Revision as of 12:00, 31 December 2010 editPCPP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,888 edits →Death toll in lede← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:46, 18 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,962 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive 11) (bot |
(914 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{talkheader|search=no}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=n|listas=Mao, Zedong|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=high|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Top|core=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=Top|history=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cold War|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |
|
|
|class =B |
|
|
|b1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =y |
|
|
|b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y |
|
|
|b3 <!-- Structure --> =y |
|
|
|b4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =y |
|
|
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y |
|
|
|Biography =y |
|
|
|Chinese =y |
|
|
|WWII =y |
|
|
|Cold-War =y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Mid|political=yes|philosopher=yes|eastern=yes|contemporary=yes|social=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{spotlighted|date=August 01, 2007|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mao_Zedong&diff=148486240&oldid=147917823}} |
|
|
{{onlinesource |
|
|
| year=2006 |
|
|
| section=December 1, 2006 |
|
|
| author= Howard W. French |
|
|
| title= Who Did What in China's Past? Look It Up, or Maybe Not. |
|
|
| org= New York Times |
|
|
| url= http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/asia/01wikipedia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |
|
|
| date=December 1, 2006 |
|
|
| year2=2006 |
|
|
| section2=December 1, 2006 |
|
|
| author2=Howard W. French |
|
|
| title2=Misplaced Pages offers 2 visions of Mao Zedong |
|
|
| org2=Daily Breeze |
|
|
| url2=http://www.dailybreeze.com/ |
|
|
| date2=December 1, 2006}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=Top|class=C|history=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=C|politician-priority=Top|core=yes|politician-work-group=yes |
|
|
|listas=Mao, Zedong}} |
|
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=C |
|
|
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
|
|
<!-- 1. Suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations-->|B-Class-1=no |
|
|
<!-- 2. Reasonably covers topic, does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies-->|B-Class-2= yes |
|
|
<!-- 3. Has defined structure including lead section and one or more sections-->|B-Class-3= yes |
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->|B-Class-4= yes |
|
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5= yes|Chinese-task-force=yes|Biography=y|WWII=Y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atheism|class=C|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=C|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|importance=high|philosopher=yes|eastern=yes|contemporary=yes|social=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cold War|class=C|importance=Mid}}}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=C|category=Socsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-09-09|oldid1=5776124}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Mao Zedong/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
== Recent change == |
|
{{FAOL|lang1=Bokmål|link1=no:Mao Zedong}} |
|
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{controversial (history)}} |
|
|
{{pbneutral}} |
|
|
{{notforum}} |
|
|
{{to do}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mao vs. the ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
How can you call Khmer Rouge a '''''maoist''''' party?! Oh, god, Mao never liked the Khmer Rouge! They killed TWENTYFIVE PERCENTS of the people in ]!! ] (]) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Didn't Moa kill 40 million people? Perhaps Mao didn't like the Khmer Rouge because they didn't kill enough? ] (]) 21:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Many scholars refer to the Khmer Rouge as Maoist I've seen no evidence that Mao didn't "like" the Khmer Rouge. In fact, the Chinese Communist Party has been one of their strongest supporters. In , Mao doesn't seem to displeased with shaking the hand of ] as a smiling Pol Pot looks on. (I'm surprised this image hasn't been added to wikipedia as of yet).--] (]) 12:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Both of you, do not add personal commentary and analysis onto talk pages. This is not a place to further your politica agendas.] (]) 00:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:What does a photo prove? Mao shook hands with numerous people, including hardcore anti-communist Richard Nixon. I guess that makes him a supporter of spying at Watergate now? In fact, numerous party members, especially Zhou Enlai, were alarmed at the Khmer Rouge's radicalism and viewed King Sihanouk as a more moderate ally. A few radicals like security chief Kang Sheng supported the Khmer Rouge. The KR's philosophy has its roots in Buddhism, racism, and anti-materialism - its leaders were almost anonymous, as opposed to real Maoists like the Shining Path and the Nepalese Maoists.--] (]) 10:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Death toll in lede == |
|
|
|
|
|
