Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Objections to recent additions

I added a 1) reference to Pres. George Bush recommending the book to Angela Merkel and 2) to a collection of reviews and discussion of the book, Gregor Benton Chun Lin, eds., Was Mao Really a Monster? The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday’s "Mao: The Unknown Story" (Routledge, 2009).

John Smith's (talk) felt that the Bush reference was out of place, since the other responses were from academics and that the mention of the book was too much like promotion. He requested that I ask permission before making these changes, which I am happy to do. Does anyone else object to them? ch (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

It's not about permission, it's about reaching consensus.

I do think the Bush reference is out-of-place given he's just a politician. I also wonder how helpful it is given the awful reputation he has. Even if he was more likeable I'd probably question its relevance, though.

I don't feel a reference to the book adds anything to the article that hasn't been said already. John Smith's (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but the fact that the President endorsed a book seems to fit into a section called "responses." Perhaps I should explain that the Benton/Lin book is a collection of reviews with a substantial introduction. Readers could get access to the reviews even if they don't have access to the journals we cite, some of which are hard to find (I had to get the Goodman article through interlibrary loan). If we think that the article is too long (which I don't),then we could cut some of the repetition or move to footnotes (some of the reviewers are notably unnotable). ch (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Academics and methods

Not all the critics were academics -- e.g. Pomfret -- and they didn't object to calling Mao a monster but to the methods the authors used to arrive at the conclusion. That is, the critics were not defending Mao. I'd be happy to see other language which covers these points, however. ch (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the current version doesn't work as it says support was for the book's methods. If you say it was critical it does not rule out being critical on some points and supportive on others. And how do you define what a "specialist" is? It seems a subjective term to me. John Smith's (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I agree that "specialist" borders on weaselly. Can we come up with a term that will cover academics, independent scholars, and China watchers such as those in journalism? In the meantime I will adapt your phrase "critical on some points and supportive on others," which seems judicious. ch (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New section:Who is the baddy, Mao or CCP

Rjanag, I presume all the editors on this talk page do not live in mainland China(because Great Firewal of China), and it is OK for the western people to say nasty things on anything, without fear of being thrown into jal. That said, like Hong Qigong mentioned:"Arilang has been making these kinds of statements about China both in Talk pages and in article content for a while now." This comment is false, instead, should have been "Arilang has been making these kinds of statements about Mao and CCP, both in Talk pages and in article content for a while now." My point is, I have nothing against CHINA, but I denounce Mao, and CCP, because I have read s:zh:作者:中國共產黨中央委員會, s:zh:作者:共產國際, q:zh:季米特洛夫日記選編, q:zh:毛澤東, q:zh:蔣中正. I think if all you other editors, if you care to read all these, and would come to the same conclusion like I have. Arilang ^talk 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is exactly one of the criticisms of the books that is made by scholars reviewing it. I think the section already implies this, but if not, we can, I think, add in that point (although I think its big enough as is and the point is already contained therein).76.14.42.191 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The CCP is not relevant between balancing praise and criticism, unless (for example) a scholar were to criticise the book because he/she places more blame on the CCP as an institution than Mao for something that the book attributes to Mao. John Smith's (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

@ John Smith's: this section is not constructive and not even about the article, so I would suggest ignoring it. That's what I'm trying to do :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan on saying anything further. John Smith's (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox and feedback section

I have moved the article back to an earlier version as Rjiang suggested we not make significant edits without gaining consensus here on the talk page - which is not a vote, by the way. I have also created a sandbox that we can use to work out a consensus version - please use that rather than the article.

I'm having a go at combining the praise and criticism whilst also trimming it to a shorter length. John Smith's (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's an initial position. I have combined the two sections, moved some comments around, chopped others, etc. However, I think that it still misses the issue Rjanag raised, that we should have points supported by citations not a list of comments. Perhaps we could try to compile the important points raised/assertions made by reviews?

• The book is the first "intimate" biography of Mao.
• The book captures better than previous works Mao's abject failure as a ruler.
• It dispells a dangerous myth/ignorance about Mao in various Western circles (e.g. intellectual, political). It will/would change the way Chinese history is taught.
• It is well researched, richly documented and brings new information to light about every aspect of Mao's life.

• The book fails to explain why Mao's vision of China was followed for so long, even though it was "insane".
• It is difficult/impossible to verify many of the facts relied on and other statements are wrong or misleading. Sources are also used selectively.
• It is not reliable and more a work of fiction.
• The authors are not objective and set out to destroy Mao's image.

What can we add to that? John Smith's (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with having our own points listed, interpreting the reviews ourselves, instead of listing what they actually say, as it veers into original research. I support the tweaked version that was worked out by myself and other editors, taking in the impute of yourself and others on the talk page. I felt that was a fair compromise. I'm happy to keep discussion that, which really centered on the correct balance and thus length of each section, and citing the best/strongest critics.76.14.42.191 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't original research to say what the sources say without quoting them. You will find lots of articles that use citations to make points. If we didn't Wikipedia would be nothing more than a series of quotations. So there is nothing wrong with what I have done, it's precisely what Rjanag suggested. It's certainly not original research.

Sorry, what "tweaked version" and who did you work it out with? You mean the other IP editor? The only people who have edited the page recently are us and Rjanag. John Smith's (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why say what you think the authors say, instead have have them say it themselves which they do quite eloquently? I agree we don't have to quote a paragraph but a concise sentence in their own words does well. Why substitute our own? A combination of us using neutral words to introduce the quote which puts the point strongest, is preferable. Also, reading their own words is more interesting, and better captures their voice. In contrast listed points above is dry and boring. And, no, the most recent editors to the page have included both myself and the other IP editor, and we a have worked on the article based on impute from the talk page, and the edits made by Rjanag, which yielded a definite improvement. Its too bad that you reverted all that work and now the page is locked in an inferior version.76.14.42.191 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Because as Rjanag said what really needs to be done to clean this up is to sit down and make an outline and determine what the major points (of both praise and criticism) in the reviews are, and then briefly cite the various reviews that fit under each point. That is exactly what I've been trying to do. You can contribute yourself, I'm not making a final list and asking people to agree with me. The intent is also not to have a list of points, I was creating the list so that we can agree as to what the primary points made about the book are.

People can read their own words by readings those sources. In some cases we can have the odd quotation, but as it stands I agree with Rjanag that having paragraphs of opinions makes it hard to read.

Rjanag asked that we get consensus before making changes, which is why I moved it back to the earlier version and created the sandbox. We can use that. And in case you forget as I stressed earlier consensus is not voting or agreeing with one other guy. John Smith's (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we agree, then, in principle. Sorry I misunderstood what you were doing about not just creating a list of bullet points. I think consensus was forming, which does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees 100%. The version with the changes had the support of at least 5 or 6 editors that I counted, whereas the version it was reverted to, seems to be only supported by yourself. Hopefully we can have the better version restored, after we take into some of your concerns to make it more acceptable to yourself. Trimming down to get their essential points and make it shorter and readable is fine with me but not at the expense of content that makes the points they are making as strong and concise as possible. In other words, not paragraphs, but sentences should suffice, and lets not bereft the authors of their own words, esp. when they put the matter in a novel way, i.e. calling the book a 'Da Vinci Code' is powerful in a stylistic way that we can't replicate without impoverishing the author's criticism. However, I thought that was what was already done?76.14.42.191 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop deciding what other people think when they have not expressed a view here. Whatever they may have said some time ago is not immediately relevant to the discussion we are having now, which is the same for the views of other people made previously who were against including the text that you want to have in. And if you want to make a consensus version, i.e. something that we can all accept, you need to ask me rather than decide what I would like/what I find acceptable which is what seemed to happen previously. In contrast I asked for feedback on the edits I made in the sandbox rather than stick them on the front page first.

For the moment can we please not put the cart before the horse like debating how we include views and agree a list of points that are made about the book so that we can organise views of the book accordingly. John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

But they have expressed a view here, and in the edit summaries, and this is all recent. As I said before, you are the only one who opposed these changes but you have not really come up with an argument to explain why other than these procedures. I'm fine with following these procedures, but the bullet points above fail to capture the nuance and power of the quotes that were given. And each author quoted has an interesting and unique way of putting it and that should be part of what we report on. Its how its said not just what is said that counts. I've put those in the sandbox already, btw.76.14.42.191 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I also note that, in addition to all the other editors who have weighed in this issue favored inclusion, including Rjanag whose own editorial judgment was only to trim the sources, which were originally put in as paragraphs. I support this and think most others would. It is only you who have removed it completely. And in this you do stand alone. If there is any consensus, it is for inclusion, not exclusion, albeit in a trimmed down manner. The argument for inclusion have been made, and as far as I can tell your only argument has been that 'its not needed," or that it "adds nothing," which certainly is not true. 76.14.42.191 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1. If it is your view that there is consensus to have the stuff on Gao Mobo I would like to see diffs of who said what and when to indicate that.

