text:
Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 7

See also links
I wondered why there is no "See also" links, that is why I began to add links. If other editors disagree with the links I add, we can have a discussion here. Any thoughts? Arilang   talk  18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that every article have seealsos (in fact, MOS can be interpreted to mean that it's better not to have seealsos if possible), so the fact that there weren't any is not a problem.
 * The links you were adding are not relevant to this article. Most were books/articles about communism (and mostly about Russian communism), not about Mao in particular; this article is the exact opposite, it's about Mao and not about communism (and if you've read the book, you would see that Chang believes communism is not even that relevant—she thinks it was just a path he took to gain power and that he didn't care that much about it ideologically. Many would disagree with that analysis, but since it's what's in the book then that's what's relevant to this article). Others were about specific historical events and not really relevant to an article about a book. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, first of all, wikipedia is to help readers to learn, to broaden the horizon of knowledge, to learn more things. This book is more about Mao, that I agree; but if we take Mao out of the context of Chinese revolution, which was both insipired and funded by the Russian communist, and more over, if we remove all the elements of communism, that means if we take out the Comintern elements, then readers would only be able to see Mao in a very limited and vague kind of perspective.

What I am saying is, the Red October Revolution and the Chinese CCP(hence Mao Zedong) is very much linked together. Without the October Revolution, there would not be any Mao. Arilang   talk  19:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Comintern's funding of CCP:

格奧爾基·季米特洛夫

 * 斯大林政權对中共之援助

 * (季米特洛夫于1941年7月2日向莫洛托夫等送交了要求向中国党提供200万美元援款的建议书. 联共（布）中央讨论后，次日即批准马上援助中国同志100万美元. 但此一援款拖到16日仍未能发出，原因是中国(南京)政府对苏联方面要求派飞机飞往延安一事迟迟不予答复. 据此，季米特洛夫明确致信莫洛托夫提出)"由于使中国同志尽快获得至少是一半的援助非常重要，我们相信有必要采取非法的方式用飞机通过蒙古发送运费. "
 * 季米特洛夫日記

 * 给八路军武器援助，这要苏联政府决定，不过照他的看法，假若援助了，这可能不是帮助了你们，而是害了你们. ...因为这会恶化国共关系并为国民党孤立和封锁延安提供口实. 最后，....共产国际从它的外汇中拨出三十万美元送给中国共产党.
 * 徐则浩：《王稼祥传》，当代中国出版社1996年版，第296－297页.

 * 援助中国共产党50万美元. (2月17日的日记中，季米特洛夫记下了与斯大林、莫洛托夫谈话后的结果.)
 * 季米特洛夫日記

 * Such links might be relevant in the article on Mao Zedong (and most are probably already present in the main text). They're not relevant in the article about this book.
 * As for "broadening the horizon of learning"... that is only possible if links given are restricted to those that are relevant. If a reader is given a sea of links, he won't follow any of them. Otherwise, you could just say that every article in the encyclopedia should link to every other article (millions of see-alsos). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * No, I am not saying every article should link to every other article, please do not put words into my mouth. What I am saying is:

If we follow this argument, the links to those anti-communism authors would be very much relevent.
 * 1) If we take out Communism from Mao, then there is nothing left. In fact, Communism has provide Mao the center stage.
 * 2) Joseph Stalin was the most important supporter of Mao, without Stalin, there would not be any Mao. 约瑟夫·史達林
 * (1941年11月11日接见被选派回国的王明、康生等人时的谈话内容)共产国际书记处的决定已经过时了(指王明在西安事变欲殺掉蔣介石之提議)...这就是人们坐在办公室里冥思苦想的结果！....对于中国共产党现在基本的问题是：融入全民族的浪潮并取得领导地位...中国人怎样打击外部敌人－这是决定性的问题. 当这一问题结束时，再提出怎样互相打的问题！
 * 季米特洛夫日記

 * Still irrelevant. Sure, communism is closely related with Mao, but the book is not about communism in general, and adding a pile of communism links to the article is not helpful. You can speculate all you want about where Mao would be without communism, but that doesn't change what this article is about. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I would like to challenge you removal of all the links in a kind of adamant way. What about we discuss the links one of a time, and invite other editors to join in, instead of only you and me? Arilang   talk  21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Anti-Bolshevik League incident
 * Struggle Session
 * Zhen Fan
 * Autumn Harvest Uprising
 * Shu Fan movement
 * Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
 * The Gulag Archipelago
 * One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
 * The Great Terror
 * Great Purge
 * Darkness at Noon
 * Moscow Trials
 * Anne Applebaum
 * R.J. Rummel
 * Richard Pipes
 * Robert Conquest
 * Victims of Communism Memorial

 * You are welcome to invite others to the discussion. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And in response to your list of links, here are why most of them are not applicable. Almost all of them are several levels of relationship away from Mao: The Unknown Story:
 * Autumn Harvest Uprising: Relevant to the article on Mao himself, not relevant here (unless as an inline link somewhere)
 * Shu Fan movement: One purge. Maybe relevant to the article on Mao himself, not relevant here.
 * Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: Writer known for his work on Russia, no work on China.
 * The Gulag Archipelago: Book by the above, not about China.
 * One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich: same.
 * Great Purge: Historical event in Russia, not in China.
 * Darkness at Noon: Fiction book about Soviet prison
 * Moscow Trials: Historical event in Russia; no direct analogue in PRC history
 * Anne Applebaum: Journalist with a focus on Eastern Europe
 * R.J. Rummel: Professor who happens to have written one book about China. The book might be relevant if it had an article; the man is not.
 * Richard Pipes: Russian historian, no significant work on China
 * Robert Conquest: same
 * The Great Terror: Book by the above, not about China.
 * Victims of Communism Memorial: physical monument in D.C., happens to mention the Cultural Revolution but that's about it
 * Arilang, based on your past work, I know you have a strong anti-PRC POV, and here it just looks like you're trying to add in as many links to ugly, negative things to add more negative associations to Mao. I am certainly not a pro-Mao person, but I object to your POV-pushing. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong anti-PRC POV, I guess not. Put it this way, after reading many original CCP documents:s:zh:作者:中國共產黨中央委員會 and s:zh:作者:共产国际, the CCP, hence Mao, could only be viewed as a gang of plotters and conspirators, because most of the time their activities were about back stabbing and mud slingling. CCP cannot be viewed as a what we commonly know as a normal political party, thus, Mao cannot be viewed as a commonly known politician.

 * Let me run another quote from Chinese wikipedia(of the same name):

香港《開放》月刊总编辑金鐘声称，毛泽东不为人知的故事还很多，未来会一部一部问世. 「毛逝世三十年来，第一个十年有李锐的《庐山会议实录》；第二个十年有李志绥的《毛泽东私人医生回忆录》；第三个十年就是张戎夫妇的《毛泽东：鲜为人知的故事》. 这是具有里程碑意义的. 」的. 」

 * 里程碑意义 translated as: of milestone significance.

 * In my opinion(NPOV or not), to say that the book is about Mao, and Mao only, is both adament, and wrong. To put it in the right context, the book is about Mao and communist revolution, Mao and Chinese civil war, Mao and KMT, Mao and Second Sino-Japanese War, Mao and Comintern. To delete all these links is simply wrong. Arilang   talk  23:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 * If you think this book is not first and foremost about Mao, you should look again at the first page (all about Mao), the last page (about Mao's body at Tiananmen), the front cover, the title page, or any other page in the book. And you still haven't demonstrated why these links are relevant (what does the CCP's status as "plotters and conspirators" have to do with that?).
 * And about your anti-PRC POV? "the CCP, hence Mao, could only be viewed as a gang of plotters and conspirators". I rest my case. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I simply find the dogmatic insistence on the placement of these links in contravention to WP:ALSO and thus should obviously be removed. I second Rjanag. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: Adding in all of those links is disruptive to the article and is wholly unneeded. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the point-by-point reasoning of Rjanag above. I do not see the links having 'informative' value. In fact, I believe they may even risk giving undue emphasis to a particular viewpoint, or creating an opinion by synthesis. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Balancing Praise and Criticism
The article says: later reviews from China specialists included both support of the book's general conclusions and, from some, criticism of the book's documentation and selective use of sources.

