Talk:Homi Bhabha

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

India

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles

Cleanup

I agree with the clean up tag. This article appeared to lean heavily on the Harvard profile.

My reason for adding the tag was more to do with the fact that article is poorly laid out and formatted, to be honest. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to learn more about formatting. Please advise? (But I also think the critical theory section needs substantive work.)Joaquin Murietta 23:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critical theory section needs work

Could one of the CT experts please take another whack at this section? Thanks. Joaquin Murietta 18:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publications list?

Is there any objection to adding the following section, even though the books are discussed in the Critical theory section?

Just one minor objection: El Lugar de La Cultura is just the Spanish translation The Location of Culture is the original, so it seems more accurate to use it instead. --JECompton 06:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, do you have the citation?Joaquin Murietta 07:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publications

Nation and Narration (1990) ISBN 0415014832
Editor Edward Said Continuing the Conversation (2005) ISBN 0226532038
El Lugar de La Cultura (2002)ISBN 9875000744
Identity: The Real Me ISBN 0905263464

Joaquin Murietta 15:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homi Bhabha, physicist

I think the Indian physicist Homi J. Bhabha is more famous to readers (He was a pioneer of the Indian nuclear program). Homi Bhabha in my opinion should redirect to the physicist's homepage (or atleast there should be a disambiguation page) --Rev.bayes 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both are equally quite famous in their own fields --h y dka t 12:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rev.bayes here. I think Homi Bhabha (scientist) is more famous. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Prose Style"

Why is there so much space devoted to criticizing Bhabha's writing style? And why does some obscure "award" that serves only to insult Bhabha deserve mention on his sparsely written page? Hay4 15:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but to be in any way comprehensive any article on Bhabha should make reference to his writing style. In fact its because of his prose that he's received wider name recognition outside his discipline. Google his name and 'prose' or 'bad writing' you'll see what I mean.

Moreover, the contents conform to wikipedia's NPOV guidelines - they're all from cited sources. Bhabha's response to the criticism is included in the section.

If you follow Bhabha's logic he doesn't think that that criticism of his prose is personally 'insulting' - as you do. In his view, his style is a requirement of the post colonial condition, and therefore not something that he personally can be held accountable for. (I do note that there's no citation supporting Bhabha's response so perhaps if anything should be removed from this section under Wikipedia's guidelines it is the last paragraph.)

By the way it was naughty of you to delete my contribution without allowing me to reply first to the above, but I'll forgive you on one condition: you can explain to me what Bhabha means (if anything) when he says:

If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to "normalize" formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality.

Rick James Style 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not come to know of Bhabha because of his writing style and a google search of "Homi Bhabha" reveals no pages that talk about his "bad" writing style. Can you provide any evidence that Bhabha is famous becuase of his "bad writing"? Pointing to links that turn up when you specifically google his name and "bad writing" is pretty weak. If Bhabha is famous BECAUSE of his poor writing skills, there should be a number of reputable sources stating so. Because this is not the case, you will not find those sources. It's utterly silly to devote so much space to smearing Bhabha. Sorry. Hay4 04:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not aware of pages on the web that refer to Homi Bhabha's "bad writing" style then you didn't look very hard. The first reference on google is his runner up place in Philosophy and Literature's Bad Writing Award. Hey, if you hadn't deleted the link on the wiki page you could have found it even quicker.

I can see that debating with you over a subjective notion of whether Bhabha is famous for his prose style isn't going to get us very far. Besides the Philosophy and Literature award, his prose has been the subject of articles both within academia and in middle brow, but widely read, publications such as the National Review or Canada's National Post.

