Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 4

Change to the lead section
I accept the book is controversial because of the wide disputes over it. However I do not see how it is "POV-pushing" to change this:

''Various scholars have questioned the authors' use of these sources and the conclusions drawn therefrom, making the book controversial (see sections on Debate and Criticism). At the same time, the book has also drawn praise from other academics and commentators (see sections on Debate and Support).''

to this:

''The book has generated large numbers of sales and been included on best-seller lists, but it is also controversial. Mao: The Unknown Story has received mixed reviews from academics and commentators alike, ranging from praise for it for casting "new and revealing light on nearly every episode in Mao's tumultuous life",[1] to being criticised as "... a major disaster for the contemporary China field..."[2]''

If anything the second is more balanced, as well as having citations. If someone feels the second version could be better I would appreciate to know how it could be improved. John Smith&#39;s 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind John's version, but I don't like piecemeal quotes. Both of those quotes are extreme and do not represent the field of commentary reported by the main body of the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PG, in that case could you suggest something different? I was trying to show the spectrum of opinion - maybe have something in the middle too? John Smith&#39;s 08:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I also object to the over the top quotes as undue weight and this is part of the pov pushing, and unbalancing of an already balanced paragraph. Also, I note that what is removed is the claim that various scholars have questioned the book, and use of sources, making it controversial. This is the point. However, John Smith shifts this to making the controversy almost an after thought by talking about it best seller lists, sales,..."but also controversial." And if we didn't get the point, the POV pushing goes on with the extreme quotes of "praise." This is all best left for the support and critics section. The point it should make is that its controversial due to the fact that scholars have questioned the sources and conclusions. To add to the NPOV the original version states "the book has also drawn praise from other academics and commentators." This is the right balance.Giovanni33 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the praise should be saved for the support section, so should the critical bits.
 * I also don't see how it is NPOV to have the reference to praise after the criticism - in your words that is making it seem almost like an "after-thought". John Smith&#39;s 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The obvious difference is that it states both points of view, and does not quote either of them. Yours only quotes it one sidedly. The reason its controversial is because its disputed. This needs to be said for the point about controversy.Giovanni33 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't need to be said. It's obvious the book is controverisal because of the criticism, or at least because there is such disparity between views. My version is far from one sided because it addresses the support and criticism in the same amount of space and in the same way. John Smith&#39;s 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If I understand it correctly, the key differences between JS's's version and the previous is:
 * 1. Addition of, and prominence of, sales record.
 * 2. Addition of quotes for praise and criticism
 * On (1), I think it's reasonable to mention that it sold well, as that provides a context for fully appreciating the level of controversy generated by the book. For example, I don't think it would have received so much criticism if it hadn't sold so well. Whether sales record should be placed before mentioning controversy is an open question.
 * On (2), as I said before, I don't like those quotes. Furthermore, I think criticism should be mentioned before praise, since it is the criticism that makes it controversial, not the praise. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I removed the quotes - it's just links to two different articles. I was proposing this. Also the amount of discussion for criticism, etc should not go into the lead section (which needs to be kept brief) - people can see it below. John Smith&#39;s 09:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally if you're curious why I originally had quotations, I was using The Rape of Nanking (book) as a template, which is also controversial. If you look at the lead there you will see it is very similar to what I originally proposed, though I have now dropped the quotations and changed the sources. John Smith&#39;s 12:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PG, do you have a view on what I was proposing? John Smith&#39;s 17:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind it - at the same time, I don't see it as a huge improvement on the old version. I guess I abstain. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have any suggestions, please put them forward. John Smith&#39;s 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the second version is preferable of the two. It says more than the first in the same space. Although I disagree with the notion that criticism necessarily makes the book controversial, I agree that it has a) been criticised and b) caused controversy. The inclusion of quotations is to be applauded, but I'm sure there is room to work towards an improved version. But as a starting point it is better. Xmas1973 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have any further suggestions I would appreciate to hear them. John Smith&#39;s 10:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another source for reviews
The source was mentioned above, but I don't see any mention in the article of the 47 page assessment (by multiple reviewers) of the book in the January 2006 issue of The China Journal (incidentally we need a brief Wiki article about that journal--I'm surprised we don't have one now). Given that this is a widely respected journal in the field (perhaps the most respected, see here) doing an extremely in-depth assessment of this book it seems to me that it might be the best source we have to evaluate Chang and Halliday's work (the five authors of the various parts of the assessment are all professors of Chinese history or political science, and most if not all have written on Mao or Chinese society/politics since 1949). I have not looked at it at all, but I know from this story that at least one of the reviews is highly critical. I would assume at least some of the reviews have some nice things to say, though if they are all highly negative that would clearly be very telling.

This does not seem to be free online, and I imagine many folks don't have easy access to academic journals. I do, so if anyone is interested in taking a look at this let me know by sending me an e-mail (which is enabled at my talk page).

