Talk:John P. Davies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Sources:

• All the external links in the article
• http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/blockr.htm - has some details on the ill-fated plane trip in 1944 not seen elsewhere
• http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/byroade.htm - some more depth about Davies and the China Hands
• http://mlloyd.org/gen/davies/photoalb.htm - genealogical site, many links, two photos, list of magazine articles by and about him
• http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-99/12-25-99/zzzddobi.htm - the New York Times obituary - material about the China Hands and the "China lobby", Davies' anti-Communist positions, date he was dismissed. Didn't use as an external link because there are several other obits on the same page, and it's not the original source.
• http://www.gencircles.com/users/mlloyd/4/data/1262] - genealogical data, birth / marriage / death dates and places, family info

Note that John P. Davies should not be confused with John Davies, a British officer who was in Force 136 and worked in Malaya during World War II. I believe that's the one referred to in Lim Bo Seng. Can't find much about him. (Update: I didn't find much because his name was Davis. Thanks to Yoon-Ngan Chung for his clarifying email. Tualha 12:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC))

His 1964 book doesn't seem to have an ISBN - that system was created in 1966.

Tualha 12:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I should add that I also saw various hatchet jobs, such as this article by Ann Coulter. I didn't see any such that contained any substantive evidence against Davies. Coulter, of course, is a loon. I hope this may forestall hasty edits by those who buy into such baseless rhetoric. Tualha 12:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davies and the Dixie Mission

The Dixie Mission or U.S. Army Observation Group, was a key moment in Davies war years, if not his life. It was the sum achievement of Davies' attitudes and beliefs on the situation in China, which are only briefly mentioned in the later part of the article. Davies was one of the instrumental figures in the Mission's creation and organization, which allowed for Americans to visit Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai in Yenan. It also established the foothold for the future Hurley and Marshall missions. It definitely needs further reference in the article. I intend to provide a more detailed discussion of the group, hopefully in the near future. RebelAt 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)RebelAt

[edit] POV

This article like other "China Hands" articles is POV. There is a lack of criticism from other perspectives. Can't you guys add a different point of view? Or, do you want me to do it? Jtpaladin 23:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what constitutes "other perspectives." Since the intense criticism that Davies received in the 1940's and 1950's, scholarship has taken a much less severe perspective on him and his activities. Out of respect for your feelings on the matter, I will go over the article again with an eye out to make sure that the article isn't a cheer leading overly positive peace. The only person in recent times that I've heard or discovered to have a negative position on John Davies was extreme conservative and very non-bias media figure, Ann Coulter. Course, the last thing she said recently was that 9/11 widows were using the deaths of their loved ones to make money. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuation: Just looked over the article and shifted an "unfortunately" to general narrative of the article to refer specifically to Davies. Otherwise, the article is a pretty straight forward account of Davies' life and career. It appears pretty neutral, unless someone takes objections to Davies favoring the Chinese Communists over the Nationalists. He did. It was a fact and the views that the article states he held were indeed held. The article is clear in pointing out that they were his, not the article writer's views.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RebelAt, I appreciate your efforts in looking to balance the article. I do have some info that is critical of Davies that does not come from Ann Coulter. Even so, Coulter's work is considered scholarly and shouldn't be excluded if she states something that has a basis to it. However, I'm handling over a dozen articles at this moment so I have to put this topic on a backburner. I'll try and communicate with you about this article as soon as I have a moment. Thanks again for your time. Jtpaladin 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, I'll be happy to look over what you have to bring to the table. Though, I've never heard anyone refer to Coulter's work being scholarly, I wouldn't call her rival, Al Franken's work scholarly, either, and I like that guy. :) ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RebelAt, I agree with you when someone rants and raves, it can't be considered a source for historical info, but if either Coulter or Franken are giving historical facts, i.e. Congressional testimony, then it's a valid source and meets WP:RS. Jtpaladin 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never read any of Coulter's work, but I'm aware that she does use notations, as does Franken. In terms of academia, neither of their books would be considered scholarly material. However, you're correct, if they're using a source, like Congressional testimony, then it is admissible. Of course, if the same testimony can be found in an academic source, all the better, so as to avoid suspicion of politics playing a role in how the evidence is presented, something both Franken and Coulter have been charged with doing. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 20:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)