Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

All change

Right, we now seem to have a dispute over the wording of a single paragraph. I'm going to put both up to compare.

At a 2006 conference on the Cultural Revolution, Professor Kaz Ross of the University of Tasmania commented that "the Chang-Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' — fiction with a cloak of facts."

In the session titled the "Struggles Over Representation of History," concerning the distortions of history and representation of Mao, the Chang and Halliday book was discussed by Professor of Chinese Studies, Gao Mobo, and Professor of Asian Studies, Kaz Ross, who advanced the opinion that "the Chang-Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' — fiction with a cloak of facts."

The first one is accurate, clear and concise. The second has no context as to what the "session" was (i.e. what the session is), where it was taking place, which university the people mentioned come from, and it implies that the Gao said the quote too. As the article has no mention of what Gao says he should not be included - it was Ross' quote so she should be the one mentioned. Even if Gao does agree with it, until he can be quoted through another article he shouldn't be mentioned.

As a note, please do not use citations to say who someone is - that is not what they are for. Identifying them through their university is sufficient if they do not have their own wikipedia entry. John Smith's 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Of these two paragraphs, the first is to be preferred, for being the more concise. I echo the points noted above by User:John Smith's, and would add that the latter is liable to lead to confusion. It also adds very little by way of meaning despite being nearly twice as long. Xmas1973 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Xmas1973 16:22, 5 April 2007 (BST)

I prefer the second one as that gives more information, more context, while the first one is too much like a fragment. Moreover, it leaves out the important information about the section that this report was about: "distortions of history and representation of Mao." That is the session. And, it is this context, talking about distortions of history that these academics were speaking about when they brought up this book. Simply saying a "conference on the Cultural Revolution" is vauge and general, and it does not identify the session. Its not true that one does not know what this is from because it links to the full title and date of this conference. Also, I disagree that mentioning what school the professor is from is more important than mentionining what title/academic possition they hold within institution of higher learning. If they had their own article, then we could link to that information, but since they don't we should state their qualifications. I support adding a link to each professor's own schools website which provides information as to their credencials. Lastly, the passage does not imply that Gao said what is clearly attributed to Prof. Katz--at most it implies that Gao agrees with her, and this is accurate--he does and says something quite similar: "it is a fiction dressed up as history."Giovanni33 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

But the article doesn't mention anything Gao said. So unless you want to substitute another source for the citation (or add another) then whatever you claim he said is irrelevant. John Smith's 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but the article does say it "was discussed by Gao Mobo and Kaz Ross, two professors from Australia." And then it goes on to paraphrase Prof. Kaz. We are only reporting that in the exact same kind of context. It would be misleading only if Dr. Gao actually disagreed and said something completely different--but he doesn't. I read both papers and they are in agreement. We don't need another source for Gao because we are not actually quoting him above, but we are reporting that he discussed the book along with Prof. Katz, as the article reports. This is fair, and its helpful for the reader who wants to research more, esp. since Prof. Gao is currently working on a book that will contain two chapters debunking this book.Giovanni33 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Then provide links to the papers - don't use the article to imply something it doesn't say. I must also object again on the point that Gao seems to be a language teacher, not a China politics academic or historian.

Also I still agree with Xmas. The second one gives unnecessary information without even mentioning the basics, such at the fact this was taking place at a conference last year. "In the session titled the "Struggles Over Representation of History," concerning the distortions of history and representation of Mao" means nothing to anyone who doesn't know it happened at that conference. Maybe we can come up with a new version, but please do not insist on having yours as it is - it is far too confusing. John Smith's 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The links are provided and the article does not imply anything it doesn't say. It says exactly what the article says, and as far as any implication that one could possibly gather from his menton, its accurate---Dr. Gao's possition is nearly identical to Prof. Katz. Its important to mention that he also discussed the paper in this conext of "distortions of history."The other objection you raise about the reader not knowing what this session is about, this is easily fixed by adding that info in--not by taking out the name of this session, which is just as important. Lastly, your concern that Pro. Gao is only a language teacher, this has been refuted many times and doesn't merit any serious response anymore.Giovanni33 18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not clearly said why a Chinese teacher is qualified to talk about this. Do so here without writing several lines of irrelevant stuff.

The article does imply Gao said what it mentions Ross did. It also goes into unnecessary detail - if people want to read up on the details of the conference they can just read the article. John Smith's 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the article says Gao and Katz discussion this book in the context of distortions of history. It only implies that Gao has a similar view as that quoted by Katz--if it implies anything at all. And this is accurate. Hence, its legitimate to include. Again, about Prof. Gaos qualifications, they have already been provided numerous times, along with his books-- and you choose to continue to ignore all the facts about this. Even one of his texts is required reading in many university History courses on China! I do not take your objection to his qualifications to speak on this matter at all serious, since you pretend still not to see what every other editor on here has acknowlegedGiovanni33 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"It only implies that Gao has a similar view as that quoted by Katz--if it implies anything at all. And this is accurate."

You must cite a source to show that is accurate - it is not enough to say you found it out for yourself.

You are also ignoring the points I made about brevity - why does the article have to have all this stuff about what they were talking about. All that is relevant is the opinions made. It is enough to say it happened at the conference last year. John Smith's 18:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't need to cite a source because we are not quoting Gao. However, anyone can investigate and obtain the their papers, as I have. Or, they can contact Prof. Gao, as I have. We do not need to cite sources for your reading into the possible interpretations of what you think it implies by mentioning the accurate and important context of what the articles reports. If you think it implies something that is NOT accurate, then by all means show that. Then, you'd have a valid objection. Brevity is fine, but not at the expense of curtailing important information such as the topic and context of the session that the papers and talks were given.Giovanni33 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The onus is 'not on an editor or reader to contact Professor Gao - the onus is on the person making the edit to provide relevant, verifiable information. As I keep saying and Xmas said, the version you propose implies Gao backed his colleague without information that is the case. If you refuse to change the wording then either it is not suitable or needs another source.

You are still ignoring points about brevity - why are you making such a song-and-dance about this conference that you want to name every little detail given in the article? It is far too superfluous. John Smith's 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We are quoting the article. The article says it was discussed by Gao and Katz. That is important to include. It goes on to paraphrase Katz. We report that. We report the actual topic the session was on. That is important. I am not doing anything more than that. Your seeing 'implications" being made--when even if they are being made are accurate--is not a valid reason to not report on the the article reports, concerning these two quaified academics. About brevity, it shouldn't be too breif, or too long. It should be long enough to provide pertinent info, which my version does.Giovanni33 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your version doesn't even say it was being held at a conference - it has some blurb about the individual seminar they were attending. The reference is not to promote their attendance, just mention what was said. John Smith's 19:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I already responded to this: Then add in the conference info (even though it is in the link). That is an easy fix. Their attentence, and the nature of the attendence are all important facts for context that are part and parcel of what was said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giovanni33 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

You could say the same thing about the sections on Perry Link and Richard Baum, for example. Why are there sentences full of their quotes? Why not keep them "brief"? Plus, John Smith's edit specifically leaves out Gao, when it has been established that he's a credible source. I see a double-standard here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hong, the quotations are full because they are expressing opinions - the sections do not go on about the circumstances in which they wrote, published, etc their reviews. Gao could be mentioned but not with Giovanni's version as I keep saying it implies he said/supported something not mentioned in the article - if he is to be quoted we need a source. John Smith's 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not really the point you were making about brevity. Theoretically, we can just state whether or not Link and Baum thought the book was "good" or "bad". Why have all that extra information? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That was actually the point I was making. Giovanni (and maybe you) was insisting on using material that was not required to understand what was actually said about the book. That does not apply to the other views, as the lengthy bits are their actual views. If anything this extract gets more information than the others - if it followed the same format as the others it would only say Professor Kaz Ross of the University of Tasmania commented that "the Chang-Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' — fiction with a cloak of facts." John Smith's 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, I'd be interested to see some claims to back up Assoc. Prof. Gao's qualifications. You dismissed the reasonable request by John Smith's with a fair degree of nonchalance, but by Gao's own admission on his UTas website his primary function is as a teacher. His research interests include Chinese politics, but this could amount to little more than some light reading in the BBC History magazine! (Before you eat me though, I'm not saying it does, but remains an overt theoretical possibility.) He has given talks on the subject, but equally I have given talks about Nirvana; I don't hold myself out as an expert though.