Don't expect anyone whose done serious research into Mao or Chinese history to believe this. As WP stands for a neutral point of view, I think it is fair that we present both sides of the story. But let's be honest here, the "praise" for this book largely came out of American (and European) newspapers in their "book review" sections while the vast majority of academics rejected the book outright. I am clueless as to who actually "supported" the book's "general conclusions" and what basis they have for it. There is not a single sinologist that would vouch for the credibility of this book, and most have criticized it, some very sharply. When the sole purpose of the book is to destroy Mao's reputation, and the author is someone who is obviously extremely invested in the period, it is impossible to say that the book is in any way objective. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with you. As someone familiar with this book, I found that sentence misleading. I've adjusted it to read, more honestly, as: "The book became a best-seller in the United Kingdom and North America. Initial reviews gave warm praise, but later reviews from China specialists were generally negative, in particular criticism of the book's documentation and selective use of sources."76.14.42.191 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi, Colipon. There was academic praise for the book - it wasn't just journalists. I can think of at least three China specialists in the article that generally praised the book - Perry Link, Stuart Schram and Richard Baum. In regards to being "invested" in the period, are you suggesting that any survivor of the Cultural Revolution would be disqualified from writing an "objective" history? Maybe in that case Chinese people generally are too invested in the Sino-Japanese War and shouldn't be writing about it.
 * As for your last comment, where does the article say it was an objective book? We're not here to review it, so unless there's a claim to the contrary already in there I'm not sure what point you're making. John Smith's (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply. I am merely asking for two things: 1. Sure, some have said that the book "contributes to understanding of Mao", but who actually supports the "book's general conclusions"? There were so many conclusions of the book, which one? That Mao was a power-hungry monster who killed tens of millions? That he never brushed his teeth? Its claims about Luding bridge??; 2. the criticism of the book is much more than about the methodology and selective use of sources. It was called a "major disaster in the contemporary China field". There was an immense amount of criticism. The current lede does not do justice to how the book is actually seen in the academic community. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * First, I don't think anyone can claim one of the book's general conclusions was that Mao did not brush his teeth. The intention of the part of the lead you refer to is clear in its meaning/intent.
 * Second, the lead is trying to avoid making a judgment on how much praise and criticism there has been, what weight should be attached to which views, etc. It is honestly trying to be neutral. This isn't the place to debate or evaluate the book or the views of it. John Smith's (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we perhaps cut the "praise" and "Criticism" headings and just fit both under a heading called "Critical reception"? After all, not all the "praise" commentary was positive, and not all "criticism" was negative. Reviewers don't just say if a book is good or bad. Colipon+ (Talk) 12:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with that, though in the past some people have objected to removing certain criticisms/praises and/or curtailing them. I don't like lots of sub-headings.
 * By the way, I stress that I'm happy with change - just that it should be change by consensus given the trouble we've had in the past (though a certain person's ban has ensured things are resolved more peacefully now). John Smith's (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Let's keep our focus on the book itself, Mao: The Unknown Story, not Praise and Criticism, it seems to me this Praise and Criticism getting larger and larger. To use an analogy, Praise and Criticism is just like tea and coffee, or deserts, and the Book itself is the main course. To spend large amount of time talking about tea and coffee, and keep ignoring the main course, is simply a waste of time.

However, talking about Criticism, CCP should be the one that making all the fuss, because June Chang had said a lot of nasty things about their Beloved dear leader. Since the book's publication(2005?), the CCP had not made even a single statement condemning June Chang and her husband, and their book. Doesn't it tell us somethings? Arilang   talk  02:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Her name is not June. And plenty of people other than the CCP have criticized the book. And what does this comment contribute to the discussion? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 * To coin a Chinese phrase, 皇帝不急太監急, translation: The Emperor is relax, and not worried, but the eunuchs are worried to death. What I am saying is, the CCP(as the Emperor), from 2005 to 2009, four years already, had kept quiet about Mao: The Unknown Story, beside banning it's sale and distribution in China, though the mainland Chinese netizens still are able to read it somehow, the CCP did not bother to offer any counter-claims at all, whereas those so called China experts and sinologists are making big noise on the errors of the book. Well, like the Chinese themselves say, when the Emperor himself couldn't care less, and these eunuchs are jumping up and down. I hope this analogy brings a clear message. Arilang   talk  03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you ever consider that maybe historians have the right to have their own opinions, regardless of what the CCP thinks? Or do you believe that if the CCP isn't concerned about someone, no one else should be either? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, Arilang has been making these kinds of statements about China both in Talk pages and in article content for a while now. So take what he says with a grain of salt.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I suggest we keep the CPC and Mao seperate. The current policies of the CPC, though they aren't stated that way openly, are a complete repudiation of mao and every thing he stood for.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The CCP today is not relevant towards this article, apart from the fact it still says Mao was 70% good, 30% bad and has banned this book from sale in China. John Smith's (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The CCP does not say Mao is 70% good, 30% bad. Deng Xiaoping said Mao is 70% good, 30% bad, one to defend his own anti-Maoist ideology, and two to preserve the legitimacy of the Communist revolution. The CCP is extremely critical of Maoist policies, although stops short at being critical of Mao the person. For example, a few years ago, two people got arrested for wanting to "revert China back to the Mao era", and got similar charges to democracy activists. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Deng's comments are still the official party line and more importantly books strongly critical of Mao are banned/not for sale in China. If it were the case that the CCP really had moved on from Mao, his portrait would not be hanging over the Forbidden Palace entrance and there would be much more literature on him (i.e. stuff saying he was a bad leader for China). The fact that Vladmir Putin says Stalin was a good guy does not mean he wants to bring back Communism (economically at least). Similarly the fact the CCP does not want a return to Mao's policies does not mean they cannot regard him positively. John Smith's (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case my point was that the CCP is only relevant in regards to whether they do something about the book (e.g. ban it as they have) or Mao. John Smith's (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what we were talking about? "Balancing Praise and Criticism", we were not talking about the role of CCP. In my opinion, the article's Praise and Criticism section is getting too large in relation to the main content of the article, and needs to be trimmed. Please stay within the topic. Arilang   talk  22:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What?? You're the one who started complaining about the CCP. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'd like to point out that "balance" should not falsely imply "equality' but reflect the fact that the amount of coverage should balance the general opinions in the academic world, and there has been much more criticism than praise. Accordingly I have restored some of the criticism that was removed, and added in own addition. This, along with fixing the sentence, mentioned above, I feel is a more honest balance.76.14.42.191 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It is not possible to say for the purposes of Wikipedia what the "general opinions in the academic world" are as only a tiny number of academics have given any feedback on this book. Your opinion is that, an opinion, even if you feel you are 100% right. Accordingly I don't agree with your changes, including those to the lead section.
 * The use of feedback on the book should be used sparingly. There is already a view that we need to reduce, not increase, views and make a single section on it. The things you inserted/reverted added nothing to the article whatsoever, and the last point on the Marxist cheerleading Communism is mostly irrelevant to the book. However, the fact that some critics of the book were still critical of Mao is important because it shows that praise/criticism didn't divide according to people's views of Mao.
 * I suggest that we start with the earlier version and try some experimentation in a sandbox before introducing a consensus revision. John Smith's (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * We are entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts. The facts we report on, and factually, I've added to the critical reception of this book. Why do you say it should be only done so 'sparingly"? What I added, by definition, added to the article, so I fail to see your argument to censor the important voices of those that criticize this book. I see above, other editors agreed with me (or I agreed with them, which is why I looked at it and made the changes accordingly). I only see you as the sole editor standing in the way of this progress. I hope you have better arguments for keeping out my additions. Until you do, or there is clearly a consensus against it, I will restore.76.14.42.191 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Because this is an article on the book, not a collection of every view ever expressed on it. If you want to create an article titled "views on MTUS", you can post to your heart's content. But there has to be balance here, which means limiting views.
 * Do not misrepresent the comments of others. Other editors supported combining the praise and criticism sections to make them smaller overall. It is you who is working against that by trying to make the sections bigger, not smaller. It is also up to you to change by consensus as you are introducing new material and overturning a long-standing set-up. You should stop reverting - please read the rules I pasted on your talk page. John Smith's (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * If you know the rules, why are you violating them by revering my changes? I do not represent anyone's comments, however it appears you are doing so. See above, I refer to user: Colipon+. This is about the question of balance, as I stated above, and which you have not addressed, yet. Also, please drop the straw-man fallacy about 'every review ever expressed." This is, again, about appropriate balance, and I see more editors agreeing with me than you, the lone voice holding back this change.76.14.42.191 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It isn't against the rules to disagree with someone and undo their changes - it's against the rules to revert four times in 24 hours. I haven't done that, and I won't revert your changes again for some time if I do at all. So far it's just me and you, so how can editors agree with you before they've even seen what you've done? As I suggest on your talk page I suggest you revert yourself to avoid being reprimanded for breaking the 3RR. John Smith's (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I see. We'll I suggest we allow other editors impute then, before we continue with reverting one way or another. I made changes based on other editors above bringing out these points that I agreed with. The arguments are clear and I found your responses unpersuasive, and saw no other editor agreeing with you. My additions fix a number of problems that have been raised. The issue of making it one section or two is not a problem, and not a major issue (I don't care about that issue). I do care about balance of views reflecting the reality of how this book is reviewed by academics, and not painting a false picture of 'equality.' I also feel that the additions add value in conveying this. Like I said, lets see what other editors say. I will not revert if I am the lone voice here, and since you appear to be so, based on the comments above, I hope you will take the same tact.76.14.42.191 (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I had a discussion with one person, Colipon. No one else commented on what I said, so how can I be the lone voice? We were both the lone voices if anyone was.
 * Furthermore it was Colipon who suggested merging praise and criticism - I agreed with that. Do you agreee with that? John Smith's (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I already commented and have no opinion on merging it into one or not. Again, this is not the issue at hand. Colipon commented on the lopsided balance given by suggesting that both pro and con have equal weight, and which I commented on, above, from both the sections and the header. This view can also be seen in the edit summary, which you reverted, that stated, "The amount of coverage balances the general opinions in the academic world. There has been much more criticism than praise." You reverted it, taking out even more reviews that were critical.76.14.42.191 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Well I think you should consider an opinion because it will be hard to come up with consensus if we can't even agree the basic structure. Could you agree to use a combined section as a starting point to work on?
 * Colipon raised a concern and I responded to it. We then posted another comment each - he didn't respond directly to my last point. The conversation moved on to improving the article by a combined section. Which is why I suggest it as a basis to start with. John Smith's (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep it separate because of the length of the its critical reception; this book, it is true, has been blisteringly ridiculed as a monster fairy tale, and looking over the changes, I see most of them as a definite improvement. I don't agree, however, with some of the changes. Raymond Lotta, while an interesting Maoist writer I'm familiar with, in all fairness represents a political fringe. Also it's true the section is getting rather large, although I see this as secondary in import. I do agree with the overall point made by the editor making the changes and not that he/she was actually restoring something that appear to have been taking out without any consensus or discussion, and make other changes that have been suggested as being needed. For example, I note that one editor removed some of the critcal reviews, and then John Smith stated he was reverting that, however, in actuality, he removed even more of the critical reviews, cutting more, and not reverting as stated: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mao%3A_The_Unknown_Story&action=historysubmit&diff=328785074&oldid=328749527 I don't see these changes as discussed or being done with consensus, so restoring it really going back to the long standing version that needs consensus in order to change. I will attempt a compromise edit and try to help out.98.207.245.65 (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As a graduate student in Modern Chinese History, I can safely say that users such as Colipon understand the matter most clearly. To quote another intelligent reader above, "I'd like to point out that "balance" should not falsely imply "equality' but reflect the fact that the amount of coverage should balance the general opinions in the academic world". Without sounding condascending, user John Smith's is substantially incorrect to state "only a tiny number of academics have given any feedback on this book. Your opinion is that, an opinion, even if you feel you are 100% right." In actual fact, this is not opinion, but established concensus among specialists. If you do the appropriate research, you and any other rational reader will come to the same conclusion. Particularly glaring is the belief that a "tiny number" of academics have weighed in. In actual fact, teh academic response to this book has been overwhelming and significantly broader than the average publication, even of scholarly stature. In fact, I have not in my studies ever seen anything quite like it. Perhaps you are not aware of the amount of reviews it has received. I would politely ask you to turn to an excellent historiographic essay written in 2006 by PhD student Brent Haas (http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/chinesehistory/pgp/brentmaoessay.htm) for an overview. Since that time, even more criticism has poured out of the academy. For these reasons, I have corrected the lead section of the article with what is currently accepted among historians, and added a new paragraph to the criticism section which I suggest you consult for recent additions to the debate. I strongly suggest that any future reversions be tempered by the necessary research and not personal affront at changes made to a public article. Dio free (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Two cents

