Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 17 April 2007

Archives

Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 1

Very biased account

A very biased account (with omissions, mis-presentations and mis-interpretations) of the aspirations and achievements of a man whose legacy can only by adequately judged by historians of the future (and maybe some farsighted historians of today who have comprehensive and unbiased knowledge of all the history related). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.215.111 (talk • contribs)

My Chinese History professor once had a meeting with many other prominent scholars in this field to discuss the credibility of the book.

They found many dubious matters in the book such as that the authors frequently (perhaps purposely) incorrectly cite other sources in order to strengthen their arguments as well as use information that have no backup at all.

In the end, they concluded that the book is factually and intellectually unreliable.

Driven by curiosity, I borrowed a copy from a friend and read couple dozen pages, and concluded that the book is more like an anti-communist propaganda and I should just trust my professor/her colleages' words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.56.136 (talk • contribs)

So? It's hardly news that some academics disagree with the book - their views are already on the page. Just as the views of those that support the book are. John Smith's 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides, do you think anyone actually is actually going to listen to your unsourced, anonymous criticisms? Considering that you only managed to read through a "couple dozen" pages, you can hardly claim to have the right to criticize the book.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This page does not present a world wide view. As I've said elsewhere, I've not yet read a single positive review of the book in a reputable Chinese language publication. --Sumple (Talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when was a book's quality established on that basis? John Smith's 10:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sumple, if you can source that, then it's valid material for the article. I would be especially interested in any Chinese sources giving it bad reviews outside of the PRC, but as long as they're reputable it's fine.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sumple's compilation of Chinese language criticism of the book

This section contains Sumple's compilation of Chinese language articles or other works criticising the book. I am planning to build these up before writing them as a section for insertion into the article. Please add any comments you may have in the "comments" subsection below.

• Source: Luo, Yu (2007-03-05). "To Jung Chang". Sing Tao Daily. Sing Tao News Corporation. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Luo Yu, son of People's Republic of China Senior General Luo Ruiqing, and noted critic of Mao in his memoirs and other works, criticises Jung Chang's work because of its selective use of primary sources, open bias, and over-simplification and generalisation.
  • Luo criticises Jung Chang's neglect of the considerable body of work analysing Mao, his policies, and actions. For example, he criticises Jung Chang's use of Peng Dehuai's personal statements without any attempt at analysing the underlying tension and complex relationship between Peng and Mao.
  • Luo notes that Jung Chang lacks an understanding of the differences between CPC andKMT, in terms of ideology, organisation, and makeup. Most importantly, Jung Chang generalises her personal hatred of Mao to a complete condemnation of all Communist Party and Mao supporters.
  • Luo most emphatically objects to Jung Chang's simplistic equation of Mao with Hitler and Stalin. \
  • Luo also criticises Jung Chang's reliance on unreliable primary sources and personal inference. For example, he likens to the Arabian Nights Jung chang's "revelation", on tenuous evidence and in defiance of the weight of historical evidence and academic consensus, that Chiang Kai-shek "allowed" Mao to march to Yan'an. As another example, he cites Jung Chang's claim that the Tiananmen Square massacre was started by soldiers firing by mistake in the chaos, rather than by Deng and Yang, this time relying almost exclusively on primary evidence of dubious authenticity allegedly smuggled out of China. (Personal note: I've read the published version of these documents, and I agree that they are of very dubious authenticity.)
  • Luo also criticises the extent to which Jung Chang makes inferences from her personal experiences in the Mao-era. Luo explains that, as the son of a senior minister and general, he understood the complete lack of access of someone in Jung Chang's position to information about the inner workings of government, especially Mao's personal thoughts and intentions. Thus, he explained, while Wild Swans dealt with a subject close to Jung Chang's life, her lack of understanding of the subject matter of Mao contributed to her simplistic portrayal of Mao. --Sumple (Talk) 08:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Are there no reviews in the Standard? And by the way, who is this guy other than some general's son - is he a historian? John Smith's 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As a side-note, if something is added it needs to be pretty brief - there are already a lot of comments. John Smith's 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if he's a historian. This article was published in a newspaper. But he has published historical memoirs, dealing with Mao and other "founding fathers" of Communist China, which imo makes him at least as authoritative as Jung Chang. But I will look for his biographical details where possible.

As to length - I know. I won't be putting all this into the article. This is just my notes for when that section does get written. (after I dig up more material) --Sumple (Talk) 22:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Views of the book"

If newspaper commentators are to be ignored in this section, why does Philip Short get a look-in? One of the criticisms I've heard of Jung Chang is that she isn't a historian - but neither is Short. So why does one non-academic get special treatment here so that he can be included? Roy Hattersley has written books as well and his article in the Guardian isn't mentioned. John Smith's 11:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be consistent treatment. But on what basis are newspaper commentators excluded? --Sumple (Talk) 11:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there are so many of them and wikipedia is not a review page - or something like that (I forget the actual term). The current "academic" focus was designed to limit the number of reviews that could be included in the page itself. If we open it up to newspaper reviews, then it will grow hugely and become a consolidation of those reviews - that isn't what the article is supposed to do. In the past there were problems with people wanting to stuff a review in they'd read. We should really only have a few, serious views from each side to indicate the sort of opinions out there. Indeed I was wondering if we couldn't reduce the previous version of the reviews section and make proper citations of them. John Smith's 11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page. My view is that just as we limit academics to those in the actual field, we should limit reviews of others writers to those who have some authority in the field, as well. In short, from a scholarly and reliable source. Philip Short is allowed because of this reason. The writer I included, Pomfret, has spent seven years covering China, and studied at Nanjing University; he was awarded the Osborne Elliot Award for the best coverage of Asia by the Asia Society, and has written a book on "New China." Thus, his reivew and views of this book are worthy for inclusion. The other factor for deciding if the writer's view should be included other than reliability, in my opinion, is if it demonstrates a POV not already included in the article, but this is mainly for size. If a POV is wide spread we can say so in one sentence and just pick one or two of the best sources to express the POV. I felt this POV was a little lacking, although it surely is not lacking in the reviews and literature published about this book.Giovanni33 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But Pomfret has done zero research/not written a book on Mao. Writing books on China doesn't make him nearly as qualified as Short. I also don't see anything he says as being special compared to other reviews posted. John Smith's 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not qualified as Short but still qualified enough. One does not write a book on China's politics and history, and study China in general, without learning about Mao. His views carry weight.64.121.41.214 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument, nor does it address the point about having so many reviews in. There were already 6 reviews/commentators mentioned. Where does it stop? 8? 10? 20? Don't say adding his in is "just enough". Also I have yet to hear what is so necessary about his comments. John Smith's 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also just noticed there is no link to the review. Someone will need to dig out a valid link, or I will eventually have to remove the reference regardless of how the discussion goes. John Smith's 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I added in the link to the full and actual review. I also added back the introduction to the writer. Its important because it speaks to his qualifications to speak on the matter. As far has his book is concerned, perhaps you should take a look at its actual subject matter. It pertains to many of the exact same things Jung Chang writes about. In fact, in reviews of his book, its is often compared to Mao The Unknown Story. For the same reason Philip Short is included, so should be he be. Both writers are similarly qualified and have published books on the same subject matters.Giovanni33 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you do not say things like "Award winning writer on China related matters", because it is too biased in his favour. Jung Chang has been given awards, but I can promise you if I tried to insert that into references to her people would remove them very fast. If someone made a page for him then all his awards can be listed - but you don't make biased comments like that when mentioning what they say as it gives them a special profile. Do you think none of the other people mentioned have never won a prize? Thanks for the link, but I must insist on removing the laudatory statement. Plus you should not advertise people's websites and the like - but I'll convert it to his name, so people can learn about him. I also cut down on the extracts while we talk about this.

