Talk:Hamid Dabashi

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


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


Just added Marx and Freud to the influence box. His recent works, more specifically Shiism: A Religion of Protest is a rethinking of Shiism in light of Freud. Karl Montague (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book blurbs[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Hagiographical tone[edit]

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)Reply[reply]


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.

Columbia Speech Controversy[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

so-called "Controversy"[edit]

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].


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)Reply[reply]
On the other hand why suggest? I will write something about it myself. gidonb 07:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
"he generally is very convincing and his students generally love him." I'm not sure whether I should cry or laugh at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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:
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)Reply[reply]

outside look[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Article protected on 26 October 2007[edit]

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).Reply[reply]

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. - 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

Edit war[edit]

As anyone who has been reading this page knows, 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. ( 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)Reply[reply]

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 ( 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)Reply[reply]

BuboTitan's edit war[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Comments on the edit war[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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: (look under 2004 & 2005) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuboTitan (talkcontribs) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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:

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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I'll close the case if the current version is a tolerable compromise. Addhoc (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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 truthsquadReply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 truthsquadReply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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 truthsquadReply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Major Works, Philosophy[edit]

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 truthsquadReply[reply]

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

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 BabbingtonReply[reply]

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 BabbingtonReply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 truthsquadReply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

Article is ridiculous and totally biased[edit]

The vast majority of this article currently consists of the "controversy" section which is pretty much overinflated with his critical views of Israel, giving them undue weight. This kind of zealotry really is something, both from the right and left wing types here on WP. Furthermore, the article as it currently stands is grossly in violation of WP:BLP. This is more an attack article than anything. IranianGuy (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You know, IranianGuy, I agree. I don't know about the POV part, really, but bloating the article with "Controversies" is not what an encyclopedia should do. Not every opinion, not every email exchange, not every squabble is relevant. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you made a mistake by saying the Victor part is undue weight and removing it. The event was very notable, it came all over the news (for one). Second, I couldnt go into Hitler and remove things from there saying its undue weight, could I? The same is true for this guy. 90% of what he says in public is stuff that like that where he lands himself into the news, and rightly so. The wikipedia article should reflect that. If there's a serial killer, you cant cut details about his crimes because it looks like undue weight. So you cant remove well-sourced stuff like that. But I dont have time to battle this out so whatever you guys wanna do. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The problem here is that we have an article on a person whose every opinion seems to be worthy of inclusion. Your comparison with Hitler doesn't make a lot of sense. First of all, this guy is not Hitler, second, not every email exchange of Hitler's is worth mentioning. If every single one of Hitler's interactions were relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedic article, we would quickly run out of electrons to run this joint. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This guy's opinions are well documented and very notable. He's not commenting on what kind of kitty litter people should use - rather, he offers very critical (and quite provacative and offensive) opinions about many important topics (e.g. Israel, Islamophobia). That's why this article is structured the way it is.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
However, if you feel any of his views have been incorrectly documented or have been misrepresented, feel free to revise them.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]
  • Hyperion, I see that you are still working on including every single possible detail in this article. That his opinions are notable is a matter of some discussion: you seem to not list things that are controversies but rather what you consider controversial. At some point we get it: the guy hates Israel and a bunch of other things. Please stop aiming at inclusiveness, the result of which is a completely overinflated article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have reverted your edits again. You can give no compelling reason for the inclusion of every single detail and lengthy block quotes. I repeat that this is an encyclopedia--it's not a newspaper or a blog. Encyclopedias select and summarize, they do not provide exhaustive detail, nor use a thousand words when a few will do. It appears to me that you have a greater interest here than the quality of the article and I would remind you of WP:NPOV. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I have included only one block quote (on Dabashi's views on Israeli society). Dabashi received considerable criticism for this statement and subsequently stated it had been misconstrued. That's why its included in a fulsome sense. Otherwise, I have accepted most of the other revisions to reduce the length of this article, thus your claim that I am including "every single detail" is clearly disengenious. My concern is that the some of the revisions you made to the article are too great and result in an incomplete picture of certain issues by omitting important facts. I am well aware of NPOV rules in Wikipedia - nowhere in the article do I express my own opinions or cite unsubstantiated claims.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

new book released April 15 2011[edit]

Include his new book -- Brown Skin White Masks in his bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hamid-Dabashi.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Hamid-Dabashi.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The issue of unreliable sources has been brought up at WP:BLPN. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've posted my reply. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hamid_Dabashi (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)).Reply[reply]
So, your attempt to get your way at BLPN failed, and now you are trying to come up with a new excuse? I admire your determination. Unfortunately, your latest effort is just as ridiculous and fanciful as your previous effort. If you believe the New York Sun is not a RS source, then please provide evidence to support this (you have not provided any evidence to date, except for your own opinions which are not based on facts or reality). Also, you accused me of trying to "deliberately misrepresent" Dabashi with this section - that is a very serious accusation. I assumed (naively, it seems) that you would provide evidence to support this accusation. Instead, all you have provided is double-talk and evasion. If you have no evidence to support this accusation, then I except an apology. In the meantime, I suggest you come up with a legitimate reason why this section doesn't belong here. Otherwise, please stop disrupting Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]

@Hyperionsteel: What about Dabashi was being misrepresented in a way that is corrected by the addition of uncited, undue weight material? And if it's a misrepresentation now, how was it not a misrepresentation at the time you were trying to edit-war it into the article, since nothing was changed? Give it a rest. The poor sources you were advocating have been removed, uninvolved users have pointed out the undue weight issue, and you just keep crusading. Stop adding uncited material, stop misrepresenting the subjects writings, and stop inflating the weight of this non-incident. I'm pinging you to give you the chance to revert your own disruptive edit. I would also recommend that you find interests outside of this topic area, because you've repeatedly demonstrated that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roscelese: Quite the temper you have there, Roscelese. You failed twice to remove this material at BLPN, so now you are resorting to ranting at me because you can't get your way. I'll try to address your new grievances one at a time:

  • First of all, your edit did misrepresent the situation. What made this incident significant isn't simply that Luria wrote an email to Dabashi (criticizing him for an article Dabashi wrote in Al-Ahram). Rather, Dabashi interpreted Luria's email as a physical threat to himself, declared that Luria didn't belong at Columbia, and demanded campus security protect him from a "militant slanderer" (and that Brinkley subsequently told Dabashi that he was overreacting and that campus security wasn't going to be mobilized to protect him). The point is, it is not Luria's email that makes this significant, but rather Dabashi's seemingly hysterical response. Your attempt to remove any reference to this later tidbit is a deliberate misrepresentation by omission on your part.
  • I was not edit warring. Rather, you initiated this dispute when you unilaterally decided to remove properly sourced material with no evidence other than your own opinion (which, as with the National Post, seems to be based on an irrational hatred of all things conservative. You refused to discuss this on the article's talk page, brought this twice to BLPN, and twice you lost. Now, for your third attempt to get your way, you are trying to remove critical information about the context of this event (i.e. Dabashi's overreaction).
  • I am not "crusading" (that's an interesting choice of word) - rather, I am attempting to keep properly sourced material in this article and prevent an irrational user (i.e. you) from removing material due to their own biases against conservative-leaning sources. You on the other hand, are crusading - you have repeatedly tried to remove material from articles, and not just this one, based solely on your own belief that if a source is conservative-leaning, then it is automatically not RS (Wikipedia has a different opinion on this, but you don't seem to care). So far you are batting 0-2 against me. For you to make this "crusading" charge against me is not only derogatory, but also hypocritical.
  • What "uncited" material is present here? You still haven't provided an explanation for this, despite being repeatedly asked.
  • You have again claimed that I "misrepresent[ed]" Dabashi's writings. What did I misrepresent? - Dabashi's words are quoted in the Sun article (some of which have subsequently been quoted here). If you believe they have been presented out of context, then please explain. If you think the Sun has misrepresented Dabashi's writings, then contact them and ask them to issue a retraction, or cite another source that suggests that Dabashi's writings were misrepresented. You still haven't provided an explanation for this charge against me, and I suspect you never will.
  • You state that I should "find interests outside of this topic area." I can only laugh at your ignorance - if you bother to take a look at my editing history, you will note that I have contributed to numerous areas, not just the Israel/Palestine conflict and Canada's Human rights commissions, but also to articles concerning Antisemitism, World War II, Anime and Manga, the CN Tower, just to name a few. I have contributed to Wikipedia for over eight years on numerous topics, and your claim that I am " not here to build an encyclopedia" is not only insulting, but is also patently ignorant.
  • Your rant is yet again indicates that your editing in Wikipedia is based on your own self-righteous anger. I will not revert my edit as it is neither disruptive nor misrepresenting. Instead, I will remind you to discuss this on the article's talk page and to stop making false accusations against me simply because you can't get your way.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    • I was tempted to just ignore this response, since you're clearly more concerned with trying to "win" (to use your language) than to build an encyclopedia or follow policy. But, mostly for the benefit of other editors, I will reiterate that you absolutely cannot include uncited controversial material about BLP subjects - if it's not in the source, it gets removed. You may not attribute things to them that you cannot verifiably demonstrate that they said, and you may not include your personal analysis (or the personal analysis of other unreliable people, like Luria) or spin of their quotes. Period. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coretheapple: @GraniteSand: You two mentioned at BLPN that the section was being given undue weight. Do you believe it's important to retain an assembly of quotations from a single source for the stated purpose of proving how "hysterical" the BLP subject is? Also @NorthBySouthBaranof: from BLPN. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I'm glad you didn't ignore my response (listening to you is colorful ranting is . You state above that "I will reiterate that you absolutely cannot include uncited controversial material about BLP subjects." I will respond: There is nothing here that is uncited. Yes, it is controversial, but properly sourced material, even if it is controversial, is allowed in Wikipedia. We have established that the New York Sun is a reliable source (despite your numerous claims to the contrary). What material here is uncited or misrepresented? You have never explained this, you just keep repeating these accusations like a broken record. And what "unreliable people" are cited in this section? Luria? Brinkley? Dabashi himself? You'll have to clarify this.
    • As for your latest accusation that I am "including [my] own personal analysis", that is factually wrong. Yes, I have summarized portions of the Sun article (I'm not simply cut and paste the entire article here), but there is no "analysis" present. If you have you believe that I have included my own personal analysis (i.e. that I am engaging in original research), please bring it up at the OR noticeboard. (by the way, this is getting pretty pathetic on your part - you refused to discuss this on the article's talk page, you lose twice at BLPN, and now you are claiming an OR violation? - how many different excuses are you going to come up with to remove this material?)
    • As for your most recent rantings, your implication that I am obsessed with this topic, that I am "crusading", and that I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, I won't repeat my responses above. You are the one who has turned this into a battleground by repeated removing properly sourced material and refusing to accept the fact that your claims were rejected twice at BLPN because you provided no evidence to support your position. If trying to keep properly sourced (and yes, controversial) information in this article from being removed by a user who cites no evidence to support her claims, who repeatedly makes accusations without explanation, who accuses others of "crusading" over a single paragraph in one article (which is an exaggeration, as well as a demonstration of hypocrisy or your part), and who has a history of arbitrarily attempted to remove material she doesn't approve solely because of her own hatred of any source with a conservative-slant, then I suppose I am guilty of "win", but it doesn't change that my goal is not to "win" against you, but rather to ensure that material that is properly sourced remain in this article. And let's not forget that you were the one who made this personal to begin with by accusing me of deliberating misrepresenting Dabashi when you first posted this to BLPN (which is irrelevant to whether or not the source cited is reliable) - that, I took as a personal jab at myself, since you cited no evidence to support this and have continued to repeat it time and again.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]
      • So Roscelese, in addition to claiming (yet again) that I am misrepresenting Dabashi's writings (but providing no evidence to support your claims), now you are accusing me original research and suggesting on my talk page that you will try to have me blocked from editing for defamation? Give me a break.
        • If you had concerns that this material was libelous, why didn't you bring this up at the beginning? And why, despite it being posted on both website of the New York Sun as well as this Wikipedia article for several years at least, has it not been challenged earlier? Why are you only coming up with this now? Is it because your efforts at BLPN failed and you are looking for new excuse to have your way? Please stop disrupting Wikipedia, and please stop making false accusations against me. Are we going to have to discuss this on every noticeboard in Wikipedia before you will be satisfied.
        • Instead, let's try to be a little more constructive. I'm willing to reduce the size of this section, although not to the size you desire. In the spirit of cooperation, maybe we can reach an agreement.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]


And now, it is time to discuss the section on this page, rather than edit-warring over it. I suggest this is a much better idea than blocking anyone. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've already discussed this on BLPN (Roscelese lost) but I'm willing to discuss it here as well.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]
This has twice been brought to the BLPN notice board (see: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive223#Hamid_Dabashi) by Roscelese and twice her claims that this material is improperly sourced or "deliberately misrepresent[s]" Dabashi have been deemed without merit. Unless she intends to make a third attempt at this, I suggest we let this issue rest and move on.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hamid Dabashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hamid Dabashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hamid Dabashi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marriage to Bashi[edit]

From Bashi's page, it seems that they are no longer married. The link on here to his personal website, corroborating their marriage, is broken and his personal website does not mention Bashi. Illang (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her full name is Golbarg Bashi. Sorry. Illang (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]