User talk:Majin Takeru

Mao

Just a note to say thank you for the compliments you payed me concerning my works in the discussion page of Mao Zedong, although I really felt I hardly deserved them- not just for courtsey's sake. I'm very glad you show such great interest in a character around whose history my previous life in China has evolved around, although I am of a latter generation, and hope you will continue this interest by carrying on producing fresh and rewarding comments concerning this infinitely complex character, as you have already so perceptively. If you can manage this without interrupting busy schedules etc., can you possibly write a paragraph or two on my page reviewing your knowledge and views on Mao, which I shall be greatly interested since I am doing an essay on modern Dictators, and wish to hear as much from resourceful elders such as yourself as possible. A few sentences or two would greatly enlighten me on the paths ahead, since I am now struggling with short biography of Mao between the controversial sources. Again, many thanks for your undeserved compliments again and also for your insight and patience. Luthinya 23:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL INSIGHTS! You have expressed many things I have always felt but was never able to put into words, and a good deal besides with your wonderfully resourceful mind. Penetrating and expressive perceptions are what I have looked for for ages, and I am very glad to be able to hear from one so unbelievably resourceful and intellectual of perception. The length above all is what I praise- you must have spent a very long time and tried your own patience! I have not yet finished reading and may be able to come back with more discussions- but many thanks again for so many wondrous interpretations!

As far as Communism goes, I suppose I am a weak supporter- because I have doubts concerning whether human nature would do so much. Again, thank you VERY much for so many insights. I could not imagine a luckier chance. Handsome is as handsome does, as they say in the Shire. Luthinya 10:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I could not resist coming back again to congratulate you, for I had no idea of your ethnic background. To be Japanese and still support the CCP, despite our traumas during the Second World War, must be a marvellous feat of the mind, and not least of the human heart. While it is too early to comment on the wisdom of this decision, and certainly I am not in a good position to comment at all, nonetheless I must say you make me marvel at your intellectual prestige. Many congratulations. Luthinya 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I noticed nobody has yet welcomed you to Wikipedia. Well, Welcome!

Hello, Majin Takeru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 21:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. A Japanese Maoist? Now I've seen everything. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 21:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Sorry for the ignorance of a long period concerning your post, but currently I am much beleageared with revision and did not have much time for Wikipedia any more, quite apart from the fact I am also trying to produce an analytical essay on The Waste Land.

Nonetheless I must say it was very pleasant to hear from you again, and I must first congratulate your standards in Chinese- did you learn the language specifically? Can you produce calligraphy also? But indeed I was positively astounded concerning your nationality- are you American? Curioser and curioser! to quote Lewis Carroll. Although there was a slight disappointment concerning the erroneous Japanese nationality, I must congratulate you once more upon your rather Eastern-orientated projects, despite having been more familliar in a Western environment. It makes me extremely glad to know that those born in capitalist countries may still be recommended towards another quasi-religious political policy- despite certain negative government recommendations!

Finally I would like to return once more to Mao- the source of yours, and mine, great interest. Yes, indeed objective observation would suggest that Mao was very much an excellent leader of stratagems for China, at least during the periods of foreign war. I doubt whether many possessing twice as much the interest in classical Chinese literature and tactical practice may even achieve half of what he has, and from his rich material of knowledge and strategic brilliance even under ordinary circumstances he would certainly have been canonized the national hero, which was also much aided by his charismatic oratory (slightly unpleasant connotation). However, I would hesitate upon whether China could not have had a better leader during peacetime. Although I do not really want the clock backward and should think my nation lucky even to have survived the Cultural Revolution at all, I believed that in latterly peacetime Mao fell into the weakness of every powerful man- to become embalmed by power. Though he retained still much of his consciousness- as in your enlightened despot, there could be no doubt that this defect brought many of the worst sides out of him. However, as Gandhi said, we want to change their minds, not punish them for weaknesses we all possess. Trouble was, there was no one around who dared to change Mao's mind.

