Talk:Robert Bruce Ware

Revert

This edit. "leading specialist". Is it something claimed by author of the book? On what grounds? Did the subject received awards? Was he described a "leading specialist" in multiple RS about him? If so, that can be included. If not, that sounds as an advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is the wording used by a reliable source. We go by what reliable secondary sources actually say, rather that by our own guesswork about why they say it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please quote directly here what specifically this source tells about him (at least one phrase)? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You could easily have read this for yourself, you know, but: "Robert Bruce Ware, a leading specialist on Dagestan, has stressed that key developments in the region go back a bit earlier than August" [1999. Ware's work is cited in more detail on p.79. On pp.166–167, he is called "a U.S. specialist on Dagestan", a paragraph from one of his works is quoted, and again examined in more detail. He's also mentioned more briefly on pages x, 93, 214, and 216. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. When I did the search most part of the book was not readable. Yes, this is an RS, and the author quotes Ware as a specialist in the field. However, what exactly (if anything) needs to be included on the BLP page is a good question given description in this source. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You're justifying the removal of the claim that he's a "leading specialist" by pointing to another source that calls him "America's leading authority on Dagestan"? How does that make sense? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not justifying anything. I asked to clarify quotation. You did it. Thank you. No further questions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think a consensus was reached? Evangelista said Ware was a "leading specialist on Dagestan". Charles King in a Foreign Affairs article listed Ware among "leading Western experts", and called him "arguably America's leading authority on Dagestan". Thus, it would be fair to note that Ware is reputed as a leading specialist on Dagestan, citing the both references. --Document hippo (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but your wording was bad, phrased in such a way as to make it come across that he is not actually a leading specialist, but only reputed to be one. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it, David Eppstein; English is not my native language. I've read the dictionary entry on "reputed" prior to making the edit, but failed to understand it would come across as a slur. Any way, I agree with your edit. --Document hippo (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "cited as a leading specialist" to clarify that the term "leading" is taken from the referenced sources. Billhpike (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• What is a leading specialist in 2017? Answer: the entry in a journalist's contact list who returns the call first. That's how Walid Phares ended up on Trump's early foreign affairs team, along with Pappadopolis. Phares was on Fox's call list. Ware is on NPR's list. I wouldn't be so doubtful about Ware. How many native-born American academics (read "good in an interview") do you think study Dagestan? Rhadow (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"Extensive"

For the claim that he "conducted extensive field research in North Caucasus", a book review would be a better source than the introduction to the book. Billhpike (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd accept a Foreword, but not the Introduction. Rhadow (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)