Incidentally, it seems desirable to me to get this article to the point where basically the only folks in the "response to the book" section are scholars in the field of Chinese history and politics (right now this seems to be a real problem in the "support" section, but the "criticism" section could use some weeding out as well). In my opinion it's relatively irrelevant what non-scholars/non-specialists think (in fact including too much of that could well be blatantly misleading), though we could have a section called "popular reaction" which discusses the popularity of the book and reviews in more mainstream sources who are not expert on the topic. Obviously though we should give far more weight to scholars in the field, and I have a feeling the extensive China Journal reviews might be our best source for that. Holler at me if you want to peep that stuff.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing I would like to avoid is the article almost completely focusing on reaction to the book. Already there's precious little discussion of the work itself. Although a re-organisation to the "reaction" section (and maybe "debate" section too) is a long-term goal, I think it would be more productive to first look at how to flesh out information on the book itself. After all we do have to cater to the uninformed reader, rather than focus on the things we're interested in (which is probably the discussion around the book). John Smith&#39;s 21:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, obviously the article should not completely focus on the reaction, but I would say that should be the lion's share of it. What makes this book so notable is the reaction--both in terms of its popularity and the harsh criticism. Discussing the reaction also does flesh out the arguments in the book, so I think that's useful. However I of course agree that we can/should be adding more information on the book itself in terms of synopsis etc., but I have not read it and do not really plan to so I don't think I can help there. Obviously we can work on multiple things at the same time. In any case, my main point in my previous post was that I have a source which is more than likely better than all of the other sources listed so far, and encourage others to take a look at it (so John Smith's or anyone else if you're interested let me know). If I get a chance to read through it I'll try to summarize some of the key points and maybe add some material into the article, but I'd like it if folks more versed in these topics took a look at it as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove some bits from the reviews/comments it would help if you briefly indicated which ones and why.
 * By the way I wouldn't use a journal's own webpage to show its quality. I'm sure some people love it, but any publication cherry-picks reviews on it. John Smith&#39;s 22:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for anything in particular to be removed at this point, obviously if I was I would spell it out with specifics. As to your second point, it's not that "some people love it," it's that leading scholars in the field love it (whole journals are not usually "reviewed"--rather people offer quotes of support, or mention their importance casually in articles and books). Yes, the page is from the journals's web site, but so what? Those are obviously real quotes from real scholars (academic journals don't exactly lie about that kind of thing). My intention was to briefly show that it was a very respectable journal in the field to those who had never heard of it, and I should think that would have been obvious. I doubt you are really going to quibble with the notion that China Journal is a reliable source--mainly because you would lose that argument very quickly--so I'm not sure why you are even bringing this up. Incidentally, I don't feel like getting in a long debate about nothing, I'm just trying to offer a new source (which may even help the "support" section--I literally have no idea what it will say), not start an endless debate like the ones above on this page. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for anything in particular to be removed at this point I thought you were - never mind, then.
 * I doubt you are really going to quibble with the notion that China Journal is a reliable source Of course not. I was making a point about cherry-picking reviews, which happens with all printed (or even electronic) media. John Smith&#39;s 22:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the the lengthy critiques of the book in China Journal and I must say they were quite devastating. I actually can't recall any work of history that received such a thorough shellacking in a scholarly journal. There were a couple of very minor items of praise, but in general the review authors argued that Chang and Halliday's book was an utter disaster in scholarly terms. I get the strong feeling that this is actually the general consensus on the work in the scholarly community, and the article needs to better reflect that fact. Personally I don't think this book should even be used as a source in Wikipedia articles--the number of factual errors documented by reviewers and the profound flaws in their historical methodology are extremely embarrassing.

There's a real problem with the sources in the "support" section--let me go through each source there. R.J. Rummel is not a specialist on China. He also brings very strong political points of view to his work, including an intense antipathy to communism. I am not surprised he liked this book and I don't think his opinion particularly matters since he is not a China specialist. Perry Link is not a historian, and though his review is largely positive, it is actually critical of the historical methods, and seems to see the biggest virtue in the book as propagandistic--i.e. it will help destroy the cult of Mao. Michael Yahuda is not a historian, and he speaks Chinese at only a basic level. His review in the Guardian does not carry much weight with me and should not with this article either. Richard Baum is a specialist and is complementary of the book. John Walsh is a no-name marketing professor at an 11 year old college in Thailand that only offers degrees in business and technology--it does not even have a history or poli sci department. Also it is obvious from Walsh's review that he has no ideas what he is talking about--I'm actually going to remove this reference outright because it is blatantly not a reliable soure. Gwynne Dyer is "a London-based independent journalist"--he has nothing to do with China scholarship and I can't even tell for certain if that piece was published. Simon Sebag Montefiore also knows little or nothing about China. He is a journalist cum historian who has written a mainstream (and oft criticized) biography of Stalin. Obviously this is why he was tasked to review the book on Mao, but of course since he is not a Chinese history scholar the fact that he liked the book does not really mean much.

So out of these sources only one is an obvious expert well-qualified to review the book (Baum) and an argument could be made for one other (Link). I think this is very telling. I think the proper way to describe reaction to this book is with a section on the "scholarly reaction" which seems to be overwhelmingly negative with a couple of exceptions, and then a section on the "popular reaction" which is for the most part very positive. Some of the "support" views offered above would fit nicely in the popular reaction since that is really what they are. We cannot give undue weight to positive popular reviews and thus implicitly suggest that they are just as important as a way to evaluate the quality of the work as the negative scholarly ones. They are not. This article needs to make readers understand that scholars in the field have in general rejected this book as unscholarly, popular history.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Although it's fair enough that you removed one of the reviews, I don't think the others are superfluous. For one thing, the section isn't just for academics - it's for other commentators as well. Also one does not have to work in the field of Chinese history to actually understand the quality of history itself. John Smith&#39;s 16:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, if one wants to pick over the existing reviews, I could also say that Thomas Bernstein, Andrew Nathan and John Pomfret are not historians in the Chinese field. I believe the first two are professors of "political science" and the latter is not an academic. Philip Short is a journalist turned author who wrote one book on Mao. The only professional historian I can see there is Jonathan Spence. I'm not opposed to re-writing the article, but I would suggest we discuss how to change it. John Smith&#39;s 16:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed we should discuss before making changes, I would not do otherwise. And if sources in the criticism section are found to be lacking I think they should be removed as well. I'm completely fine with political scientists (not just historians) focused on China, and as such think Andrew Nathan and Thomas Bernstein are perfectly acceptable. We should be interested in the views of those who are considered experts on Chinese history and politics in the 20th century, particularly the periods encompassed by Mao's lifetime.


 * You're going to have to provide a better argument other than mere assertion that non-experts should be given as much credibility as experts. Your comment that "one does not have to work in the field of Chinese history to actually understand the quality of history itself" is a bit vague but I think it goes against our rules. We should strive to use the best sources, and the people best equipped to evaluate the Chang book are experts in the field--i.e. one does have to work in Chinese history or politics in order to properly evaluate Chang's work. Much of the negative response from the experts revolves around the idea that the popular press was completely wrong in its evaluation of Chang's book. I don't mind keeping some or most of the reviews I singled out, but I believe it would be completely improper to give them equal weight as academic reviews by experts in the field. If the academic reaction is largely negative, as I think it is, we need to explain that or we are misrepresenting reality. As an analogy, one could cite all kinds of folks who believe in creationism but are not experts in biology, however of course in our article on evolution we don't give the anti-evolutionist viewpoint a whole lot of play because most qualified scientists disagree with it. I'm not saying the Chang book is as ridiculous as creationism, but the fact is that serious scholars in the field seem to reject it and I believe we need to prioritize those views as they are the most reliable sources that we have. It's fine for you to disagree with that, but you will also have to explain exactly why--just disagreeing is not enough.