2. The fact is that no one restored the content the last time it was removed back in November, so whatever they may have said the default position is that they accepted it. That is consensus, by having people accept things even if they may personally like something else. Look at the image here. So the edit to include the material was made, an edit to remove it was made, it was reinserted, removed again and there was no more editing after that. Ergo the version without it included became consensus.

3. I am willing to discuss the inclusion/removal of any content, but I'm not going to do that right now. As I said I want us to start by dealing with the things we can agree on/are likely to agree on first before we deal with things that we disagree on. Is there any reason you are not willing to discuss the list of points? Can we just drop everything else and focus on that first? John Smith's (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

John, as an observer, it seems to me that the editor has discussed his views, and other editors have made their stance known. Just because they are not willing to edit war with you does not mean your version is "consensus." Consensus changes. As has been pointed out, all the other editors were fine with inclusion the critical review material that was added, staying in one format or another. Perhaps you can explain why is it that you oppose inclusion of it at all? You do seem to be the lone voice objecting to it being in the article, and that strikes me as odd.98.207.245.65 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

98.x, to be fair you're not an observer, you're involved too - unless you won't edit the article until we all agree on what to include. Are you making that pledge now?

Consensus does change, but that is only when a new consensus arises. My point remains the same that there was no such consensus and therefore it is wrong to say the default position is now to include the Gao Mobo spiel. As I keep saying, and strangely you and the other IP editor keep ignoring, I am willing to discuss the inclusion of any material once we have dealt with more important issues like how we are supposed to include it. I don't understand why it is so important to force agreement over the inclusion of one person's view when there is material that is already in that needs to be arranged. John Smith's (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

98.x, who says "all editors were fine" with it? I don't recall ever supporting it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rjang, I can't speak for the other editor, but I think he was referring to your willingness to keep the material in a trimmed down form, but at least keep it, along with the other editors. Only one editor, John, insisted on completely removing it in its entirety. I refer to this: [1] Maybe maybe you now feel it doesnt belong at all, either, I'm not sure. I feel strongly we should not delete good info like this. As a user of Wikipedia, its helped me to look up sources for various claims and positions. I think its important to keep such sources that offer these types of notable reviews.76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I would just like to mention that the primary criterion we should be basing any sort of discussion of third party criticism (positive or negative) of this book is verifiability. Claims like this book (which is not available in Mainland China) will change the Chinese education system are not verifiable and thus should not be included.

There are no claims made that the Chinese education system will be changed. Where did you get that idea from?

Humourously enough that was the problem the authors had, their inability to verify their claims. Now, don't get me wrong, the Deng Xiaoping 60% right / 40% wrong nonsense is nothing more than the CCP putting a positive face on a man who turned out to be a pretty incompetent ruler.

What it comes down to is that the skills necessary to found a dynasty in China are not the same skills necessary to govern China in peace-time. (IMO anyway.Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not really relevant towards what we're discussing here. We're not discussing Mao, we're talking about how to reorganise a section of the article. Is there anything you have to say on the matters we've been discussing in the last few days? John Smith's (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} Yeah, I went over the edit history and figured that out. Honestly the only thing I dislike about the current version is the ghettoizing of "criticism" and "praise". Ideally an more organic structure would be used. Notwithstanding that I'd say that the current (protected) version is superior to other revisions I've seen. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Simonm, thanks for being willing to get involved here to help out. I've seen your great work elsewhere, and so I certainly value your feedback. I think the key to revolving this is to get more editors to chime in. In that regard, can you help and identify what parts of the current version make it better? Maybe we can meld the best parts of each? My main issues are 1. the readability of the reception section. Reviews should not be squished together. They should also be concise but keep the main points they make in the way they make them. And most importantly, that we do not discard notable reviews by China specialists. The main point of contention here is to allow those reviews to stay in or keep them out. Most editors have allowed them to stay in, in one form or another, so I had guessed that would be the consensus. Related to this is the question of balance. If you look at the reception this book has received, its mostly negative, esp. later, after the specialist had a chance to review it. Initially the popular press praised it, as they tend to do with as a knee-jerk respond to anything that purports to be anti-communist, Mao is evil, etc. However, as a work of history, most found it deeply flawed and indeed an "intellectual scandal" as one review put it (the review that was taken off, btw). I think its important to have this reality apparent to the reader by allowing in those reputable sources that make this clear. I look forward to hearing your view on this issue. Thanks again.76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that reviews should be combined to support points about the book that are clearly visible to a reader. There are a limited number of points made in favour and against the book in all the reviews, so it's unnecessary to bring out what every single one says - some could just be a citation.

I believe that one person called it an intellectual scandal - saying that "most" found it that is original research. More academics may have expressed a negative view of it, but a fair number supported it and it is not possible to decide what the wider community thinks. The criticism also ranges from accusations of flawed research (technical defects) to stronger accusations that it is bad history in total. To lump all such negative views together misrepresents the views of those people. John Smith's (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Simon. My intent is to have a single section for feedback, though the IP editors have yet to respond to my list of key points made about the book that we can organise reviews around. John Smith's (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to that already, and have worked in the sandbox, as well. However, this is not the main issue, it seems to me that needs to be addressed. The main issue, is your removing the critical reviews from the section completely that were supported and put in there by at least 5 other editors. I'd like to get the justification for why that has to be the case and why we can't report on these verifiable reviews by highly esteemed professors of Chinese and Asian studies?76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not said whether you think the points I listed are the main ones or whether they need to be tweaked (and if so, how). So why don't you address that point now - then we can move on. As for Gao I'm not going to discuss the inclusion of specific reviews until we get to the point of what to include and what not to include - i.e. that we agree on the format for the inclusion of the views. Because we can't keep all of them and some will have to be chopped come what may.

Who are these five long-standing editors and where did they say they wanted the Gao stuff? Links and diffs please. Even Simon thinks it's better without the Gao spiel. John Smith's (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm for listing all the major reviews of the book and quoting the authors. The opening can say exactly what it did say, and says in the sand box now: "Chang and Halliday's book has been strongly criticized by a number of academic experts. A number of scholars specialising in modern Chinese history and politics questioned the factual accuracy, complained that the book's sources were either inaccessible or unreliable, and pointed out their selective use of evidence, among other criticisms.[21]" Then let the authors speak for themselves, citing each review. I'll get to the links you requested in a bit. Also, Simon didn't specify his preference as stemming from excluding Prof. Gao's review or not. So far, based on everything I can see you are the only editor who doesn't want to include it. 76.14.42.191 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The opening should stay as it is in the protected version. The sandbox version ignores all the academics/historians who had good things to say about it.

Well you seem to claim that someone can support the inclusion of Gao's spiel without saying it, so I don't see why that isn't the same for Simon in not thinking it should be in. You can't have it both ways. John Smith's (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I went digging into the history to try to figure out things, and found some interesting things. I discovered there actually already was a consensus worked out involvement of an admin who makes clear the result of the agreement writing:putting Kaz Ross in footnote rather than article text per talk, we agreed reference to Gao would be kept out until his book is published Guess what? Professor Gao's book was published and instead of allowing, you have prevented it. But not only that, you removed the reference and footnote completely to Kaz, that was included as part of an agreement, and you do so without any discussion? Why? So the Kaz Ross footnote was taking out without consensus. And who took it out? I turns out you did: removed Kaz footnote included by consensus according to Admin, BigTimePeace, with no discussion. So from this we can conclude that if we go by consensus you should have not been blocking inclusion of Gao, should not have taken it out Kaz without discussion, and should have allowed Prof. Gao's voice to be included as his book has been published, as was agreed. Instead, every editor that restores it, you revert them. But you never offered an argument as to why.

