This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article states that half of the remains of Snow are at Peking University, Beijing. And the other half? Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to build evaluations into the article and present a range of them.
"Dupe" is unsourced as far as I can tell. Apologies if I missed it, but I checked Chang/Halliday Unknown Mao pp. 7, 52, 106, 117, 153, 159, 191-192, 194, 195, 204, 219-20, 231, 233, 240, 323-24, 337, and I don't see the word "dupe." Would it be ok to use their word, "American spokesman" (p. 106)? They also make clear that Snow used other material in addition to interviews, though they do charge that he placed too much weight on them. The issue of the Long March is discussed in Red Star Over China. ch ( talk) 06:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Snow's books are a very good read. But Mirsky does not seem to be the Snow supporter you want him to be. In a letter on Snow for the nyrb (free on the net) Mirsky is very critical of Snow's his degrading self-censorship. And the great socialist, Belgian, Australia based sinologist "Simon Leys" shows that Snow's Chinese simply was not up to Mao's language slills, Rckmanns shows a Snow so out of his depth it is not even funny. It is in one of "Leys"'s books, or collected essays, but cannot remember which one. And isn't it a bit journalistic to call the massive Chang/Halliday biography of Mao "controversial", of course she is, as is simply everything under the sun. Hitler is still loved by some people-- Radh ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Crackpot is perhaps a bit harsh: see this review (from the Claremont Institute) by Arthur Waldron www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308889/posts --link idiotically blacklisted.-- Radh ( talk) 08:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If you check the UN's figures for life expectency, you'll find that it increased quite fast under Mao, faster than in India or Indonesia. THe various critics (including Juang Chang and "Tombstone" are deeply dishonest, because they fail to mention this.
The extra deaths during a food shortage were not enormous, 25 per thousand in the worst year. Less than the norm in some poor countries. This is consistent with what Snow and others reported: there was a food shortage but no one was starving, so they did not call it a famine. Again, the spate of books that talk about a famine do not give an honest summary of this.
For most Chinese, the Three Bad Years were a brief return to the high death rates of pre-Mao days. Death rate probably doubled, which makes a big total for a big country like China, but was not that drastic.
Note also that Mao's authority survived intact because people blamed local failures, and may have been correct to do so.
-- GwydionM ( talk) 12:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Chinese life expentency is never mentioned in such works, since in fact it extended greatly. Likewise they mention economic failures, but not the much more extensive successes. You can find details at studies I have posted; http://gwydionwilliams.com/42-china/china-three-bitter-years-1959-to-1961/ and http://gwydionwilliams.com/42-china/mao-and-china/.-- GwydionM ( talk) 11:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Snow accurately reported a food shortage, but no actual starvation. The Western media have successfully created the opposite impression in the West. Not in China itself, apart from a few silly dissidents who believe anything the West says. -- GwydionM ( talk) 10:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Edgar Snow's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of page 12 in his introduction to Red Star Over China, Fairbank states: "in 1936 the Chinese Communists were known generally as 'Red Bandits', and no Western observer had had direct with their leadership or reported on it to the outside world." Is there a source that contradicts this? If there is, I don't think it is cited in the article. Ferox Seneca ( talk) 03:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Agnes Smedley was one of many who had some contact with the Chinese Communist Party leaders in Shanghai. She had wanted to visit the Red Bases, first in the south and then the one Snow visited. She also annoyed various people, including Madam Sun, and was not allowed to go till later. But I think Snow is correct to say that no Westerner had contact with the leaders before him. And even he was not told everything - he was unaware of the existence of Liu Shaoqi, who was running the Communist underground.
Mao was also not the party leader until 1943, though he was leader of the Chinese Soviet state. Before the Long March, he was seen as junior to Zhu De. And Wang Ming was the most senior Chinese in global Leninism, though based in Moscow. -- GwydionM ( talk) 17:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Ferox Seneca, the article now clearly has gotten beyond "Start" and should be at least "C" and maybe "B." Maybe we should look the article over for things to improve. If nobody else is planning major changes, I can clean up the notes a little -- e.g. replace Hamilton 1988 with Hamilton 2003. If I have time, I'd also regularize the notes format, maybe to Harv?
I also wonder if it looks good to rely so much on Tertiary sources. The WP:ASSESS criteria for "C" specifies "Good Sources," which are generally Secondary sources. The Fairbank Introduction is 1968, and somewhat out of date, and the UM Archival note is tertiary and not footnoted, so we don't know the source. Wouldn't it be better to go directly to good recent work, such as Hamilton? OK, the differences are not major, but, for instance, the Archive did not catch the fact that ES and Peg separated as soon as they came back to the States.
Cheers ch ( talk) 16:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
We've just had an attempt at Nanking Massacre denial, eliminating Edgar Snow's fairly minor role in reporting this. I restored the well-established facts, which are spelt out in the main article.
-- GwydionM ( talk) 11:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
First off, GwydionM, I wasn't denying the Nanking massacre, or downplaying the atrocity, In fact, I find it offensive that Japan's political leaders deny the Nanking Massacre, and pay homage to Japanese war criminals at Yasukuni Shrine. War criminals who were responsible for the Nanking Massacre, and other atrocities committed against Allied civilian, and military in the Second Sino-Japanese War, and World War II.
I just thought a reference (This reference http://spartacus-educational.com/USAsnowE.htm) had to explicitly say Nanking Massacre in order for it to be used in the wiki article, even though the reference obviously describes the Nanking Massacre. I even knew straight away in the reference that Edgar Snow was referring to the Nanking Massacre. ( Greg723 ( talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edgar Snow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I just rolled out a number of changes. They seem to come from one book that is available only in a Kindle version. "Making the Foreign Serve China: Managing Foreigners in the People's Republic (Asia/Pacific/Perspectives)". It sounds intensely partisan, and should be mentioned as just a viewpoint.
Saying 'Beiping' for Beijing is ideological. It is almost unknown except among Kuomintang enthusiasts. Anti-Mao books hardly ever use it. GwydionM ( talk) 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Hardly a single English-language book uses the terms Peiping. Beijing is even rarer, reflecting a shift in orthography that the People's Government made in the 1970s.
And the views of one book on Edgar Snow should not be allowed to replace the mainstream view held by most Western sources, however anti-Beijing.
But I have also found that the people dominating the Wiki mostly let their politics get in the way of being a good encyclopedia. I have had to give up correcting rubbish on other matters. Let someone else do the work, it they care.-- GwydionM ( talk) 07:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
He spoke fairly good Chinese, but needed a translator for his long talk with Mao. He also never published any translation of a work in Chinese, as far as I know. GwydionM ( talk) 08:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone got any information on this? Fidel-Lenin ( talk) 20:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article states that half of the remains of Snow are at Peking University, Beijing. And the other half? Dr. Dan ( talk) 04:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to build evaluations into the article and present a range of them.
"Dupe" is unsourced as far as I can tell. Apologies if I missed it, but I checked Chang/Halliday Unknown Mao pp. 7, 52, 106, 117, 153, 159, 191-192, 194, 195, 204, 219-20, 231, 233, 240, 323-24, 337, and I don't see the word "dupe." Would it be ok to use their word, "American spokesman" (p. 106)? They also make clear that Snow used other material in addition to interviews, though they do charge that he placed too much weight on them. The issue of the Long March is discussed in Red Star Over China. ch ( talk) 06:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Snow's books are a very good read. But Mirsky does not seem to be the Snow supporter you want him to be. In a letter on Snow for the nyrb (free on the net) Mirsky is very critical of Snow's his degrading self-censorship. And the great socialist, Belgian, Australia based sinologist "Simon Leys" shows that Snow's Chinese simply was not up to Mao's language slills, Rckmanns shows a Snow so out of his depth it is not even funny. It is in one of "Leys"'s books, or collected essays, but cannot remember which one. And isn't it a bit journalistic to call the massive Chang/Halliday biography of Mao "controversial", of course she is, as is simply everything under the sun. Hitler is still loved by some people-- Radh ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Crackpot is perhaps a bit harsh: see this review (from the Claremont Institute) by Arthur Waldron www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308889/posts --link idiotically blacklisted.-- Radh ( talk) 08:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If you check the UN's figures for life expectency, you'll find that it increased quite fast under Mao, faster than in India or Indonesia. THe various critics (including Juang Chang and "Tombstone" are deeply dishonest, because they fail to mention this.
The extra deaths during a food shortage were not enormous, 25 per thousand in the worst year. Less than the norm in some poor countries. This is consistent with what Snow and others reported: there was a food shortage but no one was starving, so they did not call it a famine. Again, the spate of books that talk about a famine do not give an honest summary of this.
For most Chinese, the Three Bad Years were a brief return to the high death rates of pre-Mao days. Death rate probably doubled, which makes a big total for a big country like China, but was not that drastic.
Note also that Mao's authority survived intact because people blamed local failures, and may have been correct to do so.
-- GwydionM ( talk) 12:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Chinese life expentency is never mentioned in such works, since in fact it extended greatly. Likewise they mention economic failures, but not the much more extensive successes. You can find details at studies I have posted; http://gwydionwilliams.com/42-china/china-three-bitter-years-1959-to-1961/ and http://gwydionwilliams.com/42-china/mao-and-china/.-- GwydionM ( talk) 11:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Snow accurately reported a food shortage, but no actual starvation. The Western media have successfully created the opposite impression in the West. Not in China itself, apart from a few silly dissidents who believe anything the West says. -- GwydionM ( talk) 10:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Edgar Snow's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of page 12 in his introduction to Red Star Over China, Fairbank states: "in 1936 the Chinese Communists were known generally as 'Red Bandits', and no Western observer had had direct with their leadership or reported on it to the outside world." Is there a source that contradicts this? If there is, I don't think it is cited in the article. Ferox Seneca ( talk) 03:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Agnes Smedley was one of many who had some contact with the Chinese Communist Party leaders in Shanghai. She had wanted to visit the Red Bases, first in the south and then the one Snow visited. She also annoyed various people, including Madam Sun, and was not allowed to go till later. But I think Snow is correct to say that no Westerner had contact with the leaders before him. And even he was not told everything - he was unaware of the existence of Liu Shaoqi, who was running the Communist underground.
Mao was also not the party leader until 1943, though he was leader of the Chinese Soviet state. Before the Long March, he was seen as junior to Zhu De. And Wang Ming was the most senior Chinese in global Leninism, though based in Moscow. -- GwydionM ( talk) 17:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Ferox Seneca, the article now clearly has gotten beyond "Start" and should be at least "C" and maybe "B." Maybe we should look the article over for things to improve. If nobody else is planning major changes, I can clean up the notes a little -- e.g. replace Hamilton 1988 with Hamilton 2003. If I have time, I'd also regularize the notes format, maybe to Harv?
I also wonder if it looks good to rely so much on Tertiary sources. The WP:ASSESS criteria for "C" specifies "Good Sources," which are generally Secondary sources. The Fairbank Introduction is 1968, and somewhat out of date, and the UM Archival note is tertiary and not footnoted, so we don't know the source. Wouldn't it be better to go directly to good recent work, such as Hamilton? OK, the differences are not major, but, for instance, the Archive did not catch the fact that ES and Peg separated as soon as they came back to the States.
Cheers ch ( talk) 16:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
We've just had an attempt at Nanking Massacre denial, eliminating Edgar Snow's fairly minor role in reporting this. I restored the well-established facts, which are spelt out in the main article.
-- GwydionM ( talk) 11:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
First off, GwydionM, I wasn't denying the Nanking massacre, or downplaying the atrocity, In fact, I find it offensive that Japan's political leaders deny the Nanking Massacre, and pay homage to Japanese war criminals at Yasukuni Shrine. War criminals who were responsible for the Nanking Massacre, and other atrocities committed against Allied civilian, and military in the Second Sino-Japanese War, and World War II.
I just thought a reference (This reference http://spartacus-educational.com/USAsnowE.htm) had to explicitly say Nanking Massacre in order for it to be used in the wiki article, even though the reference obviously describes the Nanking Massacre. I even knew straight away in the reference that Edgar Snow was referring to the Nanking Massacre. ( Greg723 ( talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Edgar Snow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I just rolled out a number of changes. They seem to come from one book that is available only in a Kindle version. "Making the Foreign Serve China: Managing Foreigners in the People's Republic (Asia/Pacific/Perspectives)". It sounds intensely partisan, and should be mentioned as just a viewpoint.
Saying 'Beiping' for Beijing is ideological. It is almost unknown except among Kuomintang enthusiasts. Anti-Mao books hardly ever use it. GwydionM ( talk) 09:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Hardly a single English-language book uses the terms Peiping. Beijing is even rarer, reflecting a shift in orthography that the People's Government made in the 1970s.
And the views of one book on Edgar Snow should not be allowed to replace the mainstream view held by most Western sources, however anti-Beijing.
But I have also found that the people dominating the Wiki mostly let their politics get in the way of being a good encyclopedia. I have had to give up correcting rubbish on other matters. Let someone else do the work, it they care.-- GwydionM ( talk) 07:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
He spoke fairly good Chinese, but needed a translator for his long talk with Mao. He also never published any translation of a work in Chinese, as far as I know. GwydionM ( talk) 08:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Has anyone got any information on this? Fidel-Lenin ( talk) 20:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)