Talk:Hamid Dabashi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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.

Verita, I do not recognize myself in any of your allegations and would like to refer you to our policies WP:No Personal Attacks and WP:Assume Good Faith. These allegations violate both. gidonb 19:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I will add this just for the record, because it is so easy to hurt the reputation of bona fida longtime Wikipedians, who do not change their nick every Tuesday and Thursday, even with a proven record of bridging between concepts of people with opposite political views. I first came to this article while doing my usual Wikipedian chores. I cleaned up the root of Category:Social scientists. After the cleanup the category was added to the Hamid Dabashi article almost immediately. I tried to cleanup the categories a few additional times, invested a lot of additional work, but this was many-a-times met by reverts and various threats, while the category spammers and vanity promoters worked from multiple "dedicated" identities. After the disgusting personal attacks above I had taken a break. While looking at old edits I saw that the problems of this article still linger on, with possible negative implications for the living person in question. I have called this to the attention of several of my co-editors. gidonb 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


This current revert war is a ridiculous attempt at censorship. Verita - you are right that Prof Dabashi did not mention Jews. He was talking about Israelis. But do you seriously think he was referring to Arab Israelis? In any case, I put the controversial quote back in. Please stop deleting it. I'm sorry that you (and a few others) don't like it, but it is relevant information. Prof Dabashi doesn't deny making it either. If you think it needs proper context, then provide that context. But stop erasing it off the page. If it's really as innocent as you claim, then there should be no problem with people reading it, right? Censorship is not the way to go. BuboTitan 11:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dabashi is not even Arab, so I don't know why he'd necessarily support Arabs that have opted to immigrate to Israel, a state which he considers to be neo-colonial. What is more considerable is that he collaborates heavily with Jewish scholars that are also critical of Israeli policies. The comment should be included as a controversy, but let's not give it exaggerated weight. Dabashi's credentials are undisputed, and although he is incredibly assertive with what he knows, he generally is very convincing and his students generally love him. I suppose we could also include things regarding Campus Watch and Daniel Pipes (Pipes being a malicious anti-Islamic necon that spouts his racist polemic everytime he can find an outlet). The original poster here ought to provide proper context if he/she believes Dabashi's comments were taken out of context. Obviously, Dabashi is just as critical of the Islamic Republic, Hindu Nationalists, and the religious right, and the despotic Arab monarchies, so he's hardly a racist by any stretch. His support generally goes to the Palestinians, Lebanese, the new Iraqi and Afghan fledging, struggling Republics, and Turkey. -MadarB 03:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)
DGG, this is indeed what I meant, and thank you for your improvements to the article but the supercats get inserted time and again. In addition, also categories that are not person categories get added time and again. There should be none of these under the article. As a note to the editor(s), who I hope mean to cause no harm to Professor Hamid Dabashi's excellent reputation: If this behavior continues, the article will in the end be protected with the following template:
 The quality of this article or section may be compromised by wording which promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.
You can help Wikipedia by removing peacock terms or finding content which backs the claims.
or a more appropriate template for vanity. I say this with regret, because the article - to which I have contributed a lot of efforts - is well-written and better meets the Wikipedian standards than in the past. gidonb 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] outside look

I was asked to have an outside look. I approach this in the spirit of doing him and his views full justice -- with respect to both the opinions of his supporters and opponents. It does not benefit a subject in the light of intelligent readers for his article to adopt an uncritical style. the greater the man and the work, the less need for adjectives of praise. If a person is a highly respected scholar, the description of his work and its reception in the article will show it. If he is controversial politically, the article will show that. Ny concept of an encyclopedic style is the the classic advice of Strunk and White, "omit needless words" -- in my own WP formulation, "omit needless words, especially adjectives." There is a style appropriate for book jackets, and a style appropriate for works of reference. I'd urge some copy-editing, and if nobody else does it, I will. I am also startled to see no mention in the article of the controversies in NYC. I have my own view of them, which is not anyone's business, but I have not followed them with specialised attention & am therefore not the best person to write this part. a narrative supported by no-partisan newspaper articles should be possible. thee is no need to draw a moral, just state what happened and --very briefly--what was said. I'd suggest a relatively neutral heading, such as "Career at Columbia". There is nothing too difficult to describe objectively, if people will be content with that and not try to indicate also whether his views and actions are right or wrong. The reader will judge that for himself. DGG (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article protected on 26 October 2007