As to the rest, I don't see that as a justification over him being included when I have talked about the fact he isn't an academic, he hasn't published a book on Mao like Short and we have lots of other reviews by deserving and knowledgeable people that have been left out to keep the "views" section down. As I keep saying this is not supposed to be a review of the book, nor to regurgitate information from every interesting one. John Smith's 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I will compromise and accept your removal but I put in a little more from the actual review, which you removed. I left out most, still. Also, you're wrong that he didn't publish a book about Mao. His book is largly about Mao and his programs, and the effects they had on people. If we have other reviews from other writers who have published books on China's history, we should take a look to see if what they say merits mention, or is already covered. Its a case by case basis but we apply the same standards.Giovanni33 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, technically, you're saying dozens more reviews could go in? There's no end to it? From what I understand Pomfret's book discusses in part fallout that Mao had - it isn't a book into his life and career. John Smith's 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there is a limit to cover the range of opionin and then give appropriate weight. As it stands its not too big and can be bigger, if there are other qualified responses that have not been covered yet. This does not create a slippery slope. Pomfret's book is not a biography, but it is sufficently about many of the same historical and political debates about Mao and his policies and that alone suffices to make him a reliable writer whose opinion is as worthy as Shorts.Giovanni33 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I might be willing to let it stand, though I might want to adjust it further. Also I've been looking at some other reviews - maybe another could go in. John Smith's 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of reverting again, I'm going to bring this issue here to see what others think. The text I've removed from the section that is supposed to be dealing with responses the book has recieved is as follows:

"In other cases, Chang and Halliday's arguments have been supported indirectly. In the book they wrote that the Communists spent more time fighting the KMT than the Imperial Japanese Army, a point that has also been made by various military historians researching the Second Sino-Japanese War."

The rationale that is given to include this here is that it indirectly supports the book because the book makes the same point others have, at least this particular point. My response is so what? There are many books that make the same points. How is pointing out that there are non original claims advanced by the authors of this book, who repeat the claims put forward by other authors relevant to the reactions this book has recieved!?--On a side note, its besides the point but often times they borrow these old claims, some of them refuted--some not--but do not credit the original authors, but pass them off as original. Still, this has nothing to do with what the section is supposed to be about: reviews/reactions to the book. Saying "this other book makes the same point, see:" does not fit.Giovanni33 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One significant criticism made of the book was that the point made was incorrect. So the article was inserted to show this wasn't just their view. I don't know why you're being so inflexible over this. John Smith's 00:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, and it still doesn't make sense to me. Does anyone say that they invented this view, and alone share it? On the contrary the critcism is that they pick up old claims that have long already been settled questions among the academic community, such as the claim that the KMT forces allowed Mao's long March on purpose because of Chaing's son being held captive in the USSR. They didn't invent this point, but its a point that most China scholars regard as completely bogus. Does this mean we should entertain the views about this point by citing other works who make it? No. This is not about debating the validity of the points of the book, its about reivews of the book itself by writers who are talking about the book. These are two different things.Giovanni33 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well. There once was a valid reason for it, but as the objection has now gone I suppose it is rather redundant. However I will try to find something to replace it later on - you can remove it now if you wish. John Smith's 01:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Giovanni33 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Crossing of Luding Bridge

Last night I edited this page to describe an account (Sun Shuyun's) of the Luding Bridge incident that is largely similar to Chang's. I felt that this was fair material to put on the page considering that several sources are listed that disagree with Chang. Moreover, since Sun's book is the newest academic book on the Long March, what it says is particularly relevant.

The change that I made was reverted by Giovanni33, with the explanation of "This is not about claims of other writers." I take strong exception to this reversion. Why would it be inappropriate to display the claims of other writers when assessing the credibility of Chang's book? Moreover, if it is inappropriate to show what other writers think, then Giovanni33 should have deleted ALL of the other authors' claims. As it stands, Giovanni deleted the one author that agrees with Chang, while leaving intact the claims of Salisbury, Salisbury, and Wilson, all of whom disagree with Chang. This strongly smacks of NPOV.

My final quibble is that the page states that "diaries of several veterans of the Long March mention a battle at Luding Bridge." I am currently intensively researching the Luding Bridge incident and, as far as I am aware, this claims is quite untrue. Who are these "several veterans"? Certainly, several veterans wrote of crossing the bridge AFTER the battle, but I am only aware of one first person account (Yang Cheng-wu's) by a witness of the battle. Moreover, the Yang account first appeared in the English language in a propagandistic volume entitled "Stories of the Long March." It was published by the state-sponsored Foreign Languages Press in 1958, as the Great Leap Forward was launched. Needless to say, the authenticity and veracity of an account published at such a time and by that press should be doubted by serious historians.

Since I do not read Chinese, I suppose it is possible that there are Chinese language eyewitness accounts of the battle besides Yang's. But I doubt it.

I have two requests:

1. Anyone who wishes to revert the Sun Shuyun paragraph should substantially explain why on this talk page before they go ahead do so.

2. I would like someone to at least name other eyewitness accounts of the Luding Bridge battle. If no other account is mentioned within the next day or so, I will delete from the page the claim that such accounts exist.

152.228.117.17

First, please use a header for new comments and post at the bottom. I must apologise as I reverted without reading your post too closely (though I have subsequently self-revert. It's fine, actually, as it does go to whether the point about Luding Bridge is credible or not. If we had to delete that, one should delete all the other references too. John Smith's 12:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was also was too quick when I saw what was added and thought it was added to the "response to the book' section, which would be a problem because that section is for authors reacting to the book, not authors who are debating points of contention that the book happens to also talk about. Now I see that it was in a different place (Debates), where this point of contention was the subject matter iteslf, and that this other standard is the correct one in this section. However, you can add a reference/link to support your addition? Thanks. Giovanni33 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reference would be the book itself, Gio. To be fair I know he's right, so if he doesn't have a copy I think it's fair to leave it. John Smith's 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the page number cited, and a link if possible for others to verify what is said exactly pertaining to this point. That is what I mean. Also, is Sun Shuyun a historian by training, or even an academic? I find her described as "An adventurer, a writer and a director." I know she has made documentaries, and written two books. In her book, The Long March, I did find this, about the Luding Bridge, where she quotes a local blacksmith who gave her this account:

Only a squadron was at the other end. It was a rainy day. Their weapons were old and could only fire a few metres. They were no match for the Red Army. When they saw the soldiers coming, they panicked and fled—their officers had long abandoned them. There wasn't really much of a battle. Still, I take my hat off to the twenty-two soldiers who crawled on the chains. My father and I did it in the old days when we checked the bridge, but we were inside a basket. Those men were brave. They crossed very quickly."