Recently ] has attempted to replace the lower estimate of deaths under Mao in the lede with "17,4" million. He apparently gets this estimate by adding together some of the mass deaths during the Mao era given by Maurice Meisner in his book ''Mao's China and After (1977, 1999)'': terror against counterrevolutionaries: 2 million, GLF: 15-30 million, CR: 400,000. However, this is an example of ] as Meisner of deaths under Mao. So putting the estimate of "17,4" million in the article and attributing it to Meisner is basically putting words in his mouth (especially considering the range of deaths he provides for the GLF). Secondly, this estimate cannot at all be adequate, as it excludes other mass deaths during the Mao era, such as casualties in the ], the ] and repression in Tibet. The aforementioned editor also cited Wang Weizhi's estimate of 19.5 million in ''Contemporary Chinese Population'' (1988), presumably as further justification for a much lower death toll. However, this estimate only pertains to deaths brought about by the GLF, and therefore makes it inappropriate as a primary source for the lower estimate in the lede.--] (]) 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree ]. Lower estimate forwarded by ] is innappropriate. ] (]) 14:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Shouldn't we separate the death tolls from purges and those from faulty policies? I think if we begin to elevate death tolls from bad policy to the level of intentional massacres, then most leaders of the world would be criminals in one way or another.] (]) 01:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't think we should separate them. Other leaders' "faulty policies" don't end up costing 45 million lives. ] (]) 05:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Other leaders also didn't rule the world's most populous and famine-prone country that had more than 1800 famines in the past 2 millenia. Four famines from 1810 to 1849 killed 45 million people, the Taiping Rebellion killed 60 million, the Great North China Famine killed 13 million, and Mao wasn't even born then. Mao's rival Chiang Kai-shek oversaw a famine that killed 3 million in 1943, and as well as the deliberatly engineered the Yellow River Flood of 1938 that killed 1 million and displaced 12 million.--] (]) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Why is it that some people will defend communism and Mao regardless of how many people were killed? It never ceases to amazes me. Faulty policies? When these so-called "faulty policies" result in the deaths of tens of millions of people, it is time to question whether they were faulty or whether the goals of the particular regime were accomplished. Mass death seems to be a feature, rather than a bug, when it comes to communism. Thank goodness someone had the sense to point out that 45 million+ deaths is a wee bit high to be attributed to a fault in policy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::Riiight, is that why no incidences of mass death has occurred in Communist Russia and China since Stalin and Mao's deaths, nor had it occurred in Eastern Europe and other communist states ruled by less totalitarian leaders?--] (]) 10:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The 40 - 70 million death toll estimate currently cited is appropriate. Regarding the GLP in contrast to other famines, I don't know why it should be necessary to point out that the GLP was a man-made disaster, and that China's historical propensity for devastating famines is beside the point. If in doubt about whether the deaths under the GLP were deliberate and calculated, I suggest taking a serious look at Dikötter's research. ] (]) 15:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yeah, because one book released in 2010 and sponsored by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation is the end-all source on GLF. Here is something that says otherwise --] (]) 16:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::The source you cited is to a "socialist magazine." Their own words. I'll trust a well regarded SOAS professor over the denials of communist apologists. ] (]) 16:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Newsflash, it's not "communist apologist" just because you disagree with it. It's cited by Google Scholar and used in at least one university publication . Furthermore, it's academically dishonest to dismiss any discussions on weather date and Chinese mortality rate, not to mention that famines caused by the Taiping Rebellion and An Shi Rebellion far exceeds the GLF death toll.--] (]) 12:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chang and Halliday are unreliable, Article on them exposed false claims in their book. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not a commie or even a fan of Mao, but i despise POV twisting by some people who have a fetish with Mao and try to twist articles to fit their agendas. Speaking of which, Jon Halliday and Jung Chang hold absolutely no PHDs, degrees, doctorates, or anything in Asian and Chinese history, chinese politics, or even communism. nothing, zilch. Only in linguistics and Russian history, which are unrelated to the book they wrote about. Lets try to limit this article to '''reliable''' sources, and not a source written by an author with a personal vendetta. |
|
|
|
|
|
