Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:36, 6 October 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in April 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page doesn't seem to do justice to the journalist, and focusses more on his reportage on India. Too narrow a perspective to judge his work through, it would seem to me. fredericknoronha (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Blatant BLP violation

Recents edits by User:Harshray and User:Mona.SHEPHERD were blatant violations of the WP:BLP policy, which is why they were reverted by myself and User:Huaxia. For example, these edits label Maxwell as "controversial" and having a "pro-China slant", neither of which can be found in the cited sources (both Indian): Rediff and Indian Defence Review, which on the contrary describe Maxwell as an authority on the Sino-Indian War. See also the opinion Who’s afraid of Neville Maxwell? by Shekhar Gupta, chief editor of the major newspaper Indian Express. In these and other edits, the two users (who may be the same person as Harshray has been previously identified as a sockpuppet of the now-blocked user Chellaney, and Mona.SHEPHERD is a newly created single-purpose account) also added pure attacking material, citing several "sources" that have nothing to do with Maxwell. -Zanhe (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The mass deletions and mutilations by User:Zanhe breached every rule of objectivity, in a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. It is apparent that the User:Zanhe has some connection to the subject, Neville Maxwell. Among the wholesale deletions carried out were references to the works of the renowned Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar and another American scholar John W. Garver. The deletions have been made to present Neville Maxwell in highly favorable light. The mutilations thus speak for themselves. -Mona.SHEPHERD (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be so blinded by your POV that you're incapable of basic reasoning. John Garver's article calls Maxwell's assessment of the war the "orthodox scholarly view", and says that Allen Whiting reached the same conclusion as Maxwell (p. 3). As for MacFarquhar, he quotes Maxwell extensively in his book The Origins of the Cultural Revolution without giving a single word of criticism. Yet you misrepresent these sources as condemnation of Maxwell.

Your most egregious offence is the misuse of Shekhar Gupta's opinion piece Who’s afraid of Neville Maxwell, in which he praises Maxwell as a "relentless journalist and scholar", and apologizes to him for having been brainwashed by Indian propaganda into "detesting Neville Maxwell as an utterly contemptible India-hater and a pro-Chinese communist toadie", yet you maliciously misquoted him to make it appear as if he still detested Maxwell. In fact, Cullen328, whose view you solicited, commented on his talk page that "the content added by Mona.SHEPHERD it sure looked to me to be an attempt to make Maxwell look as bad as possible. Particularly disturbing is misuse of sources." -Zanhe (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion of Maxwell and Whiting

Garver says on page 3: "Whiting and Maxwell reached the same conclusion: China's resort to war in 1962 was largely a function of perceived Indian aggression against Chinese territory." The "orthodox scholarly view" mentioned on page 29 is with regard to Chinese perceptions, and not about what actually caused the war. Garver says multiple times that Whiting and Maxwell concluded that there were two factors that made China decide to go to war: "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian efforts to undermine Chinese control of Tibet", and "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian aggression against Chinese territory" (page 2).