Well, this is what happens when you have an edit war. And now the page was protected after Verita committed another act of vandalism. Hey Verita - why don't you explain why you are constantly trying to censor the page? Prof Dabashi did write that quote for the Al-Ahram weekly (he does not deny it), and he was criticized for it. Why do you believe no one else should know about this? Wiki is not your personal space. If you think the quote was mistranslated, provide a better translation. If you think it was taken out of context, then provide the full context. But instead of doing either of those things, you keep deleting it - which to me is pretty good proof that you don't think you can explain it. For everyone else, here is the controversial quote, since it keeps disappearing from the article. You can judge for yourselves: Professor Dabashi has been criticized for the following quote which was part of an article he wrote for the Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly. Referring to Israelis, he wrote: “Half a century of systematic maiming and murdering of another people has left its deep marks on the faces of these people. The way they talk, the way they walk, the way they handle objects, the way they greet each other, the way they look at the world. There is an endemic prevarication to this machinery, a vulgarity of character that is bone-deep and structural to the skeletal vertebrae of its culture."[9] BuboTitan 14:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

If you are suggesting he's a racist, it would be bizarre, because he frequently collaborates with Jews and Jewish scholars. He's certainly critical of Israel. I don't think that was a surprise. The only people that tried to make that quote a big deal were Campus Watch (McCarthyite censorship site) and "Indoctrinate U." Perhaps it could be included, but in the grand scheme of things, the 'criticism' really made no permanent marks. Titling it as "Anti-Semitic" is reaching, at best. If you read the entirely article, I think it would be quite clear he was criticizing the state, not the people. He made this comment while describing the airport.. LOL. -68.43.58.42 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since he wrote: “Half a century of systematic maiming and murdering of another people has left its deep marks on the faces of these people.", I don't think he was talking about airport workers... In any case, if you feel the remarks need better context, then write it into the article. BuboTitan 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Edit war

As anyone who has been reading this page knows, Verita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Verita) has been on a personal crusade to eliminate any info about Prof Dabashi that he doesn't like. Verita, the cited material is not "slander", since Prof Dabashi doesn't deny making the remarks. Also, the remarks were criticised. Once again, If you think the quote was mistranslated, provide a better translation. If you think it was taken out of context, then provide the full context. But instead of doing either of those things, you keep deleting it - which to me is pretty good proof that you don't think you can explain it. Frankly I am at the limit of my patience and if you change the page one more time without at least providing an explantion on the talk page then I'm going to request page protection and mediation from Wiki.BuboTitan (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you think the quote was wrongly interpreted, then SAY SO IN THE ARTICLE! Is that so hard? He did make those statements. Nowhere does Prof Dabashi deny them. I am requesting mediation.BuboTitan (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have formally requested page protection (not a big surprise, since it's been protected before). We are well beyond the three revert rule. Moreover, Verita, I have placed an alert on the Wikiquette page concerning your behavior. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts). If we can find a compromise, that would be great. Otherwise, outside moderators will have to make the call.BuboTitan (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to READ, do you? Since last year this whole issue of slanderous "accusation" has been dealt with (see above and below)! You are determined to portray a decent scholar as a racist and no matter how many legit sources are brought to your attention, you chose to close your eyes and mind...I have been the one who asked for protection on this page, and secondly you have been reported on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts) dear friend. You seem so concerned about Wikiquette, what about starting to tell the truth and be a decent human being for starter? I will not compromise on adding an article under the premise that a decent and innocent man is a racist. You will not get that from me!

Good luck with the wikiquette alert - it may backfire on you, since I haven't insulted anyone here. The point I don't think you understand is that the accusation was made against Prof Dabashi. Even he wouldn't deny that. If you think it's slander, put in the article evidence that the accusation was slander. A wikipage is for information, not for Prof Dabashi's self-promotion. Incidentally, I'm not your friend.BuboTitan (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BuboTitan's edit war

BuboTitan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BuboTitan) is only out here to slander Dabashi and his task on wikipedia only seems to leave the stench of a poorly articulated pro-war, pro-torture, Zionist (by the way THAT is racism--belonging to something based on your blood) agenda. Dabashi HAS strongly objected to the false allegations of anti-Semitism and many have come to his defense incl. the Jewish Week of New York (see below). The charge of anti-Semitism is a very very serious one--one of racism and hatred towards a whole people! If BuboTitan really cared he would do some research before wasting his time here! In the Al-Ahram 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.” The very assumption brought by some that Dabashi is “accused” is entirely false and in fact a continuation of slander. The man has written over 17 books over 30 years and here comes a good-for-nothing BuboTitan and gives himself the right to slander a distinguished scholar. It is truly pathetic and I do sincerely hope that he DOES reach his “limit” of patience and gets out of here! Not that one can reason with people like him, but just for the record see all these outlets defending Dabashi: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verita (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is that slander? 1) He made the remarks, 2) He was accused of anti-semitism (the word "accusation" does NOT mean that the charge was proven). Once again (for the 100th time) if you think that Dabashi was misunderstood, then provide that information in the article. But by removing the quote, you are removing cited and relevant information on him.BuboTitan (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on the edit war

Hi, my comments on the edit war:

  • Phrases similar to 'hailed' aren't normally used.
  • Similarly 'definitive' probably isn't neutral.
  • In terms of finding a compromise, I've reverted in order to remove the above terms, but haven't reincluded the criticism section.
  • I've trimmed the amount of external links.

