Talk:Neville Maxwell

message: 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)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Conclusion of Maxwell and Whiting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Neville Maxwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408224604/http://southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/02/burying_open_secrets_indias_1962_war_and_the_henderson_brooks_report to http://southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/02/burying_open_secrets_indias_1962_war_and_the_henderson_brooks_report
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~johnston/garver.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409111124/http://www.nevillemaxwell.com/uncategorized/1-albartross-2/ to http://www.nevillemaxwell.com/uncategorized/1-albartross-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: , you are not reading the edit summaries.
 wrote:
I wrote:
Reverting edits is not the right reaction under the circumstances. If you can improve it, please do. But otherwise, I prefer Norcaes's version for WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear , I apologise for the reversion, and I agree that it was not the ideal thing. The problem is not with Norcaes' edit at all, but with the text added in this edit. Connecting the Emergency to this topic without the backing of an exceptionally reliable source is an instance of WP:SYNTH, and saying that 'democracy was suspended in India' would be original research. Therefore I removed this unsourced text, and this entailed deletion of Norcaes' subsequent edit. The Discoverer (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, in this situation, there are two possible things you can do: improve it with correct info, or tag it with . Going back to the old "biased text" is not an option. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The revision that Norcaes called 'biased' is this one, and not the one that I reverted to. Any text that is unsourced may be removed from Wikipedia, and when I identified material as original research, I removed it. Anyone who feels that the current version is biased can now edit the text to remove the bias. The Discoverer (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergency 

message: An edit in 2009 added biographical details of Maxwell, including the claim that he was born in London. I can't locate any such "autobiography" in his book. While the text has been removed, the infobox still claims this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in London