Talk:Noel Malcolm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Simic reliable?[edit]

I accept that the criticism comes from a reliable source as far as the publisher is concerned, but Simic is a poet, not a historian. Furthermore his being of Serb ethnicity plays a major influential role on the way he thinks. Malcolm is neither Albanian nor Serb, just a neutral historian with more recognition that possibly any other historian in Balkan history. --Let's keep it neutral (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that Simic's review was published in the London Review of Books, which has a serious editorial team. Nothing wrong with pointing out that Simic is a poet, if that is factual. Malcolm was probably given the right of reply, they almost always do that. Simic's piece itself may have been responded to by others. Maybe Hoare? Just dig up responses and add some more to the article. There is a problem with WP:UNDUE in this article, is focuses almost solely on the Kosovo book, and barely mentions the Bosnia one and his other works. People who disagree with Malcolm are highly motivated to add negative reviews to make Malcolm and his work look less credible. This goes on all the time in Balkans articles (playing the man not the facts). There are PLENTY of positive reviews of Malcolm's work, just locate them (try WP:RX to get copies if you locate them behind a paywall) and add that material to re-balance the article. I might even have a look myself. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know what you mean. The trouble is that Simic is that unknown that there might just not be a response to him. And I really hate the idea that these political-purpose commentators get the last word, it is realy making my skin crawl looking at the article and seeing all the undismantled criticism. Let's face it, Malcolm's books on both Kosovo AND Bosnia are generally sneered upon only by the nationalist Serbs (moderate ones generally accept the facts as presented by the historians) and they can only fight back with negative trash-talk from the likes of Charles Simic or Nebojsa Malic (another "American" who is truly Serb). I am trying hard to be as my name says "neutral" but some editors like Anonimski and Vanjegenije make it a tall order. --Let's keep it neutral (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have my sympathies, but WP doesn't exist so anyone can "right wrongs". Just collect all the positive reviews from noted historians and put them in. I have to say that if Malcolm didn't even reply, it is a bit of a statement in itself. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simic is a poet, but calling him "unknown" is ridiculous. He was the poet laureate of the United States a few years back. He's also written numerous forwards and reviews of English-language books about Balkan history. 23 editor (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he wasn't known, I am saying he is not a qualified person to comment on the fine respected works of Noel Malcolm. And being a poet, his thoughts are only as essential as the man on the street. --Let's keep it neutral (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the LRB think it is germane to publish his riposte (which is pretty mild, actually), that's good enough for me. As an American-Serb poet, Simic's comments are directly relevant to destruction of Serb cultural monuments in Kosovo. If poets cannot speak for culture, who can? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prior statement[edit]

Hi, just a question about a recent edit - is there a source somewhere that verifies the part saying "[...] despite Malcolm having made a prior statement that they should be cared for"? - Anonimski (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the letter. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 15:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the op-ed was in the New York Times here Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 15:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I failed to notice the quotation. I'll add the other source to the article as well. - Anonimski (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've amended to text again to closely reflect what was written by Simic, the wording you used wasn't grammatically correct. It is right to say "protest against" though, so I've left that in. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batakovic[edit]

I think if a reliable source has said that Batakovic is a Serbian nationalist historian, that is germane to any criticisms he made of Malcolm, and should be included. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly? Yes. We should be careful not to add an entire essay on Batakovic, however. Wouldn't want it to be coat-tracky. 23 editor (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, all that is needed is the words "Serbian nationalist" preceding his name and a quote in the citation to show that is what he was called. I'm assuming he is still alive, so BLP applies (ie we need a reliable source to say anything that might be considered negative). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This issue arose between myself and Antidiskriminator very recently on my talk (User talk:Resnjari#BLP) and a solution of sorts was reached. I did add Anscombe's analysis of Batakovic to the article about him, i changed "Serbian nationalist" to "Dušan Bataković from a nationalistic perspective" (see: Dušan Bataković#criticism with inline from Anscombe. Not sure what you guys had in mind though for here. Should it have Serbian nationalist preceding Dushan's name or have something like from a nationalistic perspective or noted for having a nationalist perspective so BLP does not get contravened etc etc ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the problem here is just the "entire essay" on Batakovic. I hope the problem is not what it is said on Batakovic instead of the length of what it is said. I am waiting 23 editor tell us how they think the sentence should be constructed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker spelled it out so I don't have to. This article is about Malcolm alone. Don't coatrack. 23 editor (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a sentence should be inserted after the sentence about what Bataković had to say. I suggest it reads, "Frederick Anscombe has accused Bataković of writing several works in the 1980s and 1990s which advanced a Serbian nationalist perspective regarding Kosovo." with the citation added, of course. That way we will have fairly balanced Bataković's view of Malcolm's work with an observation about Bataković himself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds ok for me.Resnjari (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
23 editor, where did Peacemaker67 spell it out? I agree with Peacemaker67 and Resnjari. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
23 editor are you ok with this addition? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with PM67, Ktrimi, that means he spelled something out and you got the message. Yes, PM67, I have no objection. 23 editor (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
23 editor Nope, it means you got a strong message. Did you forget Peacemaker start this discussion because of your disruptive erase of my edits? Since nationalism of Batakovic is again mentioned the person who got the message is not me. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just be glad it has been resolved by consensus. No need to have a crack at other editors. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broader Islamophilia/Ottoman-fetishism[edit]

In the article, the controversy pertaining to the Albanian vs. Serbian angle is covered in depth (in fact this is quite typical, British Empire intelligence/agents of influence, promoting anti-Serbism as a Great Game-esque proxy against Russia), but Malcolm's works, particularly Agents of Empire: Knights, Corsairs, Jesuits and Spies in the Sixteenth-Century Mediterranean World, also take a strongly anti-Catholic line. In this writing he is clearly anti-Habsburg, anti-Council of Trent, anti-Papacy, with an admiration and sympathy for the Ottoman Empire cause. There is almost an angst, a disappointed air that the Ottomans didn't successfully defeat Catholic Europe in Malcolm's writings. For those who watch the British historical activities and propaganda carefully, none of this should be too surprising, but I think it should be mentioned in the article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to observations made by academics about Malcolm's work? Perhaps you could mention the sources that make these observations? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If its a personal opinion then any additions of the sort ought to be avoided in the article. I have read the book and for me its a balanced piece of scholarship and not one of those works which goes into a Islamophobia and Turkophobia rant bordering on racism (like many works of scholarship from the Balkans often do). Malcolm has not sugarcoated the Ottoman Empire of the era and referred to depopulation and other things the empire did which are in the negative. A big difference between this acadmic work is that Malcolm uses Ottoman sources (something which in the past he was criticized by scholars like Anscombe for not doing) in addition to Vatican, Austrian, Venetian ones and so on, -some which have never been used before and he uncovered from the archive. He spent years researching this topic and is probably his best work to date. There are reviews of this work out there in praise of his effort: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and so on. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, quite my point. Everyone who has read Malcolm has an opinion on him. Personally I find his style a bit turgid, but that's just my opinion, and I'm not a reliable secondary source... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67 LOL! I agree, especially his previous works. He is a product of Cambridge after all. Separate to views from the Balkans, Anscombe was by far one of the harshest in terms of scholarly critics (not that he left Serb or Albanian historians off the hook). With this book Malcolm has pulled his socks up (devoting almost two decades to researching this project, as opposed to just a few years) and reviews for this book show that to be the case. Just sayin'. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He is a talented writer, but he absolutely has a POV and I find it hard to believe that it just coincidentally happens to fall in line with British foreign policy objective past (the Protestant Tudors nod-nod-wink-wink alliance with the Ottomans vs. Habsburg Europe) and present (support for anti-Serbian elements in the Balkans, especially if they are Muslim, nakedly designed to "get at Russia"). Specifically in Agents of Empire he plays the usual British card of "relative Ottoman tolerance" compared to the "backward" Papists and seems surprised that supposed "aggressive" Papal/Habsburg forces would dare be wary of a political force which was conquering its way through Eastern Europe. Claíomh Solais (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But what are the reliable sources you are relying on for this assessment? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Claíomh Solais the practice of historiography through it involves using secondary sources to ascertain previous scholarship (or scholarly positions) on a topic and to set that topic in its context/historical period, primary sources (i.e locating the archive) above all else form the core of the historian's endevour and task. It is primary sources that guide a historian in writing history. Here Malcolm spent years researching this book accessing multiple archives, to the point of even rediscovering lost manuscripts -important for Albanian studies. Malcolm's research shows that Albanians of the era were not a peripheral people with limited agency but one of many peoples who participated in various ways the in the affairs of wider Europe and simultaneously the Ottoman Empire. Malcolm has relied heavily on the archive from all sides this time in contrast to his previous works. This book may not be to your liking but reviews of the book by scholars etc praise Malcolm as having done a very good job in conveying this previously forgotten history. Also there is more than enough negatives on the Ottoman Empire in the book and is covered. I agree with Peacemaker67's question, what are you relying on for your assessment (apart from what appears at the moment to be a personal view)?Resnjari (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music writings[edit]

The material related to one of his music-related books confirms that Malcolm the author of articles and books on Enescu and Noel Malcolm are in fact one and the same (this is not always the case - qv Malcolm MacDonald the fiction author and Malcolm/Calum MacDonald the late author on music, for just one example, who have sometimes been confused) - I realize that "this article is right" is something of a null-hypothesis but as I saw the list and somewhat doubted it at first, just noting that it does in fact seem to be so Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of the journal Dialogue[edit]

This should have been started by the editors that wish to include it, but in the interests of clarity and collaboration I am starting the thread myself. As I have mentioned in an edit summary regarding this edit, I encourage editors wishing to use this source for Ekmečić's views on Malcolm's work to explain why the obscure journal Dialogue (which is where the rastko link is drawn from) is a reliable source. I note that the webpage for Dialogue shows that it has articles like "NATO’s Nazi Beginnings: How the West Implemented Hitler's Goal", and an editor whose qualifications to edit a politico-historical journal are highly questionable. It appears to me to be a highly partisan Serb POV source whose reliability is seriously questionable, and unless a better source for Ekmečić's views on Malcolm can be located, I don't consider its use appropriate given we have numerous academic reviews of Malcolm's work that are published in reliable non-partisan journals. If you disagree with my characterisation of Dialogue, feel free to gain a community consensus on its reliability at WP:RSN and flag the thread here so we can all participate. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another view on the work in question expressed by Ekmečić can be found here.[1] NSPM is a respected journal and RS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My translation of that is that he considers A Short History of Bosnia to be a contemporary Western ideological assessment of Serbian historical improvisation. Or in plain English, a Western view of what Serbs say about their own history. Which is hardly controversial or even critical, as Malcolm is from the West, and his book provided an outsider's perspective on Serb historical self-concepts. Clearly does not support a claim that Malcolm's work is "worthless", per the Dialogue quote. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) Discrediting a journal or magazine based on two or three published controversial articles/opinion pieces is illogical. Any journal or magazine of the modern world could be discredited with such logic. If we were to implement such a criterion on works authored by MD Cohen - none of his controversial and POV pieces would be used on Wikipedia. 1.1) A link to such article/s was not presented (NATO whatever). 2) I just wanted to post that source here before I add it to the article. It does not need to be controversial and it's not all about that. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised issues with the reliability of the journal Dialogue, particularly for such a clearly controversial statement that Malcolm's work is "worthless". For extraordinary statements we require extraordinary sources, and this is not an extraordinary source. It is up to you to make arguments that the source is reliable once it has been challenged. I have no problem with the use of the NSPM at this point, I am assuming good faith that it is not an unreliable source as it is not being used for anything controversial. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rv because such disputes should be sorted out on talk pages and consensus should prevail before changes can be made to the article. I am not against adding new content though. For clarification, @PM do you support adding new content sourced to the NSPM with the wording of the reverted content, or do you propose a new wording? Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The NSPM source does not support the description of Malcolm's work as "worthless", so I don't support reinstating the reverted edit but using the NSPM source. The NSPM source would support words to the effect of "The Serbian historian Milorad Ekmečić considers Malcolm's book to be a contemporary Western ideological assessment of Serbian historical improvisation." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reliability issue here. The cited source is actually exceptional reliable source. Ekmečić, Milorad (1 April 2000). "Shorter history". Response to Noel Malcom's book Kosovo, a short history: scientific discussion on Noel Malcolm's book 'Kosovo : a short history' (Macmillan 1998, 492), 8th october 1999 (in Serbian). Istorijski institut. pp. 179–193. ISBN 978-86-7743-020-7. Retrieved 16 February 2020. The author is member of 4 academies of sciences and arts, the publisher is the insitute of academy and the work is collection of works of other authors as well, the source is actually exceptional. I support position of editors who object removal of cited text carefully attributed to its author. Two editors struggling to remove it obviously failed to reach consensus for their position so I will restore the text in question. If these two editors continue to insist on removal, they should go to RSN and return here after they reach consensus for the source in question.
    1. The author is Ekmedžić, a member of 4 academies of sciences and arts.
    2. The publisher is Institute of History of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
    3. The work itself is the chapter "Shorter History" authored by Ekmedžić and published together with works of other authors who participated on the scientific discussion held on Belgrade on 8th October 1999, under the title RESPONSE TO NOEL MALCOLM`S BOOK "KOSOVO. A SHORT HISTORY". This text authored by Ekmedžić is so reliable that it was published by other publishers as well. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with that book being used as a source for the views of Ekmedžić, as it has been reliably published. I continue to object to the use of the journal Dialogue. Feel free to use the book as a source for his views. I will revert any use of Dialogue on the basis of my previously identified concerns. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That book in large parts of itself presents Malcolm's book as an anti-Serbian conspiracy made by the West/NATO. It goes on to support several fringe Serbian nationalist myths and conspiracies. It also refers to Albanians with the insulting and derogatory term "Shqiptar". Ekmedzic claims that conversion to Islam in the Ottoman Empire was never a product of force or pressure but was made only for personal profit, sth that is entirely in fringe territory. As the book points out, Ekmedzic' article had been originally published by the Dialogue journal. If PM agrees to adding Ekmedzic' view on Malcolm's book to the article, I am not against doing that as long as it is explained that the book where Ekmedzic wrote refers to Albanians with terms that are known as a product of Albanophobia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a closer look at it, I have to say that it is typical of some of the partisan output of SANU during the Yugoslav Wars. I wonder if it itself has been the subject of discussion in Serbia and elsewhere? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with partisanship within a good part of Balkan historiography have been widely discussed in Western scholarship. The Serbian historiography article, for instance, elaborates on the matter and provides links to detailed reliable studies. One of them is Ian D. Armour's book "Apple of Discord: The "Hungarian Factor" in Austro-Serbian Relations, 1867-1881", page xvii, that includes Ekmedzic among those Serbian writers who were in the forefront of the nationalist movement that pictured Serbs as victims only. You see who is "reliable" writer according to Antidiskriminator's standards. :) Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to comment on reviews. Furthermore, it does not present Malcolm's work as "NATO conspiracy", somebody is obviously taking things out of context.
How is it partisan? Care to explain? How did you take a closer look at it? The rest of things written is not that relevant and seems like an attempt to discredit one historian's whole work, which is not a very mature thing to do, nor do we have any good arguments presented. Personal feelings aside, I do not see any sort of phobia, where did you get that? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, we are talking about an academic who has called Malcolm's work "worthless". This is hardly a measured academic view. The tone of all of the "chapters" in the book is definitely off, the statements lack nuance and are quite ad hominem at times (things like claiming that he has written about disparate subjects and therefore could not have developed the depth of knowledge needed to understand the history of Kosovo etc, is a journalist not a historian etc) and unprofessional, unlike the to-ing and fro-ing in the Western journals between Malcolm and his interlocutors, which was a little heated at times but not so obviously dismissive and partisan. None of the SANU academics that contributed to this book have done themselves much credit, frankly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ НСПМ. "НСПМ: НСПМ Анализе Год III, бр. 5-6". Нова српска политичка мисао (in Serbian). Retrieved 2020-02-15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noel_Malcolm&oldid=1217603592"