Could I suggest that you don't continue the edit war, and instead discuss how a compromise can be reached? Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully support some of the trimming that you made. In effort at a compromise, the criticism section could simply be titled "criticism" and not "allegations of anti-semitism", if that makes a difference. His controversial quote is authentic, however, since the Professor admits to it. But I don't mind also adding information that he vigorously denies that his remarks were anti-semitic (a compromise that Verita rejected). The article should, as much as possible, factually speak about the Professor; the purpose is not praising him or bashing him. But you can't have a balanced article if no criticism is allowed.BuboTitan (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi BuboTitan, looking at the results of this search, I gather the allegations were part of a wider controversy at Columbia, for example this New York Times article says "Professor Dabashi has been mentioned for canceling a class to answer his "moral duty" to attend a Palestinian rally and seems implicated chiefly for his published political viewpoints." Also, this New York Sun article indicates the New York Civil Liberties Union defended his actions. Addhoc (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a criticism section with a bit more context, using some of the links that you provided. This includes the findings of Columbia's committee. This is not definitive, but it is the first attempt at a compromise here. I welcome more addition and context. But before anyone deletes anything here, they might note that even Hamid Dabashi's own hand-picked references on his web page notes that he was accused of anti-semitism: http://www.hamiddabashi.com/refer.html (look under 2004 & 2005) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuboTitan (talk • contribs) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also fully support the mediation by Addhoc--thank you! What has been problematic here is the omission of positive contributions and an insistence on portraying Dabashi as an anti-Semite, which is not only factual but slanderous and malicious--I would be happy to help keep the page as accurate as possible and protect it from vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verita (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the criticism section, could I ask that you don't resume an edit war, and instead discuss major changes? Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to strongly disagree on this point. I'm afraid the section, as you modified it, isn't even a criticism section anymore. It's not NPOV. All it really says is that there was a controversy, and that professors were being wrongfully maligned. In other words, there's no actual criticism of Mr. Dabashi in it. If no one ever criticized him, then that would be understandable, but plenty of people have, and for more than just canceling one class. We don't need to smear the guy, but both points of view at least need a fair shake. It doesn't make sense to me that Hamid Dabashi's own web page mentions several times charges against him but we don't see any in the article?BuboTitan (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the controversy section slightly, and reintroduced some of your content. Regarding your other comments, the biography of living persons policy says the the following about criticism:

“ The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

 ”

My concern is that your version appears to side with the critics. Addhoc (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What you have now, I think, is a fairly acceptable compromise; if the people want to dig deeper into the critcism they can at least look it up themselves. But in an attempt at balance, I made a couple small changes. I don't think it's NPOV to only quote the ACLU in this case, when no one else is quoted, especially University President Bollinger. So I changed the quote to simply stating the NY ACLU's position, added a reference, and expanded one sentence a little. Tell me what you think.BuboTitan (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, the page is tolerable. Unfortunately, it's had moderator help in the past, and then soon afterwards went back into an edit war. Hopefully we won't see that again.BuboTitan (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll close the case if the current version is a tolerable compromise. Addhoc (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It's fine with me, but the pattern in the past is that the edit war starts soon again after the moderator leaves (sigh). But I thank you for your time here.BuboTitan (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hagiography

Dabashi is a national figure not because of his writing on film - which is dense and jargon-filled to the ppoint of incomprehensibility - but because he gets up ans calls the President of Columbia University (Lee Bollinger - a good guy and a champion of freedom of speech and not a member of the Ku Klux Lkan) a "white supremacist." then he called Azar Nafisi, the wonderful writer who wrote "Reading Lolita in Tehran" a colonial agent comparable to "the most pestiferous colonial projects of the British in India," and said "To me there is no difference between Lynndie England and Azar Nafisi."

There's more , a lot more, like this. the guy is as controversial as hell. But , try and put any of this relevent, heavily sourced material up, and Addhoc expunges the material.