Garver p. 29: "the orthodox scholarly view in this regard, established by Maxwell and Whiting, is that, in deciding for war, China's leaders were responding to an Indian policy of establishing Indian military outposts in territory claimed by both India and China but already under effective Chinese military occupation." -Zanhe (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Here, the phrase "in this regard" refers to Chinese views of India's foreign policy, which means that "China's leaders were responding to an Indian policy of establishing Indian military outposts in territory claimed by both India and China but already under effective Chinese military occupation" was China's perception.The Discoverer (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the perception was quite accurate, according to Garver, who writes immediately before the quote above: "If Chinese perceptions regarding India's Tibet actions and policies were deeply flawed, the same cannot be said about Chinese views of India's Forward Policy." -Zanhe (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but your rephrasing of the statement makes it seem that China's perception of the Forward policy was the only factor that made them decide for war. This is not true; as I mentioned earlier, there were two factors: "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian efforts to undermine Chinese control of Tibet", and "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian aggression against Chinese territory". Since we disagree on your interpretation, I request you to stick to direct and complete quotes, and not to include your rephrasing.The Discoverer (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tibet was a major factor, but the Forward Policy was the direct cause of the war. This article is about Maxwell, not an in-depth analysis of the war. Quoting the original Garver statement is fine with me, but we need to be brief and stick with the main point. -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't the Forward Policy and India's Tibet policy that caused the war, but rather the Chinese perceptions of the Forward policy and India's Tibet policy that caused the war. We must avoid quoting "the orthodox scholarly view in this regard, established by Maxwell and Whiting, is that, in deciding for war, China's leaders were responding to an Indian policy of establishing Indian military outposts in territory claimed by both India and China but already under effective Chinese military occupation.", because the context of "in this regard" is not readily clear. For the same reason, we must not include an interpretation of this sentence.The Discoverer (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't play word games. Garver clearly states that the orthodox view established by Maxwell and Whiting is that China's leaders were "responding to" India's Forward Policy when deciding for war. And Garver concludes that the Chinese views of the Forward Policy were accurate. In any case, I've now replaced the paraphrasing with the quote from Garver, so there's no "interpretation". -Zanhe (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your quote leaves out a key phrase "in this regard" which takes out the context of the statement, and so it is unacceptable.The Discoverer (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The phrase "in this regard" goes almost immediately after the section title "China's Response to India's Forward Policy", which is to decide for war. It's about the immediate cause of the war, and how is that out of context? -Zanhe (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The phrase "in this regard" goes immediately after the phrase " Chinese views of India's Forward Policy." This means that Garver is talking about the Chinese views. Also, your removal of the text "Maxwell had to rely largely on inferences based on official Chinese statements at the time of the 1962 war." is unacceptable, because Garver has clearly stated that the Chinese perception of India's Tibet policy was wildly inaccurate and was an important part of the decision to go to war.The Discoverer (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that a person with a history of uncritically adding partisan sources to controversial articles all of a sudden becomes so critical of a neutral, academic paper. As for the the text you added, which implied that Maxwell sourced most of his material from China whereas his book was mainly based on India's classified Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Report, I've clearly stated reason why it's a biased, selective quote in my edit comment. -Zanhe (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The text I added was taken directly from what you hold is "a neutral, academic paper". Feel free to add the context that you feel is missing, but please do not again remove the text I added.The Discoverer (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

@The Discoverer: Your recent edit, is disturbingly non-neutral and dishonest. Firstly, you cited Brahma Chellaney, a known Indian security hawk who is decidedly non-neutral. (see Ashley J. Tellis's book). Even worse is your misrepresentation of the respected Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar, who you claim to have criticized Maxwell's findings in The Origins of the Cultural Revolution. The truth is, MacFarquhar extensively cites Maxwell in his book, and reaches the same conclusion as him. On page 298, for example, MacFarquhar writes: "It is clear that the Sino-Indian War of October 1962 was, at least in part, China's reaction to what came to be known in New Delhi as India's 'forward policy'". Misrepresenting sources to disparage a living person is a severe violation of WP:BLP. -Zanhe (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Zanhe, please do not defame any source by calling them 'non-neutral' unless you have evidence to that effect. The portion of Tellis' book that you have cited says that Chellaney criticised the Indian government. How does that make him biased towards India? Infact, this makes him an excellent source to be cited. The source I have cited clearly states "Rod­erick MacFarquhar had argued, by dub­bing the 1962 war ‘Mao’s India war’, that it was the Chinese who were the agg­ressors." Further in 'The Origins of the Cultural Revolution, vol. 3', he clearly explains how Mao's decision to attack was due to reversals of his past policies and his weakened domestic position. Which is not to preclude that MacFarquhar believed that India's policy was a partial factor or an excuse for Mao to wage war. I have modified my text to say that while not all the scholars criticised Maxwell as a person, they do criticise the conclusion at which Maxwell arrived, and which you call the 'orthodox scholarly view'. WP:NPOV demands that we atleast state the opposite point of view. I hope this addresses your concerns. The Discoverer (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Chellaney is an Indian writer who tends to criticise the Indian government for not being aggressive enough, which is why he is considered a hawk, and clearly not an objective observer. The main problem, however, is that you rely exclusively on (mis)interpretations of academic sources from partisan sources like outlookindia.com. You obviously have not read the relevant parts of MacFarquhar's book yourself. In the section titled "Mao's India war", MacFarquhar makes no mention of the Great Leap Forward or Mao's domestic problems. See page 308. If anything, in the section titled "India's forward policy", he writes that China's economic crisis, coupled with other problems, led India to conclude that it could push ahead with the "Forward Policy" without having to worry too much about China contemplating "major hostilities". See page 298. He does not criticise Maxwell in any way.

