Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:04, 21 December 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward Said article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

	Edward Said has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 10, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed January 10, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia 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 is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Social and political philosophy Continental philosophy Contemporary philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as Mid-importance).

Should Said be categorized as "Muslim apologist"?

Should we add the category Category:Muslim apologists to this article? There is a similar discussion happening at Talk:John_Esposito#Incorrect_removal_of_Category:Muslim_apologists. The evidence presented in favor of such a categorization are two quotes:

We will also look at responses to these perspectives from Apologists like Said with his accusation that Orientalism stems from xenophobia and Esposito, who identifies aspects of Islam from which could spring democracy. from E-International Relations

Prominent apologists include Edward Said, Franz Fanon, John Esposito...in America’s War against Global Jihad, page 247

I'm not completely sure such a categorization would be appropriate. The sources seem somewhat biased. What do others think? Pinging last few people who engaged in discussion here: @Chas. Caltrop:, @Eperoton:, @Nishidani:, @MichelleInSanMarcos:, @Fa suisse:, sorry if I missed anyone.VR _talk 00:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• No - just in case anyone hasn't read the article Said was raised Christian & was never a Muslim. He doesn't I think write about Islam as such that much, more about Middle Eastern culture, history and politics as a whole. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral – I don't know enough to opine. Thank you for pinging me. Fa suisse (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, apparently the category Category:Muslim apologists is not about Muslims who are into apologetics, but academics who have contributed to Islamic apologetics. Both sources seem to be calling him "apologetic" when it comes to Islam/Muslim world.VR _talk 01:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And have you read the 2 lines at that link? It's still no - both sources seem highly partisan, and not RS as far as the "other side" goes. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, which two lines at which link? Why do you feel the sources are partisan? Btw, I tend to agree with you, but I'm just trying to understand why.VR _talk 02:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The link you just gave - Islamic apologetics. Can't see Said doing anything like that. I was maybe unfair to E-International Relations, but not I think the other. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Responding to a ping. Hmm.

Consideration #1: "Apologist" is a peculiar term, which has a neutral scholarly usage and derogatory popular usage. In scholarly usage, it traditionally refers to a branch of "defensive" theology. In popular usage, it usually refers to defending something indefensible. Some intellectual polemics use it in an ambiguous way, sneaking in a visceral dig at their opponents while keeping up appearances of being objective ("revisionist" is another term of this kind). At least that's my "OR", because dictionaries curiously don't distinguish between these uses, but rather construct a single definition, mostly a general sense of speaking in defense of something.

Consideration #2: We have categories "Jewish apologists" and "Christian apologists". The former is shorter, and as far as I can tell, it's limited to Jewish religious figures defending their faith against attack on its veracity, and does not include people who defend Jews or Judaism against any kind of attacks. I personally thinks it would be wise to keep these categories that way. The Christian category is longer, and I don't have time to go through it. Obviously, it would be absurd to suggest that Said is known for defending veracity of Islam.

Consideration #3: If we base this category on RSs, I'd like to make sure that it's being used there as a neutral description, by authors who agree with the person in question, as well as those who disapprove of their views.

On the balance: not convinced that it is appropriate. Eperoton (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not per Johnbod and Epereton. 'Apologetics' used to be a (noble) genre of theological literature, with autobiographical uses (Newman), and the word was used correctly in its classical Greek sense, shorn of the innuendo, now ever-present in usage, of 'covering up for, throwing one's weight about, to support a lost, evil, or fringe cause. I say that as a published critic of Said's approach in his 'Orientalism'. To cast his critique of Western imperialism's massive, doggedly persistent destabilization of states in the Middle East, when not supporting its friendly dictators, as a defense of a religion is a category mistake, and a designedly pointy one at that.Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• No. The evidence is not strong enough to brand a significant scholar like Said with these labels. Barca (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2020

(UTC)

• No. Prof.–Dr. Edward Saïd never apologised for Muslims and their actions. I concur with the other editors who voted "No" to the reductionist mislabelling of a legitimate academic. This Orientalist, anti-intellectual smear again proves that Saïd spoke truth (verifiable facts) about the matters he addressed as a public intellectual, especially at this temporal remove from his death.

Just because an opinion was published does not make the opinion true; it is fascinating to see that the fear of facts keeps Prof. Edward Saïd alive to his anti-intellectual enemies who do work as apologists for the American Empire. The bored Misplaced Pages editors with nothing productive to do, and who are looking for someone to do it to, need a Wikibreak; of the dead speak only truth; nothing else is available.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Depends. Will having that categorization make it easier for someone in the future to compare people in that category? Will having that categorization add to or detract from wikipedia cred? MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This is another lame way of dismissing the facts that Prof. Saïd reported, by claiming: “That’s just Saïd’s opinion” in order to ignore the facts of contemporary geopolitical reality. Labelling the "Christian" Edward Saïd as a "Muslim apologist" is just another laughable right-wing effort to label him a villain, for spelling out the obvious rationale of empire, thus the dishonesty of anti-intellectual people (indifferent to facts) who attack the messenger, Prof. Saïd, when the facts don't favour them; such right-wing loser's resort to personal insults.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The truth is that Said was a Nazi and you probably are as well. See, others can do it too - you don’t have a monopoly on emotionalistic talking-down. Behave like an adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5700:E2E:51FF:DB26:478C:B0E6 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Add

Please add Category:People educated at St George's School, Jerusalem to the article --Abubiju (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing word (minor)

Final paragraph of opening summary, which reads "...developed with Barenboim, was created Berlin" may be missing a word, which could read "...created in Berlin." azwaldo (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Useful ref

• ‘Charisma incarnate’: My former teacher Edward Said was the quintessential outsider