So by this account there was a battle, although it was not as fierce as purported. Chang claims there was no battle at all, and cites an eye witness who others have not been able to locate to locate, or verify.Giovanni33 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no battle because the other soldiers ran away. Soldiers being in proximity of each other isn't a battle. John Smith's 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. There was a confrontation in which one party was over powered and fled (the warlords). But there was shooting back and forth and in my book that makes it a battle. So by her own account there was at least some kind of battle, which contrasts with the claim there was no battle at all that Chang makes.Giovanni33 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There needs to be a fight - the extract suggest they ran before they were engaged. Ergo there was no battle. John Smith's 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that is why its good to have the exact text quoted because there are different interpretations. When I read "there was not much of a battle," I read there was still a battle. "Not much" doesnt mean "none," at least for most people, I think.Giovanni33 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, most people would think a battle requires fighting. And the blacksmith suggests there was none - so whether he thought there was a battle or not doesn't matter as much as the situation he described. Whether or not there was a "battle", there was no fighting according to this source. The important thing is that Luding Bridge is remembered as some heroic struggle - Jung Chang said that was anything but what happened, as does the extract above. There's no point getting pedantic as to whether the word "battle" applies, given all that's important is whether fighting occurred or not. John Smith's 23:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not good to decide for what most people think. Its better to quote what is said and let the reader decide what it means. In most battles, at some point, one side flees. The confrontation of forces occured when they saw each other. The description suggest there were guns fired. That is a battle.Giovanni33 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all the material is already quoted on the Luding Bridge page. Second it does not say anywhere that guns were fired, only that they had poor range. To me it says they ran as soon as they saw Communist soldiers and before battle was joined. That's my position. John Smith's 23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. But, its moot as another editor has already adjusted the language, which I'm fine with.Giovanni33 00:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you partially reverted the other editor so I substituted the acual wording so the reader can decide if it means not any significant battle or no battle at all: "they panicked and fled...There wasn't really much of a battle" at Luding Bridge."Giovanni33 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Sun Shuyun had a PhD in history. I do know that she graduated from Beijing University and then won a scholarship to Oxford University (http://www.tantor.com/AuthorDetail.asp?Author=Shuyun_S), two facts which show that she must have done at least some graduate coursework and must also be quite intelligent. I find it frustrating that Sun's academic credentials have been called into question, but not those of the two Salisburys and Dick Wilson. Likewise, citations have been requested for Sun, but not for the others.--152.228.130.170 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't question Salisbury and Wilson's credencials because there is no question. We don't even know what degree she obtaned from Beijing. For all I know it could be in basket weaving. And a scholarship alone doesnt mean anything. In anycase, another editor changed "academic" to "writer," and she has written on the subject so I'm ok with her views being presented. But, I don't see any evidence for calling her an academic.Giovanni33 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is just as much reason to question the other authors' credentials. Harrison Salisbury definitely did not have a PhD (look at the links on his Wiki article); he was a reporter. I am near sure that Charlotte Salisbury didn't either. As for Dick Wilson, I can never find much info on him, but I bet he's the same. On other note, I'm fairly sure that they don't have basket weaving at Oxford. If they did, I'm also sure they wouldn't give people scholarships to go there and study it. Sun is certainly not an academic, but she's closer to being one than the Salisburys. All of that being said, I don't think any of these authors should be taken down; I just want there to be a sense of perspective about the whole thing.--Bgaulke 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel like the Li Guixiu quote is unnecessarily long. Couldn't we just include the part about there being a fight at the bridge? That's the only thing that is directly pertinent.--Bgaulke 22:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll cut down the Li quote, although I like the richness of her descriptions that historically set the tone of the times. Its not really too long. About credenials, I never asked who had a PhD. Nor am I arguing that we take any of the authors down. I only wanted to know the credencials of Shuyun, because I have not been able to verify what they were. She was described as an academic, and I didn't see any evidence for that. Hence, the question. Also, winning a scholarhip to Oxford doesnt mean she ever attended the school, nor graduated from there, or obtained any degree or course work--whatever the coursework was. All this is rather academic at this stage, no pun intended.Giovanni33 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There was still more to cut out, so I did. If people want to read the whole story they can via the link. It's not relevant to the discussion as to what the KMT told, what the Communists were wearing on their feet, etc. John Smith's 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I gave ground on the last two disputes over content we had. Now it is just down to phrasing - will you never give any ground? John Smith's 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are still not convinced, look at what the article says.

"This week in Luding the Herald could not find the authors' unnamed local source, or anyone who remembered someone of her description. But it did find Li, whom other locals said was the last surviving witness they knew of in Luding."

"Found" is the past tense of "find". If you insist on anything else it shows you are doing so for POV reasons. John Smith's 00:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the only issue/changes you are making. For example, you said she claimed to be 15 at the time. The article does not say she made any such claim. The article states as a fact that she was 15 at the time given her current age.Giovanni33 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Interviews

There is no reason to cast doubt about the interviews that Chang and Halliday conducted. Extensive documentation of them is at the end of the book. It seems unlikely that the authors would shoot themselves in the foot by falsely claiming that they interviewed hundreds of people, most of whom are still alive. If they are lying about this, then surely some of the people who weren't interviewed would call them out on such a lie. Of course, whether the interview material was used in an academically responsible way is another question entirely.--Bgaulke 08:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we have no-one else's but the author's words that they did conduct these interviews. --Sumple (Talk) 10:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That is the case with any work, Sumple. It's ridiculous for you to keep insisting all these caveats be attached to any references of the book. You got caught short on the Mao talk page by assuming their reference to Mao not bathing was made up until someone provided the source - why don't you just admit you let your dislike for her influence your editing too much and let this go? John Smith's 12:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You are attacking my edits on the basis of my other edits, and some sort of generalising conclusion that I dislike the author - which, in another context, I might say is very Jung Chang-esque of you. It is certainly not good editorship and I warn you to desist before becomes stalking.

You are right that that's the case with any work. However, most other works don't go around claiming that they had access to previously-unseen footage/primary source material (or conducted hundredds of interviews with people whom, somehow, more established authors have failed to notice) without providing this material or at least some means of verifying the material.

As for "caught short", please explain how I was "caught short". I know Jung Chang says that in her book, and she, as usual, provides some dubious unverified account, and probably neglects any other accounts to the contrary. What you said was very rude of you and I request that you retract it. --Sumple (Talk) 12:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh come now - lots of works uncover new ground. That doesn't mean they must be caveated into oblivion, which is what you keep doing. I am not attacking you just because of other edits you made - I was questioning your objectivity by always believing anything she says is not credible. This goes towards your caveating here. Your assumption that she doesn't try to find views to the contrary isn't terribly relevant on the bathing matter, unless you can find a book written by someone from his entourage that says he did bathe regularly and he wasn't toweled down.