 * About the lede: calling anything "a controversial X" should be avoided, it's simply poor style (almost as bad as writing an article about a person and saying "Joe Schmoe is a notable X"...it's very wiki-internal language, and doesn't benefit the reader). If the controversy surrounding something is noteworthy, work it into the article itself, and perhaps later in the lede say something like "X generated controversy because of its Y"; that sounds much better, and isn't inherently POV like the other wording. (For an example off the top of my head, see Not One Less—there was some controversy about this film, but the lede of the article never says "Not One Less is a controversial film about...".) For what it's worth, the previously-existing version that 76.14.42.191 was replacing this edit ("Mao... is an 832-page-long book") was also junk, but for different reasons. I have edited the opening sentence to make it simpler and avoid unnecessary qualifiers.
 * About the reviews: there is already a problem in the article, which is that there seems to have been a propensity to devote entire paragraphs to individual reviews, making the article difficult to read. Adding even more large paragraphs for one or two reviews is not helping the situation (see Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond). What really needs to be done to clean this up is to sit down and make an outline and determine what the major points (of both praise and criticism) in the reviews are, and then briefly cite the various reviews that fit under each point. These 'critical reception' sections should be organized around the points, not organized around the reviewers. That's more reader-friendly: the readers care what the major points were, they generally don't care who the reviewers are. That sort of organization will also cut down on length and dryness, which currently is a weakness in the article—a lot of readers, myself included, simply don't bother to sit down and read through the whole thing because it's boringly written and rambles on and on. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with both your points. We shouldn't include reviewers for the sake of it, and I think a combined section would do this well. It's too long as it is. John Smith's (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok, I'll take these points under consideration and attempt to go back at the bat with some of my own changes that reflect this, and still incorporate some of the good changes that were made earlier. But, my point, which seems to escape people here is that the changes that I restored were the original, long standing version already, and those things were taken out without any discussion and hence no consensus. So, to keep things the way they were, the consensus version, is to not revert it back to what it is now, but to what it was before taking out the critical section reviews! I'll try to trim it down, anyway, but it seems to me that taking several out completely to make it the same size as the praise section amounts to whitewashing, creating the false appearance of equity between pro/con, and leaves the reader not getting a clear sense of the utter devistating nature of those critical reviews, which accurately reflects the opinion of the academy.98.207.245.65 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see more discussion and progress being made. I can live with the changes and I mostly agree with the other IP user, above. Although, I will say that I disagree about the Lotta removal (although I can live with it, if other editors don't agree with me). My point for including the Lotta review was to simply have the full spectrum of views represented, and to counter the message that "everyone views Mao as a monster' which would not be accurate, Lotta being a case in point. But, I wont re-insert that without getting consensus as I think that is the proper way to go about this. I'm glad the other parts were restored, since as you point out, they were removed without discussion in the first place.76.14.42.191 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a little trimming and moving around, adding spacing and italics. I also found redundancies, even references that were repeated with the same content, which I removed, of course. I went back into the earlier versions and found some better wordings, as well. I look forward to comments about my changes. I think its easier to read now, and gives the proper weight/balance to the respective sections.76.14.42.191 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * What did Rjiang say about not making changes without reaching consensus first? We should reset the page to his version and use a sandox. That's the best way to reach consensus without disruption. John Smith's (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, but has been pointed out by others, the restored material was in the article recently and recently taken out by you, and so by this same logic it should stay back in until there is this 'consensus" right? You can't take out material and then say to put it back in requires us to work in the sandbox first. What kind of logic is that? 76.14.42.191 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * It was in the article recently because it was added recently. Someone had tried to jam it all in ages ago, but that was rejected not long after. The consensus was that it would stay out. That's the logic behind it. John Smith's (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And, I'm referring to this, where a section of the critical reviews were taking out: and then followed by your edit which claimed to 'revert" however, instead of actually reverting what you did was take out even more sourced material from only the critical section: So restoring this material under there is a discussion and consensus seems to be what you are saying is the proper thing to do.76.14.42.191 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The material I removed on 30th November was added the same day, also being text that a now banned user had added in multiple times in an attempt to keep in. So how did its inclusion on 30th November become consensus in less than 24 hours? John Smith's (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is true, I stand corrected, however, I don't see it as being true. Please show me the link where the same material that both you and the other editor took out on Nov. 30th, was actually something new that was inserted that same day. If you can show me that, then I would have been mistaken about this. However, even is this is true, I think its more helpful to address the actual arguments instead of best procedure, about what was first, etc. Lets talk about the arguments, which has been made, i.e. that the criticism section should be larger than the praise section and to make the the same would be to give undue weight by making both praise and negative reception look as if they were equal, then that is hardly the case.76.14.42.191 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I'll try to explain again. Someone inserted this material (or stuff very similar to it) quite some time ago - over a year I think. It was disputed very quickly and didn't stay in. For a year or more it wasn't there. On 30th someone tried to add it back in. I removed it on the same day. Is that clear? It never became part of a consensus version of the page so by removing it I cannot have been undoing any consensus. John Smith's (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Ok, I really needed to see the links to see what you were talking about, but I went back more carefully to take a look and you are party right, and I'm party right. What was really new materially that was inserted was the section by Historian Li Yongzhong from Taiwan, and so I will remove that to show good faith with the process. However, there are other sections that were removed and was NOT part of that new edition on that day, so that is what caught my attention.76.14.42.191 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The section on Gao Mobo was added on 30th November - see here. So according to your own logic that should be removed as well. John Smith's (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that Gao was there before, though, and not sure why it was taken out. Also, I noticed that several editors allowed that to stay in, not to mention the one who put it back on Nov. 30th, with editor Rjanag, keeping it, consolidating it, and editor Colipon opposing your removal of it. With me and the other IP editors, that makes a pretty strong agreement to keep it--(I count 5 again 1).I removed the other addition since i did not see that there before. I think the part by Prof. Gao is a strong criticism, and therefore we should keep the strongest parts, no?76.14.42.191 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can read the archives for the exact reasons, but it was removed. It also was not reinserted. And just because someone did not remove it immediately does not mean they wanted to have it in. You cannot use silence to mean someone wants something. But in any case, voting does not equal consensus. It is gained through page stability. It remains a fact that the Gao Mobo spiel never gained consensus as part of the page. If you want to discuss its inclusion towards getting consensus, that's fine. But it is wrong to put it in and then demand we get consensus given that might take some time to do. John Smith's (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But consensus can't mean that everyone had to agree 100% either, right? If 5 or 6 editors agree with something and you are the only one who doesnt agree with it, and you can't convince others with a good argument, then is it right to say it can't be included because you don't also agree, ultimately with the change? I think in such a situation, you have to agree that consensus means most editors want something, not everyone 100%. Ultimately, I think it comes down more to the arguments being made then the numbers game, though.76.14.42.191 (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question about what Rjiang said about making changes without getting consensus here. John Smith's (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree. Lets have consensus first before taking out what was already there, below, and which was taken out by yourself without getting that consensus. So are we in agreement and that won't be taken out again without consensus this time? Its restored now. The other minor changes don't seem to be in dispute, but lets talk about that here before anything else. I don't think a sandbox is necessary since we are not talking about a complete re-write, but if so, yes, lets use the sandbox for that purpose.76.14.42.191 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 * For the last time, the changes you and the other IP editor have made are the new, significant changes Rjiang was talking about. I didn't remove anything that had been in the page for a long time and part of consensus. So it should go back to his last edit and we can work from there.
 * A sandbox is more preferable because it avoids accusations of edit warring. John Smith's (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I gave it a rough count:Under Praise:24 lines, and under Criticism:50 lines, it is time to reduce it's size, before it gets bigger. Arilang   talk  01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is about the correct weight for pro/con for this book, although I do think it can be trimmed further. My main issue was not to give the false impression of parity between critics and praise. I suppose we can state that, but its best to allow the strongest voices to be the ones presented, or make more clearly the division between the initial popular press and the later specialists who poured in on mass critical of this "history." For me this is more about being accurate as it is about being pretty.76.14.42.191 (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The correct weight for the pro/con" for this book is subjective. We cannot and should not try to enter a numbers game about pro/con views. We should keep it simple. John Smith's (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 * For the record, I support the current version and support an expanded section that shows the critical reviews as being the predominant reaction of this book from the academic community. Its not subject, its really the reality.98.207.245.65 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It just occurred to me that there is no reason to limit information on wikipedia, since as I read somewhere on one of the policy pages, WP is not paper. However, articles should be kept to a recommended size, and if a section is deemed as getting too big, then there is still no reason to not report on that info. What I mean is that, if it gets too big we can simply export the section to its own daughter article that the main article links, to, i.e. "critical reception and debate." This means we keep the section small, with listing only the best reviews that capture best the points of criticism and praise, while linking to the daughter article that can take up a whole article to exhaust the full extend of the source and discussion around this controversial book. Anyway, just an idea I had reading WP boards. Wondering what people might think of this idea?I generally like more info than less, and this would cure my not liking to delete info.76.14.42.191 (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Authors' response to criticism
Colipon blanked this section for what I take to be a dubious reason (I restored it). It isn't tit-for-tat, it goes to show that they were at least aware of the criticisms made and weren't completely ignoring them. One of the criticisms made was that they had not bothered to say anything in response.

