Talk:Neville Maxwell

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)Reply

Recents edits by User:Harshray and User:Mona.SHEPHERD were blatant violations of the WP:BLP policy, which is why they were reverted by myself and User:Huaxia. For example, these edits [1] [2] label Maxwell as "controversial" and having a "pro-China slant", neither of which can be found in the cited sources (both Indian): Rediff and Indian Defence Review, which on the contrary describe Maxwell as an authority on the Sino-Indian War. See also the opinion Who’s afraid of Neville Maxwell? by Shekhar Gupta, chief editor of the major newspaper Indian Express. In these and other edits, the two users (who may be the same person as Harshray has been previously identified as a sockpuppet of the now-blocked user Chellaney, and Mona.SHEPHERD is a newly created single-purpose account) also added pure attacking material, citing several "sources" that have nothing to do with Maxwell. -Zanhe (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The mass deletions and mutilations by User:Zanhe breached every rule of objectivity, in a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. It is apparent that the User:Zanhe has some connection to the subject, Neville Maxwell. Among the wholesale deletions carried out were references to the works of the renowned Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar and another American scholar John W. Garver. The deletions have been made to present Neville Maxwell in highly favorable light. The mutilations thus speak for themselves. -Mona.SHEPHERD (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be so blinded by your POV that you're incapable of basic reasoning. John Garver's article calls Maxwell's assessment of the war the "orthodox scholarly view", and says that Allen Whiting reached the same conclusion as Maxwell (p. 3). As for MacFarquhar, he quotes Maxwell extensively in his book The Origins of the Cultural Revolution without giving a single word of criticism. Yet you misrepresent these sources as condemnation of Maxwell.

Your most egregious offence is the misuse of Shekhar Gupta's opinion piece Who’s afraid of Neville Maxwell, in which he praises Maxwell as a "relentless journalist and scholar", and apologizes to him for having been brainwashed by Indian propaganda into "detesting Neville Maxwell as an utterly contemptible India-hater and a pro-Chinese communist toadie", yet you maliciously misquoted him to make it appear as if he still detested Maxwell. In fact, Cullen328, whose view you solicited, commented on his talk page that "the content added by Mona.SHEPHERD it sure looked to me to be an attempt to make Maxwell look as bad as possible. Particularly disturbing is misuse of sources." -Zanhe (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

It's funny that a person with a history of uncritically adding partisan sources to controversial articles all of a sudden becomes so critical of a neutral, academic paper. As for the the text you added, which implied that Maxwell sourced most of his material from China whereas his book was mainly based on India's classified Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Report, I've clearly stated reason why it's a biased, selective quote in my edit comment. -Zanhe (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@The Discoverer: Your recent edit, is disturbingly non-neutral and dishonest. Firstly, you cited Brahma Chellaney, a known Indian security hawk who is decidedly non-neutral. (see Ashley J. Tellis's book). Even worse is your misrepresentation of the respected Harvard scholar Roderick MacFarquhar, who you claim to have criticized Maxwell's findings in The Origins of the Cultural Revolution. The truth is, MacFarquhar extensively cites Maxwell in his book, and reaches the same conclusion as him. On page 298, for example, MacFarquhar writes: "It is clear that the Sino-Indian War of October 1962 was, at least in part, China's reaction to what came to be known in New Delhi as India's 'forward policy'". Misrepresenting sources to disparage a living person is a severe violation of WP:BLP. -Zanhe (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Zanhe, please do not defame any source by calling them 'non-neutral' unless you have evidence to that effect. The portion of Tellis' book that you have cited says that Chellaney criticised the Indian government. How does that make him biased towards India? Infact, this makes him an excellent source to be cited. The source I have cited clearly states "Rod­erick MacFarquhar had argued, by dub­bing the 1962 war ‘Mao’s India war’, that it was the Chinese who were the agg­ressors." Further in 'The Origins of the Cultural Revolution, vol. 3', he clearly explains how Mao's decision to attack was due to reversals of his past policies and his weakened domestic position. Which is not to preclude that MacFarquhar believed that India's policy was a partial factor or an excuse for Mao to wage war. I have modified my text to say that while not all the scholars criticised Maxwell as a person, they do criticise the conclusion at which Maxwell arrived, and which you call the 'orthodox scholarly view'. WP:NPOV demands that we atleast state the opposite point of view. I hope this addresses your concerns. The Discoverer (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Chellaney is an Indian writer who tends to criticise the Indian government for not being aggressive enough, which is why he is considered a hawk, and clearly not an objective observer. The main problem, however, is that you rely exclusively on (mis)interpretations of academic sources from partisan sources like outlookindia.com. You obviously have not read the relevant parts of MacFarquhar's book yourself. In the section titled "Mao's India war", MacFarquhar makes no mention of the Great Leap Forward or Mao's domestic problems. See page 308. If anything, in the section titled "India's forward policy", he writes that China's economic crisis, coupled with other problems, led India to conclude that it could push ahead with the "Forward Policy" without having to worry too much about China contemplating "major hostilities". See page 298. He does not criticise Maxwell in any way.

Besides, the sources you cite as "criticism" of Maxwell are not only clearly biased, but also carefully cherry-picked to disparage him. A cursory search on Google books for Neville Maxwell results in mostly positive comments from far more respectable sources. For example, Professor Steven A. Hoffman says Maxwell "provided the most detailed and comprehensive treatment of the subject for many years; and his views became widely accepted" (in India and the China Crisis). John K. Fairbank, the prominent scholar who was MacFarquhar's teacher, also endorsed Maxwell's analysis in his book China Watch. James Barnard Calvin of the US Navy calls India's China War "probably the most thorough, comprehensive and objective coverage of the 1962 Border War" (see here). The only legitimate criticism is probably from journalist Bertil Lintner, but if his view is to be included, it needs to be balanced against the views from real scholars. -Zanhe (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Being a hawk does not imply that someone is not an objective observer. Outlook is a reputed publication and a WP:Reliable Source. In the chapter 'Mao changes the signals', MacFarquhar wrote about how Mao's policies were being reversed, and his position weakened, and what he did about it. I cannot find an online version, but I found this summary. Also, vol. 2 of the trilogy] 'Origins of the cultural revolution' is titled 'The Great Leap Forward', so MacFarquhar has described that as well. It has never been my aim to disparage, defame or criticize Maxwell, my aim has only been to present the other viewpoint to balance the glorification of Maxwell that you had made the article. See for instance what the section 'Influence' stated: "Maxwell is recognized as the authority on the Sino-Indian War. His conclusion, which is also reached by American scholar Allen S. Whiting, that India's Forward Policy provoked China to decide for war, is now regarded as the orthodox scholarly view on the cause of the war. U.S. President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger both read his India's China War, which influenced their decision to seek rapprochement with China."The Discoverer (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

See my reply to your nearly identical comment in the next thread. -Zanhe (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Friends --

I expanded sentences in the “Influence” section, turned some passive voices into active voice so it was clear who said it, and tried to say only what the sources in the notes say.

• For instance, the source doesn’t say that Maxwell’s book “influenced” Nixon & Kissinger, only that they said in conversation that they read it. We don't know whether other research has found different things (what diplomats say to other diplomats may not always be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Concluding that it “influenced their decision” is Original research, so using this primary source is questionable, but maybe we can get away with it by using direct quotes which let readers decide.
• Likewise, “Scholars like MacFarquar” et al. implies that there are many more – which may be the case, I don’t know, but it’s better to say only what we do know.
• Unless we can say that somebody said “Maxwell is wrong” or “Maxwell is a jerk” then to say “criticized” is to go beyhond the sources. Better to say “disagreed with” or “came to a different conclusion.”
• Wikipedia BLP article is not the place for a “state of the field” essay giving all points of view, only to give context to Maxwell’s views by informing readers that he is controversial and that others disagree. So I took the sentence apart in order to source each person separately. Bertil Lintner is certainly a respected and well informed journalist, though not what we should characterize as “scholar” in the same sense as MacFarquar. His remarks to an interviewer are not a WP:Reliable Source on this particular issue. Brahma Chellaney’s newspaper commentary, in addition to being a Primary Source, which we are not to use, does not mention Maxwell, though it certainly is critical indirectly.

Cheers to all! ch (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@CWH: thanks for your edit and comments, which are quite reasonable. One caveat though: be very careful of what The Discoverer adds to articles. Contrary to what he claims, in the section titled "Mao's India war" (available here), MacFarquhar does not mention the Great Leap Forward or Mao's domestic problems at all. Also see my response to his message above.

I've been dealing with The Discoverer for more than a year, and have repeatedly caught him citing respectable sources that do not support his statements. In fact, he used to cite (and misrepresent) Neville Maxwell quite happily (see here), it's after he realized that Maxwell actually says the opposite of what he wants to believe, that he began the recent campaign to disparage him, this time by misrepresenting another respectable scholar, MacFarquhar. Also see related discussions on Talk:Sino-Indian border dispute, Talk:Sino-Indian War, and Talk:Lanak La, regarding the decidedly non-neutral content he's added to those articles. -Zanhe (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Zanhe: Understood! Though it was not in my field, I read Maxwell's book when I was in grad school and have long been curious about its reputation. I stumbled on this page a while ago and took the opportunity to read up and catch up, which is one of the pleasures and dangers of Wikipedia. ch (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edit, CWH. It's always nice to have an extra pair of eyes!

In the chapter 'Mao changes the signals', MacFarquhar wrote about how Mao's policies were being reversed, and his position weakened, and what he did about it. I cannot find an online version, but I found this summary. Also, vol. 2 of the trilogy] 'Origins of the cultural revolution' is titled 'The Great Leap Forward', so MacFarquhar has described that as well.

You've got to be kidding! From a mere book title, you reached the sweeping conclusion that MacFarquhar criticized Neville Maxwell and added that baseless criticism to a BLP article! -Zanhe (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Zanhe, you are making false accusations against me. I have cited Maxwell in the past and will cite him in the future too. It has never been my aim to disparage, defame or criticize Maxwell, my aim has only been to present the other viewpoint to balance the glorification of Maxwell that you had made the article. See for instance what the section 'Influence' stated: "Maxwell is recognized as the authority on the Sino-Indian War. His conclusion, which is also reached by American scholar Allen S. Whiting, that India's Forward Policy provoked China to decide for war, is now regarded as the orthodox scholarly view on the cause of the war. U.S. President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger both read his India's China War, which influenced their decision to seek rapprochement with China."The Discoverer (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Which accusation I've made is false? Details of my "false accusations" can be seen in this ANI complaint from last year. And this "glorification" is supported with sources that have no incentive to glorify Maxwell. In fact, there is a lot more "glorification" from prominent scholars and neutral observers such as AJP Taylor, John K. Fairbank, Steven A. Hoffman, James Barnard Calvin, etc., that haven't been mentioned in the article but probably should, along with legitimate criticism from Bertil Lintner. -Zanhe (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

When I added 'MacFarquhar criticised Maxwell', that was clearly an error on my part; I apologise for that.

Zanhe, you have been continuously drawing attention to other sections while ignoring 'Mao changes the signals', that I have been referring to. Following is an excerpt from 'Mao changes the signals':

The reversal of policies taking place at the 10th Plenum of the 8th CC was due to the failure of the Great Leap Forward. (This is also in the book). Therefore it's clear that MacFarquhar is saying that the attack against India has to do with the effects of the Great Leap Forward. The Discoverer (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC) The DiscovererReply

@The Discoverer: are you copying this analysis from Claude Arpi's blog? You know a blog is not a reliable source, right? Yet you twisted his blog post (without attribution) into an indirect criticism of Neville Maxwell. MacFarquhar's emphasis on the cause of the war is unambiguous: "It is clear that the Sino-Indian War of October 1962 was, at least in part, China's reaction to what came to be known in New Delhi as India's 'forward policy'" (page 298), i.e., the same as Maxwell. The Great Leap Forward may well have played a role in Mao's decision for war, but as far as I know, no historian has reached that conclusion or even properly explored the link ("The counter-attack on the external front was the other side of the one on the internal front" is no more than a passing mention). And in any case, MacFarquhar never mentions Maxwell in his book, except in citations. Your edits here [3] and on Sino-Indian War [4] are inappropriate at best. @CWH: what's your opinion? -Zanhe (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

What MacFarquar or any other scholar concluded about Mao or the Great Leap forward is not relevant to the section on Maxwell's influence. As I said above, Wikipedia policy does not allow Original Research, that is, even to conclude that MacFarquar's analysis may or may not differ from Maxwell's. Specifically, in this case, we are even less allowed to say "it is clear" what MacFarquar is saying.

In fact, I'm not happy with the mention of MacFarquar in the "Influences" section at all because it leaves the impression that he is disagreeing, which a) I do not believe to be the case b) is different from "coming to a different conclusion" and c) there is certainly no Reliable Source to back up. ch (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

CWH, I tried searching for The Discoverer's quote "The counter-attack on the external front (against India) was the other side of the one on the internal front (against revisionism and Soviet Union)" in MacFarquhar's book, but couldn't find it. Then I read Claude Arpi's blog again, and realized that the sentence is actually Arpi's comment. The Discoverer apparently mistook Arpi's comment as part of the quotation from MacFarquhar's book. It's abundantly clear that he's never read MacFarquhar, who he has been so confidently citing in his campaign to discredit Maxwell. This user has been consistently and disturbingly dishonest. -Zanhe (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the further information, Zanhe. I'm sorry, The Discoverer, but I agree that it is better to cut the MacF reference. As I said, I was uncomfortable with including his findings, even if the attribution had been accurate. The fact that other scholars find different conclusions is not relevant to this article (any more than Maxwell's conclusions would be relevant in an article about MacF).

Now, as I also said above, it could be relevant if someone finds a Reliable Source (not a personal blog) specifically talking about Maxwell or his conclusions.ch (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I had read the book a couple of months ago, but I admit I had copied those lines from Arpi's blog as I do not have access to the book right now, so it's entirely possible that I wrongly attributed the sentence to him. I sincerely apologise for this. I recognise that this would be a serious error on my part. It was, however, unintentional.

CWH, I have been saying from the beginning that while Maxwell's conclusion that "in deciding for war, China's leaders were responding to an Indian policy of establishing Indian military outposts..." was being presented as the "orthodox scholarly view", there is a significant group in academia that holds the view that the domestic situation in China was also a factor in Mao's decision for war, and this should also have been mentioned in the article. I thought this should be clear from the Outlook article and interview of Lintner. As per WP:NPOV all significant views on a topic should be adequately represented. However, I think the section as it stands now is balanced so I agree with you that we leave it as it is.

Zanhe, I think MacFarquhar's emphasis on the cause of the war is not unambiguous, because of the clause "at least in part". He is saying that India's policy is surely part of the reason, but may or may not be the entire reason.

Once again, sorry for my error about the citation.The Discoverer (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello all! I agree with Zanhe and ch about the quotation from MacFarquhar, but I'm writing this mainly to point to a reliable source that explicitly disputes some of Maxwell's conclusions: Srinath Raghavan's "Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute, 1948-60: A Reappraisal," Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 36 (Sep. 9-15, 2006), pp. 3882-3892. It was published right next to a general article by Maxwell on China's foreign policy: "Settlements and Disputes: China's Approach to Territorial Issues," (pp. 3873-3881 of the same journal). I have no time to delve into this deeply, but I thought these new references might help push the discussion forward. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Madalibi. I boldly added a few sentences. I'd be happy to see some other reference to replace this one, but this length strikes me as about right to produce a section that is balanced in proportionate praise and reasonable blame to give readers a fair view of Maxwell. Cheers right back to you and all.... ch (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Madalibi, CWH, thanks for finding and adding the new source. However, I'm concerned whether Srinath Raghavan is a truly objective observer with regard to the Sino-Indian War. According to his bio, he is senior fellow of CPR, a major Indian think tank, and a former Indian army officer. This conflict of interest makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. -Zanhe (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see your point, Zanhe, and I agree that it would not be suitable to have a partisan judgment, but before I posted, I looked over a few issues of the Economic and Political Weekly, which does seem to be serious and to live up to the Wikipedia article description of being left leaning. This particular article is extensively documented, and its observation seems to be reasonable, namely that Maxwell is "revisionist," which is not a peggiorative, and that further work has been done. Raghavan may not be truly objective about the war, but might still be an acceptable source on Maxwell. Should we try to look at the Steven Hoffman book to see if the characterization is fair?ch (talk)!

CWH, I've quoted Steven Hoffman's book earlier. He also says that Maxwell's study is "revisionist", and goes on to say that Maxwell "provided the most detailed and comprehensive treatment of the subject available for many years; and his views became widely accepted." (See India and the China Crisis, p. 3) The entire book can be read for free at ucpress.edu. I skimmed over a few chapters and searched the whole book for Maxwell, but couldn't find anything that may be interpreted as criticism of Maxwell. -Zanhe (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you once more! Sorry I didn't see your use of Hoffman above. I agree that "revisionist" is not peggiorative, at least to historians, and I'm not sure that we are looking for criticism as much as a feeling for where Maxwell fits in. It's no "criticism" to say that he made the first solid study, which was long the standard, but that later work had access to a wider range of sources. But again, I don't think that this article on Maxwell needs to include an historiographical essay on the field and the length of the present section strikes me as about right, though I'd be happy to defer to your more informed judgment about the particular contents and to see the sources evolve.

Probably "Influence" is not the best name for the section, but that's another question.ch (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Update: I reported The Discoverer's long-term abusive behaviour to the Administrators' Noticeboard (see here), where another user added further evidence of his offences. An administrator has now banned him from editing topics related to India's territorial disputes. -Zanhe (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@The Discoverer:, you are not reading the edit summaries. Norcaes wrote:

Biased editing changed; wasn't providing essential context that nullifies Maxwell's prediction.

I wrote:

the reverted version was better; please feel free to edit it.

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)Reply

Dear Kautilya3, 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)Reply

Well, in this situation, there are two possible things you can do: improve it with correct info, or tag it with {{citation needed}}. Going back to the old "biased text" is not an option. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Capitals00, you seem to be on a road to putting Maxwell on a pedestal by putting out cherry-picked positive comments from various places.

• Shekhar Gupta was appreciating the release of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report. There is no particular evaluation of Maxwell's work in this rambling op-ed.
• K. N. Raghavan made it clear that the book was filled with anti-India prejudice, which you omitted.
• Rediff made a random editorial comment to introduce a book extract, which was meant to be read along with other pieces they might have published.

Your repesentations are not accurate summarisations of what these people said.

Maxwell was a journalist based in India in the years before and after the war, and he knew a lot about what happened then, as far as journalists can know. There is a lot of valuable information in the book. Nobody has denied it. But the book is also so suffused with bias that it is hard to disentangle the facts from opinions. We have no idea what Maxwell chose to include and what to exclude.

I have half-a-dozen scholarly reviews of the book on file, and I have included only the most useful reviews. We don't need pithy half-baked comments from Indian commentatos. Scholars have established reasonably well that India was neither launching a war in 1962 nor expecting China to launch a war. So, Maxwell's thesis is fundamentally flawed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

But the section is about "Reception" of Maxwell, than his one book. That's why I included Shekhar Gupta's comments about him.

I expanded about Raghavan now but I had ommitted the part about anti-India bias because the author also tells that the book could have gained more credibility if anti-India bias wasn't pronounced.

Rediff comment can be kept. Expanded if necessary.

That said, I will put some reviews here once I get more time for this subject but it will be probably by next week.

Ultimately, I have also read how much Maxwell's work has been appreciated so I would suggest that we should not dismiss his work as "revisionist" on this page.

Yes some call his work revisionism but some call his work authoritative with regards to Sino India war. Both of these views should be given equal weight on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I regard it as a WP:PRIMARY source in Wikipedia terminology, to be used with care for factual matters and discarding anything that looks vaguely like an opinion. There are much better books available now, Steven Hoffman, Srinath Raghavan and T. K. Raghavan. The last of these, though by a non-specialist author, has receive praises from both Indian and Chinese reviewers! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am quite opposed to the Rediff comment. We have no idea who wrote it, and what they know or don't know. If it is used, it has to be put in context, not as a bland remark. We have to be really really careful about appearing to whitewash a widely acknowledged bias. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

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)Reply