Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2

Opening Statements

To kick off the mediation, I would like to ask each party to make an opening statement that addresses the issues to be mediated – whether each link and reference should be included in its respective article. Please include rationale for your position(s), but try to limit your statement to a couple paragraphs. Additionally, please refrain from posting rebuttals under the other party's section, although you are free to include counter-arguments in the course of your own opening statement in your own section. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33

My general attitude is to have the issues outlined on the project page included:

• I support the inclusion of Issue 1 (see main project page);
• I support the inclusion of Issue 2 (see main project page);
• I support the inclusion of Issue 3 (see main project page);
• I support the inclusion of Issue 4 (see main project page).

The reasoning of this is:

• that the article is more than a summary of a conference, and provides valid and important analysis/opinions about the subject matter, along with links to full articles on various issuse that fall under the articles subject; thus it is useful to the wikipedia entry as to warrent a link in the external links section in the very least;
• that although a review of a work that has a separate entry on wikipedia it can also go on the author's page as its sufficiently about the author as much as her work;
• that the review, while it may be an amateur work has gained notablity wihtin the press and academia, and thus is fine for the external links section; that is has a POV is good (one of the reasons we have an external links section).
• that Professor Gao, although is not directly quoted expressing an opinion on the book in the entry, is referenced in the article that is quoted, mentioning Prof. Gao's talk on the subject, making his reference in the article completely relevant and part of reporting exactly the the source we quotes says, in the same context. Further research revealed Prof. Gao is working on a new book with a whole chapter on the matter. Thus, mentiong Gao, just like he author of the source we quotes does, allows the reader this useful informatoin about Prof. Gao's interest and involvment with this subject matter.

Giovanni33 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's

My general attitude is to not have the issues outlined on the project page included:

• I oppose the inclusion of Issue 1 (see main project page);
• I oppose the inclusion of Issue 2 (see main project page);
• I oppose the inclusion of Issue 3 (see main project page);
• I oppose the inclusion of Issue 4 (see main project page).

The reasoning of this is:

• that the article is only a summary of a conference, also lacking detailed referencing of any opinions/analysis and thus is not significantly useful to the wikipedia entry;
• that a review of a work that has a separate entry on wikipedia should not go on the author's page;
• that the review is an amateur work and highly POV in places/of mixed quality;
• that Professor Gao is not quoted expressing an opinion on the book in the entry and thus any reference to him in the article is largely irrelevant.

John Smith's 15:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Issue One

• Inclusion of this article in the external links section of the Cultural revolution page

The first issue in the mediation seems to relate to whether the analysis provided within the external article is valid and significant. I'd like to point to a paragraph that used to be in Wikipedia:Reliable sources (or Wikipedia:Verifiability -- one of the two):

Beware false authority. Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other.

Although this no longer resides in the aforementioned policy, I believe it's a good starting point for resolving the first issue. From the bottom of the external article, one can see the author's credentials:

Fred Magdoff is professor of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont in Burlington. He is author of numerous scientific articles; coauthor, with Harold van Es, of Building Soils for Better Crops (Sustainable Agricultural Network, 2000); and coeditor, with John Bellamy Foster and Frederick H. Buttel, of Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment (Monthly Review Press, 2000).

Based on that information (or additional information about the author, if you have any), is he or is he not a pertinent source with expertise relevant to the subject of the article and, perhaps more importantly, the Wikipedia article Cultural Revolution? -- tariqabjotu 16:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that he is not a "pertinent source" as you describe given his qualifications. John Smith's 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel that way. -- tariqabjotu 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well on the question you asked, is he a pertinent source, I would say that his grounding in plant/soil science is not relevant to the area in discussion, which is history. That does damage his credibility as a source to express opinion, which he does do in the article. Thus that is one reason why I don't think it's appropriate. John Smith's 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy/guideline section you point to is not relevant. Please note this is not for any text in the body of the article, that its being used to support some claims being made. Rather its only a link presenting a political POV, in the external links section. Therefore to find the applicable and relavent policy that perstains to this please see the policy and guildelines on external links, and note the section on politics.Giovanni33 19:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the discussion is over whether this link should be included in the External links section. However, my reason for quoting the piece from the policy was to provide a reason why relevance needs to be taken into consideration. Anyone can write a piece related to the Cultural Revolution (even I might be able to), so we need to have a standard by which we judge whether links should be included. Although that quote formerly resided in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, (the current version of) Wikipedia:External links demands a similar level of relevance from external links:

• What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
• Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

