Talk:Mao Zedong

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.

Vandal

Is the article being vandalised because I was viewing some pictures which are unsourced.

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 [1] 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 [2] (cuurent version here [3] ) 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)