I was surprised at the vehemence of the pushback I got. Some of it was inevitable—there are always a few genuine Maoists around—but a lot of generally good-faith left-leaning people in my circles reacted with harsh skepticism. One representative reply from a friend, Elijah, put it like this:
Seeing a holistic picture of a great and terrible figure and responding with rage is what happens when ideological defenses are triggered and feel it necessary to shut down critical thinking. Having this kind of response to this paragraph is a red flag for your reasoning.
Another popular reply came from a self-described “Bernie Sanders–Bill Clinton Democrat”:
I’m genuinely confused by people’s objections to this. Seems like a pretty objective and well balanced account of Mao
And another from a friend, @NaMesoAtta:
this seems pretty balanced to me, especially from a global perspective. It would be one thing if it didn’t prominently mention the millions he killed or his abusive totalitarian reign, but it does. It just also mentions other things that undeniably matter historically!
Now, I should be clear that people are absolutely correct to note that I am no fan of Mao. I view him alongside Hitler and Stalin as one of the three most catastrophic leaders of the twentieth century, a murderous tyrant whose greatest contribution to human well-being was his death. But my objection is not that the article doesn’t uncritically represent my own view. I’m not asking Wikipedia to make a prosecutor’s case against the man; I can do that myself. I’m upset because the section looks precisely how I would approach a statement were I Mao Zedong’s defense attorney.