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)

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)

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)