Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:43, 2 February 2008

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Anonymous users keep removing the entire section referring to critique of Ferguson's defence of the British Empire. The section appears properly cited and is biographically relevant as this critique has been widely reported and debated in association with Ferguson, so if an editor feels this section should not be in the article it should be debated on the talk page. Ben Whiteside 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This has, I think, got long enough such that it could use to be cleaned up a bit. I'm going to give it a stab in the coming days but I wanted to drop a warning here first, and to solicit suggestions. --Fluxdrip

there needs to be some mention of his current channel 4 tv series which accompanies his new book, war of the world

Criticism

Criticism is not inherently negative and so both denigration and praise ought to be included. Ferguson is a public figure and so ought to be able to take the brickbats as well as accept the praise and that contrast ought to be included in his biographical entry in any encyclopaedia; he does after all court controversy and seek to polarise debate with his works. If editors do not consider that Ferguson deliberately courts controversy can I suggest they consider his introduction to Virtual History (counter-factualism being historically controversial to start with) where he explicitly equates Fascism, Communism, and Feminism (see p53 & p56). The equation of Fascism and Communism is historically controversial and the equating of both with Feminism is bordering on outrageous.

Historiography includes consideration of politics and social power and so social and/or political criticism of Ferguson are perfectly valid.

As to whether Ferguson counts is a 'complex thinker' well that itself is a matter for debate and it would seem that debate is the heart of wikipedia.Rykalski (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, No Criticism!!!

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedic educational tool, not a listing of what the average man thinks about complex thinkers and their works. Citing an article by Johann Hari does not count as evidence that Ferguson is an apologist for Empire. Citing Ferguson's work, in cases where he might say such a thing, would count as evidence, and would be acceptable, so long as they were (and I know this is asking a great deal) not decontextualized for the sake of making a splash on Wiki. I would challenge those who want to engage in criticism to do so on a historiographical basis, and supply citations from Ferguson's work, should they feel the need to confront him. I would challenge the Wiki 'overlord' to take down all non-factual criticisms of Ferguson. Simply saying that Ferguson is a court historian, or an apologist, is sloppy, and smacks of an 18 year old who has read a single Chomsky article and now believes that they have a monopoly on truth. And might I ask just which court he is the historian of? He's unleashed countless diatribes against the Bush administration during the last few years, and even encouraged voters to vote against Bush in the last presidential election, and democrat in the last mid-term. He has lambasted Blair and Brown on the other side of the Atlantic, and has never been friendly towards the EU (note his weekly Sunday articles in the UK newspaper The Telegraph). Citing an editor of the Washington Monthly (not exactly the TLS), as claiming that the House of Rothschild was Ferguson's only major historical work does not count as acceptable evidence for such a claim to be posted on a public forum. Could the person who cited this please explain why Ferguson's book Virtual History does not qualify as a serious historical text? Or for that matter, why War of the World (regarded by the New York Times, as one of the 100 most notable books of 2006), Paper and Iron, along with his other works do not qualify as serious history? I expect you to cite from the actual texts you're tossing out the window so quickly, and to explain why the arguments are not solid; the research is not sufficient; the points made, not true (as they correlate to the proposed thesis).

Furthermore, absurd statements such as, "While he is lauded by some on the right and has even been urged by Condoleezza Rice to run for Senate, he has his critics", remained on Ferguson's info for almost a year! HE'S BRITISH! He cannot run for the United States Senate, and the United States Secretary of State might just be aware of that.

The issue here is that some of the readers just don't like Ferguson or his views. That's fine. But it does not justify slander and outrageous comments that cannot be backed up by solid evidence. The issue is as William F. Buckley put it: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

No criticism?

This is a totally one-sided article with no criticism of a well-known defender of British Imperialist atrocities.

I’m not convinced that a Biographical entry should contain criticism. However, since Niall Ferguson’s theories are included in the article, personally I would concur, that as it stands the article does appear fan based and “one-sided”. Personally, I find little to agree on concerning Mr Fergusson’s interpretations, I regard him as a “coincidence conspiracy theorist”, whereby history occurs via the acts of a mans unique psychological makeup (i.e. Hitler was bad, that’s why he did bad things) and that the events which subsequently unfold are due to chance rather than design. This view often ignores the external factors which influence individual behaviour and world events. These are of course my own opinions and to my knowledge, not supported by any scholarly interpretations of his work. Subsequently, I would recommend that if the article is to include Mr Ferguson’s opinions, a fully referenced criticism should also be included.

Yes, there should be criticism. There is a lot in his work that demands to be criticised, and I've been waiting for a scholar to come along and sort it out. His calls for the U.S. government to "cut social spending" is particularly laughable - given the mere pittance spent on welfare as it is.

This guy fits the role of the intellectual perfectly - he's a propagandist, a servant to power, and a court jester. Shame on him. Ezra.

well thats a biased opinion

-- Above a reader said that Ferguson is "well-known defender of British Imperialist atrocities". You're probably making reference to his book Empire. Please, I beg you, cite just one page from that book in which he actually defends an atrocity. Some people often can't get around the fact that his book Empire was not about exhibiting the Empire warts and all (although it does a fair bit of that along the way), it was about explaining how the Empire came into being. It does not defend the rapes and murders and nastiness along the way, it simply does not focus on them.

War of the World (TV Series)

This is just my POV, but I did find Ferguson's account of the Russian Revolution remarkably biased. He seemed to suggest that the Bolsheviks won the Civil War cos there were nasty men with guns behind the Bolshevik armies who threatened to shoot the troops if they turned back...(like the British Army in WW1???). Then he lovingly detailed Cheka atrocities but somehow forgot to mention the atrocities of the White Army and their mass killings of Jews, even though this latter was a sterling example of the ethnic factor in history which purported to be Ferguson's theme for the series.Colin4C 14:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

--First of all, 'cos' in the English language is spelled 'cause', or even 'because' if you want to get all flappy about it.

--Second of all, read the book the series is based upon. I know, that requires effort, but do try. You'll find all the mass killing you can stand in there, including acts committed by the White Army. The fact that there is not time enough to cover all of the genocides or ethnic mass killings in history (or even the 20th century) is not grounds for criticizing the historian, but humanity.

The only problem with asking readers to turn to the books that accompany Ferguson's TV series is that the same request is used for every one of his TV shows every time something controversial is spewed out of them. Given the TV shows reach a wider audience then his books it is incumbent on Ferguson to ensure that such TV content vs Book content problems do not occur. To lose content between book and tv show once could be an accident but every time looks like rhetorical policy.

On the coverage of genocide it is worth noting that Michael Mann (sociologist) wrote an stunning book on 20th century genocide & ethnic cleansing (published in 2005 the year before the War of The World - just as he published a book on American empire in 2003 the year before Colossus was published) which does cover almost all the incidents of ethnic violence in the 20th century. However, as Mann's books tend to be a bit harder (i.e. difficult in their intellectual content) to read than Ferguson's perhaps the above anonymous has yet to put in the necessary effort. Rykalski (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This Should Not Be An Forum for Bashing Ferguson

Perhaps this is just me, but I thought the purpose of this space was for discussion about how to improve this article, not to engage in attacks on Ferguson. Almost all of the above is merely someone’s efforts to promote their own POV attacks on Ferguson, whom he is clearly not popular with the extreme left-wing clique that dominates Misplaced Pages. Likewise, I have some serious reservations about some of the content on this article; through it has improved since last year, the general tone of this article tries to make Ferguson look foolish or silly; the impression one gets here is that Ferguson is an ridiculous poster whose views are rejected by every other historian. Also, can someone explain this sentence "While he is lauded by some on the right and has even been urged by Condoleezza Rice to run for Senate, he has his critics"; Ferguson is an British subject, so how in Earth can Rice urged Ferguson to run for the Senate? One of the prerequistes for being an U.S. Senator is one be be an U.S. citizen first. A.S. Brown 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When Arnold Schwarzenegger first moved to the US he was not a citizen and look how he's grown. Rykalski (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Laughably Bad

Misplaced Pages is fast gaining a reputation as a sort of Soviet encyclopedia for our times. This entry confirms this impression. Worthless. I could improve it but why spend any effort on something that will be re-written by bigots.

Unfortunately, I agree with the above. Ferguson is a prolific writer. There is more on this page about the criticisms than about his work. I suppose Wiki is really an opportunity for left-wingers to practice shoving their bs down the leming's throats in a 'academic' format.

This article is not laughably bad it just contains information you dislike. Rykalski (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to Video Interview with Niall Ferguson

Hello. I have a query. In the past, I have posted a link to an exclusive video interview with Professor Niall Ferguson and it has now been removed because, according to the person who removed it, it was considered spam. In fact, the link was posted to enrich and enhance the quality of the article as a whole by providing new and relevant information. Never was my posting of this link done with the intention to create spam or any other malignant activity. Also, I don't see why the link, for instance, entitled "Video of Niall Ferguson lecture at Vanderbilt University, Sep 12, 2006, on "The War of the World" " should be considered to have any more relevance to the article than the interview I posted - let alone the fact that the link I posted was considered to have no relevance at all since it was removed immediately. It is a pity that readers of wikipedia can no longer take advantage of this video interview, which, I think (and you may judge for yourself by clicking here: http://www.thetalent.org/Video/frm-main.php?show=22&quality=stop) is an important source of knowledge for those interested in his work. Would the readers of this talkpage and whoever who has the authority to remove links please let me know whether they agree to add this link or whether they consider it of no interest to the article in question? Taleinfo 11:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taleinfo (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

As there were no objections regarding the above, I have added the link to the interview with Niall Ferguson.Taleinfo 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is terrible.

