Talk:Brahma Chellaney

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) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 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)

References

Advertisement

A paragraph like, while The Wall Street Journal has labelled him a "prominent strategic affairs expert"[5] and The Guardian has called him "a respected international affairs analyst and author."[6] The Times of India, for its part, called him "India's top foreign-policy expert".[7] He has also been described as a "famous strategic pundit and TV talking head".[8] 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 [1] and i have also reverted you in line with wp:brd previously for removing this paragraph. [2].Pinging User:Alpinespace for the reason explained aboveEstnot (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

please explain this edit of yours. [3]. 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 Wikipedia 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 [4] 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 ([5] & [6])

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 [7]; 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 [8], 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 . [9] He is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, is a fellow at a high profile think tank (two if you look up his Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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 [10], 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)

Nobody is bound to satisfy you to eternity; I had personally opposed Sekhar Gupta, above. I have nothing against Tobin - please create a reception section for his books and mention him (and other reviewers) over there. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In retrospection, I won't mind a line like Chellaney’s work has drawn attention from mainstream media.[Citebundle] But I continue to oppose any exclusive mention of Gupta. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s not about satisfying my demands it’s about satisfying the encyclopedia’s basic demands. A discussion is a two way street - when one side talks the other side is expected to respond. And when the other side doesn’t then the side that talked gets the last word. Please elaborate on why you think Gupta’s views on Chellaney should be excluded and also your reasons for restoring the dubious criticisms of Chellaney’s opinion on Sri Lanka’s debt trap [11] Estnot (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:TrangaBellam a long time has now passed but you still have not responded to my request for you to explain why you think Gupta’s views on Chellaney are inadmissible on this article and also why you restored the dubious criticisms of Chellaney’s opinion on Sri Lanka’s debt trap despite being active on a whole host of other articles. Again I must reiterate that my requests for your replies is not about satisfying my demands it’s about satisfying the encyclopedia’s basic demands. A discussion is a two way street - when one side talks the other side is expected to respond. And when the other side doesn’t then the side that talked gets the last word.As a compromise for resolving the Gupta issue I can defer to the material that you are able to find but I will not budge in my position that this article needs to include a domestic reception to Chellaney’s views and works given their stature amongst Indian pundits and in the indian mainstream media. User talk:Kautilya3 I am notifying you of this conversation as well so that you may intervene in case the disputes between me and TrangaBellam cannot be resolved and also because of your prior involvement in them. These two issues have gone on for far too long and I think I speak for all three of us that it would be best to bring them to a close as quickly as possible Estnot (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:TrangaBellam User talk:Kautilya3 Since it has been a few days since either of you have responded to my comments and I see that both of you have been active on other articles, I have implemented my proposed changes (wp:silent). I hope that the changes will close out the dispute because of how long it has dragged on for and ask with respect that neither of you revert any of themEstnot (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Two editors have opposed your removal of critique of Chellaney's debt-trap theory; see WP:DR. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, Estnot is offering a factually objective insert on debt-trap diplomacy and Sri Lanka that User talk:TrangaBellam may gracefully accept. The present misleading reference needs to be tweaked so that it becomes objective. I hope User talk:TrangaBellam will consider allowing the change. Thanks. Germanicguard (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Operation Bluestar?

my first time ever doing more than just reading Wiki, please forgive I do something wrong.

From what I understand Brahma Chellaney as a reporter was involded in Operation Bluestar in the 80s.

Why is this not mentioned on his page? Mrbaddy123 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC on moving information

Should the changes in this [12] diff be implemented in the article? Specifically, this seeks to move information from the lede on the awards Chellaney was given and move them to a new "Awards" section. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Decline to !vote (Summoned by bot) – per failure to observe WP:RFCBEFORE. Mathglot (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. I don't have a stake in this dispute, I've started this RfC because of this [13] ANI thread where people recommended an RfC be started. I'm aware that this single diff doesn't encompass all of the disputed content mentioned above, but I'm trying to help motivate editors here to use an RfC to resolve their disputes. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This RfC doesn't make sense. No justification has been provided for this so-called "move of information". Not even an edit summary. WP:RFCBEFORE is not satisfied. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  I started the RfC because I'm trying to motivate people to actually use structured discussion to resolve the dispute rather than slow-motion edit warring. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, you were probably well-meaning. But the editor has never bothered to say anything. It was likely a meaningless WP:POINTy edit. So this is just a waste of time. It would be best if you withdrew the RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have explained myself better but I can assure you my edit had no “pointy” intent or motivation behind it Estnot (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:RFCBEFORE is not satisfied. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Move to award section - I agree with User:Kautilya3 and User:TrangaBellam that this RfC could have been formed a little better/differently, but on the face of it, I think I'd support moving the text to the "award" section. The text seems awkward in the lead. Plus, I think putting it in the lead may contribute to the WP:Advertisement concerns that TrangaBellam expressed above. NickCT (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a seeming justification for the move. But not quite. There is no bar on putting justified, factual credits in the lead. There is no bar on repeating that information in the body either. What would be worthwile in the body is genuine coverage of the reception of Chellaney's work. The award can also go in there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

So per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section, the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". That's the bar. I'm curious what part of this you think some non-notable book award contributes to. NickCT (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I know nothing about the notability of the award. We are talking about the notability of the subject, Brahma Chellaney. A book authored by him won an award given by a society, which seems to be a reasonable organisation. Unless it is a fake or corrupt organisation, in which case it shouldn't be mentioned, it is enough to show some notability and can go in the lead. Unless the lead is overflowing with information, there shouldn't be any need to remove it. It looks like we are going in circles here. Maybe all people who never contributed anything to the article should retire and leave the page alone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I was awarded a prize in kindergarten for best refrigerator painting. If there was a bio about me, would we mention the award in the lead? No. Obviously not. Why? B/c it's a minor award that probably wouldn't contribute much to my notability.

