Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Jan 26 edits

It seems an anonymous users has made substantial edits to the page[1], removing nearly all accounts of persecutions and deaths under land reform and removing references. In the place of the previous content, user has added glowing accounts of land reform sourced to Chinese government websites. I haven't reviewed the edits carefully yet (they are substantial), and will wait for user to post a reply before attempting to address them, but I hope to see a good explanation.Homunculus (duihua) 19:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC) An Addendum: some of the content that was removed probably deserved to be rewritten somewhat. As difficult as it may be for people affected by such things, it is both possible and desirable to describe these campaigns in a more dispassionate manner. That said, major changes should be made with care and high quality sources.Homunculus (duihua) 20:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reducing the early years of the PRC to nothing but a massive bloodbath is contrary to rules about NPOV, as there is a lot of literature out there showing that concrete, positive changes took place. The agrarian reform, as this summarizes[2], did away with China's feudal system and benefited more than 300 million peasants by distributing land to them. However, instead of discussing the effects of land reform and noting how the landlords were merely brought down to a more equal level with the rest of the rural population rather than condemned to death, this article reduces the process solely to anecdotes about how "significant numbers of landlords and well-to-do peasants were beaten to death" And what's the source for this? It's a self-published book by Philip Short that does not have footnotes or endnotes for readers to verify his claims. Short's book may be valuable about some details about Mao's life or personality, but is not useful as a general overview of Chinese political and economic history: there are far more helpful sources for such areas.

Regarding the struggle vs. counter-revolution, this article again conjures up stories about an indiscriminate bloodbath, summarized with "there was also the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries,[35] which involved public executions". There is not a single word about how China years after the founding of PRC in Oct. 1949 was still in a state of Civil War against pro-Kuomintang forces, local bandits, etc that operated in a large part of the country's territory; Han Suyin says that these forces numbered more than 400,000 men. Xinhua perfectly summarizes the situation here and here. Chinese historians would argue that revolutionary Chinese forces took legitimate self-defense measures against the violent enemy i.e. pro-Kuomintang forces.

And then there's the claim

"Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas"

Which amounts to blatant OR. The cited source comes from a Chinese think tank[3] based in the West - not reliable . Such claims should at the very least be properly attributed, and consideration should be given to counter-arguments.

"A climate of raw terror developed"

Above again is from Short, who is given undue weight in the article.

And then there's a whole bunch of sloppy estimates cited, with sources combined to produce stuff that doesn't exist in published literature.

Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949–53.

The source for this is an article by Yang. He cites a speech by Mao, which has been translated in English and is available online. NOWHERE in this speech does Mao refer to any such figure, so the above sentence does not belong.

However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution",[39] the number of deaths range between 2 million[39][40] and 5 million.[41][42] In addition, at least 1.5 million people,[43] perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million,[44] were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished.[44]

Han Suyin discusses the struggle vs. counter-revolution in her book Wind in the Tower. She says that there was a "brief reign of terror" and that the number of repressed amounted to "800,000 people were shot, jailed, sent to labor camps", including 11,000 executed in June 1951. None of the other sources are of comparable quality on this issue, but instead amount to the compiling of claims from other authors. The book by Mosher that's been cited is inappropriate because his book focuses on entirely different areas. Xylophage (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Changchun siege

In 1948, under direct orders from Mao, the People’s Liberation Army starved out the Kuomintang forces occupying the city of Changchun. At least 160,000 civilians are believed to have perished during the siege, which lasted from June until October. PLA lieutenant colonel Zhang Zhenglu, who documented the siege in his book White Snow, Red Blood, compared it to Hiroshima: “The casualties were about the same. Hiroshima took nine seconds; Changchun took five months.”

The above claim will be removed because of policies on NPOV, attribution, and reliable sources. The source for the above passage is New York Times, hardly qualified to investigate Chinese history.

Chinese Wiki summarizes the work of Chinese scholars on the topic:

" 共产党方面则认为，造成大量平民饿死是国军不肯放粮给城内市民所致。作为围城方，解放军不可能突破防线放粮给人民。而国军宁肯眼睁睁让大量饥民饿死也不肯交出城池。 "

--With Google translating the above that the Chinese Communist Party observers believe that the hard situation was caused by misguided Kuomintang strategy. If Chinese-speaking editors can help elaborate, it'd be great.

Contrary to claims cited in NY Times, Chinese sources show that rather than starving people, the Communists provided relief to the people, as this image shows

These Chinese sources elaborate on the liberation of Changchun: [4] [5] . Xylophage (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This must be a joke. The New York Times is not a reliable source for Chinese history and should be replaced by the NPOV statements of the Chinese Communist Party? Is this contributor the same one who was banned as a sockpuppet last week? Consider yourself user checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgr09 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New York Times is not a reliable source of Chinese history. The Times primarily focuses on America and is a quality source for current events, but not Chinese history because there exist hundreds of sources about the Chinese Revolution by experts on the topic. The cited article refers to a controversial book from a discredited, disgraced military officer who has an agenda to push, stating his disputed allegations as the Truth. There are plenty of other sources, as shown above, showing how the KMT was largely to blame for the hard conditions of Changchun, none of which are considered in the article, which is contrary to NPOV rules. Either all sides about the Changchun battles should be mentioned in the article, or else the biased version of events that currently exists should be removed. My Chinese is not good, so I cannot improve that part by myself.Xylophage (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm skeptical, and will look into this in more depth when I have a moment. Chinese sources, written under the CCP, are notoriously unreliable on such things. Generally speaking, NYTimes is considered reliable, though if there is a demonstrable reason why it is not in this particular regard, we can take that into consideration. Would you care to explain why you stripped Dikötter out of the page[6]? His work on the GLP is the best source available. Before making such massive revisions, I would advise trying to establish consensus with other editors. Homunculus (duihua) 21:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dikotter's book is controversial and is given undue weight, with lengthy block quotations.

You state that pro-CCP accounts are "notoriously unreliable". Such stuff may or may not be wrong, but we're not here to decide that. Since there are different opinions about Changchun, they should all be summarized in the article for NPOV. For example, "Chinese dissident officer argues...But Chinese Communists and historians argue..."

Concerning the NY Times, all the article does is repeat the claims of a dissident Chinese career military man and states them as truth. There is no consideration given to other views of the Changchun battle. An editorial from the NY Times is not reliable for Chinese history, but is a good source for many other things.Xylophage (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mao DeDong

Maybe is more correct Mao DeDong than Mao Zedong. Or add also this spelling...
Especially in the North, where people now speak PaTonGua, the official language of govern.
Probably Zedong is more correct in the south, where people speak cantonese more...
Or was correct in the past, but PANTAREI, all always change. Especially China now.
But is always the CHAIRMAN for chinese people also today.
Recently in TianAnMan I have seen a lot of Ciu EnLai, vicepresident of Mao.

DeDong why are two chinese characters, so is more evident than in simply Dedong...
for easier the correct speaking accent...

So for all names of town, most are two characters.
For example BeiJing (North Capital) or NanJing (South Capital).
This arrive until VietNam or HaNoi, that in the past was part of South Ming empire until about 1650. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.207.50.162 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The doubling of population mentioned in same sentence as death toll in lede

It reads: "While China's population almost doubled during the period of Mao's leadership[7] (from around 550 to over 900 million),[3][5] his rule from 1949 to 1976 is believed to have caused the deaths of 40 to 70 million people." I'm not sure who inserted this, but that the doubling of the population under his leadership is being mentioned in *the very same sentence* as the death toll, and right before it, is *obviously* an attempt by someone to minimize the latter, and as such violates NPOV. I'm not asking that the data be removed, but moved to the preceeding paragraph discussing the "positive changes" that Mao brought to China, and not in the paragraph discussing the more controversial aspects of Mao's reign, with all the death and suffering caused by many of his policies. Doing this would better conform to NPOV and not read as apologia for these massive human losses. Therefore I'm reverting back to my previous edits.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A bigger issue is that the whole introduction presents Maozedung in a somewhat positive manner by mentioning some of the good things he did for China. The introduction to the Adolf Hitler article says only bad things about him and none of the good things like labor reforms and such that he introduced in the early 30s. Adolf Hitler is listed as a Good Article but Maozedung isn't. So, the good things about mao should be deleted from the itroduction to this article to make it consistent with the Adolf Hitler artcle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.110.8 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