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

David Price

I know Counterpunch is deprecated, but I am restoring the usage by David Price. Price is the author of a book specifically about the FBI spying on intellectuals in the US, published by Duke University Press, and this specific article is cited a number of academic articles. nableezy - 23:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense under WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."VR _talk 03:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of the facts are also supported by this piece in The Nation. This New Yorker piece mentions the FBI file. Firefangledfeathers 06:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If they supported by other sources why use depreciated source? Shrike (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That should be 'deprecated'. One cannot maintain the double standard of allowing generously a lot of trash sources (Algemeiner, Arutz Sheva, Jewish Chronicle etc.etc.etc., all over wiki pages, uncontested, while warring out any reference to CounterPunch/Mondoweiss, some of the scarce webzines that do provide on occasion solid reports written by authorities in the field. Context has always determined what to use in these cases. If the credentials are solid, and the article cogently written, it is acceptable, as VR notes. Otherwise people should press for a total ban on every noted writer, thinker, historian or scholar whenever they choose to write for that webzine - which would be folly.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Why use this source? Because it is written by an expert in the field. By the person who uncovered the FBI surveillance of Said. Do you think this specific source is unreliable? nableezy - 13:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, let me ask you a straight question in the hopes of getting a straight response. David Price is the author Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists, published by Duke University Press, a book focused specifically on the FBI's surveillance of of academics they considered activists, andAnthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, also published by DUP, focused on collaboration between the US intelligence agencies and military and anthropologists. His work is widely cited (eg , ). Do you challenge that David Price is a reliable source for the topic of the FBI surveilling Said? Because if you do then sure Ill take this specific source to RSN. If you dont, then kindly remove the tag. nableezy - 14:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Though Nish, I think it best to give Shrike the opportunity to challenge the source or remove the tag himself tbh. nableezy - 14:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, occasions when Shrike has argued for his views at length are few and far between. Correct me if I am wrong Shrike. I would want to see evidence that Shrike has read the source, rather than, as it strikes me is often the case, spotting the word Counterpunch and then removing or challenging it automatically. Boy I could spend days and ratchet up my edit count exponentially if I had a mind to question thousands of uses of Arutz Sheva, the Algemeiner and any of the dozens of provincial newspaper sources. One should always concentrate on the quality of the specific source, and its author. The case is obviously a no-brainer. And whatever the 'deprecation' judgement in that bizarre RSN discussion, the fact remains that numerous authoritative scholars choose to publish in that source, and attempts to purge anything ever written on CounterPunch from wikipedia indiscriminately is a mere cleansing on an abstract pretext for POV ends. I've removed the tag, since only Shrike objects. Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, this point should be clarified about a number of ostensibly 'deprecated sources' at the appropriate board. For the moment, everything deprecated refers to alternative websites that contain information on Palestinians, coverage of whom is reduced to 'mainstream' Israeli and US newspapers whereas the realities of Israeli and Jewish life have an indiscriminate and massive range of sources no one has waged a campaign against (and, in my view, rightly so). I dislike a large amount of the hysterical rubbish 'reportage' in the Tablet magazine, but at times (on the Yiddish dispute) it carries important and authoritative articles. Editors should learn to rely on consensual analysis of specific articles and not on a reflex 'gotcha' approach derived from an abstract egeneral judgement.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

revision 1060919212 Reverted by Nishidani (talk) we ARE quoting counterpunch, and the tag is apt, and tags should not be removed like that)-

No, we are not quoting CounterPunch, any more than if I cite Martin Litchfield West for an article appearing in Classical Quarterly, I'd be quoting CQ. No one challenges the fact that we cite here Said from CounterPunch and Alexander Cockburn . Now that I've tipped off editors who edit without actually reading the page that the objection to Price is anomalous, I guess they'll rush to tag those as well. Eventually we'll be banning Christopher Hitchens as well, because he wrote for CounterPunch, and therefore guilt by association with a paranoid, conspiracy-mongering anti-Semitic organ (according to the RSN deprecation screed). Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

no idea what you mean, but we are quoting CounterPunch (regardless of who wrote the report), which is a deprecated source. Therefore the tag is warranted, and tags should generally not be removed without coming to a consensus on the talk page. Mvbaron (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a simple distinction in English, between citing a source and quoting a person. If you can't see it, well. . . The reference does not quote CounterPunch: it paraphrases what Price writes. Ah, one can only deprecate the loss of all sensitivity to what words mean, and how in a semantic field, related terms neatly distinguished are collapsed and jumped as if they were all interchangeable synonyms (as, for a fourth example, the confusion of 'depreciate' with deprecate') above. Not understanding simple prose, lastly, is not a good sign for talk pages Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

stop with the personal attacks. That's not how quoting or citing works. If you quote price in counterpunch you are using (citing Price in) counterpunch, which is depreacted and shouldn't be used. Mvbaron (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Price is an expert in the field and may be used if he were writing on his blog. Are you challenging the reliability of Price in Counterpunch here? nableezy - 21:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I find this tagging to be absurd, Ive raised the issue at RSN. nableezy - 21:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you can't achieve WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against a broad general RFC on a local talk page. Also, please review WP:NPA and stop with the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deprecated_sources#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources specifically says that all removals are to be looked at. I am raising your editing elsewhere. nableezy - 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Language and literature good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Mid-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• GA-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• GA-Class philosopher articles
• Low-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• GA-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• GA-Class Continental philosophy articles
• Low-importance Continental philosophy articles
• Continental philosophy task force articles
• GA-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
• Low-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
• Contemporary philosophy task force articles
• GA-Class Arab world articles
• Low-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• GA-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• GA-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• GA-Class Columbia University articles
• Mid-importance Columbia University articles
• WikiProject Columbia University articles