Moreover the response to Nathan's article was substantial - it is only that their response has not been repeated here in any detail. Maybe the points made in their letter should be at least summarised in the article. John Smith's (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 * All it said was that they did ten years of research, and they are using that as an explanation for their conclusions. It's not a significant response. If the response to the Nathan article was significant, it should still be worked into the section about Nathan's article above, not have its standalone section. Colipon+ (Talk) 15:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 * It's not a standalone section - it's a sub-section. And if the response to Nathan's article was added in (with detail) it to the criticism section it would make it even larger, something that should be avoided. The only way it could be merged if the entire "review" section was merged, which there does not appear to be a consensus to do. John Smith's (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Today, I spent some time to read the entire Nathan critique and the responses from Chang and Halliday, as well as the counter-response from Nathan. Chang and Halliday's rebuttal to Nathan was a mere contention of individual sources, none of which was substantial, as Nathan handily dismissed these rebuttals as mere red herrings that drew attention away from the real critique of the book - that it attempted to vilify Mao's intentions and personality and thus violates some basic biographical etiquette and ethics - to which Chang and Halliday had no response, except for that lone quote in The Observer, saying that they did ten years of research, as though this justifies their conclusions. I also read in detail The Observer article that John Smith's provides as the source for Chang and Halliday's "rebuttal". The article in The Observer makes it clear that the book is only "praised" by book reviews of major North American and British newspapers, none of these reviewers are China specialists, and mentions that China specialists have quite uniformly berated the book for its selective use of sources and questionable (and often wrong) conclusions. Several extremely problematic sections are noted consistently by China scholars. All of this gives me the impression that the presentation of these critiques, in particular the introduction, is not only having serious problems of WP:UNDUE, but in general paints an utterly misleading picture of how the book has been received by critics. I also find it troubling that my edits on this article have almost always been reverted on the spot by one user. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