IP 184, setting aside the quasi-Reductio ad Hitlerum and Godwin's Law confirmation, please read WP:OTHERCRAP to see why Adolf Hitler's article has no relevance to this one.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Adolf Hitler's article is relevant to Mao Zedung in that both were genocidal 20-th century heads of state. I used Hitle merely because it is a well known example/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.110.8 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research tag

I put an OR tag on the unreferenced paragraph in the Legacy section that begins "The accusation that Mao deliberately exposed...". Much of the editorial analysis in the paragraph is plausible, but it appears to be just that - editorial analysis. As such it requires references to reliable sources that have made the same arguments. In addition to references, the first sentence really needs and attribution - who said the claims are implausible?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph has been removed by another editor diff.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Mao

I made a very reasonable change but it was rolled back. As currently drafted, the article suggests that only non-resident Chinese and "activists"/"dissidents" have a problem with Mao. That is simply wrong. Mao has his critics inside of China, and it's wrong to label them all as dissidents or activists, because they're largely an ostracised group in China who are routinely accused of being in the pockets of foreign powers. It's much better to leave it ambiguous. Otherwise someone would need specific citations to show that activists and dissidents are the only people in China who criticise him. There are Chinese activists/dissidents who don't like Mao, but there are other Chinese people too.

I also think it's highly POV to describe Taiwan as "anti-Communist". It may have been under the KMT's martial rule, but today the country is not pathologically opposed to Communism. "Democratic" is a far better descriptor. However, I don't see the relevance of referring to Taiwan here, unless someone has a specific citation that can handily refer to sentiment of Mao there.

Rather than roll my changes back again, can people please discuss it or try to improve my changes. I have made other changes to the section John Smith's (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi JohnSMith. But given that the Communist Party has an official policy that Mao was "70% right and 30% wrong", any mainlander who publicly admits to greater disapproval of Mao is by definition, a "dissident" and may suffer consequences. I think the text will be superior if it states this in one or other form. I think our text needs to make it plain that on the mainland people are restricted in terms of voicing disapproval of Mao, and of course, are subject to information controls that attempt to steward them towards respect for Mao. Observoz (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty biased

This whole page seems incredibly biased in favor of liberal economics, and uses a lot of sources that read as though they're written by people with a biased agenda against Mao. Such as this:

When the Nationalists routed a ragtag Red Army on the Xiang River during the Long March, an earthy Chinese peasant with a brilliant mind moved to a position of power. Eight years after his military success, Mao Tse-Tung had won out over more sophisticated rivals to become party chairman, his title for life. Isolated by his eminence, he lived like a feudal emperor for much of his reign after a blood purge took more lives than those killed by either Stalin or Hitler. His virtual quarantine resulted in an ideological/political divide and a devastating reign of terror that became the Cultural Revolution. Though Mao broke the shackles of two thousand years of Confucian right thinking and was the major force of contemporary China, he reverted to the simplistic thinking of his peasant origins. . . - Intro to Mao: A Life, on Amazon.com

...which reads like wild hyperbole written by a Victorian-era capitalist. 68.186.1.222 (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Maoist communism

I would like to nominate a section in the "Legacy" part that specifies the large variety of communist groups opposed to Maoism. This includes Trotskyists, anarchist-communists, most orthodox Marxists, and many other revolutionary socialists.

More crucial distinction needs to be made between Karl Marx's anti-statist description of socialism as "workers' democracy", contrasted with Mao's authoritarian nationalistic state which was neither democracy nor run by workers.

Motorizer (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed in Great Leap Forward Section - Note from Dr. Li Zhisui - Why?

This text, in the GLF section:

"The extent of Mao's knowledge of the severity of the situation has been disputed. According to some, most notably Dr. Li Zhisui, Mao was not aware that the situation amounted to more than a slight shortage of food and general supplies until late 1959.[citation needed]"

A Citation Needed note was added - I myself among other additions and edits of this article over the years, inputted this some years ago. This is a sourced directly from Dr. Li Zhisui's book, "The Private Life of Chairman Mao". That book is the source, and it was noted when this was originally added. This "citation needed" tag should be removed. Majin Takeru (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's a citation tag, but perhaps someone had a reason at one time or another. I read Li Zhisui's book years ago, and my memory of it is a little foggy (it's a dense book, so I hope you can sympathize), but I don't recall this. If you have the book, could you point me to the page number? Someone else with fresher knowledge of the book might also just remove the tag and add the reference. Homunculus (duihua) 05:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I just looked closer, and it's starting to ring a bell. The idea that Mao was not fully aware of the extent of the problem until 1959 is also fairly consistent with other sources. Still, if you happen to have a page number, it would be helpful.Homunculus (duihua) 05:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I have not edited in a long while, but noticed this the other day. I will look for a page number when I have a chance, however I will also note that I used to have the exact quote from Li in this article with the above statement - That quote has also since been deleted. In general this article became a battle between Jung Chang's book VS every credible source and scholar, and at that point I gave up. Majin Takeru (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Chairman Mao's Atheism

I feel like Mao's atheism should be elaborated on and it's connection to the communist utopia he envisioned. To leave this crucial aspect out of this entire bio is sort of an issue.

69.114.11.47 (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Mao's thoughts on personality cults & the "genius" theory

There are two kinds of cult of the individual. One is correct, such as that of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the correct side of Stalin. These we ought to revere and continue to revere forever. It would not do not to revere them. As they held truth in their hands, why should we not revere them? We believe in truth; truth is the reflection of objective existence. A squad should revere its squad leader, it would be quite wrong not to. Then there is the incorrect kind of cult of the individual in which there is no analysis, simply blind obedience. This is not right. Opposition to the cult of the individual may also have one of two aims: one is opposition to an incorrect cult, and the other is opposition to reverence for others and a desire for reverence for oneself. The question at issue is not whether or not there should be a cult of the individual, but rather whether or not the individual concerned represents the truth. If he does, then he should be revered. If truth is not present, even collective leadership will be no good. Throughout its history, our Party has stressed the combination of the role of the individual with collective leadership.

- Mao Tsetung, Talks At The Chengtu Conference, March 1958

The question of genius is a theoretical question. Their theory was idealist apriorism. Someone has said that to oppose genius is to oppose me. But I am no genius. I read Confucian books for six years and capitalist books for seven. I did not read Marxist-Leninist books until 1918, so how can I be a genius?... I wrote ‘Some Opinions.’ which specially criticizes the genius theory, only after looking up some people to talk with them, and after some investigations and research. It is not that I do not want to talk about genius. To be a genius is to be a bit more intelligent. But genius does not depend on one person or a few people. It depends on a party, the party which is the vanguard of the proletariat. Genius is dependent on the mass line, on collective wisdom... I spoke to Comrade Lin Biao and some of the things he said were not very accurate. For example he said that a genius only appears in the world once in a few centuries and in China once in a few millennia. This just doesn’t fit the facts. Marx and Engels were contemporaries, and not one century had elapsed before we had Lenin and Stalin, so how could you say that a genius only appears once in a few centuries? In China there were Ch’en Sheng and Wu Kuang, Hung Hsiu-ch’üan and Sun Yat-sen, so how could you say that a genius only appears once in a few millennia? And then there is all this business about pinnacles and ‘one sentence being worth ten thousand’. Don’t you think this is going too far? One sentence is, after all, just one sentence, how can it be worth ten thousand sentences? We should not appoint a state chairman. I don’t want to be state chairman. I have said this six times already. If each time I said it I used one sentence, that is now the equivalent of sixty thousand sentences. But they never listen, so each of my sentences is not even worth half a sentence. In fact its value is zero.

- Mao Tstetung, Some Opinions, April 1971 (Is available in Han Suyin's biography "Wind in the Tower")

You should study the article written by Lenin on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of Eugene Pottier. Learn to sing ‘The Internationale’ and ‘The Three Great Rules of Discipline and the Eight Points for Attention’. Let them not only be sung but also explained and acted upon. ‘The Internationale’ and Lenin’s article express throughout a Marxist standpoint and outlook. What they say is that slaves should arise and struggle for truth. There never has been any supreme saviour, nor can we rely on gods or emperors. We rely entirely on ourselves for our salvation. Who has created the world of human beings? We the laboring masses. During the Lushan Conference I wrote a 700-word article which raised the question of who created history, the heroes or the slaves.

