Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story/Archive 2

message: A very biased account (with omissions, mis-presentations and mis-interpretations) of the aspirations and achievements of a man whose legacy can only by adequately judged by historians of the future (and maybe some farsighted historians of today who have comprehensive and unbiased knowledge of all the history related). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.215.111 (talk • contribs) 
My Chinese History professor once had a meeting with many other prominent scholars in this field to discuss the credibility of the book.
They found many dubious matters in the book such as that the authors frequently (perhaps purposely) incorrectly cite other sources in order to strengthen their arguments as well as use information that have no backup at all.
In the end, they concluded that the book is factually and intellectually unreliable.
Driven by curiosity, I borrowed a copy from a friend and read couple dozen pages, and concluded that the book is more like an anti-communist propaganda and I should just trust my professor/her colleages' words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.56.136 (talk • contribs) 
:So? It's hardly news that some academics disagree with the book - their views are already on the page. Just as the views of those that support the book are. John Smith's 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, do you think anyone actually is actually going to listen to your unsourced, anonymous criticisms? Considering that you only managed to read through a "couple dozen" pages, you can hardly claim to have the right to criticize the book.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page does not present a world wide view. As I've said elsewhere, I've not yet read a single positive review of the book in a reputable Chinese language publication. --Sumple (Talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when was a book's quality established on that basis? John Smith's 10:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sumple, if you can source that, then it's valid material for the article. I would be especially interested in any Chinese sources giving it bad reviews outside of the PRC, but as long as they're reputable it's fine.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very biased account

message: Ok, Giovanni, I am tired with your silly reversions. You have demonstrated no real willingness to compromise, just push your own POV. I compromised, yet you continue to insist on having your way. If you continue with this course of action I will have to assume bad faith on your part and ignore any further attempts by you to discuss matters and reach agreement. John Smith's 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is on compromise needed for many things: NPOV, V, etc. These are policies which should never be compromised. You have no choice but to abide by the overwhelming consensus. I suggest that if you can't convince any of the other editors here that you are right, that you stop your reverting, which is what is indeed silly, since it doesn't get you anywhere. Also, it appears you are violating the 3RR rule again, this time by using an IP address. Do you deny that is your IP address?Giovanni33 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I deny it - as I said on your talk page it's from Hungary (use an IP tracker from a google search). Obviously that guy disagrees with you and Hong. John Smith's 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, how is Budapest? I'm not as stupid as you seem to think.Giovanni33 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For some reason I doubt it will satisfy Giovanni....... John Smith's 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "for some reason" is just common sense. So, your doubt is correct. In my opinion, the evidence is very strong in this case--even if it is not absolute proof--and even if you are not the same person. Getting someone else who is not an established user to edit war for you, counts. It's too much of a coincidence, otherwise.Giovanni33 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, wikipedia isn't a witch-hunt - unless you have evidence, you have nothing. John Smith's 20:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, looks like Deskana would agree with me on that one. John Smith's 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you've inferred anything from my protection of the page. All I've said is that there's edit warring, I'm not siding with either of you. I've not even read the article... --Deskana (ya rly) 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Bgaulke my comments were directed towards Giovanni, not anyone else - Sumple can be very good at accepting other users' proposals. If Gio wants to compromise he should be willing to discuss the matter with me, rather than try to get the block lifted without consultation on the talk page and use nonsense justification as to why no changes should be made like the NPOV and vandalism rules. John Smith's 09:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No more "get out of jail free" cards

message: Once more, this page is now protected due to edit warring. Please discuss the issue then contact me once you've reached a decision on what to do. --Deskana (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected now... --Deskana (ya rly) 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected AGAIN due to edit warring 

message: Omg another protection? Well, in any case I have no problems with John Smith's latest version of the second paragraph. But I don't agree that either sentence needs citations, because detailed references are supplied further in the article. Perhaps just a reference or a link to the relevant section? --Sumple (Talk) 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd do me. Having uncited stuff in the leading paragraph isn't good, even if there are citations further on in the article. Linking them up would be nice. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a different idea that we could mentioned one person for each piece - but a quick reference would also be good. John Smith's 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header