re "Maybe all people who never contributed anything to the article should retire and leave the page alone" - Wow. I don't think you understand the point of RfC's. It's to bring in outside eyes. You also probably aren't familiar with WP:OWN. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 would a blurb about Chellaney’s award in the lead section followed by a corresponding section in the body which goes into further detail about it work? Estnot (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Estnot, indeed, there is no objection to expanding the body with this information as well as any other information concerning the reception of his works. That is what TrangaBellam and I have been recommending from the beginning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. I had also pointed out half-a-dozen (favorable) reviews of Chellaney's scholarship and suggested adding them to body. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the contentions of User:Kautilya3 and User:TrangaBellam about retaining the present brief reference to the award in the lead. The Bernard Schwartz Book Award should be seen as a notable award. It was awarded by a distinguished international jury. You may read about it here: https://asiasociety.org/media/press-releases/brahma-chellaney%E2%80%99s-water-asia%E2%80%99s-new-battleground-wins-2012-asia-society-bernard. I agree with User:Estnot about referring to the award and Chellaney's work in greater detail in the body. Germanicguard (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

in line with what seems to be the general agreement here I’ve made some changes to the information in the article related to the award. Estnot (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment User:Chess the original dispute involved a set of changes which involved adding and removing material as laid out in this section. Since you have already started this rfc and since you are also not a direct participant to the original dispute it would appear that you are in a better position to start the new and more relevant rfc. Is this something that you can, with respect, do? Estnot (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment WP:RFCBEFORE not satisfied; please withdraw this. Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Gupta and the debt trap diplomacy criticisms

Should:

• A) Shekhar Gupta’s views of Chellaney be included in the article?
• B) some of the criticisms ([14] & [15]) of Chellaney’s application of his debt trap diplomacy theory to the case of China's takeover of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port be removed?

Options:

1. YES to A and B
2. NO to A and B
3. YES to A and NO to B
4. NO to A and YES to B

The context for the rfc can be found in the Talk:Brahma Chellaney#Advertisement section Estnot (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 as the nominator and also for the reasons I have given in the Talk:Brahma Chellaney#Advertisement section but to basically repeat what i said there:

for question A, Gupta is a notable figure who appears to have extensive knowledge of the sort of subject matter that would make his opinion of Chellaney appropriate for inclusion in this article (security and security related issues. See the “Awards and honours” and “Controversies” sections on his Wikipedia page)

for question B, the criticisms in question should be removed because including them would constitute original research as they do not 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. Estnot (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - I don't see Shekhar Gupta as any kind of expert whose assessment of Chellaney should be mentioned by name in the lead. "TV talking head" is also riduculously awkward English and has no place on Wikipedia. As for the second issue, notable criticisms of academic ideas should always be included in an NPOV summary of a subject's work. This is a no-brainer to me. In general, this page is a low-quality WP:FANSITE displaying no depth or understanding of the subject or his work. The proposed edits only make it worse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Cannot agree more. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  sorry User talk:Kautilya3 for this really belated response but it seems to me that you have seriously misread my proposed changes. For the first issue i am recommending that Gupta’s opinion be included in the body, not the lead. As for the second one, my position on and reasons for removing the criticisms are the same as the ones that you’ve been making on this [16] and other pages [17]. Is there any way you can reconsider your vote? Estnot (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Per arguments in the above section, which have been nicely summarized by K3. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment. I support both inclusion of Gupta's reference and editing of the paragraph on Sri Lanka and debt-trap diplomacy. First, the reference to "other scholars" is vague and misleading. There are dozens of scholars who have contended that Sri Lanka has been ensnared in Chinese debt-trap diplomacy. So, why give so much weight to a couple of critics and wrongly present them as "other scholars," as if all other scholars are arrayed against Chellaney's thesis? As Estnot rightly points out, the two critics in their articles are not directly rebutting Chellaney's thesis because they don't even cite his work. Furthermore, why has Sri Lanka been singled out for inclusion, although there are a number of other countries that equally exemplify the risks of debt-trap diplomacy? Finally, if we are to include a couple of critics, why not for the sake of balance also refer to those that support the thesis?

Having said that, I feel Estnot has trimmed the lead to the Chellaney page too drastically. The earlier lead as done by Kautilya3 or by TrangaBellam seemed better. If there is agreement, I could help modify the text. Germanicguard (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)— Germanicguard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Germanicguard, please cite "scholars" who have supported his theory; I support that wholeheartedly as a means to NPOV. Fwiw, they are not a "couple of critics": consult sources at this thread. In any case, other does not mean all. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We are only making the briefest possible mention as per NPOV requirements. As I pointed out here, the critiques think the "debt-trap diplomacy" term is misplaced but they haven't really addressed Chellaney's analysis itself. (They are also dishonest, e.g., corruption is Sri Lanka's problem but bribing is not China's problem!) They are also no experts on geostrategic affairs, though they have some political science background. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

what do you have in mind User talk:Germanicguard? Estnot (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. It is way above my head if the debt-trap diplomacy is a real or imaginary thing. But now I know that it is a much-used concept. I'm afraid that the jury is still out, so the article should not take a side in this matter. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)