Wikipedia

Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Reliability of this book as a source

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Off-topic discussion. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the editing of this article, not general discussion of the book or discussion of whether this book should be used as a source in other articles. Discussion may be continued elsewhere, as suggested by Quigley below. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

This article here virtually demolished this book's credentials for being used as a reliable source on Chinese Civil War related articles, such as the Long March.

The errors are numerous- Chang and Halliday claim Wang Shiwei was executed in the rectification" campaign of 1942 to terrorize intellectuals- in reality, he was executed in 1947 and had nothing to do with the campaign.

Chang and Halliday assert that Chiang Ching-kuo was kidnapped by the Soviet Union- in reality, Chiang kai-shek approved of his going there to study, Chiang Kai-shek was even known as the "Red General" (red as in communist) to westerners in the early 1920s, since he worked with Soviet agents like Mikhail Borodin and Vasily Blucher, against western backed warlords like Wu Peifu.

Chang and Halliday claimed Chiang Kai-shek allowed the Red army to escape all the way across the long march since his son was being held hostage in the Soviet Union- in reality, Chiang Kai-shek wrote right in his diary that it was worth it to sacrifice his son for the country, and publicly refused an offer of a trade for his son for a jailed communist leader,

And it was Soong May ling who urged chiang to accept that offer, not Soong ching ling, as Chang and halliday claimed. They also go on to claim Ching ling was a soviet agent (completely irrelevant, since May-ling was the one who urged chiang to go through with it)

"nee Soong Ching-ling), who was another Soviet agent.* Speaking for Moscow, she proposed swapping Ching-kuo for two top Russian agents who had recently been arrested in Shanghai. Chiang turned the swap down"

These are not just false accusations against Mao- these are false accusations against Chiang Kai-shek as well.

If anyone wants a source for the counterclaim to each count of innaccuracy listed above, I will provide them. I hope for a civil discussion, without ad hominem attacks regarding ones ideological affiliation, since some of those were present in earlier discussions.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Chang and Halliday's earlier book rooted for the communists and praised Communist leaders, massive contradictions with their new book

edit

Chang and Halliday are more Anti Mao than anti communist. they repeatedly mention the times when Mao stabbed fellow communists in the back and killed them, rather than trying to attack the entire party.

Chang and Halliday did a 360 degree turn in writing their books-

"In this almost hagiographic biography (Mme Sun Yat-sen: Soong Ching-ling, 1986), they refer to her "unique eminence and unassailability". In The Unknown Story they claim, on what seems to me thin evidence, that she was a Russian agent"

For those of you who don't know what "Hagiographic" means, it means "saintlike"

In this earlier book, "Mme Sun Yat-sen (Soong Ching-ling)", by Chang and Halliday, sharp differences occur with "Mao: The Unknown Story"

Chang and Halliday even wrote in a previous book "the cult of mao was pushed to an extreme pitch. This in fact fitted in with the 2,000 year old Chinese traditions of the absolute political and spiritual authority of the Emperor.

That sounds more like an anti Chinese culture pitch, than an anti communist pitch.

Chang and Halliday also cite Edgar Snow, the communist associate and often criticized as a communist propagandist, as a reliable source in claiming the regime ruling china (Chiang Kai-shek's regime, not Mao's) buried six intellectuals alive.

Chang and Halliday even said "The Long March gave the communists not only a heroic image in the eyes of the nation, but also a fairly secure base, under united political leadership"

"The communist armies were waging a remarkably effective guerilla war against the Japanese continually recovering..."

They go on to say, "the communist government appreciated Ching-ling's contribution and responded with care and throughtfulness. They provided Ching-ling with the life-style of a grand lady. Her Peking residence was literally a palace

the main group of communists in the rural base areas began the famous long march which was ultimately to bring a few thousand survivors (about five per cent of those who had started out) to safety in the remote area of yenan

Inscribed on the back was 'UF' (United Front). On 1 5 August 1945 the Sino- Japanese war ended with the unconditional surrender of Japan. Chiang Kai-shek had been waiting for this day to get at his real enemy. Mao reminded his Party on.....

In "Mao: The Unknown Story". They claim that the communists did not want to fight japan, etc.

And Chang and Halliday already had quite a few swipes at Chiang Kai-shek in this book. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a point that you can summarise in two sentences? You seem to be making some sort of statement instead of trying to start a conversation with some goals for the article, etc.
By the way, your last edits were of material that was far too trivial to include in my view. The news article is already referred to in the references, so there is no need to repeat every point made in it. John Smith's (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
The point is, as this author mentioned, that their earlier biography contradicts what they say in "Mao: the unknown story".]
They criticize Chiang repeatedly in their first book, using Edgar Snow as a source to claim that the regime (chiang's) buried alive intellectuals, their biography on Soong praises her and is aimed at glorifying her etc, while in Mao the unknown story they claim she was a soviet agent, in their Soong biography, they claim the Communists were succesful in battling Japan, in the "unknown story", they claim the communists wanted to do nothing against Japan.
At least Gregor Benton's book should be cited since it noted the contradiction, along with the fact that the two books are contradictory.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
"At least Gregor Benton's book should be cited" How thoroughly have you read this article? John Smith's (talk) 08:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I only found his name in conjunction with direct criticism of the accuracy of the book, not to the book he wrote in which he noted that "Mao the unknown story" contradicted the earlier bio on soong ching ling.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
You're still inserting minor issues and giving them undue weight. Can you please stop doing this. If you think you might have a valuable addition, please seek views here on the talk page.
Benton's views in the long-standing material are far more valuable than the quibble in his other book. Mao: The Unknown Story does not revolve around whether Soong was a Communist agent or not. John Smith's (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


"The communist armies were waging a remarkably effective guerilla war against the Japanese continually recovering..."
That is not the only contradiction with "Mme Sun Yat-sen: Soong Ching-ling". -Agnes Smedley, a left-wing feminist journalist whose writing they used as a source for the book on Song, is called a Comintern agent without any evidence being offered..
This interesting American was a correspondent for the Manchester Guardian in China. She certainly sympathised with the Chinese communists but was a loose cannon who later fell into official disfavour with both the Soviet and the Chinese party authorities. Halliday is well known as an expert on the Korean War and published extensively on this subject in the 1980s. The origins and course of the war receive a sharply different treatment in this study of Mao from that offered in his earlier work.
If "Mao: The Unknown Story" can be cited on other wikipedia articles as a source, "Mme Sun Yat-sen: Soong Ching-ling" is equally as valid, since they deal on the same field, a historical biography of an individual in modern chinese history. that includes all of the material on the long march and world war 2 in the Soong biography where slavish praised is heaped on the communists.. I'm more inclined to write Chang and Halliday off entirely, due to the numerous errors in the book, plus the fact that neither has a PHD in chinese history.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you are primarily concerned about this book's use as a reliable source on Wikipedia articles, and if you have specific articles from which you want it removed, a better place to post evidence would be the reliable sources noticeboard. Quigley (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism Section

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I tried to sharpen and tighten the section and work in a few points without changing the balance,in accordance with John Smith's comments. ch (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mao: The Unknown Story. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mao: The Unknown Story. 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: 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) 10:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mao: The Unknown Story. 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: 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) 17:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mao:_The_Unknown_Story&oldid=1203879959"