This article needs supervision. Come to that, so does Hamid Dabashi. Imagine calling Lee Bollinger a white supremicist. But I'll settle for some supervision of this page. Post-modern truthsquad (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Post-colonial truthsquad

I reverted that stuff (and I'm sorry I said troll in my edit summary; I hadn't seen this on the talk). Your criticism needs context, at least, and can't in any way conflict with WP:BLP. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am eager and willing to have a rational discussion about what to do about this page. There are two problems: 1) Where to put Dabashi's controversial views. The things he says are, bizarre. But if a list of his more outrageous quotes doesn't work, we can do something else. 2) the larger problem is that he has fans and defenders who immediately delete anything that makes him look bad

so, balancing the pagee is only the first problem, how do we keep it balanced? meanwhile, I'm putting the quotes back.Post-modern truthsquad (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Post-modern truthsquad

No to the quotes; they're entirely outside of context and they appear as a smear (anyone would revert them). Put them in a sandbox instead :-). I'm 1RR, so don't worry about me, though. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In the very early days of Wikipedia, at the end of biographies, there were quote sections, however this hasn't been current practice for years. Also, please stop soap boxing your views. Addhoc (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a sandbox? and what does 1RR connote? Post-modern truthsquad (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Post-modern truthsquad

Have a look at WP:SANDBOX and WP:1RR.--Addhoc (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am putting up a news section, an attempt to give some information on the fact that this man is a loose-cannon and politically nasty. Sorry, but he's hard to liver, er, work with. Post-modern truthsquad (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Post-modern truthsquad

You're soap-boxing again ;)
It's not a big deal: we all do it. We all have our own opinions. But your opinion is not the readers' opinion, or our fellow editors' opinions :-)
When we write biographies of living people, we pay more attention to their work and their achievements, for the simple fact that this is an encyclopedia. We give our attention, primarily, to the most notable aspects of one's life. If someone's life work was primarily a controversy, we would give weight to that. That doesn't mean that there is a categorical distinction between a life full of controversy, or a life full of good; rather, we categorically assume that one's life and work is myriad.
But we go by notability, and avoid undue weight. The man is a Columbian scholar whose primary focus and work is on Islam and Iran, not antisemitism (for example) and hot-headed claims. They have their place, but in the grand scheme of things he will be more well known for his notable activities.
And the last fact of the matter is: we do not know this person. We know a public persona. It's too easy to take things out of context, whether they be conditions logical or emotional.
Everyone has a bone to pick, and everyone has a bone they'd love to chew on like a happy dog (I love extending metaphors). My suggestion to you, as an editor, is to assume that this runs about 50/50 in all cases. Does that mean we should devote half the article to the controversies and half to the ...what? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major Works, Philosophy

These sections are problematic in that they describe Dabashi in his own words. I might have had fun, too, writing my own Wikipedia page and quoting my own views, books and articles to do it. Alas, the page was posted by others (readers? students?) who quote form third parties discussing my work. I did have the impression that Wikipedia was supposed to work that way, That you had to find a source other thatn the subject of the article to quote on the work the subject of the article does. Post-modern truthsquad (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Post-modern truthsquad

[edit] Proposing section on Dabashi's anti-Semitism

Look, a lot of major intellectual figures were/are flaming anti-Semites. T.S. Elliot, Martin Luther the list is long and distinguished. We don't reject the good work that these important intellectual figures did on the grounds that they were anti-Semitic. Insteead we put a small section on their Wikipedia pages documenting their hatred of Jews. I suggest that we use the T.S. Elliot page as a model and cconstruct a modest section on Dabashi's well-documented anti-Semitism.Thomas Babbington (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington

Addendum. I just looked at the T.S. Elliot page. The anti-Semitism section there is far too long to serve as a model. I had in mind a brief paragraph. But I firmly believe that such a paragraph is essential. Without it , we lose credibility. Thomas Babbington (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington

Hi Thomas, the article mentions that allegations of antisemitism were made against him, and the result of an investigation which found the allegations to be without foundation. Addhoc (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Addhoc, the article covers, perhaps at too-great length, an incident at Columbia. The committee you refer to was never charged with determining whether Dabashi or anyone else had made anti-Semitic statements. The charge was very narrow. The committee was only to investigate whether professors had harrassed students registered in courses they were teaching while inside the classroom. The instructions excluded published writing, speeches, etc. So the allegations that were without foundation (except Massad, who was found to have acted unprofessionaly and formally reprimanded) were of unprofessional behavior inside the classroom which, as far as I recall, no one ever charged Dabashi with. Just fyiPost-modern truthsquad (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Post-modern truthsquad

All the above are now blocked as abusive sockpuppets. Except for Addhoc, of course. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cover IRAN.jpg

The image Image:Cover IRAN.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)