's than there are people whose views are like Dikotter's. Dikotter is most definitely a fringe author - who believes drugs are OK, who believes the opium war was OK, that Japanese imperialism should not be condemned 'root and branch, and that Chinese feel physically 'inferior' in front of whites.

Just because Dikotter is Western and white does not (or should not) make his views automatically more worthy of respect than people like Minqi Li and Mobo Gao.

I am restoring the page to my last edit.

Griffin should offer more justification than just ad hominem's accusing others of being 'fringe'. And bringing in 'Front Page', a website which engages in right wing polemics and openly admits to being so is different from referencing academic works like those of Minqi Li and Mobo Gao.

Paramanami (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism

I’ve added a section on reports of cannibalism – Great Chinese Famine#Cannibalism, in this revision. As this is a taboo subject, this may be a point of controversy, and we should use careful sourcing and wording. The best English-language reference, as far as I can tell, is Hungry Ghosts, Jasper Becker (1997), which is primarily about this topic. A more recent book, on the famine more generally, which also includes a brief discussion of cannibalism, is Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–1962, Frank Dikötter (2010) (chapter 36. Cannibalism, pages 320–323). Please help improve the current brief section!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism has been rejected by Chinese media and the government. The oral reports may have been exaggerated in order to get the government to respond to the desperate lack of food during the famine. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you statement is not supported by any sources, but the statement currently removed by IP was supported by RS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a mention of it on the page now, but no section; on the Great Leap Forward page there are a couple of mentions. It's not immediately clear which parts of the issue this page is to treat and which parts the Great Leap Forward page is to treat. I will have a bit of a closer look. I think it should be very obvious to readers why there are two pages, and how they differ. If it's not we need to make it so. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I placed it back. Welcome to improve. I quickly looked in a book. According to an eyewitness, peasants exchanged their children prior to killing and eating them. And the book does mention the role of pseudoscience by Trofim Lysenko.My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Mobo Gao references to be removed

Michael Rank:

"But Gao's attacks on Chang are sometimes uncomfortably personal, while his defence of the cultural revolution failed to convince me." The revolution, revised by Michael Rank at guardian.co.uk

Gregor Benton:

""A powerful mixture of political passion and original research, a brave polemic against the fashionable view on China. ... Aims a knockout blow at Jung Chang's recent book on Mao, which Bush and the conservatives rave-reviewed." Gregor Benton, Professor of Chinese History, University of Cardiff.

The above two reviewers would about sum up the Western mainstream academic view point on Gao. I have spend hours doing Google search on Gao's book, hoping to discover some "positive" reviews, unfortunately, I failed. Looks like The Battle for China's Past: Mao & the Cultural Revolution has been more or less ignored by the general academic world.

That said, first of all, Gao's references should be removed from this article, according to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, and editors are welcomed to join this discussion to reach consensus. Arilang ^talk 03:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you simply managed to find two reviews, and that somehow it discredits his entire research? Sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Mobo Gao's works are already found to follow WP:RS in the reliable sources noticeboard [9].--59.167.141.97 (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I just removed from the page the view of Wertheim, which was sourced to this Asia Times article[10] but did not appear in it. If someone wants to reinstate this individual's views, they should find a reliable source that has published them, and explain something about their significance. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to remove Amartya Sen's reference

Amartya Sen's statement is irrelevant and out of context, should be removed. Arilang ^talk 09:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Amaratya Sen's reference is not only out of context but also mis-conveys ideas of Amaratya Sen as he has written on this topic -

"Indeed, no substantial famine has ever occurred in a democratic country—no matter how poor. This is because famines are extremely easy to prevent if the government tries to prevent them, and a government in a multiparty democracy with elections and free media has strong political incentives to undertake famine prevention. This would indicate that political freedom in the form of democratic arrangements helps to safeguard economic freedom (especially free- dom from extreme starvation) and the freedom to survive (against famine mortality)." (Amaratya Sen Development as Freedom Page 51)

Another noteworthy point is that this article's current reference to Sen, which basically is nothing but another author quoting a line from Sen's book is misrepresentation of whole Sen Ideology. It is good to quote a line or two but the lines which are quoted should represent the author's stance in general which in this case is not present.

So either- A- We should remove it as it doesn't reflect Sen's ideology. B- We should post a quote/reference that is representative of Sen's ideas. For example the above mentioned passage or

"The connection between political rights and economic needs can be illustrated in the specific context of famine prevention by considering the massive Chinese famines of 1958-1961 . Even before the recent economic reforms, China had been much more successful than India in economic development in many significant respects..... Nevertheless, there was a major failure in China in its inability to prevent famines. The Chinese famines of 1958-1961 killed, it is now estimated, close to thirty million people—ten times more than even the gigantic 1943 famine in British India. The so-called Great Leap Forward initiated in the late 1950s had been a massive failure, but the Chinese government refused to admit that and continued to pursue dogmatically much the same disastrous policies for three more years. It is hard to imagine that anything like this could have happened in a country that goes to the polls regularly and that has an independent press. During that terrible calamity the government faced no pressure from newspapers, which were controlled, and none from opposition parties, which were absent." (Development as Freedom, Amaratya Sen Page 181).

