Talk:Jung Chang/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Critique/criticism

After some time ago balancing out what were (given the academic reception) ridiculously one-sided positive reviews for this book, I have returned to note that some editor has replaced every instance of the word criticism with some soft euphemism like 'argued' or 'wrote' in an apparent POV attempt to paint a much more positive reception for this book than it actually received in academic circles. I have restored the original wording which is, after all, referring to reviews of this book which were deeply critical. Cripipper 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One needed a slight change, because previously it had implied Short's criticism (that Mao had been reduced) was a fact. Plus you deleted an important word. John Smith's 11:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Most historians of 20th century China would tell you that it is a fact, but as you point out, that is not the point. Cripipper 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story --Sumple (Talk) 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Yahuda

Nowhere on the LSE website does it say "Michael Yahuda, emeritus professor of international relations". Cripipper, on the website you supplied here, it merely states under "Emeritus", YAHUDA, Professor Michael. Even on the wikipedia entry for professor it actually says "Professor emeritus". Also on Yahuda's own entry on the website it says "Professor in International Relations". So although I don't object to the emeritus, can you please leave the caps on? I don't see why it must be all in lower-case. John Smith's 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"A Critique of J. Chang and J. Halliday’s Book"

In case anyone hasn't noticed, the pdf file was written by a wikipedian (the same person who posted it - Xiaodingjin). As personal research it has to be removed. John Smith's 09:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the policies on this. The term is not personal research, but original research, of which this is not. Also, you misunderstand the purpose of the external links section. It doesn’t matter if the person who wrote this referenced critique is also a wikipedian. That point is irrelevant. This is a referenced critique that has not only has received some notoriety by being mentioned by academics in the field while talking about this book, but does a good job as expressing lots of problems with this book, widely discussed in different sources. Therefore, I see keeping it here as adding value, provided its in the external links section. That is one of the main purposes of an external links section. The author did not come up with any original research as far as I can see. Rather, he put together the paper from available sources to express this POV in ths well done critique. I see keeping it here as adding value, provided its in the external links section. It not notable enough on its own to warrent its own article.Giovanni33 09:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I'm sorry but I disagree with you. There are no citations when points are made, just references to the book and an appendix at the back that talks about the views of some other people.

Also there is no information as to the author's status. This is some guy that has written a review and hosted it himself. It hasn't even been published in a journal. John Smith's 10:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out this is the wrong place to be putting reviews/critiques in the "See Also" section. That should be for the page on the book itself. If you want to include, introduce it to the talk page there. John Smith's 10:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually its about Jung Chang as much as about her book. The eassy is full of citations, mostly to the book it quotes. It has been published in the Chinese news paper, Duowei, as the paper, cites, with a section from an interview with Jung Chang, responding to this review. She only was ablet to answer 3 questions is poses. And, again, there is no policy that requires the author to be of some kind of standing. This essay has gained attention in the media, Jang has read it, discussed, and responded to it, and there is no reason why readers can't reference this critque here. I also see that an anon IP came to your rescue again to revert to your version and that this IP is from Hungary--yet again. Infact its by the same domain owner as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.182.58.94, who appeared last time, and for the first time ever, to rever to your version. I only note this for the record.Giovanni33 10:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, the guiding policy on external links (which this is, regardless of where it is placed, because it is not an in-text reference) is WP:EL, not WP:OR. Whether the linked material is original research is not relevant (see further below).

In particular, Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered is relevant, as is Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.

Conflict of interest was relevant, if the person posting it was the author. But since Giovanni33, who is not the author, is supporting its placement, that is no longer relevant.

I have not looked at the link, so I won't comment on whether it should be placed. I would guess, however, that it comes down to the balancing of what the link adds to understanding of the book and its issues, versus whether the site "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". --Sumple (Talk) 10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. When you get a chance, maybe you can read the essay/review and judge it according to these appropriate standards.Giovanni33 11:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I hope you are not going to insist everyone who edits this page is bound by Sumple's view. More importantly, as I said above, this is not the place to list responses to the Mao book as external links. If it had been a newspaper article/review like the one from the Times I would have still removed it. This conversation should be held on the book's talk page. John Smith's 14:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Giovanni has raised the spectre once more of this mysterious and unknown Hungarian IP address, obviously intent on disbelieving the Checkuser we did a few days ago and unsuccessfully trying to create some diversionary tactics. That attempt has failed, and your lack of good grace has been duly noted. Xmas1973 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I only note the fact. Your bad faith on this matter and diversionary attempt here to make the subject is also noted.Giovanni33 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the sort, but I'm glad you're paying attention to *something* at last!

This in-depth discussion belongs, if anywhere, more appropriately on the talk page for the book in question, rather than an overview of the author. This review (however constituted and even if allowable as a source) is not of biographical use. There has been no commercial publication of this source, and it is hosted on free webspace. This allows it to fall prey to all manner of influences. This pseudo-critique has not been reviewed and is merely a personal opinion couched in the guise of a more formally edited publication. As such it fails as a source on several levels. Xmas1973 18:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are using the wrong stanards. Please review policy on the external links as provided above by Sumple. The only question should be for us, given that the subject matter is appropriate for this article, is: does it ""misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"? I read it over and answer that question in the negative, and therefore it should stay. If you say otherwise, please support any such claims with specific examples. The fact that it advances a POV/opinon is a good thing, not a bad thing per the purpose of external links.Giovanni33 18:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, it is not that simple. What you mentioned is merely to establish whether it must be automatially removed - inclusion can still be debated. You are also still ignoring the very logical point that if included this should be on the page about the book and not the author. However I can see various points that could be considered "factually inaccurate material".

• "This claim was immediately accepted by the western media" No, it wasn't. Some publications loved it - others didn't. The Financial Times and Independent on Sunday (as examples) had critical reviews.
• "Jung Chang has become the authority on the Chinese history." Really? Where has anyone said that?
• "A person, who asked challenging questions during one of her seminars, was deemed by others as “an obvious Maoist” and could not finish his questions." Again, really? Where, when was this said, etc?
• "In so doing, the review raises a further question: why did all media and experts in the UK fail to see these obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in the book?" Again, not everyone loved it. The author is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting the truth.
• "If it cannot be excused by the ignorance of Chinese history, it has to be explained by the profound pride and prejudice towards China." So basically, English people didn't criticise her books because they hate China.
• "Although this review met absolute silence in the west" Why would anyone have latched onto it? The author has no profile. Why would a critic who properly understands the material quote some student from St Andrews? Part of the statements made in the article seem to be motivated because he didn't get any attention in Europe/Americas.

Those highlights are just from the introduction (first 3 pages). I don't see why I should have to go take everyone step-by-step through the whole thing (37 pages) - I certainly do not have the time at the moment. John Smith's 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The debate is about the standards as described, and if its the best link or there is a better one. Also, remember that it is a question of fact, not opinion, that matters. For example, your example of the authors view for why this book has been hyper promoted by the western media on whole, is simply an opinion. It's not a factual matter that you can object to; you don't have to agree with the opinion. It seems your main claim with it being "factually inaccurate" has to do with the language "western media.' Of course, not ALL the western media accepted the book, but most did. However, this point is made clear in the paper as it goes ahead and lists those few who did not accept this book. So, this point is not misleading to the reader. It serves to emphasis the point though exageration and pehaps some hyperbole. But, on that question of there being no western critics, you can't claim its mistrepresenting this to the reader when it goes ahead and lists those very critics. About your other point regarding what page this should go on, I have alraeady answered you above. I do think it belongs on both articles.Giovanni33 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I think the link (which I had to dig up from history.... [1]) would be useful on the book page rather than here.

The fact that Jung Chang has seen and responded to this text shows that it offers a worthwhile perspective to the debate.

But it's a review/critique of the book, not her person. It's more suitable for the book page.

To John Smith's point about factual inaccuracies: the examples you use are at worst generalisations. I think they present a fairly accurate picture of the book's reception. Some claims are not properly sourced, but I think most of them are verifiable.

Of course this is not a great piece of scholarly writing, but I don't think it amounts to being likely to "misread the reader". --Sumple (Talk) 03:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Sumple. I'll agree to have this link at the book page instead, as I agree its the best fit--better than this article, although it still could go here. However, that page is currently locked. I proposed that we post it here until that page gets unlocked and then move it over. Would this be agreeable?Giovanni33 17:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree most strongly. If you want it included on the book page, you should agree to Deskana's arbitration proposal without caveats so we can move forward and get the page unlocked. Also if you refuse to discuss the link's inclusion on the book's talk page then I will have to assume bad faith on your part. John Smith's 17:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No need repeat the discussion we are having here there. Just link to this page. My position on reporting on what the source says about Prof. Gao is clear and I don't need you to tell me what I should do. In my view you should do many things that you are not doing but that is neigher here nor there. I would support a Rfc, though, if you persist in your view to supress this valid information as reported by our source. Giovanni33 17:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, the discussion is not complete so we need to continue it.

If you refuse to take part in Deskana's arbitration I will have to ask he ban you from the article - that was his other suggestion as how to resolve the matter. John Smith's 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of arbitration is that is voluntary. How voluntary is it if you threaten me with banning? That defeats the whole point. I'm open for further discussion if you have anything new to add. So far I see nothign new and nothing that counters the points I've raised there several times. And, if I get banned from the article, so do you--and others. I don't see that as the best solution. A Rfc, should be tried first, I think. But what will be, shall be.Giovanni33 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making a threat - how could I? I wouldn't be doing the banning, would I? John Smith's 19:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni, thank you very much for your advice and support, i appreciate them very much! May truth prevail. Jinxiaoding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.95.1 (talk • contribs)

You are very welcome. You may want to follow and join the discussion taking place on the article about the book itself, which is where this review will probably be better suited. Unfortunately, that page is currently locked, which is why I support the link being here in the meanwhile. I've asked John Smith to gain consensus for his removal, as his points regarding accurracy have been countered by three editors.Giovanni33 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Xiaodingjin, please always login when you edit. I have left feedback on your talk page. If you wish to discuss matters further please leave a message on my talk page. If you do not then I will assume you do not dispute my points. John Smith's 09:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not make that assumption. He has already made clear his stance.Giovanni33 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Then he should talk things over, rather than avoid the discussion. John Smith's 19:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he has avoided discussion. I don't see you making any new objections on any substantive grounds. So why are you reverting?Giovanni33 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the link should not go here. Why are you reverting? John Smith's 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is circular. You say it should not go here because it does not belong here, but you fail to give any actual argument for this claim, nor address the supported claims I have already provided above for why it it would be still ok, pending moving it to the other article, to leave it here. As I said the review is also about Jung Chang as is it her he book, because there is a section from an interview with Jung Chang, responding to this review, and this book and her Wild Swans are what puts her on the map. The article lists both books, so a link about it is appropriate. When the other article becomes unprotected, I take it you will not revert it over there?Giovanni33 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Deskana has said there will be no unlock until we agree on what to do, so whatever I do it will be because it is either agreed upon or it is part of an official decision.

My argument is not circular - your's is. You keep ignoring the fact Sumple said the link would be better included in the book article. You haven't provided any real reason to include it here - the fact the book page is locked is not a reason. John Smith's 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't know what circular reasoning is. Perhaps look at that, or "begging the question.' Your argument is circular if you state that the reason it should not go here is because it doesn't belong here without an argument about WHY it doesn't belong here. It merely restates the premise but without supporting it. Saying that Sumple says so is not an argument, either. On the other hand, my argument is not circular. My reasons for including it here stem from the properties of the content of the rewiew itself, which talks about Jung Chang. Its based on the content of the article discussing its author, i.e. her being interviewed, and the fact that she is the author of the book being reviewed, are all good reasons that support my argument. Also, you are factually incorrect when you said I ignored Sumple. Go back and look at my respond. I did not ignore him, in fact I agree with him. But sayig that it is a better fit on the other article does not preclude it being appropriate for ths article. And, esp. since the other article is locked, that is another reason why this is NOW the best article to have it in. I'm still waiting to hear your argument. So far there has been nothing new you have said that is substancial.Giovanni33 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because another article is locked does not require the article to be here now. There is no logic to your reasoning. John Smith's 08:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And no one is making that argument--who is talking about requirement? I stated the reasons why its suitable here, and the fact that there is another article that makes it a better fit is moot given that one can't add it there. When you can, then I'd agree to place it there insated--as I previously stated. You say there is no logic in my reasoning, but you failed to show WHY you say there is no logic. Explain the problem with my argument or logic above. Don't just make claims without supporting them with some kind of reasoning. And, I noticed that you did not respond to what I said above. I take it by your lack a response that you don't have any good response and therefore your further obstructionism here is starting to look more like trolling then any genuine objection.Giovanni33 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I've just decided there's no point wasting my time in talking to you on this. John Smith's 09:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link

This is a dispute about whether this link should be included on the external links/see other section of this page. 09:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Do not include: The link contains a private (i.e. non-professional/non-academic) review of Jung Chang's book, Mao: The Unknown Story. Although it may have merits that make it worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, this is not the best place to have it. If it is to be included it should go on the page of the book itself. This is not about the author herself so should not go here, especially given if it were to be included it could go on the book's article. Giovanni33 has made arguments that because that page is locked it should go here. I do not accept that argument. Just because a page is locked does not mean an item should be put on a less suitable page to display it. On a second note the author of the review, Xiaodingjin, originally inserted the link and has continued to revert. I believe he should leave the matter to other admins, as him being the author leads to a conflict of interest. John Smith's 09:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Do not include: I agree with John Smith's opinion and reasons insofar as the unsuitability of the link for this page. I think it is more appropriately included on the book page. Because the review contains very little about Jung Chang beyond the book, it is not suitable for this page. Once it is accepted that the link is relevant to the book page and not to this page, it is irrelevant whether the other page is locked - it can, for example, be added by an admin if a clear consensus develops. --Sumple (Talk) 11:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Include:My view is that this link, while mostly about the book it reviews directly, is also sufficiently about the author of that book, since it represents her views, disucusses her work, and has her response/reaction to the review of her book. Having said that, I agree with Sumple that is best suited for the article about the book. But, notice that this article also dicusses the book (as it should). Therefore, its also entirely suitable for this article. If it should only be on one article, I agree it should be the on the article about the book itself, but until it is, this is the best place for it. The other article is locked and therefore it should be here. When its a question of what is more suitable, and when one choice is currently not a choice, it makes it moot (unless an admin places it on the other article, or unprotects the other article so that we can do it). In the meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with placing it here.Giovanni33 18:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments from other users

Answer to John Smith's questions/objections about Link

Hi, Mr. Smith, Thank you for welcoming me back (unblocked) to Wikipedia and request for a chat. I am sorry I do not know how to leave messages on your talk page. I look at your page, but cannot find any on going discussion. So I just put my reply here.

