History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was reading a controversial book, Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, and found it quite biased. However, they cite a variety of sources to back up their information. Therefore, I would like to know how authentic this information is. How much is the information skewed? Is anything made up?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Steven Drennon Nov 20 '12 at 14:38

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

The relevant wikipedia article has a criticism section. – Yannis Nov 20 '12 at 10:10
@YannisRizos, The wikipedia page is great, but it's not very specific, however, I did not follow the citations. – Russell Nov 20 '12 at 11:08
Mao, being a controversial leader, will have books written about him that typically have a bias one way or another. I have read a few of them, and there is a slant on them all. Sources are useful in providing information, but any source can be misused, taken out of context or abused so no matter how much you cite if you improperly use a source it's not the source's fault but the writer. The information can be authentic just not accurately portrayed – MichaelF Nov 20 '12 at 12:41
As much as I do like to read biased books (who doesn't), I only try to mention/cite/recall them where the neutrality is not very important; mostly in small talk. In general, it doesn't matter if a book is properly (or even magnificently) sourced: it is not a reliable source if it is biased. I treat such books as fun reads, collections of dubious anecdotes, and bibliographies of candidates for primary sources (candidates that need re-verification). Inherently, the less a book is scientific, the more it is entertaining. Secondary source is really dull if it's properly written. – kubanczyk Nov 20 '12 at 13:14
Sorry, but I closed because of the following reason: "this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion". This question, as posted, cannot be answered objectively and without opinion or discussion. If you would like to modify it I will consider reopening. – Steven Drennon Nov 20 '12 at 14:39