You have repeatedly displayed an anti-Chang bias in the past, and you are still doing that now. I will retract my statement when you stop this silly and rather petty qualification of everything she and her husband says. It really is quite ridiculous - I doubt anyone would stand for it on the Iris Chang/Rape of Nanking (book) page. Don't complain that people have talked about the massacre in the past - people have talked about Mao many times too. All books are original and contain new information, unless they are just repeating what others have said. So in that case most books should be caveated to your logic. John Smith's 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This, to me, is what the bottom line is. If I write a book and say that I interviewed hundreds of people, and I provide full bibliographic citation for those interviews, then I would have to be unthinkably brazen to just be making it up. All it would take is for one of those hundreds of people to go to a newspaper and say, "I wasn't interviewed," and I immediately lose credibility. I am not aware of one person, not a single person, saying that Chang didn't interview him or her when she claimed to have done so. Unless you find some reason, beyond a general suspicion of the author, to cast aspersion upon the verity of these interviews, then there is absolutely no reason to cast doubt upon the interview claim in this article.

Do not mistake me for someone who slavishly believes everything Jung Chang says. I am well aware of her compromised academic reputation and often dishonest scholarship. On this particular issue, however, I see no reason to doubt that these interviews occurred. I will eliminate the "claimed" wording within a day unless I see some reason why I should not.--Bgaulke 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You miss my point. By WP:RS the onus is not on me to supply sources in order to "cast aspersions", as you put it. The onus is on whoever wrote that to supply a source. As it stands, that sentence is unsourced. I understand that the claim was made by the authors. If you read WP:V and WP:NPOV, you will note that an inherently unverifiable claim like this will need to be presented with reference to its source material, viz, that the authors claim this. Misplaced Pages policy demands no less.

Speculation from you or I about whether they would be "brazen" enough to lie about this or exaggerate the level or extent of their research is totally irrelevant.

Allow me to present an analogy. Let's say the authors interview and quote Mr Li in the book. That's verifiable information, and in the article we can say "The book interviews and quotes Mr Li ".

But here the claim is that they interviewed "hundreds" of people. Are hundreds of people quoted in the book? No. So it's just a claim, no different from any other claim made in the book.

You wouldn't say "Mao Zedong is worse than Hitler ". You'd say "The authors conclude/claim that Mao is worse than hitler ."

This is no different. --Sumple (Talk) 01:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is not unsourced; it takes Chang and Halliday as a source--something obvious enough to the reader. Moreover, you claim that if quotes were provided from these interviews, that that would make them somehow less of a "claim" and more of a "verifiable" fact. This is ridiculous. If the authors made up the interviews, they could make up the wording of the interviews as well. Why not? Moreover, from a cursory look at the text, it is immediately obvious that several dozen of these interviews ARE quoted from. If one were to actually sit down and count them up, I would not be surprised if hundreds of interviewees are quoted in the text. Interviews which aren't quoted from directly would still be used as sources, presumably, and cited appropriately in the end notes.

If you want more of a citation for the interviews claim, then perhaps listing the page numbers for the list of interviews would help. It would be clear then that the hundreds of interviews claim comes from the text, not from some Misplaced Pages editor.

I find it to be a dangerous game of semantics that you are forcing us to play. I could go on any Misplaced Pages page on a history book and make every single sentence referring to an author's interview say, "The author claims to have talked to..." The claim wording here is so unnecessary that it betrays an obvious bias. If specific pages can be cited to show that hundreds of people were interviewed, then that should be a credible enough citation. If someone within academia challenged such a citation, then that should be mentioned in the next sentence.

You wrote today that "Speculation from you or I about whether they would be 'brazen' enough to lie about this or exaggerate the level or extent of their research is totally irrelevant." You obviously don't really believe this, since earlier you wrote, "However, most other works don't go around claiming that they had access to previously-unseen footage/primary source material (or conducted hundredds of interviews with people whom, somehow, more established authors have failed to notice) without providing this material or at least some means of verifying the material." If this isn't you analysis of the likelihood of the interviews having occurred, then I don't know what it is. I should also note that earlier you assumed that Chang wasn't "providing this material or at least some means of verifying the material"--something which isn't true, since she does give all of this bibliographic information. It is clear that these sort of assumptions that you make about Chang's reliability are causing bias to seep into your edits. --Bgaulke 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether I have a bias against Chang is irrelevant - my argument is based on policy. I don't understand your argument about the biliographical information. What does that have to do with conducting interviews? The last time I checked, bibliographical is about books, not people. Do you mean biographical?

Again, it doesn't matter whether I don't believe the claim, or whether you believe the claim. It is a claim, it should not be presented as fact unless it is verifiable. It is not verifiable, therefore it should not be presented as fact.

It's simple enough. That's how Misplaced Pages runs. --Sumple (Talk) 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

When I say that Chang provides "bibliographic" information, I am referring to her use of proper citation format (as in, the proper citation format for a bibliography), as defined by the standards of academic writing, to describe her interview sources.

Chang's claim that she conducted hundreds of interviews is as verifiable as any other claim that a scholar makes while providing full citation of the source. In other words, it's pretty damn verifiable; that's the point of a citation. If the interviews that she conducted aren't verifiable, then I would like to know if there's a single interview in the scope of human history that you would consider verifiable.

To put it simply, explain in clear words what the difference is, to you, between a verifiable and an unverifiable interview. An example would also be appreciated. Explain what exactly is so inadequate about Chang's method of documenting her interviews. What would she had to have to done to convince you that these interviews are "verifiable"? --Bgaulke 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am saying the claim of hundreds (which I will use henceforth as shorthand for the authors' claim that they conducted hundreds of interviews) is unverifiable, not the interviews themselves - as to that I make no assertion.

This, in my opinion, is the difference between a "verifiable claim of hundreds" and an "unverifiable claim of hundreds": Verifiable means there is sufficient information for a third party to ascertain the truth of the claim, and unverifiable means there isn't. Please see Misplaced Pages policy at WP:V for where I got that idea from.

Verifiable: the author provides information sufficient to verify that the interviews took place: "I interviewed 256 respondents in preparing this work, and their names and location are listed below: A. A. Aardvark, Helsinki. Bill Abs, Trenton NJ ... "

Verifiable: the author asserts that he conducted hundreds of interviews, and a reliable, independent third party source, say a documentary maker who followed him around, agrees.

Verifiable: the author asserts that he conducted hundreds of interviews, and he quotes or otherwise mentions a sufficiently large number of them, and in doing so, provides enough information that a sufficiently well-resourced and motivated third party can, using this information, establish whether not such a number of interviews took place.

Unverfiable: the author asserts that he conducted hundreds of interviews, without more.

Unverfiable: the author asserts that he conducts hundreds of interviews, but quotes or mentions only a handful of those interviewees, although he provides sufficient information to verify that those particular interviews took place.

Unverifiable: the author asserts that he conducts hundreds of interviews, and quotes or mentions a large number of those interviewees, but provides so little information that whether those interviews took place, and whether the state total number of interviews took place, cannot be verified. E.g. if many interviewees are identified only by name.

You are probably thinking "but no author would provide a list of interviewees like that!" And you might be right. But unless they provide information to verify that hundreds of interviews like that, it is not a verifiable claim and under Misplaced Pages policy, that's what we treat it as: an unverfiable claim, with appropriate source quoted and appropriate qualification ("the author claims") added.

My assertion is that Chang & Halliday's claim falls within the second or the third type of "unverifiable" which I placed above. I know you said that they provided full citations for the interviews they quoted. However, assuming this information is sufficient to verify these interviews, even if they do this for, say, 50 interviewees, that is still a long way from "hundreds".