So, I'm querying each of you as to whether the link qualifies as "meaningful", "relevant", and/or "knowledgeable". The author's credentials are particularly important given the conflict between you and John over this link appears to be centered around the validity and importance of the analysis and opinions therein. However, looking at the author's credentials is only one possible metric; if you have other reasons to believe the link in question is significant regardless of the author's credentials, please make them known. -- tariqabjotu 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. Notice the EL section has different standards. This is a review of an academic conference on the Cultural Revolution, discussing central issues, from a socialist perspective. Its published in a very respected academic Marxist journal, and the author, while he is a professor in another area of experties, shows he is knowlegable about the subject, and has written books that relate to the politics of food and social organization, again as a socialist. For example see here: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0705magdoffs1.htm I'll also point out that this article, as a summary/reivew, links to many other articles for a more indepth discussion of each topic---all completely relevant, meaninful content to this article. This makes is valid, even if its not suitable for inclusion into the body of the article, and also even if the author is not considered a reliable source as per below:

• What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."
• Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

Moreover, this link does not violate any of the guildlines for inclusion. No one alleges that it is not accurate, misleading, etc. The author talks about the common western view, acknolweges the chaos, and dark side of those times, but brings us back to more balanced, nuanced understanding of the upsdide of the movemvent, and Mao's intention in launching it, in keeping with this school of thought. These are legitimate points, interesting commentary and review of an academic conference on the CR (who are China experts, and reports on their topics). Thus, it is completely germaine, meaningful, relevant content, with the source being knowlegable as is evidenced by this very published article (among others).Giovanni33 06:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the link in question - please don't bring up others, as that's a red-herring - I re-state my point that I don't see the author as being properly grounded in the field he is writing about. However, another issue is that really it's quite pointless to me. It reads like someone's travel diary. "Oh, and I saw this thing and this thing and this thing........" Really, that's not a valuable link in my opinion. If this was a link to the conference website that had detailed accounts of what was said, that might be better. But it isn't. Such brief summaries of what must have been very complex discussions are completely inappropriate. John Smith's 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You make two points. The first one is already addressed: your point about the author not being properly grounded in the field is noted but per policy on the external links section, this standard does not apply. The standard is that the content is relevant, meaningful, and/or the author is knowlegable. Your other point is that its not detailed enough, that the summary was too brief? But, I point out that it links to more detailed articles, and each section that he participated in is reviewed for its salient points. Not all links should be dense and complete. High over view summaries of the main issues presented in this conference on the CR are also appropriate. You say its "quite pointless." I disagree. He makes many important points that are central to understanding the CR. Here is one point he makes, that I feel is quite important, relevant, and meaningful as content to the article: "Mao's purpose for initiating the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) was to mobilize and engage millions and millions from all sectors of society -- workers and peasants as well as students and intellectuals -- in a struggle against the forces within the Party that favored the restoration of capitalism. Among most intellectuals in China and the United States, the Cultural Revolution has been viewed as an era of inhumane chaos. It is true that the Cultural Revolution was chaotic, with various Red Guard factions (some were even sham Red Guards, possibly organized by those under attack to confuse the masses) and many instances of exaggerated and inhumane treatment of people, including killings. On the other hand, in the rural areas this period is commonly viewed in a more positive light -- an era when much infrastructure was built and attention paid to problems of the great mass of people living in the countryside."

That may be pointless to you, but not to me. Its definitely makes a major point. It links to other articles that expand on this topic. Its a topic and issue that is very much at the heart of the debate of the CR, esp. important given how the West has demonized this rather multifaceted, overachring and profoundly tranformative period (for both bad and good). You may not like or agree with this perspective, but you can't deny its a central counter point to the dominant western pov, and has everything to do with the CR.

Again, if you feel this is too brief, not detailed enough, then, as I said before, I'm happy to replace this link with a better one that makes the same points, as above--a better report on this academic conference on the Cultural Revolution. Do you have one? Otherwise, it amounts to arguing that "nothing is better than something." But isnt' nothing even more breif, more shallow, and the most possibly uninformative of all, as its amounts to blanking what little (but interesting) information that is provided? What is most strange is that your argument rests on this very basis (that its not detailed enough), yet your solution is to make information about this conference and its important gone completely, to blank it. What can be less informative than nothing? No, that is not an acceptable line of argument, it is not logical, nor is it supported by policies on external links provided for above.Giovanni33 08:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more a case of "nothing is better than someone's travel journal that is vaguely related to the article in question". John Smith's 21:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If an article about "The Fortieth Anniversary: Rethinking the Genealogy and Legacy of the Cultural Revolution" is not related to the Cultural Revoltion very directly, then nothing is! Last time I checked the article in question was called the "Cultural Revolution," yes? So unless that article's title changes to a different subject, saying this article about the CR is only 'vaguely related" is absurd.Giovanni33 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni seems to have raised some good points regarding the article's relevance despite the professor's expertise in a different area. Do you, John, contest the truthfulness of the link's information or have a better review (or other relevant piece)? -- tariqabjotu 01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have a better link. I can't be sure about the link's "truthfulness" because there's nothing to back it up or put it in context - with such picking-and-choosing we don't know what was really said there (not to say the author was lying but that comments he may not have liked were ignored). As I said, it's just a travel diary with a bit of opinion. Also I'm not going to run around doing Giovanni's work for him. John Smith's 11:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "doing Giovanni's work for him"? The onus may be on Giovanni33 to find evidence that the author's piece is not fiction if truthfulness is part of his argument for keeping the link, but the onus is on you to find evidence that the author's piece is not based on fact if that is part of your argument. However, if that is not part of your argument and/or you're just willing to take the author's word as is, we'll move on. Either way, I'd like to know why you believe the format of the piece nullifies the quality of the information therein. -- tariqabjotu 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about his question over having a better link.

