Talk:Mao's Great Famine

Book cover image fair use

I'd suggest removing book image. There's really no need for a copyrighted pic here. East of Borschov 12:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi East of Borschow. The image is of a book cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover or the publisher of the book. To illustrate an article discussing the book in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, it qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. Do check out Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The guideline that you have cited actually discourages purely decorative FU imagery. Yes, cover "art" is acceptable (quote): "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The article makes no attempt at "critical commentary" of the cover. Thus, a FU image is not needed. East of Borschov 13:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is customary on Wikipedia to include a book cover image, if available, in every article that is about a book, and templates for their use exist. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Books and if you wish to change that policy, please feel to join the project and start a discussion there. --Kudpung (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects don't set policies. Please refresh understanding of what is a policy, a guideline, and what is merely a "custom" - which, indeed, may run contrary to the policy and still be tolerated. East of Borschov 18:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

• User:AndyTheGrump has posted this wrongly on the article.

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/mirsky_09_10.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Arilang ^talk 12:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This was not 'wrongly posted': see Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This clearly states that the template should be used to replace text.

I'd also appreciate it if an edit summary which removes a template stated that it had done this, rather than calling it a 'comment'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My apology to User:AndyTheGrump, because I did not see the template, but why was the full 20 plus lines of text appear on the main body of the article? It shouldn't be there in the first place. Arilang ^talk 13:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The template expanded to the lines of text, as it is intended to. Possibly I misinterpreted the instruction for its use, though they seemed to indicate that the template goes into the article itself. In any case, the issue has now been noted.

To repeat what I've just written in on this subject on my talk page, I'd like to make it clear that my intent in placing the template was not to disrupt the article, but to correct a problem early on in its history. The issue came to light as I was checking a reference, and noticed the textual similarity. With regard to the subject itself, I think any further understanding of the causes of the Great Famine can only be for the good, though I'd caution that editors on this emotive issue ensure that NPOV is maintained, and that statements made actually reflect the sources given. Since the Article is clearly a work in progress, I'll leave further remarks for later. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re template use: You used the wrong template. The one recommended at Wikipedia:Copyright problems when text needs to be replaced (blanked from view) is {{Copyvio}}, which produces this, not {{cclean}} which only belongs on the talk page once the text has been removed. You had added {{cclean}} to the article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rereading the instructions, it appears I did indeed use the wrong template. Sorry about that.

Actually, the {{Copyvio}} template looks a little overdramatic to me, in the context of a situation where only part of the text was under question. Possibly I should have removed the text in question, and then placed a {{cclean}} template here on the talk page? Anyway, no real harm done, and I've learned one more thing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is drastic. It's really only for cases where the copyvio is extensive but mixed in all over the article, and needs an admin's attention. When I find discrete chunks of copyvio, I usually just remove it (sometimes this means reducing the article to a very stubby stub) and add {{cclean}} to the talk page so that other editors don't restore it. It took me a while to figure out which templates to use myself.;-) The instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and on the templates themselves could be a bit clearer. Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

'Brainwashing'

...many Chinese still blame the famine on the Soviet Union, since they were brainwashed into believing that it was Soviet Union who was snatching food from the mouths of starving Chinese....

I'm inclined to think that 'brainwashed' is a bit of a weasel word in this context, as well as being unnecessary: the facts are horrific enough in themselves. It also rather raises the question as to when the 'brainwashing' occurred. Presumably not at the time, when the Party were denying that there was famine? If this occurred later (which would require WP:RS), it is rather off-topic in relation to the book, isn't it? I note the term is not used in the article cited for that sentence.