And to refer to your comment: "Even one of his texts is required reading in many university History courses on China!", I can think of a dozen subjects where prescribed reading is little followed, less believed and added to the list purely as "filler".

Finally, with reference to the top two paragraphs in this section, the second makes unhelpful implications. It is muddled and unclear. Perhaps a third way should be sought by which each point is elaborated, avoiding verbosity, but so that both sides are satisfied. Xmas1973 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Xmas1973

I dismissed the request by Smith because it was not reasonable. The reason it’s not reasonable is because it has already been addressed numerous times, and thus serves only as a distraction, a diversion. If you bother to go up and read you will see all the supporting evidence that back ups the claims that Prof. Gao is more than qualified to speak on this subject.

You say that his research interests "could amount to little more than light reading in BBC history Magazine,' and that the required reading that many colleges assign for his book on Chinese history and politics in their highly regarded history classes on China, could be "little followed, less believed, and added purely as "filler." Well, these speculations about possibilities are not logical to the point it makes here. There is a lot of "maybe's" but what we do know is that his texts ARE assigned reading at reputable colleges History courses on China. And that is the point. It’s not refuted by pointing out that maybe they are only "fluff." So what? You might say that its 'filler" but why choose his works as 'filler,"--esp. if his research into China's history and politics might only at the level of "light reading in BBC history magazine.' Illogical. But, I happen to know that his assigned textbook in the History course taught at Reed College's Hist 320, for examples is not "little followed, less believed, or added purely as "filler." I know this because I've been in this class, not that there should be any reason to speculate along these lines in the first place, esp. not at highly regarded college like Reed's: [1]. The textbook, btw is: Gao, Mobo, Gao Village: A Portrait of Rural Life in Modern China, Stanford Univ Press; (February 1991) ISBN: 0804718881

As far as his research in China's politics could be "light reading in BBC history magazine," that is also a "could be" that is also not true.

Some of his scholarly publications by Prof. Gao that are in these peer reviewed journals, concerning the CR:

• Gao, Mobo C. F. "Maoist Discourse and a Critique of the Present Assessments of the Cultural Revolution." Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 26.3 (1994);
• "Memoirs and Interpretation of the Cultural Revolution." Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 27.1 (1995);
• "Debating the Cultural Revolution: Do We Only Know What We Believe?" Critical Asian Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 2002).

Other notable facts are that he is regularly featured in scholarly conferences on this topic. For example: "Roundtable: China Studies 40 Years After the Cultural Revolution Discussants: Mobo Gao, University of Tasmania, Australia; Emily Honig, University of California at Santa Cruz; Dongping Han, Warren Wilson College; Zheng Wang, University of Michigan; Michael Dutton, University of Melbourne, Australia; Gary Sigley, University of Western Australia, Australia 2006 marks the 40th anniversary of an event that has profoundly affected both the P.R.C. and China Studies’ understanding of the Mao and post-Mao era: the Cultural Revolution. This international roundtable brings together distinguished scholars of both the era and of the field of China Studies itself, to reflect on current CR scholarship and its consequences for our knowledge of China and for China Studies.See: http://www.aasianst.org/absts/2006abst/China/C-108.htm. He is also currently working on a book on the topic of Mao the man, the Cultural Revolution, the Mao era and the post-Mao reform. In that book he has two chapters detailing criticism of this book.

Finally, if you read his bio on the university site, you saw that it reports "Gao is a frequent speaker on topics of...contemporary Chinese politics and culture at universities such as Oxford, Harvard, Washington Seattle, Hong Kong and mainland China. He has appeared on ABC radio and BBC television and radio commenting on China and Chinese affairs." No doubt Oxford, Harvard, etc. invite him to speak on these topics as "filler" because of his light reading in BBC history Magazine.Giovanni33 21:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, as I believe I asked before, how is a book on modern China (the textbook you mentioned) relevant to a discussion on Mao Zedong?

About his appearance on talk shows. Jung Chang has appeared in the media commenting on Chinese issues other than her book - she was actually scheduled to appear on the first ever (and only) broadcast of the BBC's Question Time from Shanghai, until she had to drop out at the last minute. Does that make her qualified to answer any and all questions on China? I'm just curious what you think, because various people on wikipedia would say nothing she ever says is worth listening to.

You're also ignoring his point about the composition of the two suggested entries, which actually is far more important. John Smith's 21:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring anything and your question about Chang being interviewed is not relevant since this is not the sum total of Dr. Gao's experience. He is an academic within the field of China Studies who writes in peer reviewed journals on the subject--that is why he is called upon for interviews, etc. Chang is known for making sensationalistic claims and author of this best seller that the western media hyper promotes--a major intellectual scandal. As far as Goa's text and Mao, how is his text book NOT relevant to Mao? He is currently working on a book that is all about Mao specifically, as well. To study modern Chinese history is to study the policies of Mao Tse-Tung.Giovanni33 21:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"your question about Chang being interviewed is not relevant since this is not the sum total of Dr. Gao's experience"

It is actually perfectly relevant, because you raised the issue of his appearance on media shows. Either appearing on something like that indicates something or it doesn't. I think your last response shows you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

You are still ignoring his last paragraph - I say that because you are not addressing it. I think you could do him the courtesy of replying on that point given he is a newcomer to the conversation.

"To study modern Chinese history is to study the policies of Mao Tse-Tung."

It is quite possible to study modern Chinese history after his death and not be especially knowledgable on Mao. I know some people who know incredible amounts of information on Chinese politics from the early 1980s onwards (in some cases because they lived there at that time), yet have little to say about Mao. John Smith's 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, having fathomed my way through the unique intracacies of your spelling, punctuation and grammar, and before referring to all the points you address, hopefully at a later stage, I have just one thing to say: writing your own articles hardly counts as research. Before you burst forth in indignation, hear me out. One *assumes* that someone would undertake research before submitting an article, but the existence of the article is not in and of itself proof that research has been undertaken. (I am talking about Gao's articles above.)

As far as the rest goes, I shall comment when you do me the courtesy of addressing how we resolve the issue of the topmost paragraphs in this section. As things stand, Gao (as mentioned in the second description) fills ill in the surroundings. Logically and linguistically, the way it has been phrased leaves a lot to be desired.

My point about the BBC History magazine was in jest. I suggest if you cannot take the convivial yet sincere tone in which most Wikipedians conduct themselves then you should approach things with a more open mind. That way fewer arguments would arise.Xmas1973 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Xmas1973

Nowhere is this section ("13 All change") are Assoc. Prof. Gao's qualifications adequately addressed. I think we should resolve this finally before proceeding. Xmas1973 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Xmas1973

No, but if you read further up you will see all this has been talked about before. No one questions his credencials after that, except Smith, who pretends not to see anything but his work on language.Giovanni33 22:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Xmas is questioning his credentials - at the very least he wants you to discuss them with him, rather than expect him to trapse through a very messy discussion above. John Smith's 22:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point about the assumptions we make when a scholar publishes scholarly material within his field of research, in a peer reviewed academic jounal goes without saying. But there is no logical reason to question that unstated premise--this he did in fact do the research that his papers indicate. The papers themselves, their subjects, the bibliography, references, etc. and where they are published, provide sufficient evidence to support such a logical assumption. We need not be concerned about it, unless you have evidence that his research is not what it looks like, similarly, with the other speculative 'possibilities" you mention above re "filler, BBC History, etc. Unless this point is also in jest?

