Talk:Hamid Dabashi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Hamid Dabashi is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Afghanistan-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Muslim scholars article assessment section, a WikiProject related to the Muslim scholars. note:the project includes non-Muslim scholars. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Verita, your description of Pipes as right-wing is a personal POV, though one that you share with others. He does not regard himself as right-wing, and neither do some others, especially those who think of "right-wing" as being old-fashioned blood & soil nativism, as opposed to the Enlightenment liberalism that Pipes says he supports and which is sometimes regarded as left-wing. Hence, "right-wing" is not acceptable. If you want to find a mainstream source who describes him as right-wing, then do so and attribute that characterization to them, rather than positing it as simple reality.
And "attack" is also unacceptable. Debate does not have to take place in an academic setting to count as debate rather than attack. You and I are not having this discussion in an academic setting, and yet no one would say that we are "attacking" each other. Pipes strongly disagrees with Dabashi's positions, just as Dabashi strongly disagrees with Pipes's. That is not a "fight," and neither is attacking the other. Again, if you can find a mainstream source that describes Pipes's criticisms of Dabashi as an "attack," then attribute it to them.
In the meantime, until sources and attribution are provided, I'm changing it back.
Finally, the "scholarly world" does not as one support Dabashi. Some do, others don't. It is unencyclopedic and inaccurate to assert otherwise. Babajobu 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am fine with "severe criticism" from Pipes, that's a fair compromise. I can't accept unqualified assertions of "support in the scholarly world," plenty of eminent scholars think what he has to say is rubbish. And comparing him to Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky is pure original research and hagiography. Babajobu 22:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Book blurbs
Reproducing book blurbs as captions in wildly POV and simply not done in Wikipedia. If you insist on keeping evaluations of books in the captions, one of the captions should be from a critical review rather than a laudatory one. And I'm sorry, but saying Dabashi is a "high-profile academic..."like Edward Said or Noam Chomsky" is wildly POV. He has nowhere near the profile of either of those men. Babajobu 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hagiographical tone
This article is rapidly turning into a breathlessly laudatory fanpage for Dabashi; moreover, the main fan, User:Verita, is apparently unwilling to use the talk page. I don't have time to keep the article NPOV; if anyone else does, please do so. Babajobu 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
didn't know how to use this talk page! my objective is not to make this page a "breathlessly laudatory fanpage". i am just gathering information, and followed your advice on not having too many book covers. i have compromised with you, taking your suggestions into consideration. i am happy to talk and will endeavour like yourself to keep the page *encyclopedic*. Verita x.
[edit] Columbia Speech Controversy
I pulled up this article because I was concerned it would focus entirely on the recent controversy at Columbia in which some Jewish students claimed Prof. Dabashi and his collegues, Joseph Massad and George Saliba, were intimidating students who supported Israel's policies toward its neighboring countries and the Palestinians. The article's extensive discussion of Prof. Dabashi's work and views pleases me greatly (though I think it strays far from NPOV in places) but, as much as I hate to say it, the article's complete silence about the Columbia controversy is a serious flaw. People threw a lot of mud at him and, as far as I'm concerned, essentially none of it stuck. But regardless of one's position on the controversy and the allegations against Prof. Dabashi, it was a major part of an important nation-wide discussion about free speech, academic freedom and campus politics. The article should -- without bias toward any participants - discuss the controversy at least at a basic level.
- I agree. I will tag the article as POV, until the article is meets the applicable Wikipedia standards. gidonb 17:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] so-called "Controversy"
The origin of the so-called “Columbia controversy” is a maliciously fabricated so-called documentary that a Zionist propaganda outlet based in Boston, entirely unrelated to Columbia University has made. Based on this very so-called documentary, there is absolutely not a single allegation brought by any student from Columbia or anywhere else in the world against Dabashi. Allegations are brought against George Saliba and Joseph Massad (allegations that have been by and large dismissed) by three successive investigative bodies within Columbia itself (see all the sources by New York Times and Columbia News). Even in this document which is the origin of everything else that has been produced around the so-called “Columbia controversy” there is no single student who says anything against Dabashi so far as his conduct in his classroom or at Columbia is concerned.
The charge that has been brought against Dabashi in this “documentary” are objections that their malicious and vicious distortion (deliberate distortion) of a passage in an article that he published in a weekly magazine in Al-Ahram. In this passage, Dabashi describes the physical and psychological consequences on individual citizens living in a militarized state. Not a single time in this article does Dabashi even use the word, “the Jews.” In the passage that Zionist propaganda outlet in Boston has manufactured, they deliberately take the words “these people” out of Dabashi’s sentence and maliciously insert the words “the Jews”. As a result the very assumption brought by some that Dabashi is “accused” of misconduct is entirely false and in fact a continuation of slander. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. [8].
Verita
- Well, if that is correct, why not put in the article that he was slandered? People may look for some information on this affair. This could make the difference between PR writing and encyclopedic writing. gidonb 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- On the other hand why suggest? I will write something about it myself. gidonb 07:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You say: "Well, if that is correct." What on earth do you mean by that? You don't seem to see the various sources from New York Times and all the other places? Excuse my saying so, but are you blind?...Of course it is correct! My dear, it would only be people like you who want to “look for some information on this affair" (this so-called "affair" of yours is an entirely fabricated and malicious lie made in heavens so that bigots can refer to it in order to distort honorable people's reputations). I warn you: if you write anything slanderous, you will be held accountable for libel. And don’t try your cheap condescending tactics here. For all I care about, you could be a right-wing PR agent here...who else would be spending all his time trying to demean progressive people’s entries.
User:Verita, 11 October 2006.
[edit] Categories
Just a note, because this gets reverted all the time: double categories and non-person categories cannot be permitted. What remains, however, are still many categories as Professor Dabashi is active in many fields. Please write here if you have specific concerns about a category. gidonb 08:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have just removed some included categories: e.g. if American Anti-war activists is present, Anti-war activists is redundant. I think this is what you mean. If not, just revert. DGG 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
