Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Estnot (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 1 December 2021 (→Advertisement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy delete.

Archives

Archive 1

Commands respect and speaking truth to power?

What kind of delusional promotional peacock sentence is that for the intro? Not only is it inappropriate and non neutral. It is an insult to reality considering he has been heavily debunked as wrong.

Ie. Brahmamy Chellaney had made claims of Debt trap in Sri lanka by claiming that Sri Lanka had defaulted on Chinese loans and was forced to give away their port. None of that is even close to speaking Truth to power.

Because as Chatham House points out, Chinese loans made up a small proportion of Sri Lanka debt distress. Sri Lanka never defaulted and it was Sri Lanka who solicited China to lease its port. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy multiple credible scholars like Deborah Brautigum, Chatham house, Maria Adele Carrai shows that he is a terrible scholar at best and a deliberate liar at worst. This article is a complete joke. What is dreadfully ironic is thar Deborah criticises him and argues that it because of people like him, scholars need to speak Truth to power to counter his bs claims. And at University, we all learn he is an idiot promoted narrowly by a misleading media

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23792949.2019.1689828

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/06/05/questioning-the-debt-trap-diplomacy-rhetoric-surrounding-hambantota-port/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ Nvtuil (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's be objective and avoid attacking the author

The concept of "debt-trap diplomacy" is well established: It is part of the United States National Security Strategy Report. Several studies have endorsed it. For example, the use of debt as an instrument of Chinese foreign policy has been detailed in two separate reports released in 2021 by researchers at AidData at William & Mary, the Center for Global Development, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, and the Peterson Institute for International Economics:

1. https://www.aiddata.org/how-china-lends

2. https://www.aiddata.org/china-development-finance

So, it is important to be objective. Attacking Professor Chellaney as a "terrible scholar," "idiot," etc. is unfortunate. -- Alpinespace (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I revised the "truth to power" sentence because it was cliche'd and not substantive. But I agree that we do not need editors' WP:OR attacks on scholars here . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The more interesting question is, whether claims can be debunked as factually true. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about Chellaney and debt trap diplomacy, but I can tell you that if some scientific hypothesis turn out to be false, it is not evidence of scientific fraud, nor that their proponent was an idiot. That's simply how science or scholarship works in the real world: people make mistakes, and scientific progress lies in correcting such mistakes. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement

A paragraph like, while The Wall Street Journal has labelled him a "prominent strategic affairs expert" and The Guardian has called him "a respected international affairs analyst and author." The Times of India, for its part, called him "India's top foreign-policy expert". He has also been described as a "famous strategic pundit and TV talking head". isn't encyclopedic content.

This page need not be a hagiography (or hit-job). TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have restored this paragraph. The sources are reliable and multiple and in my opinion appropriately recapitulated. Please note that another editor has also seen it fit to restore this paragraph and i have also reverted you in line with wp:brd previously for removing this paragraph. .Pinging User:Alpinespace for the reason explained aboveEstnot (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

please explain this edit of yours. . Please be aware that much of the criticism of Chellaney’s opinion on the Sri Lanka debt trap was information that was added by a sockpuppet Estnot (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The two of you, collectively, have got less than five hundred edits. That the information was added by a sock, is irrelevant.

The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. I do not know much about Shekhar Gupta but he seems to be one of the many high-profile journalists in India with little subject-expertise. Why does his opinion matter? How did Sadanand Dhume's POV in an op-ed become the view of WSJ?

Anyways, such blurbs are not suited for inclusion in Misplaced Pages unless someone has used those words in writing a substantial profile of Chellaney. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know what the collective edit count between presumably User:Alpinespace and I has to do with anything and I will ask that you stop making baseless allegations of meatpuppetry which is especially ludicrous given your persistence in restoring improper material that was written by a sockpuppet. If Alpinespace and I are meatpuppets, then you and Nvtuil are sockpuppets

As I’ve pointed out to you multiple times now, outside reception to Chellaney’s work especially from reliable sources is clearly relevant information on an article that is about him. We can discuss how the information should be written and indeed that appears to be where the bulk of your opposition to the material comes from, but there really should be no debate as to what the nature of the information is and why it should be included.

As you have yet to explain why you have restored criticisms of Chellaney’s opinion on Sri Lanka’s debt trap (that was added by a sockpuppet) I will once again ask you to justify this edit Estnot (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

One other longstanding editor has restored the criticism - please drop the stick. You are yet to give any reason other than that it was written by a sock.

Blurbs do not make reception and the onus of inclusion lies on you. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

the only stick used here is the one in your hand that you are using to try and bludgeon me by following my edits on a completely different article ( & )

When it comes to the outside reception of Chellaney’s work, the sourcing behind it is fine and the nature of the information is relevant. However, while I don’t have a problem with the original summary with the reception, I can see how it can come off as hagiographic. As such I recommend as a compromise the following measures: doing away with the reception section as it appeared in a previous version of the article ; integrating the information into the Careers section and add in the proposed summary

Chellaney’s work has drawn attention from mainstream media. Sadanand Dhume has called Chellaney a “prominent strategic affairs expert" and Shekhar Gupta has called him a "famous strategic pundit and TV talking head"