- Mao Zedong, Talks With Responsible Comrades At Various Places During Provincial Tour, August to September 12, 1971 (In Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung: Vol. IX)

--Megamudcrabs (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mao and Nehru

Keeping in mind that Nehru was an important leader in Mao's political career, I am surprised that there is no section on him. We should have some information about his relationship with Nehru and India. I am more surprised that the article is not locked!--174.2.8.221 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, as this article improves, information on Nehru will be included; not a whole section to itself, for Mao had dealings with many significant world leaders, but mention will definitely be made. Look upon this article as a work in progress. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Mao's root ideology

Mao's root ideology (before Communism and continued as the spiritual inspiration) could be tracing back to Liang Qichao's political movement, including "The Meaning of “Renewing the (Chinese) People” (http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/cup/liang_qichao_renewing_people.pdf, http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/the-role-of-japan-in-liang-qichao-s-introduction-of-modern-western-hJHZQ6id4v). For more, see http://www.stnn.cc:82/reveal/200911/t20091127_1211799.html , http://news.ifeng.com/history/zhongguoxiandaishi/special/daodededixian/detail_2011_03/14/5131416_0.shtml. 111.248.241.49 (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Stable lead was modified in late November 2012, after its relatively long stability. While much was clarified, one key paragraph was removed:

"Nationwide political campaigns led by Mao, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are often considered catastrophic failures; and his rule is believed to have caused the deaths of 40 to 70 million people.[3][4] Severe starvation during the Great Chinese Famine, mass suicide as a result of the Three-anti/five-anti campaigns, and political persecution during both the Anti-Rightist Movement and struggle sessions all resulted from these programs. In addition, millions died in the Laogai prison camps instituted under his rule.[5][6][7][8] His campaigns are further blamed for damaging the historical culture and society of China, as relics and religious sites were destroyed in an effort to rapidly modernize the consciousness of the nation."

Instead a single sentence, at the VERY END of the introduction, is used as a replacement:

"In contrast, critics have labeled him a dictator whose administration oversaw systematic human rights abuses, and whose rule is estimated to have caused the deaths of between 40–70 million people through starvation and executions."

This is obviously an unbalanced modification, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, introduces Mao as some hot debate, rather than displaying the most significant facts simply as a single unified ensemble, which is standard Wikipedia policy. Mao's controversy is certainly worth mentioning in his introduction, but not as a single sentence, instead the sources of his controversy should be introduced as they were in the old lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.80.91 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Such information must, of course, be included within the main body of article (which is a work in progress that I and others are gradually fleshing out through reference to Mao's primary biographies). However to include such a substantial block of what is (typically going to be viewed as) information carrying a strong anti-Mao bias does not belong in the introduction. Placing it in their not only breaks Wikipedia's NPOV rule but also its undue weight rules as well. The purpose of the introduction is to summarize the article as a whole, providing a very basic outline of who Mao was and why he was significant. Hence the introduction is currently divided into four paragraphs: the first refers to his basic data, the second refers to his early life and activities in the civil war, the third deals with his policies while leader, and the fourth is left to deal with his extensive legacy, which includes the controversy - and praise - that his life comes with. Mention of the mass human rights abuses that occurred under his watch are already dealt with in the introduction Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang & Jon Halliday

Cleaning up the refs to make them more standard and uniform and minimise redundancies, i noticed that the book by Chang & Halliday has been read in different editions, so the page numbers are by now approximate. One who has the book would need to review all those refs and redo them with parms such as "loc" of Harvnb template, as well as "chapter" and "at" of "Cite book" template, instead of the "p=", "pp=", "page=" and "pages=". Have fun --Jerome Potts (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandal

Is the article being vandalised because I was viewing some pictures which are unsourced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Compliments on recent edits, cautionary note on sources, plus example of Anyuan

We need to warmly thank user User:Midnightblueowl for pushing the article ahead and improving the flow with careful edits. But I also have some suggestions for him or her to consider when making further edits and even more for future editors to consider in order to make their improvements enduring and easier for others to participate.

First, although the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources does not explicitly require using recent works, it is highly preferable to use recent ones if they are thoroughly researched and widely accepted, especially because they are also more accessible to readers than earlier works which are out of print and/or not widely held in libraries. Schram (1966) was pioneering and on many points still has sensible judgments, but he published chapters in the Cambridge History of China which reflect his later thinking. Carter (1976) is out of print, and besides, WorldCat describes it as "Biography: Fiction: Juvenile" [7]. Carter is not a China scholar in any case and the book is a tertiary source, which is clearly not a "Reliable Source." The 1980 edition of Terrill is now replaced by Ross Terrill. Mao: A Biography. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0804729212.

The gold standard biography, available at a reasonable price, is now Alexander Pantsov, with Steven I Levine. Mao: The Real Story. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012. ISBN 9781451654479. I strongly suggest that anyone who wants to make further edits get hold of a copy and use it!

Why does this matter? An example: the brief mention of the Anyuan Strikes of 1922 was removed from this article in good faith on the grounds that the major biographies do not mention it. Although in fact, Schram (1966: pp. 69, 122, 124), Terrill (1999: 88-89), and Chang & Halliday (2005: 30), do all mention Anyuan, this is one of many cases to show the importance of using solid and respected recent work, for the significance of the strike was not apparent to earlier biographers.

Why? Mao sent Liu Shaoqi to organize workers in the Anyuan mines, and Liu's success showed Mao what could be accomplished with this style of organizing. This was a turning point for Mao, but orthodox party historians in China did not want to acknowledge Liu's contribution, or perhaps they didn't want to think that Mao was not 100% correct from the start. During the Cultural Revolution one of the most widely copied paintings was Chairman Mao Goes to Anyuan], but Liu was, of course, a capitalist roader and the 1962 painting [Comrade Liu Shaoqi and the Anyuan Miners] had to be desecrated. (the references are to Stephan Landsburger's Chinese Posters site, which has crisp explanations).

Pantsov and Levine (2012: 109, 110-12, 123, 129, 140, 197, 200, 336) deal with the Anyuan strikes in more detail than did earlier biographies partly because their point of view is neither Mao worship nor Mao is a Monster, and partly because they use new sources and scholarship by Russian and PRC historians whose view of Mao has also changed. To further show how scholarship progresses, the fullest study came out after Pantsov and Levine finished: Elizabeth J. Perry. Anyuan : Mining China's Revolutionary Tradition. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. ISBN 9780520271890. The gist of the book is in the note to the passage excised from the article. Perry has too much detail to put into the Mao article, but she argues in weighty detail that the Anyuan incident adds significantly to the picture of how Mao developed, how orthodox history did not adequately describe it, and how even the best Western historians did not have the material or the perspectives to do it themselves.

If there is this much difference on a seemingly minor event which turns out to be significant, then there is even more urgent need to use good recent work on larger points on which research and debate continues to produce new insights.

To return to my original point: further development of the article needs to use the best sourced and balanced works, not those which are thirty-five or forty years old. In this spirit, I hope it will be OK if I restore the sentences on Anyuan, which I will Red Link in hopes that someone will use the material to write a brief Wikipedia article on the subject.

A minor point. Wikipedia policy does not call for two, three, or sometimes four footnotes or references for the same fact.

I am still filled with admiration and gratitude for the hard work and many hours which have gone into improving the Mao article, which is now far more balanced, readable, and comprehensive than in the beginning.

A question: Would it be easier to make changes in the references if we used direct referencing rather than the admittedly more elegant bibliography templates?

Cheers ch (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. It is always nice to hear when my edits are being appreciated. At the moment, I have taken a bit of time out from this article to focus my efforts over at the Nelson Mandela page, but shall return here to refocus my efforts at some point in the near future. I will certainly endeavour to obtain a copy of Pantsov and Levine for this; as a non-Sinologist, my experiences with much of the more recent scholarship on Mao (i.e. Chang and Halliday, Short) has not been great, for it appears to adhere to too explicit an anti-Mao agenda. However, if you recomment Pantsov and Levine, I shall certainly look into it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Death?

The paragraph describing Mao's death, including the very direct accusations that Jiang Qing hastened or even caused the Chairman's death, is completely unsupported. There are no citations whatsoever, and I can't find the account in this article in any of the print biographical resources I have on either party. The same information is repeated in Jiang Qing's main article, again with no citations. Does anyone have a resource to support this account? 76.115.62.81 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC) malliedroit

Tibet

Hi, I am a college student writing a research paper on China's takeover of Tibet, so I came to Mao's page for some information but I don't see anything about Tibet on his page. How come no one has written or mentioned anything about Tibet? I would do it myself but due to the security of the page I am not able to edit anything. --Madeintibet59 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am not taking any position on Mao with respect to Tibet, but I removed certain contents that I think may be lacking in neutrality. I know such addition or removal is bound to be contentious. But more importantly, the text was not supported by sources, and there was no sourced evidence as to the weight such information ought to be given in the biography. Kindly refer to WP:CITE on how to supply and integrate such references into the article. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 03:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for a slight modification of GLF section

Regarding the sentence: 'In contrast, journals such as the Monthly Review have disputed the reliability of the figures commonly cited, the qualitative evidence of a "massive death toll", and Mao's complicity in those deaths which occurred.'

I think it should be pointed out that Monthly Review is a radical-left publication. I'm all for dissenting opinions, but it's important to point out that the views expressed in this article and others like it run counter to a large body of studies of the GLF by professional historians. I suggest changing the text to something like:

In contrast, radical left-wing journals such as the Monthly Review have disputed the reliability of the figures commonly cited, the qualitative evidence of a "massive death toll", and Mao's complicity in those deaths which occurred.

192.5.110.4 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's enough of a compromise (perhaps socialist should be capitalized?) but I added the socialist adjective to the sentence in question. Seipjere (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Private Life of Chairman Mao as reliable source

If this is going to be used as a source, can I put in the bit about Mao liking to be masturbated by a soldier in bed before he went to sleep? (pp 358 - 359) William Avery (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this can be regarded as a reliable source. It appears to be about on the level of a Kitty Kelley biography. It's effectively a primary source, and there are reasons why the Wikipedia policy is generally to avoid primary sources. --Yaush (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In regards to Mao’s health and hygiene, I would think that the memoires of Mao’s personal physician would be authoritative unless specifically contradicted by subsequent reliable sources.

Although William Avery’s suggestion was made sarcastically in order to discredit a reliable source, I will respond as if it were a serious suggestion. I don’t think that Mao being masturbated by a soldier before bed should be included in the article for 2 reasons: 1) Li Zhisui only knows of this from a single incident in which a soldier refused to extend a massage to Mao’s groin area, so it would be an overgeneralization. 2) No mention was made of masturbation at all. It could be that while the soldier was comfortable massaging, for example, Mao’s back, the soldier was not comfortable massaging the groin area.

As to Li Zhisui being a reliable source on Mao’s sexual practices, here’s what Philip Short has to say in Mao, A Life (p.743 in a note to pages 474 and 475): “Some of those who worked with Mao in the 1950s and ‘60s, including Wang Donxing and Lin Ke, have sought publicly to cast doubt on Dr. Li’s account, alleging that it is exaggerated and sometimes inaccurate. Minor details apart, however, his version has been confirmed, under conditions of anonymity, by several of the Chairman’s former partners. Its essential veracity is not in doubt.” Short is referring to pages 365-374 of Li Zhisui’s Private Life of Chairman Mao.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a bit of perspective. I regard Mao as being about as close to a human monster as it gets. I am happy to see material included in the article that shows this side of Mao.

But it has to come from reliable secondary sources. I don't think these memoirs qualify. They're a primary source, perhaps with some value as primary sources, but it's far better to cite reliable secondary sources that critically examine these primary claims.

Plus, frankly, it seems petty to take a man responsible for something like the Cultural Revolution and snark about how he cleaned his teeth. --Yaush (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well said. The information was originally added referenced to a source [8] that in turn referenced A Private Life of Chairman Mao. Harrison Salisbury has a slightly different take on Mao's hygiene (see below). But should we really care how or whether Mao brushed his teeth?--Wikimedes (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Mao’s personal hygiene practices in the article

The discussion of Li Zhisui as a reliable source arose from a content dispute [9] (cuurent version here [10] ) over whether to include some of Mao’s hygiene practices in the article. It’s probably better to address this directly. I think that it is beyond doubt that According to Mao's personal physician 1) Mao did not brush his teeth, but instead preferred to clean his teeth by rinsing his mouth out with tea. 2) Mao did not take showers or baths as we know them today, but instead swam frequently and was rubbed down by hot towels. I don’t particularly care whether these facts are included in the article or not.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Or, according to Harrison Salisbury in "The New Emperors" p.104, "Mao washed in cold water, but did not use soap, thinking the chemicals injurious." Mao "did not change his toothbrush for years". Salisbury cites Quan Yanchi "Wei Shi Zhang Tan" chapter 6. Again I don't particularly care whether these details are included in the article. They seem pretty minor when considering the totality of Mao's life.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to sort this out. If Short or Salisbury are to be cited, I am entirely happy that they are worthy sources. Whether Mao's oral hygiene practices were deserving of note I personally doubt. My mind would be changed if it could be shown that some historic event was determined by his having had a toothache, or that his halitosis had had diplomatic consequences. William Avery (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Mao's health is a major issue and how he took care of his body is also an issue. The swimming episodes are even more revealing (Mao rejected advice that the river was much too dangerous to swim in).Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

His health is an issue if it departed significantly from what would be considered normal in his time and place, and is somehow highly revealing of his psychology or had some significant effect on other events. If there was a diplomatic incident over his halitosis, a brief mention of what might have caused the halitosis is in order; or, if his swimming in the river was genuinely dangerous, this is worth mentioning. Halitosis and river swimming of themselves may not be notable, particularly if many high status Chinese men of the time cleaned their teeth with tea or went swimming in rivers. (I don't know the answers to those questions.) --Yaush (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No his health did not have to diverge from a statistical average to be important. When one man so thoroughly dominates the scene his health is of major concern to everyone at home and abroad (famous cases are USSR late 1970s to 1984, & USA 1919-21). Mao was in poor health much of the time after 1960. He was extremely careless of his health, ranging from neglect of his very bad teeth to extreme risks in swimming in the river simply to gain publicity. Top level advisors looked into the river situation and repeatedly warned it was really dangerous & might kill him. He rejected them and then someone said it was safe and he went with that person. (Mao of course survived but he was bitten by a water snake because at the last minute he changed routes to one that the army had not cleared of snakes.). Scholars have pointed out the importance of the health issue--see for example Frederick C. Teiwes (1990). Politics at Mao's Court: Gao Gang and Party Factionalism in the Early 1950s. M.E. Sharpe. p. 5., which appeared 4 years before the details provided by the Li Zhisui memoir. And it does matter in diplomacy as other countries have to predict how long he will be in power: When Nixon came to China in February 1976, he said “it was painful to see” Mao in such poor health. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This is just the sort of historical contextualisation I was looking for. William Avery (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It would indeed be weird to apply today's western standards of personal hygiene to a Chinese person over half a century ago. It's already weird enough to apply standards of personal hygiene of a Chinese peasant today to a Chinese peasant over half a century ago. So in short, I don't think this merits inclusion. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

This talk page where the Chairman would be criticized is eerily silent. I mean it's really weird. I know we have some serious Left Wingers in this country, but people, this is not actually China (even though Mao is a Chinese figure). Right Wingers should feel free to speak out and criticize Mao fairly. This is America, and we really shouldn't allow Chinese Left Wing propaganda influence an article on American-made Wikipedia. Where is all the criticism of Mao on this page? My only fear is that these comments I'm writing here will be scrubbed and gone when I come back next time. Perhaps I will get a visit from Left Wing party officials.

That being said, Mao is the most vicious, virulent killer of the 20th Century (and that is really saying something). Possibly of all time. He killed up to 70 million people. Where in the hell else do we cut that much slack to any other leader? This article merely characterizes Mao as "controversial." Who in the hell else could possibly be the biggest killer of all time, and still have anything but the worst reputation of all time? Let's say Ronald Reagan killed 70million people (he actually killed 0) - would Liberal Wikipedia cut him so much slack as to merely say he was controversial? I think Ronald Reagan's article currently calls him "controversial." Ronald Reagan's policies may have increased homelessness (maybe not), and Leftists hate and revile him. Mao kills 70 million and there is wiggle room wherein you can like this guy? What does a guy have to do to get hated around here? Controversial means that some love him and some hate him. Is anyone (outside the sphere of left wing Chinese propaganda) going to be on the side of liking him with the blood of 70 million people on his hands?

To think that Mao could be the biggest killer of all time, and any Left Winger is even on the fence here is absurd. Let's say Adolf Hitler approached the number of people that Mao killed (yes, he killed fewer). Would we still call him "controversial?" Let's face it-Mao is a hero to Leftists, and he is getting off easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.200.106 (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well said. This article is like a memorial to a vicious killer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.230.104 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Article talk pages are intended only for discussions directly related to improving article content, and are not intended as a forum for general discussion of the article subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1) "I know we have some serious Left Wingers in this country, but people, this is not actually China (even though Mao is a Chinese figure). Right Wingers should feel free to speak out and criticize Mao fairly. This is America, and we really shouldn't allow Chinese Left Wing propaganda influence an article on American-made Wikipedia." This is not America. This is the Internet. The location of servers doesn't change that. The goal of Wikipedia is not to be an American perspective, it's meant to be an as-objective-as-possible perspective.

2) Are you talking about the article or this talk page? Articles are not for opinions and random criticisms. By all means say what ever you want about whoever you want somewhere else (and I mostly agree with you about Mao), but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles to provide a medium for opinions and emotions. Only for facts. An article about Mao (or any other person in any other article) doesn't need, and certainly should not contain direct criticisms because:

1.1) THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES (sorry for all caps). Go back and read that sentence again. Ok, now do it another time. Seriously. The facts speak for themselves. I cannot stress this enough. As long as the article contains all relevent facts, we are fine. The truth doesn't need hyperbole or emotion.

1.2) Due to the above point, adding an editor's personal criticisms would ONLY add bias to the article, while adding absolutely nothing of value because the readers have brains and can decide for themselves what to think about a topic based on THE FACTS.

1.3) Obviously, I'm not saying its bad to quote or paraphrase *other* people's criticisms, as long as the quote is from somewhere appropriate for an encyclopedic article. If you can find a criticism that criticizes something about him, and the thing's controversiality isn't already in the article (don't be redundant and don't add useless information), then by all means, post another comment on this talk page to suggest it.

3) Finally, I would like to say that after reading your comment I read through most of the article and the talk page and I don't think anyone has ever said anything in praise of Mao. I don't think anyone ever suggested that we should be "on the fence" about him either. 71.245.120.36 (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Universal housing

The final paragraph of the lead states that Mao provided "universal housing". Without having looked at the statistics, I'm pretty sure that there were homeless people in China before, during, and after Mao's rule, and there doesn't seem to be any elaboration in the rest of the article. What is meant by "universal housing" here?--Wikimedes (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

re the claim that In contrast, supporters praise him for modernizing China and building it into a world power, through promoting the status of women, improving education and health care, providing universal housing and raising life expectancy. In contrast, supporters praise him for modernizing China and building it into a world power, through promoting the status of women, improving education and health care, providing universal housing and raising life expectancy.<ref name = "MoboGao" /><ref name="China 2010, pp. 327">''The Cambridge Illustrated History of China'', by Patricia Buckley Ebrey, Cambridge University Press, 2010, ISBN 0-521-12433-6, pp. 327</ref> There is no such statement in Ebrey ( and her p 327 is about Taiwan) so I deleted it. The Gao book mentions education and health care on p 151 but not housing or the status of women. Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Though perhaps the statements referenced to Gao could be left in?--Wikimedes (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Gao is pretty dubious--he praises advances in medical care without mentioning the tens of millions of death by starvation, which seems a quite unbalanced way of looking at public health. Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, though Gao does represent a significant minority view. Judith Banister mentions improvements in public health in a more balanced fashion, and I may dig out the reference some day. Generally speaking, scholars are much kinder to Mao than they are to say Hitler. Many of the best China scholars sometimes seem to bend over backwards to excuse Mao's mass killings and emphasize the good he did for China. (And he did do some good prior to about 1958 IMO.) The article's coverage on Mao's legacy will eventually have to reflect this in the proportion it appears in reliable sources.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Gao's views should not be folded into the body of the article in a "he said, Gao said" fashion. The article should present the mainstream view with a supplementary paragraph noting the revisionist view. A review by Vanessa Frangville published in Europe-Asia Studies May 2009 said "Gao Mobo's book [The Battle for China’s Past: Mao & the Cultural Revolution] goes against the grain of dominant academic and journalistic opinion on the Chinese Cultural Revolution (CR). ... Gao claims that the Chinese people actually benefited from it.... [and he] aims at reaffirming the Mao era... Whilst this book is valuable insofar as it questions the dominant discourse on the CR... it suffers from a number of unfortunate flaws.... the author himself maintains questionable representations.... [for example,] the impressive figures relating to increased cultural production throughout China between the 1950s and the 1970s [are presented without reference to the fact that] culture in this period was the product of a hegemonic ideology.... the author reduces Tibetan culture to an exclusively religious and spiritual one adaptable equally to Buddhism or communism.... opponents could easily point to Gao’s questionable and hasty reasoning [in several areas]."--Brian Dell (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Universal housing is certainly not universal in Mao's era. During Cultural Revolution, millions of students who are forced to the countryside have to build their own housing with their own hands. This is well documented. And people in forced labor camps and re-education centers are also required to build their own shelter. Not to mention people who are forced into living in 牛棚 during Cultural Revolution, which can't be called 'housing' in normal usage. Calling this 'universal housing' is misleading at best. Happyseeu (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A word on my edit

I have removed some phrases since they don't comply with Wikipedia standards. Keep in mind that all controversial claims has to cite a reliable source that can be verified, and none is provided for these phrases. Furthermore, a minority view can't be stated as if it's true or the majority view. Citing a reliable source surveying the matter that shows it's the majority view suffice to support a contested claim. Happyseeu (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mao and Tibet

The section in the article entitled "Mao and Tibet" is rather disappointing. I contains almost no information about Mao Zedong and focuses instead on Ngapo Ngawang Jigme. It should explain more about what "unification of the 'five races'" means and how it was implemented. How did Mao react to Tibet when he visited during the Long March. What about the ups and downs of Mao's relationship with the Dalia Lhama (who he met and had dinner with) and other Tibetan leaders.

Also the article in general says too little on Mao's religious views or atheism.

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Mao knowing, or even planning, the famine to its full scale

The quote from Dikotter seemingly picturing Mao as willing to murder half of China is apparently completely decontextualized: http://www.maoists.org/dikottermisinterpretation.htm I'd request the entire paragraph to be removed since it's basically wild speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.78.229 (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No.