In combing through the changes, I also found a disturbing pattern of removal of only the critical statements, that if restored, would have solved the main problem I see with the article today, such as removing this: "In addition to achieving high sales and...received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media. The reaction to the book from Sinologists was far more critical." Below, I find you systematically stripped the article from all such similar lines of thought, that shows that experts overwhelmingly trashed the book, creating the false view of parity between praise and criticism:

You remove without explanation: "Each reviewer pointed out a significant number of factual errors and examples of misuse of sources en route to concluding that the book was too flawed to be considered a valuable scholarly work." See: here You further removed: "Chang and Halliday's book has been strongly criticized by a number of academic experts..." And you had been opposed when you tried to remove such material earlier: (undo John's edit, text removed is a summary of information that follows so citation is unnecessary, plus it's been in article for a long time and is the product of hard-won consensus, last edit wasn't): here You remove this text: "some of the world's leading China experts [had] united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing."s Equally without explanation you remove this bit: "Overall Goodman viewed Mao: The Unknown Story as an example of a book that had "sacrificed intellectual reputation on the altar of instant celebrity." Goodman, David S.G. (2006-09). "Mao and The Da Vinci Code: conspiracy, narrative and history". The Pacific Review. 19 (3): 361, 362, 363, 375, 376, 380, 381. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) And, of course, you removed this footnote: Kaz Ross of the University of Tasmania expressed a similar point on the style of the book, deeming Chang and Halliday's work "'faction' – history told by fictional narrative means." See Ross, Kaz, "Mao, the all-too familiar story" see diff here. I respectfully request that these changes to what was "hard won consensus' not be allowed to be taken out by one editor without discussion, and that the consensus version be restored, which was and is still supported by most editors. 76.14.42.191 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you mean my conflicts with the mischevious puppetmaster and banned user Giovanni33? After he was banned everything was fine here because people used the talk page rather than repeatedly edit-war.

As for what was said by BigTimePeace that was over two years ago. Also he says the reference to Gao should be removed until the book came out. It didn't say any reference would go in once published - we may have agreed to revisit the issue. I don't remember the discussion, so if you could find it that would help.

As for the reference to Sinologists, I don't see it as being preferable.

You have also failed to give the diffs and links to these editors who supposedly now all support these things being included as consensus. You've had enough chances to do so, so I won't bother asking again. The simple thing is that the current version has remained relatively stable and been accepted. Even the outside user, Simon, who you asked to give his view said he preferred the current version to the ones you and the other IP editor made with the Gao and other material. So clearly your preferred version is not preferred by others. We can improve the article I'm sure, but you're holding up the discussion by refusing to discuss anything other than Gao. Once more I ask, why must we deal with this now and not later? John Smith's (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean the pattern of removing material that puts the critical reception in perspective, i.e. mostly from Sinologists, and without discussion. Why did you removed Kaz footnote included by consensus according to Admin, BigTimePeace, with no discussion?. And, yes, everything was fine because you didn't remove the references that were inserted by an Admin, which he says was the agreement reached (including to include Gao once his book was published). You were part of that agreement, so you are not following your own agreement when you later removed that, and the footnotes, without explanation. When you tried to make some changes like this before, the Admin, reverted you. You then later removed so many critical references that had been agreed to before, unilaterally, that editors such as myself started to noticed the problems with the article. That is what my links above show. Digging into it now, I see you had no right to claim consensus for the removal of information. And, consensus is on my side, not just based on the history of this very material, and the solution that resulted in peace, but with the current lists of editors (see below) that support inclusion.76.14.42.191 (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BTP's current status as an admin is irrelevant, but even if it was he wasn't one at the time. I can't remember why I removed it, but I did. And as I point out below your list doesn't shown consensus of any sort.

I'm starting to wonder whether you're discussing this matter in good faith given you're refusing to deal with anything before the inclusion of a single review, which is illogical given there are a host of other reviews and we haven't agreed as to how any views should arranged yet. John Smith's (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question here are the links that support my claim. You get your way be edit warring, but that doesn't make consensus. As I said, here are six recent editors who support inclusion of the material, and you are the only one taking it out:

• editor one, included: [[2]]
• editor two, supported by fixing: [[3]]
• editor three, supported inclusion by only trimming but keeping: [[4]]
• editor four, who reverted your removal, to keep: [[5]]
• editor five: [[6]]
• editor six: [[7]]76.14.42.191 (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor 1 - an IP editor who contributed once to the page last year and has not shown any interest in it since.

Editor 2 - CWH fixing something does not show he wanted it, just that he wanted to make whatever was in the page better.

Editor 3 - Rjanag has already indicated on this talk page that he's not happy with being represented as supporting inclusion of the material.

Editor 4 - Colipon restored it once last year, and when he saw I objected strongly he moved on as we discussed other things.

Editor 5 - that's you.

Editor 6 - another IP editor who only started editing Wikipedia a matter of hours before you started editing this page.

I'm not terribly impressed by that as meaning you have consensus. John Smith's (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No matter how you spin it, the point still stands as accurate. You are the only editor who insists on blanking these sources out completely, while all the above 6 editors would permit it to stand in the article. 6 vs 1. That says something about consensus.76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the only spinning is coming from you in misrepresenting the views of others. John Smith's (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the diff's above speak for themselves. I'm afraid you are not entitled to make up your own facts. :)76.14.42.191 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh John Smith's (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Time to stop beating around the bush

I strongly support John Smiths points, and the new section combining Praise and criticism should be about these points.

• The book is the first "intimate" biography of Mao.
• The book captures better than previous works Mao's abject failure as a ruler.
• It dispells a dangerous myth/ignorance about Mao in various Western circles (e.g. intellectual, political). It will/would change the way Chinese history is taught.
• It is well researched, richly documented and brings new information to light about every aspect of Mao's life.
• The book fails to explain why Mao's vision of China was followed for so long, even though it was "insane".
• It is difficult/impossible to verify many of the facts relied on and other statements are wrong or misleading. Sources are also used selectively.
• It is not reliable and more a work of fiction.
• The authors are not objective and set out to destroy Mao's image.

If user 76.14.42.191 and other IP editors who are so keen of adding who said what to this article, why not start a new article, and leave this one alone? Everyday readers would be more interested in the content of the book, not who say what about the book, I am sure. And talking about China Experts, there are tons of Sinologists around, this article certainly has no need to quote all of the names, after all, academics are more than ready to say nasty things about others, just to show off their superiority among their peers. Arilang ^talk 16:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Arilang, thanks for actually dealing with those points. I'll label them 1-8. Of the reviews currently in the article, the critics say the following:

• Simon Sebag Montefiore - 1 & 2
• Nicholas Kristof - 2
• Gwynne Dyer - 2 & 3
• Max Hastings - 3 & 5
• Michael Yahuda - 2
• Richard Baum - 3 & 4
• Stuart Schram - 4
• Perry Link - 3

• Andrew Nathan - 6 & 8
• David Goodman - 7 & 8
• Thomas Bernstein - 6 & 7
• Gregor Benton and Steve Tsang - 6 & 8
• Timothy Cheek - 7

Accordingly I wonder if we could do without Nicholas Kristof, Max Hastings and Timothy Cheek. That should make the number of reviews we're dealing with more manageable, and we wouldn't want more than two citations per point anyway. I'll see if I can come up with something that works around these points, but anyone else should feel free to try it out in the sandbox (make the points and support them with a short quote and/or citation). John Smith's (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you look above, that was exactly one idea I presented. The reception section would then link to a daughter article that would examine the debate of criticisms much more extensively, and in greater depth, i.e. paragraphs, not just sentences. However, that does not mean that this section should cut out important voices, esp. among china experts, nor fail to present the academic response to this book with proper weight. Having one section with the above points covered, is all fine, but a completely different issue than the one I and other editors have raised. And because that is still a problem here (was not before), editors should not just 'leave this article alone." It needs to be fixed.76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've put the changes together. The length is perfect, so I think that all that really needs to be done is some tweaking to make it read a little better. John Smith's (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. I took a look at the Sandbox changes you made and in some respects I think it does look better, and overall easier to read, and something I'd be ok with provided detailed language of the reviews are given spaced in a linked daughter article from the section. About this section, I'd just offer a few tweaks probably. If you would include a reference to Prof. Gao's book for point 7 and 8, I think we have a resolution for this article, for now, depending on what the consensus is among other editors. I think we may need more time to get all the feedback to see if your proposed changes have enough support.76.14.42.191 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that you want to have a reference to Gao and make some other changes, or just Gao? If the former, perhaps you could show me the tweaks first. If the latter I'm open to the possibility of including something on Gao (which I said all along, I don't know why you got so excited over it), but we can't use an entire book as a citation. I guess you have a copy of it to hand? John Smith's (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response, and being willing to actually include that material that was taken out. I'm not sure what tweaks yet, so lets just agree to include the reference. To answer your question, no, I don't have the book, but I'd be happy to get to my local library and check it out, and thus provide you with the specific citation requirements. Thanks, again.76.14.42.191 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I will note that you significantly changed your comment after I responded to it. I'm not going to agree to any sort of a reference to it. As I said I'm open to the idea of it, depending on what it is. John Smith's (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely disagree with this entire endeavor, which (from what I can gather from the copious commentary above) seems to be based on what I take to be a false premise supported by at most three editors. I have no problem with the way the reaction is presented in this version. That text was the product of a hard won consensus in which both John Smith and I participated, and speaking for myself it involved hours of reading and note taking, leaving aside the drafting of the actual text and the ensuing discussion. I'm not remotely convinced that we need to radically alter anything simply because one editor suggested the text was boring and people won't want to read it (rather subjective!). As a Wikipedia reader, just like everyone else here, the detailed response section in our current version is exactly what I'm looking for in a supposedly path breaking book. The book itself is hugely long so I'm not going to get a decent summary of the text in a Wiki article, but I can certainly get a lot of distilled info as to how the book was received. Wikipedia articles on books need more of that, not less (do you know how often I've wished that articles on books had as many citations from scholarly reviews as this one does?), and if a 25k article is really too long for people than things have gotten rather worse in our society than I thought.