As I understand it, China was still exporting grain to the Soviet Union during the famine, so one cannot simply dismiss this as entirely propaganda, though the evidence suggests it may not have been the most significant cause of the death toll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the weasel word "brainwashed" and use "falsely believe" instead. Arilang ^talk 01:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. Often, when dealing with horrific events like these, a bare statement of the facts seems to me to carry more weight than more emotive language. I'll try to get hold of the book myself sometime soon, and see if there is anything I can add to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence directly comes from the review. I've removed it and replaced it with a more neutral sentence that summarized the author's claims.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet Prairespark

The information added by Prairespark ( blocked ) is the only intereseting and substantive info here. If his stuff is original research then some academic should get a pen out and double check Dikotter's numbers. There must have been some PHD write a paper on such a large claim as this - 45,000,000 sounds like an awfully big famine to not have 1 picture of or to be so well hidden at the time ( only showing up lately in "archives" ). 159.105.80.220 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

'three criticism of the book'

1. As with Jung Chang, Dikotter assumes an unbelievably low annual mortality leading up to the GLF of 1% (and unwittingly credits the communists with having reduced mortality even more than the communists credit theselves - Banister has a death rate of 3.8% in 1949), to max out his excess death count. Like I said previously 1% is completely unbelievable - it's about the same as the United States at that time and not that much higher than the US mortality rate of 0.84% today. The typical mortality rate in the developing world in the late 1950s was 2 to 3 per thousand.

2. Dikotter, from reviewing the archives of public security organs, that violence must have been widespread during the GLF. He offers absolutely no statistical calculation of this. One would suspect if one went to the police archives of any country in the world, one would naturally be faced with pages and pages of documented violence - its just common sense that this is so. However even Dikotter says this violence was not orchestrated from the top, rather violent excesses were in fact recorded by people at the bottom and these reports were passed to the top in an effort to keep the leadership apprised of what was going on. Some of the acts of violence, as well as famine deaths, were found out by investigatory teams sent out by Beijing to find out the true picture of what was going on. So obviously the violence (which was probably less than the violence in an average American city) was not ordered from the top. By recounting incidents of random violence, Dikotter conscripts the reader into his point of view - and by the final chapter when he presents his 'analysis' of the death toll, the reader will be loathe to challenge him on his 'facts.'

3. Dikotter's fraudulent misuse of a picture of a begging child from a 1946 famine (not an 'official' famine) on the cover of his paperback edition, is not only an appalling act of intellectual dishonest, but also essentially racist. His attitude is 'any starving asian will do'. He has been taken to task by Adam Jones (the renowned Canadian genocide scholar) for this. Adam Jones says on his website "may I also suggest that the very extensive airbrushing, replacement/grafting of background, colourization and so on of the original image is curiously reminiscent of communist practice under Mao and Stalin?" http://jonestream.blogspot.com/2010/10/did-dikotter-misrepresent-famine-image.html

Dikotter's fraudalent use of this image and other famine images from pre-revolutionary China can be seen on videos he appears in to discuss the famine: http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Interviews.html

Dikotter elsewhere, and in fact in his book, says there are no non-propaganda images of the GLF, yet he fills his book cover and videos with famine images from old China. Again, just utterly dishonest.

Prairespark (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Any criticisms of the book must be taken from published reviews, otherwise they are original research. However, the article should mention in line the book's publisher and where the reviews were published. They should also be arranged to reflect the relative importance of the various reviews. Somin's review in the The Volokh Conspiracy for example is probably not the most notable review. We should also attempt to directly source the reviews rather than using the excerpts published on the author's own website. TFD (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jones's criticism of the cover image being from a different period seems legitimate to me, although it needs to be phrased more succinctly and neutrally than Prairespark did. I've restored it to the article in such a fashion. The other points that Prairespark raises are just spillover from a long debate at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, none of which should be included here until, as Four Deuces says, they appear in published reviews. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Book cover image

OK, that image is an error, it was taken from a wrong place and a wrong time; does it really need a complete new section? I don't think so. Arilang ^talk 11:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, but it's not a big deal if it does. It's certainly not worth all the vitriol that you and this sock engaged in below ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it should. Because it points to a tendency to intellectual dishonesty on the part of Dikotter. Dikotter himself states in his book that no non-propaganda images were found from the GLF. Yet Dikotter must have approved the book cover, or at least have known the cover was fraudulent.

Furthermore, Dikotter not only uses fraudulent images on his book cover, but appears on videos on his book, which have various other famine images from old China, which obviously are not from the GLF. He links to these interviews on his website. http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Interviews.html

This of course is not only intellectually dishonest, but highly racist. To Dikotter, all Chinese people look the same, and his attitude is 'any starving asian will do'. This is extremely racist, and I am surprised that you as a Chinese, Arilang, seem to be defending, or mitigating Dikotters obvious racism.

Mnbpp (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling Dikotter a racist? Come come, who said that? You? Give me a break. Arilang ^talk 11:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course he is a racist. Based on virtually no evidence whatsoever, except for one particular incident (Dikotter seems to construct his truths on selective single incidents, but does not build up an overall statistical overview), Dikotter generalizes as follows about the Chinese:

"A feeling of inadequacy was linked to a sense of sexual inadequacy.....mixed feelings of fear, disgust, secret admiration, and envy.....Chinese students felt inferior about their appearance and were hypersensitive on this score. Some Chinese could be overwhelmed by a sense of physical inferiority in the presence of Westerners" - "The Discourse of Race in Modern China" page 158, by Frank Dikotter

This is of course in Dikotters pipe dreams and fantasies. And does Dikotter present any scientific evidence to back up his claim? No! Apart from one weird case study of some Taiwanese student in the USA.

The guy is a white supremacist through and through. A racist, pure and simple.

People like him write books with an agenda - to prove white supremacy.

Mnbpp (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore Dikotter falsely states Mao is the greatest mass murderer in history. Even if Mao did kill all those people Dikotter says he did (and he did not), this is a stupid claim to make. China is a big country with the biggest population. You do one thing wrong many people will die. What is more important is to look at the PERCENTAGE of the population killed.

And if we think of the PERCENTAGE of the population killed, then the worst genocide is by the American whites who killed 95% of Native Americans, the white Australians who killed 95% of Australian aborigines, and of course the white New Zealanders who denied medical care to the Western Samoans during the influenza epidemic with the result that 22% of the population died.

Dikotter should also perhaps remember the Irish famine, in which the British ruled. 1/7th of the population died. Or the twenty million or so famine victims under the British in India in the 19th Century - a far greater PERCENTAGE of the population than even died under Mao - even if we assume Dikotter's figures are true - which they are not.

Obviously Dikotter just wants to say --look! The Chinese are the very worst people in the world! They have produced the biggest mass murderer in the world!!!! Of course they want to make Chinese believe this. They want to make chinese ashamed of their past. And that makes it easier for them to colonize and invade us and sell us Opium like in the past.

Wake up!!!!

Mnbpp (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, physically speaking, average Chinese male is inferior to an average Caucasian male(not sure about the sex thing). Just take boxing for example, have you ever seen a Chinese guy bash up a Caucasian guy inside a boxing ring? Arilang ^talk 12:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That is bullshit. Are you a running dog, a traitor or something? That is something that only Ku Klux Klan says, or the Nazis say. Asian males are far better boxers than Caucasian males. Look at Manny Pacquia for one - he is perhaps the greatest boxer EVER. The Mexicans (part Asian) are also great boxers. On average Chinese are faster runners than whites, are better at martial arts, are faster, have better eye hand coordination. We are physically different. But that is different from inferior.

What about Bruce Lee --perhaps one of the greatest fighters ever!

Remember the Mongols were the greatest warriors ever! The Chinese Peoples Volunteers defeated American and their puppet troops in Korea! The Vietnamese army defeated the USA in Vietnam! What about the famous Yi Hetuan who killed the white invaders!

See how Manny Pacqiao almost kill Ricky Haton here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lzu_R-uovc&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnbpp (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

For heavens sake - why do you not join the Ku Klux Klan -- that is only what the very worst racist whites would say. Yet you a Chiense say this about yourself. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Mnbpp (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4ajJR2pZpM&feature=related Adrien Grotte K.O.s Shaolin Wrrior Monk Yi Long (一龙).flv

Well, all I can say is, you have a big mouth. Arilang ^talk 12:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Dikotter is a charlatan.

Using even his very own figures, one obtains mortality rates that were no worse than those of the other three big Asian nations of the time, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. That is 24/1000 per year.

Here is a review on Amazon

China’s mortality during the GLF was the same as India’s, Pakistan’s, and Indonesia’s at the time. Dikotter’s figures imply this. Consider the following:

• Dikotter adopts 10/1000 as a ‘normal’ yearly death rate for China, and claims this as the figure for China just before the leap in 1957. Deaths above this are regarded as ‘excess’ deaths.

• 10/1000 was the mortality in advanced industrialised West in 1960.

• But mortality for the other big Asian countries in 1960: India 24/1000, Indonesia 23/1000, Pakistan 23/1000

• Dikotter says GLF started early 1958, ended late 1962. ie nearly 5 years, and killed 45 million. This means 9 million excess deaths per year. Adopting 660 million as China’s population – the approx average excess mortality over these 5 years is 1000 x 9 mil/660 mil = 13.6 or say 14/1000.

• Total annual mortality during GLF is thus 10/1000 + 14/1000 = 24/1000

• Thus based on Dikotter’s figures mortality during the GLF was practically the same as that of India, Indonesia, and Pakistan (after China the most populous Asian nations).

• Dikotter’s mortality rate during the GLF was much less than the 1949 figure (24 < 38/1000)

• Dikotter's mortality rate during the GLF was less than that of India's at end of British rule (24 < 28/1000)

Dikotter's claims imply China reduced mortality from 38 /1000 in 1949 to 10/1000 in 1957. If true, this would have been a stunning achievement, considering India only reduced mortality from 28 to 23/1000, and Indonesia 26 to 23/1000 over more or less the same period. In fact India and Indonesia had not reduced down to 10/1000, even by 1980.

This of course would make Mao a great saver of lives – even with the elevated mortality seen during the GLF (which was not particularly high for the time). Is this what Dikotter intends to say? If not, his own claims inescapably imply it.

MORTALITY DATA:

1949: China: 38/1000 (Bannister) India: 28/1000 Indonesia: 26/1000

1957: China: 10/1000 (claimed by Dikotter: lower than the UK and France in 1960!)

1958 to 1962 (averaged over 5 years – Dikotter claims GLF from early 1958 to late 1962): China: 23.8/1000

1960: India: 24/1000 Indonesia: 23/1000 South Korea: 13.5/1000 UK: 11.5/1000 France:11.4/1000 US: 9.5/1000

1970: India: 17.6/1000 Indonesia: 17/1000

1980: India: 12.9/1000 Indonesia: 12.15/1000

Wei191749 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Reviews on Amazon" count for nothing on Wikipedia. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from Chinese sources

I think the article would be improved if the section Responses to the Book contained more responses from Chinese people. At the moment the only one is from Jung Chang.
Aberdeen01 (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The 'Responses' section rightly consists of reviews from other China scholars holding relevant expertise or, in the case of Jung Chang, authors on contemporary Chinese history. If there are notable reviews from Chinese experts, they should be included. I'm not aware of any, nor am I aware of any other means through which we could measure representative responses to this book among Chinese readers. Do you have any specific suggestions? Homunculus (duihua) 14:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Some things that could be metioned:

What have been the responses to the book by academics in Chinese mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong?

Has there been any official response from the Chinese communist party?

Has the book been translated into Chinese?

I guess it would be easier for me to find out if I could read Chinese. But alas...

Aberdeen01 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mao's Great Famine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100905053726/http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Maos_Great_Famine.html to http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Maos_Great_Famine.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100905053726/http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Maos_Great_Famine.html to http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Maos_Great_Famine.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mao's Great Famine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716204459/http://www0.hku.hk/history/people/staff-frank-dikotter.html to http://www.hku.hk/history/people/staff-frank-dikotter.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520143014/http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Home.html to http://web.mac.com/dikotter/Dikotter/Home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101003224919/http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6296363/systematic-genocide-.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6296363/systematic-genocide-.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906144248/http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/mirsky_09_10.html to http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/mirsky_09_10.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)