I agree that we should stick to more relevant issues, such as the exact wording of how to report the above. As I explained before: We are quoting the article that it references. The article says it was discussed by Gao and Katz. That is important to include. So we should include that bit of info. It goes on to paraphrase Katz. We report that, quoting it. We report the actual topic the session was on, that means the name of the session, i.e. "on the distortion of history." That is important. I am not asking for anything more than these things. The raising of 'implications" being made--when even if they are being made are accurate--is not a valid reason to not report what this article reports, concerning these two quaified academics about Chang's book. The legitimate issue that has been rasied which can easily be fixed is to add in the bit about it being an academic conference.Giovanni33 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"The article says it was discussed by Gao and Katz. That is important to include."

Why? As I keep saying, the point of the article is to put across a point made by someone who can be quoted (or paraphrased) from the article - that would be Professor Ross. The fact Gao was there is irrelevant for the purposes of this article unless he is going to be quoted on something (assuming one believes his words are worth having). By they way, why do you keep calling her Kaz - you don't know her personally, do you?

"We report the actual topic the session was on, that means the name of the session... That is important."

Why is it important? The article isn't about the conference, it's about a book and opinions of it. One of the reasons I objected to this in the first place was that you seemed to be using it almost to give prestige to the comments by the fact it was at this conference/even giving a profile to the conference itself. That isn't what we should be doing, we should simply say the opinion given with the briefest of comments as to where it came from. My version is completely neutral because it doesn't even begin to make a song-and-dance about the seminar/conference. John Smith's 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The point of this article, and this section in particular, is to give the reader the full breath and scope of scholarly reactions to this book. Giving the full context of the conference, including the fact that it was discussed by both Gao and Katz, who both talked about this book, is information that adds value to the article. It allows a reader such as myself to find out and contact Gao, and find out that he is currently working on a book that has two chapters on Mao: the Unknown Story. When we quote the article we should do it in context. That context includes a discussion by both these academics, even if we only quote one. Similarly, to report on the topic of the session gives context to the nature of the talks and presentations provided for by these academics. It doesn't give "prestige' in any way. It gives information that informs the reader of the context and subject matter where these discussion were held and why.Giovanni33 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

While I dread the thought of participating in this conversation, which is already more than insane, I feel some responsibility to do so.
1. Giovanni has tremendously more than adequately demonstrated Gao's credentials. Stanford University Press doesn't publish bullshit/unqualified authors.
2. Gao's credentials as a modern Chinese historian are vastly more than Jung Chang, who does not even have a history PhD. It would be unbalanced to exclude Gao's name from the article without writing a section in the article about the credentials (and lack thereof) of the authors of Mao: The Untold Story.
3. The comment about Giovanni's poor proofreading was a cheap shot demonstrative of immaturity, especially considering that John Smith's does no better in his writing.
4. So much of this argument can be attributed to viewing editing with an "either/or" attitude instead of a "both/and" one. I find this incredibly frustrating--you guys keep spinning in circles around each other. Giovanni gives the name of the session while John wants to say what the conference was about. How about this: "In a session entitled '...' at a conference on the Cultural Revolution..." That sort of compromise makes perfect sense. A similar example is the designation of the speakers. Giovanni wrote their specialty, while John wrote their university. Why not both? "Professor of East Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania."
5. I will admit that it would be nice if Giovanni could cite a source in addition to the webpage on this conference. You could even mention that a book criticizing Chang is coming out; name who is publishing it and the expected release date.
6. I find it unpleasantly ironic that John keeps talking about how Giovanni's paragraph isn't concise enough. The paragraph is longer because Giovanni needed to write a paragraph that addressed all of John's concerns about the context of the quote and the qualifications of the speakers.
I hope and pray that everyone can stop banging their heads against the wall on this one. --Bgaulke 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bgaulke for your comments. I completely agree with everything you said above, and I am more than happy to accomodate the proposed compromises you suggest, which are logical and much better than debating what are essentially red herrings.Giovanni33 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So once again you refuse to compromise, eh Giovanni? Quit ignoring relevant points being made. Each time you run away and refuse to answer them because to do so is to undermine your position. If you are so confident about your version, respond to the points both I and Xmas have made. If you continue to ignore them I can only assume you know you cannot answer them, so seem to bypass the argument by latching on to what others say. John Smith's 09:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The Stanford University Press book is about modern China, not Mao or historical Chinese politics. Just because Stanford thought he did a good job on one topic doesn't mean they think he would automatically be well positioned on another one. Also I doubt any publisher is infallible.

2. Philip Short doesn't have a PhD in history, yet there are no such caveats when he is mentioned. The point is that both he and Chang wrote on Mao - plus Chang has her husband (a Prof) to back her up. I'm also slightly confused - does Gao have a PhD in History?

3. I resent the accusation I write no better than Giovanni - I do not splurge text in one big paragraph.

4. I do not think we should talk about the seminar at all. The point about the conference is a general point, like when we say Andrew Nathan was writing in the London Review of Books - we don't say he was on page such-and-such, in a certain sub-section. That's where the citation comes in - people can follow the link.

6. Giovanni's paragraph was not drawn up with me in mind. He lifted it from the article, after snipping out a bit in the middle. So you are mistaken. John Smith's 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At very least, the choice of paragraphs above needs enlarging. Let's put our heads together for a third option, a compromise, with enough information on the one hand and relevant detail on the other to satisfy all concerned.

1. At a 2006 conference on the Cultural Revolution, Professor Kaz Ross of the University of Tasmania commented that "the Chang-Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' — fiction with a cloak of facts."

2. In the session titled the "Struggles Over Representation of History," concerning the distortions of history and representation of Mao, the Chang and Halliday book was discussed by Professor of Chinese Studies, Gao Mobo, and Professor of Asian Studies, Kaz Ross, who advanced the opinion that "the Chang-Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' — fiction with a cloak of facts."

3. At a 2006 conference on the Cultural Revolution, in a session titled the "Struggles Over Representation of History," concerning the distortions of history and representation of Mao, the Chang and Halliday book was discussed by Professor of Chinese Studies, Gao Mobo, and Professor of Asian Studies, Kaz Ross; Ross then advanced the opinion that "the Chang—Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' - fiction with a cloak of facts."

This latest version incorporates both mention of Gao and identifies Ross as the sole utterer of the statement. It can then be argued out elsewhere Gao's opinion of connivance (or otherwise) at this statement. Xmas1973 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Xmas1973

Xmas, I think you're on to something. But I certainly would not say the distortions - that is not neutral enough. I would say "alleged distortions", as that is more neutral. Also I would prefer a shorter version, maybe something like:

At a 2006 conference on the Cultural Revolution, in a session titled the "Struggles Over Representation of History" (concerning alleged distortions of history and representations of Mao), Professor Kaz Ross of the University of Tasmania advanced the opinion that "the Chang—Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' - fiction with a cloak of facts." Brackets are certainly required to keep the flow going. John Smith's 12:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "alleged" fits well here, since the participants were discussing distortions (and whether something is or is not a distortion), not alleged distrotions (and whether something has or has not been alleged to be a distortion).

