Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Smith's (talk | contribs) at 09:05, 24 April 2006 (→Willy Lam's "support"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New comments at end please.

Excerpts

The three paragraphs quoted from the book seem to serve no particular purpose. I can understand quoting from, say, Gadsby (novel), since it is both lipogramtical and public domain, but why Mao: The Unknown Story?

The Exile

I have re-edited the reviews to only include serious British broadsheets, from a range of political stances. That should do for now. I am not happy having the Exile review, as it is gravely flawed and biased:

• Bases the interest in the book on a Tory conspiracy to cover-up for the Empire (WTF??)
• Completely ignores the fact the book isn't published in the US and so there are only pre-orders on amazon.com
• Completely ignores the fact that the Guardian, Roy H. et al like the book as well. Having a group of people on opposite ends of the political spectrum rather blows holes in his conspiracy theory.

But more importantly, this publication is a complete joke. What is it? Some weird sort of internet journal. What do the authors get for their work? The smug self-satisfaction that they're not writing for a blog? It is also exceptionally reactionary - anti-American, anti-Orange Ukrainian, anti-Catholic and anti-conservative for one thing. I'm sure it's anti a lot more.

Pasting links to such a heavily biased publication would lower the reputation of wiki. Next thing is we'll have people on the other side pasting links to the Epoch Times. Let's not go down that road, please.

Lao Wai, do we really have to bring in such trash? It's pure bullshit and really lowers the tone of discussion. Go and read some of their other artiles and ask yourself if wiki should be associating itself with such rubbish. Jesus, they drew a mocking little stick picture of Pope JP-II. How sad is that?

I am not interested in their other articles, nor am I providing a link to them. Just this one and it is a fairly well thought out review (apart from the Empire stuff, which I tend to find amusing). Not that he said it was a cover up just that people like it for that reason. It doesn't really blow holes in his theory, it just means that the people who used to defend Mao, the Guardian, Roy H, et al, no longer have the courage to do so. It is a much better thought out review than Roy H.'s or the Trinidad one (I just admire GD as an author - this review, like most of them, was just lazy). Reactionary? Anti-American? Anti-Catholic? Anti-Conservative? Come on now. Sounds like the Guardian to me. Lao Wai 15:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian doesn't draw offensive pictures of a dead Pope, or pretend to link to a book on amazon.com, but really link to a book called "bullshit". It's a joke of a publication. As I said before, do you think we should link to the Epoch Times? John Smith's 15:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I know a lot of "left-wing" people who would be very angry about your implication that the only reason they don't support Mao is because they lack courage. If you dared to suggest that to Roy H he'd give you a right earful. John Smith's 15:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I couldn't help but quote this little gem to illustrate my point about how trasy this publication is: Jung and her shadowy co-author. "Shadowy"? What's "shadowy" about him? It's just a simple ploy to try to rubbish the book by discrediting the co-author - who Mr Dolan has failed to mention is a historian. It's as if Halliday's some dodgy MI5 agent. John Smith's 16:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am the one who originally edited in the article from the eXile. I'll defend this now.

"Bases the interest in the book on a Tory conspiracy to cover-up for the Empire (WTF??) Completely ignores the fact the book isn't published in the US and so there are only pre-orders on amazon.com Completely ignores the fact that the Guardian, Roy H. et al like the book as well. Having a group of people on opposite ends of the political spectrum rather blows holes in his conspiracy theory."

Indeed, the part about the Tory "conspiracy" is not to be taken seriously. It's not so much a serious conspiracy theory, but rather a wild guess as to the book's popularity in the UK. It may be a weird accusation, but does that justify its deletion, while the other external links can stay? Let's click them!

As can be seen, literally every single external link besides "Too much hate, too little understanding" is not so much a review of Mao, but rather a repeat of the main arguments of this book. All are dedicated to describing Mao Zedong as a "monster" and the book as "terrible proof that absolute evil can sometimes triumph". So let me get this straight: a critical review isn't allowed because it's from an "alternative" source, but reviews which are for 90% anti-Maoist agenda-pushing or interviewing Chang and Halliday are fine and dandy?

"But more importantly, this publication is a complete joke. What is it? Some weird sort of internet journal. What do the authors get for their work? The smug self-satisfaction that they're not writing for a blog? It is also exceptionally reactionary - anti-American, anti-Orange Ukrainian, anti-Catholic and anti-conservative for one thing. I'm sure it's anti a lot more."

The Guardian, The Observer, the Trinidad and Tobago Express and The Times(or at least their "reviews" of Mao: The Unknown Story) are anti-Mao, anti-communist, anti-socialist for one thing and anti a lot more. OMG DELETE!1!1 Articles and columns in the eXile range from quite good(War Nerd, John Dolan) to bullshit(Eduard Limonov, the fact that there's a logo of the National Bolshevik Party in the footer). What matters though is the review of Mao we're talking about. And that review is equalled in constructiveness by none of the others linked by this article except for the one in The Independent.

"Pasting links to such a heavily biased publication would lower the reputation of wiki. Next thing is we'll have people on the other side pasting links to the Epoch Times. Let's not go down that road, please.

Lao Wai, do we really have to bring in such trash? It's pure bullshit and really lowers the tone of discussion. Go and read some of their other artiles and ask yourself if wiki should be associating itself with such rubbish. Jesus, they drew a mocking little stick picture of Pope JP-II. How sad is that?"