Again, I should add that adding the qualification ("the authors claim") is not intended to imply that they lied, but is in my opinion what is required by Misplaced Pages's Verifiability policy. When I said earlier that "if they had quoted hundreds of people that would be okay", what I meant was that if they had quoted hundreds of people that would be prima facie evidence that they did in fact interview hundreds of people. However, ultimately it comes down to verifiability.

So I guess what I'd like to know is:

(1) whether you think I erred in my interpretation of Misplaced Pages's verifiable facts policy, and if so, where;

(2) whether you think that, despite the above interpretation being correct, I erred in placing Chang & Halliday's "claim of hundreds" in the "unverfiable" category, and if so, why. --Sumple (Talk) 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not been a Misplaced Pages editor for long enough to feel comfortable making any claim about (1). That being said, I think that (2) is where I disagree with you. According to the criteria that you have listed, the hundreds of interviews are verifiable. Have you ever looked at the list of interviews in the back of the book? I have. I unfortunately don't have the book in front of my face at the moment, but I can promise you that the list of interviews is between 10 to 20 pages long, perhaps longer. It certainly contains hundreds of citations. The citation for these interviews is scrupulous and meets academic standards; a determined third party could investigate these claims and determined their truth. Finally, I am quite sure that hundreds of interviews are either directly quoted or cited in the endnotes, proving that the interview material was put to good use. --Bgaulke 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book in front of me, and I don't think I paid attention to the list the last time I looked at the book. So I will defer to what you said. I'll get back to you after I've looked it up. --Sumple (Talk) 12:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Thanks. --Bgaulke 14:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds very heated but I think in a way you are both right. It is no secret that JC and Halliday have been interviewing people in China for the best part of a decade - anyone working in the field has been hearing about their interviews for years. My point is that she may have carried out the interviews but has chosen not to include thier line of argument or views. The case I know of is that of Prof Frederick Teiwes who was interviewed but disagreed radically with JC's arguments. This was not reflected in the book. Another point is the system of referencing - the referencing system simply does not allow for an easy checking of sources. therefore the interviews may have taken place but what was siad is unavailable. On the question of accuracy - there is a claim in the book that JC remembers most of a multi-page handwritten note and replicates this from memory. That's something I find hard to believe!

Thank you for your opinion; I've found it helpful. If you could give us a source for the anecdote about the handwritten note, that would be helpful. It seems like a good thing to include on the page.

As far as proper citation of interviews, this is what the most recent edition of the MLA handbook had to say: "To cite an interview that you conducted, give the name of the person interviewed, the kind of interview (Personal interview, Telephone interview, E-mail interview), and the date or dates" (203). Chang certainly provides all of this. The problem of not knowing the specific conversation that took place is rather moot, since a transcript of an interview is not a requirement for proper academic citation. This applies both to hack writers, like Chang, and well-respected scholars, like Jonathan Spence. --Bgaulke 02:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest additions

Giovanni, the article is about some conference - there is only a small bit about the book. You've already got a link to a review from the same journal - there's no need to add in some throw-away comments. Please don't try to stuff this link in for the sake of it. John Smith's 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And it is just the "small bit" about this book, which I include and which you removed. The article, though is about the content of this conference, and the results of the academics who talked about this book. Their comments, which are referenced, are therefore properly mentioned here in this section. They are qualified academics in the field of China Studies and you can't remove them simply because you don't like their POV. The wording is:

...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." Giovanni33 09:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"The School of Asian languages and Studies" - why not the History faculty?

Look, I think you're taking things a bit far. The first seems to teach the Chinese language and some other things, the second politics and society. Neither of these people have written any books about Mao from those links, nor are they historians. Those are throw-away comments that do nothing to improve the article. Just because it's a brief reference doesn't mean it should be included. I let the Pomfret thing go because he had something worthwhile to say - this is completely different. John Smith's 09:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Asian Studies is the appropriate field, which encompases Chinese History. You say he teaches "some other things." Well those other things make him quite qualified. These two academics, in fact, are more qualifed than Pomfret, which you accept. To review these "other things":

"Dr. M Gao studied at various universities including Wales, Westminster and Cambridge and holds degrees from Xiamen and Essex. 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. He has published many research articles in international journals in English and Chinese. His recent publications include three books, Gao Village: Rural Life in Modern China...Dr. Mobo Gao's research interest includes contemporary Chinese politics, Chinese language and grammar, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, rural China, ethnic issues in China, media studies (Western reporting of China) and cultural studies.I also note that his published works, are an assigned textsbook in History courses, such as the highly regarded Reed College's Hist 320

"Prof. Kaz Ross was educated at the University of Melbourne. Before joining the School in August 2004 she taught at the University of Melbourne, RMIT and Swinburne University in a range of subject areas including social and political theory, Chinese studies, Asian studies and media studies. Kaz’s research interests...revolve around China....She has been a visiting scholar at Peking University, and an editor of the Melbourne Journal of Politics." These qualifications give them the right to have their views on this book included.Giovanni33 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I accepted Pomfret because you kept bashing on about how his book was all about Mao. I did not say I thought he was qualified simply because he writes on China. Unless you can show me a book on Mao these guys have written I will additionally object on the same grounds I originally objected to Pomfret. But more importantly, as I keep pointing out, they haven't written a review - just made a throw-away comment that adds nothing to the page. John Smith's 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni you ignored my post - please reply separately and address the points. John Smith's 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The qualifications of these academics stand for themselves. Their published writings, many of which are assigned texts within university History courses on China, are plain to anyone to bothers to look. You call their comments "throw-away," and "adds nothing," but I disagree. They addressed the book and dismissed the book. That is their POV, and that is an important POV which adds a lot, in my opinion. But its not our POV that matters, its a question of reporting qualified academics within the field of China Studies, who do speak about this book, and report what they say when they address this book--like it or not.Giovanni33 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made my point, but you're ignoring it. There's no more point debating it here. John Smith's 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to get input from the other interested editors on this point and then agree to abide by consensus. If we don't get inpute we can seek a Rfc.Giovanni33 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be faster if we got a few uninvolved editors/admins to tell us what they think. But if you want to go by consensus, you need to say what that is first (i.e. how you will find it). John Smith's 00:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the definition of a "throw-away" comment? (Forgive my ignorance.)--Bgaulke 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, not sure I can explain easily. Just that it's an unimportant or quickly-thought-up statement that adds little to the topic. John Smith's 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should be able to explain it since that is the basis of your argument. You say its "quickly-thought-up." What evidence do you have to support this claim? And, even if it were true that their opinion about this book was "quickly thought up" how is that a valid standard to employ for determining its acceptable use or not? Last time I checked it was not how quickly a respected academic came up with a POV, it was their credencials to be able to properly speak on the question at hand that mattered. In this case, professors of Asian and China Studies, of which they are. I challenged you to cite the policy whereby we are to use your standard of "quickly thought up" as a reason to exclude.Giovanni33 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take the stance that the quote should be included. I see no reason not to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bgaulke (talk • contribs) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Giovanni, don't play semantics. I've said several times that I'm objecting because they're not historians, they haven't written books on Mao and their comments are brief and not nearly useful enough to warrant a place. Just because they teach stuff on China doesn't mean they're qualified to comment. John Smith's 08:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, these two scholars are as qualified to make their comments as Chang and Halliday were to write their book (neither Chang nor Halliday is a Chinese historian by training, education, or background). If we are to let Chang and Halliday have their say on Misplaced Pages (and we should), then we should allow similarly qualified detractors or supporters have their own say as well. --Bgaulke 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all Halliday is a historian. But more importantly the two are qualified because they have researched the book and explained their position in detail. That is not the case with the others - there is no evidence they have researched Mao themselves and are just throwing in cheap comments with no basis. John Smith's 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Gao and Ross were not just speaking off the cuff--they were delivering a paper at an academic conference on the topic of historical representation of Mao. I am sure that they must have researched Mao if they were in such a position as to give this presentation at a conference.