 * My proposal is to change the article such that we have "popular" and "academic" response sections. From what I can tell the latter is going to largely contain negative responses, so if you disagree you should find other sources from academic journals that think the book is valuable, though that may be difficult.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "one does have to work in Chinese history or politics in order to properly evaluate Chang's work" I note that you've said Chinese history or politics. I can understand why you mentioned Chinese history, but politics isn't necessarily history. If your fine with political scientists, then maybe I'm fine with historians who don't necessarily focus on China and other academics. There's nothing in Wikipedia's rules or regulations to suggest what you say is right and what I've said is wrong. As for people who are "regarded as experts", by whom using what criteria?
 * Also, labelling academic reviews as "popular" is misleading. Something like Roy Hattersley's review in the Guardian could be regarded as "popular", but not ones from academics.
 * I don't have access to journals, nor do I have time to go trapsing through them - it's rather unfair to expect me to do so. John Smith&#39;s 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way your analogy is not appropriate, as History is not a science. John Smith&#39;s 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * History is a discipline and a social science. It has rules, methods, and standards. Historians evaluate some work as being very good, and other work as being very bad based on the standards of the discipline. When I say "regarded as experts" I mean people who teach and publish on the topic at major universities--did I really need to explain that? If you disagree and don't think those are "experts" that's fine, but you'll certainly have to explain why. Reviews from non-experts (even academics) in the popular press are "popular" reviews in my mind. If you disagree you will have to explain why. Historians cite political scientists all of the time, so long as they are familiar with the relevant literature, languages, etc.--the fields are quite closely related in certain respects. Historians do not cite historians of Russia about the history of China--a political scientist who deals with China would be considered a much more reliable source.


 * If you have a good public library, you can access a number of academic journals. Lots of wikipedians trapse through journals and even buy books to improve articles--it's good practice and there's nothing unfair about asking someone to do that. I will probably try to find more reviews in journals and if and when I do I can pass them on to you. In the next couple of days I'll try to work up a new reaction section and post it here for review.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * History does not have rules or standards. Some institutions have various methods that they expect their students to follow, but there is no universal system of "rules", etc. Historians also assess historical works in different ways. So, sorry, I disagree that a review is "popular" because the person in question is not a so-called expert in the subject field.
 * We are not dealing with citations, we are dealing with reviews. If someone is to be cited that "X did Y" then of course they need to work or have published in that area. But it is possible for one historian to review the work of someone in another field. There is no "right" or "wrong" History - historians disagree a lot. So unless one is dealing with purely factual points, the specific field of the reviewer doesn't matter. Indeed from reading the criticism a lot of it is not factual. Things that I've come across repeatedly are complaints that the referencing is poor and that the style is too focused on Mao, too acerbic, etc. Those are points that you do not need to be a "Chinese history expert" to see.
 * Yes, you did need to explain. You implied people were "experts" because of how an undefined group of people sees them, not by virtue of what they do. I am even more opposed to the use of the term if you're going to say it applies because of someone's activites - that would make it personal opinion. But to be honest it's not a term that really affects how we should approach the article.
 * Unfortunately British public libraries are not like the ones you may have access to. They tend not to stock journals - you have to pay for articles (and you need to know what you want). However, I don't expect you to go researching on my behalf.John Smith&#39;s


 * Actually, Bigtimepeace is right. History is an academic discipline with definite rules, and in modern academia falls under the classification as a social science, while adopting some methodologies found in the humanities, such as critical, analytic, and speculative methods. Nonetheless, as part of the social sciences the discipline relies on the scientific method. That is, the study of and interpretation of humanities records (the past) is done through a systematic process using both quantitative and qualitative empirical methods consistent with other sciences.


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


 * So, I support Bigtimepeace, here.Giovanni33 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with Giovanni, reply is to John) To be perfectly blunt, I don't think you have much of an understanding of how historical scholarship works (for example your claim that much of the criticism is "not factual" but deals with "references" is a bit of a howler--to question someone's references is to question the factual basis of their work). History--as a discipline, not the series of events in the past that historians study--most certainly does have rules and standards. There are certain ways of dealing with evidence and certain methodological approaches which any decent history graduate program will teach and which all good historians use. Historical research and writing is a profession, and it has professional standards. Obviously historians assess works in different ways (that's such a vague statement that it's impossible to disagree with it), but history is extremely subdivided into subfields (not just by country or region, but by era and by categories such as social history, gender history, diplomatic history etc.). A person who writes about Russian history does not generally review books about Chinese history--this is just not how it works. If a number of historians in one sub-sub field (such as 20th century Chinese political history) generally agree that a book published in that area is very bad then that is generally considered the general opinion of said book in the historical profession. A scholar who publishes a positive review in some mainstream source and who is not affiliated with the field does not overrule or even compare with the opinions of historians working on the actual era/place/general topic in question.


 * I'm afraid I can't at all decode your reply about "experts." If you don't like the term, that's fine--substitute "reliable sources" in its place. The most reliable sources we can find to evaluate the Mao book are historians and political scientists who research and write on Chinese history and politics. This is all I am saying, and I don't see how you can possibly argue with that. Obviously someone who studies another kind of history or another subject entirely is not as well placed to evaluate the work, just as I am not either, since I am a lowly grad student studying US history.


 * If we've hit an impasse here I don't want to carry on the discussion unnecessarily. I do plan to look for more sources from academic journals--without prejudice, if there's positive reviews I'll certainly bring them up--and am happy to pass them along.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You missed the point I was making. To question references is to question the verifiability of the book's assertions - it is not to say "this book is wrong". One does not need to study Chinese history day-in day-out to spot a poor bibliography - that is what I was trying to say.
 * I think our disagreement over standards, etc is our locations. I suspected you were an American student, though you confirmed it for me - whereas I went through the English university system. We were very much taught that History is not a rigid, regimented field but a flexible one. That doesn't mean that there are no possible standards an individual can apply in considering a work, but there is no "International History Committee" to say how one must approach things.
 * I don't know why you're talking about "overruling". There is no judgment that can be laid down by any historical "court", nor can a person "nullify" another's review.
 * A person who writes about Russian history does not generally review books about Chinese history--this is just not how it works.
 * In that case, why should someone who writes/lectures on Chinese politics (not of the Mao era) or a different period of Chinese history review a book on Mao? If you want to push the matter, one could say that the only views that count are those who write and/or teach about Mao (or at least Mao's China). John Smith&#39;s 08:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, history is not rigid and regimented and that is not the way it is taught here in the states either. I never suggested it was rigid and regimented, I just said it is a profession with standards, and I know for a fact that that applies as much in the UK as it does here (if it didn't, E.P. Thompson and others would not be so influential in the US). You still seem reluctant to accept the fact that people who do not specialize in modern Chinese history and/or politics are not as well qualified to appraise the Mao book as people who do, but I really don't feel like arguing about this point any more since I've expressed it as well as I can. I've found a couple of other reviews and will try to work up an alternative to the current reactions section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about "standards", but you haven't even said which ones you're talking about. Now if you're talking about standards that the book should have used, that's not for us to comment on (the reviewers do that). As for the reviews, there are no standards that people needed to apply in reviewing it.
 * You've also ignored my point about subject area. If you wish to assert that only people who teach/write on Chinese history are "qualified" to review this book, why is someone who teaches an area of Chinese history/politics other than Mao's China "qualified"?
 * Besides, as I've pointed out, the critics of the book are not (as far as I can remember) universally saying "this book is wrong in what it says". Questions have been raised over the verifiability of sources and the tone/focus of the book (e.g. that it demonises Mao, doesn't go far enough in discussing why the system failed, etc). Any honest history graduate should admit that you do not need to be a specialist in a particular subject area to pick up on those sorts of things. John Smith&#39;s 16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, for the fourth or fifth time (I am not going to say this again and cannot fathom why I have to repeat it): history as a profession has standards relating to how research is conducted, sourcing, methodology etc. At this point I don't even know what the argument about that is or if there even is one. I think the people who are best qualified to review this book are those who research and write about Chinese history and politics during the era covered by the Chang book, i.e. most of the 20th century, so I think we are in agreement there. Your last comment about critics is completely beside the point but also inaccurate. Many critics are saying that key arguments in the book are flat out wrong or incredibly speculative/unsourced (speculation is something that is avoided in academic history writing--you might even say that avoiding speculation is a "standard" practice in the field). You might not have to be a "specialist" to pick up on the fact that the book demonizes Mao, has sourcing problems, etc. but that is neither here nor there. To repeat (again, and again, and again)--the people best qualified to comment on this book are experts on modern Chinese history and politics. You have yet to offer a direct argument against this point, though in my view you are very good at throwing up chaff. This whole discussion become incredibly tedious awhile ago, and as I'm working on a new version of the response section which I will post when I'm done maybe we can stop this fruitless back and forth for the time being. You might not even have a problem with my new version, but if you do at least we can argue about something substantive rather than whatever it is we are arguing about now--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the response section
Per the previous discussion thread, I have rewritten the section "Response to the book" along the lines I described above. It now includes better sources from academic journals and divides the responses into "mainstream" and "academic" sections. To save space on this already cluttered talk page I posted this proposed new version in my user space here. I think this is much better than what we have now, but I'm sure it could be improved and welcome suggestions. I hope we can discuss it here a bit and then move something along these lines into the article itself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One other thing. This book has obviously sold very well as I note in the first sentence of the rewrite, but I don't know how to get exact sales figures. That would be very useful data for the response section, so if someone knows how to go about finding it that would be great.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First up you have to re-word the sections differently - several people in the "mainstream" section are academics, even if you don't think they're "qualified". Also "mainstream" is pretty meaningless.

Second I don't agree with the allocations. Perry Link is a Sinologist/East Asian academic. Rummel is important because he's an example of how Chang and Halliday's work has influenced others. If you want to put him somewhere else that's fine but he shouldn't be deleted completely. Michael Yahuda has written on Chinese issues - you said he speaks only basic Chinese, but his written ability is stronger (and more relevant). Gwynne Dyer has published on Communism.

Third you've given too little room to the two positive reviews you've listed, whilst publishing a lot more on the critical academics. Plus you left out the review from the China journal by Lowell Dittmer. John Smith&#39;s 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have an alternative section title in mind besides "mainstream" response? I'm open to another wording there. We could move Perry Link into the academic section if you want, though he's a lit professor and his review was in a mainstream publication which is why I put him in that section. Rummel really did not comment on the book but rather just said he revised his estimate on how many died under Mao. I didn't think it was that important but I have no objection to putting that back in. Yahuda and Dyer are simply not experts on Chinese history (Yahuda writes/reads at an "intermediate" level, the fact that Dyer has published on communism of course does not make him an expert on China), and both of their reviews were published in newspapers (if Dyer's was even published, I can't verify that). Their response to the book definitely thus does not fit under an "academic" section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrew Nathan wrote in the London Review of Books - hardly an academic publication. John Smith&#39;s 21:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think that Rummel is relevant for the section as it is for those qualified academics who give a reivew of this book and its merits. If Rummel does give his opinion of the book then there would be a place for him, but he doesn't do that. Just because he updated his numbers based on the book is not good enough. By this logic, do we list all the other academics who did not update their numbers based on this book, but ingored it? Perry Link is not a qualified China expert scholar, as his field of expertise is as a literature professor, and his published work on this book is not from a professional peer reveiwed source, on top of that. Hence, the whole point of separating those who comment applies to him: he belongs in the popular press section; lets keep the section for China experts just for them, and up to high standards. I think this is important to see the clear demarcation between the two, which this article should make clear (which was the problem this attempts to solve). The same goes for Yahuda and Dyrer, of course, as Bigtimepeace explains. We could change "mainstream" to "Popular Press." I'd support that.Giovanni33 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My rationale for including Nathan in the academic section is that he is an expert on Chinese politics and the LRB (like the NYRB) while not exactly an academic publication is not very far from that. I would not consider it part of the "popular press" which incidentally is probably a good name change for the section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What does Chinese politics have to do with Mao? The two aren't necessarily the same thing. As to "popular press", I'm not sure that works either - it makes me think of tabloid newspapers, which certainly isn't the case. Maybe the solution would be to order it all by chronology, with "initial reactions" for articles that came out in the aftermath of the release and then "subsequent reviews" for the months that followed. John Smith&#39;s 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Also to John above re the Dittmer review, which I neglected to respond to, I left it and another review from China Journal out simply because I did not want things to get too long. Dittmer was slightly more complementary of the book, but he said it was "not a work of objective scholarship." I did not think his evaluation of the quality of the scholarship was so different from the other reviewers which is why I did not cite his review nor the very negative review by Geremie Barme.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but are you being serious? "What does Chinese politics have to do with Mao?" A lot, obviously. Scholars who focus on political history are eminently qualified to comment on books about political leaders, so I don't know what you're driving at. I don't agree with the chronological method of organization, it's very artificial (I don't see how a review from late 2005 is an "initial reaction" whereas one from early 2006 would be a "subsequent review") and I think an academic/non-academic breakdown makes a lot more sense. If you don't like "popular press" I'm open to another wording, but I do think that's an accurate term for the responses in that section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree.Giovanni33 22:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I said "the two aren't necessarily the same thing". Why is someone who focuses on political history "eminently qualified to comment on books about political leaders"? You make lots of assertions based on your own opinion, whilst you dismiss my own when you don't like it. John Smith&#39;s 06:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really cannot believe we are talking about this. Are you seriously asking me why professors of Chinese history or politics are well qualified to comment on a book about Mao? I should not think that that would need explaining. People who work on modern Chinese history and politics necessarily deal with Mao since he is so utterly central to 20th century Chinese political history. Let's say the book in question was about FDR, would I really need to make an argument that a leading historian of the Depression and the New Deal is well qualified to review a book on FDR? I would also point out that you're giving conflicting arguments here, or at least appear to be. You seem to be suggesting that somehow experts on Chinese history and politics aren't necessarily in a good position to evaluate a Mao book (though you do not explain why), but you argue that we should include the views of people (like Rummel) who are not experts on Chinese history and politics. It is striking that you seem to have a problem with extremely reliable sources which do not like the book but have no problem including a very marginal reaction from Rummel which puts the book in a positive light.