In peacetime, I think, China would have done better perhaps with a man like Gandhi. But such men as he was are rare as men like Mao, and what was was strong and invulnerable must ultimately fall by the hands of the weak, thus fulfilling the cycles of the world- to know all and all in vain. Plato spoke in his Utopia that a perfection nation cannot be fulfilled until philosophers become rulers or rulers philosophers... well, I think Mao was one such example of an idealistic personality becoming something quite akin to Plato's ruler. I will not make the ultimate judgements of his times of political control, quite specifically because I shall forever be far too ignorant, but while I insist that while Mao was not the best in all possible worlds, he may yet still influence upon our lives as the shadow of Vainamoinen. Luthinya 16:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mao article

No problem. What were you refering to when you said "Better have good reason and proof to edit this, or it is going right back."? John Smith's 11:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was actually far too long. John Smith's 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communism Stateless

Hi there, you need to convince me why communism is stateless. Communism exists among several countries, each of which has their own sovereignty and leadership. Communist countries are allies, but they are not necessarily belong to one state, pratically and theoretically. Critik 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're talking Marxism not communism. Critik 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your kidding, right? (Majin Takeru 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

'Cult of Mao' manifestations in Modern China

Regretfully or otherwise, it appears that from concurrent news established by government- run newspapers that flag raised upon the Cultural Revolution concerning the Cult of Mao, under whose flapping shadow all Chinese still repressedly-or blindly- reside, has not drawn the least of its venomous and benevolent warnings through the jaws of time. In papers such as Old Citizens Daily, whose reputation I may certify for appropriate reasons, articles have begun to appear that bear seemingly unconnected title such as 'Chairman Mao Drifted Slowly Past me.' This ardent Communist supporter from the elder generation was apparently so entranced at the rememberance of Chairman Mao having once walked past him within 10 metres in a visit to Zhou Enlai, that he retained this memory even more than 4 decades later, and has now decided to publicise the wondrous thrill he experienced upon the occaision in reply to certain unorthodox arguments that have lately filtered through the Communist party, which had you been in China you would doubtlessly have been aware. This elderly gentleman's argument basically ran thus- a man who can inspire such pure adoration in the people cannot be all that bad. It is perhaps significant that this gentleman has never been a truly active Communist member.

Other memoires too I have seen, some bearing such intimate anecdotes that those residing in Western Society would have believed the newspapers offending a private status to allow them to be printed at all- one for instance, was simply termed 'Chairman Mao in Love'. Admirers would go to such lengths to fill in their own minor anecdotes that if our history was to be pieced among them, I would have confirmed- as a Buddhist- that Mao was truly a reincarnation of the Buddha. The newspapers that published such stories are highly respected, I may confirm, and considered this the height of orthodoxy. Tentative criticisms have been put forward, the tone of speech, however, seemed to mark all the difference as in Paradise lost, where Milton spoke with such curtail of God and so little fetters of Satan.

This culture stings, because it reveals clearly still how few people have been encouraged to ever explore the Party's more mirky past- my friends in secondary school, even when they are reading essays relating directly onto the Cultural Revolution, expressed that their teachers usually explained that just as 'some bad thing which happened for ten years in the 1970s. '

Sorry for running on again- I merely thought you might be interested in this information, or perhaps consider it a worthy addition to the 'Cult of Mao' section in the Wiki article, which if you agree to I might try and edit again, for better or worse- I wanted someone's opinion because I hate writing stuff and then get deleted straight away. And by the way- you might need to expand your opinion to the prior post I gave you: sorry if this takes up too much time, but I truly would appreciate any help onto the prior project on Dictatorial rule I mentioned earlier, that has now turned into the appeal for a Scholarship. Also had a good laugh on the vandal who abused my page slightly- expensive, but amusing. Luthinya 12:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mao was a murderer

How can any sane person idolise a man who was one of history's most brutal dictators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.20.115 (talk • contribs)

Easy, I am not a pussy. Also, you spelled "Idolize" wrong, and it is not fact which you state, it is opinion. And, opinions are not worth much when it comes to truth. (Majin Takeru (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Be careful with national varieties of English