We do not remove quotes from scholarly researchers on the life of Mao because they upset the proprietors of a Maoist Internet website. --Yaush (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The name of the website where the above article is posted is Maoists.org, which would likely indicate a particular political stance on anything regarding Mao, and even a possible prejudice. But being born in a Western, democratic society (who has been anyhing but lenient on those who hold to socialist ideologies) would also seem to lend itself to such prejudices. As such, the artice is worth consideration for the sake of a balanced, objective presentation of fact, especially since it is well-sourced. I think the one who posted the article should consider making his own edits based on such sources (perhaps he has?), but requesting removal of a paragraph that some see as biased at least warrants the addition of another paragraph from an opposing source that would allow readers to make their own judgments on what the facts are. It seems to me, in the above article, that Dikotter presents a very limited view on Mao's comments at Wuchang, and it should be admitted (as well as stated in the article) that there are different, even opposing perspectives on what those comments reveal about Mao's attitude towards the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoopea (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think modifying the paragraph to say that there's opposing views as to whether Mao wanted (potentially) hundreds of millions of people to die would be acceptable yeah. I basically was reading this thing, saw the quote, found it a bit hard to believe, and found the article I linked to doing a tiny bit of research. As you say it is well sourced and the story it tells makes more sense to me (especially considering Mao's past and previous policies). So would be a paragraph telling both sides of the story be acceptable? I'm new to Wikipedia but I could try to write such a thing. Thanks! 80.174.78.229 (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider learning more about Mao's policies then, starting with his use of killing quotas. More to the point: If you wish to introduce a questionable source like Maoists.org, I suggest taking it up at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. My own view is that this is not an appropriate source, and is certainly not comparable to the works of a widely respected historian like Frank Dikotter. Homunculus (duihua) 14:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that Dikotter's view seems to be very far from being a mainstream and widely accepted opnion among historians. If you are familiar with Yang Jisheng's (author of "Tombstone", a book on the Great Leap Forward banned in mainland China) you might know that he's extremely critical with Mao and the Communist Party but thinks that pretending there was a conscious plan by Mao to murder half of the country is basically nonsense. There are other examples, if you read the criticisms "Mao's Great Famine" received you'll see similar things. I sent the Joseph Ball link because it seemed to be really well sourced and substantiated and because an article of his is already cited in the wiki page (the one in Monthly Review), but I don't think his opinion (basically that the story is much more complicated and that completely over the top claims do not help to clarify anything) is so far fetched. In any case, at the very least I think it's difficult to argue that this there are differing views on this subject, so I again suggest (following Yoopea) that we rework the paragraph to reflect the state of affairs. 80.174.78.229 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dikotter's research is well accepted among mainstream historians. This is not to say there is no dissent or disagreement, of course, but even when he's challenging conventional wisdom on Party history, the quality of evidence he marshals (based mostly on archival research) is sound. Regarding Mao's statement about half the Chinese people starving, I don't think anyone (Dikotter included) sees this as evidence of a conscious plot to "murder half the country." Rather, I believe the quote was used to illustrate Mao's callous attitude toward the death of Chinese citizens caused by his policies. You are certainly right that there is a spectrum of interpretations of the GLP, and this article already presents a variety of views published by reliable sources. As you mentioned, it even contains the opinion of Joseph Ball—a highly partisan source who seems to publish exclusively in Maoist journals. Why do you think his views should be made even more prominent? What would justify such an action? Homunculus (duihua) 03:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume that to some extent it's not our job to judge the merit of each historian or their work, since it is probably beyond our capabilites to do it properly. I don't doubt Dikotter has done his research, but so have done the other people I have mentioned (in the case of Yang he spent years going through the archives). The justification for adding other perspectives is that there are several historians coming from different perspectives that either doubt such a thing was ever said (Yang) or think it's been completely decontextualized (Ball). So I think the paragraph should be reworded to show this spectrum of opinions. Ball seems indeed to be biased, but honestly so is Dikotter (the wiki page about him even says he's "anti-communist"), so I don't think this is a sound argument as long as we aim to remain as neutral as possible (and FWIW, Monthly Review, which is already used as a source in the article, is not a Maoist publication as far as I can tell). In any case I'd welcome other opinions from more people, it seems at least user Yoopea did agree with this vision. 80.174.78.229 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits to the lead paragraphs

I just wanted to open up the discussion here in case anybody has any questions or issues with my recent edits to the lead paragraphs, which had been pretty stable. I've tried to focus these paragraph on key events and accomplishments (and failures) in his life while cutting out a few redundant or less relevant portions. Thanks. Spinner145 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Death

The section on the Chairman's death is still *extremely* poorly sourced. The present narrative surrounding Jian Qing's visits to his deathbed seems to implicate her in hastening his death- with absolutely no sourcing! None of the biographies I have state or imply this in any way. I'm removing the lines until someone provides a source.97.120.75.183 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I find the first edit removing figures given in the BMJ article incredible. The material was sourced, what is the concern? Are you saying that the phrase "and about the same number of births were lost or postponed" is copyright and therefore cannot be quoted? Or is your objection that there were not appropriate quotation marks? The phrase "births lost and/or postponed" appears in dozens of articles on population and demography, it is a term of art and cannot be copyright. Please respond. Rgr09 (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

The accusation that "English-language publisher" Random House infused Mao Zedong's biography with lies seems ridiculous to me and is unsourced. It should be deleted. CCP propaganda is rampant in Wikipedia and someone more knowledgeable should take up the fight against it.24.225.101.164 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - this is purely a statement of opinion and the supporting citation provided is incomplete.Spinner145 (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2014

The url has changed for a link on this page.

• [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDmao.htm

should be

• [http://www.spartacus-educational.com/COLDmao.htm

Is it possible to be updated? Thanks 90.197.102.53 (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

spelling error

The paragraph on the Cultural Revolution contains a misspelling: artefacts. Should this not be artifacts? 75.45.224.2 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC) D. Hastings

Either spelling is correct: [11]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mao's ancestral province is Jiangxi

Page 45

http://www.gutenberg-e.org/yang/pdf/yang-chapter5.pdf

Page 188

http://books.google.com/books?id=CZQMAQAAMAAJ&q=jiangxi+yunnan+hunan+mao+ancestors&dq=jiangxi+yunnan+hunan+mao+ancestors&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v8nSU-6JCcnlsAST9YEI&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw

http://books.google.com/books?id=CZQMAQAAMAAJ&q=194+state+that+they+are+descendents+of+the+Ming+soldiers.+Mao+Zedong's+ancestor,+for+example,+served+as+military+colonist+in+Yunnan+from+Jiangxi+during+the+Ming+period,+and+married+with+an+ethnic+woman.+Later,+part+of+the+Maos+moved+to+Hunan+and+settled.+195.+Xu+Xiake,+938.&dq=194+state+that+they+are+descendents+of+the+Ming+soldiers.+Mao+Zedong's+ancestor,+for+example,+served+as+military+colonist+in+Yunnan+from+Jiangxi+during+the+Ming+period,+and+married+with+an+ethnic+woman.+Later,+part+of+the+Maos+moved+to+Hunan+and+settled.+195.+Xu+Xiake,+938.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rMrSU87INam-sQTZyYKQDg&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA

Page 68

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3hxAAAAMAAJ&q=jiangxi+yunnan+hunan+mao+ancestors&dq=jiangxi+yunnan+hunan+mao+ancestors&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v8nSU-6JCcnlsAST9YEI&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3hxAAAAMAAJ&q=Mao's+first+ancestor+Tai+Hua+Gong+moved+from+Longcheng,+Jizhou+(currently+called+Jishui+County),+Jiangxi+province+to+Lancang,+Yunnan+province+because+of+peasants'+rebellions,+the+dynasty+change,+and+the+unceasing+wars+and+disasters+in+the+late+Yuan+Dynasty+and+the+early+Ming+Dynasty.+...+In+1384,+Tai+Hua+Gong+was+offered+an+official+post+in+Hunan+because+of+his+military+exploits.+Qing+Yi,+the+eldest+...&dq=Mao's+first+ancestor+Tai+Hua+Gong+moved+from+Longcheng,+Jizhou+(currently+called+Jishui+County),+Jiangxi+province+to+Lancang,+Yunnan+province+because+of+peasants'+rebellions,+the+dynasty+change,+and+the+unceasing+wars+and+disasters+in+the+late+Yuan+Dynasty+and+the+early+Ming+Dynasty.+...+In+1384,+Tai+Hua+Gong+was+offered+an+official+post+in+Hunan+because+of+his+military+exploits.+Qing+Yi,+the+eldest+...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BsrSU57XFILmsASs3oDQBA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

Page 27

http://books.google.com/books?id=lXIiAQAAMAAJ&q=jiangxi+yunnan+hunan+mao+ancestors&dq=jiangxi+yunnan+hunan+mao+ancestors&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v8nSU-6JCcnlsAST9YEI&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ

Page 27

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bp1KAQAAIAAJ&q=The+pedigree+of+his+genealogy+starts+from+his+ancestor+Mao+Dahua+of+the+Yuan+dynasty.+During+the+chaos+of+war+under+the+reign+of+Emperor+Zhiyuan+in+the+Yuan+dynasty,+Mao+Dahua+moved+from+Jizhou+of+Jiangxi,+to+Lancangwei+of+Yunnan,+where+his+eight+sons+were+born.+In+the+early+Ming+dynasty,+due+to+his+military+exploits+he+was+transferred+to+Hunan+province+together+with+his+wife+and+first+and+fourth+sons.+Subsequently,+they+settled+down+in+Xingtan.+In+other+words,+Mao+Zedong's+...&dq=The+pedigree+of+his+genealogy+starts+from+his+ancestor+Mao+Dahua+of+the+Yuan+dynasty.+During+the+chaos+of+war+under+the+reign+of+Emperor+Zhiyuan+in+the+Yuan+dynasty,+Mao+Dahua+moved+from+Jizhou+of+Jiangxi,+to+Lancangwei+of+Yunnan,+where+his+eight+sons+were+born.+In+the+early+Ming+dynasty,+due+to+his+military+exploits+he+was+transferred+to+Hunan+province+together+with+his+wife+and+first+and+fourth+sons.+Subsequently,+they+settled+down+in+Xingtan.+In+other+words,+Mao+Zedong's+...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5srSU8rjMergsATcn4KIDA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?ei=Y8vSU5T7D8u_sQTS9oCYAw&id=Bp1KAQAAIAAJ&dq=The+pedigree+of+his+genealogy+starts+from+his+ancestor+Mao+Dahua+of+the+Yuan+dynasty.+During+the+chaos+of+war+under+the+reign+of+Emperor+Zhiyuan+in+the+Yuan+dynasty%2C+Mao+Dahua+moved+from+Jizhou+of+Jiangxi%2C+to+Lancangwei+of+Yunnan%2C+where+his+eight+sons+were+born.+In+the+early+Ming+dynasty%2C+due+to+his+military+exploits+he+was+transferred+to+Hunan+province+together+with+his+wife+and+first+and+fourth+...&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Xingtan

Page 28

http://books.google.com/books?id=_bQsAAAAMAAJ&q=jiangxi+yunnan+hunan+mao+ancestors&dq=jiangxi+yunnan+hunan+mao+ancestors&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v8nSU-6JCcnlsAST9YEI&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg

http://books.google.com/books?id=_bQsAAAAMAAJ&q=The+pedigree+of+his+family+tree+starts+from+his+ancestor+Mao+Dahua+of+the+Yuan+Dynasty.+During+the+chaos+of+war+under+the+reign+of+Emperor+Zhiyuan+in+the+Yuan+Dynasty,+Mao+Dahua+moved+from+Jizhou+of+Jiangxi+to+Lancangwei+of+Yunnan,+where+his+eight+sons+were+born.+In+the+early+Ming+Dynasty,+due+to+his+military+exploits,+he+was+transferred+to+Hunan+Province+together+with+his+wife+and+first+and+fourth+...&dq=The+pedigree+of+his+family+tree+starts+from+his+ancestor+Mao+Dahua+of+the+Yuan+Dynasty.+During+the+chaos+of+war+under+the+reign+of+Emperor+Zhiyuan+in+the+Yuan+Dynasty,+Mao+Dahua+moved+from+Jizhou+of+Jiangxi+to+Lancangwei+of+Yunnan,+where+his+eight+sons+were+born.+In+the+early+Ming+Dynasty,+due+to+his+military+exploits,+he+was+transferred+to+Hunan+Province+together+with+his+wife+and+first+and+fourth+...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OMvSU_3HAo3nsASzmoDYBQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA

Rajmaan (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2014

In the section about Mao's Wives,

Please change this sentence: Mao Zedong had four wives who conceived a total of 10 children.

To this sentence: Mao Zedong had four wives who gave birth to a total of 10 children.

The first sentence is technically wrong; it takes two people, a man and a woman, to conceive a child. The sentence is also insulting in spoken English. 101.18.245.39 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits by Zumoarirodoka

I'd like to start a discussion about the edits by Zumoarirodoka that I've reverted. I believe that they violate neutral POV, dramatically realigning the article in a pro-Mao direction. The changed sections have been settled in more or less their current form for quite some time and while I'm happy to discuss individual changes, I believe that such wholesale changes that Zumoarirodoka has undertaken - especially since their primary purpose seems to be to paint a more flattering picture of Mao - should not be made without consensus. 23:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinner145 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014

Mao was not born the son of a wealthy farmer as indicated in the 2nd paragraph - he was born to a poor peasant in the Hunan Province. Read Schoppa's East Asian Identities and the Modern World, Chpt. 13, page 313. 99.3.166.145 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done Most of what I've read about Mao indicates that his family was well off. From Philip Short's "Mao: A Life" p.20: "By the standards of the time, Mao's family was comfortably off." More from the same paragraph (paraphrased): At the time of Mao's birth the family owned 2.5 acres in a region of some of the richest rice-growing land in China. Later, Mao's father hired two farm laborers. So according to Short, Mao was the son of a wealthy farmer.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus among Mao's biographers that his father, while born into poverty, rose to a high economic status; if you are interested, you can read more about this over at Early life of Mao Zedong. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Mao always referred to his father as a "wealthy peasant" so it appears to me they were upper lower class:). At that time there was tremendous economic disparity, and his father was no doubt better off than many or most Chinese but it's a stretch to compare him to the noble-class of the West. I wonder how we could indicate this in the article? LesVegas (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2015

XstaydownX (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)The word "Artifact" was misspelled in the second/third paragraph (I forgot...).

"Artefact" is the British spelling of the word. It appears this article mostly uses the British spelling (see MOS:SPELLING for further details). Stickee (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Mao is surname in Chinese — Preceding unsigned comment added by Java131313 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Paternal grandmother's name

His paternal grandmother is quoted as 罗氏, and transliterates as Luo Shi, but this was not her name. 氏 means 'clan', and is used when the given name of a woman was not recorded, thus in 罗氏 the second character is not her given name, but 'née Luo'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.31.203 (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody's objected to this, I've changed the article accordingly. Thanks for bringing this up. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"critics consider him a dictator"

The Wikipedia definition of a dictator goes: "a ruler who wields absolute authority". In this respect, Zedong was without a doubt a dictator. The current wording in the lede sounds as if we aren't sure whether he was a dictator or not. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As with many Marxist-Leninist leaders to have governed throughout the last century, it's not quite so simple as that. Constitutionally, none of them ruled as for instance an absolute monarch would; each was elected internally by their own party, and was to a greater or lesser extent held accountable to the party. In various cases, where these leaders actually disagreed with a majority in their party, it was the party that got their own way. (It is also noteworthy that a number of these leaders, such as Nikita Khrushchev, pretty much got ousted from the leadership position by their party). I have no doubt that the likes of Mao, Lenin, and Castro did wield extraordinary power within their respective nation-states (much of it through unofficial influence), and that this was greater than we would expect from a President or Prime Minister operating in a liberal democracy, but they didn't have absolute authority, and to refer to them as a "dictator" as if that were an incontestable objective fact is not really possible - certainly, there are those on the far left who would outright dispute it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The common descriptor of Mao used outside mainland China is that he was a "dictator". Inside China, discussion on such a point is not allowed (which rather proves the point). Elsewhere, if it is only the "far-left" who would certainly contest that he was a dictator, then that rather proves the point too. Mao was a dictator in the mold of Stalin, rather than a leader in the mold of Kruschev, as you suggest above. He seized power by force, as leader of a military campaign. His long rule was autocratic and frequently oppressive. His Party has never subjected itself to multiparty elections, and he remained head of that Party by coercion, cult of personality, and, frequently, by killing, maiming or banishing rivals. Mao does indeed fit the common understanding of the term "dictator", and wikipedia, therefore, should not say that "critics" call Mao a dictator, but use text closer to "some far left groups dispute that Mao was dictator", with inclusion also of the official stance of the modern Chinese Communist Party. Observoz (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In the lead: "Supporters credit him with driving imperialism out of China" . I would like to add, under "criticisms", that most historians consider that the Kuomintang played a far greater role in expelling the Japanese; but I am blocked from doing so. Any help, please? Arrivisto (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The claims by Chang and Halliday

The account was misleading in saying "historians such as Jung Chang". Chang and Halliday are the only historians I know of who doubt the standard story of Luding Bridge. Also the only people to deny that the First Congress of the CPC occurred in 1921. The standard story is confirmed by sources hostile to Mao. Otto Braun (Li De) is one of many who report the Luding Bridge crossing. Mao's one-time rival Zhang Guotao gives just the same account of the First Congress. --GwydionM (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Mao proposed sending 10 million Chinese women to US

In a meeting on February 17, 1973 in Beijing, Mao Zedong proposed to give 10 million Chinese women to the U.S. to boost the U.S. population, increase trade and cause disasters, according to a document released by the U.S. Department of State.[12][13][14] --XXN, 21:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added the information to the article, tell me if there's any tweaks etc. you'd like to make to it. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I trust nobody is taking this seriously. Mao was obviously joking. The text at present seems unobjectionable to me, but the anonymous "User" who posted above should maybe get a grip.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request - 28 March 2016

Where the article currently reads "...who was quickly sidelined and replaced by Xiaoping" in the introductory portion, paragraph 3, I feel it should instead state "...who was quickly sidelined and replaced by Deng." Chinese naming convention places the family name first (Deng being his family name), and it is standard style to refer to an individual via their last name if only one is to be used. In order to be consistent with Wikipedia style guides, as well as the internal style of the page which correctly refers to Mao Zedong as Mao in short, Xiaoping should here be changed to Deng. 147.9.242.149 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Done —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling Mao a dictator

Under the People's Republic, everyone has a vote and leaders are elected and re-elected regularly. Likewise for the party, at regular party congresses.