Lots of articles link to criticisms by The Best Page in the Universe. While I personally love this site, I will still be the first to say that THAT is a site which can be regarded as bullshit by some. Which reminds me, WHAT exactly is "pure bullshit" in your eyes? The review of Mao? Really? As opposed to the "Long March to Evil" review that for 90% consists of jumping on the "MAO WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 70 MILLION PEOPLE KILLED, THEREFORE HE IS PURE EVIL!!!!" bandwagon? Or do you mean the eXile as a whole? As said, Misplaced Pages has linked to worse. Take Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly for example. I'd bet my computer that at least some articles about American politics link to them, even though I'd call their material reactionary bullshit moreso than the eXile.

"Oh, and I couldn't help but quote this little gem to illustrate my point about how trasy this publication is: Jung and her shadowy co-author. "Shadowy"? What's "shadowy" about him? It's just a simple ploy to try to rubbish the book by discrediting the co-author - who Mr Dolan has failed to mention is a historian. It's as if Halliday's some dodgy MI5 agent."

Once again, the same weirdness. So Dolan's review(or the eXile, I'm not quite sure) is trashy because it calls Halliday "shadowy", and that is grounds to not link to the article, but the other reviews are perfectly permitted to stay even though they do all but call Mao a monstrous baby-eating devil? Is there a psychiatrist in the room? Eyeflash 17:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There's a slight problem with your attitude towards the English newspapers. All bar the Times are PRO-Socialist or left-wing. Roy H. is one of the left's fiercest supporters. Why would they instinctively be anti-Mao? Or does Mao have no friends on the political spectrum bar the ultra-far right wing?

The problem with the Exile review is two of the main points, as I have shown, are irrelevant. Now if you want to argue that wiki regularly links to crap, then fine. But I thought we weren't about linking to websites that make line-drawing, mocking pictures of a dead Pope, or pretending to host links to adverts for a book but then redirect you to a book about "bullshit". That indicates to me that they're childish and not professional. If we also put in reviews from places like the Epoch Times, then I can just imagine a stream of Chinese nationalists coming in here and saying OMG HOW CAN YOU POST INFORMATION FROM SUCH A BIASED NEWSPAPER? YOU ARE JUST A CHINA BASHER!!!! If there are articles by really outrageous people, then why not go delete them. I don't see why we have to draw the whole of wiki down to the level of a few bad eggs.

I don't think the article is designed to be funny - the author is acting superior. For one thing, why does it matter if Tories like it? Perhaps they know what good books are and have better taste than him. He's using the "Tories are evil so don't trust them" format to rubbish the book.

There are some interesting points in there, which incidentily are not easily verified. How does he know then the KGB was set up - was he involved in the process of starting it up? Perhaps the KGB told the truth about when it was set up and no more.

I'd also like to point out that I had no problems whatsoever with the Independent article being put in. I didn't put any of the reviews in any of the Jung Chang-related articles. But I don't know what you want them to say. You seem to be annoyed that they don't criticise the book. The Exile doesn't have one GOOD thing to say. He just dismissively says "she's an excellent story teller".

You say more than once that these papers are jumping on an anti-Mao bandwagon. Then why can't you find any real publications that criticise the book. We have the Sunday Independent and..... no one else? Not one other real newspaper? Why is that? Is the world's media in the grip of the Zionist conspiracy again? Well, what's your personal opinion of him. Obviously you wouldn't say 70% good, 30% bad. But just out of curiosity, how would you rate him? John Smith's 20:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Also the Exile review does not actually drop any massive bombshells on the book. It just makes a few small points and then whinges about the overall style of the book. It is not anymore helpful than the others, because it seeks to find flaws in the book without ever trying to look at the whole. John Smith's 21:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well there is nothing like seeing Exile's supporters to make me sympathise with you, but actually the review is pretty good from a professional point of view. Only the Indie's guy shows any real signs of having actually read the book out of the ones we have so far. Pretty much all the rest do not give any particular insight into it nor show any signs of reading much beyond the press releases. The Exile's guy certainly read it and makes a few good points. Pointing out that her silly claims about the Long March being easy is contradicted by her claims about Mao's treatment of his then wife is pretty good actually. As for mocking the Pope, well, the Guardian did worse in its time. Certainly as long as Mao was alive the G didn't print anything critical - look at their Obit for him. Admittedly the Exile looks to be crap magazine, but again we are only pointing to a single review. As for real publications criticising the book, Mao is dead, Communism has disppeared from China, most of Mao's friends have changed their tune. That only leaves real historians and her publishers, as I mentioned, show signs of trying to keep the book away from them - I know one China historian who was "un-invited" to one of her talks and replaced by a literary editor of the local paper. You will notice that none of the major newsheets except the IoS has given the book to anyone who might be called competent in the field. Lao Wai 10:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I said it before, I don't know how this is so "useful" when it doesn't do anything to really challenge the book. It is no more objective than the others because he's looking for reasons to criticise it. Now the Independent actually made some serious points in a well thought out, mature way. But if you want to put this in, I can't be bothered to stop you. John Smith's 16:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Evil"

"Evil" is not an NPOV word. The NPOV approach is to describe the deeds, and let the reader make up their own mind: we assume our readers are capable of understanding good and evil by themselves. See, for example, the articles on Hitler and the Khmer Rouge to see how this works. We can, however, use the word if it is part of an attributed quote.-- The Anome 17:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I have also posted this request on the article about Jung Chang but it hasn't received any responses. Could someone please provide a source for the Philip Short's criticism of the book and Chang's response.