 * That's your opinion regarding the rebuttal. The fact is that one was made and it's worth mentioning. I may look into expanding it so that it's a little more interesting to the reader.
 * The Observer article is wrong as you have referred to it, and if you understood the topic you'd know why. There are a number of academics who have praised the book, not just journalists, some of whom are China "specialists". That they appeared in newspapers is quite irrelevant in suggesting they are somehow not valid.
 * If you have something to say about me, please say it directly rather than skirt around the issue - I have a name, and it's rude of you not to use it. John Smith's (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't doubt that some academics have praised the book. Please give me these sources. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Are you honestly saying that you can't see a single academic praise the book in this article as it stands? John Smith's (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Not at all. If you read my last message carefully, I said that I never doubted that there are academic sources that give the book praise (but they are of the minority, and they usually praise the style of the book and doesn't offer substantive reasoning to support the book's conclusions). I am also saying that I want to read these sources in detail to see if there is another side to the story. So far everything I have read from China specialists have criticized the book. I want to read the other side, and since you are involved in this article, perhaps you can give me sources on where to consult this 'other side'. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I know what you said. You said "please give me these sources" [for the academics that praised the book]. I was asking whether you were saying that you couldn't see a single academic praise the book "in this article" - i.e. the one we have been editing. Such sources are already there in the praise section. I could understand if you were unsure about commentators with any titles, but if you're looking for academics try starting by looking for people with academic titles. John Smith's (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the only two people who can remotely be called "China specialists" in the article who actually "praised" the book are Perry Link, and Stuart Schram. Schram actually did not praise the book much at all - merely saying that in some aspects, it increased our understanding of Mao (Nathan also mentions this). Link, on the other hand, is a professor of Chinese literature, not history, politics, or Mao. If these are the only two academic-china-specialist sources that claims to have been 'praising' this book, then my earlier point couldn't be clearer - that China specialists and China historians almost uniformly criticized the book. Colipon+ (Talk) 23:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

 * You didn't ask for "China specialists", you asked for academics. There's a difference between the two. And in any case you seemed to know what to find, so why play a game and ask me to provide you with a list?
 * Schram does praise the book. Nathan had more criticisms to make nd only expressed a belief that the book could be valuable. Furthermore, why isn't Baum a "China specialist"? He's written books on Mao and the Cultural Revolution. He's also part of UCLA's Center for Chinese Studies. Also if people like Goodman, Bernstein (focus on politics) is a "China specialist" then I think Michael Yahuda's opinion is at least notable.
 * Lastly and most importantly, how does being a "China specialist" make you better able to consider the book than a historian who does not focus on China? If some of the greatest weaknesses of the book are historiographical, any historian should be able to spot them. Indeed, does someone who specialises in politics like Goodman have that historical grounding that would be useful? Not suggesting he doesn't, just wondering. John Smith's (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Who said what? So what!
OK, user Colipon, PCPP, and friends keep on reminding us, like hey, all these "China Specialists" and China historians are saying this book is crap, rubbish, not worth 5 cents. I would say:"So What!", when the most powerful propaganda machine of the world Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China had chosen to keep quiet on this topic. Years had passed by since the book's release at 2005, and CCP had not even issued a single statement condemning the book, or the authors. Mao is still regard as some kind of "God" in China, and "Creator" of PRC, the Hero of the Chinese revolution. Now if we believe in what Colipon's "China Specialists" are telling us, that this book is full of craps, is all fabrication and cheats and lies, then why did the all powerful Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China remain in silence, keep quiet, when the beloved revolutionary leader is being littered? Isn't it a bit strange? My question is, do Colipon's "China Specialists" know more about CCP's history than CCP itself? Arilang   talk  01:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Your points are not related to the article at all. 2) They are just your circumstantial speculation. 3) The propaganda department never releases anything about books published by foreign authors. 4) Mao is not a "God" in China; you get jailed if you uphold Maoist policies. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Further revisions to the article
I have largely reverted the edits made by Mightnightblueowl. Whilst they are clearly good faith, they are problematic for a number of reasons. I will try to explain my reasoning below in sequence.

 * 1) I think it's easier to describe Mao as a Communist than a Marxist as the former is a more general term. Marxist is more specific. In what ways was he a Marxist but not a Communist?
 * 2) Is it really POV to describe the Cultural Revolution as chaotic? I would argue that it's POV to deliberately try to remove any references to the violence/chaos that happened.
 * 3) I don't think that we can say "with historians arguing that Chang and Halliday misrepresented evidence" in the lead section, as some historians didn't say that. The lead as was currently written was fine.
 * 4) The quote from Gao is not prudent. He is not some sort of world-renowed expert who should be singled out for quoting. More importantly their 70 million total, whilst high, is not wildly wrong. Stuart Schram pointed out that most estimates are between 40 and 70 million. So why is Gao so write to criticise the numbers that he must be singled out not just to be quoted but in such a distinctive box?
 * 5) Gwynne Dyer is not "another journalist". He is, for example, a historian too.
 * 6) The image of "Was Mao really a monster" isn't suitable here. Cover images should only be used on articles concerning the publication in question.
 * 7) This article isn't about feedback on the book, it's about the book overall. We don't need even more discussion of why the book was good/bad.

I'm not suggesting anyone responds point-by-point, I was just trying to set out my initial reasoning in a clear way.

I have kept the reference to Gao's comments, but tried to incorporate them with the other criticism. It may be an idea to have a look at the praise/criticism section and see if we can summarise it a bit better. It shouldn't be a collection of everyone who has ever written a comment about the book. John Smith's (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, well, as the editor who was responsible for the changes (most of which I still stand by), I will try to explain myself, and then we can go on to discuss and what not... I hope that sounds okay to everyone. Firstly, the choice of "Marxist" over "Communist/communist". Although many western historians tend to use the term "Communist" to refer to all Marxists, describing Mao as a Marxist is a far more accurate description. He was after all trying to implement socialism in the PRC, believing that communism was something that could be achieved in the future; in this manner he was a socialist as well as a communist. This belief in the progress from capitalism to socialism to communism is at the core of the political aspects of Marxism. Mao's ideology and worldview, in essence, was that of Marxism, and socialism and communism were merely parts of that. Referring to him as a Communist is not wrong per se, just, I would argue, "less accurate". Secondly, I think "chaotic" is a very subjective term that means different things to different people. Yes the Cultural Revolution was in many parts violent, but violence is not necessarily chaotic, and chaos is not necessarily violent. It is a fiddly word that can imply many things, and as such is not, in my opinion, fit for an encyclopaedia. I also believe that in highlighting that Jung Chang lived through the "chaos" of the Cultural Revolution, we are implying a slight POV opinion attitude that is detrimental to the Revolution. Perhaps I am only splitting hairs here. To answer your third point, I think it needs to be made clear in the lead that the majority of academics focusing on the study of China have denounced The Unknown Story as rubbish; a few, particularly those who are not specialists in China, have not. This needs, I think, to be clarified. Skipping the fourth, fifth and sixth points (where I think you make a fair argument and I would have to concur), we then come to the seventh point. This is where I really have some difficulties in why you deleted my information.

 * The majority of readers coming here won't be familiar with this particular area of Chinese history, and upon reading the Praise and Criticism sections will come to the conclusion that "oh, some historians think it'’s good, some think it is bad". The fact is, at least two academic anthologies have been published that go into some depth dealing with the core problems with The Unknown Story (Was Mao Really a Monster? and the Jan 06 issue of The China Joural) and Mobo Gao has devoted a whole chapter to its issues in his book The Battle for China's Past, and they have laid out solid critical flaws in most aspects of the work. I really don't think it's any good simply giving a list of quotes from critics if we do not present those very critics' arguments as to why The Unknown Story is such a flawed piece of history. Readers should understand why historians have criticised it, not just the fact that they have.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

The Battle for China's Past by Mobo Gao, http://www.confucius.adelaide.edu.au/people/mobogao.html On Confucius Institute Adelaide U website, Mobo Gao is the director of Confucius Institute Adelaide. "During an inspection of the Hanban late last month, Li Changchun, one of the nine members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo in charge of ideology and propaganda, stressed that the construction of Confucius Institutes "is an important channel to glorify Chinese culture, to help Chinese culture spread to the world", which is "part of China's foreign propaganda strategy".http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IE24Ad02.html"