It is also true that no organised opposition, meaning that leaders are almost impossible to displace. But Deng was able to gradually replace Hua Guofeng, because Deng had more popular support.

The is different from a dictatorship, in which a particular individual is put above the law and cannot be legally replaced.

--GwydionM (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In Mao's world, "dictatorship" was not a negative term and there is no reason to remove it on the basis of POV complaints. Mao and his Party preached Dictatorship – the dictatorship of the proletariat or "'People's Democratic Dictatorship." For proof see James T. Myers; et al. (1986). Chinese Politics: Ninth Party Congress (1969) to the death of Mao (1976). Univ of South Carolina Press. p. 305. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) In the modern world, a dictator is a solitary final decision-maker, from whom there is no appeal. Does anyone here think that designation is false? Historian Daniel Leese notes that in the 1950s Mao's personality was hardening: The impression of Mao's personality that emerges from the literature is disturbing. It reveals a certain temporal development from a down-to-earth leader, who was amicable when uncontested and occasionally reflected on the limits of his power, to an increasingly ruthless and self-indulgent dictator. Mao's preparedness to accept criticism decreased continuously. Daniel Leese, "Mao the Man and Mao the Icon" in page=233 Rjensen (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mao and dictatorship

Some people seem to be getting semantic and not realizing that just because someone is a dictator doesn't mean they don't have an organization. Likewise, there can be "elections" but these are hardly worth the words. The so-called elections are within one party. This is not a free election. Mao seized power by force and never instituted democratic elections or anything close to a democratic government. Being a dictator doesn't mean you have literally "absolute" power. There needs to be an organization and perhaps a party. There might be infighting and a rotation of leaders. Also, in a lot of dictatorships such as the People's Republic and the Soviet Union, some leaders are the leaders of the Communist Party and the nation and often don't need to be elected or even hold an office. Lenin didn't hold any office and still was the absolute ruler of the Soviet Union. Mao was the same. He tried to act like he was humble, only taking the title "Chairman," but the truth was title or no title, he had absolute power in the Party and in the country. Sometimes the leaders were the superiors of the Central Committee partly due to the respect that their comrades had for them, being "founding fathers" of the Communist nations they ruled (like Lenin and Mao). This didn't mean they each were any less of a dictator. It was the party that was the dictatorship, which ruled with no democratic mandate from the citizens. Elections within the same party are not truly free elections. The point is that Mao was leader of the only official political party which was synonymous with the government. This is a dictatorship. Also it's not an insult or pejorative to call Mao a dictator. There is a definition for a dictator. Some people might use hyperbole in democratic nations and use the word dictator as insult. This doesn't change the fact that there objectively are dictators and dictatorships. (Eg. Hitler of Nazi Germany, Stalin of Soviet Union, Mao of China).NapoleonX (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would personally agree with you that Mao was a dictator, but Wikipedia should not mention this as indisputable fact, as there are differing views on this ("Legacy" section covers this). As for the comparisons you made: Josef Stalin is only mentioned as an "effectively the dictator" in his Wikipedia lead; Vladimir Lenin's article says "critics on both the left and right see him as the founder of a totalitarian dictatorship", in the same way this article says "critics consider him a dictator comparable to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin who severely damaged traditional Chinese culture" in the lead. This should obviously stay. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 21:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Are there RS that state Mao was NOT a dictator?? Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There are at least some that question the assumption (Mao Tse-Tung in the Scales of History):

Other analysts have sketched a policy process which Mao clearly dominated...To these observers, Mao was a dictator. But this view also has its troubles, and not just with Mao's inability to control rampant factional strife...Mao had to manoeuvre constantly to enforce his will. His resources were limited. He did have domestic adversaries who had their own power to thwart Mao's designs.

I think the comparisons to Hitler, especially, are bad for the following simple reason: Mao never personally had as much control over Chinese society as Hitler did over German society. And this entire argument has disguised others: even if we all agree Mao was a dictator, where should that be mentioned in the article? How should it be mentioned (as a prosaic fact, with context, or something else)?UBER ^(talk) 17:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree; the amount of detail discussing how Mao was seen as dictatorial in the article is low. Just mentioning that his critics saw him as such, end of discussion, doesn't really solve the issue. I'm sure there are plenty of RS discussing the topic. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 19:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone has fiddled with his name=

It now reads "Meow Zedog", and probably shouldn't. Someone ought to change this. Gentleman Narhwal (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Small correction that needs to be changed

"In contrast, critics consider him a dictator comparable to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin who severely damaged traditional Chinese culture". This is false. Hitler promoted traditional German culture.

Correction: "In contrast, critics consider him a dictator comparable to Joseph Stalin who severely damaged traditional Chinese culture" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.83.68 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

NO. I think the RS agree Hitler did major damage to traditional German culture--such as universities, science & art, driving out many top scholars and artists & writers and putting stiff controls on the rest and on Catholic & Protestant religion. Add the court & legal system. Scholars include Mao in that company. quotesd: 1) "Among this sizeable number are Germans who represent the creative part of the traditional German culture which, ... and the resentment felt for the obvious intention of the German State as represented by Hitler et al., to curb it to submission" [Volkmar Zuhlsdorff - 2005 ]; 2) the "Foundation condemned Hitler's 'totalitarian government' for its suppression of traditional German culture" [Philip Jenkins - 2000]; 3) "German stage by the intellectual collapse and artistic bankruptcy brought about by the Hitler regime" [Friedrich Dürrenmatt, ‎1982]; 4) Nazi "totalitarian technological rationality constitutes a not less fundamental break with the traditional German culture, which is regarded as a mere 'swindle'" [Herbert Marcuse, ‎2004]. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2016

Revert vandalism. RandomNumbersGuy (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess he referred to the Meow Zedog thing mentioned above =) Ahyangyi (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Party Dictatorship

It is a fact that Communist China under the CCP was a one party dictatorship. What is a one party state but a party dictatorship? You can argue whether his dictatorship was benevelont or brutal tyranny, but the fact remains that China under Mao was a dictatorship. Not only that but a core principle of Marxism and later Marxism-Leninism and Maoism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The Communist Party was the vanguard of the revolution overthrowing the Republic of China. They never instituted anything close to democratic elections or a democratic nation. They were/are a Communist Party dictatorship. I didn't argue with the lead for Stalin because they said basically he was dictator. No sense squabbling when considering WP's widespread left-wing bias that resists calling both Right-Wing dictators AND Left-Wing dictators dictators. Every Right-Wing dictator such as Franco, Pinochet,etc. are called dictators, as they should be. But there is no equivalent labeling of Left-Wing dictators (e.g. Fidel Castro, Mao Tse-tung, Vladimir Lenin) on WP. Apologists for the Communists and "fellow travelers" still exist but we shouldn't be surrendering to their lies. Is the Earth round or according to some people's opinion, is it flat? NapoleonX (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but the PRC actually does have other parties. — LlywelynII 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In Chinese Mao Zedong was well-known as "Mao Runzhi"

This is also the name he used to write many of his poems. See [15] Why is there no mention of it on its page? Timmyshin (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Good question! Should go in Info Box at least. The Chinese Wikipedia article includes 润之 plus a whole slew of other names in a note].ch (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)