I do not know who put the claim in, but two minutes research finds an interview with Short - see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15601537,00.html. It may or may not be the source for the claim but clearly Short is not happy. As he shouldn't be. Lao Wai 19:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw something similar, though not as in depth, on the Times or another British newspaper. Though I would have to dispute some of what he says, especially the part about him being a genius. John Smith's 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Ok, I cut a lot of that stuff out for a few reasons. I'm not saying it can't go in, just that I think we need to make it more professional. If you look at Iris Chang and Rape of Nanking, you'll see that the article is much more simple. What I don't want to see is a huge article. Let's keep it compact and not try to debate the book ourselves.

• First, don't have long quotes like that. Perhaps the newspaper reviews need to be cut down as well, but it would be better to cut them a bit, rather than have such a long quote. But the essence is still there.
• Second, I've removed anything that had SOME PEOPLE SAY. Let's keep this to X says. So find some names of Chinese critics and perhaps some Chinese supporters as well. References as well. I'm sure SOME Chinese people claim the book is damaging modern China. Probably the same people who call criticism of the CCP by foreigners racism.
• Third, Chang's account of Luding Bridge has not been contradicted by any veterans' diaries. Because they were all published before. No one has actually come forward yet and directly contradicted the evidence she's put forward. Also it is debateable as to whether it matters if someone is the first to discover something. There's always someone who has to challenge the status quo.
• Fourth, historians are not trained as you might think and then given a certificate of "historical research". To go through the system means to have to pick some things up, but a historian is someone who researches and/or studies history. So the fact she doesn't have a history degree isn't relevant.
• Fifth, the CCP has been criticised by other people, I believe, for its activities during the war or lack thereof. If Joseph Stilwell said the Communists were efficient, that doesn't mean they did much fighting. Can we please have a quote, source, etc where he says they did a lot of fighting?
• Sixth, Mao was great friends with Stalin, even if he was annoyed with him for taking the factories. In any case that happened AFTER the war. They were very close during it.

I really think we should make this a compact section. If however people want to look at the book in-depth, then perhaps we should do just that. Make it an integrated article. We can look at one issue, say "oh that's odd because x says that never happened" and then possibly say what the book has to offer. But as I said, please don't post annonymous comments. This book is banned in China, so how could any PRC academics even read it? Also I have a fair question. Short is in the PRC as well, so where did he get his copy of the book from? Or did he just attack it because it was "one-sided"? John Smith's 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, another edit. What's exactly the problem with what she said about the Korean War? Are people objecting because she used that phrase. The PLA did use numerical superiority to overwhelm the UN taskforce. They did not have good weapons - the reason they were slowed down was that they had virtually no mechnised equipment to get their supplies moved up to the front. John Smith's 09:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell she has no evidence for her claims on the Luding bridge apart from an interview with an old woman who claims to have seen the whole thing. So that does kind of contradict all those other accounts. And actually historians are trained and given a certificate of historical research. Usually an undergraduate degree but sometimes a little bit more than that. All history course include training in what real history is (and is not), what historians can (and cannot or should not) do. This is why David Irving gets so much stick. In none but the loosest sense is a historian merely someone who researches or studies history. It is a profession and it takes skills. The fact that I have fixed a dripping tap doesn't make me a plumber. The CCP has not been criticised, as far as I know, for lack of activity during the war except by some ROC historians. And Paul Johnson. It is the GMD that has a better and improving press rather than the PLA going down. The evidence that Stilwell thought highly of the CCP is very strong and easily available. You only have to look at the distribution of Japanese soldiers to see what the CCP was doing. Mao was never friends with Stalin. He never met the man until after the war. They were not close - Stalin supported Mao's rivals. It is not hard for PRC people to read the book. They go to Hong Kong. They buy one. They go out on the street and buy one from a vendor. Harry Potter was out in China three months before it was published there. In Chinese. Come on now, her views on the "human wave" myth is laughable. And she cites that well known military expert Michael Caine. This is silly. Lao Wai 20:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I listed her evidence on the Luding Bridge talk page. Go read it yourself - it includes Nationalist battleplans that show there weren't actually any troops deployed at the bridge at the time. So how could there have been a battle?

Yes, historians can be trained. But "historian" just means a student of history. Iris Chang is called a historian on her page and people don't bitch on her articles about how she didn't have a history degree.

Harry Potter was out in China in a dodgy, inaccurate translation - it had Gandalf and characters from other fantasy books in it. If that's what Chinese people have access to, then I don't think they're going to get an accurate perception of Chang's arguments. Also I doubt many academics have the money to just fly to Hong Kong to buy a book. In any case, as I have said I still haven't heard what these mysterious Chinese academics have to say or who they are.

I'm not sure whether Mao and Stalin were friends, but Mao admired Stalinism.

What human wave myth? So you're saying the PLA drove back an American-led UN taskforce with their superior technology? Because they were super-human ideal Communists? It had nothing to do with the fact they had numerical superiority? You can criticise her language if you want, but that's all. John Smith's 13:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to noted, the 'Harry Potter' you mentioned was actually Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon which is a pirated copy. To say that this is the translation of a real Harry Potter books shows how little you know of modern Chinese society.--211.30.251.187 01:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? I know it was a pirated book. LaoWai was implying that China's piracy allows it to get accurate translations quickly. The real translation was not out as early as he/she implied it was. John Smith's 12:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read the Luding bridge talk page. How does it contradict anything I have said? If anything it reinforces the fact she is more or less alone on this? Personally I do think it is one of her saner comments, but of course the vast majority of diaries contradict her account. You are using that word in an interesting way. Nor am I convinced by the Nationalist battle plans - you are only relying on her word for it, not on copies of the plans themselves. The GMD was not the best organised in the world and so it is unlikely their battles were well documented. But as I said, it is one of her saner comments. There have been a lot of doubts expressed about the Luding bridge incident before.

Actually a lot of people bitch about Iris Chang and her lack of basic historical skills (or in my opinion professionalism). I am surprised you missed that on her talk page or on the Rape of Nanjing page because they have archives of the stuff. She is not a good historian and for very similar reasons to Halliday and Chang - they all made their mind up before coming across any evidence, they all reduce complex issues to simplistic black and white kindergarden history, they do not use their sources appropriately. Although the late Iris Chang was better at the mundane stuff like footnoting. They both share a common approach to over-hyping their work as well but that is probably their publishers.

I have not read either the Chinese or the English version of HP so I cannot comment on the quality of the translation. I did like Bill Clinton's biography when translated into Chinese. The things I never even suspected! It hardly matters what the translation is like. The point is that China in 2005 is not like China in 1965. The Party cannot control what people read any more. For many Chinese it is not a matter of flying down to Hong Kong but walking across the border (if they live in the south), or catching a train. Academics are poorly paid in China but not that poor paid. And again there is nothing to stop someone getting a real Chinese language version published in Taiwan or HK. If C&H had anything to say you really think it is impossible for a group of historians to get together and send someone to HK or Taiwan? I have never made any comment on what Chinese historians do or do not say. I'd like to know what Chen Yongfa (a Taiwanese historian) has to say.

Mao was a Stalinist to a certain extent. In fact he did not much care for Stalinist economics although that did not make him a moderate. So what? He still wasn't a friend of Stalin.

There is ample documentation on the way the PLA fought and, no, of course I am not saying they drove back the Americans with superior technology - that was childish of you. What they did do was learn the lessons of their guerilla campaign, so they moved light and off the main roads, they always tried to surprise and flank, they travelled at night where possible and moved as fast as they could. The Americans were surprised at that and tried thereafter to avoid any direct fighting where possible. The Human Wave is well established as a myth. C&H do not do anyone any service by trying to resurrect it. I am not that interested in her language so much as pretty much everything else she does. It is polemic, it is not history. Lao Wai 08:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Right so if these Chinese academics do have access to her book, why haven't we heard a peep from them? I have consistently asked for names of Chinese academics who criticise her. So why don't you have any for me?

I KNOW that people bitched about Iris Chang on the TALK page - but not on her main articles. The articles don't list criticism after criticism - they just inform about the work rather than pass judgement on it. If you're so determined to have criticism of Chang and Halliday published in detail and you think Iris Chang is bad as well, why aren't you going there and trying to do the same to her articles? You said the Mao Zedong article was biased - and you haven't done anything about that. Practice what you preach - why not go sort those articles out first and show me you just haven't got a chip on your shoulder about Jung Chang (as is evident from your continued assertions that her family has bent in the wind whenever it had to). John Smith's 12:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. I have not looked for comments from any ethnic Chinese historians. Nor do I see a need to do so. I am not sure why you have such a fixation on it. Actually they do pass judgement on it in a mild sort of sense. Of course IC's fans outnumber her detractors by a good few thousand or so, so of course the article is fairly positive. I have only so many hours in the day and the Rape of Nanjing is not a subject I care to get involved in. I am not out for criticism - I am for balance. You seem to want to make this a puff piece for the book. You have been accused of having a thing for Chang. I doubt that. I have pointed out how your quotes are very similar to her quotes and to some of her press releases. I have said the Mao article is biased and I have made a few changes. None lately. Again there are only so many hours in the day. It is clear that her family has been very flexible. That is not a chip on my shoulder so much as a statement of the obvious. Your "practising what I preach" is childish again. This article ought to present a balance overview of her book. It is getting better but it is not good. It is still basically an advert for the book. Perhaps you might like to tell us all where you work? Lao Wai 13:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, for someone who accuses me of being childish, you're not exactly being mature yourself. As I have said many a time, I have not written this article. If you think the author of the article works for her publishers, I suggest you check the edit log before making petty comments. Without giving you my street address, real name, etc I can put my hand on my heart and say that I do not work for Jung Chang, her publishers or anyone else that has an interest with her. Ok?

Right, well I think the new version of the "criticism" section is both tidier and has much better grammar, while still being more even-handed. John Smith's 12:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Luding Bridge incident has been directly challenged by The Age Newspaper, Melbourne, in .