As for the removal of the criticisms, there were two but now three reasons for keeping them out. As I noted before , including the criticisms would constitute original research because they dont refer to either Chellaney or his work on the Sri Lankan issue. While the criticisms cover the same topic area, the fact that they don’t mention Chellaney specifically means that they belong to another article (debt trap diplomacy). There is also the issue that the non neutral information was added by a sockpuppet and the onus lies with you for justifying why the material should be included (wp:onus) Estnot (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What is Sadanand Dhume's expertise except in being a fellow of a right-leaning DC think tank - how does it help a reader to know of his opinion on Chellaney? If you really wish to expand upon his reception, there are many (favorable) reviews of Chellaney's scholarship - 1, 2, 3. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

if you were not so blinded by what appears to be your animus towards Sadanand Dhume, then you would be able to see where his expertise comes from by simply clicking on the hyperlink for the article’s byline . He is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, is a fellow at a high profile think tank (two if you look up his Misplaced Pages entry - the American Enterprise Institute and the Asia Society), used to be the bureau chief for a major news publication and the author of a book that has drawn multiple reviews.. I am by no means a cheerleader for Mr Sadanand Dhume (I only learned of who he is when you brought his name up) but even I can tell that his credentials and concomitant expertise make his remarks notable enough for inclusion in this article — indeed as I noted earlier he has his own Misplaced Pages page. Perhaps we should start adopting the same standards when it comes to the critics of Chellaney’s works who are cited in this article. What are the expertise of Lee Jones, Shahar Hameiri, Meg Rithmire, Deborah Brautigam, and Maria Adele Carrai and how does it help the reader to know of their opinions on Chellaney? Estnot (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Deborah Bräutigam is the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University and the Director of the China Africa Research Initiative at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. Maria Adele Carrai is Professor of Global China Studies at NYU Shanghai. Meg Rithmire is the Chair of Weatherhead Research Cluster on Regions in a Multipolar World and Warren McFarlan Associate Professor at Harvard Business School. I assume you are competent enough to find information on the other two names.

Good luck convincing others (it is my last comment; pinging Kautilya3) that theirs' and Dhume's credentials are comparable. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Stanley A. Weiss (21 February 2009), Whom Do Sanctions Hurt?, International Herald Tribune
2. "Delhi Isn't Buying Beijing's Coronavirus Hero Act;". The Wall Street Journal. 2 April 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
3. Jason Burke (7 April 2011), "Indian Activist Anna Hazare Refuses to End Hunger Strike", The Guardian
4. "'Black Day': China, Pakistan's election to UN rights body draws ire;". The Times of India. 14 October 2020. Retrieved 22 October 2020.
5. Shekhar Gupta (3 June 2014), First Person, Second Draft: Once upon a bloody time, Indian Express
6. "Delhi Isn't Buying Beijing's Coronavirus Hero Act;". The Wall Street Journal. 2 April 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
7. Shekhar Gupta (3 June 2014), First Person, Second Draft: Once upon a bloody time, Indian Express

I don't have any strong feelings for or against the proposed text. But since he is being described here as an academic scholar, scholarly reception would need to be covered. It is relatively easy for any scholar to write newspaper commentaries and receive adulations for them, especially if they take strong populist positions that other like-minded commentators appreciate. But whether they receive scholarly acceptance is quite a different matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Kautilya3 Where is the requirement that if a person is described as an academic, then scholarly reception of their work would need to be covered? Unless you can cite the relevant policies, it seems to me that your criterion for assigning weight (wp:due) is too stringent. I also disagree with your assertion that he is being described as an academic scholar which I find to be misleading. I would argue that it is more accurate to say he is being described as a public intellectual, given the references throughout the article to his public but non academic engagements in addition to his academic works. This changed interpretation would relax the proportionality requirements and mean its fulfillment would be met by the mainstream reception to Chellaney’s work supplied by my proposed text instead of needing to meet your more onerous demand for scholarly reception Estnot (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. All viewpoints need to be covered in DUE proportion. It is fine not to cover Reception. But if we cover it, all aspects of reception would need to be covered. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 I’m still unclear on many aspects of what you are saying but for the sake of compromise and just moving the discussion on, here is the new material that I am proposing

Chellaney’s work has drawn attention from both academia and mainstream media. Graham Tobin from the University of South Florida has as described Chellaney’s geopolitical analyses as astute and critical while Shekhar Gupta has called him a "famous strategic pundit and TV talking head"

Part of my disagreement with TrangaBellam involved his restoration of criticisms of Chellaney’s opinion on Sri Lanka’s debt trap. As the edit history shows that you have also readded those same dubious criticisms , I will ask you as I did with the other editor to justify this edit. Estnot (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Since it has been a few days since you have responded to my comments and I see that you have been active on other articles, I have implemented my proposed changes (wp:silent)Estnot (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Stanley A. Weiss (21 February 2009), Whom Do Sanctions Hurt?, International Herald Tribune
2. "Delhi Isn't Buying Beijing's Coronavirus Hero Act;". The Wall Street Journal. 2 April 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
3. Jason Burke (7 April 2011), "Indian Activist Anna Hazare Refuses to End Hunger Strike", The Guardian
4. "'Black Day': China, Pakistan's election to UN rights body draws ire;". The Times of India. 14 October 2020. Retrieved 22 October 2020.
5. Shekhar Gupta (3 June 2014), First Person, Second Draft: Once upon a bloody time, Indian Express
6. Nathan, Andrew J (November/December 2011). "Water: Asia's New Battleground". Foreign Affairs. 90 (6). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. Patterson, Kendra (May 2013). "Review of Water: Asia's New Battleground". Global Environmental Politics. 13 (2). The MIT Press: 164-165.
8. "Delhi Isn't Buying Beijing's Coronavirus Hero Act;". The Wall Street Journal. 2 April 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
9. Tobin, Graham (January 2014). "Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis by Brahma Chellaney". Journal of Latin American Geography. 13 (3). Johns Hopkins University Press: 257-259.
10. Shekhar Gupta (3 June 2014), First Person, Second Draft: Once upon a bloody time, Indian Express

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles