![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I think the facts are more objective and clear, and the main literature sources are also cited in the article, not to mention that there is not much personal worship and excessive publicity, why is no one willing to send the entry of Mao Zedong to the GA selection? Sieats macedonia ( talk) 09:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The usage in the introductory paragraph of "autocratic and totalitarian" is problematic. There is room for debate over both words; the mass line and local distributed governance were quite powerful, with the national vanguard leading coordination and enforcing dialectics. While the majority consensus of liberal/bourgeois scholars may be that this is accurate - thus why, while I would support it, I am not actively advocating for the removal of these words - I believe a more Wikipedia:NPOV could be used here. I'd personally support "Some describe his rule as", but even "Many describe his rule as" would be fine. Dissenting opinion in that section would also be great to be present, but not strictly necessary. Amyipdev ( talk) 01:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Once I get auto confirmed I'll work something out. Amyipdev ( talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
As said in cited article [3]: His work is disregarded as polemical, but has a strange life online, where it is cited regularly by anyone who wants to score a quick victory for Mao. Not much reliable, the correlated wording seems to be biased in ways, such as the number 80 million in deaths do not comprehend the truth in the said unreliable source coming of 77 million deaths is only upscaled, only to produce bias among the reader, the article's heading only tends to be more farcical and comparetive against people to their death rates, thus being bias. As so it happens to be with the book the article in research to reach that number literally. A more credible number as said in source would be 35 Million, as estimated by Chinese journalist Yang Jisheng or even 45 million in number is more credible than 80 million as said in current article. -Jimmy 103.145.73.82 ( talk) 13:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Mao’s siblings, to my knowledge, all died in the course of the period of war against Japanese colonialism and then the civil war with the Kuomintang. Mao’s siblings are listed on Wikipedia, and noted as children of Mao’s father on Wikipedia. However, they are not present in the information card on Mao in this article.
His children and parents are listed, but his siblings have not been added. I would strongly suggest that someone add the list of his siblings to the information card. Even among many non-academics otherwise quite knowledgeable on Mao and this period of Chinese history, who may know of the death of one of his sons (and in some cases mistake the death of his brother Mao Zemin as the death of another son) — this knowledge is unfortunately absent.
It most likely had a profound personal effect on Mao, and while this is not very relevant to the political or historical sections of the article, it is certainly an essential biographical detail. 80.208.66.141 ( talk) 00:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Throughout the article, the party that now governs China is referred to as the CCP. However, the party's official name in English is the Communist Party of China (CPC) not the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There is no reason no to call the party by its official name, and I propose to change the name it is called in the article from CCP to CPC. Dialecticalish ( talk) 16:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This book has been repeatedly criticized for the misuse and highly biased interpretation of primary sources.
The 2009 anthology Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story", edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun, brings together fourteen mostly critical previously published academic responses, including the reviews from China Journal. Benton and Lin write in their introduction that "unlike the worldwide commercial media, ... most professional commentary has been disapproving." They challenge the assertion that Mao was responsible for 70 million deaths, since the number's origin is vague and substantiation shaky. They include an extensive list of further reviews.
Benton, Gregor; Chun, Lin, eds. (2010). Was Mao Really a Monster?: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story" (1st ed.). Routledge. pp. 9–11. ISBN 9780415493307.
Gao Mobo, Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Adelaide, wrote that the book was "intellectually scandalous", saying that it "misinterprets evidence, ignores the existing literature, and makes sensationalist claims without proper evidence."
Gao, Mobo (2008). The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution. Pluto Press. p. 11. ISBN 9780745327808.
British historian and public intellectual Tariq Ali criticized the book for its focus "on Mao's conspicuous imperfections (political and sexual), exaggerating them to fantastical heights, and advancing moral criteria for political leaders that they would never apply to a Roosevelt or a Kennedy"; Ali accused the book of including unsourced and unproven claims, including archival material from Mao's political opponents in Taiwan and the Soviet Union whose reliability are disputed, as well as celebrity interviewees, such as Lech Wałęsa, whose knowledge of Mao and China are limited. Ali compared the book's sensationalist passages and denunciations of Mao to Mao's own political slogans during the Cultural Revolution.
Ali, Tariq (November 2010). "On Mao's Contradictions". New Left Review. No. 66. Retrieved 20 November 2021.
And I quote:
"[The book is] not a history in the accepted sense of a reasoned historical analysis" and "[rather it] reads like an entertaining Chinese version of a TV soap opera." Cheek, Timothy (January 2006). "The New Number One Counter-Revolutionary Inside the Party: Academic Biography as Mass Criticism". The China Journal. University of Chicago Press (55): 109–118. doi: 10.2307/20066122. JSTOR 20066122. S2CID 145453303. Quotes at pp. 110.
"[Chang and Halliday] misread sources, use them selectively, use them out of context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light." Benton, Gregor; Tsang, Steven (January 2006). "The Portrayal of Opportunism, Betrayal, and Manipulation in Mao's Rise to Power". The China Journal. University of Chicago Press (55): 95–109. doi: 10.2307/20066121. JSTOR 20066121. S2CID 144181404. Quote at p. 96.
"According to many reviewers of [Mao: The Unknown Story], the story told therein is unknown because Chang and Halliday substantially fabricated it or exaggerated it into existence."Karl, Rebecca E. (2010). Mao Zedong and China in the twentieth-century world : a concise history. Durham [NC]: Duke University Press. pp. ix. ISBN 978-0-8223-4780-4. OCLC 503828045. 2804:29B8:512F:7D:ED36:5E9C:A4C9:99B0 ( talk) 05:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the neutrality of the last paragraph in the lead. Although the sentences on Mao's positive contributions is accurate, I think the last paragraph may need to be restructured to be like "Widely considered to be one of the 20th century's most important figures...Mao has remained a controversial figure...praised for transforming China...criticized for vast number of deaths...he was also a political theorist and military strategist...China was involved with many South Asian conflicts."
I think this may bring the article in line with other figures such as Vladimir Lenin, but I'd like to ask the talk page first. Thoughts anyone? The Night Watch (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Mao Zedong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Coddlebean ( talk) 07:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)I want to replace the current picture with a more official one of Mao: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_Tse-tung_-_panoramio.jpg
in the 5th paragraph 2nd sentence under "Leadership of China" we see burgeoisie instead of bourgeoisie. This should be corrected, as it is a key term in socialist thought.
The Campaign to Suppress Counter-revolutionaries targeted bureaucratic burgeoisie, such as compradores, merchants and Kuomintang officials who were seen by the party as economic parasites or political enemies. In 1976, the U.S. State department estimated as many as a million were killed in the land reform, and 800,000 killed in the counter-revolutionary campaign. Calaverasgrandes ( talk) 11:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
At the last line of the section “Death and aftermath”, shouldn’t it be “pay their respects” instead of “pay its respects”? Tsukasa Mizugaki ( talk) 00:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Mao Zedong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove this hyphenation for " Kim Il-Sung", which is now a redirect. 112.204.197.139 ( talk) 10:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
There’s no mention of the development of a nuclear deterrent as a part of his legacy leaving China to become a leading power - this is an oversight. Rustygecko ( talk) 18:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't the editor who added this, but I agree it fits. Pinging @ Vipz, anything specifically on your mind that you think should be talked through? JArthur1984 ( talk) 16:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Minor error in the name of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the Early Life section: "Mao also read translations of works by Western authors including Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rosseau" "u" missing in the first part of Rousseau. The link behind the name is correct GerminalParis ( talk) 14:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This is such an odd article, I don't think any other article on Wikipedia eulogizes a person the same way this one does, it borders on hagiography. The Legacy section almost looks like the back cover of a New York Times bestseller, plastered with reviews of Mao, talking about what a great man he is. "Eternal rebel", "incredible", "history records no greater achievement" yes, because apparently Fairbanks is the arbiter of all of history. Same with the other quote boxes scattered around the article, which contain everything from Mao's poetry to random things he said. If it can't be worked into the body of the article, I don't think it should be kept. How about we leave the quotes in Wikiquotes? Meeepmep ( talk) 18:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
They are worked into the body of the article. Y-S.Ko ( talk) 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
They show he was a murderous despot? Wikipedia loves the Mao. 124.170.115.200 ( talk) 09:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
“Mao remains a controversial figure within and outside China.” Mao may be controversial outside China, but inside China he certainly isn’t. Mao is considered to be not much less than a god by most Chinese. Do we need Chinese sources to support this? Rustygecko ( talk) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Mao is considered to be not much less than a god by most Chinese.It is not, or, at least not always. Even about fifteen years ago some official medias held a very critical opinion towards his legacies, especially of those related to the Cultural Revolution and Red Guards. ( 1, 2, 3) ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 13:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
潤芝¹ has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § 潤芝¹ until a consensus is reached. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs) 02:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Mao Zedong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding Mao Zedong's courtesy name Runzhi to the first sentence of the article, immediately following his name. Xiliman ( talk) 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
"Despite being considered a feminist figure by some [by whom?] and a supporter of women's rights, documents released by the US Department of State in 2008 show that Mao declared women to be a "nonsense" in 1973 ... "
This paragraph seems irrelevant to the Cultural Revolution section because there's no mention that Mao heavily promoted feminism in China during this time, besides in the main article on the Cultural Revolution.
Also the US DoS is an unreliable source.
The paragraph should either be better incorporated, moved to a later section, or removed entirely. Quinton-Ashley ( talk) 16:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I think the facts are more objective and clear, and the main literature sources are also cited in the article, not to mention that there is not much personal worship and excessive publicity, why is no one willing to send the entry of Mao Zedong to the GA selection? Sieats macedonia ( talk) 09:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The usage in the introductory paragraph of "autocratic and totalitarian" is problematic. There is room for debate over both words; the mass line and local distributed governance were quite powerful, with the national vanguard leading coordination and enforcing dialectics. While the majority consensus of liberal/bourgeois scholars may be that this is accurate - thus why, while I would support it, I am not actively advocating for the removal of these words - I believe a more Wikipedia:NPOV could be used here. I'd personally support "Some describe his rule as", but even "Many describe his rule as" would be fine. Dissenting opinion in that section would also be great to be present, but not strictly necessary. Amyipdev ( talk) 01:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Once I get auto confirmed I'll work something out. Amyipdev ( talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
As said in cited article [3]: His work is disregarded as polemical, but has a strange life online, where it is cited regularly by anyone who wants to score a quick victory for Mao. Not much reliable, the correlated wording seems to be biased in ways, such as the number 80 million in deaths do not comprehend the truth in the said unreliable source coming of 77 million deaths is only upscaled, only to produce bias among the reader, the article's heading only tends to be more farcical and comparetive against people to their death rates, thus being bias. As so it happens to be with the book the article in research to reach that number literally. A more credible number as said in source would be 35 Million, as estimated by Chinese journalist Yang Jisheng or even 45 million in number is more credible than 80 million as said in current article. -Jimmy 103.145.73.82 ( talk) 13:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Mao’s siblings, to my knowledge, all died in the course of the period of war against Japanese colonialism and then the civil war with the Kuomintang. Mao’s siblings are listed on Wikipedia, and noted as children of Mao’s father on Wikipedia. However, they are not present in the information card on Mao in this article.
His children and parents are listed, but his siblings have not been added. I would strongly suggest that someone add the list of his siblings to the information card. Even among many non-academics otherwise quite knowledgeable on Mao and this period of Chinese history, who may know of the death of one of his sons (and in some cases mistake the death of his brother Mao Zemin as the death of another son) — this knowledge is unfortunately absent.
It most likely had a profound personal effect on Mao, and while this is not very relevant to the political or historical sections of the article, it is certainly an essential biographical detail. 80.208.66.141 ( talk) 00:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Throughout the article, the party that now governs China is referred to as the CCP. However, the party's official name in English is the Communist Party of China (CPC) not the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There is no reason no to call the party by its official name, and I propose to change the name it is called in the article from CCP to CPC. Dialecticalish ( talk) 16:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This book has been repeatedly criticized for the misuse and highly biased interpretation of primary sources.
The 2009 anthology Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story", edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun, brings together fourteen mostly critical previously published academic responses, including the reviews from China Journal. Benton and Lin write in their introduction that "unlike the worldwide commercial media, ... most professional commentary has been disapproving." They challenge the assertion that Mao was responsible for 70 million deaths, since the number's origin is vague and substantiation shaky. They include an extensive list of further reviews.
Benton, Gregor; Chun, Lin, eds. (2010). Was Mao Really a Monster?: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story" (1st ed.). Routledge. pp. 9–11. ISBN 9780415493307.
Gao Mobo, Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Adelaide, wrote that the book was "intellectually scandalous", saying that it "misinterprets evidence, ignores the existing literature, and makes sensationalist claims without proper evidence."
Gao, Mobo (2008). The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution. Pluto Press. p. 11. ISBN 9780745327808.
British historian and public intellectual Tariq Ali criticized the book for its focus "on Mao's conspicuous imperfections (political and sexual), exaggerating them to fantastical heights, and advancing moral criteria for political leaders that they would never apply to a Roosevelt or a Kennedy"; Ali accused the book of including unsourced and unproven claims, including archival material from Mao's political opponents in Taiwan and the Soviet Union whose reliability are disputed, as well as celebrity interviewees, such as Lech Wałęsa, whose knowledge of Mao and China are limited. Ali compared the book's sensationalist passages and denunciations of Mao to Mao's own political slogans during the Cultural Revolution.
Ali, Tariq (November 2010). "On Mao's Contradictions". New Left Review. No. 66. Retrieved 20 November 2021.
And I quote:
"[The book is] not a history in the accepted sense of a reasoned historical analysis" and "[rather it] reads like an entertaining Chinese version of a TV soap opera." Cheek, Timothy (January 2006). "The New Number One Counter-Revolutionary Inside the Party: Academic Biography as Mass Criticism". The China Journal. University of Chicago Press (55): 109–118. doi: 10.2307/20066122. JSTOR 20066122. S2CID 145453303. Quotes at pp. 110.
"[Chang and Halliday] misread sources, use them selectively, use them out of context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light." Benton, Gregor; Tsang, Steven (January 2006). "The Portrayal of Opportunism, Betrayal, and Manipulation in Mao's Rise to Power". The China Journal. University of Chicago Press (55): 95–109. doi: 10.2307/20066121. JSTOR 20066121. S2CID 144181404. Quote at p. 96.
"According to many reviewers of [Mao: The Unknown Story], the story told therein is unknown because Chang and Halliday substantially fabricated it or exaggerated it into existence."Karl, Rebecca E. (2010). Mao Zedong and China in the twentieth-century world : a concise history. Durham [NC]: Duke University Press. pp. ix. ISBN 978-0-8223-4780-4. OCLC 503828045. 2804:29B8:512F:7D:ED36:5E9C:A4C9:99B0 ( talk) 05:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the neutrality of the last paragraph in the lead. Although the sentences on Mao's positive contributions is accurate, I think the last paragraph may need to be restructured to be like "Widely considered to be one of the 20th century's most important figures...Mao has remained a controversial figure...praised for transforming China...criticized for vast number of deaths...he was also a political theorist and military strategist...China was involved with many South Asian conflicts."
I think this may bring the article in line with other figures such as Vladimir Lenin, but I'd like to ask the talk page first. Thoughts anyone? The Night Watch (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Mao Zedong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Coddlebean ( talk) 07:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)I want to replace the current picture with a more official one of Mao: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_Tse-tung_-_panoramio.jpg
in the 5th paragraph 2nd sentence under "Leadership of China" we see burgeoisie instead of bourgeoisie. This should be corrected, as it is a key term in socialist thought.
The Campaign to Suppress Counter-revolutionaries targeted bureaucratic burgeoisie, such as compradores, merchants and Kuomintang officials who were seen by the party as economic parasites or political enemies. In 1976, the U.S. State department estimated as many as a million were killed in the land reform, and 800,000 killed in the counter-revolutionary campaign. Calaverasgrandes ( talk) 11:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
At the last line of the section “Death and aftermath”, shouldn’t it be “pay their respects” instead of “pay its respects”? Tsukasa Mizugaki ( talk) 00:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Mao Zedong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove this hyphenation for " Kim Il-Sung", which is now a redirect. 112.204.197.139 ( talk) 10:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
There’s no mention of the development of a nuclear deterrent as a part of his legacy leaving China to become a leading power - this is an oversight. Rustygecko ( talk) 18:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't the editor who added this, but I agree it fits. Pinging @ Vipz, anything specifically on your mind that you think should be talked through? JArthur1984 ( talk) 16:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Minor error in the name of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the Early Life section: "Mao also read translations of works by Western authors including Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rosseau" "u" missing in the first part of Rousseau. The link behind the name is correct GerminalParis ( talk) 14:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This is such an odd article, I don't think any other article on Wikipedia eulogizes a person the same way this one does, it borders on hagiography. The Legacy section almost looks like the back cover of a New York Times bestseller, plastered with reviews of Mao, talking about what a great man he is. "Eternal rebel", "incredible", "history records no greater achievement" yes, because apparently Fairbanks is the arbiter of all of history. Same with the other quote boxes scattered around the article, which contain everything from Mao's poetry to random things he said. If it can't be worked into the body of the article, I don't think it should be kept. How about we leave the quotes in Wikiquotes? Meeepmep ( talk) 18:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
They are worked into the body of the article. Y-S.Ko ( talk) 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
They show he was a murderous despot? Wikipedia loves the Mao. 124.170.115.200 ( talk) 09:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
“Mao remains a controversial figure within and outside China.” Mao may be controversial outside China, but inside China he certainly isn’t. Mao is considered to be not much less than a god by most Chinese. Do we need Chinese sources to support this? Rustygecko ( talk) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Mao is considered to be not much less than a god by most Chinese.It is not, or, at least not always. Even about fifteen years ago some official medias held a very critical opinion towards his legacies, especially of those related to the Cultural Revolution and Red Guards. ( 1, 2, 3) ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 13:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
潤芝¹ has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § 潤芝¹ until a consensus is reached. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs) 02:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Mao Zedong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding Mao Zedong's courtesy name Runzhi to the first sentence of the article, immediately following his name. Xiliman ( talk) 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
"Despite being considered a feminist figure by some [by whom?] and a supporter of women's rights, documents released by the US Department of State in 2008 show that Mao declared women to be a "nonsense" in 1973 ... "
This paragraph seems irrelevant to the Cultural Revolution section because there's no mention that Mao heavily promoted feminism in China during this time, besides in the main article on the Cultural Revolution.
Also the US DoS is an unreliable source.
The paragraph should either be better incorporated, moved to a later section, or removed entirely. Quinton-Ashley ( talk) 16:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)