In any case, I don't think the qualifier is needed if you are just trying to say that Chang-Halliday may or may not be distortions. The average reader should be smart enough to figure out that being discussed at a certin conference does not conclusively define the nature of your work. --Sumple (Talk) 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The distortions" doesn't work that well either. How about "(discussing distortion of History and representations of Mao)"? John Smith's 12:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see some progress. I'm ok with adding Smith's suggestions above, giving us: At a 2006 conference on the Cultural Revolution, in a session titled the "Struggles Over Representation of History," discussing distortions of history and representation of Mao, the Chang and Halliday book was discussed by Professor of Chinese Studies, Gao Mobo, and Professor of Asian Studies, Kaz Ross; Ross advanced the opinion that "the Chang—Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' - fiction with a cloak of facts."Giovanni33 21:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That isn't quite what I was thinking of. I actually think we could trim it a bit - no one cares what the seminar is called, though it might be useful to know what they were talking about.

"At a 2006 conference on the Cultural Revolution, during a seminar on distortion of History and representations of Mao, Professor Kaz Ross of the University of Tasmania advanced the opinion that "the Chang—Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' - fiction with a cloak of facts." John Smith's 23:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to make sense to me. Giovanni, if you want to include Gao Mobo (and I think you should), I suggest that you provide some sort of statement that he has made about the book. Just dropping his name by saying that he was at this seminar doesn't help a whole lot. For all the reader would know, Gao might have been disagreeing with Ross's assessment--which he wasn't. --Bgaulke 01:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Prof. Gao says essentially the same thing as Kaz, they both share the same POV, and agreed with each other at the confrence. Gao infact states, "the book is not scholarship by any meaningful standard, it is a fiction dressed up as history." However, I don't see any of these papers published anywhere on the internet. It is verifiable through request of any of the scholars attending the confrence, including its organizer. About Dr. Gao's book, we can maybe mention he is working on a book about Mao that will contain two chapters on this book, but there is no release date at this time, and this fact is only verifiable by contacting the Prof. himself (as far as I can tell). About the above, stating he is a prof. of Chinese studies, I think, is better than writing in which Univerisity he teaches at; that info can be obtained from the link.Giovanni33 08:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, stop repeating yourself over Gao agreeing with Ross - by the way, please stop calling her "Katz". Her name is Kaz Ross, so call her Ross, Professor Ross, etc. You need to provide a source to what Gao said - readers do not necessarily know what you do, and it is against wikipedia rules to "assert" personal knowledge or say "all you have to do is e-mail him". If his views aren't accessible then that is unfortunate, but there is nothing we can do about it.

This is not the place to talk about Gao's book - that is for his wikipedia article if one is written and evidence can be provided he is working on it.

As to Ross' "title", you have to mention the university at the very least, even if their department is also listed. John Smith's 10:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it Giovanni, but I think John Smith's is right on this one. If you can't cite a place where Gao says something about the book, then he doesn't belong on this page. Can you at least cite an article that Gao wrote that is published already? --Bgaulke 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article itself that reports what Kaz said, also reports that Gao discussed the book---it says they both did. The only thing is that this source doesn't say what Gao said, only it implies (accurately) that they agreed with each other. That is as much as I wanted to include here, but the question of including something that Gao says, in his paper, or his upcoming book about Mao, I think can be mentioned, as well because the standard is verifiability. Many things can't linked because they don't exist in link form anywhere, yet with a little research given the information we already know form the linked source, anyone can verify that the other possible statements we might want to include are accurate. There is no rule about how this is to be verfied. There are many ways. If we are going to report what University Gao is from, then this makes it easy for anyone to contact him to verify the claims I've made here. Maybe we should review the policy on this matter; I'm sure its come up before.Giovanni33 07:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these polices about self-published sources might be relevant here: For good reason they are generally not accepted (blogs, any personal website, their own paper, etc). However, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." Dr. Gao would fit into the acceptable category.

Also: "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." Giovanni33 07:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the self-published source? Giovanni, this is the whole point - you have repeatedly failed to provide any verifiable, accessible sources on Gao's views on the book. It is not enough to expect people to go research things themselves. Really if you keep refusing to back down or help us out then it's not going to do you any good. John Smith's 14:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"The only thing is that this source doesn't say what Gao said, only it implies (accurately) that they agreed with each other. That is as much as I wanted to include here, but the question of including something that Gao says, in his paper, or his upcoming book about Mao, I think can be mentioned, as well because the standard is verifiability." Giovanni, this is an exceedingly secretive way of a) conducting research and b) sharing it. The most intellectually dishonest part, to my mind, is "that is as much as I wanted to include here". A lot less of the above discussion would have happened if you'd been willing to share this information sooner and more openly. Xmas1973 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Intellectually dishonest? Again, if you had bothered to actually follow this discussion from the beginning you would have known that I had already said this from the begining. You've never edited this article and have only jumped in now, which appears to be, only to attack me and act as a shill for John Smith. Your role here has not been helpful and I quesiton your true purpose. I hope you stop with the peronal attacks and be more constructive.Giovanni33 09:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The very mention of Gao at this level, when you are withholding information and where, by your own admission, what he says is merely implicit, is unhelpful. I therefore propose that we leave him out unless you can show more demonstratively how he fits in relevantly and on the proviso that you provide an accessible source putting forward Gao's views on the book, as has been requested of you reasonably by John Smith's. Xmas1973 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that, as it stands, it seems best to leave Gao out of the article. I will protest the accusations being made against Giovanni by Xmas1973 and John Smith's, who both insist on using unnecessarily heated rhetoric to paint him as someone who is deceptive, conniving, and solely responsible for the length of this conversation, when he is really none of those things. I would have to hold both sides of the argument equally liable for how long it has taken us to make progress on this issue. --Bgaulke 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I do resent the personal attacks by Xmas1973, which itself casts doubt on his motivations concerning editing of this article. Back to the issue, I think we can include the fact that both Gao and Kaz discussed this book, exactly as reported by the source; the source of this article felt it was important to report on the discussion by Gao and Kaz, even if it only quoted the latter, and I agree its noteworthy. The fact that this book was discussed by both these academics in this context is relevant to this article. Let those readers who are intersted contact Gao and find out the info that I did. We need not include it here only because, as of now, we don't have a good source, but his mention in the context of the session on the book is, contrary to what Xmas asserts, very helpful, and completely honest. Also, it would be rather trivial to have Gao post information to a personal blog, and then I'd hope there would not be any objections. I'll contact him and ask if this would be a possibility. For now, though, I propose just reporting what the source reports.Giovanni33 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, are you going to keep going around in circles until we get bored and just agree with you so you will stop repeating yourself? We keep telling you, it is not enough to expect people to find out things for themselves. I'm going to ask the page be unlocked - you've had enough time to come up with something. John Smith's 11:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It was Ross, not "Kaz" [sic] who made the reports above. But I'm glad this issue is close to being resolved. I retract the barb from my earlier comments, but would stand by the fact that it would be extremely disconcerting to be told as a user of Wikipedia to contact a source for further views. The relevant point should either be elaborated within Wikipedia's editorial policy and thereby contained in the article or not included at all.