Besides, the sources you cite as "criticism" of Maxwell are not only clearly biased, but also carefully cherry-picked to disparage him. A cursory search on Google books for Neville Maxwell results in mostly positive comments from far more respectable sources. For example, Professor Steven A. Hoffman says Maxwell "provided the most detailed and comprehensive treatment of the subject for many years; and his views became widely accepted" (in India and the China Crisis). John K. Fairbank, the prominent scholar who was MacFarquhar's teacher, also endorsed Maxwell's analysis in his book China Watch. James Barnard Calvin of the US Navy calls India's China War "probably the most thorough, comprehensive and objective coverage of the 1962 Border War" (see here). The only legitimate criticism is probably from journalist Bertil Lintner, but if his view is to be included, it needs to be balanced against the views from real scholars. -Zanhe (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Being a hawk does not imply that someone is not an objective observer. Outlook is a reputed publication and a WP:Reliable Source. In the chapter 'Mao changes the signals', MacFarquhar wrote about how Mao's policies were being reversed, and his position weakened, and what he did about it. I cannot find an online version, but I found this summary. Also, vol. 2 of the trilogy] 'Origins of the cultural revolution' is titled 'The Great Leap Forward', so MacFarquhar has described that as well. It has never been my aim to disparage, defame or criticize Maxwell, my aim has only been to present the other viewpoint to balance the glorification of Maxwell that you had made the article. See for instance what the section 'Influence' stated: "Maxwell is recognized as the authority on the Sino-Indian War. His conclusion, which is also reached by American scholar Allen S. Whiting, that India's Forward Policy provoked China to decide for war, is now regarded as the orthodox scholarly view on the cause of the war. U.S. President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger both read his India's China War, which influenced their decision to seek rapprochement with China."The Discoverer (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

See my reply to your nearly identical comment in the next thread. -Zanhe (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits on Influence section

Friends --

I expanded sentences in the “Influence” section, turned some passive voices into active voice so it was clear who said it, and tried to say only what the sources in the notes say.

• For instance, the source doesn’t say that Maxwell’s book “influenced” Nixon & Kissinger, only that they said in conversation that they read it. We don't know whether other research has found different things (what diplomats say to other diplomats may not always be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Concluding that it “influenced their decision” is Original research, so using this primary source is questionable, but maybe we can get away with it by using direct quotes which let readers decide.
• Likewise, “Scholars like MacFarquar” et al. implies that there are many more – which may be the case, I don’t know, but it’s better to say only what we do know.
• Unless we can say that somebody said “Maxwell is wrong” or “Maxwell is a jerk” then to say “criticized” is to go beyhond the sources. Better to say “disagreed with” or “came to a different conclusion.”
• Misplaced Pages BLP article is not the place for a “state of the field” essay giving all points of view, only to give context to Maxwell’s views by informing readers that he is controversial and that others disagree. So I took the sentence apart in order to source each person separately. Bertil Lintner is certainly a respected and well informed journalist, though not what we should characterize as “scholar” in the same sense as MacFarquar. His remarks to an interviewer are not a WP:Reliable Source on this particular issue. Brahma Chellaney’s newspaper commentary, in addition to being a Primary Source, which we are not to use, does not mention Maxwell, though it certainly is critical indirectly.