Anyway, the point is not whether he's known for his prose style (me -'yes', you - 'no') but whether the content of the page conforms to wikipedia's guidelines? And here the answer's clear - every reference to Bhabha's prose style is linked to reputable publications. So as you keep deleting the content, the question is: are you aware of wikipedia's guidelines? Rick James Style 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think a professor of English and Literature at Harvard is a flat-out incoherent writer? Do you really think that referencing two ultra-right wing periodicals and a journal no one has ever heard of (with a non-functioning link) constitutes good research? Maybe these rightists are smearing Bhabha because he's a leftist and a foreigner. Maybe Denis Dutton, who gave out the silly bad writing awards from 1995 to 1998, is simply jealous of academics that have achieved greater prominence than he. He is a graduate of UC Santa Barbara, so there are plenty of people that have outlcassed him. Holy crap, I solved the riddle! Your "contribution" is an obvious smear. Congrats. Hay4 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would politely request that Mr. Bhabha's "Prose Style" section be restored. I find it rather disappointing that political ideology has now become acceptable grounds for rejecting legitimate criticism of an author's writing style. After only a half-hour of searching, I was able to find two sources that revolve around the lack of clarity (or decipherable meaning) that characterizes some of Mr. Bhabha's work. One source is the New York Times (hardly a bastion of "rightists") and the other comes from the online journal Context and was written by Mark Crispin Miller, a well known critic of the Bush administration. However, I believe that Mr. Bhabha's writing speaks for itself: the sample which "won" him the award for poor writing is so unnecessarily unclear that it does make criticism of his "prose style" a relevant fact to mention in an open encyclopedia (especially since the USA's third-most widely circulated paper chose to write an article mentioning it). Here are the links for the two sources respectively: NYT Article & Context Article^{[dead link]} Lmangator8 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add to the section on criticisms using legitimate sources, that's fine. Rick James Style used a racist's poorly written blog entry; an article from a little-known rightist newspaper (and the article was not only talking about Bhabha); and a completely meaningless "award" from 1998. These are not acceptable sources. BTW, it seems to me that after half an hour of searching, it is possible to find criticisms of just about anybody in academia. And I question the ethics of taking one sentence from somebody's work out of context and holdig it up as proof that the writer is incoherent. Hay4 09:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lmangator8. Appreciate your contribution, and I think you're right its important to recognise that Bhabha's critics don't divide on Left-Right lines.

Hay4, can you explain what you mean by these sources being 'not acceptable'. This is wiki so we play to their rules, and so far you've cited nothing within wiki to support your assertion about unacceptable sources. I don't know how aware you of the publications that you dismiss, but your statement that the National Post is a 'little known rightist' newspaper, doesn't do you any favours. Its got a circulation of 200000+ in Canada.

And your statement: 'I question the ethics of taking one sentence from somebody's work out of context and holdig it up as proof that the writer is incoherent.' Is this an invitation to put up more examples of Bhabha's writing on the page? Since this is the obvious implication.

I've no objection to including 'Prose Style' as a subsection of 'Criticisms', as I've done in my edits. But I don't understand why you've included 'Honors' as a subsection of 'Criticisms' - care to explain that one?

Rick James Style 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hay4, yet again we're dealing with your subjective judgements, not whether the page conforms to wikipedia's rules. Blogs, especially by journalists working for national publications, are frequently cited on wikipedia. The fact that someone with Steve Sailer's views considers Bhabha an ideological ally is very telling. And its appropriate in this section because it provides an explanation of Bhabha's prose style.

Rick James Style 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: (1) I'm not sure why you take Sailer seriously on any topic. (2) Even if Sailer has areas of competency, there is nothing in his record to indicate that he is a competent reader of Bhabha's. There are a large number of contributors to various publications that have a stature similar to or greater than the National Review. It cannot be that all these people are specially qualified to opine on any topic. Hay4 17:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, go back to the rules of the wiki. Rick James Style 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no justification for Mitchell's quote defending Bhabha to be at the beginning of the section. There's already a section where it can be included - its called 'positive reactions'. Anyway, its criticism first defence afterwards. In addition, Mitchell doesn't 'provided a clue as to why when he said that Bhabha', instead he gives his own opinion as to why people criticise Bhabha, which is something very different. Rick James Style 17:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement gives a reason that a lot of people have spent a lot of time denouncing Bhabha. Most allegedely incoherent writers with nothing to say rarely affect people so much. That being said, I'm not partiuclarly attached to that part of the article so I'll delete it. Hay4 17:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you just gone a deleted the rest of the edits on prose style? Care to explain why you've just done that out of the blue? Rick James Style 17:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that talks about Sailer's views on Bhabha are not acceptable. Additionally, I don't think the "Bad Writing Competition" is a reputable institution. Were it reputable, it would not have been shut down so soon.Hay4 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's your interpretation, and again I can only respond with the fact that this is wikipedia and its up to you to justify your views with reference to wikipedia's rules.