The stripped down text proposed here is a complete nonstarter for me and not even something I could build on. I came to this article originally because it lacked almost any criticism of the text, and after great time and effort we managed to include enough in the way of serious critique to make it obvious to the clueful reader that this book has been given a sound thrashing by an inordinate number of experts in the field. The proposed change literally strips the specific (actually it makes it quite vague) criticism down to three sentences, and removes all of the pointed language from critics that shows they extent to which they disdained the book. The discussion of praise slightly outweighs the discussion of criticism (which is blatantly unbalanced if we are speaking about experts in the field), and Chang and Halliday are given about as much space in the new version to respond to criticism as the critics are to criticize. None of this is acceptable, and its not a matter of me going in and fixing things in the sandbox. What is being proposed is the wholesale gutting of an article, including removal of a lot of extremely relevant commentary that is not freely available online but which was painstakingly culled from long academic reviews and synthesized to present the curious reader with a thorough picture of how experts have evaluated the place of this text in the field. I support the status quo of the article as it exists.

Perhaps part of the problem here is that this is simply not a normal book and we cannot think about it that way. It has engendered enormous controversy and reams of discussion relative to most any ostensibly academic book published in recent years. It's quite irrelevant that some people feel that reading about academic responses to an academic book is "boring" (I think reading about math is boring, but so what?), the fact is that the publication of this tome produced a fury in the China studies field and our article absolutely has to cover that—to not do so is a serious disservice to readers if we're actually trying to be an encylopedia. No one is presenting any credible reason why what we have currently is unacceptable aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and in the absence of such an argument I think we should largely leave things as they are. Perhaps there are other ways to arrange or present the reaction, but simply cutting out cogent responses to the book (be they praise or criticism) because of a vague "this is too long and/or too boring" sentiment is just a bad idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with these points by Bigtimepeace. It echoes my exact sentiments. However, for the sake of resolving the conflict, I was willing to settle for this if they would allow a link to a new daughter article that did provide a detailed response section, which would restore and include the most pointed language from serious critics that shows they extent to which they disdained the book.

Getting a taste of the details of exactly how critics viewed this book is exactly what I expected of this controversial book, upon viewing this article. I noticed a problem in that the article was not providing a completely accurate picture overall of academic response from China specialists, as I had expected it to, having knowledge about the nature of this book. It was a little off, and missing, and supported the inclusion of material I saw other editors trying to include.

Then I realized, as I detailed above, this problem was not present before, so much, but had already been solved from a previous round of conflict. Yet, for unknown reasons these compromises that had been worked out were being reversed, and prevented from being restored - even JohnSmith says he doesn't know why he removed them, "just that he did" (for example, the Kaz footnote, the pointed language from Goodman, et. al., and other selective excisions). In fact the material that was being reverted (only by JohnSmith, for the record), was material that had been agreed to be included, prior, and part of a "hard won consensus." So why was one editor, the one editor who was part of that agreement, then reverting any editors inclusion of it now? That has been the unresolved mystery.

What was further weird was that response to these concerns I raised, about restoring some of this to reclaim balance that had been worked out, I found it odd that the reaction was simply to refuse to address my concerns, and instead propose to rearrange the whole section into these bullet points, removing even more details, details that I think add great value, esp. when they give a proper sense of the actual responses to this book from the academic community.

I think the current version does that better than the proposed changes, however, the prior material that gives a proper weight against the book by academic experts should be restored. Even those that were kept, if we examine the change, the most pointed language made by them was unexplicably removed (shouldn't the exact opposite be the case?) 76.14.42.191 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading the discussion; I can't see a reason for deleting large pieces of the criticism of the book either. I think people want to know this. In particular, some of the people weighing in on it are quite well-known, like Andrew Nathan... so it seems odd to simply exclude their views. I mean, how could wikipedia do that? I also don't know why Spence's review only gets one sentence. He said a lot of things in evaluation of the book, and it might be good to include not just one negative remark, but some of his generally evaluative ones. Also, one thought I had was to avoid adjectives like "sharply" and so forth. I think the idea should be to "show, don't tell" the reader what these people said. The reader can work out that the book was "sharply criticised" by so-and-so without one of us explaining it. Another thing is: would it be appropriate to illustrate at least one specific example of where a couple of the critical scholars say how Chang and Halliday have apparently misused sources, and then see how Chang and Halliday explain how they used them? As in, to actually get a picture of how the different people are interpreting things in different ways? I mean, I don't know if in some cases it's a mere disagreement, and in others it's that they were unethical. That may be too much detail for an article like this, though.--Asdfg12345 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Having said that, the praise is 150 words shorter than the criticism. Should they be equal in length? --Asdfg12345 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To 76.14.42.191 above, I see a bit of bad faith in your comment about John Smith's (e.g. the reference to "the unresolved mystery") and there's really no need for that at all. I'm sure things have been tweaked over time, but from what I can remember the "response" section is largely as it was first worked out and agreed upon a couple of years ago, so the implicit suggestion that things have been sneakily removed is almost certainly just not accurate and is not a good thing to say regardless. Some of the stuff which was reinstated (I believe by you, it had a bunch of italics and such) was indeed rejected in the original discussion way back when. I doubt John has behaved in an underhanded fashion here.

As to two of Asdfg's points, I think it could be interesting to include some specific info about "misused sources" (as some of the critics characterize it) and the authors' response to those specific points. I know there is some of the former and I think there's some of the latter, but I also think it could get really hard to put that into a Wiki article. Ultimately you have to give someone the last word there, and the debate might be too esoteric to follow anyway.

As to the 150 word difference, I really don't think that's an issue and wouldn't even if it swung the other way (slightly more praise than criticism). I don't think word count is what really matters (rather the substance of the reactions and who said them), but if it did one could argue anyway that more weight should be given to the reviews of experts in the field, and those have undoubtedly been more negative than positive. If someone really has a problem with this I personally would have no issue with including some more positive commentary, I just don't think it's necessary.

Finally as a general note I would point out that the policy WP:PRESERVE is very much relevant to this discussion. That policy enjoins us to "try to preserve useful content" and I think that the detailed response sections are clearly that. If the prose or other stylistic/organizational aspects can be improved (and no doubt they can) then let's discuss and work on it, but simply deleting well-sourced, highly relevant information in an effort to tidy up a bit seems to me to go against policy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that we could add a bit more praise/trim a little criticism (if found to be redundant) to balance it up. We could also reduce the overall size a little bit by removing the publication details from the article (they're in the citations). However, I can't please people like Rjanag and Arilang who like a shorter version/one focused around the points of criticism made and people like Bigtimepeace and Asdfg who like it more as it is. This is clearly a disagreement in presentation that I tried to get feedback on, but as it was I could only work based on what was being said at the time. Perhaps if we held this discussion through the weekend we might get more feedback - alternatively we could ask for other views.

Is it really impossible to centre the sources around general points of support and criticism made? For example, given that Goodman already talks about the Da Vinci Code and fiction, is Timothy Creek's review necessary other than say a further citation somewhere? What I did in the sandbox was supposed to be a start, not an ideal revision.