As to the article, I've never said it was not based on fact. I merely think it's not very informative and not detailed enough. Apart from the afore-mentioned points on his personal opinion and academic background, it's all very bitty and brief in what is actually being discussed from the conference. Because of that it's impossible to put the points he mentioned into context. External links shouldn't just be there "for fun" - they should really add to the article. I don't think this really adds to the Cultural Revolution page much at all. That's just my view. John Smith's 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The weakess of the above "real" argument should be self evident and therefore doesn't really need much of a refutation, I think; it falls on its own for it fails to produce any objective criterial by which the external link can be challenged per policy, but in fact, conforms to policy demands. I think its really just a question of "not liking that socialist POV' that the author expresses about this subject, hence the changing goal posts, and resulting very weak arguments for removing it. I'm ready to move on to the other issues, but I think this one is pretty clear: that link is valid to the article under its external links section. The argument to remove it falls short of valid reasons.Giovanni33 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I don't see where John says that "not liking that socialist POV" was part of his rationale or where Giovanni says he wants the link in the article "for fun". That aside... John, in your opening statement you denounce the article for "lacking detailed referencing of any opinions/analysis". However, you have said you don't dispute the factuality of the link and cannot (or are unwilling to) find a better link. Do you see the disconnect? If you all want to move on to the second point and deal with two issues concurrently (or simply come back to this one), that's fine by me. -- tariqabjotu 06:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the disconnect. I don't dispute everything that he says, but the lack of references and detailed analysis makes it rather unreliable in my view. John Smith's 10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But, is it actually unreliable? I don't believe you have refuted Giovanni's long response, except by saying that the format of the piece could be better. I'm trying to get you to explain why you believe the format is such a serious problem. I'm still not seeing that, so perhaps you can accept the existence of this link and let us move on to the next issue (there are still three items remaining, so this is far from over). -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to come back to this point, but I'm not willing to accept anything right now. John Smith's 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

True, he doesnt say that he doesnt' like the POV here as the basis of any argument (that certainly would not be a valid argument). I'd prefer not to eal with two issues concurrently, or come back to this one, later. I would like to move on, though, and have this one issue settled in favor of inclusion. This should be a rather simple, straight forward issue to settle, and I think we are close that now.Giovanni33 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we aren't going to get anywhere with this for now - let's move on. John Smith's 10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think we are already there. You don't have any strong arguments to counter why this link is fine to keep, so therefore, the result is: keep. Since that has been settled, we can move on. Of course, you will never agree to anything no matter what, but any objective look at the merits of both sides of the argument makes clear what the verdict is.Giovanni33 08:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, assume good faith. Also please respect the point of mediation - we're supposed to agree on the outcome. You are not respecting the process if you make arbitrary comments like "therefore, the result is: keep". John Smith's 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Its not an aritrary comment, and stating my view is part of this process. The result is keep per an objective evaulation of the merits of the arguments above, in accord with policy. I think its very clear so that is why I say (in my view) the result is a clear keep. Once we establish that we can move on to the other issues.Giovanni33 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni you can have your own opinion, but you cannot rule as to what the result is - everything is about consensus. Tariq, can you please ask Giovanni not to say things like "the result is X" again, please. John Smith's 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue Three

I'm going to skip to Issue Three because it seems natural to address that before tackling Issue Two. Giovanni appears to concede that the link is an amateur work (as noted by John) and has a point-of-view (as noted by John), but also says the work "has gained notability within the press and academia". What evidence (i.e. links to press and academic sources) do you, Giovanni, have of that assertion? -- tariqabjotu 05:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to get back here. I was actually waiting to find an English report in the press on this issue but it appears to be neglected by the Western Press. But no matter. The Chinese mainstream published it, and interviewed Ms. Chang about it,citing this particular essay. I refer you to the paper itself which documents that interview held in New York on October 5th, and cites it source. Here is the critique online in a non-pdf format to reivew: [1] Again, the sources are all in Chinese. However, I found the actual interview of the author, by the same journalist who wrote the article that appeared on the papers front page. The journliast's name is He Pin with Duowei news services, and article is based on this interview, which is hosted here from Utube: [[2]] My Chinese is not good enough, so just to make sure I had a native speaker listen to this and confirm that it talks about the essay in question, and the author attempt to answer his questions. Also, the article can be found on the blog page of the journalist himself (his name is He Pin, and he is actually high up within Duowei, who does the interview with Jung Chang. It's in Chinse but the section talking about this essay starts on section 9 within the full article here:[[3]]. An English translation of this appears on the paper itself, which it quotes, and is identical article published on the Duowei main page, that the paper cites. Here are other sources for the discussion (still all in Chinsese)[[4]]I think this establishes its notablity. But if this is not enough, I note that it also has been discussed withing academic circles and notable enough to be commented on by top authorities, cited in a paper and mentioned at a confrence (to my surprise).

I discovered the extent of this notablity when I contacted the organizer of the academic conference on the Cultural Revolution (yes, the same one we were just talking about). He sent me the papers by the academics and put me in contact with them--three professors (including the one above who wrote the article/report on the conference. Both Chinse studies Professor Katz and Prof. Gao were very nice, and gave me their full papers that they presented at the conference (there is no online version of this publication but it can be verified by contacting the Professor himself, and he is working on a book with a whole chaper on this very subject.) To continue, Prof. Gao (Chinese studies), actually mention this critique in his paper/talk given at the conference. In the paper is entiled Chinese Biographical and Memoir Writings about Mao, the Cultural Revolution and the Emerging Counter Acts in the E-Media On page 17 of this paper by Dr. Mobo Gao we find this: "Another widely circulate critique of Chang is by a science student Jin Xiaodong studying in the UK. Jin lists 17 questions of internal contractions within the book to challenge Chang, but Chang and her brother who participated the e-media exchange could not come up with any good answers." I thought this was interesting and speaks to the level of exposure this particular critique has received, albeit in the east.

So, the point made by quoting this Prof. helps a lot in terms of understanding that this critique itself is not some relatively unknown, obscure essay but is actually somewhat noteworthy both within the Chinese media, which has published it, and was even part of the content of an interview with the author of the book--Jung Chang--who actually responds to it, but also within some sections of the academic community, in particular one China expert scholar who himself notes its notablity. Despite some problems with the paper, these facts, tip the balance decidedly in its favor for inclusion as a link. Indeed, this essay has gained enough attention in the media, that Jang has read it, discussed, and responded to it, so there is no good reason why readers can't reference this critque here.Giovanni33 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first point I would like to make, Giovanni, is that it's highly unlikely you knew all this in the few hours it took you to revert my removal of the article in question from the Jung Chang page. This is in my view partially an attempt to justify your position after you adopted it all those months ago. I'm not saying you can't do that, I'm just trying to be clear on that.

On the matter of media attention, I can't verify what you've said. I have never read a comment about it in the mainstream English-language Chinese media, which has many publications. Some websites like the China Digital Times actually translate articles into English. Maybe this journalist you mentioned came across it and flagged it up, but that doesn't necessarily count as significant media recognition.

The fact Jung Chang (according to you) responded to questions about this article is not indicative of its importance. Like most authors, she responds to questions posed by people interviewing her and even the general public if part of an audience during Q&A. If she had dismissed it and refused to say anything it would have reflected badly on her. Even I've corresponded with her, and I haven't written any reviews of her book.

I also don't think a mere reference by professor (Gao) is evidence of the article having gained real notability in academia. John Smith's 10:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I did not know everything I know know, but this point is not very interesting or relevant. Everyone (or most people), will know more in the future than they know now, or did in the past. Its a trueism. However, I reverted you based on the same basic knowlege that is was notable. This was known by me, as well as by yourself, since this information is contained with the critique itself (as I point out). All I did was add to that with more sources, and discovering that it extended beyond the mainstream Chinese media, into some academic circles.

You argue that its easy for anyone to to get the author to respond and that you have corresponded with her yourself. This may be true, but its quite different than what we are dealing with in regards to this critique. Some major differences. I'm not refereing to you or this author asking her to respond and she does, and therefore its now notable. That is not the case here nor is that my argument. Note that the author of this paper did not interview or interact directly with Jung Chang. Instead his essay was widely circulated and picked up on by the media. It was the media who then presented his paper and his questions to her, in a 45 mins televised video (see the UTube Video), and then in an article published on the Duowei. And, then the Jung Chang's brother continued an e-exchange attempting to answer the criques questions. Now, if you has written something that the media picked up, the author read, and responded to, in an interview the media conducted, and later your questions appeared and the authors reseponses appeared published by a major media outlet, then yes, your paper would be likewise notable. You can disagree, but most would say this meets WP standard for notablity. And, the point is that these facts make it a lot more substancial than just getting the author to respond to you directly. So thats just a false analogy.