Before answering your questions, however, I would like to make clear that I have no desire to engage in a personal rivalry. I want to link my review to Jung Chang’s page in Wikipedia only for constructive communication.

Most westerners only read westerners’ opinions about Jung Chang’s book. I think it will be useful for open-minded westerners to know a Chinese opinion, which contrasts significantly to those in the west. No one so far has pointed out any factual distortions or logical problems in my review. I would be very pleased to see if any Wikipedia reader can do so. It is pity if a Chinese opinion has to be kept away from the western public.

Now I will answer each of your criticisms following your words. You wrote in the discussion page a few days ago about my review:

         I can see various points that could be considered "factually inaccurate material".

         ·	  "This claim was immediately accepted by the western media" No, it wasn't. Some publications loved it - others didn't. The Financial Times and 
         Independent on Sunday (as examples) had critical reviews. 

In my review, the phrase “this claim” clearly refers to, in the previous sentence, “the central theme of the book” i.e., “to condemn Mao as an evil monster.” I did not say that every detailed aspect of the book was accepted.

The Finacial Times and Independent on Sunday articles do not object “the central theme” (e.g., FT: “Chang and Halliday . . . bring the monster alive”; Independent: “Let me make it clear that I fully share the authors' view that Mao was a monster”.) They only question the way Jung Chang presents her materials and point out that China made some progress under Mao.

         ·	"Jung Chang has become the authority on the Chinese history." Really? Where has anyone said that? 

This statement is based on the fact that, no other single person has more direct influence on the British public regarding the Chinese history (related to Mao) at the moment of my writing (2005).

         ·	"A person, who asked challenging questions during one of her seminars, was deemed by others as “an obvious Maoist” and could not finish 
         his questions." Again, really? Where, when was this said, etc? 

This incident occurred in Glasgow, June 2005. I apologize for not providing full information on every detail which is unessential to my argument against Jung Chang’s claims. The review would be too long (as you already complained). If this is the reason not to link my review, I would be happy to take it away.

         ·	"In so doing, the review raises a further question: why did all media and experts in the UK fail to see these obvious inconsistencies and 
         contradictions in the book?" Again, not everyone loved it. The author is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting the truth. 

Again, I did not say “everyone love” Jung Chang’s book. I said that no British media expert “see these obvious inconsistencies and contradictions” as listed in my review.

         ·	"If it cannot be excused by the ignorance of Chinese history, it has to be explained by the profound pride and prejudice towards China." 
         So basically, English people didn't criticise her books because they hate China. 

This sentence follows from the previous one, and clearly refers to “media and experts in the UK”. Apparently, you equate “media and experts” to “English people”, and further interprete “pride and prejuduce” as hatred. I respectfully disagree, although I am not a native English speaker.

         ·	"Although this review met absolute silence in the west" Why would anyone have latched onto it? The author has no profile. Why would a critic 
         who properly understands the material quote some student from St Andrews? Part of the statements made in the article seem to be motivated because 
         he didn't get any attention in Europe/Americas. 

I simply do not understand why my statement of “this review met absolute silence in the west” "could be considered "factually inaccurate" by you.

In addition, you also wrote to me: “If you look here you'll see another user point that out - it's a conflict of interest.” I followed your instruction, and find the other user’s following writing:

        Conflict of interest was relevant, if the person posting it was the author. But since Giovanni33, who is not the author, is supporting its 
        placement, that is no longer relevant.

I cannot understand why you want me to look at a point which is considered “no longer relevant” by the user.

If you or any readers are not satisfied by my explanation. Please let me know and I would try my best to meet the demand of Wikepedia.

Sincerely yours, Jinxiaoding

As I said on your talk page, thanks for the comments - I will respond when I have the time to look at them thoroughly. I will respond on your talk page rather than here. If you prefer you can remove all of these comments as they are somewhat redundant now I copied them to my talk page. But if you would prefer them to be left here that is your choice. John Smith's 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jin, for taking the time to reply to all of John Smith's objections to your well thought out review. I agree with you. I think most other editors also feel that the objections he raised about the content of your link don't hold up. The other issue where there is a clear division, still, is if the link is best suited for this page or the article about the book itself (which is currently still protected from any editing). However, if we can get agreement about its inclusion at least there, it can be added by an admin. Currently there is a request for comment on that page regarding your review and the inclusion of a professor Gao. You might want to add your thoughts to it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#Request_for_Comment:_Inclusion_of_external_link_and_mention_of_Professor_Gao Thanks.Giovanni33 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition by User:Cripipper

I have modified his addition. As it stood it made a rather forceful assertion without any facts to back it up, which was not appropriate. I have added a citation tag and would appreciate it if someone could come up with specifics, which would most likely be a particular commentator/publication making such a statement. The text could then be easily ammended. John Smith's 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply read the articles referred to in the section on the book itself - there is a sourced selection in there. When trying to construct a completely self-centered and selfish personal morality for Mao they quote selectively from marginalia in a copy of Paulsen's 'Ethics', ignoring the bits where Mao writes that liberation of the self is a means of furthering humanity and helping others; they quote approvingly from Otto Braun's writings when it is critical of Mao, yet ignore them when he contradicts the image they want to portray (e.g. when Braun says there was a battle at Luding Qiao); their uncritical use of blatant propaganda texts etc. etc.

As for the fact check, you are asking me to prove a negative, which as I am sure you are aware is not possible; may I suggest that it stand unless evidence to the contrary appears? Cripipper 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply read the articles referred to in the section on the book itself.

That is personal opinion/observation - there is no "international historical committee" to pass out judgments on historical works. People can argue, allege, criticise, etc but no one has authority to make a statement that one has to take as fact. You appear to be putting your own opinion down as fact too, which is not within the rules.

Could you expand on what you mean by this as I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Judgements are subjective; verifiable instances the charges made against the authors are factual. Could you tell me what personal judgements I have put down as fact? Cripipper 12:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the fact check, you are asking me to prove a negative Actually you were asking yourself to prove a negative as you phrased the addition. At the same time I can't show instances where the authors have responded to criticism unless they were published in the papers, which haven't been running articles on the book recently. That doesn't preclude private letters and the like, as well as other attempts to discuss queries. It's not sensible to have a section that no one can prove/disprove. It also isn't valid to say "prove me wrong" - if one wants to insert text that person needs to be able to add citations. So I suggest you look for circumstances where individual commentators have said something along the lines of "it is unfortunate my private queries were not answered before I write this" or whatever, then we can re-write it accordingly. If you can't then it should be pulled.

How will this do?:

For example, Chang and Halliday have interviewed hundreds of people (listed on pp. 661-74), including major Western scholars. The impression, naturally, is that they have benefited not only from the data but from the perspectives of senior scholars. However, Frederick C. Teiwes’ reflections give the reader real cause to doubt how Chang and Halliday have used the many interviews they ask us to trust: "During the early stage of their research, I met with the authors to exchange views. It quickly became clear that the Party line was fixed, and would not change. The authors (to be precise, Jung Chang) had no interest in alternative views, not simply in an overview sense, but on specific events where inconvenient evidence existed. It was apparent to me even then that any attempt at balance was simply not in the game plan." direct quote from Prof. Fred Teiwes in Timothy Cheek, The China Journal, no. 55, p.112

All this requires is the addition of the word 'publicly' to answer your queries. Academic journals have carried many, many articles on this book, and the normal procedure is for the author to reply and defend themselves against criticism - part of the 'argument, allegation, criticism' that you allude to. They failed to do this; in fact, a large part of the criticism levelled at this book is exactly because the authors refused to engage in the normal parameters of academic debate, claimed to have discovered the truth and refused to respond to criticism or engage in academic debate. As a result I have added the word publicly; this is verifiable (try google).

By the way, it is incorrect to say "historians generally......" Some critics weren't historians but political scientists. So I'll change it to Sinologists and make it fit in more with the article on the book itself. John Smith's 11:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW it is not incorrect to say that "historians generally...." Historians did generally give a negative response; that is different from sayign "negative responses generally came from historians", in which you could quite rightly point out that criticism also came from political scientists. However, since several positive receptions came from the field of poli-sci, the original wording was deliberate, and accurate. Cripipper 12:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the negative responses came from historians. What I meant was that other historians had supported the book, though in some cases they didn't specialise in Chinese history. It's also rather arbitrary to divide Sinologists into "historians" and "non-historians". If you write on history then you are a historian. Why don't you restore my changes which are in line with the consensus version on the book article? It's a lot easier to leave it as "Sinologists", rather than try to sub-divide it even further. We should edit by consensus - the version before you made your recent changes was long-standing.

You didn't response to my point on needing a citation. If you can't prove a negative then you shouldn't phrase it in such a way. Please deal with this point. John Smith's 12:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The response of historians of China, as opposed to say demographers or historians of 17th century France, is rather pertinent when writing about a supposed work of Chinese history. If you insist we can cite all the subsequent issues of all the journals in which criticism of the book was contained, as evidence of their lack of response; but common sense says that is unnecessary and verging on ridiculous.Cripipper 13:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cripipper, if you want to be like that I could say that a historian who specialises in Chinese history is not necessarily an expert on Mao or the period in which he was in power. But that is not the point I'm making. I'm pointing out that it is arbitrary and unhelpful to divide Sinologists between historians and "non-historians". The piece I put in made perfect sense and was accurate, whereas yours is confusing and misleading. What is a "non-historian" and who decides upon such criteria? You're making changes to a long-standing version that was consensus without gaining consensus for your edits. I really think you should compromise and accept my version.

You are avoiding the issue on the second bit. You cannot take a review as being an evidence of there not being a response to criticism - it is as simple as that. You could post all the reviews in the world, and it wouldn't prove anything other than that those articles existed. "Common sense" is not a citation because it is subjective. John Smith's 13:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read what I said - every subsequent edition of evey journal that contained articles reviewing the books is lacking a response to the criticisms. That is proof of a lack of a response. I was not citing common sense, and sinologists is not useful in this context because some of the people quoted, eg. Michael Yahuda, are not sinologists. You have not explained why you object to it being pointed out that historians were generally negative about the book, and non-historians not so. This is not an arbitrary distinction, but a standard academic classification. Cripipper 13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read what you said. A review cannot prove a lack of a response, though it can directly allege that were was not one. There is no obligation by any reviewer to mention anything said by anyone in relation to anything - they write what they want.

Sinologists is a useful term, but the text that follows doesn't mix with the bit that followed because at the time people just wanted academic comments, not ones from newspapers. The answer would be to take the reponse section from the book's article and reduce it to the same length as what we have now. John Smith's 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow what you are saying, as apparently you are not doing with me. I am not talking about reviews; I am talking about the journals, and the fact that they have not published a response from the author means that no response was received. Authors have a right of reply - it wasn't used. I am not talking about the review articles at all, or the writers thereof. Cripipper 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean a "right of reply" - ok, I follow you now. That said I don't think that's proof of anything either, because it's not a legal right - there's no obligation to post any correspondence from an author like Jung Chang. John Smith's 16:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Of course it is not a legal right, but that is how academic journals work; for a journal editor to refuse to post a reply would be academic suicide, and pointless. (Also, most journal editors are always desperate for copy!) Cripipper 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but again it's a personal view/OR to imply no journal would ever refuse to publish a response from an author. Certainly I know of cases where newspapers haven't run letters, though that's not quite the same thing. Also it's not as if we have read every journal that's come out on China/history. One is also assuming Chang read the reviews in the journals (as opposed to the papers) and/or thought she would have a "right to reply". You can call me daft if you like, but I never assumed one effectively had an open invitation to do so. Though why would a journal editor receive a free copy of a book for letting an author run a reply?