I don't think this is a case of simply not liking something, I think it's more down to wanting better organisation and style in place of simply listing a set of reviews in a jarring fashion. John Smith's (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: More information is better than less. I like the policy on Preserve. Following that, we should not take out but add more. I also like the idea of not trying to count words, but just list all notable comments from different sources, even if they say the same thing but in different ways. More is better here. About what the other IP user said, I agree there is no need to insinuate anything sneaky with the motives of other editors he is disagreeing with. That is not helpful. Also, I don't care for the italics either. However, I do agree with his point about removing the info that he lists over the recent past and a lot of that info adds value to the article. It just so happens that a lot of that info taken out was of a more critical nature. I am sure it was just taking out to make it shorter. I am for adding more positive, as well. It doesn't matter. I get the feel that some of us here are trying to be advocates for or against this book. Its true I have no love for this book, but I'm not here to be partisan just make this article report all the facts. So I vote we put back and add more, and keep the article full of these details of how it was received. Yes, I know it can get a little bigger, but I think its worth it.98.207.245.65 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by to say I should be getting my hands on the book soon, so I will then be able to properly add the material with proper references as mentioned above, and fix those issues that most editors agree, now that we are keeping this format, it seems, as there is no consensus to change it around bullet points. I also won't speculate about motivations for those who took them out without consensus. I agree we shoudl have a proper reference, though, so I'll hold off until I get my hands on the book. Also, I'll be careful not to go too far back, as I had done, restoring parts that were rejected. It was just hard for me to track down at what point was the "consensus version." Now that I went back more carefully, I see I did restore things that preceded that. 76.14.42.191 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, whilst I'm interested to see if you find some novel arguments in the book I hope that you will get consensus from everyone here before you make changes to the main article. Remember that we have the sandbox to use for experimenting and proposing edits. John Smith's (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Has no one else been able to access this scholarly work so we can properly cite it and include the text, back, yet? I've been rather busy myself, but figured someone else might actually already have the book: http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Chinas-Past-Cultural-Revolution/dp/074532780X, which has a whole chapter, by the China specialist, devoted to Chang and Halliday's book. I read it, and it was great, but don't have the book with me anymore, and its taking me too long to get to it. Anyone else have access to it?76.14.42.191 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above work, referencing this work is also quite indispensable for this article. http://www.amazon.com/Was-Mao-Really-Monster-Contemporary/dp/0415493307 "Was Mao Really a Monster?: The Academic Response to Chang and Hallidays "Mao: The Unknown Story" (Routledge Contemporary China Series) Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday was published in 2005 to a great fanfare. The book portrays Mao as a monster – equal to or worse than Hitler and Stalin – and a fool who won power by native cunning and ruled by terror. It received a rapturous welcome from reviewers in the popular press and rocketed to the top of the worldwide bestseller list. Few works on China by writers in the West have achieved its impact.

Reviews by serious China scholars, however, tended to take a different view. Most were sharply critical, questioning its authority and the authors’ methods , arguing that Chang and Halliday’s book is not a work of balanced scholarship, as it purports to be, but a highly selective and even polemical study that sets out to demonise Mao.

This book brings together sixteen reviews of Mao: The Unknown Story – all by internationally well-regarded specialists in modern Chinese history, and published in relatively specialised scholarly journals. Taken together they demonstrate that Chang and Halliday’s portrayal of Mao is in many places woefully inaccurate. While agreeing that Mao had many faults and was responsible for some disastrous policies, they conclude that a more balanced picture is needed."

A short mention of this work, along with the quote from the Gao Mobo work, above, should suffice. These are relatively new works, and if this article is to remain up to date reflecting the scholarly discourse on it, we need to be sure to include mention of these works.76.14.42.191 (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Now now, editors keep on forgetting the title of this article. This article is about the "Book" itself, and also a bit about the authors. If editors feel that there are many critics or reviewers not yet covered, they should seriously start another aptly named article, put whatever critics names there, all the professors or specialists, or whoever they might be. Try to cram everything onto this article is just plain wrong, and make this article completely off balance. Arilang

^talk 12:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Arilang I'm confused by your reply. The first book mentioned above has an entire chapter about the Chang/Halliday book, the second book consists entirely of reviews/essays about the book (looking at the table of contents some of those are already cited in our article). It's completely arbitrary for you to argue that including any mention of them is "just plain wrong"—why is it wrong to mention a book length treatment of Mao: The Unknown Story? That's actually an ideal source, though if it's wholly critical we obviously have to mention that. Material was recently added and I'm going to edit it now because it was not NPOV, and it is still up in the air as to whether it gains consensus. I'm not going to be the one to do it, but it would be great if someone could read the chapter from Gao Mobo and the intro from the book of reviews and see if there is any useful info. Remember these sources could also be useful simply for describing the book itself (i.e. summarizing) in addition to providing detail on the academic reception. I'm agnostic as to what or how much we would want to include about/from these new sources, but there's no getting around the fact that it's striking for a press to publish an entire book of reviews of a popular academic book basically saying the book was no good. It's probably worthwhile simply to mention that fact. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have posted my comments in the wrong place yesterday, I am moving them here, followed by new comments below.

"As a graduate student in Modern Chinese History, I can safely say that users such as Colipon understand the matter most clearly. To quote another intelligent reader above, "I'd like to point out that "balance" should not falsely imply "equality' but reflect the fact that the amount of coverage should balance the general opinions in the academic world". Without sounding condascending, user John Smith's is substantially incorrect to state "only a tiny number of academics have given any feedback on this book. Your opinion is that, an opinion, even if you feel you are 100% right." In actual fact, this is not opinion, but established concensus among specialists. If you do the appropriate research, you and any other rational reader will come to the same conclusion. Particularly glaring is the belief that a "tiny number" of academics have weighed in. In actual fact, teh academic response to this book has been overwhelming and significantly broader than the average publication, even of scholarly stature. In fact, I have not in my studies ever seen anything quite like it. Perhaps you are not aware of the amount of reviews it has received. I would politely ask you to turn to an excellent historiographic essay written in 2006 by PhD student Brent Haas (http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/chinesehistory/pgp/brentmaoessay.htm) for an overview. Since that time, even more criticism has poured out of the academy. For these reasons, I have corrected the lead section of the article with what is currently accepted among historians, and added a new paragraph to the criticism section which I suggest you consult for recent additions to the debate. I strongly suggest that any future reversions be tempered by the necessary research and not personal affront at changes made to a public article. Dio free (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)"

Thanks for your comments Bigtimepeace, Arilang has also greatly confused me with his reply. I guess I did not make it clear that I have read all these books, and also own the Mobo Gao volume. I have conducted substantial research into the reception of this book and trust me when I say claiming the existence of a "consensus" is by no means a stretch. My reason for including the new paragraph at the end was for the very reason you state, it is indeed STRIKING that such a publication was deemed necessary at all. Arilang is completely off-point, everything I added was directly correlated to the article, I suggest he re-read before cutting the work of others. Also, I disagree that "adding" relevant information somehow makes an article "unbalanced"... perhaps he can clarify how this works. Introduction should be reverted back, it should certainly be clear that Jung Chang's previous book is NOT a factual account and is colored by the same hatred for Mao which skews the narrative. On this point I want to make it clear that I do not find Chang's feelings unjustified, hardly so, but there is also something fundamentally wrong in writing a "historical" book that sets out to confirm one's pre-existing notions. There is nothing "historical" or "academic" about that process. Before reverting articles, please provide some concrete and verifiable substantiation for your actions. Dio free (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry simply wanted to add that though I have not touched it, paragraph 2: "In conducting their research for the book over the course of a decade, the authors interviewed hundreds of people who were close to Mao Zedong at some point in his life, used recently published memoirs from Chinese political figures, and explored newly opened archives in China and Russia. Chang lived through the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, which she described in her earlier book, Wild Swans, and her experiences gave vividness to her writing and engagement to the analysis" needs some clarification. First of all, it is extremely difficult to verify how many interviews ACTUALLY took place, and for many that did, people have complained of being misquoted. Not only that, to claim that they were all "close to Mao" is in many cases a complete fabrication. The memoirs brings us to another question, which has also been criticized by several academic reviewers. The memoir of Li Zhisui (I own this) for instance, which is thoroughly mined by Chang and Halliday for fuel to fan their Mao bashing, is also not taken seriously by academics. It is so clearly the blind leading the blind here. Anyone reading this paragraph would be confused as to why criticism is deserved at all if so much "research" was conducted. I will avoid commenting on the Wild Swans section for now. Dio free (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 of lead

I would have gone bold and just striked the entire paragraph with a single edit - not only is it misleading, it is also hardly relevant. Do book articles always have to go into intricate descriptions of how many people were interviewed, and how 'vivid' its descriptions are? The paragraph also seems like a bit of a synthesis by select Wikipedia users rather than a summary of what has actually been said in the academic community. I did not delete it outright because I know this article is prone to edit warring, and I have had enough of that recently, and the drama that comes with it is just too mentally taxing. Colipon+(Talk) 06:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, please GO BOLD more often. DKF (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the book, not about Mao

Why do aditors need to be reminded again and again, that this article is about the "Book", is really beyond me. Let me put it this way, by last count(just a rough count), there are 151 lines of text, the "Praise" section has 31 lines, and "Criticism" has 48 lines. Adding up 31+48=79. Doesn't it tell us somethings? Commonsense tells us, the combined "Praise" and "Criticism" sections takes up more then 50% of the whole article. This is what I mean by "Off-balance".