 * Well even Mao's article describes him as a communist. Given communist is more widely understood than Marxist I think it would be appropriate to use the current term.
 * If you don't like "chaos" we could use a different word like "violence" or summarise it a bit more like "violent destruction of traditional Chinese society". Feel free to make some suggestions here. I don't understand your point about being "detrimental to the Revolution".
 * I have made this point before, but you were not here to see it. What is a "specialist" and how does one gain recognition as such? Is there an international committee that hands out certificates? Moreover, why does being a "specialist" in something to do with China mean your opinion automatically counts more than someone who works in other fields? For example, a university lecturer could be a "China specialist" by studying Ancient Chinese history or modern Chinese politics - what does that have to do with Mao Zedong? I think that you may have fallen into the trap that I've seen other people do, which is to associate work with China to mean someone's opinion is more valid than someone who doesn't focus on China.
 * Sure, if the only people who had good things to say about this book were hacks and lecturers in agriculture (for sake of argument), you might have a point. But we're talking about people who have written historical works themselves. This means that they (should) understand History and should be able to criticise a book that fails to conform to minimum standards. After all very little of the criticism is "Chang and Halliday say X, but actually historical document A proves Y happened". It's more about universal standards that apply to any historical work. Then there are those who have worked in fields concerning China - such as Richard Baum, Stuart Schram and Perry Link. We can't make a universal declaration because it's not clear-cut. The current statement that Academic reviews from China specialists were, on the whole, far more critical goes as far as I think it can. Otherwise we have to start making an assessment as to how the feedback should be assessed, which we can't as it's original research and far too subjective.
 * We don't use the terms "some ..... and others". If people want to think that, they can. But as I said above we can't make readers' minds up for them. They can read the reviews and decide for themselves. The fact that there has been some serious work in trying to pull apart the book does not mean that it is bad, because it's always easier to criticise than praise. When was the last time you ever saw an academic write part of a book in support of a historical work like this?
 * This article is about the book, not feedback on it. It is already heavily weighted in favour of discussing the reaction to it, and any further discussion would unbalance the article even more. John Smith's (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying John Smith’s. Regarding the terms “chaos” and what not, why do we not simply put that she lived in China up until whatever date it was, and therefore lived through the Cultural Revolution ? There is no real need to use terms like “chaos” or “violence” at all in this particular instance, other than to colour the language a little bit, which is simply unnecessary. Your point about specialists is taken, and I don’t see any purpose to debating this particular issue further. I would still argue however that the section on criticism should be structured so as to actually explain what the specific criticisms are i.e. poor use of sourcing etc. One must remember that this is probably one of the two most controversial books of history written in the twenty-first century (the only other that I can think of that has seen such controversy has been Schlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People), and as such criticism of it plays a big part in the reason why it is notable (as far as I am aware, no other biographies of Mao have their own Wikipedia pages, nor do they probably warrant them). I am biased in my opinions of my book, because I believe it to be intrinsically bad history (but good propaganda), and I would never deny this, but I am still committed to the production of a Non-POV article. As such I am also committed to fleshing out the synopsis section as well.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * At the very least it needs to be clear that she lived through the Cultural Revolution. That it's implied wouldn't be enough. Maybe "turmoil" would work. A little bit of colour never hurt. I don't know why you added a date to Wild Swans, it's linked.
 * User Midnightblueowl:"as far as I am aware, no other biographies of Mao have their own Wikipedia pages, nor do they probably warrant them)" This statement is wrong: What about The Private Life of Chairman Mao, and Red Star Over China? Arilang   talk  01:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm rather surprised by your comment on controversial books and that this ranks at the top. We could discuss any number of autobiographies by politicians like Tony Blair, George Bush Junior, Sarah Palin, etc. But even moving away from those sorts of books, haven't you read any of the feedback on Gavin Menzies' works? Now there is someone who really has not received any support from credible individuals. In contrast this book has been praised by people with standing to comment. And in terms of notoriety, it's not the criticism but the author who gave the book a profile. Jung Chang is one of the best known of all writers on China in Europe and North America. Her critics, and I mean this without malice, are nobodies. If they had not said a word about the book it would have had just as great a profile as it currently does/did immediately after release.
 * Everyone's biased in their own way, but I hope you're not going to let that affect what you write here. John Smith's (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The critics aren't "nobodies", they're professors who study China for a living. True, journalists have more attention nowadays, but that doesn't mean we should single out professors. It's the fact that the book had a great profile that it received critics. I'm sure there's plenty of books out there with tons of erroneous information. But no one knows about them so professors were never pissed off by it. And believe me, this book has plenty for academics to be angry about. Gnip (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. They are nobodies in as far that hardly anyone has heard of them. That doesn't mean their views are worthless. My point was that their criticism in no way made the book higher profile than it was before they gave their feedback. John Smith's (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about whether this book was "controversial", which it was in the context of the academic world, though maybe not for the average lay reader. Professors can be very famous in the academic world, and if we put in the commentaries of the media world, then I don't see why we shouldn't involve the academic one. Gnip (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion (from what I could see) was about notoriety and why it had a high profile. There are already academic reviews (good and bad). John Smith's (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read my first statement, you would realize I was saying that the reason that the book had so many negative academic reviews was BECAUSE of its high profile. It was in response to your critique about how the academic reviews did not promote the popularity of the book. My point was that just b/c it didn't promote the book's popularity does not equate with leaving out the critiques, especially when the vast majority of academics that actually specialize in the area(Chinese history, Chinese politics) are negative, contrasting with media reviews(funnily enough, that's actually one of the critiques about the book. She draws from many sources who would probably have no clue about the subject matter). I don't see any wiki requirement in which we could only put out critiques that somehow promoted the books' popularity. Most critiques are there b/c so-and-so book was popular in the first place. There are precious few critiques that contributed to a book's popularity before said book became popular. Do you really expect notable professors to give criticisms about books before said book achieved popularity? By definition of having a "high profile", I doubt the academic world would even know about such a book. On the other hand, did most of the positive reviews help give it a high profile? Probably not, as well. If you know the author you'd probably realize the book achieved popularity from her previous book(Wild Swans, very well written, btw). So lets be fair about this. But let's say that you are right: that a book is not "controversial" if all criticisms of said book did not help give it a high profile. This still doesn't mean that the critiques of this particular book should be discarded. I suggest you look up "Was Mao Really a Monster", which certainly helped the book's popularity. It's a book containing about a dozen academic reviews targeting Mao: The Unknown Story. Basically, Chang received an entire book filled with academic reviews dedicated to criticizing her non-fiction as fiction. I'd say that's pretty important. Gnip (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm in agreement with Gnip here, and I think it vitally important that this article explains why the book was criticised rather than (as it currently stands), just throwing in a selection of critical quotes.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Well, I wouldn't go that far. I was arguing that the page should be kept as it is, with opinions that both praise and criticize the book. The quotes from the criticism section explains the "why" well enough. Adding more would just be reiterating what has been already said. Gnip (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

 * Wouldn't it be Original Research if wiki editors begin to explain "Why" this "Why" that? Arilang   talk  23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. Original research is putting things in wikipedia that wasn't actually published. However, if you read the criticism section it shows that the "why" was actually published. Critics don't just say "it's bad" and move on. If so then they don't deserve a place in wikipedia. However, this is also why I am arguing to leave the criticism section as is. The quotes explain the "why" well enough. There's no need to add to them unless you are just itching to summarize.Gnip (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

 * Gnip is on the right track here, though I would like to suggest a few corrections to his last statement. The reason the book received so much negative feedback from academics was not only because of its high profile, but it certainly did play a major role. Historians did definitely want to counter the widespread praise the book was receiving from journalists and other non-specialists, but it was also the book’s clear and obvious failings that drew a lot of attention from academics, who felt it was their responsibility to expose the book’s problematic research and unsubstantiated conclusions. Any work claiming to provide a comprehensive biography of one of the world's most famous (or infamous) leaders will get noticed, and will certainly be watched closely by academics specializing in China studies. As someone currently working within this very millieu, I can say that most specialists I know of have spoken to were at least aware of the book. Gnip is, however, correct that the published response to the book (such as the Benton volume, or the China Journal response) were unusual, as I have stated before in this article's discussion. I think this is the part that is getting lost on John Smith's, unfortunately. Though I may be splitting hairs rehashing Gnip's words, what I am trying to clarify is that people should not be under the impression that academics only noticed the book due it its huge publicity. It is not correct to say that without its ‘high profile’ “the academic world would [never have known] about such a book.” Professional historians deal daily with the “low profile”, often reviewing books that never become very popular or well-known (ie. they don't sell very well outside of academia). In fact, they frequently research and dissect works that few outside of a very small circle of individuals will ever read. In this sense, academics are very insulated in what they do, and are often disconnected from the general public. That is not to say, however, that they are unaware of new publications outside of academia, particularly those re-evaluating major figures in history. Also, Benton’s volume “Was Mao Really a Monster” was not, in my opinion, a major contributor to the book’s popularity, as Gnip suggests. As you know, MTUS was first published in 2005, and this collection of reviews was only published in 2009, quite some time after the book had already become popular (and as you know, the reviews found in the volume had been previously published elsewhere). What is important about this recent volume is not how it contributed to the book’s popularity, in my opinion, but rather as a reflection of how distressed the academic community truly is by the MTUS’s continued popularity. This last fact is what I am concerned does not quite get across in the article, as it stands. Unfortunately, I’m not sure how to appropriately correct that issue. I think that is what Midnightblueowl has been trying to address, and what I myself tried to do some time ago. Milamber (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Milamber. I've known a number of less popular books without much critical review. Take the "Scarlet Memorial", for example. I have not found many academic critiques about the book, but I did find some positive reviews about how the book reveals that Chinese communists support cannibalism. Such a controversial book must have at least SOME negative reviews from the academia if it were more popular enough. Of course, perhaps you know many less popular works that were critically reviewed by the academia. I admit I'm not as well read as I let off :). Gnip (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * As an addition to what I have previously said, I would note that the main areas that critics highlight are: 1) Chang and Halliday's erroneous usage of sources, ranging from the schewed interviews that they performed to the misquoting of formerly published information, 2) the extremely biased polemical nature of their work, 3) the (possibly intentional) misleading use of their referencing system and other bizarre formatting ideas (such as merging the Pinyin and Wade Giles forms of English translations), 4) the outright falsification of events, and 5) the self-contradictory statements and logical inconsistency. I believe that, using the wealth of criticism of the work by a wide range of experts in the field of Chinese history, we can present concise paragraphs explaining each and every one of these criticisms in this article. It is my firm belief that this will improve the article dramatically, making it far more readable and understandable to the average reader. Of course, this must go hand in hand with the greater referencing and fleshing out of the rest of the work, namely the synopsis section, which could really do with more quotes from The Unknown Story itself.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