Your edit seems to run from a personal question as to why she never published a response in a journal. Maybe the best thing to do would be for you to pull the bit for now and actually get in touch with her publishers to ask the question in an honest/non-pointed way. Before you say you wouldn't get a response, I've done this before and most are quite good - sometimes you can get a written reply from the author him/herself. Best thing to do is to phone in to get the right person's name and then write a letter, or ask them the question over the phone. If you weren't happy with the response (I'd be willing to get in touch myself if you drew a blank) then we could think of something else. But as I said you can't write something that can't be cited, or at the least is so general as you have written. That's just the way wikipedia works. If you don't believe me maybe we should ask some of the people that work on assessing FA articles. That's the sort of standard everyone should aim for. John Smith's 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and there are many more mediums that academic journals - it's not the only place to respond to criticism. John Smith's 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, hold the phone - I came across this. Whatever you think about the response that is an attempt to respond to criticism in public. John Smith's 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Cripipper, if you don't object I'll get around to changing the assertion she didn't reply to say that she did so with the LRB. John Smith's 15:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to academic journals, but since you have correctly unearthed a reply (of sorts) from the LRB to qualify the statement further with regard to journals would, I admit, involve an unnecessary degree of specificity.

WRT your other points, and I mean this with the greatest respect, you betray an ignorance of how academic debate works; this is not something shared by Jung Chang and John Halliday. They have, however, refused to enter into the normal parameters of academic debate, which is part of the reason why their book received such a hostile reception from many academic quarters; not only is it fundamentally flawed in places, but they have generally refused to engage with their detractors. They claimed to have found the truth (even before they started writing the book) and that, from their point of view, is the end of the story. Chasing around their publishers to ask why they haven't responded to the journal articles is, for starters, original research. As you correctly note, journals are not newspapers, and operate under different rules. Both Chang and Halliday were academics of sorts (she has a PhD in linguistics, he is an ex-Marxist economic historian) - do you suppose they do not know how academic journals function? But nonetheless, despite all this, to qualify the sentence further would be unwieldy, I admit. Cripipper 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit made. I made the point about contacting the authors through their publishers because your question seemed a personal one rather than something that sat well in an article. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "normal parameters of academic debate". Is this in reference to saying they didn't discuss their work in academic circles prior to release, or that they didn't do so after release?

With all due respect, I didn't make any judgment on how various people expect academic debate to "work". It is up to authors, however, how and when they respond to feedback. Critics don't get to decide, which is sometimes why they're critical - they feel their views are ignored. But that's the way things go. Besides, I'm not sure how much Chang and Halliday could say to change their critics' minds - a lot of the opinions I've read don't seem very flexible. Do you think someone who compared their book to a work of fiction would back down? It's not surprising they replied to Andrew Nathan, given he was more balanced in his approach.

Out of curiosity would you say that Iris Chang didn't "enter into the normal parameters of academic debate"? As far as the wikipedia entry on her book indicates (though obviously that's far from conclusive) the only written reply she gave to criticism of her work was a letter that failed to get published in a newspaper. John Smith's 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is this in reference to saying they didn't discuss their work in academic circles prior to release, or that they didn't do so after release? Both

  With all due respect, I didn't make any judgment on how various people expect academic debate to "work". Your exact words were One is also assuming Chang read the reviews in the journals (as opposed to the papers) and/or thought she would have a "right to reply".

  Critics don't get to decide, which is sometimes why they're critical - they feel their views are ignored. You are approaching this as if it is a review of a novel; critics are not critics, in the professional sense, they are peers. And the norm is that one replies - that is how things are done in academic debates. You are also putting the cart before the horse; how can a critic be critical because he/she is being ignored if he/she hasn't written his/her criticism yet?

  I'm not sure how much Chang and Halliday could say to change their critics' minds - a lot of the opinions I've read don't seem very flexible This is not a question of changing people's minds; it is not an "I'm right; you're wrong" scenario, or a question of backing down. There are differing interpretations of history - that in itself is one of the criticisms of the book and how it stands as a work of scholarship: it claims to have discovered a 'truth', when it has done nothing of the sort. What they have failed to do is offer a response to legitimate academic queries about extremely significant flaws in their work, such as their use and misuse of sources. It is not the critics minds that they are trying to change, but to offer the broader readership an opportunity to see and interpret their response to the criticisms levelled.

  As for Iris Chang, I do not think that the situation is comparable. To my knowledge her work was not the subject of the close sort of scholarly analysis that Chang & Halliday's has received (as opposed to simply a book review, such as that of Joshua Fogel - which, btw, is mostly critical of the book for not meeting the task that it sets itself). If I am mistaken and there were academic articles on the subject of the book, to which the author did not respond, then I would naturally conclude that she was not entering into the normal parameters of academic debate. On a seperate note, I would say that the space devoted to criticism of The Rape of Nanjing is quite disproportionate, since critics of the book were on the whole a very small minority.

  Out of curiosity, have you read the Benton/Tsang, Cheek, etc? Cripipper 19:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking - I am the one who did most of the copy-editing for the current version of The Rape of Nanking (book). While I only found one written response to her critics that is available and online, there are sources that say she defended her book when she appeared in lectures and talks, and she toured some 50+ cities in the US talking about the book and the Nanjing Massacre itself, even appearing on a few notable television programmes to do so. Now I don't know if that qualifies as having "entered into the normal parameters of academic debate" - whatever that means, I'm not an academic so I don't know. My point - on whether or not Jung Chang tried to respond to her critics, academically or otherwise, I would say that unless there are sources to say whether or not she did, we should just remain neutral on this in the context of what the article says. Doing otherwise would be original research/analysis. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its important to mention the stark contrast between experts in the field and the popular press; the former was far more critical in general while the latter was overall positive. I feel John Smith's revert of Clipper was removing this important point. I will see what I can do to restore that meaning back.Giovanni33 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked again and see that JohnSmiths second version did not revert that point I thought he did, again (only did it one time). So I won't need to make any changes as I thought I did.Giovanni33 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier, I have put the sub-section in line with the main article. I've tried to keep extracts relatively brief so as not to clutter it. John Smith's 08:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are in violation of your revert parole here. It has already been explained to you that any undoing of another editors work, even if its partial, counts. You already reverted someone else, then waited 7 days, and now only after 3 days your revert of my changes counts as a violation. But instead of reporting you, I will give you a chance to self revert. If you do not self revert, I will report you and you will probably get blocked. Its your choice.Giovanni33 10:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not in violation of anything. My edit on the 14th was not a reversion at all - it was a clarification. Cripipper had made a point and then I provided fresh material that updated it to what was correct. If Cripipper had objected and change it further, another edit by myself probably would have counted as a revert. But he agreed with it. Revert parole is designed to stop edit warring, not working out problems between users. As I have said before, if we hold to your logic then every edit on wikipedia is a revert. That is complete nonsense.

This allegation is evidence of bad faith from you, just as happened with the 3RR in the past. I suggest you move on, rather than try to twist the rules to pursue vendettas against other editors. John Smith's 10:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, stop with your bad faith assumptions. Let an admin look it over to determine if you violated the terms, as I think you have. I know you are wrong about your undoing my edits not being a revert, when it clearly is. Lets focus on the article content on this talk page, so I won't argue about this issue here, except to ask you to stop violating another equally important policy: assuming good faith. Concerning the article content, I'm happy to see that user HongQiGong restored my edits from Prof. Goodman, and the footnote. I am going to move the order around a bit for better flow, following introduction point that reception was far more critical, and that these experts published in academic journals generally views the book as seriously flawed. This follows with the Prof. Goodman quote. I also removed the one from the Guardian for space, and because its in the Guardian. We should stick to more scholarly publications, esp. since this is not the main article and we should keep it brief.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Right I have no reported you for breaking your revert parole. You have also acted in bad faith because you have thrown out the consensus reached on Mao: The Unknown Story and rearranged the article. You had no right to delete the Guardian review either. It was in the consensus version. John Smith's (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's, your edit here, to "put the sub-section in line with the main article" - [2] - also took out criticism from Philip Short and Jonathan Spence, two leading China analysts. I see you were trying to keep the praises in one place and the criticism in one place, I'm going to add the two criticism back in while keeping that same format. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Philip Short bit needs a citation. As for J Spence, I was trying to stop the article getting too big. If you really want to include it then fine. -- John Smith's (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Next time please give me the opportunity to correct myself - you were a bit too fast. -- John Smith's (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with my last edit I suggest you substitute the consensus version on the book's article. -- John Smith's (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Stuart Schram

Sinologist Stuart Schram, while criticizing certain aspects of Mao: The Unknown Story, argued in a review in The China Quarterly that Chang and Halliday's book was "a valuable contribution to our understanding of [Mao] and his place in history."

The source given for this is "The China Quarterly (189): 208". I can't find a free version of that issue of The China Quarterly so I can't verify what was written, but can we please not weasel these things? Criticising "certain" aspects of the book? What exactly was criticised? And why was Schram's praise given the treatment of a direct quote while his criticism was given this abstract treatment? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a consensus agreement on the book's article page. Don't ask me why, sometimes things just work out that way. I have found a copy, so will update it to somethine more specific later on. -- John Smith's (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A free online copy? Can you link it here? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, copyrighted hard copy. -- John Smith's (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni's last edit

The last one was not helpful. It has messed up the order of the reviews, with critical and positive reviews mixed in together. It also greatly diverts from the consensus reached on Mao: The Unknown Story, which was very clear over wording, ordering of opinion and what could be included. To remove the long-standing Yahuda review without gaining consensus is not good-faith editing.

Furthermore the part where it says "However, the reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists was far more critical, generally viewing the work as fundamentally flawed" looks like a beach of WP:SYN to me. It needs a citation or should be pulled. John Smith's (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the ordering, but I tend to agree with the point on whether the reviews are generally good or bad. I think unless we can back that up with some sources, that should be removed together with this - "...received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media.". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hong, you're right. Giovanni's citation doesn't make the point established. John Smith's (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith's (talk • contribs)

Order of reviews is logical now and better flowing, and is consistent with the consensus reached on the main article page, making clear the point of distinguishing reaction from experts in the field published in peer reviewed academic journals and the popular press. I added in a citation that supports that generalization, and I have also tweaked the language to mirror what the source reports. I removed "fundamentally," for example, and simply kept "flawed."Giovanni33 (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The order of reviews is not better flowing - they're all mixed in with each other. And your latest change has not solved anything. If anything it's a bigger WP:SYN vio because you've now added the bit about them not all being China experts. The reference does not say that The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists, however, was far more critical, generally viewing the work, and in particular its sources, as flawed at all. John Smith's (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's - I actually made my comment before Giovanni added the reference. The source supports that the book received positive reviews from people who are mostly not China specialists. It also says that China experts criticised the book. Specifically, the source says:

...the authors find themselves in a bitter battle with some of the world's leading China experts, who have united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing...

So it seems you have a problem with the current wording. How about changing it to this -

On the other hand, some of the world's leading China experts have criticised the book, particularly its sourcing.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. quote directly from the source. It says it all. Like so: According to one description of the controversy, "some of the world's leading China experts [had] united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing."
2. "as flawed" is not attributable to the cited source, and even then, such an evaluative claim in such strong language should be a direct quotation.
3. And don't directly attribute to a source what only comes from a source's source. Make sure the indirection is evident in the text itself.

-- Fullstop (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop's version is better - we can't quote as fact what is the description of one person. The same applies to the slightly earlier bit on positive reviews - it is misleading and refers to initial reviews in newspapers, not all subsequent ones.

What I would propose something like the following. Mao: The Unknown Story became a bestseller and has received mixed reviews from academics and commentators alike, ranging from great praise to serious criticism. According to one description of the controversy, "some of the world's leading China experts [had] united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing."

Also I would suggest moving the Kaz Ross article back into a supporting footnote as is on the main article and reinstating Michael Yahuda. He was removed without consensus and should be put back in. John Smith's (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor doodads:

• The jump from the first to the second sentence is a bit ... jarring. I can't put my finger on why, but it sounds odd.
• With respect to reference #1 in your comment above: The phrase "Book review:" needs to be prefixed to the title.
• The last sentence of your suggestion also needs to be sourced. :)
• With respect to Kaz Ross being in a footnote: a) There is no reason for her paper - or any paper - to be delegated to a footnote, b) her paper is independent of the one it was munged with, c) her paper was being directly quoted in a context other than the one that actually applied to the quotation. d) Hong Qi Gong's inclusion is fine. If you have an alternate one, put it alongside the first.