Also, there indeed might be hundreds of scholars, sinologists, China experts, professors, they all line up to voice their opinions. Fair enough, scholars are free to have their own opinions, research papers, essays, or whatever. May be the number of critics have come to hundreds, or even thousands, or may be 350 millions of Chinese netizens have said that this book is a piece of rubbish. OK, why not start another article?

And user Dio free, the fact that you are a "graduate student in Modern Chinese History" has no bearing here. Wikipedia is open to everyone, and consensus is the ultimate goal, and every different schools of thought can have a say here. Arilang ^talk 04:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Granted, but what does have bearing is research and understanding. As you imply, Wikipedia is not a popular forum for people to post unsubstantiated ideas, but rather an academic (or at least informed) aggregate of current research. Overall consensus is irrelevant, but rather observations rooted in concrete and established fact. This is why I stress academic consensus, which has an established peer-review system by which authors are held accountable for their research. I don't believe you disagree on these points so I am perplexed why you complain about a small revision to bring the article's criticism section up to date. I don't believe starting another article will help matters, and certainly will only complicate them. Dio free (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arilang, who is saying the article is about Mao? No one so far as I can tell. You do realize that describing the reaction to a book (or any other creative work) should be a significant part of any Wikipedia article on a book? Mao: The Unknown Story is a tome and we cannot summarize it all (though if you want to expand the summary then have at it). We can do a good job explaining how the book was received and do so in a fairly thorough fashion. Undoubtedly this will be interesting to many readers. If you really think the response section needs its own article then propose that, or if you think we need to spend more time describing the book itself then work on that (as I said above academic reviews can actually help you do that). It's not entirely clear what you are complaining about specifically or what you are proposing as a solution which is part of the problem. Also it is not true that all different schools of thought get a say on this article, we will only discuss notable points of view, not, for example, a random blog post by someone who loved or hated the book. Finally while it's true that anyone is able to edit, there is nothing wrong with mentioning that one has academic expertise in a certain area (so long as that's actually true of course). Obviously we want editors particularly knowledgeable in a given subject area working on articles in that area. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To quote Bigtimepeace:

It's not entirely clear what you are complaining about specifically or what you are proposing as a solution which is part of the problem.

This seems to be a strange and illogical statement to me. What problem? I don't see any problem whatsoever. And about my complain, there is nothing unclear about it, at all. I have said so many times, and I shall say it again, the two sections combined (Praise and Criticism) is simply too large, it completely throws the article's structure out of balance. Isn't it clear enough? Arilang ^talk 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably my wording was not the best, but my point was that I did not understand if you were objecting to the most recent addition in particular as crossing some line whereby the section was too long, or if you thought the section was too long already. Apparently it's the latter. Regardless, I'm still not sure what you think we should do about it. To me we clearly have room to expand the article—overall it is not at all too long (a recent featured article on a piece of non-fiction was The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, which is considerably longer that what we have now, and that was just a magazine article!). If the concern is balance, I think the thing to do is to expand and rework the "The book" section (ideally we would add in some background info about how long it was worked on, the context for its publication, etc. as well). It's a long book, but I think we could do a much better job of summarizing it, and we can use both the book itself and the reviews to do that (in the past I read a lot of the latter but have not read the book itself). Is that the kind of solution you think would work? I would be all for that, whereas I don't think stripping away useful information in the interest of "balance" is at all advisable (WP:PRESERVE is quite relevant here). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

At last we agree on something. At the moment "The Book" sections have dealt with

• (1)The Crossing of Luding Bridge
• (2)Communist "sleepers"
• (3) Number of deaths under Mao only,
  

Topics covered by the book included

• (1) The cultivation of opium in Yan'an
• (2) The role of communists such as Zhou Enlai in Xi'an Incident
• (3) The role of Comintern in the Chinese revolution.
• (4) Mao's career as a mass murderer began at Anti-Bolshevik League incident
• (5) Who was doing the actual fighting in Second Sino-Japanese War, Mao, or Chiang Kai-shek?
• (6) Why did Mao started the Korean War?
• (7) How did Mao got his hand on the first Atom Bomb.

All the above topics are relevant to this article, and should at least worth a couple of sentences. It is the content that make up the book. That is what I mean by "off-balance", like at the moment, everybody just too busy adding "Praise and criticism", and the real content that should be there, is not there. Arilang ^talk 02:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your thoughts Ari/BTP. Bigtimepeace, it seems you have restated some of my own concerns much more clearly, thank you for that. I also appreciate the clarification of the education comment, I was not intending that in a pretentious way, merely to offer my services as best I can. I have to admit I am still a bit confused about the direction Arilang would like this article to take. It sounds to me like he wants a more thorough introduction of the book's content. I think Bigtimepeace's comments are especially valuable here when he suggests that using reviews is probably one of the best ways of doing this. If it was not already clear, this is simply because the academic reviewers are perhaps best placed among anyone to highlight what is, and what is not, an important contribution to the literature. In my opinion, the purpose of this article should not be to provide a "coles-notes" (spelling?) version of the book, but rather introduce the reader to its central claims, its authors, and reaction to it. The latter, of course, will undoubtedly be more substantial than in most articles because the response has been so incredibly immense. Perhaps this is what Arilang takes issue with, but I'm not sure. If the 'solution' (I too would like to hear possible solutions that can be discussed) simply entails adding a somewhat meatier content section, then please take a shot at it, and we will all do our best to help. I have a copy of the book and will be happy to contribute thoughts on particular sections. Nevertheless, I again want to restate (without repeating what has already been said) that the most significant part of this book, is not its content (mainly because it is either not new, or not substantiated) but rather the "phenomenon". Anyone reading this article should take with them a stern warning about this type of writing, and the value of the book's sensationalist claims in light of a thorough examination of the work by academics. The best way to do this, without making statements like "this book sucks", is to draw upon official academic responses. DKF (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes. First off the lead was a bit unbalanced. Second we shouldn't link to pages advertising a book for sale - that's obvious. As for Gao Mobo, what is the significance that a chapter was devoted to what some other guy (Benton) said? We should sparingly quote him (and use the page reference as a source) assuming that the material is new, or leave it alone.

We also need a specific citation for the last part. We shouldn't use the website blurb as "fact", we need to use the book. John Smith's (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that the article needs more on what the book says. We should all focus on expanding these parts. Only once that has been done to good amount should we revisit praise and criticism. As things are we just go around and around in circles, with minor changes (at best) being made. John Smith's (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit, which you called "some minor changes", was essentially a revert of Dio free's. To put it bluntly, it looks to me like going from one POV to another. One version focuses almost entirely on the criticism and downplays the praise (in fact, Dio free's version seemed to be mocking the praise), the other vice versa. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

John, the Gao Mobo chapter is not about "what some other guy (Benton) said." I'm not sure you read the passage carefully. The chapter is about the book Mao: The Unknown Story. Benton was mentioned because he blurbed the book as an excellent critique of Chang and Halliday's work (i.e. he was being quoted about Gao's book). I don't really care if that blurb quote stays or not, but it was an initial effort at describing the book chapter in some minimal way in terms of what it said about the Mao book. Wholesale removal was not called for and seems to be based on an incorrect impression so I'd ask you to revert that in some fashion.

Additionally, your changes to the brief description of Benton's 2009 collection of reviews were just sloppy. The only source was the description of the book on the publisher's page. That is not at all ideal, but it's better than nothing. You removed the source, but you are still quoting from it in your version. You then remove quotes from the second half of a sentence even though you are still using the language, altering it slightly to say "and show that the reviewers concluded that a more balanced picture of Mao was needed." That's very tortured wording, and would be the equivalent of saying that Mao: The Unknown Story "shows that Chang and Halliday concluded that Mao was bad" (that kind of passive wording is not good). You're going to have to explain why you have a problem with quoting the basic description of a book from a publisher's web site. It would obviously be better to quote the book itself (or a review) and we should do that, but there is no reason to doubt the basic description of the book on the publisher's web site as one which concludes "that a more balanced picture is needed."