Ross, you need to put such information in the ARTICLE. I've done it this time, but please can you put it in yourself next time? It's not very helpful if you don't cite references. John Smith's 20:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a blog

While we are not short of white space for either the article or this talk page; please be aware this is the talk page to discuss an article. And the article is about a book. The book is about Mao, not this talk page or its article. And quoted opinions count, not ours. Further, cutting quotes short is censorship. I hope everyone thinks, "I knew THAT!" 4.250.198.151 13:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cutting quotes is not censorship. For a start they are owned and it is wrong to post them without the copyright-holder's permission. Lao Wai 13:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I should have said that deleting important information from a quote is censorship. Let us consider this a fault of mine corrected by you. But. but. The second point of yours is incorrect. The laws differ country to country, but the servers are in AMERICA (land that I love) and here FAIR USE applies. (God bless America) WAS 4.250 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Many sources but no scholarship

She never questions a source that says something bad about Mao. She never mentions any anti-Mao story that she regarded as unproven or unlikely.

The much-quoted figure of 70 million deaths is never actually explained.

China's economy tripled under Mao, after having stagnated for centuries. Critics of Mao mostly avoid specific figures about the GNP, because the net results do justify his ruthlessness.

She denies the role of the Red Army in chewing up the Japanese lines of communication during their invasion of China. It's hard to find another history of China that thinks that. The USA noted their effectiveness compared to Nationalist inefficiency.

She claims that Mao won the Chinese Civil War because of Soviet help. Most historians dispute even if the Soviets wanted Mao to win.

She blames Mao for accepting Outer Mongolia as independence, though it had established a modern state on purely Mongolian territory. She also blames Mao for asserting that Tibet was part of China, which is unambiguously the case under International Law, and which the Dalai Lama accepted.

'Blame Mao' is her only coherent rule.

Her claims of tens of millions of dead in the famine years is based on comparing the death rate in the worst years of Mao's rule to the best. If you compare the average death-rate under Mao with the average death rate under the Nationalists, this suggests maybe 100 million less deaths than if the old system had continued.

She denies there were natural disasters, but does not mention numerous sources that claim specific natural disasters at specific times and place. Nor does she mention the role of the USA in discouraging trade and stopping China getting credit for food imports (which were considerable).

Regarding the Sino-Indian War, she talks as if Mao wilfully ignored an agreed colonial boundary. You can find from the Misplaced Pages etc. that the McMahon Line had been rejected by all Chinese governments. The immediate cause of the war was Indian anger at the Chinese building a road across the Askai Chin, land they claimed as part of Kashmir. It was anyway next to Pakistani Kashmir, and Pakistan readily agreed to the Chinese definition of the border.

Mao was married three times. She counts four, including Mao's father's attempt at an arranged marriage. If there is no sex and no agreement, it could not possibly count as a marriage.

She's the grandchild of a warlord and the great-grandchild of a police chief serving a corrupt government. And it seems she's gone back to her roots

Gwydion M Williams--172.216.27.87 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Original research

I have come across a number of factual errors in this book but am unsure of how to edit them in in accordance with with Misplaced Pages's customs. P. 327 says "land redistribution was not the main aspect of Mao's land reform. The part that really mattered was...'struggle against the landlords,'.which in reality meant violence against the relatively better off. (In China, unlike pre-communist Russia, there were very few large landowners.)" yet it is established fact that landlords constituted about 4% of the population and owned 39% of land prior to reform.

Would it be appropriate to state it as a fact in the article (provided there are citations)? It would seem like a better idea to say something along the lines of "Chris Bramall has reported that..." but all of the sources I know of for these figures were published prior to this book and one of the people in the criticism section said that certain material couldn't contradict her work "Because they were all published before." This seems like a clearly incorrect assertion, but is it some wikipedia custom?

By the way, my sources ("Mao: The Unknown Story" gives no source for their statement) for the statement on the extent of landlordism prior to land reform are Joseph Esherick'"Number Games," Modern China, 7.4 (October 1981) and Chris Bramall, "Living standards in pre-war Japan and Maoist China" Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21. (1997):556-557. Bramall's article cites Esherick and also includes a provincial breakdown based on other more recent sources.

Furthermore, the land reforms only marginally reduced the income and property of rich peasants (not landlords) who generally had incomes baout 1.5 times the average. This data as well as statements from Mao and others on the need to not take from the rich peasants can be found in Chris Bramall "Chinese Land Reform in Long run Perspective" Journal of Agrarian Change, 4.1. (2004)

Is it okay to put this in the criticisms section, because I am unaware of anyone (other than myself, and I haven't published my disagreements anywhere) calling C&H on this issue?

Also, the statement "it has also been argued that average Chinese death rates dropped during Mao's rule" needs to be changed. No one "argues" that average Chinese death rates dropped during Mao's rule. That they did is a well known and indisputable fact. Official census data gives the death rate (per thousand) at 20 in 1949, 17 in 1952,9.5 in 1965 and 6.3 in 1978.