 * I'm not interested in playing semantic games, and its hard for me to interpret questions like "What does Chinese politics have to do with Mao?" and "Why is someone who focuses on political history "eminently qualified to comment on books about political leaders"?" as anything other than semantic games. I'm interested in improving this article by adding in better sources than we have now which show the depth of the negative reaction to the book from China experts in academia. It is a fact that Chang and Halliday's book has been received incredibly harshly by a significant number of China experts (for example someone saying it's as reliable as The Da Vinci Code, a comment which is unbelievably biting for a book review published in an academic journal) and the article should better reflect that fact. Though I'm sure it could be improved, my inclination is to move the material I've worked up into the article fairly soon.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're putting words in my mouth. At no time have I said any of the reviews you have added or existing ones are improper or that their authors are not in a good position to review the book. I was asking a question about the way you have decided by yourself how to organise the reviews that seems to have gone over the top of your head.
 * It is a fact that a number of scholars have criticised the book, but then again other academics have praised it. Just because you've decided most of those people are not "qualified" to review it doesn't give you the right to try to move their comments. I'm quite happy to work through your suggestions to make a consensus version, but it's only going to work if you agree to compromise rather than set down red lines and refuse to change your stance.
 * Also I suggest you not take a "if you don't like it, suggest something better" position. An improper header is improper - you can't have an "academic" section if you're going to insist on putting other academics elsewhere. If it is impossible to come up with a good one for the format you initally wanted, we should use a different approach. John Smith&#39;s 11:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict--reply to JS):I think you misunderstand a basic WP policy regarding using best sources. Its not a matter of Bigtimepecea's own personal opinion vs yours that is relevant here. Its a matter of policy and practice that we recognize and give proper weight to academics who are commenting within their field of expertise, in peer reviewed academic journals. We focus in on what they say and reflect it here in the article. Others may have a voice, maybe, but certainly not on equal footing (such would be a deceptive "balance."). This is not an issue that you can negotiate or ask Bigtimepeace to compromise on, without a good reason, which so far you have failed to provide. Disagreeing is not good enough as this is settled by the merits and strengh of the arguments, relying on WP policies--not personal opinions. It is axiomatic that scholars who specialize in modern Chinese history and politics are the ones best qualifed to comment about the subject matter of this book--Mao's China. These core WP policies are not matters of debate, and hence not open to compromise/negotiation, either. To do so, and insist in giving the popular press and non-qualified academics equal voice with experts on an evaluation of this book, is to be an obstructionist, POV push, and violate UndueWeight. It would be tantamount to going to the Evolution article and insisting that use academics whose field of study is not biology, and use them to counter the scientific consensus on the matter. Such would be soundly, and correctly, rejected out of hand. The same should apply here no less.Giovanni33 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You believe that the headers are improper, but two others disagree with you, so right now you're the only one who has a problem with it. Simply writing that the headers are improper does not make it so. Could you explain specifically what your problem is, rather than just saying that you have a problem? You've seemingly implied several times that you did not think China experts were better positioned to review the book than non-experts. If that's not what you're saying that's good, but it certainly seemed that way. I've said I would be willing to move the Perry Link comment into the academic section, even though he is not a scholar on Chinese history. Would that suffice? The other reviewers in the mainstream section (or whatever we want to call it) did not write reviews in academic publications and are not scholars of Chinese history or politics (even if we add back in Rummel this would still hold true). This is why they do not belong in the "academic" section. Since you apparently disagree, please explain why, because even after all of those posts I'm still having trouble figuring out what your argument is, so I think you need to be more specific about which reviews in the "mainstream" section should really be in the academic one and why.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't have a section on "academic response" if academics' reviews are not included there - it simply isn't logical. I'm not sure why you raised the issue of where individuals produced their reviews. Given the opportunity I think most people would accept a commission from a major newspaper to write their views on a work - that doesn't mean what they write is somehow "less academic" than a review written in a journal.
 * Yes, I welcome Link's inclusion with the others, but I do think that Michael Yahuda should also be there. I don't understand why you feel his intermediate-level written Chinese prohibits him from inclusion in any particular section. He's reviewing a book in English, not Chinese. He has also written and taught on Chinese politics from what I can see - just that he mostly specialises in East Asia rather than China specifically.
 * If it's ok with you I might have a play around with your sandbox to give you some ideas. If you have a copy, I'd appreciate it if you could e-mail me Stuart Schram's article for reference. John Smith&#39;s 19:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Journals are edited by experts in the field, The Guardian and other newspapers are not. Thus a newspaper review most certainly is less academic, particularly since all of the newspaper reviews mentioned in that section were written by non-experts on Chinese political history. Yahuda is not a scholar of Chinese history (he has written on some political issues, but only seems to deal with very recent developments, i.e. the 1990s to the present, which makes sense given that he is an IR prof) and does not even speak or read the language at an expert level, which means he cannot evaluate the sources Chang and Halliday use which is a basic qualification for a proper academic review of a history book. A non-expert publishing in a British daily newspaper who can't even check primary sources properly because of a lack of command of the language does not belong in the academic section, sorry. Link is not a Chinese historian either and also did not publish his review in a journal but he at least knows the language (I still don't think he belongs in the academic section, and view his inclusion there as a compromise).