I'll leave that for further discussion, but I need to adjust your edits to the intro right now as you have completely misrepresented the academic reaction to the book, highlighting the positive responses (which you know were in the minority) and suggesting that only "some" reviews criticized the book. That's the opposite of reality (again as you are well aware) and was highly inappropriate. The previous version was problematic too (which I didn't even notice) so I'll be striving for a more NPOV presentation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I know it's about Gao Mobo's book, but it doesn't quote from the book or say anything about the book other than the fact that Benton's criticisms are in there. I'm willing to consider some original, relevant and cited views from the Mobo book that deal with Mao, but I do not agree that we should have a blurb on it as things stand. Benton's criticisms are already raised in the article, nothing is gained by the reference to the book.

I certainly do object to citations pointing to "buy this book" pages. Even if no one has this in mind, it's not good to even give the impression that contributors might be pointing people towards certain websites so that they buy things. If this is the only source available, that is unfortunate but we will just have to live without a source for the moment. The book itself exists and can be quoted from/cited from. However, I wouldn't object to leaving out a citation for the moment and have re-worded the "purports..." line. I should point out that before I made the earlier change it read very badly - the sentence after the fullstop should not have been quoted.

Slow down a moment there, you're making it out like I made a new, "bad" change. The edit I made in relation to the lead was to move back to the "some criticism, some support" aspect that had been included in the lead for ages. Indeed last year when you were editing the page you did not seem to feel the need to change it. I am not suggesting that means you can't change it now, nor am I saying that it was better than what you changed it to, but I take exception to your attitude that this is somehow a new and controversial edit. John Smith's (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is my change to the last paragraph of the intro. I'm not wild about the phrase "national newspapers" as the site of publication for positive reviews (the predecessor "popular press" was also problematic) but I can't think of a good alternative at the moment and it is serviceable so I've left it for now. I think the rest is fine and pretty neutral—eschewing detail is one way to assure the intro does not come off unbalanced. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So, BTP, do you agree that we should put praise and criticism aside and actually improve the sections on the book? We can tweak the current sections we're working on to the end of time, but it's rather pointless if the reader is largely uninformed about much of the book. John Smith's (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. I'm not the best person to do that because I have never read the book. People who have could obviously do a much better job of summarizing it. There has never been anything preventing that from happening, I'm guessing it's just difficult to summarize a book that is so long.

And John you really need to fix your comments in reply to me above. You can't intersperse them with one of my remarks, and it makes it completely impossible for a reader to figure out what is going on. Please put your entire comment after mine (with appropriate indentation and reword it if necessary) and then I can reply to it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree. People come onto this article looking for 'reviews' of the book from scholars to determine whether they should read it at all; or come here after having read the book too see if what they just read was real history or just claims and assertions. This article has been hopelessly imbalanced in the past in making it seem like there is a 'balance' of 'praise' and 'criticism' for this book, and this is not a fair treatment of the book, nor does it serve the best interests of wikipedia's readers. Therefore the 'reception' section is arguably the most important section. Colipon+(Talk) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the "reception" portion is the most critical part of the article (whenever I read a Wikipedia article on a book, film, or album I tend to jump to the "critical response" section as I'm most interested in getting a sense of how the work was received by critics), but it's undoubtedly true that the book could be more usefully and thoroughly summarized. The two are not mutually exclusive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Colipon, I hate nothing more than looking up something on Wikipedia and finding a lack of detail on the thing I'm searching for even if there is more material on what people thought about it. If someone is already well versed in the subject and just looking for reviews, that would be fine. But we have to assume that the average reader wants to know more about everything (or knows little other than the title), and we can't inform them without getting the detail clear first. Put it like this, I doubt very much that the article would fail to achieve GA or FA status because of the lack of perfection of the review sections - it certainly would for lack of detail about what the book says. That's why we need to focus on that first. How much time have we spent trying to refine these parts of the article? Quite a lot, and we're still debating what needs to change. It makes sense to get the more objective parts of the article, those that talk about what the book says, right first. John Smith's (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I say go to it John, really. I've thought for a long time that we could expand and improve the discussion of the book itself, and I don't think anyone would really object, regardless of disagreement about what section is most important. As I said it's best if someone who has read the book takes an initial stab at revising the book section. I'm out the door now but I'll respond to your (John's) comments above later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see what I can do in the next few weeks, but I would much prefer that I can focus on that and we not have further disputes over the inclusion of further material in the praise/criticism sections. My energy tends to get sucked up when we go on about the same matter, and then I don't really fancy expending further time and energy trying to deal with expanding the article at the same time.

That said I'd be rather worried if I'm the only person here who has read the book. Surely someone can help? John Smith's (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I did read parts of it, but it was Chinese version. John, once you start I shall be able to back you up with more citations. Arilang ^talk 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read it, but for the past several weeks have not had the motivation to really work on the article. I try to keep an eye on it some, though. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

BTP, thank you for your work on the introduction. My head hurts a little less reading this version. I too have read the book (and own it), and would be happy to help on the summary section but I should note that on the whole, I agree with Colipon and BTP regarding where emphasis should be laid. Regarding Mobo Gao, I am somewhat confused as to why my paragraph was removed. His chapter was an original response to the book, not something already printed elsewhere and thus deserves note. Perhaps John can revert this. The wording of the paragraph on the Benton volume has also been revised in a strange manner, and I will take a crack at making a couple minor changes. DKF (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dio, you don't need to agree with the book to expand upon what it says in a neutral fashion. You can start helping today with new text.

As for the bit on Gao Mobo, as has been said many times this article is not about collecting every view of the book ever made. The reference to Mobo adds nothing new to the article. If it does, please provide the specific page citation and quotation that you find an important point that no already quoted source has made previously. I'm not exactly thrilled on Benton's book as it equally doesn't seem to add to the article much, but if it is a red-line for other people to include I could live with it as he was previously referred to and the work can be considered a continuation of his views.

One other thing, why did you ask me to revert the removal and then put it back in yourself? I'm not online 24 hours a day, it's reasonable to wait and let me respond to address your confusion. John Smith's (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

John: I am disturbed by your unilateral removal of content "as per talk" (see edit summary) when you are the only one in said "talk" who has made this argument (unconvincingly I may add). This is simply an opinion, nothing more. May I ask if you have read the Gao chapter? If so, please explain why it does not merit a place alongside the articles by Tsang, Spence, Cheek etc. DKF (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments on talk that I have just made. If you want to include it, it would help me if you explained why it does merit a place alongside the other reviews. Moreover even while we discuss how it's useful, you can help by expanding the points the book makes in a NPOV fashion. That's the work the article really needs. John Smith's (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if that bothered you but I saw that BTP had asked you to revert some time ago. Nothing had been done since then, and I suspected (correctly as I now see) that it would not have been done on your end. I sense that you have not read Gao so I am still mystified by your assertion that it adds nothing new. If you are really adamant, I will get my copy back today and post some citations for you. If you are so opposed, and several of us have tried to include it, it strikes me that the onus of proof should lie with you. In any case, even if the book does not present something new, Gao is yet another academic specialist whose harsh criticism of the book again demonstrates how negative this book is seen by historians. Though both Gao and Benton deserve a quick mention, your logic makes even less sense when you suggest keeping Benton but not Gao. DKF (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

BTP asked me to put it back in, and I explained why I wouldn't do so. I didn't ignore his point. If you felt that I wasn't going to comply you should have changed your comment after you put the reference back in.

I am confused why you are not getting to grips with my point. I am not saying that anything Gao says is invalid, I am suggesting that we should make reference in the article to something that he says which is useful to the reader and novel. There are so many people out there who have an opinion on the book, where do we draw then line and say "ok, that's enough" - never? This is not an article on "response to MTUS". If we need to include everything ever said on the book, we need another article. If we are to be selective then we must have reason for being selective. Furthermore as this is a book at the very least we can have a citation to the page where he makes the point.

Why have I allowed Benton's further bit to stand? Because I believe in compromise and do not try to get my way all the time. For the moment I have made a concession over Benton, that doesn't mean I now have to do the same for Gao given he's just another critic and so far I have no idea why he's being included. If I were to have my way I might not include Benton either. It's not as if I was the first person to object to your changes, Arilang did so before I had a chance to comment.

I would again urge you to focus on helping improve the other parts of the article that are hugely lacking. What is more important, including today one line on a critic or expanding the article to say what MTUS actually says? John Smith's (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as my objection is due to a concern about ever-increasing amounts of text that aren't novel/helpful, I would still be open to the inclusion of a reference to the Gao book if one of the other criticisms was removed. That way we can avoid the "review" section ever increasing in size. John Smith's (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot

I see that discussion above seems to have reached a bit of a standstill, so I'll poke my head in. I see this comment of mine has been mentioned quite a bit in the discussion. First of all, I want to point out that I never said (as far as I can remember) that the "praise" and "criticism" sections must be merged. It would be great if they could, but if there's too much material it's fine to keep them separate.

