No post body was provided.
Untitled topic
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: undefined
#2Seems like a pretty political take on a wikipedia article, and none of it seems to take issue with the facts presented in the wikipedia article either. Just general mistrust of wikipedia construed as "whitewashing" which isn't even a correct use of that term in this day and age.
Re: undefined
#3Seems like a pretty political take on a wikipedia article, and none of it seems to take issue with the facts presented in the wikipedia article either. Just general mistrust of wikipedia construed as "whitewashing" which isn't even a correct use of that term in this day and age.
Uh, it leaves out a lot about Mao, very little of it good. When it comes to stories of terrible behavior, Mao is the gift that keeps on giving. I mean, who declares war on a type of bird? Who needs his widow to take some of the blame for his cultural revolution after his death? He is history's most prolific murderer after all.
So an article with 70% good facts???
His only saving grace is that he killed his own people so the rest of the countries didn't attack him, despite his best efforts to the contrary.
Re: undefined
#4Seems like a pretty political take on a wikipedia article, and none of it seems to take issue with the facts presented in the wikipedia article either. Just general mistrust of wikipedia construed as "whitewashing" which isn't even a correct use of that term in this day and age.
It's a shame that some consider "we shouldn't celebrate the biggest mass murderer in the modern age" to be "a pretty political take"
Re: undefined
#5Seems like a pretty political take on a wikipedia article, and none of it seems to take issue with the facts presented in the wikipedia article either. Just general mistrust of wikipedia construed as "whitewashing" which isn't even a correct use of that term in this day and age.
Uh, it leaves out a lot about Mao, very little of it good. When it comes to stories of terrible behavior, Mao is the gift that keeps on giving. I mean, who declares war on a type of bird? Who needs his widow to take some of the blame for his cultural revolution after his death? He is history's most prolific murderer after all. So an article with 70% good facts??? His only saving grace is that he killed his own people…
[deleted]
Re: undefined
#6He makes good points: I probably would have skated over this if not for the line-by-line reading. After examining it more closely, I think the "population increased by a lot" line seems especially unnecessary.
Re: undefined
#7There's a quote about Mao which I read years ago in that article (not at the top though) where Mao comments, on the possibility of nuclear war with the soviet union, "so what if 300 million Chinese people die, we'll still have the other 300 million".
Re: undefined
#8There's a quote about Mao which I read years ago in that article (not at the top though) where Mao comments, on the possibility of nuclear war with the soviet union, "so what if 300 million Chinese people die, we'll still have the other 300 million".
[deleted]
Re: undefined
#9It is easy to take over sections of Wikipedia by people with an agenda. You see this a lot on controversial people and topics.