What is argued is whether or not Mao's policy were the cause of the decline in mortlaity. Since one of the people in the discussion page says that the people who argue something should be named, I think it should probably changed to say "Judith Banister, among others, has argued that Mao's policies caused the significant decline in mortality rates during his rule." I chose Banister because she is well respected and cited both by those sympathetic and hostile (such as Jasper Becker) to Mao. -unsigned

This is an article about a book, not about the topics IN the book. You comments are original research and belong on the talk pages but not the article pages. Any quote about the book (not about the subjects in the book) from a reasonable source (not something you create as an excuse to be able to quote it) is fair for consideration in being in the article. Quotes about the subjects in the book belong on wikipedia articles about THAT subject. Further you have NOT disproved what is in the book. A "factual error" is not where the author says something and you argue against it. A factual error (in this context) would be something the author would agree was wrong when the error was pointed out to them. "Judith Banister, among others, has argued that Mao's policies caused the significant decline in mortality rates during his rule," if properly sourced could POSSIBLY go in one or more wikipedia articles: China, Mao, Mao's policies, or Banister. But not on an article about a BOOK. WAS 4.250

Willy Lam is one such person who agrees that the KMT did most of the fighting versus Japan and not the CCP. John Smith's 21:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

67.188.135.166's deleted additions.

John Smith just deleted 67.188.135.166's recent additions. I came within a hair of deleting them myself. Minor editing would be needed to fit them in - not a problem. My main problem with them is the lack of a provided source for the claims advanced. How does the reader know the claims are not just made up? John finds they don't add to the article and I agree mostly. I wouldn't have reverted on that ground alone but MANY wikipedia editors do. WAS 4.250 13:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well if any wiki editors reverted, they'd be dragging this website down. I had no idea WTF the anon IP was on about, so I had no idea how to edit it. Indeed I doubt most people on wiki would know what to do with it. It's unverifiable hearsay, so on that grounds I think it was fair to delete it. John Smith's 20:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Who is on first?" Let's see if I can straighten out this almost funny misunderstanding. You said "Well if any wiki editors reverted, they'd be dragging this website down." and I thought "What's he talking about". The prior sentence reads "I wouldn't have reverted on that ground alone but MANY wikipedia editors do." I meant by that this: "I wouldn't have reverted (the article as John did) on that ground (the ground of not adding to the article) alone but MANY wikipedia editors do (revert on the basis of a contribution being relevant but not particularly on point i.e "adding" to an article)." You are the editor refered to and you say your own edit dragged down the site. What a ridiculous miscommunication. Almost funny. Anyway we both agree it can not come back without both sourcing and a better indication of why it should be in the article at all in the first place. WAS 4.250 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of editors as in the admin-type people - and I mean reverted to the anon IP's version. Nvr mind. John Smith's 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Syed Badrul Ahsan's review quote

reference google her name and communist duh!

She's a member of the communist party of Bangladesh.

I'm sure we could find some great reviews of "Mein Kampf" by some nazi's but they shouldn't be in wikipedia.

Biased isn't kosher.

--Capsela 02:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice that review - thanks for drawing it to our attention. It was rather extreme to say the least! John Smith's 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

So what if she's communist? A Bangladeshi communist does not necessarily reflect opinions of Chinese communist or Mao.

Unknown or Unknowing?

Mao: The Unknown Story is a thoroughly silly book. It has been hyped in the British media, perhaps because it fits the current agenda of imposing Anglo values on the rest of the world.

Jung Chang told an interesting gossipy tale in Wild Swans; but was gullible and unrealistic when not talking about family matters. Jon Halliday is one of many former New Leftists who have ‘flipped’ since the Soviet Union collapsed. His previous books include Korea, the unknown war, which is just as silly as his Mao book, though he was then in possession of a different Eternal Truth. This Halliday (brother of Fred Halliday) ignored the standard story that Kim Il-sung was a Captain in the Soviet Army who was simply slotted into place by Stalin when the USSR was given control of North Korea. He didn’t give reasons why it shouldn’t be believed; he just ignored facts that didn’t fit. Whether praising Kim or damning Mao, he doesn’t let his beautiful theories suffer damage from unwelcome little facts.

Chang & Halliday’s biography of Mao has the lease accurate summary of Chinese history the I’ve ever encountered. The May Fourth Movement gets half a sentence and is not in the index. They summarises Yuan Shikai’s career without mentioning his attempt to make himself Emperor—rather as if one were to summarise Hitler’s career by saying “he was President of Germany from 1934-45”. They ignore Yuan Shikai’s role in the coup against a reforming Emperor in 1898, and his servile willingness to submit to Japan’s 'Twenty-One Demands', the start of the Japanese campaign to conquer China. They also show a bizarre fondness for the warlord regimes that succeeded Yuan Shikai’s failed leadership, the warlords whom Chiang Kai-shek compromised with when he broke the Kuomintang-Communist alliance.

They claim that the Chinese Communist Party was actually founded in July 1920, with the date later shifted to the First Congress of June 1921 to boost Mao's importance. They cite reports in Moscow of such a foundation. Robert Payne's Mao Tse Tung: Ruler Of Red China gives an account of this 1920 meeting (page 71). The 1920 gathering was a mix of assorted left-wingers, not all of them Marxists and with little wish to found a Communist Party. It got wrongly reported, but Comintern delegate Pavel Miff investigated and found that no party had in fact been created. Explaining why the 1921 meeting was called the First Congress, which would be rather puzzling if it were the second such meeting.

Chang & Halliday do cite Payne in another context, as the source for Peng Dehuai supposedly not remembering the famous incident at the Luding Bridge. This is based on a ludicrous misreading of Payne's book. Peng was apologising after having confused two different battles on the Long March. Earlier in the same paragraph, Payne remarks about the different versions of the Luding Bridge crossing that people remember "The crossing of the Tatu River , told by three separate people, seemed to be three separate crossings..." He then says "The stories of the battles were even more difficult to piece together", and it is in this context that he mentions Peng's error. (Mao Tse Tung: Ruler Of Red China - page 139).

Elsewhere, they typically cite one source as if it were undisputed, ignoring contradictory evidence and alternative accounts. The Sino-Indian War of 1962 is blamed on Mao, ignoring the way in which the Indian Army was pushing into disputed territory along a border that had never been marked very clearly. Likewise the Amethyst Incident is blamed on him, though it remains disputed who fired first. Always supposing the Chinese People's Army did choose to fire on a British warboat sitting in the middle of a Chinese river, why assume that Mao knew anything about it before-hand? The British and other foreign powers had been playing an opressive and shameful role for the past century, repeatedly intervening in Chinese cviil wars, mostly to support whichever side was most likely to obey them.

On these two points, Mao is seen as too nationalist. But Mao is also blamed for conceding the independence of Mongolia, the former province of Outer Mongolia. This had been conceded in principle by the Kuomintang, provided a referendum confirmed their wish for independence. Though the referendum recorded an improbably 100%, there is no serious doubt that the Mongolians did wish to go their own way.

I suppose this method makes it very convincing to those who wish to believe. And who do not notice the various omissions, distortions or dogmatic statements on highly complex points.

--GwydionM 20:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"It has been hyped in the British media, perhaps because it fits the current agenda of imposing Anglo values on the rest of the world."

Thanks for pushing your usual pile of propagandist tripe on wiki. We'll consider it then promptly throw it in the bin. John Smith's 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As opposed to pushing anti-Chinese anti-Communist aganda by the "historian" Jung Chang and you?

References

Can we please refrain for a while, control ourselves, and not use the damn book as a reference to every article that somehow relates to it?! Even if this book was largely correct in its revelations about Mao, we should note of its controversy. Many historians have doubted sections of the book, as I'm sure previous discussion has concluded. So when someone goes to an article like Luding Bridge, they probably don't want to see half of the damn page being speculations on some new book. If we're referencing published sources, why not look at the equally absurd Mao: A re-interpretation? It makes some revelations as well.

Another thing that thoroughly angers me is the fact that the book (and many people in these dicussions) frequently assumes that the Chinese do not know their own history, and are attempting to "enlighten" the Chinese because the government there is all-so repressive and what not. I've never been a great fan of the CCP dictatorship myself, but that's a terrible assumption to make. If you have been to China, you'll be surprised at what the people know about Mao, and what "revelations" they have made about him, many things that are apparently "new" in this book, but most Chinese have since dismissed a lot of it as untrue. Colipon+(T) 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Colipon, you have to understand that many of the Chinese internet users that people come across are very vocal, nationalistic individuals that often try to distort things. I see them all the time on forums and websites - it's as if they are like those "hired men" the CCP supposedly uses, but they do it for free. I do understand that a lot of Chinese people are more realistic about Mao and even Tiananmen - my Chinese friends are an example of that. But there are also people that believe the propaganda. Even some Chinese that were (and still are) very close to me had to go abroad before they learned the truth about the Korean War, the invasion of Vietnam and so forth. You should know better than anyone that the Party manipulates discussion of Mao - how many legal books do you know of in mainland China that say Mao was worse than "70% good, 30% bad"? So it is hardly surprising to see people on wikipedia and elsewhere try to reveal the "truth" about him.

And one thing that I hear time and time again from mainland Chinese people (albeit on the internet) is how the wonderful CCP did more to beat the Japanese than the KMT did, despite the fact that the CCP was a relatively small guerrila group and the KMT had the only large forces capable of stopping the Japanese from rolling over the whole of China. John Smith's 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you know of my country? The "historian" Jung Chang should be publically asssessed to seee if she suffers from insanity or some mental disability. Mao's only mistake was not killing Jung Chang. Go back to to Britain.

Current article is POV, slanted against the book

The article is not balanced. Opposition to the book is given a large volume of space, with virtually nothing provided supporting the book. The current article cites to 13 criticisms of the book and excerpts them, spanning several pages. Not 1 line is provided to support the book and balance these criticisms. Either balance should be provided by providing "equal time" to points of view supporting the book, or the many criticism excerpts should be deleted and moved into the links section as further reading under the criticism category.

People come to this article wanting to learn about this book. The controversy surrounding the book, because the book challenges official historical communist propaganda regarding Mao, is apropriate for the article, but right now only one side of the story is being told. I don't expect the situation to get any better to be quite honest because Mao-loving critics have far more incentive to make edits supporting their point of view than do the less-passionate supporters of the book.

Now that it has been reported that President Bush loves the book, all the anti-Bush people will be wanting to slam the book as well. Misplaced Pages needs to rise above this petty partisanship and provide a balanced article. Setlak 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't think you have READ this article.
2. I don't think you know the meaning of the word "critical". (Hint: Look it up.) (Hint:"critical acclaim" is not an oxymoron)
3. I think this article and it's main contributors are very anti Mao. WAS 4.250 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. Objectively speaking, far more space is dedicated to criticisms of the book than to anything else. At the time I wrote the above paragraphs, there were 13 reviews provided which criticized and attacked this book, with none provided defending the book. If you can't see that, then you are blind.

As for your ludicrous claim that I don't know what critical means, here is what merriam-webster online has to say: "2 a : inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably b : consisting of or involving criticism <critical writings>; also : of or relating to the judgment of critics <the play was a critical success>" I used the word properly. Perhaps you don't understand how the English language works, but in English sometimes words have multiple meanings and intelligent people must apply CONTEXT to understand which of those meanings is appropriate. In the case of my post, the meaning was exceedingly obvious. Only a profoundly stupid person would attempt to argue that "critical" does NOT mean A because it DOES mean B. You have a lot to learn. Setlak 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Please do NOT just keep re-inserting all those reviews. I deleted them originally because the article was just turning to one big collection of reviews.

What we need to do is:

a) Discuss more what the book SAYS - there is not enough on what the book deals with, so I see where Setlak is coming from. A lot of the content was added simply to discredit the book, rather than to try to discuss it objectively. b) If we want to use some of those reviews, put one or two sentance quotes from a few.

John Smith's 12:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We can't discuss what the book says because that would be original research. You cannot, and should not, speculate about the motivations of the people who add stuff - try and assume good faith. The fact is it is a crap book which is not worth the paper it is written on. Not because Mao was a good man, but because it is a crap book that is not worth the paper it is written on. It is worth pointing out how crap it is. Is is perfectly objective to point out how bad a bad book is. It is of interest. You have demanded historians who say it is crap. They are slowly publishing accounts proving just how bad it is. What is wrong with making that clear? This article is not overly long yet. Let's wait until it is and then cut bits. Of all things, professional historians discussing a book on a page devoted to that book is relevant content. You want to find a real historian who has read it and likes it? Lao Wai 12:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No I say that we need to actually say WHAT the book says. That is not to evaluate it, merely to actually put forward the main ideas and arguments of the book. I think that could be done a little more fully. This is supposed to be an informative post on the book, not just a platform to slate it (or praise it). Also there is plenty of "primary research" in the debate section - most of the comments were made by wikipedians and not historians (at least when they were posted). In accordance with your desire to remove "original research", I have deleted points without any referencing. If someone could be so kind as to bring in external sources that have criticised Chang and Halliday on those points then we can put them back in. If no one can, then as original research we can't comment on it.

I have never said that the article can't have criticial points. There is already lots of negative commentary - I have not deleted any of it. The links are there for people to read. And more importantly I'm not sure that it is legal to simply reprint all that info from those newspapers and magazines. A quote here and there is one thing - long extracts are against the wiki spirit. John Smith's 12:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As an update I have removed two comments that didn't have a reference. If you can dig them out then please put them in with the original quotations/views. John Smith's 14:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

STOP PUTTING THE REVIEW EXTRACTS IN! IT IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE MEDIA GROUPS' COPYRIGHT REGULATIONS!!!! John Smith's 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Laowai, I removed two points that had no referencing. The bit about the ten-point critism and Spencer's bit. Provide a LINK to the articles please, so that they can go in. Nathan's review is still there - I even expanded it slightly. I also moved views of the book down to the relevant section. What's wrong with that? John Smith's 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Other books of the same genre

Shouldn't there be a mention about other books like this one for example, Aroup Chatterjee: Mother Teresa. The Final Verdict (Meteor Books, 2003). ISBN 8188248002 Full text (without pictures). Critical examination of Agnes Bojaxhiu's life and work.

Not really. It would have to be related to books about Mao or Communist China. John Smith's 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

John S. Baker

I deleted that bit because there was no proper indication of what the quotation was, there was no link to wherever that comment was made and there was no indication as to who he was. If that is the wikipedian that made the comment, then I'm afraid wiki policy doesn't allow us to comment like that. John Smith's 10:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Red Mole Triggers China-Japan War"

Someone write a bit on the controversy surrounding this chapter. -- Миборовский 08:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Have any non-wikipedians commented upon it yet? John Smith's 17:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is a chapter that has caused controversy... -- Миборовский 23:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well just to remind you that we can't use original research ourselves. I've fallen foul of that rule in other threads. If is that serious a comment then there must be some non-paranoid-Zionist-conspiracy-following loons that have talked about it. John Smith's 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

See this. -- Миборовский 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then why did you answer "no"? If you want to add something go ahead, but be careful - he calls it "shaky proof" and nothing more. John Smith's 00:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found it, k? I'll write up something for it. -- Миборовский 04:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Willy Lam's "support"

There is none.

Willy Lam does not mention Chang and Halliday, nor Mao: The Unknown Story, in any part of his article. The theory that the communists did not do the majority of the fighting is nothing new, it's what the ROC government and anyone who researched into the Second Sino-Japanese War have been claiming for the past decades. Chang and Halliday merely took other people's research and conclusions as their own, they did not present "their argument", they presented others'. Therefore Willy Lam's article has absolutely nothing to do with either Chang, Halliday or M:TUS. I will be reverting back if you have no more objections. -- Миборовский 01:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I do object because it has been one thing some people here have criticised the book for saying. It doesn't matter whether he mentions the book or not - that he supports the point in question is relevant. I will edit the titles slightly, but I think you're quibbling over something fairly trivial. John Smith's 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)