As for the idea of organizing the section by main points rather than reviews, what I had in mind was something like Not One Less#Themes. As you can see, that article doesn't literally use a list of bullet points, but it does devote a paragraph to each recurring point, and supports that point with references to multiple reviews (and brief quotes here and there). That article is an FA. The main point is, there's no reason to make a laundry list of "this reviewer said X. And that reviewer said Y. And...". That is what makes for boring reading (we're an encyclopedia, not an aggregator), and forces the reader to do all the work. Someone in the discussion above made a comment like "Andrew Nathan's review shouldn't be excluded, and I can't believe Spence gets only one sentence". This is the wrong way of thinking. We shouldn't be thinking, "How many sentences to give to the paragraph on Spence?", but "which points does Spence make—thus, which paragraphs should he be mentioned in?"

I have some experience with controversial China-related articles and with organizing reviews into main points, so I will take a stab at this sometime soon and share the results. Might take a couple days, though. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do. I would be interested to see what you can come up with. John Smith's (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

May be there really should be a new article in the line of The praise and criticism on M:TUS and that should make everyone happy? This is not intended to be a joke, in my POV this book is indispensable for anyone who are serious about mainland China, and Mao, of course. Arilang ^talk 08:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That subject material is far too specific for its own article. Best to wait to see what Rjanag does first. John Smith's (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please leave the lede alone

Please, we have sections such as "Praise" and "Criticism". Arilang ^talk 14:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that we can't just say "it became a bestseller", that's a bit misleading/lacks context. I think the previous version was generally fine. John Smith's (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, just do not like to see too many "Criticism" comments posted all over the place. The Communist Propaganda apparatus would like to project a positive image for Mao, that is why there are a lot of 50 Cent Party around. Arilang ^talk 00:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the lead is the perfect and correct place to introduce criticism, as the manual of style specifically says, "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." And Arilang, would you please stop throwing spurious accusations of being on Communist payrolls around? The criticisms of the book in this article are thoroughly scholarly, and not political. Quigley (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a summary of praise and criticism belongs in the lede. On the other hand, I'm not sure if it's necessary to put a particular spotlight on one review, with several quotes from that review, as is done here; is there something that makes this one review more notable than all the rest? I don't know if there is, but without that knowledge this looks to me like undue weight. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are so many reviewers around, some say the book is good, some say the book is bad, Mobo Gao is only one of the reviewers, so what? Arilang ^talk 02:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Like Rjanag I don't think that one review should be singled out for the lead. I have therefore reverted to an earlier version that keeps the brief summary of explaining that there has been praise and criticism - but nothing else. As it stood previously it seemed to be a case of undue weight. John Smith's (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Professor Mobo Gao, Director, Confucius Institute and Professor of Chinese Studies, as far as I know, all those Confucius Institutes around the world are under the control of HanBan, http://english.hanban.org/node_7719.htm, "Hanban/Confucius Institute Headquarters, as a public institution affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education," that means Confucius Institutions around the world are funded and controlled by the Chinese Government, that means Professor Mobo Gao is funded by the Chinese Government, of course he has to promote the PRC (and Mao) official image. No wonder. He is the biggest 50 Cent Party of them all. Arilang talk 02:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC) “ Confucius Institute Confucius Institutes (simplified Chinese: 孔子学院; traditional Chinese: 孔子學院; pinyin: kǒngzǐ xuéyuàn) are non-profit public institutions that aim to promote Chinese language and cultureand support local Chinese teaching internationally. The headquarters is in Beijing and is under the Office of Chinese Language Council International (colloquially, Hanban (汉办)). Many scholars characterize the CI program as an exercise insoft power where China "sees the promotion of its culture and its chief language, standard Mandarin, as a means of expanding its economic, cultural, and diplomatic reach."[1] ” OK, isn't it very clear, Professor Mobo Gao is an employee of the Chinese Government, HanBan, of course he has to say nasty thing about this book, simply because this book say nasty things about Mao, The Beloved Leader of the Chinese Revolution. I would put Mobo Gao in the same turf with Han Suyin and Edgar Snow. Arilang talk 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC) HanBan employee Mobo Gao http://www.confucius.adelaide.edu.au/people/mobogao.html User Quigley, Mobo Gao is officially an employee of HanBan, which is a propaganda apparatus of the Chinese Government, I don't think his opinion deserved a place on the lead section. Arilang talk 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC) “ Confucius Institute In Australia, university teachers have objected to CIs. When the University of Sydney was negotiating to establish a Confucius Institute, some professors called for it to be segregated from the Chinese studies department. Jocelyn Chey, a visiting professor at Sydney and former diplomat with expertise in Australia-China relations, criticized CI "as a propaganda vehicle for the Chinese communist party, and not a counterpart to the Goethe Institute or Alliance Française."[12][13] Considering the close links between the CI, Chinese government, and Communist Party, Chey warned "this could lead at best to a "dumbing down" of research and at worst could produce propaganda."[14] When a CI was established at the University of Melbourne, members of the Chinese studies department objected to it being located within the faculty of arts, and the CI was set up away from the main campus.[15] ” OK, look likes Sydney U and Melbourne U do not like to be associated with "a propaganda vehicle for the Chinese communist party", so can we conclude that Mobo Gao is working for the Chinese communist party? Arilang talk 03:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I wasn't arguing for Mobo Gao's inclusion in the lead, which was placed there by an inexperienced editor quite recently. I was arguing for the preservation of the longstanding general statement about the book's negative reception in independent academia, of whom Gao or his opinions are not representative. Whether Gao is independent or not, or whether his views merit inclusion in the criticism section, which up until this point has been pretty impeccable to accusations like these, is a different issue. As you indirectly point out, the Confucius Institutes article is confused in some places, and needs work to make very clear and factual statements about the Institutes' origins and connections. At present, the relationship you conjecture between Gao and the government, or between the Confucius Institutes and the government for that matter, is not grounded enough in facts or references to reliable sources for my liking, but if you have a burning desire to excise Gao's name from the page, just keep the note of general criticism, and if nobody wants to vindicate Gao now, this issue can be revisited later. Quigley (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Gao is an employee of the Chinese government, no one can deny it. And the relation between CI and HanBan and the Chinese government is very clear, there is nothing "if" or "what" about it. And on the Adelaide CI homepage, there is a telephone number, anyone can just ring up and ask him, like who sign for his paycheck. It is that simple. Gao's opinion is biased towards the CCP, exactly the same reason Li Changchun has to say nice things about CCP. It is that simple. Arilang talk 04:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Under that logic, employees of a local International Campaign for Tibet branch are employees of the U.S. Government, and therefore their publications reflect the views of the U.S. Government, because that organization gets funding from the National Endowment for Democracy under the United States Congress. Does the fallacy become more clear once the Chinese bogeyman is temporarily subtracted from the question? Li Changchun is a top public relations figure for the PRC. The comparison is at the height of absurdity. Quigley (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Arilang, please redact your statement. It is a lie and a violation of WP:BLP. University professors receive their paychecks from the university, even in cases where their chair is directly tied to one outside source of funding. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC) User Petri Krohn, it is very easy to find out who is Mobo Gao's employer, all you need to do is ring his office and ask. Better still, you can ask Gao to create a wiki article of himself, and make a statement on his homepage. Wouldn't it solve all the speculation and doubt? Arilang talk 04:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC) I have taken the issue to the BLP noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mobo Gao. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Well, fallacy or not, please have a look at The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers, in case you don't know, all the Chinese schools, universities, factories, companies, the top person is the Political commissar#Chinese military , does it ring a bell yet? Arilang talk 05:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) What? Quigley (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Please have a look at Grand External Propaganda Strategy#Confucius Institutes to be set up all over the world . Arilang talk 06:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC) So what? Most Western universities accept outside funding and concern has been raised that it limits academic freedom. So far Wikipedia has not disqualified Western universities because of their funding. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) First of all, Confucius Institute is not a University. It is an institution to teach Chinese language. Second, Chinese top leader Li Changchun stated very cleary: “ During an inspection of the Hanban late last month, Li Changchun, one of the nine members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo in charge of ideology and propaganda, stressed that the construction of Confucius Institutes "is an important channel to glorify Chinese culture, to help Chinese culture spread to the world", which is "part of China's foreign propaganda strategy". http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IE24Ad02.html ” Arilang talk 04:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The above argument is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not to include review material in the lede. Several editors have already pointed out that, for reasons of [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight, summaries of specific reviews do not belong in the lede regardless of whose they are. If you want to have an argument about whether Gao's review belongs in the article at all, that should be held in a different context; as it is this argument is entirely off-topic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)