Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 3

message: I have protected the page again for 2 weeks. Use this time to discuss here instead of planning how to revert again. -- ReyBrujo 01:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see everyone intends to revert war. Well, this page will stay protected until you agree. No objections, no technicalities, no appeals. Protected until disputes are resolved. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I have attempted to open an arbitration case regarding User:John Smith's and User:Giovanni33. This is relevant to this talk page as the two have been engaged in heated debate here. See this. I have also notified them directly. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's a shame, but I think it's the only way to get this resolved. Would be more efficient than having all the other non-binding steps (which I doubt would change anything) and then ending up with this. John Smith's 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of arbitration case 

message: The issue is whether this review should be included in the External Links section here.
See Talk:Jung Chang#"A Critique of J. Chang and J. Halliday’s Book" for detailed preceding discussion. --Sumple (Talk) 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something not mentioned yet in the other talk page about this critique, is that in addition to the Chinese media publishing it and interviewing Ms. Chang about it, Prof. Gao actually mentions this in his paper and talk given at the conference. In the paper entiled Chinese Biographical and Memoir Writings about Mao, the Cultural Revolution and the Emerging Counter Acts in the E-Media on page 17 by Dr. Mobo Gao we find this: "Another widely circulate critique of Chang is by a science student Jin Xiaodong studying in the UK.  Jin lists 17 questions of internal contractions within the book to challenge Chang, but Chang and her brother who participated the e-media exchange could not come up with any good answers."I thought this was interesting and speaks to the level of exposure this particular critique has received, esp. in the east.Giovanni33 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is all very well, but unless you have credible evidence for that statement it doesn't help. John Smith's 17:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith. I am not lying. If you don't believe me, then go and do your own research. Contrary to what you say, the point made by quoting this Prof. helps a lot in terms of understanding that this critique itself is not some relatively unknown, obscure essay but is actually somewhat noteworthy both within the Chinese media, which has published it, and conducted an interview with Chang about it, but also within the academic community. Despite some problems with the paper, these facts, tip the balance decidedly in its favor.Giovanni33 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Giovanni, stop insisting people do research - I cannot assume good faith with you when you keep insisting people do this. Provide evidence if you want to rely on a point - it is ridiculous for you to insist you know something that you think makes or breaks the discussion and then refuse to supply it. John Smith's 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did supply it. If you doubt it, then you do your own research and verify it. This is not going into the article, so I don't need to supply you with a link. I doubt anyone really doubts what I report as accurate, and you can blind yourself to this reality but it doesn't change the facts that I have given, nor the points it supports. And, yes, I do insist you and everyone do research in order to inform themselves. If they don't, then they should rather keep quiet. I note that you admit you can't assume good faith. However, I'd point out that this is not an option, but a requirement.Giovanni33 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one acts in a certain way that is disruptive and mean-spirited, good faith cannot be assumed - that is simple logic. Your actions result in me being unable to assume good-faith. This can be seen by the fact you are still reverting the Jung Chang page despite the fact Sumple has said the link should go here if it does at all. If you want to show good faith, stop reverting and allow us to talk about it here. John Smith's 09:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your characterizatons, which itself is the result of a lack of good faith, that you then used to justify your stance of rejecting the requirement of assuming good faith. By your own logic, your own reverstions then are "distruptive and mean-spirited," so if you believe that then by your own logic you should stop reverting as well. I agree with Sumple that this is the better article for the link, but since its locked still, the other article is the second best choice. I'll agree to move it here once this page is unlocked. Until then, there is no reason to keep it out of the other relevent article. If you convince everyone here that keeping it out of the other article is correct, then I'll abide by that consensus. Why don't you get that consensus first before reverting?Giovanni33 19:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you get consensus before reverting? Oh right, because Giovanni doesn't have to gain consensus if he thinks he's right - that's for other people. John Smith's 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your more out of consensus that I am. On the other page, I count three editors who refuted your objection of inaccuracy. You have failed to make any counter arguments, and so until you have more editors who agree with you on the point, you should not revert. And, instead of reverting and arguging about who is to blame for the edit war, why not simply stop yourself and INSTEAD discuss the actual merits of the content of link, and your objections--if any actually remain.Giovanni33 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accuracy has nothing to do with this - the argument is whether it should be on the JC page. You are twisting the facts - Sumple said the link should go here and not there. I won't stop reverting because I have already tried to talk to you, and I know whatever I say you will ignore it. You are always right and if anyone disagrees with you they are always wrong. And even if the majority disagrees with you, you will make some tiny change and/or ignore that view. John Smith's 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so if you concede your previous arguments, then are you now saying that you agree not to revert it once its placed on this article? Or will you find new objections once this one becomes moot? From the history of conflicts about different issues, this is what typically happens with you. Also, I am not twisting any fact--you are. Sumple never said the link should not go there. He said, and I quote: "It's more suitable for the book page." And, I agreed with him. The fact that it’s more suitable here doesn't preclude it from being there, as I've already argued, esp. when this page is protected. If you stop reverting, and agree to leave it on this page, then I'll be happy to agree to leave it out of the other article, once this article is unprotected. As far as your sweeping comments, which amount to personal attacks, they are ridiculous, false, and not worthy of a serious response.Giovanni33 00:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't say I wouldn't revert just because it was placed here. I said that the page will not be unlocked without an agreement on how to proceed (unless someone changes Deskana's mind for him). The best way to resolve this - because once again we are at logger-heads and not getting anywhere in the discussion - is probably to include it in whatever dispute-resolution methods we take from now on. John Smith's 08:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the issue for you really is that it doesn't belong on the other article but does belong on this one then why do you refuse to pledge non-reverting the link even when the link is left on this article? That suggests that you will actually still revert and thus, it also suggests that there are indeed other issues, contrary to what you claim (that your objectionis only about what article its on). If that is the case--and you have other objections (the which article issue then being really not the issue)-- then why not make your arguments, state your objections, instaead of simply saying you don't want it here and want someone else to do your thinking for you. Why don't you make your real objections known and attempt to resolve them before seeking mediation on this topic? Again, if your only objection is that it doesnn't belong on the JC article, then why can't you say you won't revert it on this article? Lets be honest and upfront about the real objections and discuss them.Giovanni33 18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion regarding a privately-published external link 

message: This is a dispute about two issues:
1. Whether this link should be included on the external links/see other section of this page. 
2. Whether in the "Response to the book#Criticism" section, reference should be made to Professor Gao Mobo's attendance at a 2006 conference. 10:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. I know you are repeating with John Smith says, but you should review the policy on External Links. Bias/POV,Nuetrality are NOT factors to be considered for this section.Giovanni33 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link and mention of Professor Gao

message: ;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
*Do not include: I do not feel it should be included. It is made by a non-academic and the entry is highly POV (I expressed my concerns here. Furthermore whenever the author expresses an opinion on a section of the book, although he may provide a reference to that bit he will not provide any other sources to back up his own views. Thus is seems to me to be more of a rant that anything else and thus should not be included. Additionally the author of the review, Xiaodingjin, originally inserted the link on the Jung Chang page and has continued to revert. I believe he should leave the matter to other admins, as him being the author leads to a conflict of interest. John Smith's 10:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. I know you are repeating with John Smith says, but you should review the policy on External Links. Bias/POV,Nuetrality are NOT factors to be considered for this section.Giovanni33 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. External link

message: ;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
*Do not include: I do not believe that the reference to Professor Gao should be included. The section in question is reserved for comments on the book itself - Professor Gao may have expressed an opinion, but without a quotation from that article (or another) he should not be included and any reference to him is unnecessary. John Smith's 10:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Mention of Prof Gao

message: This could be helpful: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/897/01/Mao_the_too_familiar_story.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgaulke (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for finding this in link form. Its the paper the professor presented at the conference, that I had only in a word doc. Now if we could only find Prof. Gao's. I guess I should write him, again. Giovanni33 08:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting - maybe we could use it to replace the silly Monthly Review article. John Smith's 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why we can't have both.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: The article is not silly, and is more than the paper. We should have both.Giovanni33 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irrelevant to Ross' quotation if we have her paper, which is more informative. You don't use two citations when one does the same thing. John Smith's 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We can use two.12.193.178.18 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can use one. John Smith's 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we will use two if other editors think so, even if you don't.Giovanni33 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Giovanni, first of all you have no right to make such decrees - who died and made you emperor? Second the page is locked, so you can't change anything. Third wikipedia is not run that way. John Smith's 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is not helpful so I will correctly ignore it, and similar nonsensical provocations.Giovanni33 19:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as your "decree" wasn't helpful, Emperor! John Smith's 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you two arguing about now? Not only have both of you gone completely off topic, but the thing you were arguing about in the first place was pretty silly too. Focus! --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link of paper by Ross

message: The link of John Pomfret goes to a man that is definitely not the journalist discussed in the article. This needs to be fixed once the editing freeze is over. --The Fwanksta May 19, 2007, 21:45.
:Fixed. This is sufficiently non-controversial that I don't see any problem with doing it now. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link