Swift&silent (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems a ridiculous line to end the article on; what factual basis is there for 'in no democratic ... famine'? It's as though the deaths of the Dust Bowl or Appalachia or the west in the US or many famines in island nations currently just don't exist because they're insufficient to be a famine? It's contentious and possibly misleading. 67.169.49.52 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Utsa Patnaik reference

The reference for Utsa Patnaik is linked to a site which is not reputed at all. It is linked to a site's "Akhbar" section which in Urdu means "Newspaper" I, however, am confused as this site has articles on very irregular basis, it was active for just a couple of years and most importantly the Latest Issue is 9 Years old! The site is ripe with Anti-BJP (one of the political parties in India) news, which seems like an reaction to communal riots of that time and this most likely is an party bashing site as almost all articles heavily criticise BJP while don't even touch other parties or matters which can't be a coincidence. And the last issue 'grieves' over re-election of BJP in Gujarat and states that it is an 'sad day for south asia'. So I believe that we can't treat that as an trusted source. We shall remove unreliable material from wiki to maintain verifiability. Swift&silent (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any source which is in violation of WP:RS should be removed. Arilang ^talk 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Article

This article presents a lot of extreme POV's as factual. Can someone work to make the "Alternative Views" section a little less intense? The introduction also seems a little biased. Niisapu (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Title NPOV?

Is this title the commonly accepted name in English or just some made up term by Wikipedians? I have never heard of this English name and it is not a direct translation of the Chinese name, though that might just be my ignorance. I understand the "official English name" is NPOV, but lots of things have NPOV names, for example the People's Liberation Army or Great Leap Forward, but no one bothers to contest those because it is what it is. --167.167.15.254 (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture of 1946

George Silks pic File:Child famine Great Leap Forward.png is of 1946, see: http://images.google.com/hosted/life/9f07f5d7d21a6b95.html. The Picture is also shown in Great Leap Forward.--Goesseln (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fringe view

"Li argues that based on the average death rate over the three years of the Great Leap Forward, there were several million fewer lives lost during this period than would have been the case under normal mortality conditions before 1949"

This is fringe view by a dissident "super-communist". It contradicts all other sources including the official view by Chinese government (sourced in this article) that millions indeed died from hunger due to Great Leap Forward policies. This must be removed per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite Li is a super-communist or not, it is keeping the sentence down there reflects the NPOV policy. NPOV means not to be partial, the article should state views from both sides. Beside, Li Minqi didn't contradict or deny the fact, he just believe the death rate was much higher before 1949 in his counting. Honestly, I think this point of view has a great popular market in China but it is described so little in the article, comparing with other views.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 10:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

According to policy, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". I do not know what market are you talking about, but this is only one source that clearly contradicts all other sources. Essentially, it is construed to tell than people did not die from hunger, whereas all other sources consider this to be one of the most significant man-made famines of 20th century. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I meant to say the sources about this argument is too few in English. Try to follow this link. The author of Reconsideration before a disaster(《在一场大灾变前的反思--重申“灾变论”》), Ren Bumei 任不寐, is a Christian, not a super-communist. Here is another link with one source coming from the official paper of then ruling party (Kuomintang), Central Daily News. In wikipedia there also exists an article of Chinese famine of 1928–1930, but there is still too much to be done. What I'm trying to explain is that the argument is reasonable, and popular actually among some Chinese. Besides, no one consider this is not the most serious man-made disaster. I think the argument of Li is "fringe", but it can exists here after more lines. I'll try to add some.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 03:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I followed "this link" you provided, and it tells that "prior to 1949, an annual average of 300 - 700 people died of starvation in China". All right. Is it more that 15 to 30 million who died during Great Leap Forward? My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Translator's problem, the death number varies from 3 million to 7 million (300万到700万, you can copy these characters to translate seperately) per year, so there does exist a possibility. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 03:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Current text tells: "death rate over the three years of the Great Leap Forward, there were several million fewer lives lost during this period than would have been the case under normal mortality conditions before 1949". This is not about another famine. Can this claim be supported by any published data, such as yearly mortality rate in China? My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

We should go by the best scholarship available, not just any old stuff on a Chinese website. Frank Dikotter and Yang Jisheng have done extensive archival research. Beats the heck out of the source above. Simply because someone has said something does not mean it must be repeated on Wikipedia. The claim on its face seems to be a bit silly. Claims like these are factual claims. They should be based on historical facts, not just stuff people say. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you said. I am not the expert of this so I cannot find scholar resource to support this view. Plus, this is still a restricted area of researching in China. What should I do to save these lines? Or should I just remove them because of lacking authoritative support?--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 03:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It tells: "Minqi Li... has produced data showing that even the peak death rates during the Great Leap Forward were in fact quite typical in pre-Communist China". What exactly "data" and how they were produced? Please provide quotation with pages. Regardless, I checked an academic book about this, and it tells with numbers that mortality rate during the famine was dramatically increased (of course). Yes, fringe positions like this should be removed per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)