 * Feel free to edit in the sandbox, though obviously I might revert some of your changes there. I've e-mailed you the Schram review. It's fairly short and he actually criticizes the book on a number of points, but since he made a very positive assessment overall that's what I included.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're sounding a tad snobbish in regards to where reviews were published, though I'm sure you didn't mean to. I don't see the problem in someone writing for a broadsheet newspaper - if anything it might suggest that they have a higher profile than some of their colleagues. You can't criticise someone for being able to get work that pays well.
 * I think you're ignoring the reviews that are out there when considering language skills. At no point have I read any comments (please correct me if I'm wrong) that said "this source did not say that" or otherwise dispute the content of sources. Disputes are about either locating sources, the book's general focus on Mao's negative traits, etc. If you wish to content that the key criticism of Chang and Halliday is their representation of certain works then that's different. But disqualifying someone because of their lack of ability in a field that wasn't applied in critical reviews doesn't make sense to me. John Smith&#39;s 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Call it snobbery if you like (I think a better term is "good sourcing practices"), but there is a significant difference between reviews in peer reviewed journals and reviews in the Guardian from people who are not experts. You (again) don't offer a substantive argument against that, rather you say favoring journal reviews is snobbish. That's not a reasoned argument, and suggesting that a review in a newspaper (again, by a non-expert in Yahuda's case) is as good as a review in a refereed journal goes against our policies on reliable sources. China Journal is without question a better source for evaluating a book on Mao than the Guardian and the latter clearly does not qualify as an academic source. My argument here is based on Wikipedia policies (see here, particularly "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."), not my own inclinations or disdain for broadsheet papers.


 * And yes, reviewers have claimed that Chang and Halliday misused and/or misread sources, but you're missing the point of my argument about lack of mastery of the language. You simply cannot be an expert on 20th Chinese political history if you cannot read primary sources at an expert level, anymore than you can be an expert on the French Revolution if you read French at an "intermediate" level. For this reason Yahuda is clearly not an academic expert on the eras covered by the Mao book, and as such I do not think he qualifies for the "academic response" section. If he was a Chinese history scholar publishing in the Guardian or if he published his review in refereed journal it would be probably be different but he isn't and he didn't.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What you're quoting is a guideline, not a rule - the rule is WP:V. Specifically I should refer you to where it says in general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers Clearly mainstream newspapers are acceptable sources. A guideline cannot override a rule. Can we please move on from this point?
 * I understand your point quite well, but I don't feel it is relevant because I don't think one needs to be an "expert" in a field to review a book. Yes, one would not deem a professor of Plant and Soil Science (see Fred Magdoff's article in the current page's references) to be the person you want commenting on matters relating to the Cultural Revolution and/or Mao. But I think one can be flexible if you have people that have serious experience of researching and publishing in fields related to the one in question. If not being completely fluent in Chinese is going to hinder Yahuda's ability to review a book on Mao, I don't see how he could have possibly written credible articles on anything relating to Chinese politics and the ilk. John Smith&#39;s 21:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainstream newspapers are, of course, acceptable sources. But I never said they weren't and am not arguing for removing those sources so you're going off on a tangent by citing WP:V--I don't disagree with that policy. I understand you don't feel someone has to be an expert in order to review a book, but that's simply your opinion and Wikipedia clearly prioritizes the views of experts over those of non-experts. According to your argument, as I read it, we should give the same weight to an article in the New York Times by their science reporter as a peer reviewed journal article in Nature. Is this really what you are saying?


 * I don't even know what you want at this point and am about maxed out on this conversation, so why don't you just make some adjustments to what I wrote in my user space and see if we can come to some consensus. I plan to go on a long wikibreak fairly soon but would like to finish this first--obviously our back and forth here is not getting us anywhere so I think you need to step in and make some changes to what I have written or else I'll just put it in the article since you are the only person who has a problem with it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I say put it in the article as this is manadated clearly by policy as you have clearly given a reasoned articulation to this case, and JohnSmith has not been able to offer any refutation of it. It doesnt matter if he thinks giving more voice to experts is snobbery, its what we do here on WP. By this logic all encylopedia's would be "snobbish!" heheGiovanni33 23:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do want to put it in the article soon, but I also want to give John a chance to make some substantive suggestions/edits to the stuff I have in my sandbox so I'll wait. Maybe we can come to some kind of agreement and thus put a stable version into the article. If this does not work I still plan to add this material in (perhaps with some changes) as it's clearly an improvement over what we have now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BT, I'll have a go in the next few days. When were you planning to go on wikibreak/want to resolve this matter by? John Smith&#39;s 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally sooner rather than later, like within the next week, as grad school work beckons. If you can try to make some changes in the next two or three days that would be good, if not maybe I'll just move it into the article after awhile and we can play with a bit there.


 * Also here's one alternative I've thought of (hoping for a bit of a silver bullet here!) though it's not my first option. Keep the content roughly as it is in my sandbox, but retain the original section titles of "support" and "criticism" (obviously some of the stuff which is supportive in the academic section would need to be moved, i.e. the last paragraph of what I wrote). I could be okay with this as long as the wording was basically the same, i.e. if we still make the point that very harsh criticism has come from academic corners and specifically China experts, whereas reviews in non-academic journals have generally been very positive (I think this is indisputable, but we would let readers draw their own conclusions as to whether to put more stock in the supporters or the critics, without explicitly dividing into academic and non-academic sections). Do you think that might work? If you want a could make I couple of changes (it would not take me long) to what I have and you could see if this alternative would work better. It would probably save some time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

More on the response rewrite
John, thanks for doing some work on the material in my sandbox here. While some of the changes are okay, there are a number of things which I do not find acceptable. Basically what you have done is cut down or slightly neutered the criticism at various points while expanding the praise as much as you possibly could. Care to explain why you did this? For example you currently give as much space to a two paragraph book recommendation by Richard Baum as you do to 4 ten-plus page reviews in China Journal. How exactly is that not a violation of undue weight? I don't understand why you chose to cut down some critical material and expand material that agrees with your position.

The Perry Link quote is far too long and will need to be cut down. Since we are going to put him in the academic response section he does not deserve more play than historians who actually specialize in the field/reviews published in peer reviewed journals. He can stay in the academic section though--Yahuda cannot. You can put his review in the pop press response if you want, but I'm not going to let a non-expert writing a brief review in The Guardian in the academic response section. I've compromised on Link, who is a non-specialist who wrote in the TLS, and am asking you to compromise on Yahuda.

