Talk:Michael Watts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tried to reformat this, however, I am not sure which format is being used to cite the publications at the bottom of the article, as well, I am not quite sure which way these kind of publications are cited in this field/in Wikipedia. I am inclined to use MLA for this kinda stuff, but I'd like to hear someone else's opinion. The current form seems kinda strange. -Yizzerin 23:54, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
A simple question: what is the criterion governing the inclusion of this individual in Wikipedia, and what is the relation of the writer (or writers) to the subject of this entry? Isn't there a danger that this kind of entry becomes little more than a form of vanity publishing.... 18 June 2006
A good question: who wrote this entry, and why? 17 July 2006
This article could be written better so it doesn't appear to be a vanity post. However, I believe Michael Watts deserves inclusion as an entry. He is a major figure within Geography and the broader field of political ecology. His work Silent Violence is often considered one of the first works of this sort. He is also one of the few geographers whose work is widely read and recognized across other disciplines. I have no personal relationship with Dr. Watts, nor have I ever even met him, although I have read a lot of his work...Aug. 4, 2006
Believing that someone 'deserves' an entry is not actually an explanation of why such a person has one. I think that my friend Fred, who is kind to his dogs and children, 'deserves' an entry, but no one (rightly) would accept this as a valid reason. There is currently far too much puffery where obscure academics are concerned, and it is important to know who wrote it, and why. 4 August 2006
Since I am just about to write a biography of him for an encyclopaedia, I would say his fame deserves mention in Wikipedia. If anything, for geographical contributions, and for being extraordinarily knowledeable (I have met him). If in doubt see David Harvey entry for why some geographers transcend academia and reach into public debate. 24 Aug 06
There speaks a true client, tasked with spreading the 'fame' of his/her master. Why don't you get up off your knees ('I have met him' - and no doubt he turned water into wine, and blessed you in between miracles) and look at the academic world (and perhaps the world itself) a bit more critically. BN, 13 Sept 2006
Is the writer of the last but one observation the same person who wrote the following words in a review of a book: ‘the theoretical mastery of its editors…[the book] is important and valuable, and the editors and contributors are to be congratulated on a fine volume. It will carve out a vital place for geographers involved in these debates and be remembered for years as a benchmark text that offers significant breakthroughs for political ecology.’ Guess who is one of the editors of that book… 17 September 2006
Sure I wrote that review - so what? no different to what most reviewers offered of a ten-year old book. it was right, too, and the book went into 2nd edn. and has sold loads. i've neither been taught by, nor had much personal interaction with, anybody i've edited.
Why are you, a geographer, writing so many fawning pieces (book reviews, wikipedia entries) about senior people in the discipline? If you don't want to be regarded as a client, then don't act like one. Whether or not you have been taught by (or know) the people you write so uncritically about is beside the point. To be a client of someone it is not necessary to have been taught by him/her. 8/10/06
As a postscript to these comments, those interested should compare the highly uncritical entry written by the above geographer about (predictably) another geographer -'Stuart E. Corbridge' - in the book Key Thinkers on Space and Place, with two highly critical reviews by non-geographers of a book about India co-authored by the same Stuart E. Corbridge. One appeared in the Journal of Development Studies, vol. 38, no. 1 (October, 2001), and the other in the Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 29, no. 1 (October, 2001).
On closer inspection, 75% of the items listed under 'books by Watts' are in fact edited texts, or volumes to which others have contributed substantially. His list of articles is not that impressive either, most being very short pieces. All in all, a fairly average cv. Why, then, this entry? 18/10/06
What's Watt? Isn't one of the editors of Key Thinkers on (Outer) Space and (Peyton) Place a geographer called Hubbard - L. 'Ron' Hubbard? Jacques the Quipper, 27th October 2006
Shhh! You'll scare away the geographer who composed this entry, going about the worthwhile task of spreading the fame of his senior colleagues. Naughty, very naughty - not nice at all to interrupt such good work. 2/11/06
Oh dear, more problems with Key Thinkers on Place and Space. The entry on Escobar attributes to other Geographers writing in 1999 and 2000 (Kiely, Bebbington) the critique of post-development. This is wrong. Like other Geographers, they were writing in support of post-development when the critique of this approach was formulated in the early and mid-1990s by those who were not Geographers. 16/11/06
That, surely, is the point. Spreading the fame of senior colleagues entails, among other things, attributing to their generalship victories that were in fact won by others. Isn't that the way one becomes famous? Jacques the Quipper, 23rd November 2006
Mon dieu - everything has gone quiet. Where will the phantom sycophant strike next, I wonder? Which geographer is to have his/her reputation inflated as a result? Jacques the Kipper, 6th Dec 2006
Another thing. The subjects of these entries have not noticeably come forward to distance themselves from the fawning nature of what is written about them. Moreover, the details contained in the entries themselves, plus the occasional correction made to them, does suggest the existence of a link between the writer of the entry and its subject. In short, the entries are by people who, contrary to the assertion above (‘i've neither been taught by, nor had much personal interaction with, anybody i've edited’), appear to be unusually well-informed concerning those about whom they write. BW, 12/12/2006