Also, would quoting from a personal blog not flout inclusion guidelines on source material? (I ask this as a genuine question and not to stir things up.) Xmas1973 13:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Xmas - no, I don't think it would be possible to quote from a personal blog. John Smith's 13:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not a good source, since there's very little guarantee what has been written is true. --Deskana (ya rly) 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is unprotected now... --Deskana (ya rly) 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Per policy, they ARE acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. I quoted the policy above, already. There is nothing disconerting about doing research based on information that is provided within Wikipedia. That is basic. Wikipedia is not and can not be the source for all information about any topic. The reader, if interested, must do further reasearch, and WP can be a guide for this. The relevant point to be elaborated in WP is to simply report the infomation we have from the verifiable source itself. This should not be a controversial proposition, and I insist we follow it here.Giovanni33 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've worded it thusly:

"At a 2006 conference on the Cultural Revolution, during a seminar on distortion of History and representations of Mao, the Chang and Halliday book was discussed by academics from the University of Tasmania: Professor of Chinese Studies, Dr. Gao Mobo, and Professor of Asian Studies, Kaz Ross; Professor Kaz Ross stated that "the Chang—Halliday book was only the latest in the genre of 'faction' - fiction with a cloak of facts."Giovanni33 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not good enough. I guess you're doing this because he's your ex-tutor or something. There is no need to mention him - it just adds unnecessary length to the article. John Smith's 11:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given the reasons to mention him. He is a qualified academic who discussed the book in the context of distortions of history with Prof. Ross Kat, and this allows the reader to do further research and obtain his papers and review of the mattere, as well as find out his is comign out with a book that contains two chapters this book.Giovanni33 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reasons to mention him are invalid in this situation. This is not an article on Gao or the conference he attended. Unless he has something quotable and citable to say about the book, as Hong would say "for sake of brevity" he should not be mentioned. John Smith's 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, my ratinale is valid. There is no rule that limits the mention of an academic to actual quotes. The fact that he discused the book in the context mentione with the other professor who we do quote is worthy of inclusion for the reaons previously explained. Brevity is good, but its already breif.Giovanni33 22:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he discussed it would be relevant *IF* you then go on to give a soundbite from that time and place emanating from the lips of Gao. That this is missing means Gao should be omitted from this article as it stands. Following John Smith's above, for brevity's sake, but for clarity's sake as well, Gao does not belong in the discussion at this point. Many people were there, and may have agreed with Ross's analysis, but their contribution is neither noteworthy nor relevant. This is where Gao falls.

Also, what is your issue with the words "East Asian" that you and your crowd seem so keen on deleting? Xmas1973 23:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is relevant information even without quoting Gao. Why do you think the author of the article we cite mentions Dr. Gao in this context without quoting him? Because its important and relevant information about an academic in his speciality talking about this book. What he says can be found out by some research. As of now we can't quote Gao because we are lacking a source, but that is not reason not to provide the information we do have from the sources we do have, i.e. that he discussed the book at this conference and context. You wanting to supress that because of a lack of an actual quote on the pretext of brevity is not convincing.

About the "East Asian" bit, I reject that as POV pushing to diminish the standard of critical views to only those scholars of "East Asia." This is simply inaccurate and not very relevant. It doesnt matter where these scholars are from as long as they are qualified scholars. Putting in "East Asia" adds more bias than it does important info.Giovanni33 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "East Asian" edit is not an invalid point. Most of the criticism listed in the article has not come from East Asians. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but I speak on my own behalf and not for anyone else who made that edit. Xmas1973 09:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE, for the love of Allah, answer questions put to you about Gao's inclusion. You seem to have ducked most recently behind the smoke screen that was the "East Asian" debate and successfully skirted round the rather more important issue of Gao. I refer you to the final posts made by John Smith's and myself last night supra. Xmas1973 09:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This also concerns Hong's chopping of comments in the "support" section. Hong, you complain about brevity yet you unnecessarily extend the last comment to include Gao. This shows you are being hypocritical. You can't do both and yet claim to be following the same principle. As I explained previously, there are 6 "commentators" in each slot, so there's nothing wrong for each to be roughly the same length. Now, if the page is unprotected are you going to insist on chopping those bits again?

As to the "East Asian" bit, Sumple has suggested "East Asian studies scholars" - does anyone have a better suggestion? John Smith's 11:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like that, but just to remove all doubt for those too slow to grasp the point - please do not take this as a personal slight and delete it, anyone! - how about "scholars of East Asian studies"?

And don't think these last few comments have made me forget about the debate about Gao's inclusion. Xmas1973 11:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on the book involved both Kaz and Gao. To only mention Kaz without mentioning Gao would be really intellectually dishonest. I wholly support keeping Gao in the section. As for the "East Asian" bit, if we all recognise that most of the criticism given about the book is actually not East Asian, I don't see a problem at all with just stating that "scholars" had questioned the validity of the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it "intellectually dishonest"? I would say it's unneccessary. John Smith's 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I just explained why it's intellectually dishonest? Like I said, both Gao and Kaz were in that discussion. Their names were specifically mentioned in the source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't really explain. Just because Gao was there doesn't make it dishonest to ignore him, as we cannot quote him on what he said. If anything it would be dishonest to mention him but only have a quote for Professor Ross. Also how do we know those were the only two people there? Doesn't seem like much of a forum for discussion if the only people that attended were two people from the same university with the same ideas, etc - sounds more like it was the academic equivalent of a kangaroo court. John Smith's 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat - the source specifically mentions both Gao and Kaz. If the source feels it necessary to mention Gao, then it would be intellectually dishonest for us not to do the same. Whether or not they are the only two people there are irrelevant, the article does not say that they are the only two people there. The article only reflects the source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Hong on both these points. To limit the wording to only "east Asian" scholars is simply not accurate and introduces bias even if it were true (which its not), as it implies that there are different standards based on geography for scholars in this field. Its not relevant where scholars are from--its the academic standards and their respective field of expertise that matters.Giovanni33 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By calling them scholars of East Asian studies, i) it does not introduce geographical standards to where they individually come from, ii) if anything it focuses their fields of expertise to be relevant to the matter in hand and iii) it reduces bias. There are explicitly *no* geographical standards imputed to these commentators. Indeed, by focusing their efforts on East Asian studies, they are all the more qualified, academically or otherwise, to be included.

Hong Qi Gong, or whoever you are, intellectual dishonesty applies far more to trying to sneak Gao into Ross's statement above. That debate has been resolved above (insofar as Ross is the sole attributee of the quotation involving "faction"), so I see no place for that term in further (reputable) discussion now. Xmas1973 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What you see and the reality of what others see are two quite different things. Gao is not being sneaked into Ross's statement. Gao discussed this book as well as Ross. Not quoting the former is does not equate to him saying the same things we quote as the latter saying. The context of this discussion by two academics on the subject of the Chang book is relevant. You introduce a straw man fallacy when you make the issue about who to attribute the quote to. That is not the issue. The issue is the relevance and importance of mentioning accurately the context of the discussion which took place by BOTH these academics concerning this book. That fact itself is important even if we only quote one. East Asian studies is not the correct term. I would say Historians and scholars of China studies. But, when we say scholars it is already assumed that their scholarship would be for the relevant academic fields.Giovanni33 18:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you did me the courtesy of reading my posts, accurately, in full and watching out for tenses, you would note that I did not say Gao was still being sneaked in anywhere. Any objective observer would be able to note that this had happened in the past, more through misunderstanding than deliberate ploy, but you are skirting the issue by pinning blame on me. I am introducing no straw men. I hope we can proceed more profitably from here. Xmas1973 19:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the edit that I object to is calling them "East Asian scholars" - as most of the criticism listed in the article are actually not from East Asians. Do we have sources to say that each and every one of the criticism comes from scholars who are considered scholars of "East Asian studies"? We're applying a label to them that is not necessarily backed up by evidence. Secondly, I think it's self-evident by the discussion here that the Gao issue is most definitely not resolved. Thirdly, if you want to question my identity or whether or not I'm using sockpuppets, just keep a watch on the relevant check user request. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is everyone on mogadon today? The only point I said had been resolved was that Ross was the only utterer of the relevant quotation above. We have yet to decide on Gao's inclusion per se. In future I shall have to spell things out for some participants in this discussion!