In fairness, I think the quote from the webpage should be elongated to include the bit about how Ross thinks the Cultural Revolution is a good thing. This clearly biases his perspective against the mainstream of Chinese historical studies, not just Chang. It is important to see that the presenters are so far to the left as to support the Cultural Revolution, because it means that from a more moderate historical perspective, their opinion is compromised. (To use a cumbersome analogy, it would be like a Holocaust denier giving a bad review of a biography on Hitler; most historians and laymen would take such a review with a grain of salt.) --Bgaulke 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you regarding the inclusion of the quotes about this book made by these academics, I don't think we need to try to 'bias" the reader because of other "left" possitions they take. We can characterize their work, if they are out of the mainstream, but we have to be careful how we do it. I prefer simply to attach the links. I don't think your characterization of them are accurate. I dispute that they "support" the CR; they take a mixed, nuanced view, looking at the positives and negatives of this complex period (the complete opposite of the simplisitic methodology employed by Chang). If you read his actual paper on the CR, which I've looked at, you'd find his overall assessment is in line with the consensus among China Studies, i.e., a negative one but not in white and black terms. His POV is well within the bounds of what is regarded as legitimate in the field, unlike some revisionist Holocaust Denier. Thus that analogy is not a valid one.Giovanni33 18:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For those interested here are some scholarly publications by Dr. Gao that are peer reviewed, concerning the CR, which support my assesement, above:

• 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 reguarly featured in scholarly conferences on this topic, and required reading in history courses within highly esteemed colleges and universities. 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.htmGiovanni33 19:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Impressive research. I'll have to rescind what I said about them being out of the mainstream. I personally would vigorously disagree with their conclusions, but that has no bearing on whether they are credible academics or whether their perspective on Chang should be included. --Bgaulke 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I still don't think it should go in - maybe you should start an RfC. John Smith's 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That won't be necessary if we get the other editors who usually edit here to give their opinion. You can send them messages and alert them of this issue. Then you will have to abide by the consensus of the editors, so the page can be unlocked. If you still dispute it you can seek a Rfc, instead of edit waring.Giovanni33 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been told many times that consensus isn't the same as a super-majority. John Smith's 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but its something that you are supposed to respect in terms of not edit waring, and if you want you can seek a Rfc. I have notified other editors who have been involved and interested in editing on China issues. If there is a consensus to keep, I think you should not remove it until you get consensus to do so. This is so we can get this page unlocked.Giovanni33 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't actually something I am supposed to expect. Misplaced Pages asks that consensus is gained, which can't happen if people don't agree with the outcome. "Voting" is useful to see if there is consensus, but not to gain it. John Smith's 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is general agreement, not absolute. If you are the only one objecting, your supposed to accept the results of general consensus in so far as that means not making the contested change to the article until such general consensus changes. I am willing to abide by consensus, why can't you say the same?Giovanni33 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia consensus is not general and there is no obligation to accept the result. How can I accept consensus if there is none? Giovanni, I don't know - maybe it's because I'm tired of always agreeing to whatever it is you want. Maybe it would be nice for you to agree to what I want. John Smith's 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the evidence Giovanni has provided, it would seem the two people are scholarly sources. John Smith's, is there some WP policy out there that states that an academic must have had written a book about a subject before they are considered credible sources? Or what is your objection in light of what Giovanni has provided as the two people's knowledge of Mao and modern China? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have lots of other "scholarly sources" I could have added - but I chose not to, rather than spam the sub-section. There is no policy as you mention, but Giovanni seems to keep changing the goalposts. First he said Pomfret was ok because he was a China commentator and had written on Mao - now it seems to be that these guys are ok because they teach subjects related to Chinese politics. I think that is far too tenuous a link. Just because you are a "scholar" doesn't mean you actually know that much about the matter in question. John Smith's 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So basically you still think these two people are not credible enough to be added to the article, is that the gist of it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as saying whether they're "credible" - I'm sure they know a lot about Chinese language & politics. But have they done any hard research into Mao like Pomfret? They're not historians - being an academic isn't the same.

In addition I feel that such short comments seem to be a reaction to the book itself rather than by a thorough assessment of its content - they're like soundbites to me. The article isn't a review, it's a summary of some sort of meeting. Also there is no information on what other people said at the time, whether these people have read the book, etc. The comments are just too vague and don't have enough context. John Smith's 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So you feel they are not reliable sources because they're not academically trained historians? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not a reason to ignore what someone has to say. I made it quite clear in my last message.

They're not historians, they haven't written and researched on Mao, the comments in the article are not nearly detailed enough to understand what their justifications and thoughts, there's no evidence they've even read the book and the article was a summary of a conference, not giving voice to the opinions of any others. That's just based on what I know so far. You don't need to have all those things dealt with, but given none of them are addressed I'm not happy with admitting them at the moment. John Smith's 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So you feel a person must have written about Mao in order to be admitted as sources of commentary on Mao: The Unknown Story? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hong, I have made my views quite clear - I won't repeat myself again. John Smith's 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure under what criteria you do not think the two scholars are not reliable sources. There does not seem to be any policy that an academic be historians (academically trained or not) to be allowed as sources on a an article about a biographical book. I don't know if they've researched specifically about Mao himself, but their credentials show that they have researched on modern Chinese history. Similarly, a couple of the commentors that are included in the article, Perry Link and Michael Yahuda, do not seem to have written specifically about Mao, but they have obviously done research on modern Chinese history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The two guys you mentioned have provided detailed reviews - these two people have provided a soundbite - it's not the same. Every comment we have had so far is from a proper review, bar Short who I think is ok as he wrote directly on Mao himself. Also the institutions they study at are wildly different - Princeton and LSE, versus the University of Tasmania.

I have also re-checked the article. It appears these two people were the only ones attending the discussion, and there are no comments from Gao (so why should he be mentioned?). Only Ross is mentioned, and given the very loaded question mentioned I think the references are also highly POV now. At best the article is reporting on what it wants to put across - at worst this "discussion" was a thinly veiled artifical attempt to attack the book (the publisher is linked to the group that set up this conference). John Smith's 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point that Gao and Ross didn't actually write reviews of the book. But it's a highly POV to imply that Link and Yahuda are more credible because they are associated with Princeton and LSE respectively. Actually, looking at Yahuda's list of publications and professional bio, I think he's less qualified of a historian than Gao and Ross. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe there's a little bit of snobbery over their universities. But M. Yahuda does work in international and Chinese politics, whereas Gao as I said seems to focus on Chinese language. John Smith's 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring all the evidence I provided which shows that Prof. Gao is also quite distinguished as a scholar on Chinese Studies, which include Chinese politics and history. Some of his texts are even assigned in university history courses. Thus, his opinon is notable. Stop pretending you don't see that.Giovanni33 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am now in communications with the Professor who authored the article, and he is putting me in contact with Prof. Gao and the organizer of the conference. I will attempt to obtain the actual papers and discussion by these two academics so that we would be able to quote them directly. I'll keep you posted on what I am able to obtain from them.Giovanni33 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this short professional bio of Gao -

Dr M Gao studied at various universities including Wales, Westminster and Cambridge and holds degrees from Xiamen and Essex. Gao is a frequent speaker on topics of Chinese language and 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. He has published many research articles in international journals in English and Chinese. His recent publications include three books, Gao Village: Rural Life in Modern China (1999), An Introduction to Mandarin Chinese (2000) and A Reference Grammar of Mandarin Chinese (2000)

I don't think he'd be invited to speak at schools like Oxford and Harvard on contemporary Chinese politics if he was not considered knowledgeable in the subject, or invited to speak on major media outlets like ABC and NBC, for that matter. And take a look at his list of publication. He has written exhaustively on non-language related articles about China. Ok, it still doesn't look like he wrote a published article about this book. But just looking at his professional body of work, he is easily more or at least as credible a source as Yahuda. And you talked about how Gao and Ross are not historians - well it looks like neither is Yahuda a historian and he hasn't written books on Mao either. He's a scholar on international relations. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Gao's bibliography as you list isn't impressive - again, it seems to be about Chinese language. Let's also remember that we're not talking about contemporary Chinese history, are we? Also, as I said before, the article has no quotes from him. John Smith's 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And it would appear that Yahuda's biliography is even less impressive than that of Gao's. I'm trying to establish exactly what criteria you're using where Yahuda qualifies but Gao does not. We're not talking about international relations either, so should we take Yahuda out? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"International relations" is a generic title - much of his work is on China, as you can see from his bibliography. He has also written a detailed review of the book in question for a broadsheet newspaper. Neither Gao nor Ross have done that. Plus how is Gao's bibliography more impressive - his university page says he has only written three books recently, two on Mandarin Chinese. John Smith's 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You ignore two other books he is working on: Gao Village: Rural Life since 1996, And, The Cultural Revolution: A Debate.This means that MOST of the books he has or is working on is NOT about language, but about China's politics and its history. When you add this to his many other published historical and political articles about China in peer reviewed academic journals, then his qualifications are beyond question.Giovanni33 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You can say the same thing about Gao. As you can see from his bibliography, much of his work is on China. And maybe Yahuda's bibliography is missing something, but he hasn't written any books. His writing has all been articles for journals and magazines. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Gao wrote me, and informs me that is he working on a book on Mao, the man: "I have been writing a book on the topic of Mao the man, the Cultural Revolution, the Mao era and the post-Mao reform. In that book I will have two chapters detailing criticism of Mao the Unknown story and their sensationalist claims. You can quote me if you want: the book is NOT scholarship by any meaningful standard, it is a fiction dressed up as history."Giovanni33 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protected due to edit warring

This page is now protected due to edit warring. Please discuss the issue then contact me once you've reached a decision on what to do. --Deskana (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2007

I cannot believe the amount of bias held in this article (and even more bias held in the book itself). Please, go ask a team of historians, I don't care if they're western or Chinese, to go and examine the authenticity and credibility of the book. I can write you a book with 10 years of research about how Deng Xiaoping's reforms were bad for Chinese society and the world, and about how Jiang Zemin had sex with singer Song Zuying. I can portray Deng and Jiang as even more evil and despicable than Mao. But what the hell is the point? What is history when it only portrays a historical personality in a singular, narrow-minded fashion? Colipon+(T) 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what your complaint exactly is. How can you say this article is biased in favor of the book when multiple source discrediting the book are referred to? Please try to be more constructive in your criticism. --Bgaulke 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The intro, for one, is crap. Colipon+(T) 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your criticism is still tremendously unconstructive. What about the intro is "crap"? You should not wildly make statements like that without providing explanation. --Bgaulke 06:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I shouldn't. At least I don't go ahead and publish tremendously unconstructive and wildly-made statements and disguise them as facts. Colipon+(T) 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should, Colipon. Ignorant WesternersThose westerners who are ignorant will gobble it up and you'll be a millionaire! I should too. --Sumple (Talk) 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys are so cute. Us laowai just love to be condescended to. --Bgaulke 07:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See? I knew someone was going to play the race card. Anyway, it's not my fault that Westerners seem to love sensationalistic and grossly inaccurate books... and THEN GIVE POSITIVE REVIEWS OF IT!!!!11one11!.

Laowai is such a crass word. Nobody says that where I come from. --Sumple (Talk) 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for using "laowai"--it was inappropriate. I was offended however. The race card was not played until you guys started talking about "Westerners." It's fine if you want to say that Westerners (or some Westerners) are ignorant; it's offensive that you would say so without giving any sort of nod to corresponding ignorances that many Chinese people have. From my experiences in both countries, I think it's fair and accurate to say that the majority of people in both China and America do not know history well at all. --Bgaulke 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bgaulke is right - Chinese people can be just as "ignorant" and swallow bad history just as easily, whether it's about China or another country. It undermines the positions of you two if you bring race into the matter. John Smith's 10:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ergh... I think I made it clear that I wasn't saying "Westerners are ignorant" when I changed it to "those Westerners who are ignorant". I mean, I apologise if you were offended, but seriously, the book made it to the top of the charts in Britain and elsewhere. Its Chinese version never did in wherever it was available - e.g. Hong Kong.

I'm not saying Chinese people aren't ignorant - of course many of them are. That, however, has no bearing on the point I was making. Plus, a "Westerner" is not a racial concept. It's a cultural one. "Westerners" are made up of many different races (all the races of the world, probably) but are identified by cultural commonalities.

Anyway, I realised what I said was completely off-topic, so I apologise, and let us end the discussion here. --Sumple (Talk) 23:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the real issue

Glad this distraction is over with. Back to the issue, I take it that no one here disagrees with the valididty of including these academic's view of this book, except one person--Smith? If that is indeed the case, then I suggest we contact that admin and ask for unprotection. If Smith is alone he can not hold up the whole article.

You can argue there is consensus, but I won't nor will I go with that you say. John Smith's 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I have obained the actual papers written by these university professors as presented in the conference, and can confirm that their characterization by this article/link is accurate. Apparently these papers are being used to form a chapter of a book being currently worked on. Ross's paper is actually a very thoughough review of the book as well, and intersting. I'm hoping to find this online
so it can be linked to. Its entitled, "Mao, the all-too familiar story." Gao's paper asks that I obtain permission before citing the paper--it was sent to me by the organizer of the confrence but Dr. Gao was cc'ed in the email, and my e-mail did state my wanting to quote directly. However, Ross's paper makes no restrictions and we may want to cite some passages, which I'll present here first.

The paper also lists other responses. The Critical section lists the following, some of which I think this article is missing, and we might want to research and include:

• Joseph Esherick, et al. ‘A Critical Assessment of Jung Chang and Jon Halliday’s Mao: The Unknown Story.’ Website <http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/chinesehistory/mao/Mao.htm
• Hamish Macdonald ‘A swan’s little book of ire’ Sydney Morning Herald, October 8th, 2005.
• Andrew Nathan ‘Jade and Plastic’ London Review of Books Vol. 27, No. 2 17th November, 2005.
• ‘Mao: The Unknown Story – An Assessment The China Journal No.55 Jan 2006

• Gregor Benton and Steve Tsang ‘The Portrayal of Opportunism, Betrayal and Manipulation in Mao’s Rise to Power.’
• Timothy Cheek ‘The Number One Counter-Revolutionary Inside the Party: Academic Biography as Mass Criticism.’ p. 109.
• Lowell Dittmer ‘The Pitfalls of Charisma’ p.119.
• Geremie R. Barmé ‘I’m so Ronree.’ p.128

Giovanni33 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Nathan is already mentioned - Hamish MacDonald is a writer without any academic references as far as I can see, though his article is also listed. John Smith's 10:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hamish McDonald is a journalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgaulke (talk • contribs)

New edits

Seeing that the page was no longer protected, I added the Gao and Ross section. There is a strong consensus for its inclusion. I see no salient reason to disagree.
There is something lopsided about the criticisms of the book that this page presents, since most of them are negative. I believe that this lopsidedness is for two reasons: 1. most of the criticisms out there are negative, 2. most of the people editing this page are more interested in negative criticisms because they dislike the book.
People upset about the number of negative criticisms would do better to add positive criticisms that they discover, as opposed to simply removing negative criticisms that the editing community thinks should be included.
I also made minor edits to the introduction, including a bit on the controversy surrounding the book.
On a more general level, I would like to lament the partisanship of the editors recently involved in this project. To grossly overgeneralize, it is clear that the "anti-Maoists" are me and John Smith and the "pro-Maoists" are Sumple and Giovanni, as well as Colipon and Hong Qigong. It is, of course, to be expected that people would have ideological affiliations, but it is distressing that none of us, more or less, seem to have done a good job being fair to the other side, both in our edits and on the talk page. I don't say this to point fingers or to start an argument, but to say that I think we can, should, and owe it to each other to do better in the future. People with biases against Chang's book should not instinctively fight against all edits made by people biased towards the book, and vice versa. Every editor should cast a critical, fair, and generous eye on all edits of all varieties. I'm sorry if I'm sounding pedantic, naive, negative, or unnecessarily blunt, but these are my thoughts at this point. Make no mistake: I have enjoyed working with all of you and I look forward to continuing to do so. I do think that we have accomplished things that we should be proud of, and that the page is gradually becoming a better and better resource. --Bgaulke 05:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is not a super-majority. John Smith's 11:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oi, I'm not a pro-Maoist! I want an apology. I'm anti-Chang, but that does not mean I'm pro-Mao. In fact, I'm just as anti-Mao as the next man, the next man not being Jung Chang.

Plus, my anti-Chang sentiments are not some superficial ideological attachment ( = Communist brainwashing) or nationalistic fanaticism. I just don't like people who make a buck out of generalisingsimplifying an entire people's complex experiences, no matter what race or creed they are. --Sumple (Talk) 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sumple, I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I realized, as I said, that I was "grossly overgeneralizing" when I wrote "pro-Mao" and "anti-Mao." I understand what you mean: there's a middle ground between supporting a poor piece of anti-Mao scholarship and thinking that the Cultural Revolution is the greatest thing since sliced bread. --Bgaulke 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, let's not have another argument, please. Sumple, Bgaulke was only trying to show what he saw as the partisan attitude on the article, even if it was very crude. He wasn't making a personal dig at you. John Smith's 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No more "get out of jail free" cards

Ok, Giovanni, I am tired with your silly reversions. You have demonstrated no real willingness to compromise, just push your own POV. I compromised, yet you continue to insist on having your way. If you continue with this course of action I will have to assume bad faith on your part and ignore any further attempts by you to discuss matters and reach agreement. John Smith's 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is on compromise needed for many things: NPOV, V, etc. These are policies which should never be compromised. You have no choice but to abide by the overwhelming consensus. I suggest that if you can't convince any of the other editors here that you are right, that you stop your reverting, which is what is indeed silly, since it doesn't get you anywhere. Also, it appears you are violating the 3RR rule again, this time by using an IP address. Do you deny that is your IP address?Giovanni33 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I deny it - as I said on your talk page it's from Hungary (use an IP tracker from a google search). Obviously that guy disagrees with you and Hong. John Smith's 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So, how is Budapest? I'm not as stupid as you seem to think.Giovanni33 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of how to use a WHOIS to check the origin of an IP address, but for everybody's sake, including that of John Smith's, I've filed a check user report. Note - I didn't file it as an accusation, and I'm fully aware that the IP came from Hungary. I filed it to make it official to everyone whether or not John Smith's and the IP editor are the same person. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I doubt it will satisfy Giovanni....... John Smith's 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your "for some reason" is just common sense. So, your doubt is correct. In my opinion, the evidence is very strong in this case--even if it is not absolute proof--and even if you are not the same person. Getting someone else who is not an established user to edit war for you, counts. It's too much of a coincidence, otherwise.Giovanni33 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wikipedia isn't a witch-hunt - unless you have evidence, you have nothing. John Smith's 20:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like Deskana would agree with me on that one. John Smith's 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you've inferred anything from my protection of the page. All I've said is that there's edit warring, I'm not siding with either of you. I've not even read the article... --Deskana (ya rly) 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit war really seems ridiculous to me. John, you keep saying that no one compromises besides you, but that's clearly not true. Sumple let stand your introductory paragraph revisions, Giovanni allowed my inclusion of Sun Shuyun in the Luding Bridge section, the claim wording has been dropped from the hundreds of interviews sentence, etc. Plenty of compromises have been made by everyone who is working on this page. It's time to move on. Good work was accomplished today until the page was protected. It's frustrating that we have to halt our efforts again. --Bgaulke 02:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bgaulke my comments were directed towards Giovanni, not anyone else - Sumple can be very good at accepting other users' proposals. If Gio wants to compromise he should be willing to discuss the matter with me, rather than try to get the block lifted without consultation on the talk page and use nonsense justification as to why no changes should be made like the NPOV and vandalism rules. John Smith's 09:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protected AGAIN due to edit warring

Once more, this page is now protected due to edit warring. Please discuss the issue then contact me once you've reached a decision on what to do. --Deskana (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected now... --Deskana (ya rly) 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Header

Omg another protection? Well, in any case I have no problems with John Smith's latest version of the second paragraph. But I don't agree that either sentence needs citations, because detailed references are supplied further in the article. Perhaps just a reference or a link to the relevant section? --Sumple (Talk) 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That'd do me. Having uncited stuff in the leading paragraph isn't good, even if there are citations further on in the article. Linking them up would be nice. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I had a different idea that we could mentioned one person for each piece - but a quick reference would also be good. John Smith's 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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: . 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" 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 Misplaced Pages to contact a source for further views. The relevant point should either be elaborated within Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. That is basic. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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

. 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)