I don't think I've ever seen a more biased article on Misplaced Pages than this. Personally, I don't have much respect for Niall Ferguson and I think he indulges in pseudo-history far too often, but I at least have the common sense not to put my biased views down in a Misplaced Pages article, which is supposed to be academic. Besides the tiny review of a small portion of his work in the beginning of the article, the entire thing is devoted to blatantly bashing his work. By far the sorriest article I've come across on Misplaced Pages, and I don't even like the guy.

I agree fully, there is far too much of the article dedicated to criticisms. The article needs to be rewritten. Jacknife737 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen an article this poor.

This article really is appalling...an example of all that is bad on wikipedia. Just read it. It's one huge personal attack on Niall Ferguson and about as biased as an article can be. no wonder wikipedia has such a poor reputation.

-This is not that bad an attempt to grapple with the hydra of Ferguson's works. How large would the article have to be to treat each of Ferguson's positions in a fully analytical fashion. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a collection of doctoral theses. Rykalski (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is noting differences "unnecessary"?

During May 2007 a new paragraph was added to the section on the Niall Ferguson book "War of the World" listing some aspects of the London edition of the book (the American edition turns out to be different in some respects and I was going to make some changes to reflect those differences) with page numbers and references, including government websites and historical diary and letter references, providing an alternative perspective than that provided in the book.

The aspects identified are not normally subject to much debate or much heated opinion (I am not are of debate favouring "Ottowa" over "Ottowa"), so it seemed quite useful to identify them to the regular reader, so they can make their own assessment of the book, being forwarned about some aspects. Yet the section was removed with the comment "unnecessary information". Since the deleted paragraph sought to help readers assess the "verifiability" of some sections of the book, it should be of special interest in Misplaced Pages. Yet the history page shows "20:34, 30 May 2007 Jacknife737 (Talk | contribs) (25,297 bytes) (→War of the World - removed unnecessary information)"

It would seem very useful for Misplaced Pages to include a section on some of the contested "facts" for each non-fiction book, especially those that run counter to the current academic consensus.

72.1.195.5 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As I am not User:Jacknife737, I am offering my view as a third party. The detailed critique of Ferguson's "War of the World" belongs to an article dedicated to the book, and not to this article, where the focus should be on Ferguson himself. You might want to create a new article on "War of the Worlds".

It appears that the critique of the book, though uncontroversial, is your own. I have no objection to its inclusion in Misplaced Pages as long as it is factually verifiable. However, it does violate the "No original research" (Misplaced Pages:NOR) policy.

Alternatively, you might place the critique on this Talk page for reference.--Palaeovia 23:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Just to clarify further, does "No original research" disallow disputing a claimed "fact" by checking sources or alternative sources? To give a simple example, to support the view that the 1932 Imperial Econonmic Conference was held in Ottawa and not Ottowa, two links were provided, one to entry on a British government document on the conference and another to a Canadian government link. Does that make it original research? Or is searching for a character string via a search facility for say diary entries, considered "original research"? Even or especially, if it is looking for the source or context of a quotation?

192.30.202.28 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the relevant guideline is Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position (WP:SYN). The guideline requires that verifiable, sourced facts should not be collected creatively (as an original contribution) by an editor to advance a certain view. There should not be a hidden agenda behind an assembly of facts.

I've not seen similar critique (focused on possible factual errors found by the editors) on any non-fiction book in Misplaced Pages. Have a look at Lists of books.

In practice, individual disputes on whether an edit constitutes original research are settled by applying "community standards", the standards of the group of Wikipedians paying attention to the article in question. Where an article touches controversial matters, even sourced edits can be endlessly disputed as to the reliability of the sources. --Palaeovia 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a Terrible Article

The criticism section is WAY too long and some of it is in the praise section. I added some more to the praise section but for some reason it was removed! What's up with that? Led125

I agree, there is still too much focus on the criticism section, there needs to be more of a balance in the article. Jacknife737 21:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps posting criticisms of Ferguson? This is totally unacceptable!

I repeat: who keeps posting criticisms of Ferguson? Don't just put them back up without justifying it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.114.59 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) BUT BUT I DONT LIKE THE BRITISH WAHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.174 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit attempt

Given the large number of complaints that this is a 'terrible' article, because it contains too many spurious criticisms of the subject, i've deleted most of the section devoted to Johann Hari. This is partly because Hari is a minor British journalist and not an historian and not an authority on British imperialism, but also because the way it was presented was far too dense, containing a number of block quotes that made the whole thing a very awkward read. I didn't want to make any other changes to this article until I got some feedback, but I think the whole thing could be improved greatly, by keeping the piece as neutral as possible. This could mean deleting both the 'criticisms' and 'praise' sections and embedding them into the article. Ferguson is a very successful but polemical historian and therefore doesn't need separate sections to inform the reader that he has been criticised and praised; the entry can show this without loads of critical block quotes by obscure hacks or back-slaps by his pals. Any other thoughts on this?

Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Yes, I have thoughts. "Criticism" sections as isolated chunks of articles may not be the best way of presenting controversies. On the other hand, it is not great simply to cut out well-referenced material. A process of integrating material appropriately, retaining essential references while giving critical comments proportionate space, is sometimes called for. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is outrageous to not have a well-sourced criticisms section. This guy is seriously controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.146.208 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Not really. Nope, I'm sorry. He's not all that controversial. The people who say that are probably the same who say that it's controversial not to live in their parent's basement.

It's a bit extreme to call a well respected Harvard historian "seriously controversial", he's no David Irving. Although, like many academics/authors he most certainly has attracted some criticism, however, the section of the article which is dedicated to criticism is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article (it takes up about a 1/3 of the entire article!). We don't have to outline in detail every single objection that a critic has raised concerning Ferguson's work. The criticism section (which should remain or more favorably be integrated into the rest of the article) needs to be seriously reviewed and revised. Jacknife737 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A question of his treatment of WW1

Out of curiosity In what way does he deal in his book on WW1 with Imperial Germany's ethnic expulsion plans towards Poles and Jews, and Imperial Germany's plans to dominate Slavic and Balt populated countries by German minority strenghtened by colonists ?--Molobo (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" Section

I just wanted to say, that I believe this section fits the article better, then the overlong individual sections of both praise and criticism. Jacknife737 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add Lawrence James's critique of johann hari. It shows that Hari's own views are contested.-Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.36.53 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disgaree with the near-excision of the criticisms. As several wikipedians comment above, Ferguson is seriously controverial, and the wiki entry must reflect that fact, offering a range of both praise and criticism.

I would advise you to check out the rule that wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia and does not need to make cuts for space, and also the rules concerning POV.David r from meth productions (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s interesting that you only brought back the criticism section. Jacknife737 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add more criticisms then use the controversy section format, please. I realise we aren't pushed for space, but devoting multiple paragraphs to quotes from some or other journalist is disproportionate. Need I remind you that grandstanding is also unencyclopedic? 86.27.175.228 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not grandstanding to quote a range of critics, along with people who praise Ferguson. It's outragoues to delete these well-sourced passages and turn this into a hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.90 (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is grandstanding to give a disproportionate amount of space to a person's views, or a category of views (I note you didn't replace the "Controversy" section with both the "Criticism" and "Praise" sections, just the "Criticism" section). Johann Hari, for instance, is not an historian and was writing for a low-circulation newspaper (less than quarter of a million), yet his comments got several paragraphs and block quotes. If someone's comments are particularly pertinent, for instance if they are an eminent historian who engaged in a high profile public debate with Ferguson on some or other issue, then by all means elaborate appropriately, but it seems to me that your criteria for handing out space are not based on the relevance or interest of their views, but on how much they agree with your own. 81.109.243.220 (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the criticisms have been acknowledged, and if the reader wants further information they can examine the sources provided.Jacknife737 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I advise you both to look to how many wiki users complained when there were sparse criticisms of Ferguson, because he is very seriously controversial.

The critic you are referring to, Johann Hari, was described as the best journalist in Britain by Amnesty International and has won several awards. He is relevant here, not least because Ferguson chose to engage in a public debate with him.

Jackknife, your argument that people can follow the sources is not valid. If the criticisms are worth noting, they are worth describing here. Please look at the rules concerning wiki is not a paper encyclopedia.

In the interests of compromise, I am prepared to consider some trimming of these criticisms, but your proposed cuts as they stand go far too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.142.132 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the BLP concerning material, and protected the article. If I find people inserting mounds of BLP-violating stuff again, on this or other articles, I will take even more serious actions. Work out these issues on Talk:, and get agreement, keeping in mind that WP:BLP is a very serious matter. Jayjg 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? There were three critics mentioned, perhaps with excessive quoting, but all sourced to impeccable daily papers. How the hell was BLP violated in a manner justifying this over-reaction? Bad protection. Relata refero (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to edit Misplaced Pages mostly for the purpose of promoting Johann Hari and slagging people he disagrees with; that, of course, is a BLP issue. At least some of the references used go back to personal websites. If you feel you can write a non-BLP violating version of the text, please do so, I'm happy when articles can be brought into line with WP:NPOV without violating WP:BLP. Are you willing to take on that task? Jayjg 01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Once you unprotect it. Relata refero (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles