This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. India Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in April 2012. China Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]