Hello Majin Takeru. I am concerned that you seem to be on a crusade to change the style of spelling within articles, from the British to the US variant. One example is here. You are not the first person to encounter this issue; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. An editor has reported your actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I hope you're aware that we take this quite seriously, and I urge you to stop making these changes against consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We attempt to be as welcoming as possible to the entirety of the English-using world. As a result, we do take seriously the principle that editors should not (with certain very limited exceptions) change one form of English-language usage to another. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I caught this at WP:AN. Please refrain from changing the existing spellings in articles. Be aware that there are multiple "correct" spellings of words (defense/defence or honor/honour, connection/connexion) and understand that neither version is "archaic" or "wrong" or "more correct". Please read WP:ENGVAR and American and British English differences for more information. It is explicitly against Wikipedia policy to change from one perfectly correct spelling to another for no justifiable reason. While the IP address you were edit warring with was incivil, this does not excuse the edit war. Please refrain from changing spellings of words, expecially since your edit summaries (for example, calling "labour" an archaic spelling) indicate that there may be a problem with understanding that there are multiple versions of English which are all valid. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonator Replies

Good morning, Comrade Majin Takeru (hopefully this return of your salute is not too tasteless). Thanks for telling me about the impersonator -I am still laughing hard about the mysterious instance of Makin Takeru! (though I should probably refrain from nursery spelling in jokes of the future). I have not been able to use Wiki for a while, given the looming cloud of GCSEs, but I have managed to do some further reading on Marxism and have made small changes to articles on Marxist theory. I have discovered a recent fascination for Russian literature and non-Euclidean geometry, the former of which I have attempted to interpret in a literary fashion in context to the momentous developments in that country (not always defensible as upholdings of Communism; like Lord Acton said, 'Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely.').

In any case, with regard to the impersonator... well, I thought McCarthyism's correlates never completely died. It has been frustrating how many would limit their prejudices of communism to mere belief or biased historical evidence (neither of which is a good idea), and never even attempt to touch the works of Marx themselves. They probably offer a truer vision of what was intended in that philosophy (and political/economic theory) than sinister Stalinist propaganda, or days spend in the Gulag Archipelago with Solzhenitsyn. Luthinya (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

If you have not read http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources yet, it will be helpful if you do. If you use http://books.google.com/books?client=firefox-a&um=1&q=&btnG=Search+Books and http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws It should make it easer to find legitimate sources. There is no hurry to source those statements, you have 30 days, so finding good solid references hopefully will not be over burdensome for true statements. Hardyplants (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar. Very well, either way it seems you should read more sources on the subject then Jung Chang. You would then realize that even some of the most Anti Mao historians see her work as more of a story then history. I am not holding that against you actually. Jung Changs book was heralded by the press. Only problem is, the press is not composed of historians. However, I will work on the sources for this, indeed. (Majin Takeru (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There is more than Chang and they all seem to agree, note sources used:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_10.htm
Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Untold Story (Jonathan Cape, 2005) Page 3.
policy autumn 06_Edit5.indd
Teiwes, Frederick C., and Warren Sun. 1999. 'China's road to disaster: Mao, central politicians, and provincial leaders in the unfolding of the great leap forward, 1955-1959. Contemporary China papers. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. pp 52-55.
MacFarquhar, Roderick. 1974. The origins of the Cultural Revolution. London: Published for Royal Institute of International Affairs, East Asian Institute of Columbia University and Research Institute on Communist Affairs of Columbia by Oxford University Press. p 4.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701486.html
White, Matthew. Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm (November 2005).

If you want to make an argument against one of the sources, please supply some sources of your own, I need more than opinion to evaluate the issue. Also note that the page on Maoism had around 20 different references from varied works and opinion's of the subject, All but one or two were supplied by me, if the two or three people bent on not having any thing objective said about Mao, spent some time providing valid sources, the article could have become encyclopedic. Hardyplants (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]