Jump to content

Talk:Mao Zedong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mao Zedong/Comments)

water margin

[edit]

Mao learned the Water Margin book as a child. And later during the fighting of the revolution Mao carries a copy of the Water Margin with him. The Water Margin book helped to inspire Mao's revolution. This information is found in a translation of the Water Margin. It was translated by J.H. Jackson and it was published by Tuttle books. The title is The Water margin Outlaws of the Marsh the classic Chinese novel.

I am unsure that would pass wp:rs and what is its revalevance anyway? Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency regarding Stalin's Birthday

[edit]

Mao is photographed with Stalin in 1949 celebrating Stalin's 71st birthday, however in the paragraph covering Mao's State Visits, it states that Mao visited Stalin to celebrate his 70th birthday. Stalin was born in 1878 according to the Wikipedia page on him. 150.160.109.107 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 223 establishes that Stalin had his 70th birthday in 1949 but doesn't talk about when Mao's state visit was. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change

[edit]

@Amigao: 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 MOS:EDITORIAL ("Conversely")? Y-S.Ko (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with @Y-S.Ko. 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. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with this as stated. Remsense ‥  00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 are
  • Your linking of Hunan runs afoul of WP:SOB.
  • 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.
Remsense ‥  00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Great Chinese Famine 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).
Y-S.Ko (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:SYNTH are pretty analogous to the contention here, though without an explicit linking and, it's analogous. Remsense ‥  02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The examples in WP:SYNTH 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. Y-S.Ko (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Remsense ‥  04:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]