We'd moved on from "East Asian scholars" as a verbatim tag. I see your grievance with it, and that is why I proffered "scholars of East Asian studies" as an alternative. Before it is finally shot down, let's talk this point through calmly. Xmas1973 19:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that the criticism listed all come from scholars that are identified as scholars of "East Asian studies"? If not, we can't make that edit. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Xmas, note how quiet Giovanni has got now the page is locked in his favour. He was on here so frequently last time - now he is strangely busy elsewhere...... John Smith's 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A little good faith never hurt anyone. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't remember the last time he showed me any - such as his refusal to accept I don't use sockpuppets. John Smith's 10:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page again for 2 weeks. Use this time to discuss here instead of planning how to revert again. -- ReyBrujo 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see everyone intends to revert war. Well, this page will stay protected until you agree. No objections, no technicalities, no appeals. Protected until disputes are resolved. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets / Checkuser

All parties may be interested in reading Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/John Smith's. I formulated this from a comment that Giovanni made about the possibility of Xmas being a sock of John Smith's. Digging up evidence has shown some interesting correlation. Also of note is that Giovanni has also been counter-accused of sockpuppetry, as I noticed evidence that he was using one too. This page serves as a check for both users. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to change anything, Deskana. They'll still claim I'm sockpuppeting even when it's proved those people aren't me. John Smith's 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey don't make any assumptions about what I'm thinking. I didn't request those user checks, and I didn't think you were the anonymous editor from Hungary anyway. But that's very interesting rhetoric here coming from someone who's been requesting user checks himself on me and Giovanni. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni has a history of using sockpuppets - as for you, well you listed one against me "to clear things up", so I was only doing the same in regards to you.

Though it would be nice for you to assert you will believe the results of the check - I didn't dispute the one made against you. John Smith's 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right. But unlike you, I never complained that you won't believe the checkuser results. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So answer this question - do you believe the results? John Smith's 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how much hand-holding do you require? Of course I believe the results. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I require people to make clear statements so I can hold them to those comments in the future. If you think a request to be specific is "hand-holding" then there's something wrong with you. John Smith's 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try something

I propose we try something. It's quite a harsh way of doing things, but to be honest, you're all going round in circles. It's possibly a bit against the wiki philosophy, but I can't see anything else working, and this will only work if you all agree to it. What I propose is the following steps...

1. All involved parties discuss matters of conflict with each other, until they feel that they'll never reach a solution.
2. As soon as the above occurs, you contact me, and all involved parties state their views. All other editors either Support it, Oppose it, or are Neutral. There will be no commenting on other people's statements, to avoid arguments, but every single person will have the right to make their own statement.
3. I will propose a few solutions based on relevant policies. This will more than likely not be one person's views, but a combination of them. People can Support, Oppose or be Neutral as before.
4. In the end, I can, if needed, impose a binding decision based on one of the proposals as outlined above. Hopefully this step won't be necessary as you can all agree on one of the compromises.

This is a rather drastic way of doing things, but we're going nowhere. This will only work if everyone agrees to it, because I can't (potentially) impose binding solutions. This'll probably take place on some article talk subpage.

So what do you all say? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, this is my attempt at mediating the dispute, and mediation obviously only works if everyone agrees to it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of above proposal

Sounds like a good idea. We aren't getting anywhere - the only other solution Deskana has is that we're all banned from editing the article. John Smith's 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be unduly optimistic but is there any way we can avoid reaching a stalemate as proposed at step 1 above? I notice Giovanni33 is maintaining an effective silence. Please can we all try to have one last stab at cracking this nut? Xmas1973 22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please chip in if you think there is anything else, but I see the main sticking points as follows:

1. inclusion of Gao when referring to criticism of the Chang and Halliday book;
2. reference to "East Asian" in relation to the scope of those who have reviewed the book

[I for one a prepared to let this latter point drop as whilst a lot of the people mentioned are scholars in the field, a significant number of others are general (for want of a better word) pundits with an international remit]. Xmas1973 09:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3. agreement all round not to prolong the edit war by making niggling or even slowly encroaching changes to the final text (pending new developments on the factual or scholarly fronts) once we have (potentially) settled the issues. Xmas1973 11:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we should come up with a final version that we can all agree with, correct? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So no more edit waring about these two issues means we leave the current text on these two points unchanged until we reach consensus for any accepted changes here. In essense, these to points are to be in that same status as now "protected" on the honor system, and we open up the rest of the article to improvement/editing. I'd support this.Giovanni33 18:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I made that point about edit-warring in my earlier post, Giovanni! And no, protection does not amount to any endorsement whatsoever of the current version, so I dislike your proposal intensely. It is slovenly, cowardly and worst of all unfair. A better option, fairer all round, would be to start with a blank canvas, and then debate the earlier points, ironing out as best we can the issues above. At that point we review whether we have to follow Deskana's arbitration policy.

Hong, you've got it spot on. John, are you happy with that? Xmas1973 20:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that we need to agree on a final version.

I also object to Giovanni's suggestion about leaving the two points as they are now because they are the entire reason the page was locked. He didn't suggest that when Gao was not included, so it is rather manipulative to suggest this now they are to his liking. The page should stay locked until we agree on how to address these important points. John Smith's 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not an endorsement of the current version. You can read what you want into what version the page was protected on, but once more, page protection is not an endorsement of the current version. End of discussion. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni appears to be refusing to take part in the arbitration. So does that mean you will ban him from editing the article if he does not respect the final view? I don't see how we can move forward if he keeps digging his heels in. John Smith's 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the authority to ban editors. Only Jimbo, the arbitration committee, or the community as a whole can ban users. I think an RfC is in order, but right now I don't have the time to organise one. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in RfC, as it's not binding and Giovanni has shown he is not willing to change his mind. We have already gone through the first four steps of dispute resolution. So if anything we should be heading to arbitration - it's the only way to resolve this once and for all. At the least we need mediation with an agreement from all parties that the mediator can make a final decision. Unless of course it is possible for a RfC to be binding (again assuming the editors agree to it being binding).

Also I am wary of the page protection being lifted just on the Gao matter. Giovanni is cooking up a storm on the Jung Chang page by insisting on inclusion of another link. Even if we can somehow resolve the Gao issue, it is clear he will insist on adding the unofficial book review after protection is lifted. So we need to tie the two issues together to ensure they are dealt with at the same time, even if they are to be resolved separately. John Smith's 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, you and Giovanni have been "disagreeing" with each other on more than just this article and Jung Chang. You two have also been at it on Cultural Revolution, Theory of everything, The War Against the Jews, and who knows what other articles. The real issue here seems to be more than a content dispute, it seems you two just can't seem to agree with each other. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't get along, which is why we need something that gives a firm judgment. Otherwise it is just a waste of time. John Smith's 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so do you feel the issue has elevated beyond simple content disputes? This is an honest question because personally I can comment on the dispute for this particular article, but I don't think I know enough about the other disputes to be much help in any mediation efforts. And these multiple-article disagreements don't exactly lend the most support for good faith assumption toward the two of you - meaning it's easy for someone to think that you and Giovanni might be disagreeing with each other on more than the strength of the content itself, maybe you're disagreeing with each other just because you don't like each other. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I am willing to discuss the facts, but I feel Giovanni's attitude towards me clouds his judgement. If I disagreed with something because he did, I would not have included the reference by Professor Ross. John Smith's 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For me its always been about simple and honest content disputes--on my part. I can not speak for John Smith's intentions although I assume good faith. However, I do dislike the contant personal attacks by him and his new friends against me, even if it takes the form of indirect, inuendo, etc. I would ask him to only comment on the issues, instead of editors. I don't like the wikistalking, either. Giovanni33 21:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, can you at least say whether you accept or reject Deskana's proposal, please. John Smith's 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am undecided on the matter at this time but I'm inclinded to reject it on principal, specifically the imposition of a binding solution - although I appreciate his efforts to resolve this. I think non binding mediation by 3rd parties or a Rfc, should be tried first. As Hong suggests, I think you are making this more about a dispute with me than with the content itself.Giovanni33 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we would just be wasting time with non-binding action, but if that's the way you want to play it then fair enough. And I really couldn't care less about you yourself - I object to your edits. John Smith's 22:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, then stop talking about me constantly, and focus on the content of the edits instead.Giovanni33 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, don't put words in my mouth. I think you've both contributed to elevating the issue beyond a content dispute in my opinion. And I wonder how long you two have been fueding before I even came into the discussion at this specific article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case

I have attempted to open an arbitration case regarding User:John Smith's and User:Giovanni33. This is relevant to this talk page as the two have been engaged in heated debate here. See this. I have also notified them directly. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's a shame, but I think it's the only way to get this resolved. Would be more efficient than having all the other non-binding steps (which I doubt would change anything) and then ending up with this. John Smith's 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion regarding a privately-published external link

The issue is whether this review should be included in the External Links section here.