I don't really care for the section breaks either. What's the point of having one negative and one positive academic response? Why not combine them? Separating them makes it easier to lard the article with positive academic reviews, but you've included every positive review from an academic you could find (including non-experts like Yahuda) whereas as I left out some extremely critical reviews. The majority of the reviews from experts and particularly experts in academic publications have been negative. (Do you disagree?) We cannot give the impression that there's a 50-50 split among academe on this matter because it is simply not true, and that's what your current version does.

I might have other quibbles and will probably set about adding back in some stuff you deleted for no good reason buy the above are my main concerns right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no "praise" section in your sandbox. What you had was a single bit on the academic response. I'm happy to snip Richard Baum's piece down if you like. The same applies to Perry Link - I was merely trying to be informative.
 * As to Michael Yahuda, I've made the point that I think he should be included. He is an academic who had a review published in a major UK newspaper. I've quite clearly highlighted his professional position/field. If someone wants to think "well I'm not going to take note of what he says because I don't think international studies is relevant" that's up to them. I think it's a grey area so the reader should make their minds up.
 * I've also compromised by not insisting on having the "good stuff" first - that automatically influences the reader, as they would expect the praise earlier.
 * If you're going to put stuff back in I would appreciate it if you said what you wanted to put back first. It's important to keep things simple, and you should not have spent time describing reviews - just focus on what the people say. John Smith&#39;s 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The good stuff is first in your version--it's the positive reception in the general response section, so there's no compromise there. Since the negative academic reaction completely outweighs the positive one it would make no sense to put the latter first--the fact that you did not do that is not at all a "compromise."


 * I had neither a praise nor a criticism section. I had a mainstream section which was all praise (that's something we might have to change eventually incidentally), and an academic section which started with criticism and ended with praise. You have three sections--praise, criticism, praise (the first is not labeled as such, but that's what it is).


 * I know how you feel about Yahuda, obviously. But is this really that important to you? Letting Link into the academic section is questionable, but Yahuda just can't go there for reasons I have pointed out time and time again. Giovanni agrees here, so you are literally the only one pushing to include him in the academe section. Since I let Link be included against my own preference, can you consent to moving Yahuda back to another section against your own preference? Your arguments for including him there are not convincing.


 * I really don't see any compromise in your changes so I hope some compromise is forthcoming. I also don't understand what you mean by your last comment. If I want to put stuff back in I'll put stuff back in just as you deleted and added without explanation. After I do this you can see what you disagree with, but talking about it first makes no sense and I did not ask you to do this. I'll also probably edit some of the transitions, but I might not get to any of these changes today.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Given we're focusing on the academic section the fact it leads with criticism is highly significant. It is a compromise to have it first, as under the current page "support" leads "criticism". It would, however, be very difficult to do that with the "mainstream" reviews given that chronologically they were mostly positive at the start.
 * You also have feelings for Yahuda too. I could ask the same question - is this that important to you? I don't find your arguments for keeping Yahuda out convincing. You complain about his lack of Chinese but ignored my point about his work on China. If his lack of Chinese is going to bar him from having an "academic opinion" on a book on Mao, how has he been able to publish his views/research on China subsequently?
 * Given there are only three people discussing the page here at the moment, it's a bit daft to complain about the fact I'm the only person with my view on Yahuda. Wikipedia is about building consensus, and it is true that the current version of the page was (to a degree) consensus. So it is up to you to build and find that consensus rather than say "well it's 2 v 1 so your position doesn't count".
 * If you don't want to discuss changes first, fine - but don't be surprised if I make my own subsequently. John Smith&#39;s 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as I've already said you're welcome to make changes after I do (which won't be for awhile). And I don't think I've ever said your opinion does not count John, if anything I've bent over backward to listen to your view (discussing this in detail before I wrote anything, sending you reviews which took me some to find so you could see the sources I was using, writing a new version in my user space before changing the article, and inviting you to edit in my userspace). All I'm saying is that, on Yahuda, we can't seem to come to consensus and you are outnumbered on that question. You were also outnumbered on Link but I agreed to your argument about him and am now asking for a bit of quid pro quo. Newspaper reviews by people who cannot read the primary source documents do not constitute an "academic response" to a history book--ask any historian you meet if they think it does. This is really a relatively small point, and I'd appreciate if you could show some flexibility on this as I did for Link's review.


 * One other point. Perhaps the existing version is consensus, I don't really know. Obviously I am making a strong effort (much more so than most would) to achieve consensus for my changes. But this does not mean I have to get you to agree to every single change before I make it. You are just one editor, like me, and cannot block consensus all by yourself. Hopefully when we're done we'll be very close to one another and can quibble about other details once we move it into the article. Also once changes are made to the article itself perhaps others will add in their two cents.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To be quite fair, the current version (bar a few disputes) was consensus according to Wikipedia rules. I'm not saying that one editor can forever block any changes, but if you are going to re-write entire sections (as we would be doing here) then consensus is important. Equally when you have only three people discussing a matter you can't claim consensus with two. John Smith&#39;s 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have any disagreement about consensus and its desirability and importance. I only mentioned the two-to-one thing with specific reference to Yahuda (as I repeated again in my last comment), as it appears we are not coming to consensus on where to put him. Again, given that I already made a concession on Link, will you consider making one on Yahuda?  Consensus is good, but so is compromise, and that's what I'm talking about right now with respect to one relatively small issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you honestly can't stand having Yahuda in an academic section the other option is to keep the current format with "support" and "criticism". John Smith&#39;s 19:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on John, please tone down the dramatics. I never said I "can't stand" including Yahuda in the academic section. I presented a very reasoned case as to why I think he does not belong there and asked you to consider making a concession on this one issue, a request to which you still have not directly replied. I don't know what you mean by keeping the current format, but is it something along the lines of what I proposed in the last comment of the previous section whereby we would "keep the content roughly as it is in my sandbox, but retain the original section titles of "support" and "criticism"?" I said I would be okay with that a s a compromise solution if it's along the lines I discussed here. But is it so important to you that one short review by a non-specialist in a newspaper be included in the academic section that you will insist on canning the whole idea of an academic section if you don't get your way on this one point?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing would be for us to try to redraft the "criticism" section. You complained I had edited it unfairly. If we can resolve that problem first it might help things to move forward at least on that front. Or you can keep the current format in the article as it is (support and criticm), whilst changing the content. John Smith&#39;s 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Yahuda is a valid source under any academic section and John Smith's argument that reviewing a historical work does not require being 100% focused on the subject area is acceptable. As to the objections over Yahuda's language skills, he has also written on China with regard to more recent events. Why can he do that with only some Chinese but not for a period a few decades before? Xmas1973 21:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yahuda's review was not published in an academic journal. His piece was published in the Guardian. That is the popular press, not acadamia. There is a reason he is published there and not an academic journal among experts in the field: Michael Yahuda is not a historian, and he speaks Chinese at only a basic level--he is not a speicalist. So you have added nothing to counter these most important and undisputed facts. Since the section is meant for only scholars in the field of Chinese history and politics Yahuda does not belong there. If I'm wrong please show me where his published reivew of this book exists outside of the popular press. If you can't, case closed.