Chang and Halliday falsely claim that Chiang Kai-shek allowed the Communists to escape on the ], allegedly because he wanted his son ] who was being held hostage by ] back.<ref name="SMH">{{cite web|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-swans-little-book-of-ire/2005/10/07/1128563003642.html|title=A swan's little book of ire|publisher=The Sydney Morning Herald|date=2005-10-08|accessdate=2007-12-08}}</ref> This is contradicted by ] himself, who wrote in his diary, "It is not worth is to sacrifice the interest of the country for the sake of my son." <ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_5R2fnVZXiwC&pg=PA59&dq=It+is+not+worth+it+to+sacrifice+the+interest+of+the+country+for+the+sake+of+my+son&hl=en&ei=vwe9TIvGF8L78Aa81ZzGDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20not%20worth%20it%20to%20sacrifice%20the%20interest%20of%20the%20country%20for%20the%20sake%20of%20my%20son&f=false|title=The Generalissimo's son: Chiang Ching-kuo and the revolutions in China and Taiwan|author=Jay Taylor|year=2000|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=|page=59|isbn=0674002873|pages=|accessdate=2010-06-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=YkREps9oGR4C&pg=PA205&dq=It+is+not+worth+it+to+sacrifice+the+interests+of+the+country+for+the+sake+of+my+son&hl=en&ei=MgW9TNvcKsP78Abztqi1Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20not%20worth%20it%20to%20sacrifice%20the%20interests%20of%20the%20country%20for%20the%20sake%20of%20my%20son&f=false|title=Chiang Kai Shek: China's Generalissimo and the Nation He Lost|author=Jonathan Fenby|year=2005|publisher=Carroll & Graf Publishers|location=|page=205|isbn=0786714840|pages=|accessdate=2010-06-28}}</ref> Chiang even refused to negotiate for a prisoner swap, of his son in exchange fo the Chinese Communist Party leader.<ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4ZpVntUTZfkC&pg=PA247&dq=It+is+not+worth+it+to+sacrifice+the+interest+of+the+country+for+the+sake+of+my+son&hl=en&ei=vAi9TLi0M8H68Ab-hJjsDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20not%20worth%20it%20to%20sacrifice%20the%20interest%20of%20the%20country%20for%20the%20sake%20of%20my%20son&f=false|title=The last empress: Madame Chiang Kai-Shek and the birth of modern China|author=Hannah Pakula|year=2009|publisher=Simon and Schuster|location=|page=247|isbn=1439148937|pages=|accessdate=2010-06-28}}</ref> Again in 1937 he stated about his son- "I would rather have no offspring than sacrifice our nation's interests." Chiang had absolutely no intention of stopping the war against the Communists.<ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_5R2fnVZXiwC&pg=PA59&dq=chiang+sacrifice+son&hl=en&ei=nQW9TLK5MoT68Aaw9uAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=chiang%20son%20i%20would%20rather%20have%20no%20offspring%20than%20sacrifice%20our%20%20interests&f=false|title=The Generalissimo's son: Chiang Ching-kuo and the revolutions in China and Taiwan|author=Jay Taylor|year=2000|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=|page=74|isbn=0674002873|pages=|accessdate=2010-06-28}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Among other things, it was reported that Chang and Halliday were "appallingly dishonest", and that Chiang Kai-shek never, ever let the Communists escape, contrary to Chang and Halliday's false claims. In addition, the alleged "source" Chang and Halliday claimed they met could not be found, on the contrary, a person who witnessed the battle, Li Guixiu confirmed that the battle had happened, contradicting Chang and Halliday.<ref name="SMH">{{cite web|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-swans-little-book-of-ire/2005/10/07/1128563003642.html|title=A swan's little book of ire|publisher=The Sydney Morning Herald|date=2005-10-08|accessdate=2007-12-08}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is not really new information. Criticism of ''Mao: The Unknown Story'' is already widely documented. <b class="IPA">]</b> (]) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I just looked through the article and, in , found only four spots that are sourced only to Chang & Halliday (others have additional sources): |
|
|
:#ref 10 (innocuous claim about Mao's not studying abroad) |
|
|
:#ref 53 (properly attributed as Chang's opinion) |
|
|
:#paragraph about the GLF, which cites reference 68 three times |
|
|
:#ref 91, the "half of China may well have to die" quote, properly attributed as Chang's opinion and followed by an extended discussion from another source |
|
|
:Notice that ''none'' of these instances have anything whatsoever to do with the Long March, which your long comment above is about. So my question for you is, what exactly are you raising a complaint about here? <b class="IPA">]</b> (]) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Did Mao hold PHDs, degrees, doctorates, or anything in Asian and Chinese history, chinese politics, or even communism.? |
|
|
Yet we are to trust his word about his life? how many serial killers confess to their crimes? |
|
|
The order Mao created in China still hinders freedom of speech and free travel, just look at the nobel peace prize. And asking such a nation to tell the truth through previously secret documents is like asking joseph gobbels to write the truth about germany 1933-1945. |
|
|
Ofcourse they'll release documents but only scrutinized and to further their own goals. Not to distable their own powerbase. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Your comment makes no sense. Mao is the subject being judged here, so why does he need any degrees? Last time I checked, you don't need any degrees to be a political leader. And the current Chinese government moved so away from Mao's ideals that it resembles more like Nationalist China.--] (]) 10:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===References=== |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Rjanag, "Speaking of which, Jon Halliday and Jung Chang hold absolutely no PHDs, degrees, doctorates, or anything in Asian and Chinese history, chinese politics, or even communism. nothing, zilch.", well, such a blatant attack on Chang and Halliday really is pointless, especially from a Wiki editor, who has turned a blind eye towards their years and years of visiting Chinese and international archives (档案馆), and translating various documents into English, which were then used as "source" in the writing of their book. User Rjanag, you might have also forgotten the fact that Jon Halliday is fluent in Russian, and the Russian archives is just as important as any Chinese archives when someone is doing research on Communist China history ? <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 02:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
User Rjanag, "] is a historian of Russia and was a former Senior Visiting Research Fellow at King's College London.", please tell other editors what you think of this statement.<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Should "Mao as a 'worst than Stalin' Mass Murderer" be included in the lede? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@]: Why restored the content that does not exist in main body in the article("deaths of 15 to 55 million people", "lasted for 10 years") or possible ] ("Conversely")? ] (]) 00:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{quote|If Dikötter’s revised figure of 45 million withstands scrutiny, Mao will have definitively surpassed Joseph Stalin’s overall record as a mass murderer }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I am in agreement with @]. Much of the trimming was fluff. I had a different reason for agreeing about trimming deaths for Great Leap Forward, namely that we already have a good deal of millions of death material in the lead. ] (]) 00:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't disagree with this as stated. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:A few bullet points, some not directly related to the main reason for reversion: |
|
|
:* ''Conversely'' is a word to watch, but the way it is being used here is clearly fine, as the two perspectives are clearly not compatible in most cases. In fact, your phrasing itself plausibly implies that the two views <em>are</em> |
|
|
:* Your linking of ] runs afoul of ]. |
|
|
:* While 55 million may not be attested in the article here, it is clearly cited at the article linked. The most productive thing to do here is to copy the references over, not force others to go and do it on your behalf. I don't think there's an NPOV justification in omitting figures as such. |
|
|
:* Your removal of any mention of escalation or motion is not encyclopedic in my view, akin to above, it actually has the unintended effect of mischaracterizing events by describing them as little as possible. There is a point where slimming summaries goes too far, and in this case you've crossed it imo. |
|
|
:<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::* If the phrase give the impression "two perspectives are clearly not compatible", which is not well-sourced fact, then the phrase must be fixed. |
|
|
::* I removed the content that does not exist in main body, but link to ] is remained, which ("great ... famine") give impression of numerous deaths already, without worrying on the contents does not exist in main body. and general number of deaths is already treated in last paragraph of lead section (whose contents exists in main body of the article). |
|
|
::] (]) 01:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm saying that whatever the relationship is, your particular juxtaposition also creates a synthetic connotation to my eye. I'm sure you've seen it, but the examples given at ] are pretty analogous to the contention here, though without an explicit linking {{xt|and}}, it's analogous. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The examples in ] are problematic, because "but" and "only" gave some sort of impression, which is not neutral. "Conversely" creates much stronger non-neutral impression than my phrasing. My phrasing does not include these sort of words. I think my phrasing has less problematic connotation, and more neutral than using such problematic words. Of course, the best option is giving no impression about the two perspectives' compatibility. ] (]) 03:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I am saying the effect is subtler: I would not find an argument compelling that mere juxtaposition cannot ever take up its own connotations in this context. But it is a minor tone issue. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mao Zedong's heart attacks and reported time of death == |
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the time of writing this talk topic the ] section of the article page reads: |
|
|
"He suffered two major ]s, one in March and another in July, then a third on 5 September, rendering him an invalid. He died nearly four days later, on 9 September 1976, at the age of 82. The Communist Party delayed the announcement of his death until 16:00, when a national radio broadcast announced the news and appealed for party unity.<ref name="NYT1">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0909.html#article |title=Mao Tse-Tung Dies In Peking At 82; Leader Of Red China Revolution; Choice Of Successor Is Uncertain |newspaper=] |access-date=25 October 2014}}</ref>" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For starters, the referenced source that was apparently retrieved on 25 October 2014 is a broken link, and the currently accessible live version of the same article source now has "https://archive.nytimes.com/" appended to the beginning of the url as follows: |
|
<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 00:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0909.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now the main contention: The referenced source only mentions that Mao Zedong died at 12:10 a.m. on September 9, but it does not mention how many heart attacks Mao Zedong had, nor the time that Mao had the heart attacks, therefore the following quoted claim does not currently have a source attributed to it: |
|
:I don't think it's necessary to use a POV term like "mass murderer", especially in the lead. As long as we mention the death toll, most readers will reach this conclusion by themselves anyway. ] (]) 05:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"He suffered two major ]s, one in March and another in July, then a third on 5 September, rendering him an invalid. He died nearly four days later..." |
|
|
The same sourcing issue is apparent in regard to information described in the article about the ], which uses the same source attribution and currently reads: |
|
|
"At around 17:00 on 5 September 1976, Mao had a ], far more severe than his previous two earlier that year which affected a much larger area of his heart, leaving him bedridden. On the afternoon of 7 September, Mao's condition completely deteriorated. Mao's organs failed quickly and he fell into a ] shortly before noon and was put on a ] and ]. |
|
|
On 8 September, when it was clear the comatose Mao was beyond recovery, Chinese government officials decided to disconnect his life support machines at midnight..." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is anyone able to find a source that verifies these claims that time Mao Zedong's heart attacks to March, July, and 17:00 on 5 September? |
|
::Why is it that "Mass murderer" be a POV term? And isn't Mao deserve such a term, after all, he did cause millions upon millions of Chinese to die of unnatural death, didn't he? Moreover, it is near impossible to find another "revolutionary leader" and "world leader" like him. |
|
|
::: Hitler, for starters. ] (]) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have identified a source by James Palmer (Chapter 6: "You die, I live" of ''Heaven Cracks, Earth Shakes: The Tangshan Earthquake and the Death of Mao's China'', published 3 January 2012) that alternatively claims that Mao Zedong suffered a heart attack at about 5:00 p.m. on September 2. This source is also referenced at least one time by other authors including in Chapter 7: "Selective Integration" of Peter Martin's ''China's Civilian Army: The Making of Wolf Warrior Diplomacy'', published 2021.<ref>{{cite book |
|
|
|last=Martin |
|
|
|first=Peter |
|
|
|date=20 May 2021 |
|
|
|chapter=7 Selective Integration |
|
|
|title=China's Civilian Army: The Inside Story of China's Quest for Global Power |
|
|
|url= https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197513705.003.0008 |
|
|
|location=New York |
|
|
|publisher=Oxford Academic |
|
|
|page=127 |
|
|
|doi= 10.1093/oso/9780197513705.003.0008 |
|
|
|isbn= 9780197513736 |
|
|
}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is anyone able to find any reliable sources earlier than 3 January 2012 that affirmatively verify that Mao Zedong had heart attacks in March, July, 2 September and/or 5 September, 1976? |
|
<i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 05:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Mao Zedong's heart attacks thus far have an identifiable source attribution referenced to James Palmer's ''Heaven Cracks, Earth Shakes'' (2012), I can propose a revision to the article on the ] as follows, however someone with greater editing privileges can investigate making changes to the main ] page. |
|
:::I am also interested to know how the term "mass murderer" is a point of view, rather than a matter of historical fact. Are Mao's deeds disputed? Or is there some other issue? --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 05:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
e.g. "At around 17:00 on '''''2''''' September 1976,<ref>{{cite book |
|
{{quote|Beijing government officials. including Zhou Enlai and Mao, increased the food procurement quota from the countryside to pay for international imports. According to Dikötter, "In most cases the party knew very well that it was starving its own people to death." Mao was quoted as saying in Shanghai in 1959: “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” ]}} |
|
|
|
|last=Palmer |
|
|
|first=James |
|
|
|date=3 January 2012 |
|
|
|chapter=6 You die, I live |
|
|
|title=Heaven Cracks, Earth Shakes: The Tangshan Earthquake and the Death of Mao's China |
|
|
|location=New York |
|
|
|publisher=Basic Books |
|
|
|page=196 |
|
|
|isbn=9780465023493 |
|
|
}}</ref> Mao had a ]..." |
|
|
and so on. ] (]) 21:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Luckily, Spence (1998) has us covered, pp. 176–177: |
|
:::If Mao and Zhou Enlai and the Communist Party knew that Chinese were being starved to death in the millions, yet they keep on exporting food to oversea, then Mao and Zhou deserved the term "mass murderer". <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 06:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{cquote|On June 26, Mao had a second heart attack. A third came on September 2, more serious than the previous two, leaving him weakened and comatose. On September 8, he was alert enough to spend some short periods reading reports, but he dozed off repeatedly. Around 11:15 P.M., he drifted into a coma. Ten minutes after midnight, on September 9, 1976, Mao died in the presence of the ranking members of the Politburo, who had been summoned to his room, and his attendant physicians.}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::While I agree the term describes him well, I don't think it looks serious in an encyclopedia article, and it makes it look like we are trying to push a POV more than we need to. If we look hard enough I'm sure we can find sources stating that Mao was an evil man, a selfish man and so on, but do we really need to mention all that? It should already be obvious from the text. Also I think most historians (let alone encyclopedia) don't bother with such terms, only journalists do so as to have catchy article titles. ] (]) 06:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Mass murderer" is definitely a negative POV statement. It also assumes that he physically killed people, which he did not. His policies led to the death of millions of people, but he didn't ''murder'' them in cold blood. Also, the sources you are using for the term are not representative of a broad view of things; they are opinion pieces. ''']]]''' 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Mao Zedong|answered=yes}} |
|
::What Mao, and his communist friends, did was really ], and ], crimes which are much more serious than "mass murder". Even though he did not ''murder'' someone in cold blood, “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.” he had virtually signed the death warrant of ten of millions of Chinese. And certainly it is not POV to those millions of dead Chinese. |
|
|
|
As discussed in ], it is advised that in the section on ] the following sentence: |
|
{{quote|The first large-scale killings under Mao took place during land reform and the counterrevolutionary campaign. In official study materials published in 1948, Mao envisaged that "one-tenth of the peasants" (or about 50,000,000) "would have to be destroyed" to facilitate agrarian reform. Actual numbers killed in land reform are believed to have been lower, but at least one million. |
|
|
The suppression of counterrevolutionaries targeted mainly former Kuomintang officials and intellectuals suspected of disloyalty. At least 712,000 people were executed, 1,290,000 were imprisoned inlabor camps and 1,200,000 were "subject to control at various times."}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"He suffered two major ]s, one in March and another in July, then a third on 5 September, rendering him an invalid." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should be changed into something like: |
|
] <i><b><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small><font color="blue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b></i> 07:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"He suffered two major ]s, one in March and another in July, then a third on 2 September at about 5:00 p.m.,<ref>{{cite book |
|
So I agree with Wikilaurent about "letting the facts speak for themselves". No need for such a charged word, I suppose; better to describe what he actually did. --<font style="bold">]</font><font color="black" style="bold">]</font> 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|last=Palmer |
|
: Mass murder may sound charged but its really just a simple fact- he caused the deaths of millions of people. ] (]) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|first=James |
|
|
|date=3 January 2012 |
|
|
|chapter=6 You die, I live |
|
|
|title=Heaven Cracks, Earth Shakes: The Tangshan Earthquake and the Death of Mao's China |
|
|
|location=New York |
|
|
|publisher=Basic Books |
|
|
|page=196 |
|
|
|isbn=9780465023493 |
|
|
}}</ref> rendering him an invalid." ] (]) 22:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> My own way, at least. That should work, right? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Noting that according to Spence the second one was actually in late June... I think so. Thanks! 👏 ] (]) 22:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thank you for giving me something quick, concrete, and important to do! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
Now the main contention: The referenced source only mentions that Mao Zedong died at 12:10 a.m. on September 9, but it does not mention how many heart attacks Mao Zedong had, nor the time that Mao had the heart attacks, therefore the following quoted claim does not currently have a source attributed to it:
The same sourcing issue is apparent in regard to information described in the article about the Death and state funeral of Mao Zedong, which uses the same source attribution and currently reads:
Is anyone able to find a source that verifies these claims that time Mao Zedong's heart attacks to March, July, and 17:00 on 5 September?
Is anyone able to find any reliable sources earlier than 3 January 2012 that affirmatively verify that Mao Zedong had heart attacks in March, July, 2 September and/or 5 September, 1976?
As Mao Zedong's heart attacks thus far have an identifiable source attribution referenced to James Palmer's Heaven Cracks, Earth Shakes (2012), I can propose a revision to the article on the Death and state funeral of Mao Zedong as follows, however someone with greater editing privileges can investigate making changes to the main Mao Zedong page.