For your second point, I find it odd. You say: "I also don't think a mere reference by professor (Gao) is evidence of the article having gained real notability in academia." Real as opposed to fake notablity? Or do you mean by real the word "substancial" notablity? Or major notabilty? Because is so, then you are admitting its notable. How notable is another question. I don't say its very notable. I simply say its has gained some notability with the media and within academia, that its not an obscure unknown critique (however good). Something is either notable or its not. Sure, somethings are more notable than others, but if its not notable its not known, its not talked about in any official circles, outside of the authors contacts. You may not think that Prof. Gao's being aware of it, and putting it in his paper he presents at a conference makes it notable, however I don't see how you can deny that its "evidence" for the argument that the critique has gained some notability. Surely, when its being talked about by academics like Prof. Gao, who are authorities in the subject matter, this adds to the evidence that it's notable. If not, what is evidence, if not exactly things like this? The author of the paper doesn't even know of Prof. Gao, yet professor Gao, who is notable, knows of this paper. But its more than him knowing about it, and bringing it up. He actually makes a claim that the paper is a "widely circulated critique." So here we have an acadmic expert in the field make a claim that this paper is widely circulated. But this is not evidence of it being notable?! Again, if this is not evidence, then what is?Giovanni33 23:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that getting mentioned on a youtube broadcast is evidence of significant mainstream media penetration. You keep talking about "the media" when really it was one guy and some publication. As I said I've never come across this in the English-language media, despite the fact they report on a wide range of things.

On Gao, the point wasn't odd at all - I meant it being "actually notable". You keep saying "within the media" and "within academia", but these people seem to be individuals that mentioned it once. Also I wouldn't agree Gao is necessarily an "authority in the subject" - just because he has an opinion doesn't make him an authority. "Widely-circulated critique" - where? Amongst his students? John Smith's 08:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument, because you are distorting the actual argument. The claim is not that being mentioned on youtube, per se; that is not important or the question of evidence. Anyone can upload any video (including self made) to youtube. Here youtube is merely the medium where I furnish the proof of the news televised interview of the author Jung Chang, on the Duowie news network, which lasted for a full 45 mins, and in which the jounalist asks her about this critique. Is is the point. The video itself (no matter where it happens to be hosted), is itself the relevant evidence of notablity--not that it apperas on utube. Also, you distort the picture by saying its "just some guy." No, its He Pin, a well known journlaist who is high up within a mainstream news organzation. Professor Gao is an recognized authority as a professor of Chinese studies and published author on the subject. Wideley circulated enough to be known by him, and by the media, and by the author, my myself, by yourself, by millions who the Chinese media reaches. That is what I would call widely circulated, but I think Dr. Gao was refering to the internet. Its all over the internet.Giovanni33 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As a separate question to Tariq, are you happy to mediate on this point given you expressed a preference on the RfC for this? Before you ask, I didn't notice/remember you did that when we were asked if we would accept you as a mediator, but I'm not asking you to withdraw. John Smith's 10:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether I am happy to mediate this, but whether you and Giovanni are. -- tariqabjotu 15:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I think it is important. You can't mediate fairly if you don't think you can be impartial, and I can't read your mind. John Smith's 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He woudln't have accepted to mediate unless he thought he was qualified to so so, including being impartial. I think he is and has been treating all our points of contention in a even handed manner and fairly.Giovanni33 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just asking the question - he may have forgotten he did vote on the RfC (I know if I saw his comment I'd forgotten). John Smith's 16:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not have accepted the case unless I thought I could be impartial (I overlooked my comment on the RfC and even forgot what my statement was). However, if either of you don't believe I can by neutral, then you can request a new mediator. It's up to you all. -- tariqabjotu 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, I just wanted to bring attention to that point. It wasn't a big one, just a simple query. It's fine, let's move on. John Smith's 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Intermission 1

Now that everyone appears to be back, I shall continue. I don't really have much to add to John's last statement, from 08:57, 15 August, so I'd simply ask Giovanni to respond from there. However, Giovanni, when you said the paper in question "ha[d] gained notability within the press and academia", I was under the impression you had evidence of the piece being cited in multiple news and academic sources that readers could find and review if (s)he wanted proof of Jin Xiaoding's authority. But that does not appear to be the case. If the review truly is "widely circulate" as Dr. Gao says, one should be able to easily find more than just a few Chinese-language sources, which are not very useful to the average en:Wiki reader.

To Giovanni: Another thing I would like to bring up was your reasoning behind reverting John's removal of this link. You say "this point is not very interesting or relevant", but I beg to differ. You must have had some reason for reverting, and I'm curious to know what it was. You mention that the reasoning was "the same basic knowlege that is was notable", but I'm unclear as to why you knew it was notable (and why it's basic knowledge that it is notable). -- tariqabjotu 05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I do not regard Jin Xiaoding as any kind of authority. He simply wrote a very persuative and throughoug critical critique of the book, and it was picked up and circulated, within academic circles and within the media. It is actually pretty amazing considering the impact its had. True, the English media has completely neglected it, and instead for the most part been cheer leaders for this work of fiction pretending to be scholarly, but in the East its a different situation. That is why I'm ok with not including this information in the body of the article, until it gains more notablity than it has. But for now simply including this critque in the externa links section is perfectly valid. Regarding Prof. Gao's claim, it is widely circulated, and can be found in English on the internet. However articles from major news media are not available in English but are in Chinese media publications. It may not be helpful for English readers, but this is all the more reason to include this link in English in an English source. The paper itself reports on its own notablity, which readers can look up and get translated.

For your second question, this was not my reason for reverting, my comment was address JohnSmith's point, which was that I probably did not know this much about this paper when I did revert to restore it. That may be true but I think that piont is not ver interseting or relevant simply because its a general truism that is always true: we all know more in the future than they know now, or did in the past. So, of course, I know more now that I've researched the question more. That goes without saying. However, when I explain that my reversion was based on the same basic knowledge that is was notable, remains true, because I read the critque itself, and its references its own notablity by citing the media interviews in which it was mentioned, etc. Since I read the paper and believed its sources and claims, this gave me the basic knowledge that it was notable enough for an external link.Giovanni33 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, as I said I don't see a comment by one academic and a reference by a journalist (along with some news site) as being widely circulated across the media/academic world. You said it's all over the internet - this was the first time I'd come across it. You didn't address Tariq's point that if it was that widely circulated it would have cropped up on more than a few Chinese-language sources. Whatever your views on the book, the English-language media differs wildly. There are a great number of Asian newspapers that write in English, as well as American/European publications that were critical of the book.

Also, whether you believe a paper or not is not an indication of whether it is notable. John Smith's 20:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you do a search, the paper comes up in many different places, blogs, reivew sites, discussion groups, etc. In fact its so widely circulated that both the media picked it up, and some academics in the field have noted it, and mentioned it in an academic conference. To me these facts counts, esp. when the author talks about it herself, reads it, and tries to answer some of the questions. You may not think these facts add up to much, but I do. So we disagree. I don't think its notable enough to warrent mention in the article itself. However, its far more than just some critique by some guy. The notability is enough to have it stand as an excellent notable critique on the book as a link within the external links section. It it were much more notable as you seem to want it to be, then it would be fair mention it within the body of the article too. Its a question of degrees. I don't even know of any other critque that has so challenged the author that she tried to answer the contradictions it poses, but could'nt, or that media have picked up on someone eles's review and asked her about it, etc. All these facts make up for the fact that this is just student and not an authority or professional, like the other reviews of the book.

Also, its not that I believe the paper that makes it notable. That is wrong. Its that I believed the claims it made regarding its own notability, that make me believe it was notable to enough of an extent to think its inclusion is justified. I recommend we re-read that paper again. Its cites and talks about facts that I bring up here that goes directly to the argument that it has gained some notablity (although I didn't know academic circles also were talking about it at the time).Giovanni33 06:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You were commenting on penetration into the media and academic spheres. Discussion forums and blog sites aren't relevant in discussing that issue - address the points both I and Tariq have made on those fronts. I've already talked about Chang's response - if confronted with something she will, of course, address the points raised. You keep talking about "the media", when as I said it was one journalist and a news website - that isn't "the media".

A publication/article trumpeting its own success is not something I would take seriously other than looking at whatever websites and publications it refers to.

I'm also uncomfortable with the comments on page 36. It seems like a personal attack/slander against Chang and her family - the tripe about "marked the beginning of the Communist corruption in China" sounds naive and like propaganda. Corruption was around long before the 1970s. He sounds like someone out to get Chang rather than a person trying to review her work with any sort of objectivity. John Smith's 09:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding looking at whatever the paper cites, yes, and that is exactly what I did. I looked at its referenced claims of notablity, and they checked out as the evidence above shows. I don't see any personal attacks, all I see is legitimate criticism of her work, which is echoed by other reviewers. Corruption was qualitatively different in different eras, pre-Mao (the nationalist were far more corrupt), and post-Mao are both notable for their corruption. In anycase this is POV, and we don't have to agree with it. Its a critique, it doesn't have to pretend to be "objective" or without bias. Its clearly partisan and makes a strong case, in my view. So those are not valid forms of objection to this given its a link in the external links section. Also "media" is correct since it takes several mediums: print, video, electronic. This makes it media. And, its from a widely seen, widely read mainstream news media organization.Giovanni33 18:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There was corruption from before, during and after Mao's time in power, yet this guy makes the utter nonsense comment that it had never existed before in Communist China. I don't think your definition of "media" is valid because it's only a very small part of it from what I can see. John Smith's 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, can you point out places in the article where it mentions its notability and perhaps where those mentions could be verified? -- tariqabjotu 11:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. There are serval areas. For instance: "Although this review met absolute silence in the west, it has drawn some attention from overseas Chinese. One of the web sites which published this review, Duowei, interviewed Jung Chang in New York in October, and asked her to answer some of my questions (see http://www7.chinesenewsnet.com/gb/MainNews/Forums/BackStage/2005_11_20_20_15_3_643_3.html). This is what Jung Chang said about this review: “I have read it, and read carefully. Some questions are quite good. I do hope to have opportunities to answer them. I think it is very important. However, there are many issues, I do not know either he did not understand English, or did not look at the references provided at the back of the book. There are many details, the origins of the figures, all in the back of the book. Among 800 pages, there are 150 pages of references, the sources of the references. One has to read those sources from the references. I think he either did not understand English, or did not read references carefully. I have looked at his questions, and can give easy answers to all of them”."

And: "In the interview, Jung Chang indeed responded to three of my 17 questions, namely, (2), (3) and (4). A reader can look at the paragraphs marked by * signs below, in each of the three sections to appreciate her “easy answers”.

"After the appearance of this review, Jung Chang’s brother, Pu Zhang (a translator for the Chinese version of the book), claim in October 2005 on the Duowei web site that, my Chinese translation seriously distorted JC’s words, and he would post the direct comparison of the original text and my translation on the web for readers to see the difference. However, despite readers repeatedly asked him to keep his promises, his English-Chinese comparison has not be seen anywhere so far."

There are many other references in the ariticle but I won't quote in full as its pull paragraphs:"During her interview with Duowei, Jung Chang said...In her interview with Duowei, she answered my question this way: “Many of his arguments are...answering such questions would waste too much time”. So these are some of the setions in the paper that talks about it own notablity by citing such events involving the Chinse media interview of Jung Chang and her talking about this critique. Again, this does not meet the standard of notablity to have its own article, nor to even be mentioned in the body of the article. However, it meets all the standards for inclusion into the external links section.Giovanni33 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll let John offer his opinion in response to this comment. Since you allude to the "standards for inclusion", I'd also like to ask you to explain which points under WP:EL#What to link for which you feel the link qualifies and conversely (to John) which points under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided for which you feel the link qualifies based on the points and sources you each have raised here. Also, as a side note, I have another question (for either you or John): are any of the other external links on Mao: The Unknown Story links to reviews of the work? (And, if so, which ones?) -- tariqabjotu 11:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and, unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to say it again. The fact Jung Chang bothered to respond to the points in question is not proof of notability. If anything her response is quite telling, as from her perspective the author of the essay didn't bother to read her references properly. Again, Giovanni, you are stretching the realms of common sense by repeatedly bringing up this one interview and as "proof" of notability. You keep avoiding the very simple fact that the overwhelming majority of media, both Chinese and non-Chinese language, have ignored this.

On the links matter, I would say that points 1 & 2 apply. I don't see how it would be required to help it reach FA standard, and I took task with many points made in the introduction alone - you can look here to read my points. I also mentioned (as above) the claims made about corruption in Communist China only starting until after the period in which Jung Chang went to university, which are a complete joke. I also don't know why he said things like "JC’s mother used her influence to make the chance available to JC, who would not have been qualified otherwise." Why was she not qualified? Really given that I've merely brushed over the article (and that it would take me too long to go through all 37 pages) and yet found plenty of questionable or down-right inaccurate comments I think this isn't worth of inclusion even as an external link. The fact the author was unwilling to respond to them (and disappeared pretty much as soon as I'd raised them) didn't increase my confidence in him or his work.

As to your question about the external links, there are no amateur reviews there. They're either from major newspapers, by academics, or otherwise appear on established websites. John Smith's 17:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say amateur reviews; I meant reviews in general. Are some of those other external links reviews of the piece? And, if so, are there any that espouse similar views as those mentioned by Jin Xiaoding? -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other reviews in the external links section (couldn't fit them all in the main body). They do espouse similar views from what I can see, though you may need to be more specific if you want to me to respond in depth. John Smith's 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to repeat myself as well. This is a straw man argument since I have not said this is proof of notablity. Please stop distoring my actual arguments. The claims is that this is not some nobody, someone unknown, who just wrote his own opinion. That is who you were presetning it. The truth is that, and what I have argued from the very begining, is that it has obtained some notablity within the media and academic circles. These are facts that I have supported, above. Please note the word "some" notablity. If it were really notable, it would be picked up by the English press, not just the Asian press, and then we could mention this link and the stir it has caused within the body of the article. But since that is not the case, it suffices for the external links section, along side all the other reviews and critiques of this book. Some are more notable than others. Our disagreement is not a white black question of notablity vs. unkown person. Its somewhere in the middle, and the question we disagree about is if this is enough to be in the external links section. I say yes, and you say no. Your points about corruption and other things you ask the author, are question of POV. It doesnt make you right. Others disagree with your assessments. Let the reader decide. Also, the author did reply in full and with detail to all your points. If you recall, you were edit waring with me about removing his post on the talk page, answering your objections. I wanted his answer to stay, and you wanted to gone to his talk page. But he did answer you and he did not disapear as you claim. If you have any further questions, he will answer you, I'm sure.Giovanni33 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't claim John is making "straw man arguments"; I'm sure you both are trying to proceed through this mediation in good faith. That being said, you have said (correct me if I'm wrong) that the review has gained some notability, as shown by the sources you have provided, but only enough to warrant the article being in the External links section (as opposed to the body). However, I'm getting the impression that you feel the standards for inclusion of external links are extremely low and that just "some" notability is sufficient. That's why I'm pointing you to WP:EL, which is supposed to help resolve these kinds of disputes and also hopefully demonstrate that the standards for inclusion hold some weight ("No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." and "Links should be kept to a minimum."). So, I would suggest you orient your position toward the points on that page, especially because I'm not convinced you have supported your original argument that the article "has gained notablity within the press and academia". -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually Giovanni he did disappear after I asked my questions. I put my response up on his talk page on 26th April - his last comments were on 25th April. So how could he have replied to me?

"Some notability"? Sounds like weasel words to me. You talk about the "English press". I have never talked about the English press, only the English-language press which is different. As I have tirelessly pointed out the Asian media publishes in both English and other languages - it is significant that no English-language media picked up on this. But even when it comes to the vast numbers of non-English Asian media groups again they have almost completely passed this up. The media "recognition" you keep talking about appears to have been one journalist and some website. That is not impressive in the slightest.

I have brought up the matter of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided as was requested and said which I think apply here. You can claim they don't, but I think the ones I mentioned do. Do you really think the article couldn't get FA status without this link? Please think carefully before you respond. You should also list where WP:EL#What to link applies as was requested of you. 23:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some notability as evidenced by the mainstream Chinese news network and televised interview of the author of the book who brings up this specific critique and asks its questions to Chang. That is a degree of notability, hence some notability within the media and, as I showed, academia. Considering that the author of this critique is just some student, I find that very impressive, esp. when we have statemements by academics in the field who testify that this critique has been widely circulated. Any more notability then it deserves mention in the article itself! As far as English media, I think everyone knows the context was language, since I juxtaposed it with Chinese media. So what that some Chinese media are translated into English. I already know that. I already state that this was not translated. Again, if it was then it would be far more notable, and then I'd mentioned this in the article, not just as an external link. Asking me if this article could make FA status without is also not too relevant. So what? An FA article can take many forms and can lack many things that would not make or break it. That is not the standard for external links.Giovanni33 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have you lost you all regarding the "his" and "he" mentioned in the first paragraph of John's latest statement. Who is that? -- tariqabjotu 04:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to the author of the document/review, which was User:Xiaodingjin. John Smith's 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

John, I believe you're misinterpreting Point 1 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. It's not saying that you should avoid links that aren't necessary to make the article a featured article; it's saying that you should avoid links that contain information that should really be in the article (if it were a featured article). For example, if the article did not contain information about a important part of the book, you should not link to an external link that talks about that important part of the book, but instead put information about that part of the book into the body of the article itself. -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem - Point 1 cannot apply then. John Smith's 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Intermission 2

For the record, I have a couple ideas in mind about how we might be able to wrap up this point (and Point Two), but they are dependent on Giovanni's response to my request to orient his position in relationship to WP:EL as well as to the responses (from both parties) regarding whether there are other reviews in the current External links section. -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I answered that question but the two standards under which this link suffices inclusion per policy, I find is under the first category #4, that says what kind of links should be included: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." As well as #4 for links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."Giovanni33 05:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Well, the trouble with the points you mentioned is that their descriptions of the potential external links mention meaningful, relevant content and knowledgeable sources, descriptors that, unfortunately, are rather subjective. The description of the author of the review as knowledgeable is particularly suspect because, as both you and John pointed out, the author is an "amateur" (or "just some student"). As for meaningful and relevant, I'm not sure you and John will see eye-to-eye on that in the near future. I'm not saying we should not attempt to go further, but I'd like to suggest that the other external links may be sufficient. John says (in one of his more recent comments here) that there are other external links that are reviews. Can you agree there are other external links that serve as reviews (perhaps that are more meaningful and/or relevant than this disputed one) and that there are other links that "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources"? -- tariqabjotu 18:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry been super busy at work. I'll get to this by tomorrow. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so busy as to edit other articles. I don't see how you're taking this seriously if it's your lowest priority on Wikipedia. John Smith's 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, my other edits are two minute edits. This one is more important so I want to give it more priority, hence it takes longer and requires that I respond here when I have some free time. So its not lowest priority, its highest priority. And, stop making accusations that I'm not taking it seriously.Giovanni33 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)