 * Also, consider that it's a consesion, a compromise already to give so much space already to the popular press, but at least it must be separated accordingly. I think its basically irrelevant what non-scholars/non-specialists think, but to blur the lines between to two creates is blatantly misleading (as exists now in the article). A "popular reaction" is tolerable under the topic of the popularity of the book, which mentions reviews in mainstream sources who are not experts on the topic. Obviously, it needs to be trimmed down and not comparable and to contrast it with the scholarly review, which makes the point that the popular press got it very wrong. I don't think its even up to debate the fact that far more weight should be given to scholars in the field. I'm amazed that JohnSmith put up such a big argument about such a basic practice.


 * So far, no valid argument has been presented to support the rather wild assertion that non-experts should be given as much credibility as experts. To to do so without some compelling reasons would be a violation of Undue Weight. In general, we should always use only the best sources, and the people best equipped to evaluate the Chang book are experts in the field--i.e. one does have to work in Chinese history or politics in order to properly evaluate Chang's work. BigtimePeace has already provided some rather extensive and in depth scholarly reviews found in the China Journal, which I'd recommend you read. And, the expert opinion includes the their view that the popular press was completely wrong in its evaluation of Chang's book. No big surprise there. Since the academic reaction is largely negative, we need to explain that clear, or else we are misrepresenting reality, and violating core WP policies. It would be tantamount to quoting various sources that believe in creationism but are not experts in biology, in our article on evolution to give "equal balance" to the anti-evolutionist viewpoint. Sorry, not allowed.


 * I read some of the lengthy critiques of the book in China Journal and they were quite devastating, comparing the work to be on the level of the DaVinci Code--an utter disaster in scholarly terms. And that is why it should be clear here that this book can not be used as a source in other Wikipedia articles given extremely embarrassing factual errors and profound flaws in their historical methodology that have been documented within the scholarly community.Giovanni33 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been a long enough delay. I want to see this article section changed and the proposed change is a vast improvement to the section. I refer to the one Bigtimepeace has worked on. If no one does it, I'll put it into the article, soon. It's a definite improvement and solves a problem that should be be allowed to remaind as its a violation of undue weight. Bigtimepeace, if you want me to hold off and wait longer, I'll do that. But, its been long enough and any tweaks can take place in the new version, I think.Giovanni33 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been totally slacking on this but give me another day or so and I'll make some other adjustments to what John last worked on in my sandbox and then I think we should move it into the article and can hammer out any other details/differences there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, sounds good. Thanks.Giovanni33 07:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

recent deletions
Xmas deleting section, without consensus. I'm restoring it. Lets discuss those controversial changes before deleting them. I'm restoring that long term version as it was stable.Giovanni33 09:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was only stable because we were going through dispute resolution at the time. The changes that you made to bring that version around were not consensus either, so that is not a reason to revert his changes. You also didn't object to his changes for over a week, despite the fact that you have been editing wikipedia consistently throughout that period.
 * You also deleted material without good cause. So I have restored his version. John Smith&#39;s 17:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored John Smith's deletion while keeping the text that Giovanni deleted in his edit, with an "unreferenced" tag and a "citation needed" tag. The fact that dispute resolution never finished 100% to lead to concensus would be a good reason why Xmas shouldn't have deleted it. But John Smith's correctly points out that Giovanni deleted material without good cause, that's why I've kept the text that Giovanni deleted and subsequently reverted by John Smith's. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hong, dispute resolution is over. We've been through arbitration - that's the last step. There's nothing more now. Or maybe you could tell me about this secret step above arbitration only you seem to know about? John Smith&#39;s 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Was concensus reached to delete the text that Xmas deleted? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but there was never consensus to add the text Giovanni wanted either. So if you want to claim the need for consensus then it would have first applied to the changes Giovanni made to add the rubbish about Gao.
 * You're also skirting around the issue. You said dispute resolution was not complete - so what is there left? John Smith&#39;s 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that the text was added, then there was dispute resolution on whether or not it ought to be deleted. When I said dispute resolution was not 100% complete, what I meant was basically that no concensus was reached - at least that's my impression of the result of the dispute resolution, correct me if I'm wrong.  What I'm going by is that the dispute resolution was opened while the text was present in the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see your logic in reverting Xmas' change from that. What you are by default saying is that if a change is disputed, it must stand until consensus is reached to remove it. That is not sensible. John Smith&#39;s 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. What I'm saying is that since the formal dispute resolution didn't yield concensus, then we shouldn't change the text.  I'm assuming that the dispute resolution was opened on the issue of whether to delete the text or not, since the arbiter didn't start the dispute resolution by first deleting the text, and then discussing whether or not it ought to be inserted.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitration does not consider content disputes, so an arbiter would never delete anything. The only other step in mediation where someone is asked to enter a dispute is mediation - the mediator does not make decisions either. So I don't see where you're going with this. John Smith&#39;s 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to see what an "arbitrator" has to say we could always go for Med-Arb, with the arbitrators this time making a decision over the dispute rather than user conduct. That would be the easiest way around the problem as it's clear we'll never reach consensus just by talking about it. John Smith&#39;s 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment whether there is undue weight in any particular passage. But I went ahead and modified the existing paragraph on Kaz Ross, to reflect what the respective sources actually said. Please be careful to attribute each passage to their correct sources respectively.--Endroit 11:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me add that the entire paragraph on Kaz Ross was based on biased sources. The sources openly advocate Mao Zedong, while attacking Chang/Halliday for being negative about Mao.  Biased sources may only be used if properly attributed.--Endroit 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this whole article is about a book that's just about as biased as you can get. Bias shouldn't be a problem. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that you're just being sarcastic here. Still, I hope that nobody would think that just because a particular subject might be controversial or biased by nature, we are free to inject our own biases or points of view into the article.  Folic_Acid 13:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was being sarcastic - or perhaps ironic. It wasn't a helpful comment and I apologise for that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No harm done. :) Folic_Acid 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)