See Talk:Jung Chang#"A Critique of J. Chang and J. Halliday’s Book" for detailed preceding discussion. --Sumple (Talk) 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Something not mentioned yet in the other talk page about this critique, is that in addition to the Chinese media publishing it and interviewing Ms. Chang about it, Prof. Gao actually mentions this in his paper and talk given at the conference. In the paper entiled Chinese Biographical and Memoir Writings about Mao, the Cultural Revolution and the Emerging Counter Acts in the E-Media on page 17 by Dr. Mobo Gao we find this: "Another widely circulate critique of Chang is by a science student Jin Xiaodong studying in the UK. Jin lists 17 questions of internal contractions within the book to challenge Chang, but Chang and her brother who participated the e-media exchange could not come up with any good answers."I thought this was interesting and speaks to the level of exposure this particular critique has received, esp. in the east.Giovanni33 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is all very well, but unless you have credible evidence for that statement it doesn't help. John Smith's 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I am not lying. If you don't believe me, then go and do your own research. Contrary to what you say, the point made by quoting this Prof. helps a lot in terms of understanding that this critique itself is not some relatively unknown, obscure essay but is actually somewhat noteworthy both within the Chinese media, which has published it, and conducted an interview with Chang about it, but also within the academic community. Despite some problems with the paper, these facts, tip the balance decidedly in its favor.Giovanni33 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, stop insisting people do research - I cannot assume good faith with you when you keep insisting people do this. Provide evidence if you want to rely on a point - it is ridiculous for you to insist you know something that you think makes or breaks the discussion and then refuse to supply it. John Smith's 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I did supply it. If you doubt it, then you do your own research and verify it. This is not going into the article, so I don't need to supply you with a link. I doubt anyone really doubts what I report as accurate, and you can blind yourself to this reality but it doesn't change the facts that I have given, nor the points it supports. And, yes, I do insist you and everyone do research in order to inform themselves. If they don't, then they should rather keep quiet. I note that you admit you can't assume good faith. However, I'd point out that this is not an option, but a requirement.Giovanni33 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If one acts in a certain way that is disruptive and mean-spirited, good faith cannot be assumed - that is simple logic. Your actions result in me being unable to assume good-faith. This can be seen by the fact you are still reverting the Jung Chang page despite the fact Sumple has said the link should go here if it does at all. If you want to show good faith, stop reverting and allow us to talk about it here. John Smith's 09:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterizatons, which itself is the result of a lack of good faith, that you then used to justify your stance of rejecting the requirement of assuming good faith. By your own logic, your own reverstions then are "distruptive and mean-spirited," so if you believe that then by your own logic you should stop reverting as well. I agree with Sumple that this is the better article for the link, but since its locked still, the other article is the second best choice. I'll agree to move it here once this page is unlocked. Until then, there is no reason to keep it out of the other relevent article. If you convince everyone here that keeping it out of the other article is correct, then I'll abide by that consensus. Why don't you get that consensus first before reverting?Giovanni33 19:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you get consensus before reverting? Oh right, because Giovanni doesn't have to gain consensus if he thinks he's right - that's for other people. John Smith's 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Your more out of consensus that I am. On the other page, I count three editors who refuted your objection of inaccuracy. You have failed to make any counter arguments, and so until you have more editors who agree with you on the point, you should not revert. And, instead of reverting and arguging about who is to blame for the edit war, why not simply stop yourself and INSTEAD discuss the actual merits of the content of link, and your objections--if any actually remain.Giovanni33 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy has nothing to do with this - the argument is whether it should be on the JC page. You are twisting the facts - Sumple said the link should go here and not there. I won't stop reverting because I have already tried to talk to you, and I know whatever I say you will ignore it. You are always right and if anyone disagrees with you they are always wrong. And even if the majority disagrees with you, you will make some tiny change and/or ignore that view. John Smith's 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if you concede your previous arguments, then are you now saying that you agree not to revert it once its placed on this article? Or will you find new objections once this one becomes moot? From the history of conflicts about different issues, this is what typically happens with you. Also, I am not twisting any fact--you are. Sumple never said the link should not go there. He said, and I quote: "It's more suitable for the book page." And, I agreed with him. The fact that it’s more suitable here doesn't preclude it from being there, as I've already argued, esp. when this page is protected. If you stop reverting, and agree to leave it on this page, then I'll be happy to agree to leave it out of the other article, once this article is unprotected. As far as your sweeping comments, which amount to personal attacks, they are ridiculous, false, and not worthy of a serious response.Giovanni33 00:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say I wouldn't revert just because it was placed here. I said that the page will not be unlocked without an agreement on how to proceed (unless someone changes Deskana's mind for him). The best way to resolve this - because once again we are at logger-heads and not getting anywhere in the discussion - is probably to include it in whatever dispute-resolution methods we take from now on. John Smith's 08:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If the issue for you really is that it doesn't belong on the other article but does belong on this one then why do you refuse to pledge non-reverting the link even when the link is left on this article? That suggests that you will actually still revert and thus, it also suggests that there are indeed other issues, contrary to what you claim (that your objectionis only about what article its on). If that is the case--and you have other objections (the which article issue then being really not the issue)-- then why not make your arguments, state your objections, instaead of simply saying you don't want it here and want someone else to do your thinking for you. Why don't you make your real objections known and attempt to resolve them before seeking mediation on this topic? Again, if your only objection is that it doesnn't belong on the JC article, then why can't you say you won't revert it on this article? Lets be honest and upfront about the real objections and discuss them.Giovanni33 18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link and mention of Professor Gao

This is a dispute about two issues:

1. Whether this link should be included on the external links/see other section of this page.

2. Whether in the "Response to the book#Criticism" section, reference should be made to Professor Gao Mobo's attendance at a 2006 conference. 10:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1. External link

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Do not include: I do not feel it should be included. It is made by a non-academic and the entry is highly POV (I expressed my concerns here. Furthermore whenever the author expresses an opinion on a section of the book, although he may provide a reference to that bit he will not provide any other sources to back up his own views. Thus is seems to me to be more of a rant that anything else and thus should not be included. Additionally the author of the review, Xiaodingjin, originally inserted the link on the Jung Chang page 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 10:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Include: I have expressed my opinion at [2] and [3]. I believe the review is relevant as a response to the book. It is also relevant in the sense that Jung Chang has responded to it, and the review has come to the notice of mainstream media (apparently). I do not agree that the author supplies no sources. The review does refer to some other sources, although not always in an academic style of citation. I do not think the review is likely to mislead readers so as to warrant exclusion. --Sumple (Talk) 10:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Include: I have argued this above, more than I should have to, so I won't go into detail here. To be brief, although the review is not by an academic, it is notable: has been published in the media, has been responded to by the author of the book in an interview, and has been cited in academic circles. This would almost make it suitable for the article itself, although I'm prefectly content with leaving it just in the external links section. It's points are well thought out and logical. It is referenced. It does not mislead the reader. The objection that it's POV is not relevent as that is one of the purposes of the external links section.Giovanni33 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments from other users

• Include: Firstly please note that my only involvement in this particular dispute was one singular revert to add this link back in the External links section of either Cultural Revolution or Jung Chang (it was a while ago and I don't remember which article). I have not actually participated in the discussion of this dispute and have not been following said discussion. I have read the paper and it's well thought-out. However, the fact that it was not published by an academic institution is duly noted and because of this, I do not believe it should be used as a source for the content of the article itself, in the form of inline referencing or otherwise. On the other hand, I do believe that it is worth including in the External links section though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Include: It seems like a useful resource to someone wanting to get a good overview of the criticisms of this book. I find the reasons listed by the others in support of inclusion to be quite compelling.--Bgaulke 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Do not include: This item seems to come from a biased non-academic, and the bias extends further than the mere material. When an author fights his or her way into the editorial sphere on his or her own work, neutrality can rarely be done and can never be seen to be done. Xmas1973 12:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I know you are repeating with John Smith says, but you should review the policy on External Links. Bias/POV,Nuetrality are NOT factors to be considered for this section.Giovanni33 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Include Of course the article is biased; it's a critique. From what I have read, it's very detailed in defending the author's perspective. You don't have to agree with the critique in order to see why it's worthy of inclusion. -- tariqabjotu 02:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Mention of Prof Gao

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Do not include: I do not believe that the reference to Professor Gao should be included. The section in question is reserved for comments on the book itself - Professor Gao may have expressed an opinion, but without a quotation from that article (or another) he should not be included and any reference to him is unnecessary. John Smith's 10:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Include: I have mentioned previously why I feel mention of Gao should be included, and the reason is simple - he was specifically mentioned by the source as one of two professors involved in a discussion session on the subject matter of this article (to book Mao: The Unknown Story). As it was relevant enough for the source to mention him by name, I feel that is a good enough reason we should do the same in this article. As far as I can tell, the most prominent objection to this is that opposing editors feel that it would be misleading to the readers that a particular quote included in the article would be mistakenly attributed to the other academic that was involved in the discussion session (Prof. Ross), but the article specifically writes "Professor Kaz Ross stated that...", and as such, I do not feel it is misleading to the readers at all to whom the quote is exactly attributed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have made it quite clear there's also the issue of brevity, as you yourself said when making other edits. The sub-section is on attitudes towards the book, not lengthy-descriptions of the environment they were expressed, etc. John Smith's 17:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Include: This is a very simple issue. It is simply a matter of reporting what the source says, accurately, and in full context--no more, no less. These two professors presented papers and discussions of this book at an academic conference. We should report that, esp. since they are relevant academics in their field to the subject matter of the book. That is valid information in itself as it allows the reader to do their research about what these academics think, and find out, as I did, that new book is coming out with two chapter on this book from Prof. Gao. By mentioning, accurately, the context as reported by the source, no one is mislead in anyway. Its clearly attributes the quote to Prof. Ka Ross in no unlclear terms. Likewise, censoring the sources report by not mentioning that Prof. Gao was involved in this presentation on the book under the guise of "brevity" should be rejected as its just adds only a couple more words, and provides userful information. It remains breif.Giovanni33 18:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Do not include: Knowledge of Professor Gao's presence on the panel is insufficient by itself. I think that Professor Gao's opinion should certainly be included in this article when a source is found that expresses that viewpoint; currently, no such source exists. Claims that removal of Gao's name amounts to "censorship" are inaccurate; it would be censorship if Gao's viewpoint were removed from the article, but it isn't. Gao's participation on the panel says nothing about how he feels about the book. For all the reader knows, Gao might have disagreed with Ross and felt like Chang's book was well-written. All of this said, I think that this issue is tremendously minor. If Gao's name were included, I would think it would be a petty thing to fight over. We have more important things to do. Neither of the two sides in this debate would gain much by winning it.--Bgaulke 05:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Do not include: The inclusion of Prof. Gao seems to be mostly for the sake of filler. The fact that no attributable and verbatim quotation arises on the topic relating to this symposium is unhelpful in pushing for his inclusion. I agree with Bgaulke above. If a systematic case can be put for Gao's inclusion, together with verifiable links to direct source material, he can be included, but on its own his inclusion would currently make little sense. I concur that this is not censorship, rather an attempt to keep the Wikipedia article tidy and focused. Xmas1973 12:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments from other users

Link of paper by Ross

This could be helpful: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/897/01/Mao_the_too_familiar_story.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgaulke (talk • contribs)

Thanks for finding this in link form. Its the paper the professor presented at the conference, that I had only in a word doc. Now if we could only find Prof. Gao's. I guess I should write him, again. Giovanni33 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting - maybe we could use it to replace the silly Monthly Review article. John Smith's 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't have both. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't do with one. John Smith's 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is not silly, and is more than the paper. We should have both.Giovanni33 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to Ross' quotation if we have her paper, which is more informative. You don't use two citations when one does the same thing. John Smith's 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We can use two.12.193.178.18 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we can use one. John Smith's 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But we will use two if other editors think so, even if you don't.Giovanni33 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, first of all you have no right to make such decrees - who died and made you emperor? Second the page is locked, so you can't change anything. Third wikipedia is not run that way. John Smith's 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is not helpful so I will correctly ignore it, and similar nonsensical provocations.Giovanni33 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as your "decree" wasn't helpful, Emperor! John Smith's 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you two arguing about now? Not only have both of you gone completely off topic, but the thing you were arguing about in the first place was pretty silly too. Focus! --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I am visiting China next month and recently purchased the book to take with me for reading. However the description on amazon tells me it is banned in the PRC. I could find no mention of this in the article. Does anyone know if it is banned in the PRC - the last thing I want to do is to have to throw it in a bin at customs. If it is banned, perhaps this would make something useful to add to the article. Thanks in advance LordHarris 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact answer legally (the book certainly has never been published in mainland China), but your question prompted me to do a bit of googling on http://www.google.cn/. To my surprise, search results relating to the book weren't censored. In fact, I found a blog that carried Chinese translations (could be a summary) of the book at: http://blog.people.com.cn/blog/log/showlog.jspe?log_id=1163836276938866&site_id=625, which is hosted on People.com.cn, i.e. People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China.

Judging from that, my guess is that the book is safe. --Sumple (Talk) 02:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This (I couldn't access it directly - google cache) says that Yazhou Zhoukan (formerly the Chinese version of Asiaweek) reported that the CPC Propaganda department banned all party cadres from reading or buying the book, in China or overseas. It also cites anecdotal evidence of the Chinese version being confiscated at customs. --Sumple (Talk) 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

LH, the book is banned, but there's no way for them to know you have it unless you wave it in front of the custom official's face. Just put it in the bottom of your suitcase or something. John Smith's 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Ill read it before I go just in case customs do a check of my baggage and then give me a telling off for having a banned book. Shame about the censorship. LordHarris 00:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On your flight, you'll get a little card your supposed to sign where you declare that you won't bring anything to China that is "harmful to the Chinese people" (quote not verbatim, but close). In other words, anything that the government deems "harmful" is banned. It should be no surprise that this book is on the list. I do think that it wouldn't be hard to bring into the country, however. I doubt they'd find it. --Bgaulke 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Next time I might write "a belief in rule of law and democracy". John Smith's 10:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong link

The link of John Pomfret goes to a man that is definitely not the journalist discussed in the article. This needs to be fixed once the editing freeze is over. --The Fwanksta May 19, 2007, 21:45.

Fixed. This is sufficiently non-controversial that I don't see any problem with doing it now. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)