Talk:Red Star Over China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Old talk 2 Unknown VIRUS 3 Chang and Halliday controversial sources 4 Availability in China 5 Date of revised edition 6 Assessment and Criticism Section

[edit] Old talk

Most claims by Chang and Halliday have not been accepted by experts. I'm quite happy for their view to be included, but in its own section.

I changes the description of Snow to 'left-wing'; he was quite critical of Communism. I also fixed the link to 'Unknown Story', which was a dead end.

--GwydionM 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Jung and Halliday has been accepted by quite some experts but sure, as they criticize such a high profile person as Mao not everyone is going to be happy about what they write. Have made the quote a lot shorter, hope you're happy with that?

That looks like a good arrangement; I should have thought of it myself.

I deleted the sentence saying that the book is out of print, as Amazon lists it as being in print. --cwh 15:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the pronoun 'it' in the first sentance of Criticisms to the book to make the sentance fit more smoothly.

--pwilczynski 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown VIRUS

That stupid unknown story book has wormed its way into every single article even remotely related to Mao or china. Theres more from Chang on this page than snow, the criticisms take up more than half the freaken page! A 2006 pop history book is triumphing over a 1935 classic! For God's sake its a extremely recent, incredibly biased book written as popular history and on George W. Bush's reading list. If ten years from now it becomes the main source on China's hsitory then wikipedia should follow suit but in the mean time wikipedia's entire China section needs substantially rewriting since it simply parrots Changs views. Chang's views belong in the unkbnown article not in every sing article about china!!!!--Gary123 01:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of oddities concerning Chang & Halliday's book. It is full of obvious goofs, yet most reviewers praised it, using much the same terms, as if they had been copying from some handout. ('Free' media are commercial media, obviously.) The trouble someone went to shows that someone still fears Mao's legacy, and also that they can't get anyone clever to write a 'knocking' biography. Only an idiot attacks everything without the slightest explanation of how a man can get everything wrong apart from continuously succeeding. So don't let it get to you. --GwydionM 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the only "virus" is Gary, who is spamming talk pages with the same post..... John Smith's 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

spamming? I found this stupid virus at the rRed Star page so I posted my complaint. I had put up with this stupid virus spreading to every damn china article and didnt care but this was the last straw. Spamming is putting an ad for this stupid book in every China article. I posted it here and at the main article on the damn book to raise attention to this problem hardly spamming you neocon. Send my regards to the blue team.--Gary123 18:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to draw attention to the fact that in retaliation for the discussion I raised here about the validity of Mao the unknown story as a source John Smith's has pursued a vindictive inqusition against all articles I have edited.

Please See The following pages for details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Volunteer_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_Hogan

I would appreciate the assitance of any intrested parties.

--Gary123 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think including Chang and Halliday's views on Mao and Snow in this article is relevant. Although Chang and Hallidays' views are biased against Mao, Snow's views were biased towards Mao. Snow was entranced by Mao and so his writings are favourable of him. I think including Chang and Hallidays' point of view combats Snow's opinion to create a more accurate balance. Raph89 10:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chang and Halliday controversial sources

They criticise everything Mao did, without any critical judgement. When checked they are very often wrong - see Luding Bridge.

Critisizing Mou is not hard to do as he killed and tortured so extremly many people. Many people have critical things to say about Maou. Or do you like him?

They have no business being mentioned here. Most authorities accept Snow as honest and interesting, even when they disagree with him.--GwydionM 17:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Check Luding Bridge. Snow's book says 30 attackers. They go on about there being 22 attackers and 22 survivors, ignoring the stuff that does not suit them.--GwydionM 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are the "most" sources? Chang and Halliday obviously don't accept Snow. Many researchers have a lot of praise for Chang and Halliday's book. Please see the Wiki on Mao: The Unknown Story. PS. Watch your weasel words.

The changes still wildly overbalance the article, a single book with an extreme viewpoint gets too much space. The C&H quoted includes a compelete howler, thinking there was a separate 'Autobiography' - there was just the one book, Red Star Over China, which includes Mao's own account as several chapters in the book. Mao's chapters may also have been pirated as a separate work: if Chang and Halliday were competent scholars they'd have the details and instead they have a muddle.--GwydionM 17:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mao is a controversial figure. Snow, Jung and Halliday have different viewpoints on him. Is this so strange? I made the section shorter.

This is Edgar Snow's entry. Not a place to plug other writers. --GwydionM 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is common to allow Critizism in an article. Especially conserning such a highly controversial person as Mao.

[edit] Availability in China

Does anyone know if the Chinese version was available while Mao was ruling China? It definitely appeared in Chinese soon after Snow's book appeared, maybe pirated. And it is available now - unsurprisingly, since it suits the Dengist vision of Mao. But was it available to ordinary Chinese in the 1950s and 1960s? I did a 'google' but could find no information on this point.--GwydionM 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of revised edition

Actually, Snow published substantial parts of the book in Chinese magazines even before the book came out in English.

Don't know why my correction of the revised ed. was removed and replaced with the mistaken info that the revised edition was 1972, after Snow's death -- did I misunderstand something? I have the revised edition of 1968 in my hand, and the info can be verified at Amazon.com. Also, I wonder why there is a citation of a recent expensive reprint, when the Grove edition ISBN-13: 978-0802150936 is still in print. Unless somebody corrects me, I will go ahead and restore. Apologies if I am wrong. cwh 06:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment and Criticism Section

I tried to put things together to include the various points of view and remove the repetition of a paragraph. There are actually several more books on the Long March which I would like to reference, but I don't have time right now. Please pardon me for removing the references to Chang & Halliday at least temporarily, but there are other critical studies which I would like to add from Brady's book, which I added to the references.

As a further point, I assume that Wiki policy is to avoid POV characterizations such as "left wing," which are hard to define in a neutral way. But we can convey information by saying "critical of the KMT" or "sympathetic," both of which are demonstrable and which Snow would have accepted. This way readers are supplied with information and we do not substitute our judgments for theirs.

Peace!

cwh 06:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say in any sources the guy is regarded as a hero? I've added a tag accordingly. John Smith's (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point -- the footnote makes it look as if "hero" is mentioned in the source. Mao said Snow was like "Great Yu controlling the floods," which seems heroic. If it's ok I'll expand the sentence to remove "hero" (not my word to begin with!) & explain a little more of the reception. ch (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The original edition mentioned that his transcript had been checked by Mao - entirely normal when reporting the views of a major political figure. He doesn't mention anything important being changed. So why is this mentioned as a 'recent discovery'? --GwydionM (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Snow mentions that Mao checked the transcript and doesn't mention anything important being changed, but Brady argues (p. 47), on the basis of letters that Snow wrote which are in his Kansas City Archive, that important things were in fact changed both before publication and then in later editions. But this is a touchy area, and you are quite right to question.Both this article and the rather begrudging article on Snow need to be filled out so as to put him in the context of his times (not using hindsight) and to show the range of reasonable criticisms. ch (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)