Cheers to all! ch (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@CWH: thanks for your edit and comments, which are quite reasonable. One caveat though: be very careful of what The Discoverer adds to articles. Contrary to what he claims, in the section titled "Mao's India war" (available here), MacFarquhar does not mention the Great Leap Forward or Mao's domestic problems at all. Also see my response to his message above.

I've been dealing with The Discoverer for more than a year, and have repeatedly caught him citing respectable sources that do not support his statements. In fact, he used to cite (and misrepresent) Neville Maxwell quite happily (see here), it's after he realized that Maxwell actually says the opposite of what he wants to believe, that he began the recent campaign to disparage him, this time by misrepresenting another respectable scholar, MacFarquhar. Also see related discussions on Talk:Sino-Indian border dispute, Talk:Sino-Indian War, and Talk:Lanak La, regarding the decidedly non-neutral content he's added to those articles. -Zanhe (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Understood! Though it was not in my field, I read Maxwell's book when I was in grad school and have long been curious about its reputation. I stumbled on this page a while ago and took the opportunity to read up and catch up, which is one of the pleasures and dangers of Misplaced Pages. ch (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, CWH. It's always nice to have an extra pair of eyes!

In the chapter 'Mao changes the signals', MacFarquhar wrote about how Mao's policies were being reversed, and his position weakened, and what he did about it. I cannot find an online version, but I found this summary. Also, vol. 2 of the trilogy] 'Origins of the cultural revolution' is titled 'The Great Leap Forward', so MacFarquhar has described that as well.

You've got to be kidding! From a mere book title, you reached the sweeping conclusion that MacFarquhar criticized Neville Maxwell and added that baseless criticism to a BLP article! -Zanhe (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Zanhe, you are making false accusations against me. I have cited Maxwell in the past and will cite him in the future too. It has never been my aim to disparage, defame or criticize Maxwell, my aim has only been to present the other viewpoint to balance the glorification of Maxwell that you had made the article. See for instance what the section 'Influence' stated: "Maxwell is recognized as the authority on the Sino-Indian War. His conclusion, which is also reached by American scholar Allen S. Whiting, that India's Forward Policy provoked China to decide for war, is now regarded as the orthodox scholarly view on the cause of the war. U.S. President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger both read his India's China War, which influenced their decision to seek rapprochement with China."The Discoverer (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Which accusation I've made is false? Details of my "false accusations" can be seen in this ANI complaint from last year. And this "glorification" is supported with sources that have no incentive to glorify Maxwell. In fact, there is a lot more "glorification" from prominent scholars and neutral observers such as AJP Taylor, John K. Fairbank, Steven A. Hoffman, James Barnard Calvin, etc., that haven't been mentioned in the article but probably should, along with legitimate criticism from Bertil Lintner. -Zanhe (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

When I added 'MacFarquhar criticised Maxwell', that was clearly an error on my part; I apologise for that.

Zanhe, you have been continuously drawing attention to other sections while ignoring 'Mao changes the signals', that I have been referring to. Following is an excerpt from 'Mao changes the signals':

The reversal of policies taking place at the 10th Plenum of the 8th CC was due to the failure of the Great Leap Forward. (This is also in the book). Therefore it's clear that MacFarquhar is saying that the attack against India has to do with the effects of the Great Leap Forward. The Discoverer (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@The Discoverer: are you copying this analysis from Claude Arpi's blog? You know a blog is not a reliable source, right? Yet you twisted his blog post (without attribution) into an indirect criticism of Neville Maxwell. MacFarquhar's emphasis on the cause of the war is unambiguous: "It is clear that the Sino-Indian War of October 1962 was, at least in part, China's reaction to what came to be known in New Delhi as India's 'forward policy'" (page 298), i.e., the same as Maxwell. The Great Leap Forward may well have played a role in Mao's decision for war, but as far as I know, no historian has reached that conclusion or even properly explored the link ("The counter-attack on the external front was the other side of the one on the internal front" is no more than a passing mention). And in any case, MacFarquhar never mentions Maxwell in his book, except in citations. Your edits here and on Sino-Indian War are inappropriate at best. @CWH: what's your opinion? -Zanhe (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• Start-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles