Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Why is the entry of Mao Zedong no one will send him to the selection of GA?

I think the facts are more objective and clear, and the main literature sources are also cited in the article, not to mention that there is not much personal worship and excessive publicity, why is no one willing to send the entry of Mao Zedong to the GA selection? Sieats macedonia (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't even think this article qualifies as A-Class. It's still messy, has a lot of disputable content, and is just overall problematic. I'd love to see it reach GA, or even at least A, but given the potential for fighting here if someone tried to rework it I don't think it's likely to happen. Amyipdev (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Issue with particular wording

The usage in the introductory paragraph of "autocratic and totalitarian" is problematic. There is room for debate over both words; the mass line and local distributed governance were quite powerful, with the national vanguard leading coordination and enforcing dialectics. While the majority consensus of liberal/bourgeois scholars may be that this is accurate - thus why, while I would support it, I am not actively advocating for the removal of these words - I believe a more Wikipedia:NPOV could be used here. I'd personally support "Some describe his rule as", but even "Many describe his rule as" would be fine. Dissenting opinion in that section would also be great to be present, but not strictly necessary. Amyipdev (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit problematic. The sentence also seems to imply that the cultural destruction caused by the Cultural Revolution was commanded by Mao, which I don't think is exactly true.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Upland fully agree with you there. How do you think it should be changed, and if so could you make the edit? Amyipdev (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated. I don't have a solution handy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I made an attempt at addressing the issue you raised. I moved the sentence into legacy with some revisions along the lines you proposed and also to better tie to the source. In one sense, this is an easy edit, as we ought not to have things in the lead not discussed elsewhere in the article body.

On a broader sense, as is often the case with Mao, the facts are contradictory. On one hand I understand the basis for the sources that label China under Mao as "totalitarian," but on the other Mao also encouraged a radically democratic form of mass politics, particularly during the Cultural Revolution. Which, on the other-other-hand, he also had helped repress. Yiching Wu's "The Cultural Revolution at the Margins" is useful on this point. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Love the way you made the edit. Fixed up a grammatical issue (there was an extra "the"), but I think we got this resolved well. Amyipdev (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad I could be helpful. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Once I get auto confirmed I'll work something out. Amyipdev (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Rudolph Rummel not Credible as a Source

As said in cited article [3]: His work is disregarded as polemical, but has a strange life online, where it is cited regularly by anyone who wants to score a quick victory for Mao. Not much reliable, the correlated wording seems to be biased in ways, such as the number 80 million in deaths do not comprehend the truth in the said unreliable source coming of 77 million deaths is only upscaled, only to produce bias among the reader, the article's heading only tends to be more farcical and comparetive against people to their death rates, thus being bias. As so it happens to be with the book the article in research to reach that number literally. A more credible number as said in source would be 35 Million, as estimated by Chinese journalist Yang Jisheng or even 45 million in number is more credible than 80 million as said in current article. -Jimmy 103.145.73.82 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Mao’s siblings not listed

Mao’s siblings, to my knowledge, all died in the course of the period of war against Japanese colonialism and then the civil war with the Kuomintang. Mao’s siblings are listed on Wikipedia, and noted as children of Mao’s father on Wikipedia. However, they are not present in the information card on Mao in this article.

His children and parents are listed, but his siblings have not been added. I would strongly suggest that someone add the list of his siblings to the information card. Even among many non-academics otherwise quite knowledgeable on Mao and this period of Chinese history, who may know of the death of one of his sons (and in some cases mistake the death of his brother Mao Zemin as the death of another son) — this knowledge is unfortunately absent.

It most likely had a profound personal effect on Mao, and while this is not very relevant to the political or historical sections of the article, it is certainly an essential biographical detail. 80.208.66.141 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on the name of the CPC

Throughout the article, the party that now governs China is referred to as the CCP. However, the party's official name in English is the Communist Party of China (CPC) not the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There is no reason no to call the party by its official name, and I propose to change the name it is called in the article from CCP to CPC. Dialecticalish (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. The accurate name is "Communist Party of China" or "CPC" and that's what we should use. I view it as a perpetual ding on Wikipedia's credibility that the correct name is rarely used.

The key issue is WP:Global. We have to recognize institutional forms of bias caused by who Wikipedia editors are, and what their language abilities are. As WP:Global observes, "Most English-speaking (native or non-native) contributors to Wikipedia are American or European, which can lead to an American or European perspective." In the case of the naming of the CPC, that has resulted in the unfortunate use of "CCP" which, while not correct, is more common in anglophone sources.

Proponents of the incorrect usage often cite the WP:Commonname policy. They're wrong. That policy applies to article titles. Even then, it makes the point that the common name in reliable English-language sources will generally be appropriate because it will satisfy the five criteria for article naming. There are arguments to be had about this policy on Chinese Communist Party (a page that used to have the correct title, and where article titling discussions on this issue recur), but those are not germane to writing "CCP" or "CPC" in an article body. Even in the article title context, the five criteria for article naming actually support "Communist Party of China" or CPC.

Next there is a practical matter. We have an editor who rigorously checks China-related articles for reference of "CPC" and changes it to the incorrect but more common in anglophone sources "CCP." So this is easily the sort of thing that could devolve into an edit war. Ultimately, you have to decide how to edit Wikipedia in way that you find fulfilling. But I wouldn't want you to be discouraged and bog down in the CPC/CCP back-and-forth. That being said, your work to establish consensus on the talk page is a great way to get started. I merely suggest that working on substantive, well-sourced additions, may be more fulfilling.

TL;DR: You're correct, I agree, but it may be contentious so don't get frustrated. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd read Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2020_July#2020_July, Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Requested_move_19_October_2022, and Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#CCP_vs_CPC. Anyhow an editor stated that the "Communist Party of China" English name was adopted officially in the 2000s, and "Chinese Communist Party" is a valid way of translating 中国共产党 ("Chinese" being an adjective). The English Wikipedia article uses "CCP" because most English language publications use that name. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Mao: The Unknown Story" is not reliable as a source.

This book has been repeatedly criticized for the misuse and highly biased interpretation of primary sources.

The 2009 anthology Was Mao Really a Monster: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story", edited by Gregor Benton and Lin Chun, brings together fourteen mostly critical previously published academic responses, including the reviews from China Journal. Benton and Lin write in their introduction that "unlike the worldwide commercial media, ... most professional commentary has been disapproving." They challenge the assertion that Mao was responsible for 70 million deaths, since the number's origin is vague and substantiation shaky. They include an extensive list of further reviews.

Benton, Gregor; Chun, Lin, eds. (2010). Was Mao Really a Monster?: The Academic Response to Chang and Halliday's "Mao: The Unknown Story" (1st ed.). Routledge. pp. 9–11. ISBN 9780415493307.

Gao Mobo, Professor of Chinese Studies at the University of Adelaide, wrote that the book was "intellectually scandalous", saying that it "misinterprets evidence, ignores the existing literature, and makes sensationalist claims without proper evidence."

Gao, Mobo (2008). The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution. Pluto Press. p. 11. ISBN 9780745327808.

British historian and public intellectual Tariq Ali criticized the book for its focus "on Mao's conspicuous imperfections (political and sexual), exaggerating them to fantastical heights, and advancing moral criteria for political leaders that they would never apply to a Roosevelt or a Kennedy"; Ali accused the book of including unsourced and unproven claims, including archival material from Mao's political opponents in Taiwan and the Soviet Union whose reliability are disputed, as well as celebrity interviewees, such as Lech Wałęsa, whose knowledge of Mao and China are limited. Ali compared the book's sensationalist passages and denunciations of Mao to Mao's own political slogans during the Cultural Revolution.

Ali, Tariq (November 2010). "On Mao's Contradictions". New Left Review. No. 66. Retrieved 20 November 2021.

And I quote:

"[The book is] not a history in the accepted sense of a reasoned historical analysis" and "[rather it] reads like an entertaining Chinese version of a TV soap opera." Cheek, Timothy (January 2006). "The New Number One Counter-Revolutionary Inside the Party: Academic Biography as Mass Criticism". The China Journal. University of Chicago Press (55): 109–118. doi:10.2307/20066122. JSTOR 20066122. S2CID 145453303. Quotes at pp. 110.

"[Chang and Halliday] misread sources, use them selectively, use them out of context, or otherwise trim or bend them to cast Mao in an unrelentingly bad light." Benton, Gregor; Tsang, Steven (January 2006). "The Portrayal of Opportunism, Betrayal, and Manipulation in Mao's Rise to Power". The China Journal. University of Chicago Press (55): 95–109. doi:10.2307/20066121. JSTOR 20066121. S2CID 144181404. Quote at p. 96.

"According to many reviewers of [Mao: The Unknown Story], the story told therein is unknown because Chang and Halliday substantially fabricated it or exaggerated it into existence."Karl, Rebecca E. (2010). Mao Zedong and China in the twentieth-century world : a concise history. Durham [NC]: Duke University Press. pp. ix. ISBN 978-0-8223-4780-4. OCLC 503828045. 2804:29B8:512F:7D:ED36:5E9C:A4C9:99B0 (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Terrible source and there's just so much more out there on Mao and the Mao era that is rigorous and intellectually honest. I'd urge people to find better sources than Chang & Halliday. Lots of great academic texts out there that are still very readable, including the Karl book you quoted. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: This is one reason I like to write Wikipedia articles on academic books and mass market books used as sources by Wikipedians: this helps Wikipedians to contextualize the sources they use and make it easier to find if a source has a good reputation or not. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. And an inspiring one - it makes me want to look for more opportunities where I can contribute to articles on texts, academics, or authors. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I handled this, thank you for raising. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That was awesome. Thanks a lot! - Clemens 2804:29B8:512F:7D:B90:9739:B3ED:2B68 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead neutrality?

I'm a bit concerned about the neutrality of the last paragraph in the lead. Although the sentences on Mao's positive contributions is accurate, I think the last paragraph may need to be restructured to be like "Widely considered to be one of the 20th century's most important figures...Mao has remained a controversial figure...praised for transforming China...criticized for vast number of deaths...he was also a political theorist and military strategist...China was involved with many South Asian conflicts."

I think this may bring the article in line with other figures such as Vladimir Lenin, but I'd like to ask the talk page first. Thoughts anyone? The Night Watch (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand the edit as you presented it, but I agree with the general notion of tightening up the lead. There is some silly language including "communist conflicts" that ought to be removed, for example. This might be an instance where you want to WP:BEBOLD so there's a concrete edit to discuss on Talk if editors object. The talk page here is generally fairly quiet. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

Coddlebean (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)I want to replace the current picture with a more official one of Mao: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mao_Tse-tung_-_panoramio.jpg

 Not done: The image file in the article is the official portrait, and the file you have provided has an ongoing dispute about its authorship. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

misspelling of bourgeosie

in the 5th paragraph 2nd sentence under "Leadership of China" we see burgeoisie instead of bourgeoisie. This should be corrected, as it is a key term in socialist thought.

The Campaign to Suppress Counter-revolutionaries targeted bureaucratic burgeoisie, such as compradores, merchants and Kuomintang officials who were seen by the party as economic parasites or political enemies. In 1976, the U.S. State department estimated as many as a million were killed in the land reform, and 800,000 killed in the counter-revolutionary campaign. Calaverasgrandes (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Dreadful misspelling, I have fixed it. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible incorrect grammar

At the last line of the section “Death and aftermath”, shouldn’t it be “pay their respects” instead of “pay its respects”? Tsukasa Mizugaki (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, because the noun is “nation.” But thank you for checking. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

Please remove this hyphenation for "Kim Il-Sung", which is now a redirect. 112.204.197.139 (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Final paragraph - legacy - nuclear weapons development

There’s no mention of the development of a nuclear deterrent as a part of his legacy leaving China to become a leading power - this is an oversight. Rustygecko (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point, nuclear weapon development and its implications should be included. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Category - socialist feminists

I wasn't the editor who added this, but I agree it fits. Pinging @Vipz, anything specifically on your mind that you think should be talked through? JArthur1984 (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree it fits.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's re-add it for now. There wasn't a specific objection stated for the removal, but we can collectively talk it through more if there is one. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Rousseau, not "Rosseau"

Minor error in the name of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the Early Life section: "Mao also read translations of works by Western authors including Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rosseau" "u" missing in the first part of Rousseau. The link behind the name is correct GerminalParis (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Given the way this was link, the miss-spelling looked deliberate, but I can't think of a good reason why anyone would do that. Strange... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Are all those quotesboxes really necessary?

This is such an odd article, I don't think any other article on Wikipedia eulogizes a person the same way this one does, it borders on hagiography. The Legacy section almost looks like the back cover of a New York Times bestseller, plastered with reviews of Mao, talking about what a great man he is. "Eternal rebel", "incredible", "history records no greater achievement" yes, because apparently Fairbanks is the arbiter of all of history. Same with the other quote boxes scattered around the article, which contain everything from Mao's poetry to random things he said. If it can't be worked into the body of the article, I don't think it should be kept. How about we leave the quotes in Wikiquotes? Meeepmep (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No, they are not needed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

They are worked into the body of the article. Y-S.Ko (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So, what do they tell us? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

They are famous things Mao said, and they tell us about his character.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

They show he was a murderous despot? Wikipedia loves the Mao. 124.170.115.200 (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Mao controversial figure?

“Mao remains a controversial figure within and outside China.” Mao may be controversial outside China, but inside China he certainly isn’t. Mao is considered to be not much less than a god by most Chinese. Do we need Chinese sources to support this? Rustygecko (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s an unnecessary “fluff” statement. I have deleted it for now. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of this, after the Cultural Revolution, the rise of Scar literature and liberalism have contributed a significant criticism towards him. Often not a direct criticism, but indirect criticism of him through accusations of cruelty in the policies of the period.

Mao is considered to be not much less than a god by most Chinese. It is not, or, at least not always. Even about fifteen years ago some official medias held a very critical opinion towards his legacies, especially of those related to the Cultural Revolution and Red Guards. (1, 2, 3) ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Besides, I compared it to several other articles (including Stalin, Lenin, and George Washington) and think that it might need to be rewritten, and while saying "controversial" seems very NPOV, just deleting it makes the reader feel like something is missing. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I certainly don’t mind being reverted on this point.

We already have a source in the article for the frequent Chinese summary of Mao as 70 correct and 30 incorrect. We might adapt that for the lead.

your point about scar literature and liberalism in China are correct too JArthur1984 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I am wondering if there is a better way to display. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 17:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there may be. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: I'll try if I can rewrite it better. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Would we describe other similar leaders eg Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot as merely controversial? While noting that inside China he is still held in very high esteem. Rustygecko (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rustygecko: What do you mean? The word "controversial" has gone, and I personally think the description is okay now. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 13:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Describing Mao as controversial is like describing Hitler as a little controversial. He is undoubtedly the most murderous person who has ever lived, his genocides killed more than Genghis Khan, Atilla the Gun, Stalin by double and Hitler by a factor of five. The only living human on pace to catch up with him is Chairman Xi. 207.153.3.21 (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"潤芝¹" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 潤芝¹ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § 潤芝¹ until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

I suggest adding Mao Zedong's courtesy name Runzhi to the first sentence of the article, immediately following his name. Xiliman (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pinchme123 (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant section with unreliable source?

"Despite being considered a feminist figure by some [by whom?] and a supporter of women's rights, documents released by the US Department of State in 2008 show that Mao declared women to be a "nonsense" in 1973 ... "

This paragraph seems irrelevant to the Cultural Revolution section because there's no mention that Mao heavily promoted feminism in China during this time, besides in the main article on the Cultural Revolution.

Also the US DoS is an unreliable source.

The paragraph should either be better incorporated, moved to a later section, or removed entirely. Quinton-Ashley (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not sourced to the US DoD. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, not directly but the news channels that printed the story cite the US DoS released documents (Henry Kissinger) as their only source. Seemingly there's no other source that could corroborate the story so it seems hard to prove or disapprove, yet it is stated as fact. It should instead use phrasing like "According to the US Department of State, Mao said ... ". Quinton-Ashley (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so troubled by the State Department issue, as this is attributed. However, the first two links are broken and the first part of the paragraph is SYNTH in that it draws a contrast not made by the sole remaining source (i.e. "Despite" being a feminist politically, Mao said some lousy things about women to Kissinger...). This may also raise on UNDUE issue. I'll make at least an initial edit on this point. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong age of Luo Yixiu

The article states: Luo was locally disgraced and died in 1910 at 21 years old.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_Yixiu, she was 20 when she died (if you take a look at her birth and death dates).

I can't change it due to page protection, but maybe someone else can. ––TobbiM (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation

Please add the IPA pronunciation of this man's name. Is his first name said the same as the bird mao? 1.126.109.198 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect year on Mao's infobox portrait?

The caption reads "Mao in 1959" but the image on Wikimedia Commons says "Mao Zedong 1963", so which year is it? 1959 or 1963? If 1959 is incorrect, please switch it over to 1963, and vice-versa if 1963 is incorrect. HelloTHERE123456 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Not for nothing but the first edits on the page were in American English. Was there a discussion about why Mao had notably closer ties to the United Kingdom somewhere in the textwall archives? or is this something we should remove from the talk page banners and fix when someone has a mind to? — LlywelynII 12:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

English was the sole official language of Hong Kong until 1978, and remains an official language in Hong Kong — a territory ceded directly to China by the UK only a few decades ago.

Unsurprisingly, HK English is far closer to the English spoken in England than the English spoken in America. Foxmilder (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a weak argument, especially when Hong Kong English is an engvar. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 01:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not an especially strong argument on its own, but there are strong historical links between the British Empire and the Chinese world, including some territories that were under British rule before the ROC and/or PRC existed.

My initial reply was rather narrow, but there is a broader case to be made here that China has a strong national link with UK English.

An example: the Treaty of Nanking, adopted in 1842, was written, signed, and ratified in both English and Chinese. Admittedly, this was shortly followed by a similar unequal treaty imposed upon China by the United States, the Treaty of Wanghia.

Nonetheless, it remains the case that the first of the pivotal unequal treaties ratified by the Chinese emperor took the form of parallel Chinese and UK English texts. Furthermore, this treaty — unlike that signed with the United States — came at the end of a full-scale military conflict between the UK and Qing China, the historical significance of which was considerable. It resulted in the formal loss of territory (Hong Kong) to the British, and is often cited as marking the beginning of the Chinese century of humiliation. Foxmilder (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)