 * It would be much better to edit the article first in ways that we can easily agree upon, such as expanding the synopsis section as you suggest. We can worry about the more disputed areas later. John Smith's (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Chinese New Left
Midnightblueowl, are you pushing Chinese New Left POV here in wikipedia? Looking at talkpages of Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, and here, there seems to have some sort of pattern. http://www.wyzxsx.com/ 乌有之乡 would be a good place for your contributions. Arilang   talk  07:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Not everyone shares your monomaniacal and ideologically-driven determination to falsify Chinese history; no surprise that disagreeing with you becomes occasion for a political witch-hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.115.182.189 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Scarlet Memorial
Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China is also a very interesting book, would user Midnightblueowl, Gnip,  Milamber, John Smith's and others care to help to build up the content a bit?  Arilang   talk  05:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What other academic books reference it, and are there any significant academic reviews of it, like there are for The Unknown Story or The Private Life of Chairman Mao ? I have never heard of any, but then that does of course not mean that they do not exist. If it fails in these then, interesting or not, it may well warrant deletion I'm afraid. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

This is a good one:http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/fp.asp?xItem=1441&CtNode=128

Alice W. Cheang, is an assistant professor of classical and modern Chinese in the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the University of Notre Dame.  Arilang   talk  10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mobo Gao references to be removed
Michael Rank: ""But Gao's attacks on Chang are sometimes uncomfortably personal, while his defence of the cultural revolution failed to convince me." The revolution, revised by Michael Rank at guardian.co.uk"

Gregor Benton: """A powerful mixture of political passion and original research, a brave polemic against the fashionable view on China. ... Aims a knockout blow at Jung Chang's recent book on Mao, which Bush and the conservatives rave-reviewed." Gregor Benton, Professor of Chinese History, University of Cardiff."

The above two reviewers would about sum up the Western mainstream academic view point on Gao. I have spend hours doing Google search on Gao's book, hoping to discover some "positive" reviews, unfortunately, I failed. Looks like The Battle for China's Past: Mao & the Cultural Revolution has been more or less ignored by the general academic world.

That said, first of all, Gao's references should be removed from this article, according to WP:Neutral point of view, and editors are welcomed to join this discussion to reach consensus. Arilang   talk  08:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree with Arilang, who has done so much good work on this as on so many articles, but I would not favor removing Gao's references. My understanding is that NPOV doesn't apply to the authors being cited, only to us as editors. Otherwise we would also have to remove the favorable citations as well. A summary of the response needs to include the full range, whether or not we agree. Mobo Gao is a well established scholar. The fact that the book has been reviewed in prominent places shows that it was taken seriously. He is included in Gregor Benton's anthology Was Mao Really a Monster?. So giving him one sentence doesn't strike me as "undue weight." ch (talk)

Arilang, I think you need to refine the definition of a "positive review". Your quote by Michael Rank does not tell her entire opinion, but consists only of a half-truth. It's called selective quoting. Her review isn't positive, but it's not negative either. What you quoted from Gregor Benton is entirely positive. If Gregor thought negatively of Mobo Gao, he wouldn't have put him in his book. I also find it hard to believe that you spent "hours" trying to find a positive review and failing whereas I can find one in around 30 seconds. Besides, having one sentence by Mobo Gao in the critique section is hardly "undue weight". Furthermore, this sentence is not a "minority view" in the academia, so I'm afraid wiki rules doesn't apply to the point here. It's just one sentence, I say leave it as it is. User:Gnip (talk) 2:58 25 Febrary 2011(UTC)

title: Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 7


text:
Talk:Victor Perlo

Note to relatives
In the off chance that a relative of Victor Perlo finds this page, please do not hesitate to write if you happen to have additional information, family photos, etc. which may be placed into the public record. Thanks! —Tim Davenport, Early American Marxism website, Corvallis, OR MutantPop@aol.com Carrite (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bluster
Any attempt to reinstall McCarthyite conspiracy theories and rants into this article will be vigorously resisted. 172 | Talk 15:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You're not resisting McCarthyism. You're promoting censorship and historical revisionism.  The perils of McCarthyism are when people are persecuted and blacklisted based on rumor and innuendo.  The sources Nobs used for the information you've censored are at least as reliable as any other historical documents from this period, even if you detest how that information was gathered.  In your zeal to hide the past, you've left a smaller whitewashed article with no sources whatsoever, and yet you've provided no explanation other than that the documentation doesn't fit your personal POV.  Whatever that POV is, it's not resistance to McCarthyism.
 * -- Randy2063 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Note that user "172" has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia since 2006. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Perlo's criticism of Gorbachev is fascinating, and I'm sorry it was deleted. The URL of his essay "Economic and Political Crisis in the USSR" has been moved to http://mltoday.com/en/essential-resources/us-classics/the-economic-and-political-crisis-in-the-ussr-146.html I'd like to add it but I don't know enough about the subject to summarize it confidently. --Nbauman (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 * This is a dead link at the moment, unfortunately. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange vandalism
We have an article on the Perlo group which links here yet there is not one word about Victor Perlo's spying career. Going through history I find a (at first glance) reasonably written article that is massively vandalized, removing all mention of spying in an orwellian manner and nobody goes boo for almost a year. The diff can be found here. I'd protest to the vandal user's talk page but it's done by a non-logged in editor using a university IP address. Since there seems to have been several edits done since December 12, 2006 and I don't want to suggest that they're all worthless, I'll be reintroducing the data using the December 11, 2006 version as a template but not reverting back to that version out of respect for the possibility that subsequent edits were done in good faith. Hopefully this is going to be a relatively painless restoration. The 2 year old comment above doesn't seem like a good omen though. TMLutas 03:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for handlng that. I had intended to come back and do something similar to what you did but I was diverted.  There's always plenty to fix around here.
 * -- Randy2063 18:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced!
While I can readily appreciate this article has been kicked about by various POV sides, the encyclopedic way out is for each to cite their sources and let the readers decide. The unsourced article as it stands is not a useful tool for a serious researcher, being entirely unsourced. You all are aware that original research doesn't belong here, yes? User:scbomber 19:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Incest!
This article has him marrying two women both surnamed "Perlo." Cousins? Sisters? Come on, what sort of sources fail to give maiden names? At least the writer(s) didn't allude to his (highly probable) semitic roots. Oversight? Captqrunch (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Fixed. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

By way of comparison
As of the edit of December 8, 2010, here is how Russian Wikipedia treats the allegations of Perlo's espionage activity: "Обвинялся в шпионаже в пользу СССР, но обвинения отрицал." (Accused of spying for the Soviet Union, but denied the accusations.) That's it... Carrite (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Victor Perlo


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott F. Smith

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)===Scott F. Smith===

Delete. Hoax? Vanity? No relevant google hits. No google hits for the "Fritz-Schmidt Institute". Gamaliel 15:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, sadly, Mr. Smith has chosen a profession whose practicioners are hardly ever well-known. Dcarrano 22:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Haloperidol decanoate

Haloperidol decanoate, sold under the brand name Haldol Decanoate among others, is a typical antipsychotic which is used in the treatment of schizophrenia. It is administered by injection into muscle at a dose of 100 to 200 mg once every 4 weeks or monthly. The dorsogluteal site is recommended. A 3.75-cm (1.5-inch), 21-gauge needle is generally used, but obese individuals may require a 6.5-cm (2.5-inch) needle to ensure that the drug is indeed injected intramuscularly and not subcutaneously. Haloperidol decanoate is provided in the form of 50 or 100 mg/mL oil solution of sesame oil and benzyl alcohol in ampoules or pre-filled syringes. Its elimination half-life after multiple doses is 21 days. The medication is marketed in many countries throughout the world.

title: Haloperidol decanoate


text:
Samuel Parkman Tuckerman

Samuel Parkman Tuckerman (February 11, 1819 – June 30, 1890) was an American composer.

Early life and education
He was born in Boston to Edward Francis Tuckerman (1775–1843), a merchant, and Sophia May (1784–1870), a prosperous and distinguished Boston family. His siblings were Edward Tuckerman (1817–1886), the botanist and Amherst professor, Frederick Goddard Tuckerman (1821–1873), the poet, Sophia May (Tuckerman) Eckley, and Hannah Parkman Tuckerman.

He attended Chauncy Hall School in Boston. He studied with Charles Zeuner, and was then for several years organist at St. Paul's Church, Boston. He went to England in 1849, and the degree of Mus. Doc. was conferred on him by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1853. In the preceding year he had received a diploma from the Academy of St. Cecilia in Rome.

Work
While studying with Zeuner, he published The Episcopal Harp (1844) and The National Lyre (1848), the latter with Silas A. Bancroft and Henry K. Oliver. As a composer he gave his attention chiefly to sacred music, principally services, hymns, and anthems for the Episcopal Church service. He compiled Cathedral Chants (London, 1852) and Trinity Collection of Church Music (1864).

After returning to the United States he lectured on sacred music, and gave performances of church music of the period from the 4th to the 19th centuries. He went again to England in 1856, and a third time in 1868, returning in 1879.

Personal life
Samuel married Mary Olivia Edwards Perry on October 15, 1845. They had a daughter: He died in Newport, Rhode Island and is buried at Mount Auburn Cemetery.
 * Mary Perry Tuckerman (born November 11, 1846)

title: Samuel Parkman Tuckerman


text:
Tiberina Republic

The so-called Tiberina Republic (Repubblica Tiberina) was a revolutionary municipality proclaimed on 4 February 1798, when republicans took power in the city of Perugia. It was an occupation zone that took its name from the river Tiber. A month later, the government of all the Papal States was changed into a republic: the Roman Republic, which Perugia belonged to. Its head was a consul and it used a tricolor similar to the French flag.

title: Tiberina Republic


text:
Japan Live '94

Japan Live '94 (also known as Live in Japan) is a live album and VHS by the American heavy metal band Savatage. The show that was recorded was held in Kawasaki, Japan on November 12, 1994, and was the last show on the short Handful of Rain tour. The show is noted for featuring Jon Oliva in a prominent role, his first since "leaving" the band in 1992. Oliva has an extended piano intro on "Gutter Ballet" and shares lead vocals with Zachary Stevens, making it his first performance as a lead vocalist with the band for two years. Oliva also performs rhythm guitar on "Hall of the Mountain King".

The album was released in Japan in January 1995 by Zero Corporation and features a cover with singer Stevens wearing a T-shirt with a red and white circle and cross. In fact, Stevens wore a Corrosion of Conformity T-shirt at the concert, and it was likely "censored" due to label issues. Due to lack of time on the physical support, the entire show was not released onto CD. Missing songs on the CD include "Conversation Piece", "Stare into the Sun", "Damien" and "Hall of the Mountain King". However, these songs were included in the VHS footage of the concert, originally released in 1995 in Japan and in 1998 in North America.

The album was released in the U.S. by Nuclear Blast America in 2000 with a cover featuring both Johnny Lee Middleton and Stevens and the title Live in Japan. In 2000, plans were revealed for the show to be re-issued onto DVD with a possibility of bonus content. A release date of October 2000 was publicised by the band, but possibly due to Nuclear Blast being bought by Century Media, Savatage were unable to release the DVD. Since then, there has not been an announcement of an official DVD release, although copies of the concert have been circulated on DVD. In March 2010, a greatest hit compilation called Still The Orchestra Plays: Greatest Hits Vol. 1 & 2 was released, with the 1994 concert included on a bonus DVD. The quality had not improved much from the VHS-version.

VHS/DVD track listing

 * 1) "Taunting Cobras"
 * 2) "Edge of Thorns"
 * 3) "Chance"
 * 4) "Conversation Piece"
 * 5) "Nothing Going On"
 * 6) "He Carves His Stone"
 * 7) "Jesus Saves"
 * 8) "Watching You Fall"
 * 9) "Castles Burning"
 * 10) "All That I Bleed"
 * 11) "Stare into the Sun"
 * 12) "Damien"
 * 13) "Handful of Rain"
 * 14) "Sirens"
 * 15) "Gutter Ballet"
 * 16) "Hall of the Mountain King"

Personnel

 * Savatage
 * Zak Stevens – vocals
 * Alex Skolnick – guitars
 * Jon Oliva – keyboards, guitars, vocals
 * Johnny Lee Middleton – bass
 * Jeff Plate – drums

 * Production
 * Paul O'Neill – producer, mixing at Soundtrack Studios, New York
 * Zak – engineer
 * Toshiyuki Hayashi and the Sci Gang – assistant engineers
 * Ken Lewis Moren – mixing engineer
 * Ted Moren – mixing assistant
 * Brian Weber, Michael Ifversen – audio edit
 * Masao Nakazato – mastering at Onkio Haus, Tokyo

title: Japan Live '94


text: Talk:Japan Live '94

title: Talk:Japan Live '94


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traver Rains

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 15:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Traver Rains
Vanity. smoddy 15:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain, originally voted delete since it seemed made up or vanity. But if deleted, include Richie Rich (designer) created by same anon user. Google search of "richie rich" "traver rains" returns about 800 results, but I don't know how to discern notability for fashion designers--TheMidnighters 15:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Google returned 869 results. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup or delete Current article is very POV and in need of cleanup. However, slightly notable person working for a notable company, so given enough work on the page, it's worth keeping I think.
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Bolognese Republic

The Bolognese Republic was created in 1796 in the Central Italian city of Bologna. It merged the existing provinces of Bologna and Ferrara into one.

History
The Bolognese Republic was a French client republic established when Papal authorities escaped from the city of Bologna in June 1796. It was annexed by the Cispadane Republic on 16 October 1796.

It was given the first Jacobin Constitution written in Italy. It had a government consisting of nine consuls and its head of state was the Presidente del Magistrato, i.e. Chief magistrate, a presiding office held for four months by one of the consuls.

title: Bolognese Republic


text:
User:Crasch~enwiki

http://www.livejournal.com/users/crasch

title: User:Crasch~enwiki


text:
Paolo Ferrari (writer)

Paolo Ferrari (1822–1889), Italian dramatist, was born at Modena. His numerous works, chiefly comedies, and all marked by a fresh and piquant style, are the finest product of the modern Italian drama. After producing some minor pieces, in 1852 he made his reputation as a playwright with Goldoni e le sue Sedici Commedie. Among numerous later plays his comedy Parini e la Satira (1857) had considerable success. Ferrari may be regarded as a follower of Carlo Goldoni, modelling himself on the French theatrical methods. in 1860 he was appointed professor of History at Modena and afterwards at Milan. His collected plays were published in 1877–1880 in 14 volumes.

title: Paolo Ferrari (writer)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Kilmartin

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

DJ Kilmartin
Non-notable 'drummer' who used to play on pots and pans P0per 15:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no claim to notability. -Harmil 16:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Friday 17:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:69.47.136.225

title: User talk:69.47.136.225