Since "Criticisms" only refers to Bhabha's "Prose Style", there's not point in having the latter as a subsection and reordered accordingly. Rick James Style 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJS, I think your "contributions" to this page are disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. 141.161.127.75 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. Rick James Style 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hay4: I deleted the Steve Sailer portion because it's 100% wrong. See http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/bhabha/interview.html

Care to support this statement with reference to both Bhabha's interview and wikipedia's rules? Rick James Style 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

Rick: Your recent contributions concerning the NYU and Stanford profs are genuine contributions to the article. Congrats on finally grtting your act together. Maybe you'll eventually find someone that can comment on the content of Bhabha's message. Hay4 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You'll find that all my edits are genuine contributions to the article. But cheers anyway. Rick James Style 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sailer commentary

Rick: Sailer's commentary is just plain wrong. Bhabha said in very clear language that Said is his biggest influence. Please read the interview found at http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/bhabha/interview.html Hay4 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Bhabha say that Said is his 'biggest influence' on his work? Go on give us the quote if its in 'very clear language'. Rick James Style 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Edward Said's work was of course crucial in suggesting a whole transdisciplinary terrain -- as I say in my book, Said's perspective caused the flash of recognition in which I first apprehended my own project." If you need me to explain this to you, let me know. Hay4 01:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the quote shows is that Bhabha's cites Said as a starting point - a momentary one at that, given that Said's credited with 'causing a flash of recongition' within Bhabha. Nothing more. Bhabha says nothing that can be construed as indicating Said is his 'biggest influence', and I think you're going to retreat from making such a claim, right? Rick James Style 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context in which he said this, my interpretation makes the most sense. Yours is utterly silly. Moreover, if you knew anything about his work, you wouldn't say what you just said. And at any rate, Sailer asserted that Bhabha was "too careerist" to support Said in plain language. The quote at the least proves that assertion wrong. Hay4 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well no more claims that Said's his 'biggest influence' I see. And rightly so since there is zero evidence to back up your original claim. But that's nothing compared to your statement:

"Sailer asserted that Bhabha was 'too careerist' to support Said in plain language."

Is this what you believe!!? So you've been editing the Bhabha page on this assumption? Sailer says 180 degrees the opposite from what you've just stated - he says Bhabha doesn't want to acknowledge his dissent from Said, not support for!!! We've been having this very very very long discussion over a quote which you've misunderstood in the first place! How can you confuse the meanings of the words support and dissent? Rick James Style 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabha affirmatively and clearly supports Said in interviews and in his work. To say that he hides some dissenting position is ridiculous. I found a quote where he affimratively stated his support for Said's work. Generally, giving such support precludes some hidden dissent. What you're saying is basically like saying George Bush secretly hates the US and no matter how much he says he supports the US his secret dissent can never be refuted. It's silly. Hay4 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're now going to challenge the inclusion of the Sailer quote for exactly the opposite reason you originally didn't want it included! That is brilliant. No doubt with the same level of passion and determination!

Obviously no acknowledgement on your part that your original reasoning was based on confusing the meaning of the words 'dissent' and 'support'. (An easy mistake, surely?) How can we have a reasoned discussion, when you make all sorts of assertions on the level of "Said is his biggest influence", "Sailer asserted that Bhabha was 'too careerist' to support Said in plain language" and then when the obvious fallaciousness of these statements are pointed out, you reach out for some other straw? Rick James Style 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hay4 was banking on the fact that you would understand that proving a negative is impossible. 141.161.127.75 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I took out Black Skin White Masks because totally misleading. Frantz Fanon wrote the thing, not Bhabha (so there's nothing about 'with' Fanon died in 1961 which makes a collaboration between the two impossible). I am not aware that Bhabha edited a version of Black Skin, but he certainly wrote the foreword to The Wretched of the Earth therefore I put that in, not stating that Sartre wrote the preface, If someone wants that in as well, go ahead. What is also misleading is that the books are not listed by original year of publication. And the 'articles in books and journals' section is a mess. I'll clean it up a.s.a.p. Sbaina 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]