Talk:Jung Chang/Archive 2

message: After some time ago balancing out what were (given the academic reception) ridiculously one-sided positive reviews for this book, I have returned to note that some editor has replaced every instance of the word criticism with some soft euphemism like 'argued' or 'wrote' in an apparent POV attempt to paint a much more positive reception for this book than it actually received in academic circles.  I have restored the original wording which is, after all, referring to reviews of this book which were deeply critical. Cripipper 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One needed a slight change, because previously it had implied Short's criticism (that Mao had been reduced) was a fact. Plus you deleted an important word. John Smith's 11:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most historians of 20th century China would tell you that it is a fact, but as you point out, that is not the point. Cripipper 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See also Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story --Sumple (Talk) 03:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique/criticism

message: Nowhere on the LSE website does it say "Michael Yahuda, emeritus professor of international relations". Cripipper, on the website you supplied here, it merely states under "Emeritus", YAHUDA, Professor Michael. Even on the wikipedia entry for professor it actually says "Professor emeritus". Also on Yahuda's own entry on the website it says "Professor in International Relations". So although I don't object to the emeritus, can you please leave the caps on? I don't see why it must be all in lower-case. John Smith's 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Yahuda

message: This is a dispute about whether this link should be included on the external links/see other section of this page. 09:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link

message: Hi, Mr. Smith, Thank you for welcoming me back (unblocked) to Wikipedia and request for a chat. I am sorry I do not know how to leave messages on your talk page. I look at your page, but cannot find any on going discussion. So I just put my reply here.
Before answering your questions, however, I would like to make clear that I have no desire to engage in a personal rivalry. I want to link my review to Jung Chang’s page in Wikipedia only for constructive communication.
 
Most westerners only read westerners’ opinions about Jung Chang’s book. I think it will be useful for open-minded westerners to know a Chinese opinion, which contrasts significantly to those in the west. No one so far has pointed out any factual distortions or logical problems in my review. I would be very pleased to see if any Wikipedia reader can do so. It is pity if a Chinese opinion has to be kept away from the western public. 
Now I will answer each of your criticisms following your words. You wrote in the discussion page a few days ago about my review:
          I can see various points that could be considered "factually inaccurate material".
          ·	  "This claim was immediately accepted by the western media" No, it wasn't. Some publications loved it - others didn't. The Financial Times and 
          Independent on Sunday (as examples) had critical reviews. 
In my review, the phrase “this claim” clearly refers to, in the previous sentence, “the central theme of the book” i.e., “to condemn Mao as an evil monster.” I did not say that every detailed aspect of the book was accepted. 
The Finacial Times and Independent on Sunday articles do not object “the central theme” (e.g., FT: “Chang and Halliday . . . bring the monster alive”; Independent: “Let me make it clear that I fully share the authors' view that Mao was a monster”.) They only question the way Jung Chang presents her materials and point out that China made some progress under Mao. 
          ·	"Jung Chang has become the authority on the Chinese history." Really? Where has anyone said that? 
This statement is based on the fact that, no other single person has more direct influence on the British public regarding the Chinese history (related to Mao) at the moment of my writing (2005). 
          ·	"A person, who asked challenging questions during one of her seminars, was deemed by others as “an obvious Maoist” and could not finish 
          his questions." Again, really? Where, when was this said, etc? 
This incident occurred in Glasgow, June 2005. I apologize for not providing full information on every detail which is unessential to my argument against Jung Chang’s claims. The review would be too long (as you already complained). If this is the reason not to link my review, I would be happy to take it away.
          ·	"In so doing, the review raises a further question: why did all media and experts in the UK fail to see these obvious inconsistencies and 
          contradictions in the book?" Again, not everyone loved it. The author is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting the truth. 
Again, I did not say “everyone love” Jung Chang’s book. I said that no British media expert “see these obvious inconsistencies and contradictions” as listed in my review. 
          ·	"If it cannot be excused by the ignorance of Chinese history, it has to be explained by the profound pride and prejudice towards China." 
          So basically, English people didn't criticise her books because they hate China. 
This sentence follows from the previous one, and clearly refers to “media and experts in the UK”. Apparently, you equate “media and experts” to “English people”, and further interprete “pride and prejuduce” as hatred. I respectfully disagree, although I am not a native English speaker.
          ·	"Although this review met absolute silence in the west" Why would anyone have latched onto it? The author has no profile. Why would a critic 
          who properly understands the material quote some student from St Andrews? Part of the statements made in the article seem to be motivated because 
          he didn't get any attention in Europe/Americas. 
I simply do not understand why my statement of “this review met absolute silence in the west” "could be considered "factually inaccurate" by you.
 
In addition, you also wrote to me: “If you look here you'll see another user point that out - it's a conflict of interest.” 
I followed your instruction, and find the other user’s following writing: 
         Conflict of interest was relevant, if the person posting it was the author. But since Giovanni33, who is not the author, is supporting its 
         placement, that is no longer relevant.
I cannot understand why you want me to look at a point which is considered “no longer relevant” by the user. 
If you or any readers are not satisfied by my explanation. Please let me know and I would try my best to meet the demand of Wikepedia.
Sincerely yours, Jinxiaoding
:As I said on your talk page, thanks for the comments - I will respond when I have the time to look at them thoroughly. I will respond on your talk page rather than here. If you prefer you can remove all of these comments as they are somewhat redundant now I copied them to my talk page. But if you would prefer them to be left here that is your choice. John Smith's 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jin, for taking the time to reply to all of John Smith's objections to your well thought out review. I agree with you. I think most other editors also feel that the objections he raised about the content of your link don't hold up. The other issue where there is a clear division, still, is if the link is best suited for this page or the article about the book itself (which is currently still protected from any editing). However, if we can get agreement about its inclusion at least there, it can be added by an admin. Currently there is a request for comment on that page regarding your review and the inclusion of a professor Gao. You might want to add your thoughts to it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mao:_The_Unknown_Story#Request_for_Comment:_Inclusion_of_external_link_and_mention_of_Professor_Gao Thanks.Giovanni33 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to John Smith's questions/objections about Link

message: :Sinologist Stuart Schram, while criticizing certain aspects of Mao: The Unknown Story, argued in a review in The China Quarterly that Chang and Halliday's book was "a valuable contribution to our understanding of [Mao] and his place in history."
The source given for this is "The China Quarterly (189): 208".  I can't find a free version of that issue of The China Quarterly so I can't verify what was written, but can we please not weasel these things?  Criticising "certain" aspects of the book?  What exactly was criticised?  And why was Schram's praise given the treatment of a direct quote while his criticism was given this abstract treatment?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a consensus agreement on the book's article page. Don't ask me why, sometimes things just work out that way. I have found a copy, so will update it to somethine more specific later on. -- John Smith's (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A free online copy?  Can you link it here?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, copyrighted hard copy. -- John Smith's (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuart Schram 

message: I moved the following to this talk page.  This text should go (if it is not already there) to the article on the book.  
:For example, David S. G. Goodman, Professor of Contemporary China Studies at the University of Technology, Sydney, argued that "the 'facts' in Mao: The Unknown Story are about as reliable as those to be found in...The Da Vinci Code." Goodman argued that the book could even be thought of as a "form of fiction" where "a strong narrative" is "a substitute for evidence and argument." Like other historians, he also noted that their focus on vilifying Mao led them to write "demonography" rather than objective history and biography.  
Kaz Ross of the University of Tasmania wrote that the book is "full of historical inaccuracies and exhibits a surprising lack of insight into Chinese revolutionary politics," and that "Jung Chang’s idiosyncratic understanding of politics results in some rather bizarre claims."
Professor Richard Baum of the University of California said that "it has to be taken very seriously as the most thoroughly researched and richly documented piece of synthetic scholarship yet to appear on the rise of Mao and the CCP." Although Baum believed that the book faltered "over its monotonic macro-theme of Mao the power-mad pathologue", he thought that it "will most likely change forever the way modern Chinese history is understood and taught." 
Thomas Bernstein of Columbia University remarked that "the book [was] a major disaster for the contemporary China field"A swan's little book of ire. October 2005 . Andrew Nathan, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Columbia University, wrote a lengthy review in the London Review of Books that raised many criticisms, including questions about the difficulty in verifying the sources used and problems with their quality. However, he did also express interest in the book's thorough use of memoirs published since Mao's death, suggesting that they and other similar sources may prove useful references in the future. 
Sinologist Stuart Schram, while criticizing certain aspects of Mao: The Unknown Story, argued in a review in The China Quarterly that Chang and Halliday's book was "a valuable contribution to our understanding of [Mao] and his place in history."  He also, however, counselled readers to read an alternative biography of Mao to gain a more "balanced" view. 
In contrast, Perry Link, Professor of East Asian Studies at Princeton University, wrote a laudatory review in The Times Literary Supplement, stating that "Part of Chang and Halliday's passion for exposing the 'unknown' Mao is clearly aimed at gullible Westerners... For decades many in the Western intellectual and political elites have assumed that Mao and his heirs symbolize the Chinese people and their culture, and that to show respect to the rulers is the same as showing respect to the subjects. Anyone who reads Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's book should be inoculated against this particular delusion." 
Jonathan Spence's criticism (Professor of history at Yale University) in the New York Review of Books was that focusing on Mao's vileness had undermined "much of the power their story might have had." 
Philip Short (author of Mao: A Life) criticised Chang and Halliday, arguing that they had reduced Mao from a complex historical character to a one-dimensional "cardboard cutout of Satan" and that Chang was guilty of "writing history to fit [her] views".
In December 2005, an article by The Observer newspaper on the book contained a brief statement from Chang and Halliday in regards to the general criticism.
"The academics' views on Mao and Chinese history cited represent received wisdom of which we were well aware while writing our biography of Mao. We came to our own conclusions and interpretations of events through a decade's research."
The authors also responded to Andrew Nathan's review in a letter to the London Review of Books.
Halliday is an historian specializing in the Soviet Union, and he said that he was greatly helped by accessing Russian archives on China that were inaccessible until recently. Chang travelled several times to China during the course of her research, interviewing many of those who were close to Mao, as well as alleged eyewitnesses to events such as the crossing of Luding Bridge.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarm Internationale (talk • contribs) 
I agree that it's too much at the moment, which is why I've tried to cut it down in the past - but User:Giovanni33 kept reverting my changes. But certainly more than a brief mention is worthwhile. I think we could have a little more than what you have suggested. John Smith's 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm all for cutting it down. That is not the issue, as you know. You even inserted more reviews yourself here. The issue here is one of undue weight to non-experts, giving false parity with specialists in the field. We can cut it down significantly, but it should not strive to create some kind of artificial balance between pro/con reviews. That is my only objection.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much on book in section...consider move to [[Mao:_The_Unknown_Story]] 

message: Jung Chang is British as far as I know - the edits made by the anon-IP makes her nationality a little unclear and remove that status from the intro. So unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, I think her British nationality should be put back. John Smith's (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to the lead section 

message: Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, I believe she is British and thus removing her nationality without explanation is vandalism. Don't do it again, please. John Smith's (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not difficult to find a reliable source to state that she's British, though if it's an IP editor that keeps removing it, that probably won't help.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that she is a naturalised British citizen. She was a PRC citizen before that. According to PRC nationality law, she (a mainlander) no longer hold PRC nationality once she acquire British citizen. However, ethnic Chinese people who got British citizen or British National (Overseas) passports in colonial Hong Kong cannot forfeit their PRC nationality. It is also essential to clarify that her acquisition of British citizenship has nothing to do with Hong Kong (See British nationality law and Hong Kong). Some HK people got full UK passports in HK before 1997. It is also essential to show that what she holds is full British citizenship, not the 2nd-tier forms. BN(O) (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edits