-- Fullstop (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you have an alternative, please put it forward. Otherwise, we could go for Mao: The Unknown Story became a bestseller, with UK sales alone reaching 60,000 in 6 months. The book has received mixed reviews from academics and commentators alike. ranging from great praise to serious criticism. In describing the criticism the book drew, one commentator said that "some of the world's leading China experts [had] united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing."
• In restrospect I would prefer to change the first reference to a different one anyway.
• Corrected.
• The problem is that we have so many different reviews - we can't include all of them. I suggest that we include three positive and three negative reviews and then leave it at that. People can read the rest on the main article. It's already too large in some ways - it needs more text on what the book says. John Smith's (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as both John Smith's and Giovanni can agree on it, I'll probably be OK with it. I'm more concerned with preventing further edit warring. I added Ross back in because I know that was one of the issues that John Smith's and Giovanni had disputed on. The problem wasn't so much that it was put in the wrong place (Mao book vs. Wild Swans), the problem was the article didn't accurately reflect what Ross specifically wrote about the Mao book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That new formulation is fine. And three sources on each side really ought to be enough when there isn't anything really new that additional sources would be contributing. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. John Smith's (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, HongQiGong. But, I disagree with JohnSmith's proposal as that reintroduces the problem of blurring the main point: the great distinction between non-China specialists in the popular press, and what the experts think of the book, or treating them equally by not making this distinction. This was the problem with the main article that was solved. The way I worded it, it expresses this point clearly. So, I oppose JohnSmith trying to undo that. The source, also, does support this, including my recent change that its praise is mostly from non-China specialists. I quote, "Mao: The Unknown Story,... was hailed by reviewers, most of whom were not specialists on China."Giovanni33 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We can incorporate that into John Smith's proposal. How about this?

Mao: The Unknown Story became a bestseller, with UK sales alone reaching 60,000 in 6 months. The book has received mixed reviews from academics and commentators alike. ranging from great praise to serious criticism. According to newspaper The Observer, "Mao: The Unknown Story was hailed by reviewers, most of whom were not specialists on China," while "some of the world's leading China experts united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing."

Footnotes will go where they are needed (and note that they are supposed to come after punctuations). I also tweaked it to attribute the quote specifically to The Observer instead of the vague "one commentator". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - my version is much simpler and more accurate. The reference to "not specialists" is misleading for the afore-mentioned reasons and undue weight for just one newspaper article, even if the source is mentioned. John Smith's (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that compromise wording, HongQiGong, although I don't think its really necessary. However, its much better than JohnSmith's version which has the problems I described above. Your version, doesn't have this problem, so I'm ok with it. One tweak I'd recommend is that we don't have to name the newspaper; simply state it has been reported, and let the source speak for itself. Or, we could find other sources to back up that generalized statement from multiple sources, as the paper is just reporting a fact that many have observed--and one that I think is rather important to keep.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't leave it stated as fact. Even qualified it is still misleading. John Smith's (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(To John Smith's) Fair enough. I guess this is probably the sticking point in the disagreement between you and Giovanni. So let me ask first (the question goes out to everybody, not just John Smith's), can we establish that adding the "not China specialist" comment is undue weight per WP:UNDUE? Accordingly, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Is the Observer article really a minority view, and what is the more popular view here in relation to the Observer article? I mean, I don't think that because it is from one source, then it is automatically a minority view. Most of footnotes in the article only go to one source. They can't all be minority views. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

When I said it was undue weight, I meant you can't quote it as fact when it is just one report. It's much better to quote it on the interpretation of the criticism than to make misleading comments about who praised it. Some people might not be "China specialist", but that doesn't mean they can't tell good history from bad. Equally not everyone who studies about China knows good history. John Smith's (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not really just quoted as fact though, my proposal specifically attributes that it was the Observer that wrote this opinion. It's not saying, "This is X". It's saying, "ABC said that this is X". It's the same way that most of the section on the Mao book is structured - so and so said this, so and so said that, and then backed up by one source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is different. We're talking about one person having a monopoly on describing the situation. If we had a contrasting view it might work, but with just one "observation" it is heavily skewed. We have lots of views on the book so it is easy to make the presentation more balanced. John Smith's (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But he doesn't have a monopoly on describing the situation though. My proposal is just an extension of your earlier proposal, which includes other sources. Furthermore, I'm not sure I understand why the Observer source is good enough to say that China experts criticised the book while it is not good enough to say that positive reviews had came from people who are not China specialists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So who is the other source describing the situation? My version just highlighted the split, it didn't seek to label either side as being "experts" or not. If you have an article or whatever that says something different then please put it forward.

The reason I put my version forward was that the article only suggests some China experts have criticised it. If it had said "most China experts....." then I would have objected. However, to quote the article on the other point about the positive reviews is, as I've said, misleading. John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is simpler and incorporates the valid portion of JohnSmith's addition, yet keeps the point intact. I think it could use another reference that makes the same point so we don't rely on one source. Undue weight is not an issue, then, as this is not the opinion of a paper but the paper reporting a fact about the academic reaction among specialists vs. the popular media reviews.

In addition to achieving high sales and being placed on bestsellers' lists--it became a bestseller, with UK sales alone reaching 60,000 in 6 months--Mao: The Unknown Story received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media, most of whom were not specialists on China. The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists, however, was far more critical, generally viewing the work, and in particular its sources, as flawed.[6]

Giovanni33 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. For the last time you can't use the source to say something it does not. Quote it or drop the whole thing. John Smith's (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But it does say exactly that. If you want to add quotes around it, then I'm also fine with that approach. But the source does say that, specifically, and I'm sure we can find more sources to support it. I think that is the key here, not to obfuscation of the important point.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni - do you have a problem with using direct quotes from the Observer source? I think that would be the most accurate thing to do instead of relying on an interpretation of the source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with using direct quotes, as you have suggested above. I just think its better if we add more sources that say the same thing, and keep it simple.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

And I think the best way to keep it simple is the shorter version that I proposed. It was, after all, supported by a neutral editor who stopped by to voice his opinion. John Smith's (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My version is shorter than yours; yours includes specific details such as the number of books sold in the first 6 months, the country this happened in, etc. I'm ok with adding in trivial details like that (instead of simply saying it was on the bestseller list), but what is not trivial is the disparate reaction from the book among specialists vs. non-specialists. If we add more sources that support that claim are you ok with keeping it in? I don't ask this question as if this is optional, but to find out if adding more sources would make it acceptable to you.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not serious - the book's commercial success is trivial? That's topsy-turvey - it's extremely important. As for the other point, we debated this to death on the book's main article. What constitutes a "specialist" is a subjective term and is misleading. You've already tried to make a citation say something it doesn't, so I'm not sure how getting more sources would help. I've already agreed that Fenby's point on the criticism is fine - why are you so reluctant to give ground yourself? If I've decided to accept that, why can't you accept my proposal for the other part? John Smith's (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The details are trivial, yes. And, yes I know you had a very difficult time grasping the objective category of specialists, which is not in any way "subjective." BigTimePeace put in a lot of effort discussing this point with you, and you are the only one I've ever encountered who does not seem to understand that there are recognized specialists who are experts in their respective field, and for this topic that would be those who specialize in China's history and politics. I'm not about to debate this trivial issue, either--as others have already done that ad nauseum.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, here's an article that claims that "some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history" say the book is a "distortion of the records."[3] Not sure if it helps. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it doesn't address the matter in hand. I'm not disputing that the book has been criticised - we're in dispute over how to characterise the supporters. John Smith's (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, instead of haggling over that, we could just quote from this new source I found about general criticism from China experts instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind rephrasing the point about criticism, I just do not want to start inaccurately categorising the more positive reviews as has been previously suggested. John Smith's (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What is inaccurate? Most positive reviews have not been by specialists. That is a fact.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading and we only have a single citation for that point - the article Hong provided didn't characterise them that way. It's up to the readers to decide who the experts are, not us. We debated this endlessly on the book's article and now you want to tear that consensus up. Really, that isn't helpful. John Smith's (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this has been enough of a time drain for me. Hopefully you two can hash it out. My suggestion is to not hold on to every little detail you want to advance, and think of what compromises each other can accept. Just don't edit war anymore, please. The more you revert each other, the worse you two will look if ArbCom ever comes around again. As you've seen, the longer a dispute becomes, the less mediators care about the little details, and more about the simple fact that the two of you edit wars with each other. Just a little friendly advice. Cheers. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets not revert each other moving forward. Since BigTimePeace was able to work out something with you I'm sure when he is back from his well earned wiki-break that he can be of further assistance on this page as well. Until then, I take it I won't see further revert/edit waring over these remaining disputes. What we can work out on the talk page, moving forward, we can incorporate into the article (unless, of course there is no dispute about the change).Giovanni33 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, the article you added does not say the book is seen as flawed - it's not even a word used in either. John Smith's (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to as I was not quoting it. Do you disagree that what it says is that the book was flawed? We can choose another word, but its clear to me from reading it that it does make exactly this point. Just not flawed, but seriously flawed, and in particular with the sources. Saying its a "distortion of the records" does mean its flawed. I can't see how it could be open to any other interpretation. Do we now have to start reviewing the definitions of straight forward terms, like "flawed"? I guess so. So here it is: "Adj. characterized by flaws; having imperfections; 1. An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness; 2. A defect or shortcoming in something...;[4]Giovanni33 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Going for dictionary definitions is not mature, Giovanni.

If you want to make a statement like "Sinologists generally viewed the book as flawed" or whatever it needs to be cited. You can't hide behind the defence that "you didn't quote it" - that's even worse. There are no citations out there that say "Sinologists generally......." so don't try to twist the articles to say that. I don't see why you are so inflexible that you have to use that word. Why is it so wrong to simply quote Fenby as I did? It's 100% accurate as to what he said and still makes a similar assertion. John Smith's (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have no problem quoting it, and you've been asked if that would be acceptable to you. If you now agree that quoting it will suffice, then I'd agree with that. As far as the claim that currently exits, it IS cited, and even if they don't use the particular word "flawed,' the source certainly supports that point. But if you want to quote, instead, which describes how seriously flawed they view the work, thats fine. But to argue that they are not saying its flawed is pretty absurd.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have a problem with a quote, let's use my quote of Fenby. I've suggested this repeatedly. John Smith's (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is this Fenby quote? I don't see it.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by once more... Giovanni, why is it so important that the positive reviews be characterized as having been only from non-specialists? -- Fullstop (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because its a fact that most positive reviews come from non-spcialists, and its undue weight to posit the views of non-specialists on par with those who are specialists in the field. To me its like quoting various scientists who are not biologists who support Creationism on an Evolution article, and treat that equally with specialists in the field who reject those theories. One can do this by not making the point regarding who is saying what, i.e. non-specialists vs specialists. This matters greatly. Looking over the vast reviews of the book, the majority of positive ones are from the popular media, and almost all of the negative ones come from specialists published in academic peer reviewed journals. I think making this distinction is important under the policy of undue weight, but also for accuracy.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good answer. Do you have any source other than the Observer article that characterizes the positive reviews as having been only from non-specialists? The reason why I ask is this:

• "largely positive" and "most not specialists" are very carefully couched and relativized. The author is feeding us a message but leaving himself lots of room to back-pedal on. On Wikipedia, we would call that weaseling. :) The author could justifiably claim that - statistically speaking - as few as 30% are both positive and non-specialist.
• I'm attuned to underhanded digs between writers, and that is precisely what I intuitively passed that statement off to be. The source's "... most of whom were not by specialists on China ..." is really not more than a conceit: The author, unlike most of his journalistic colleagues, is himself a China specialist, and he's taking a crack at the non-specialist book critics. He's also reveling in having been right.
• I agree with you in principle and really dislike giving non-specialists a voice when specialists are present, but the average reader of this article will be of above-average intelligence, and I think that the authorities have sufficient voice that any rational reader will see that the weight is in favor of the specialists.

Since John Smith's has a problem with this one specific blanket statement, in the interests of harmony, I think it would be ok to not cut it too fine, and - at least until another source backs it up - simply leave the "... most of whom were not by specialists on China ..." out for now.

I suppose that it would also be ok to increase the number of negative reviews too. What do you think?

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, that comparison is not helpful - I have already explained why. History is not a science and cannot be compared in the same way. When evaluating sources and conclusions, one does not have to be a "China expert" to spot good or bad historical works. The more positive reviewers are a mixture of academics that have written and researched on Chinese history and/or politics, or are full-time historians. They're not idiots - they can spot a bad book like anyone else.

It is also rather ridiculous to liken someone such as Perry Link to a Creationist non-biologist scientist. A vast majority of the reviewers (good and bad) agree that Mao was generally a "bad guy", so talking about Creationists in the Evolution article is not logical. Virtually all of the sources agree on the "theory" of Mao, but they disagree on the book's approach to the theory. John Smith's (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, because I can't think of one off the top of my head, but can you give me a historian who wrote a positive review? Cripipper (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I know that Simon Sebag Montefiore and Gwynne Dyer are historians in addition to being journalists. Richard Baum is a political scientist (what it says on his uni page if I remember right) but has published various historical works. Perry Link is a Professor of East Asian Studies. That's what I can remember off the top of my head - dunno if that helps. John Smith's (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I kind of meant from within the field; as you say, Baum is polisci and Link an expert on literature. Cripipper (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop, I think three reviews from each side is fair enough, otherwise the page is just going to be a collection of reviews. Maybe Short could be left in as an "extra", but that would have to be it, really. Personally I would prefer no more than two for each side, plus Short.

As to your description of the newspaper article, I would agree that there's an element of snideness in it, which is one reason why I'm uncomfortable with it. If Fenby was on a TV show like Newsnight (or any sort of serious forum) discussing the book with the likes of Perry Link or Michael Yahuda, he wouldn't get very far by saying "well your views are irrelevant because you're not China specialists". John Smith's (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there is disagreement on what exactly the article here means, I think quoting it will be necessary. In the case of short passages where there is disagreement on how to reword, don't reword. Picaroon (t) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

heh. You're eight hours too late :) That issue has been settled (I hope satisfactorily for both sides), and undue'ness is now on the table. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

JohnSmith, the simple fact, which should not be controversial at all, is that people who do not specialize in modern Chinese history and/or politics are not as well qualified to appraise the Mao book as people who are. This is not about being "idiots" or not. Its about WP policy of using best sources. We should be interested in the views of those who are considered experts on Chinese history and politics in the 20th century, particularly the periods encompassed by Mao's lifetime. Non-experts should are not given as much credibility as experts in WP, per policy. To say otherwise goes against our rules. Best sources means people best equipped to evaluate the Chang book are experts in the field--i.e. one does have to work in Chinese history or politics in order to properly evaluate Chang's work. Much of the negative response from the experts revolves around the idea that the popular press was completely wrong in its evaluation of Chang's book. I don't mind keeping some or most of the positive reviews from the non-specialists, butit would be completely improper to give them equal weight as academic reviews by experts in the field published in peer reviewed journals. If the academic reaction is largely negative, we need to explain that or we are misrepresenting reality, i.e. POV pushing. This is not about equal time, equal balance, this is about reflecting the academic consensus among authorities in the relevant field of study.

Also, you are still wrong about history; it is an academic discipline with professional standards and definite rules, and in modern academia falls under the classification as a science, while adopting some methodologies found in the humanities, such as critical, analytic, and speculative methods. Nonetheless, as part of the social sciences the discipline relies on the scientific method. That is, the study of and interpretation of humanities records (the past) is done through a systematic process using both quantitative and qualitative empirical methods consistent with other sciences. This is done by people who study the period in question, do the archive work, speak the language, etc.

Thus, it’s quite crucial to distinguish between qualified authorities that discuss a subject that is their field of expertise apart from popular journalism. The two do not stand toe to toe. If we compare many areas of science vs. popular press in other areas, it is typical to see a rather huge gap. Take global warming as an example. There is a huge gap between what the experts say, and what the popular press says, explaining a lot of the ignorance of the popular lay understanding regarding what the facts and science is telling us. We should report what the popular press says, of course, but its undo weight to give it equal standing with professionals who are experts in the field, esp. when dealing with an academic discipline such as history. For this article the appropriate experts are those of China studies depts, be it historians specializing in that area of history, or political scientists who do the same. Giving a clear and bigger voice to experts in the China Studies field should not be controversial as that is standard WP practice. When you quote scholars on a subject out of their areas of expertise, we do so with qualification and caution per Undue Weight—if we quote them at all.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I am not going to go into this dead-end discussion again. You may think History is a science - I do not. There is no "UN History Organisation" to decide on that point, nor is there to classify who is a "China expert". So to say that the views of so-called "non-experts" should be excluded or given little voice according to wikipedia policy is not correct, given there is no independent authority to classify people in the first place. John Smith's (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What we think doesnt matter so much. You can deny reality but facts are facts. History uses the scientific method and so is classified as such. I don't think you know what science is either as it has nothing to do with a "UN" organization. That is rubbish.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, history is a craft and a discipline, not a science (or even a social science), nor JS is there an independent authority to say who is and isn't a biologist. Nonetheless, as a general rule historians a) study the past; b) use primary sources; c) submit their work to peer review; d) have a higher degree in history (to distinguish from 'amateur historians'); and e) are members of a professional body (e.g. SHAFR). Cripipper (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, history is also a science, ever since Karl Marx, I would say. The working arm of the United States National Academy of Sciences and the United States National Academy of Engineering, under the United States National Research Council classifies History as a Social science.[5]Giovanni33 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]

The National Endowment for the Humanities considers it to be a humanity. The AHA does not consider it to be a social science, nor, in fact, does any professional body that I am aware of. Cripipper (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, since when were any of those organisations authorised to make that decision for everyone on this planet? This is a pointless discussion, as people disagree (even historians). Move on, please. John Smith's (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy. No one said they make decisions for everyone. You miss the point. They are an authoritative organization that lend a great deal of weight to my claim, whereas your opinion to the contrary, to borrow a saying from China, is lighter than a feather.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a corporation in the United States whose members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine." Now why would an organisation like that classify History as anything else than a science? They don't lend any weight to your claim because they're obviously highly biased. It's like using the Vatican as a source to show Catholicism is the one "true" Christian faith. John Smith's (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont follow your logic. Why would they be biased and want to classify something that is not science as science? That makes no sense. Yes, if I wanted to find out what the Catholic Church's views were, I'd go to the Vatican. They are the authority on Catholicism. Likewise, if we want to know about opinions regarding science--including what falls under Science broadly--then I'd go to a distinguished international body composed of scientists, such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Perfectly logical. I can't believe I'm actually arguing this. If you are going to persist in this nonsense, I have to wonder if you are only trolling.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple. If there's a debate as to whether something is a science or not, it's highly unlikely that scientists are going to say it is not a science. It's reflective of their POV, not an universal position. Please do not accuse me of trolling - assume good faith please. I've already said that this is a disputed topic - I asked you to move on. So maybe you should start by answering Fullstop's queries at the bottom. John Smith's (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cripipper, in response to your earlier post I note that at least Andrew Nathan, David Goodman and Thomas Bernstein are political scientists. No one is disputing the veracity of their reviews on that basis, though I am not implying you were. John Smith's (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Science would also qualify as legitimate specialists in the field, if they specialize in Modern China.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, some academics are able to research/teach/whatever in more than one field at a time. John Smith's (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, and sometimes go out out of their field of expertise. When they do we should not give them equal weight with specialists who stay in their specialized field. For instance, Halliday is a historian but does not specialize in China, but Russia. A historian who specializes in China would be better. This should not be controversial and you are the only one who I know who objects to this logic.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the only person I know who keeps pushing this "logic". Someone doesn't need to eat, sleep and drink China to be able to comment on it in depth. Otherwise why did you agree to all those "non-experts" having their reviews included on the Mao: The Unknown Story page? You seem to have torn up that consensus as soon as BigTimePeace went on wikibreak. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. This was the consensus. Its you who is going back to the same old and refuted arguments. Also, this is not the main article page so there is less room for the popular press reviews by non-specialists. There is a voice for the popular press, and I'm not advocating removing that, only that it has to be properly qualifed and not given undue weight--esp. on sub-page about the book.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is the consensus, please show me on the book article's talk page where that consensus was agreed upon between the three of us. On the article I see no qualification or less weight given to the positive reviews than the critical reviews. John Smith's (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You were the only one that objected, and the changes were made nonetheless. You did not then oppose the changes and the classifications were then added.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Only one that objected?" There were three of us discussing it. Consensus is not two guys saying X and one saying Y. Besides I think you rather misunderstood what I said back then. When I agreed to "Sinologists... more critical" I was not agreeing that Sinologists generally trashed it. I saw that as simply meaning the views were more critical when compared to the very positive reviews that came first - a 60/40 support view is more critical than a 90/10 one. I was satisfied with that to be able to move the article on. If you thought something else that was your choice, but there was no consensus to label the positive reviews as being made by non-Sinologists. John Smith's (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This back-and-forth talk on our opinions of what the discipline of history is all about or who can be considered "specialists" is not very helpful. We need to frame the issue back in context: is it a minority view subjected to WP:UNDUE to say that the positive reviews mostly came from people who are not China experts? What are the arguments supporting this, and what are the arguments against? Let's see a little more than mere assertions for or against. And also, if the article contains specific reviews by people who are not qualified as China experts, we should take them out, because plenty of China experts have commented on the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hong, if it's not helpful to talk about who can be considered a "specialist", how is it helpful to talk about who is a "China expert"? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

We've already had this debate on the book's article talk page, and it was decided that it was best to allow people to judge the reviews for themselves by making reference to the author of the review, rather than arbitrarily removing reviews. Though if we use my proposal that we should have just two (or maybe three) reviews for each side then we can keep the best here anyway.

By the way, I thought you said you'd said this was taking up too much of your time. Are you coming back, or was that a one-off comment? John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll be scanning through the things that are being said, but I probably won't be commenting much. But anyway, what I'm saying is that it's pointless to just make sweeping assertions based on our own opinions about whether or not most positive reviewers are qualified. 1) Is WP:UNDUE applicable to the Observer source, and 2) on a case-by-case basis, do all the individual reviewers mentioned in the article deserve their place in their article. To me, that's how you all need to frame the context of this discussion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thats a good summary, IMO. To address Hong Qi Gong's #1 first, I'd like to reiterate my followup question to Giovanni, which appears to have been lost in the melee. Some of the points are now outdated, but I've left them in for coherence as a whole:

Very good answer. Do you have any source other than the Observer article that characterizes the positive reviews as having been only from non-specialists? The reason why I ask is this:

• "largely positive" and "most not specialists" are very carefully couched and relativized. The author is feeding us a message but leaving himself lots of room to back-pedal on. On Wikipedia, we would call that weaseling. :) The author could justifiably claim that - statistically speaking - as few as 30% are both positive and non-specialist.
• I'm attuned to underhanded digs between writers, and that is precisely what I intuitively passed that statement off to be. The source's "... most of whom were not by specialists on China ..." is really not more than a conceit: The author, unlike most of his journalistic colleagues, is himself a China specialist, and he's taking a crack at the non-specialist book critics. He's also reveling in having been right.
• I agree with you in principle and really dislike giving non-specialists a voice when specialists are present, but the average reader of this article will be of above-average intelligence, and I think that the authorities have sufficient voice that any rational reader will see that the weight is in favor of the specialists.

Since John Smith's has a problem with this one specific blanket statement, in the interests of harmony, I think it would be ok to not cut it too fine, and - at least until another source backs it up - simply leave the "... most of whom were not by specialists on China ..." out for now.

I suppose that it would also be ok to increase the number of negative reviews too. What do you think?

John Smith's has addressed some of these points, but I'd like to hear Giovanni's point of view too. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni hasn't left a comment for some time (nor indeed has anyone else), so I have re-written the section per my previous suggestions. Three sources for support and criticism, with verifiable sources highlighting the difference of opinion. Comments and further suggestions are welcome. John Smith's (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

thats fine. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been out of town for Thanksgiving, but i'm back now. As I explained above, stating that most of the postive reviews come from non-specialists and the converse, the experts in the field have been mostly critical, is a critial fact that must be mentioned or else we are giving undue weight by suggesting both pro vs con are of equal weight. This is not a point of compromise. I do think we should find more sources that makes this point, though. As to JohnSmith's changes, this is without consensus so I will be restoring the previous version until we work out one that is acceptable.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're in a dispute it's common politeness to say you'll be going away. Otherwise people will think you're avoiding the discussion because it's not going your way. For example you've yet to respond to Fullstop's queries. John Smith's (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please respond to Fullstop's questions. On the subject of Giovanni's recent revert, I note that John Smith's's edit seemed to be a step forward - there a lot of reviews, and since summarizing them has been such an issue, presenting three from each side seems fair. Giovanni, what part of this do you disagree with? Picaroon (t) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that I've already made clear my objections. I object to any artifical parity, i.e. three from each side, as if there is equality between the praise and negative reviews. This would be a great distortion of reality, POV pushing, and violation of undue weight. I'm ok with three reviews each (positive and negative) provided there is qualification given, i.e. a statement to the fact that most of the postiive reviews come from non-spcialists published in the popular press, whereas most of the highly critical reviews come from experts in the field published in academic peer reviewed journals. Then it would be ok to have three of each. But to pretend that there is equality, and just a mix of positive and negative reviews, and here is an example of each, will not due. I also object to the changing of the order of the reviews, which affect the logical flow.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Have any sources that address which groups of people have reviewed the book positively, and which have reviewed it negatively, been found to back up the "fact" you mention above? I'd like to see at least one, and preferable more than one, source that explicitly addresses the issue. Otherwise, summarizing views this way strikes me as synthesis. Picaroon (t) 03:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Fenby article clearly states this fact.[6] This is in the article following the statment, along with one other source. I would like to add more sources, if they can be found, to avoid simply quoting the statement of fact, and establish it as an undisputed fact that we can just report as one.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is paper that makes this distinction, entitled, "Bleeding the "Red" out of Mao and the (Ivory) White Terror: Popular and Academic Responses to Mao: The Unknown Story [7] To quote: "This paper, then, is an outline and introduction to popular reaction to The Unknown Story and the critical response by specialists--the ways in which Chang and Halliday "bled the Red" out of Mao through ghastly details of wholesale slaughter and decoupling Mao from the ideology he came to represent. It also assesses backlash of sophisticated academic criticism that rained down from ivory white towers in response." "A flurry of superficial, popular reviews resurfaced in mid- to late-October coinciding with the American release of the book. In late October through mid-November, academics such as Jonathan Spence, Arthur Waldron, Andrew Nathan, and Jeffrey Wasserstrom presented erudite and nuanced critiques that balanced admission of Mao's heinous crimes and desire for a more open political culture in the Chinese mainland with serious misgivings about Chang and Halliday's methodology and motivation."Giovanni33 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you have not answered Fullstop's points. He makes some very specific ones - answer them directly one-at-a-time, please. FYI Brent Haas was a student when he wrote that - I don't see him having any sort of profile on the internet. John Smith's (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, you said earlier that I was the "only" person to object to something on the discussion at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story - that was you and BigTimePeace. Here you're the only person objecting, yet you claim there is no consensus. So are you telling me your opinion counts for more than mine when deciding consensus? I think this goes to show you are less than honest on how one defines consensus. John Smith's (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is Giovanni ignoring the discussion here? He's been asked more than once to address Fullstop's comments, whilst I am still waiting for responses to my comments. John Smith's (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already addressed those issues several times. Ignoring your last comments is not the same as ignoring discussion--its just ignoring you. Your last comments amounted to little more than bad faith, and personal attacks, and thus did not warrent a response. This issue you raised was also rather absurd, and I didn't want to dignify it with a response.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that's a very bad faith comment to make. If you had addressed all those points people like Fullstop wouldn't be asking you to reply.

As for my comments, I was only putting to you the logic you've put to me. You can't have one rule for when you're in a majority and another rule for when you're in the minority. Calling them a "personal attack" is a weak way to avoid points that you yourself raised and is bad faith. John Smith's (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

@Giovanni: Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see any response from you answering my question whether "you have any source other than the Observer article that characterizes the positive reviews as having been only from non-specialists?" This question, my explanation for asking, as well as a followup suggestion/question are here and reiterated here.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did respond, again, several times to your points and I also provided two additional sources that make the same point in question. Specifically, on Nov.20th at 19:15, then on Nov. 24th at 20:45, and then again on Nov.25th at 3:52, providing another source on Nov.25th, 4:53 (which makes a total of three sources).If you read those messages and do not see an answer to your question, then perhaps I misunderstood your question.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please repeat (tersely please) those parts of those comments that directly address the question whether "you have any source other than the Observer article that characterizes the positive reviews as having been only from non-specialists?"

Sorry for the trouble, but I couldn't glean a "yes" or "no" that you do/don't presently have a source other than the Observer article that characterizes the positive reviews in the same fashion as the Observer does.

Its really no big deal if you don't have anything right now that supports the Observer's remark, but it would help greatly if you just said so. That way we move forward for now, and return to the issue later.

Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, if there's a particular reason you can't reply to Fullstop's comments, please let us know. It's not helpful if you're only going to interact with the community once a week in this discussion. John Smith's 12:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my previous edit. Giovanni is not participating in this discussion and it is holding up the article. If he is busy, he needs to let us know and explain what his situation is. Otherwise it looks like he is just trying to block changes by not discussing requests for information. If he is not busy then he needs to participate - reverting once a week and leaving a short comment is gaming the system. He knows that people want him to answer specific points - Fullstop has asked three times for specific responses. John Smith's (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoring it without consensus here, does not solve anything. The problems I explained are still there with your version so I'll restore the long standing version that addresses and corrects these faults. As far as not participating in this discussion, that is hardly true.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(responding to request for other sources to support the Observer's characterization of positive reviews as having been only from non-specialists)
Thanks, yes, two other sources. One in the main article and the other immediately above, which is an academic paper that talks about this very issue. So, I have three sources total that makes this factual observation.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Commenting once a week after reverting is not participating, nor is it helpful. When I leave a message asking you to tell us if you can't comment for a reason and I hear nothing (and you still haven't said why you can only comment once a week) I am under no obligation to wait for you. It takes two seconds to say what the situation is.

The "academic paper" you refer to was produced by a student so is not a credible source. If you can't cite it in the article then it isn't reliable enough to draw conclusions from. Fullstop and I have already expressed dissatisfaction with Fenby's rant against other commentators and the SMH article does not state that the positive reviews came from non-specialists, nor does it say anything like The reaction to the book in academic journals from Sinologists, however, was far more critical, generally viewing the work, and in particular its sources, as flawed. It only says that some "experts" are unhappy with the book. You are not using the sources properly.

Furthermore you are once again implying consensus requires agreement between all parties, when in the past in engaging with me you have insisted consensus cannot be held up by one person's objections. It's about time you stopped trying to have it both ways. Either you inserted the comments in question against consensus and my objectins on the Mao: The Unknown Story page meant there wasn't consensus, or you are blocking consensus in regards to my version. John Smith's (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Giovanni for that answer. Which two sources do you mean? "One in the main article and the other immediately above" isn't very precise. If either is also not a web source, could you please also provide a direct quotation (to include a little bit from before/after the relevant bit so that context is evident)? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I"ll quote it. The paper is entitled, "Bleeding the "Red" out of Mao and the (Ivory) White Terror: Popular and Academic Responses to Mao: The Unknown Story." Quoting, "This paper, then, is an outline and introduction to popular reaction to The Unknown Story and the critical response by specialists--the ways in which Chang and Halliday "bled the Red" out of Mao through ghastly details of wholesale slaughter and decoupling Mao from the ideology he came to represent. It also assesses backlash of sophisticated academic criticism that rained down from ivory white towers in response." "A flurry of superficial, popular reviews resurfaced in mid- to late-October coinciding with the American release of the book. In late October through mid-November, academics such as Jonathan Spence, Arthur Waldron, Andrew Nathan, and Jeffrey Wasserstrom presented erudite and nuanced critiques that balanced admission of Mao's heinous crimes and desire for a more open political culture in the Chinese mainland with serious misgivings about Chang and Halliday's methodology and motivation."I'll quote from the second source in the main article later.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong's last edit seems to encapsulate this idea quite nicely. Do you consider his edit acceptable?

-- Fullstop (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with Hong Qi Gong's edit.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I would also appreciate a response to my points here. Thank you. John Smith's (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you also find Hong Qi Gong's solution acceptable, then this becomes mood. Your other points I find rather petty, inaccurate, and trivial, so lets not get distracted by going down that road. Suffice it to say I disagree with the facts as you interpret them. Again, this is now moot, hopefully, if you find Hong's edit acceptable. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't find it acceptable. And my points are actually direct, honest and important. That you refuse to answer them only supports my case that you engage in double-standards in regards to consensus. How are we supposed to build consensus if you won't even define what it is? Is it everyone concerned or can one person block it? It's that simple - you can't try to argue it one way and then another when it's convenient. John Smith's (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Too much on book in section...consider move to Mao:_The_Unknown_Story

I moved the following to this talk page. This text should go (if it is not already there) to the article on the book.

For example, David S. G. Goodman, Professor of Contemporary China Studies at the [[University of Technology, Sydney]], argued that "the 'facts' in ''Mao: The Unknown Story'' are about as reliable as those to be found in...''The Da Vinci Code''." Goodman argued that the book could even be thought of as a "form of fiction" where "a strong narrative" is "a substitute for evidence and argument." Like other historians, he also noted that their focus on vilifying Mao led them to write "demonography" rather than objective history and biography.<ref> {{cite journal|title=Mao and ''The Da Vinci Code'': conspiracy, narrative and history|journal=The Pacific Review|date=2006-09|first=David S.G.|last=Goodman|coauthors=|volume=19|issue=3|pages=361, 362, 363, 375, 376, 380, 381|id= |url=|format=|accessdate=2007-10-05 }}</ref> Kaz Ross of the [[University of Tasmania]] wrote that the book is "full of historical inaccuracies and exhibits a surprising lack of insight into Chinese revolutionary politics," and that "Jung Chang’s idiosyncratic understanding of politics results in some rather bizarre claims."<ref name="Ross" /> Professor Richard Baum of the [[University of California]] said that "it has to be taken very seriously as the most thoroughly researched and richly documented piece of synthetic scholarship yet to appear on the rise of Mao and the CCP." Although Baum believed that the book faltered "over its monotonic macro-theme of Mao the power-mad pathologue", he thought that it "will most likely change forever the way modern Chinese history is understood and taught."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2005/09/cdt_bookshelf_r.php|title=CDT Bookshelf: Richard Baum recommends "Mao: The Unknown Story"|date=2005-09-05|accessdate=2007-04-04|work=China Digital Times|author=Sophie Beach}}</ref> Thomas Bernstein of [[Columbia University]] remarked that "the book [was] a major disaster for the [[sinology|contemporary China field]]"<ref>[http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-swans-little-book-of-ire/2005/10/07/1128563003642.html A swan's little book of ire.] October 2005 </ref>. Andrew Nathan, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at [[Columbia University]], wrote a lengthy review in the ''[[London Review of Books]]'' that raised many criticisms, including questions about the difficulty in verifying the sources used and problems with their quality. However, he did also express interest in the book's thorough use of memoirs published since Mao's death, suggesting that they and other similar sources may prove useful references in the future.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n22/nath01_.html|title=Jade and Plastic|date=2005-11-17|accessdate=2007-04-04|work=London Review of Books|author=Andrew Nathan}}</ref> Sinologist Stuart Schram, while criticizing certain aspects of ''Mao: The Unknown Story'', argued in a review in ''The China Quarterly'' that Chang and Halliday's book was "a valuable contribution to our understanding of [Mao] and his place in history." He also, however, counselled readers to read an alternative biography of Mao to gain a more "balanced" view.<ref> {{cite journal|title=Mao: The Unknown Story|journal=The China Quarterly|date=2007-03|first=Stuart|last=Schram|coauthors=|volume=|issue=189|pages=208|id= |url=|format=|accessdate=2007-10-07 }}</ref> In contrast, [[Perry Link]], Professor of East Asian Studies at [[Princeton University]], wrote a laudatory review in ''The Times Literary Supplement'', stating that "Part of Chang and Halliday's passion for exposing the 'unknown' Mao is clearly aimed at gullible Westerners... For decades many in the Western intellectual and political elites have assumed that Mao and his heirs symbolize the Chinese people and their culture, and that to show respect to the rulers is the same as showing respect to the subjects. Anyone who reads Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's book should be inoculated against this particular delusion."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.powells.com/review/2005_08_14.html|title=An abnormal mind |date=2005-08-14|accessdate=2007-04-04|work=The Times Literary Supplement|author=Perry Link}}</ref> [[Jonathan Spence]]'s criticism (Professor of history at [[Yale University]]) in the ''[[New York Review of Books]]'' was that focusing on Mao's vileness had undermined "much of the power their story might have had."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18394|title=Portrait of a Monster|date=2005-11-03|accessdate=2007-04-04|work=The New York Review of Books|author=Jonathan Spence}}</ref> [[Philip Short]] (author of ''Mao: A Life'') criticised Chang and Halliday, arguing that they had reduced Mao from a complex historical character to a one-dimensional "cardboard cutout of Satan" and that Chang was guilty of "writing history to fit [her] views".<ref name="TheAustralian">{{cite web|url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,15601537-28737,00.html|title=The long march to Mao|publisher=The Australian|date=[[2005-06-14]]|accessdate=2007-11-16}}</ref> In December 2005, an article by [[The Observer]] newspaper on the book contained a brief statement from Chang and Halliday in regards to the general criticism.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1657415,00.html|title=Bad element |date=2005-12-04|accessdate=2007-07-18|work=The Guardian|author=Jonathan Fenby}}</ref> <blockquote>''"The academics' views on Mao and Chinese history cited represent received wisdom of which we were well aware while writing our biography of Mao. We came to our own conclusions and interpretations of events through a decade's research."''</blockquote> The authors also responded to Andrew Nathan's review in a letter to the London Review of Books.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n24/letters.html#letter1|title=A Question of Sources |date=2005-12-04|accessdate=2007-11-14|work=London Review of Books|author=Jung Chang and Jon Halliday}}</ref> Halliday is an historian specializing in the [[Soviet Union]], and he said that he was greatly helped by accessing [[Russia]]n archives on China that were inaccessible until recently. Chang travelled several times to [[China]] during the course of her research, interviewing many of those who were close to [[Mao]], as well as alleged eyewitnesses to events such as the crossing of [[Luding Bridge]].

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarm Internationale (talk • contribs)

I agree that it's too much at the moment, which is why I've tried to cut it down in the past - but User:Giovanni33 kept reverting my changes. But certainly more than a brief mention is worthwhile. I think we could have a little more than what you have suggested. John Smith's 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated two reviews each for the positive and negative views, also giving reference to the authors' responses. I agree that we shouldn't overload the article with reviews, but I think a couple are ok. If you want to refine the page further please leave and message here - we can work something out I'm sure. John Smith's (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm all for cutting it down. That is not the issue, as you know. You even inserted more reviews yourself here. The issue here is one of undue weight to non-experts, giving false parity with specialists in the field. We can cut it down significantly, but it should not strive to create some kind of artificial balance between pro/con reviews. That is my only objection.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

Although Hong's edit is a slight improvement on Giovanni's position, it is too weaselish. "Some...." is something that should always be avoided. I would suggest replacing it with a statement along the lines of "scholars such as X & Y said .........", using people actually mentioned in the article.

Similarly I feel "most" is a weasel word. It would be better to quote Fenby, along the lines of "Jonathan Fenby described..... as.....". Then there could also be a brief mention of the Chinese scholars who did express praise.

Furthermore I think it's fair to have a line on the fact the authors did respond to the criticism and explain where/how. John Smith's (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:Weasel - Avoid phrases such as "some people say" without sources. In this case, a source is provided for each of the two instances of the word "some", and both sources exactly use the word "some".

• ...some of the world's leading China experts...[8]
• ...some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history...[9]

If I understand correctly, the point of avoiding weasel words is to prevent editors' own analysis of a certain situation. Meaning we shouldn't present a position as "some people say" because we think this to be true, or because we personally read a few opinions that support the position. But in this case the article reflects exactly what it's sources are saying when it uses the word "some" - because the sources use the word "some". We can somehow make it a quote of the sources if others also think that is better. But we probably should accurately reflect that only "some" China experts have criticised the book because that's what the sources say. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. Though it is still rather bad editing to have both "...some of the world's leading China experts..." and "...some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history..." in there - they're referring to the same point. It would be much better to have just one. My other points still stand. John Smith's (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're getting there, but if you're going to quote someone you need to say who/what you are quoting. And you should choose one quotation as they say essentially the same thing. John Smith's (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral on your other points and I'm opened to suggestions on how to better reflect the sources. I was only responding to your request to "verify source" when I re-wrote those sentences.[10] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you re-wrote it. So what is your position on mentioning the source quoted and having just one of the "some....." statements? John Smith's (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(continued in next section)

The "some" problem

The "some" problem could be avoided by putting "some"^[z] in quotes when direct quotation is possible and using "two^[x][y]," where its not.

Of course, its not so good to have two sentences to paraphrase one and the same source statement :)

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop, why don't you suggest a version then? :) John Smith's (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

*sigh*.

The story of the SMH and of the Guardian are effectively duplicates, down to the story of the old woman. Either use the Guardian and cf. the SMH for it, or cite the SMH and cf. the Guardian for it.

Both can be represented with a single set of quotations from one or the other. For example:

While "few are disputing the subject," many of the details "are being picked up by some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history, who say [Chang's blockbuster] is a gross distortion of the records."

Or something to that effect. The appropriate refs would read: <ref name="SMH" /> <sup>''cf.''</sup><ref name="Guardian" />

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, except I would either directly quote and use "Chang's latest blockbuster", or otherwise write "[Chang's book]". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I left "latest" out because it wouldn't age well (it would be outdated if Chang were to write another book). "Chang's book" is of course fine. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I suggest we leave about a day for anybody to voice objections, after that, would you do the edit? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Do you think 18 December (Tuesday) would be enough of a wait? -- Fullstop (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think there was enough of a wait already by now. I'm OK with you making that edit anytime you want. If Giovanni objects, hopefully he'll discuss it before reverting - I assume we've got at least 3 editors at the moment (you, me, and John Smith's) who are in agreement about how to change that text. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I just tried, but the change of tense from past to present was jarring. It looks horrible if I bracketize:

Mao: The Unknown Story received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media, and achieved commercial success and placement on bestsellers' lists. However, acclaim for the work was not universal: While "few [were] disputing the subject," "many of the details [were] picked up by some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history, who [said Chang's book was] a gross distortion of the records."

Ideas? -- Fullstop (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the tense change really necessary? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How about making it simpler such as:"While...received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media, achieving commercial success--making it on bestsellers lists--some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history, said Chang's book was "a gross distortion of the records."Giovanni33 (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

ideally, yes. :) But I wanted to keep "some", "most" etc in quotes. Ideally the "largely" would be too, but thats qualified in the second sentence anyway. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fullstop, how's this for a tweak?

Mao: The Unknown Story received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media, and achieved commercial success and placement on bestsellers' lists. However, acclaim for the work was not universal. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that while few commentators "disput[ed] the subject, .... some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history" had referred to the book as "a gross distortion of the records." John Smith's (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

done with only one tweak (in the source the "disputed the subject" comes after the rest). -- Fullstop (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I made some minor tweaks, as per above. The part that should be quoted is the opinion, i.e. "a gross distortion of the records." We don't have to quote the facts, i.e that some of the words most eminent schlars of modern Chinese history said this (the statement of fact is supported by the cited source), anymore than we need to put quotes around "received largely positive reviews, etc" Also, saying, "disputed the subject" is not very clear. We also don't need the editorializing that adds bias, such as "however, acclaim for the work was not universal..." That is just fluff. I hope my changes makes sense.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Giovanni, I disagree with them. I much prefer Fullstop's version - your "minor tweaks" essentially make it what you proposed. It's important to mention the source that is being quoted. I also don't think the comment you removed was "fluff".

Please note that your last edit was a reversion as you removed additions Fullstop put in such as the reference to the newspaper being quoted and "However, acclaim for the work was not universal.". Please do not try to claim it wasn't. John Smith's (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your message for reverting does not make sense to me. I don't see how you addressed the issue, or make any argument for why you felt a need to revert my changes. Why would I claim that support wasn't universal? That is the whole point of the section: that there are serious criticisms from experts that view the work as seriously flawed. Added in that support for the work "wasn't universal" is indeed pure fluff, because its redundant and adds nothing. In fact, that kind of editorializing has an effect beyond styalistic rhetoric: its shifts the context from some of near universal praise, hence the statement, "that it lacked universal praise." I see this as more of blurring the reality that that book was heavily criticized, esp. by academics who specialize in the field. You also did not address my arguments about how its logical to quote some things but not others. Since you failed to present any reasons that address my concerns, I will restore those changes. I hope next time you can address them here and work out something that we agree on before reverting, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I made a proposal to Fullstop which he supported and implemented. You, however, made your own changes without getting support for them. So I am reverting to my previous version. A rule applies to everyone or no one - please do not have one rule for yourself where you can change what you like when you like, but I have to get your agreement first.

I have been clear on why the version I reverted to is superior. It identifies the source of the quoted material (absolutely key), leads nicely from the praise to criticism (yours is jarred) and establishes that some Sinologists have objected to the way the book is written rather than the fact it says Mao was an unpleasant character. John Smith's (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not addressed my objections. The part that requires a quoted is the opinion, i.e. "a gross distortion of the records." Yes, we quote that. However, we don't have to quote the facts that are not in dispute, i.e that some of the words most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history said this, because that statement of fact is supported by the cited source, and no one disputes this fact. To place quotes around these statements of fact, adds bias. Notice that we do not put quotes around the statement, "received largely positive reviews, etc" So, why are you selecting only one side for quotes? That is a double standard. We should only quote opinions, or if something is disputed and thus needs to be attributed to a specific person. Also, as I explained saying, "disputed the subject" is not very clear. Your version is wordy, unclear, and adds unneeded editorializing that also adds bias, such as "however, acclaim for the work was not universal..." That says nothing because its evident that acclaim was not universal--in fact there is a great deal of criticism. So why through in such rhetorical fluff that adds nothing but bias? I will restore to the superior version. No one else is coming in to defend your version, so your reverting it without addressing these points is unhelpful.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, let's deal with some facts. Fullstop proposed a change, you made a suggestion based on that as did I. Fullstop then put my version in. So clearly my version has at least some support other than myself. Just because he doesn't choose to revert doesn't mean I am the only person that backs it. In contrast I see no one other than you reverting me or expressing any support (direct or indirect) for yours.

We do need to quote because the precise comment is a matter of opinion (who is "eminent", etc?), even if it isn't controversial to say a number of Sinologists have criticised the book. You have also inserted the subjective term "experts" again by saying "expert opinion" differed from the support. That is neither quoted material, nor is it supported by the facts - a number of Sinologists did support the book. It does not add bias at all to quote, because we have highlighted the source that described the situation.

As for the comment about acclaim not being universal, I support it as it reads nicely from the support to the criticism, but that was proposed by Fullstop not me. Go complain to him about it.

By the way, reverting after 1 week and 10 minutes can be interpreted as gaming the system. I'll give you the opportunity to revert yourself rather than report you for breaking your parole. Furthermore your reversions on holidays such as Christmas Eve and New Year's are not in good faith - really you should have left this until you could be sure everyone would be back and available to discuss matters further. You know the procedure - RfC, mediation, etc. Don't keep reverting in the hope people will be away and you can get a revert advantage over me. John Smith's (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Giovanni33, but I have to agree with John Smith here.

This issue has been over many weeks, in which I took your "We can cut it down significantly, but it should not strive to create some kind of artificial balance between pro/con reviews. That is my only objection." into consideration even though you chose not to participate.

Your recent reinsertion is plain pedantry, and the insistence on having things "your way." It contributes nothing. Given that you have not provided any rationale for your reverts, your insistence on "your way" has evidently no reason other than because its yours.

Your previous "this is [your] only objection" was evidently not true. Now, you're coming up with the arbitrary "to place quotes around these statements of fact, adds bias." No, it does not. We are making a direct quotation from the source, and doing so because this is to avoid any suggestion of bias during paraphrasing. The use of direct quote is something you did not object to.

You are sorely mistaken if you think we will sit around biting our fingernails waiting for you to ok every change.

I strongly recommend you reinstate the consensually established text, and discuss your changes before you try them again.

-- Fullstop (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, Giovanni has had more than 24 hours to respond. I'm going to revert per my previous comments and those of Fullstop, rather than wait for him to come back in a week. I'll also file a complaint over his gaming the system. John Smith's (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is a failure to assume good faith. This is not about having it "my way." If that were true, I would have reverted back to my version a long time ago, which includes the very important statement supported by the sources that most of those who praised this work were "not specialists in China." That was removed and I let it stand. So please assume good faith and give me a little credit here. Yes, I don't think the issue if over at all. You saying its over doesn't make it so. What makes it over is if the problems I am addressing get addressed. They aren't. They are being ignored. For example the nature of the quotes and what gets quoted and what doesn't is an example of imbalance that I raised. And, yes that is my only objection, as it remains unsolved. I explained how the double standard of only quoting one side adds bias. It's not arbitrary, it's reasoned. However for you to simply say it doesn't, but not explain why my argument about that is wrong does seem rather arbitrary. No editor here is the sole arbritor of truth; it has to rest on the reasons, on the merits of an argument. Calling what I said names such as "pedantry," doesn't do either. If we can't agree over these issues then we should get more editors on here to comment. Two editors doesnt not make for consensus, or it "being over"--esp. when the problem I've raised is being ignored and sweeped under the wiki-rug.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of bad faith because I questioned your motives for reverting on Christmas and New Year's Eve - so you could do with practising what you preach for a start.

You keep reverting without discussing things first. I've already pointed out that you know the procedure for dispute resolution if you're not happy about this. I've been the editor asking others for input - I have yet to see you lift a finger recently to get outside, neutral feedback. Don't expect others to run around you. Be proactive, rather than revert once a week and leave it at that. John Smith's (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry Giovanni, "not specialists in China" was not removed by-your-leave, or because you let it stand, but because you did not have the necessary (re)sources to convince anyone that this characterization was widespread enough to be represented as such. Talk is not a WP:FORUM "for reason"s or "merits of an argument." Talk is for bilateral discourse to improve articles for the world at large, not to argue whether you personally are right or not, or whether your favorite magazine review was the divinely revealed non-plus-ultra of all magazine reviews.
• In any case, your insertion of "your version" was wholly unjustified. We *WAITED* for your opinion for several days before going through with it, and 3 people here had something to say about it. Then, not only do you revert to your version, you even have the audacity to call your last-minute-dash a "superior version"? Who - other than you - gives it that exalted status? And why is it that those arguments you are providing *NOW* (31. Dec) weren't tabled while we were waiting? Or even when when you first "suggested" that "superior version"? Or in the days thereafter?
• Unfortunately for you, three editors, two editors, or even one editor can in fact make for consensus. Consensus is characterized by the lack of opposition, not by including everyone who may or may not care. Lack of opposition includes one particular editor who - although directly involved in the discussion - did not bother to attend to it, but did otherwise edit other articles.
• The "problem [you've] raised is" NOT "being ignored and [swept] under the wiki-rug" for the very simple reason that YOU DIDN'T RAISE ANYTHING. You are not one iota interested in working with what exists, or what was resolved in the three-way here. You want it to be your way from the get go!
• I came in here to broker a resolution between you and John Smiths and HongQiGong. It transpires that the real problem is that you believe that you WP:OWN this article, that you can disregard all foregoing talk, and that you can at will pop-in and pop-out with nary a care, because after all - so you appear to suppose - you can revert any time you like. Well, sorry, that kind of gaming the system doesn't wash. Neither at this article, nor at any other.
• To make it absolutely clear: I don't care either way about the substance of any specific formulation. But the difference between your text and any other is that the other are *suggestions* that were discussed, while yours was not. Perhaps that was because you chose to present your "superior version" when things were already finalized elsewhere. Or, even then, perhaps because you could not be bothered to explain the advantages of your "superior version". Or even perhaps because all you ever have is "superior" versions and never agree with anything anyone else has to say. Well tough. In case you hadn't noticed, we *did* hold our breath for you, and still have nothing to show for it.
• So, if you have something to say, you discuss the status NOW, and not some arbitrary point of your choosing. The discussed/established text is there NOW. Deal with *IT*, that text, and spare us the completely undiscussed "superior version" grandstanding.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I took a wiki-break from this because I felt the tone of your message was more like a hostile rant, but I still want to respond to each of your points because several of them are flat out untrue, and I do dispute several of your premises you base them on. Namely, that your claim that I did not participate and thus I should not be counted, or assumed to have agreed. I find that premise false. I don't see any "waiting" as you claim. I participated throughout, and just two editors (yourself and JohnSmith) does not make for a consensus. We'd have to expand it to at lease one or two other editors for that to be clear in my view.
• And, of course, I think my version is superior, which is why I'm advocating it. I will point out that I merely adopted JohnSmith's language who calls his version "superior," but you never objected to him using it, so I find it strange you object when I borrow his term and characterize it as "grandstanding."
• Your point about WP:Forum seems misplaced as well, because I'm not arguing about whether I am personally right or wrong, I'm arguing about what is best for this article, and if there is a dispute then yes, it is based on the merits of the arguments, and not on "voting." That was my point.
• Its untrue that I didn't raise anything. I raised my arguments several times. I don't think its necessary to repeat them. These arguments were not refuted, nor even addressed. Thus consensus was not reached. Your claim that I'm not interested in working with what exists and simply want it my way from the get go is also flatly untrue. "My version" is actually not my version, its a compromise accepting various changes by yourself and JohnSmiths and only making some tweaks (again, showing that these points are unresolved as of yet). You can't expect for force the change simply because you want it, without addressing the points that remain outstanding and unaddressed. This is not me "Owning" the article. And, yes, to force the change, and not address the points I've raised is tantamount to sweeping it under the rug. Things need to be addressed and discussed to see what is acceptable or what consensus can be reached. You claim that I never agree with what anyone else has to say is likewise absurd. It depends on what is being said!
• Lastly, there is no magical "deadline" either when things are "finalized." Since I was involved in these issued from the beginning and at each step, I hardly can see how this is deemed "finalized." This discussion proves it's not. I'm not asking anyone for any "breath holding," either. Raising the unresolved issue and pointing out the fact that its still not resolved is a matter of fact. That is the fact that we have to deal with. I don't plan to revert, but I do expect that we work out a text that is acceptable to all parties or have consensus on the matter clearly established. As of now we do not have that, and this is the reality to be dealt with.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Text in Mao: The Unknown Story sub-section

There is a disagreement over the current text used in the sub-section on Mao: The Unknown Story, specifically the following:

Mao: The Unknown Story received largely positive reviews in the newspapers and the general media, and achieved commercial success and placement on bestsellers' lists. However, acclaim for the work was not universal. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that while few commentators "disput[ed] the subject," "some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history" had referred to the book as "a gross distortion of the records."

I think that the current version, as supported by myself and User:Fullstop, is best. It is clear, concise and marks out the source for the quotation. On the other hand, Giovanni's version neglects details such as the source being quoted - it also is misleading, by suggesting no "expert" supported the book, when the reviews in the book's main article show that a number of Sinologists did view it generally positively. John Smith's (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is immediately above this section: #The "some" problem -- Fullstop (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good god I don't even know why I'm weighing in on this RfC, but a quick diff between the "current version" and the "Giovanni version" would be useful for future commentators AND for current commentators like me. I've slogged through a bit of the "'some' problem" debate above but I'm not sure it helped me much. It should have because Gio and John and I have debated about these matters before on Mao: The Unknown Story. A quick--very, very quick--summary of the current issues on this article would useful in order to understand what the debate is about.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A comparison of the two versions can be found here. Mine is the first - Giovanni33's is the second. John Smith's (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, neither of those versions seem so great to me in terms of wording, but what would you say is the locus of the dispute? Quite frankly the "diff" you provided does not differentiate the two edits enough for me to see what the problem is.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Giovanni, but I feel that mine/Fullstop's version is smoother in moving from discussing the support to highlighting the criticism. Furthermore, Giovanni's distorts the facts by implying "expert opinion" was all negative (where he says expert opinion differed significantly). He also removed the source quoted that describes the criticism - The Sydney Morning Herald - which he shouldn't, as it's an interpretation of the situation not fact. He also removed the part that says that the critics generally didn't dispute the attitude towards Mao (i.e. that he wasn't a nice guy) but other aspects of the book. John Smith's (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being brave enough to stick your head back into this kind of dispute, Bigtimepeace. I agree that neither version is very good but I'll try to explain the problems I have with JohnSmiths version that I feel should be address (but so far have been ignored).

• The first issue is adding in the comment that support for the work "wasn't universal." Of course it wasn't universal. Why do we need to say that? In fact, its rather insulting because the truth is that this work is heavily and widely criticized esp. among specialists/experts in the field--much more than is typical in fact. So its a great understatement that at best is redundant and adds nothing but fluff, and at worse is a kind of editorializing has an effect beyond styalistic rhetoric: its shifts the context by alluding to an alleged "universal praise," that it came no where close to achieving. This is then creates a bias, and is more blurring the reality. JohnSmiths only arguments is that it is "smoother in moving," which I disagree.
• The other issue is the selective and, in my view, unjustified and extensive use of quotes only for critics. The logic used support the selectively quote parts, has not been articulated. My logic for quotes is that I feel the sections that require a quoted around them is the opinion itself. That is why in my version the quote is limited to this part: "a gross distortion of the records." We should quote that. But, to put quotes around basic facts that no one disputes such as "experts" actually brings into question that fact, and adds bias. Generally speaking we don't quote the facts that are not in dispute, i.e that some of the words most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history said this, because that statement of fact is supported by the cited source, and no one disputes this fact. To place quotes around these other statements of fact, and only for one side in effect adds bias to the text. Notice that we do not put quotes around the statement, "received largely positive reviews, etc" So, why are we selecting only one side for quotes that is an apparent double standard? I'm for quoting only opinions, or if something is disputed and thus needs to be attributed to a specific person making the claim.
• I removed the working about, "disputed the subject" because its not very clear, makes it wordy, and adds unneeded editorializing that also adds bias in the same as that, "however, acclaim for the work was not universal..." does. What does it mean that few disputed the subject? The subject is about Mao. There are various claims about Mao that are made and some are disputed, others not. This is trivial as its a truism. To lump this together into something called "subject" and say its not disputed, is unclear and adds nothing.
• Lastly, I still feel that there should be something that distinguishes expert opinion from the popular press, hence my addition that criticism among specialists in the field differed significantly, and this is supported by our sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you did not raise your cocnerns until after you had started reverting. If you had brought them up first we might have been able to work something out earlier.

• We need something to say that support was not complete because it leads with positive reviews. I would like some evidence to show that criticism was "more than typical" - and typical than what? Some mediocre book that gets three reviews?
• We need full quotation marks around "some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history" because that is a POV, not fact. Who decides who is one of the world's "most eminent scholars" on anything? There is no international history council to award that status. The opinion comes from the newspaper so it is presented as such.
• Notice that we do not put quotes around the statement, "received largely positive reviews, etc" We don't put quotes around it because it was not quoted - it is that simple.
• What does it mean that few disputed the subject? The subject is about Mao. No, the subject is of the book, that Mao was generally-speaking not a "nice guy".
• hence my addition that criticism among specialists in the field differed significantly Despite the fact that other academics, both China-orientated and more general, did support the book. So, as I have said, your comment is highly misleading and inaccurate. John Smith's (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, I raised my concerns before I reverted. In fact that is a condition of our editing probation. If I had done what you claimed, you would have reported me and I'd have been blocked.
• Support was not complete? That is an absurd understatement. There is vast amount--a whole section of harsh criticism. To say that "support was not universal" add editorial bias, and slants things in one direction. For example, what if we led with the critical section and then said, "However criticism of the work was not universal..." You get the idea. Neither should be acceptable.
• No, that these are recognized experts in their field is NOT in any way a POV. Its a fact determined by their credentials and area of specialty/expertise. Do you have any source (even a SINGLE one) that disputes their stature in the field? If this was disputed or if it was a matter of POV, then surely you could produce at least one such piece of evidence. The quotes only add bias and are not needed around the fact that they are some of the worlds most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history. And as far as your rationale about why we do not quote the critical section (because its not quoted) just underscores this duplicity. Why not demand that the positive comments also all be in quotes, or else deleted? There are two standards in play here, it seems.
• The subject is about the book that deals with various POV's about Mao and the Cultural Revolution. These contain various positions on different questions and it does not makes sense to say no one disputed "the subject." And, no, this is not about who thinks someone is a "nice guy," or not.
• Those that supported the book come from mostly non-specialist sources, mostly the popular press and media. I've provided three sources that backs up this claim. This is not inaccurate or misleading but leaving it out, is.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• You did not discuss your concerns about the current edit before you reverted, as you did not seek to reach a consensus version with myself and Fullstop through discussion. That was the point I was making. Reverting once a week and leaving a message is not discussing matters.
• It wouldn't make sense to say "criticism of the work was not universal" because the start mentions positive reviews - your comparison was improper.
• It is POV to label people as "recognised experts" because there is no official body to do the recognising. Quotations are needed for that fact. You can list their position in a university, but that is it.
• If you want the point on no one disputing the "subject" changed, it would be very easy to clairfy it to something along the lines of the central theme of the book that Mao was a terrible dictator.
• Regardless of where the support came from, you implied no Sinologists or so-called "experts" supported it. That is incorrect - move on. John Smith's (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

NB: "some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history" is a direct quotation because no paraphrase acceptable to JS & Giovanni could be found.

The talk of 18-20 November 2007 in the #Giovanni's last edit section is all about this phrase. Its been settled by agreement (or lack of disagreement) for direct quotation. That spiel is long over. Move on.

-- Fullstop (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC) ps: There is no such thing as "pov", and editors should not be deciding what is/isn't "fact".

Edits to the lead section

Jung Chang is British as far as I know - the edits made by the anon-IP makes her nationality a little unclear and remove that status from the intro. So unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, I think her British nationality should be put back. John Smith's (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I have put her nationality back (also mentioned she's in London). John Smith's (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IP edits

Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, I believe she is British and thus removing her nationality without explanation is vandalism. Don't do it again, please. John Smith's (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not difficult to find a reliable source to state that she's British, though if it's an IP editor that keeps removing it, that probably won't help. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that she is a naturalised British citizen. She was a PRC citizen before that. According to PRC nationality law, she (a mainlander) no longer hold PRC nationality once she acquire British citizen. However, ethnic Chinese people who got British citizen or British National (Overseas) passports in colonial Hong Kong cannot forfeit their PRC nationality. It is also essential to clarify that her acquisition of British citizenship has nothing to do with Hong Kong (See British nationality law and Hong Kong). Some HK people got full UK passports in HK before 1997. It is also essential to show that what she holds is full British citizenship, not the 2nd-tier forms. BN(O) (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal info

I would like to raise the question of the personal info on this site. Why is Jung Chang's marital status and children relevant? I notice that Jon Halliday's entry doesn't have this type of irrelevant info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.8 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Jon Halliday's article doesn't have an infobox like this article does, but it does mention that he is married to Jung Chang. If someone is married or not is relatively important in regards to information on them.

But I agree with you that her lack of children may not be as relevant, so I have left that field blank to remove it from the infobox. There are a lot of other fields there that could be marked "N/A" or "none", but that would be a bit pointless in my view. If someone disagrees I would not object to them restoring it in principle, provided we have a discussion here first. John Smith's (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)