Talk:Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
"With an insane amount of propaganda flooding the entire country, one would simply surrender to the fact that Mao and his book were the only way of life." -- Great work on this article, but this line is not NPOV.
Maybe you're right -- Gups
- Yeah, no amount of propaganda is insane.
And, how about actually having a representative sample of the quotes? As in hadith, it really helps to get a feel for what these are about.
In China at the Cultural Revolution, the book was called "红宝书(Hong Baoshu, the Precious Red Book)". It may be the origin of the western name "The Little Red Book". -- Sunzx 10:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm removing this sentence
- Worldwide its publication is a distant second to the Bible (or third if all publications and printings of the annual Ikea catalog is counted as a book).
because comparing a book and catalogs is absurd. If one added up all of the catalogs that Sears printed over the years, it would probably be first or second on that list, also. —tregoweth 19:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I've actually put this back in, although I arrived from 'Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense', and so I haven't been part of this discussion until now. I've added a couple of sources, including one from the Evening Standard (which compares its distribution to that of the Bible; something which appears in Wikipedia's own article on Ikea).-Ashley Pomeroy 17:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I deleted without noticing that you just reentered it. Hower i think it realy a bad joke and it should be deleted. (april 13 2005)
- I agree that catalogs and books are apples and oranges. We should keep Ashley's link though, since it gives estimates for the number of Bibles and LRBs in circulation. --Carl 10:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Authenticity
I have always heard, and thought it was common sense, that many of these quotes were either fabricated or stolen and then attributed to Mao. It's beyond reasonable dispute that the book was a propaganda tool, so it is logical that it would seek to portray Mao as a sage leader full of insight and wisdom, and that many common Chinese people would not be able to tell a true Mao quote from a fake one. But I haven't seen anything to this effect in the article. I think this is something worth looking into. --BDD 15:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm holding a copy in my hand right now, every single quote is sourced so I find it unlikely. I have no doubt that Mao was reasonably intelligent and charismatic so I see no reason why they all couldn't be his. Besides, it's more a book of Guidelines for Happy Little Communists than it is a philosophical work. Radix 02:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm holding a copy in my hand right now and comparing randomly selected quotes to a more detailed compilation of Mao Zedong's writings. If this is fabricated or stolen work, it is an impressive piece of fabrication given that the little snippets in the Red Book are seamlessly part of much longer (and far more tedious) wholes. --MTR (严加华) 01:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The UMass Dartmouth thing
This story is pretty obviously crap - the monitoring described is logistically impossible, and the story is terribly sourced - only two sources, neither of whom have first hand information. This is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 03:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- It seems fairly well-known; I had heard of this before I saw it on Wikipedia. It doesn't have to be true to be on Wikipedia (although I would assume the story is true, and find this claim that it's BS rather odd), just NPOV and verifiable. Everyking 04:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- And from a remotely reputable source. Have you read the newspaper article in question? It asserts things that are impossible (That there's government monitoring of every library user), is based on two sources both of whom only have second hand information, and, furthermore, the story is implausible - there are a billion copies of the Red Book in print. The government would be stupid to let a suspected terrorist know that they were onto him because he read a book that there are a billion copies of - particularly because, were he actually in any way a Chinese operative, he would have already read the book. The newspaper article is one of the single worst pieces of journalism I've ever read - it's just a crappy source, and one that has no place in Wikipedia, particularly considering the failure of this story to be verified today in national media - the ALA and the UMass library are both failing to find any evidence that it's true. Phil Sandifer 05:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- OK, let's see if it shows up in any sources you consider more reputable; in that case we'll restore, if not, we'll leave it out. Everyking 05:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- And from a remotely reputable source. Have you read the newspaper article in question? It asserts things that are impossible (That there's government monitoring of every library user), is based on two sources both of whom only have second hand information, and, furthermore, the story is implausible - there are a billion copies of the Red Book in print. The government would be stupid to let a suspected terrorist know that they were onto him because he read a book that there are a billion copies of - particularly because, were he actually in any way a Chinese operative, he would have already read the book. The newspaper article is one of the single worst pieces of journalism I've ever read - it's just a crappy source, and one that has no place in Wikipedia, particularly considering the failure of this story to be verified today in national media - the ALA and the UMass library are both failing to find any evidence that it's true. Phil Sandifer 05:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, this was confirmed false. Isn't prudence wonderful? Phil Sandifer 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added it recently, and with reputable sources. Also, as a UMD student and writer for the student newspaper, I can guarantee you The Torch is reputable. ;) -- LGagnon 23:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
And to the person who thought this wasn't worth mentioning: A lot of things "not worth mentioning" already get into Wikipedia, and deservingly so. This is just another freak incident, but one that is worth noting. -- LGagnon 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is not one of the thousand most important things to say about this book. It thus should be removed until all thousand of the others are included - otherwise it makes Wikipedia look stupid. Phil Sandifer 00:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, I do not favour the story being included in the article. CRCulver 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- So because there are more important things, we don't mention it? There's no logic in that. If there are more important things to say about it, add them. Don't delete a piece of its history just because other things haven't been said yet. And "stupid" is not a justification. When you have a real legit reason to remove it, mention it here. Otherwise don't delete the section just because of your as-of-yet not fully explained POV. -- LGagnon 01:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is not a POV issue, and it's offensive to say that it is. This is utter trivia, and does not belong in this article. Maybe - MAYBE - it deserves mention in the UMass Dartmouth article. Perhaps in its own. But it's just not sufficiently relevent to the topic of this article to include. Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. This is a random fact. It is not a piece of the book's history - it's a stupid prank. Phil Sandifer 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- You tried to justify removing it because "it's stupid". That is a POV, and the one I was refering to. Trivia is mentioned in a lot of articles, and normally isn't removed. This was a big incident that was talked about nationally, not something small and insignificant. It's not a random fact; it brought the book into the news at a time when most people were not talking about it. Prank or not, it is a part of the book's history, and you have yet to give a good reason why it is not. Try giving a fact that backs your argument. And "stupid" is not a fact; it's an opinion, and an unjustified one at that. -- LGagnon 02:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I am uncertain how to argue with such wholesale unreasonableness as this. Phil Sandifer 02:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Just give some real reasons for removing it. I'm sure you are capable of expressing more than "it's stupid". A Wikipedia article is supposed to include all information on a subject, especially that which can be backed up by sources. I gave 5 legit sources to a nationally known event that was the only major event involving the book in the media. It has every right to be here. If you think it doesn't, please explain why we are forgoing editing as usual, and say more than "it's stupid". Give more reasons, and give why these reasons matter. -- LGagnon 04:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, a Wikipedia article is emphatically not supposed to include all information on a subject. In the very beginning, there was some interesting in creating here the "allwiki", but eventually the community decided to impose stricter rules of encyclopedic value. Ephemera like the UMass story aren't encyclopedically valuable. CRCulver 04:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- While I understand your desire to put news about your University in a more prominant position, I suspect that your partiality to your school is clouding your judgment here - this really isn't that important outside of the local context, and even less so months after the event. It really is excessive to cover it, and unimportant ephemera. That similar ephemera exists in other articles is a reason to fix them too, not to break this one. Phil Sandifer 06:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Came here from RfC. My opinion is that this incident is far too trivial for this article. AndyJones 09:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The section in question strikes me as a good candidate for its own article, perhaps linked from this page. Ultimaga 02:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Apologies. I deleted without reading the discussion, but still feel that if I send my students to this page they will not find the UMassDartmouth thing either recent or relevant. I will try to get back in a while with a few references, and then perhaps the incident can be restored?
[edit] Ikea
I've removed the stuff about the Ikea catalogue because it's wrong. If we start to include catalogues and periodicals in the listings then Ikea is a long way from being the most-published catalogue. The short version of the Sears Roebuck catalogue beats it (250 million) and I would be prepared to bet that plenty of others do too. Yellow pages for example. DJ Clayworth 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How many books were printed?
This article talks of "well over a billion" while the Chinese WP talks of more than 5 billions. That more than just a little difference. My gut feeling is that 1 billion is low given that China itself had a population of about 800 million at the time, but 5 billions? Could someone please bring forth evidence either way. Berox 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It's around 1 billion
[edit] Mao Tse Tung?
I am aware that the English translation spells it Mao Tse-Tung but I think that it should be changed to Mao Zedong or at least it should be simply Chairman Mao. No one ever said Chairman Mao Tse Tung.
Response: It is Mao Zedong because of the new Chinese Piyin style. Mao Tse-Tung is derived from the Wade-Giles. The Chinese made the Piyin so this basically makes the Wade-Giles version outdated. Paracite 04:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ruhnama
The description of this book as obligatory reading material for every citizen is very similar to Ruhnama, although arguably the influence of the latter is rather smaller. Does anyone know more similar read-or-get-your-ass-kicked books? They could make a category, although, i can't come up with a name for it. ("Books the reading of which is required by law"?...) --Amir E. Aharoni 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Harmful Books List
"In 2005, Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong was listed at #3 in the conservative magazine Human Events' Ten Most Harmful Books of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries." (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7591)
Why is this here? That link is incredibly NPOV 18.244.7.107 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to back you up on this one. I don't see how what Human Events thinks is relevant to this book, and not coming from America, I don't see how what Human Events thinks is relevant to anything. Also, the article on "Human Events" itself is a stub, so Wikipedia backs me up on the irrelevance of "Human Events". I had never even heard of the stupid magazine until linking to it from this article. Man, that irritates me.
The 'Human Events most harmful books' reference should be deep sixed. To give you an idea of what their list is like, it also lists 'The Feminine Mystique,' Kinsey's 'Sexuality in the Human Male,' and Keynes' magnum opus on economics as being roughly on a par with this and 'Mein Kampf.' To me, it has all the value as if another poster had left behind a link from Worker's World Daily lauding it as the greatest book ever written. I don't think an encyclopedia entry is the proper spot for polemicist drivel; therefore, I'm just removing the reference. --Dh100 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that, a few weeks ago (early Sept. '06), the harmful book line was in this article without even identifying that Human Events is a partisan magazine. Glad it's been deleted.
I dislike Mao, but I find this list totally not neutral at all. Froggy helps ;-) 07:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I find this list of "harmful" books very interesting and useful, as well as the list of the "worst" books by Intercollegiate Studies Institute. I already read a few of that books before discovering these lists. After finding out with these lists, I know better which are the next books important to read, and I have already bought one of tham, which previously I didn't know. 151.51.60.174 19:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotations of Mao Zedong decreasing illiteracy?
Because of the societal requirements, not legal, of having to read from the Quotations of Mao Zedong would it increase literacy? This can be mentioned in the opposing views of "counter productive" argument. Paracite 04:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
Theres a lot of pictures on this article, especially considering its fairly short. Could they be rearranged, removed, or made smaller to make the page look more organized? <3Clamster 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Move
Why not just "Quotations of Chairman Mao"? Because that is the Chinese title, isn't it? Colipon+(T) 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
