Talk:Sabrina P. Ramet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent edits to this article purportedly by or on behalf of Ramet

It isn't normally appropriate on WP for people to edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. One account that claimed to be Ramet recently made changes to this article, including removal of material critical of her work, and that account was advised of this and given options for providing links to reliable sources about her, including about her personal life and work, but hasn't come back with anything. Now another (new) account is trying to make the same edits and indicating that Ramet herself is the source for them, without providing links or citations to the source(s). This doesn't meet our reliable source requirements, and this is especially not the case with biographies of living persons. I am happy to make the relevant edits if someone would just link for me some actual reliable sources of information that are being relied on for these changes. Things like bio blurbs on university websites or in books, journal articles, book reviews etc. Just don't keep edit warring to try to make these changes without providing reliable sources. You'll just get blocked and the article won't get changed. BTW: I have a great deal of respect for Ramet's work, as I own several of her books and use them on WP quite a bit WRT Yugoslavia in WWII. Thanks and Merry Christmas, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I went through the article's history - it's very interesting about what it highlights about anonymity in wikipedia and how it can be used. Prof. Ramet, a public figure has to defend herself publicly, while basic abuse of bibliography in how only these particular reviews have been used, has happened in the "safe space" of anonymity. It's one of the reasons why I very strongly support a transparent wikipedia in which editors will edit with their real name and surname. I'm certain that most of the editors who engage in POV pushing and abuse of bibliography will disappear then. I agree with everything you wrote three years ago @Peacemaker67: and I highly respect prof. Ramet's work. There are many available reviews and general assessment of prof. Ramet that can be used in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Completely disagree with you about anonymity, it would throw the valuable editor baby out with the POV warrior bath water. This happens with POV-pushers on articles about respected non-Yugoslav academics who in any way criticise revered Serb figures and Serbian historiography since 1991 (which is in a parlous state). Noel Malcolm is another example where POV-pushers have piled on negative reviews. There are other examples. The common thread is that these POV-pushers almost always take the Serb side on issues and use Serb chauvinist historians reviews to do so. So, they use biased historians to claim bias in outsiders, which is frankly a complete perversion of WP. I think I'm going to have to bring ArbCom in again. The only reason I haven't is it takes up so much of my time when I do, but I think it is becoming unavoidable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concern about new editors, but honestly I don't see how else editors will take full responsibility for their contributions - unless strict admin oversight is present. Yes, it's obvious that they're trying to put forward a discrediting narrative

against certain authors whom they can't remove from wikipedia because they are RS, so they try to delegitimize their works via selective and misleading use of particular reviews without any information about the reviewers themselves.. AE would take some time, but having the same discussion every couple of days take much more time in the long run. It's more than certain that if there was oversight from AE, the Demonization of the Serbs AfD wouldn't be a 57k discussion[1].--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Review of Stevan Pavlowitch

The review of Stevan Pavlowitch is removed from the article as undue. Stevan Pavlowitch is an exceptional source and presenting information from his review is certainly not giving undue weight. Same goes for Aleksa Đilas. Therefore I will restore cited assertions.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The way you have written about the Djilas and Pavlowitch reviews is WP:UNDUE and very likely a BLP violation in Djilas'case. Djilas's review has been criticized itself [2]. In Pavlowitch's case the problem also has to with how he has been cited. He writes it is fair to say that the balance of her narrative is affected by her particular bias. which you put forward in wikipedia as emphasizing that text of this work is affected by authors personal bias. In that sense, verification of bibliography is needed and expansion from a broader catalogue of authors. Ramet is textbook material in international bibliography - to have her work presented only via the assessment of two Serbian authors who aren't even cited properly presents itself as a big WP:UNDUE problem. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How is it undue? I am sorry, but do you even know what you are talking about? It's absolutely on-topic, it only seems that the wording could be tweaked a bit. Why is that needed (additional expansion)? Because the two authors happen to be of Serb origin? If you care to, you can expand. The newly added material is fine. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE?? More like WP:JDL it seems. Khirurg (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Critique or review, or something in between

Just like in previous revisions, where it was spotted by User:Maleschreiber and noted in his previous post, some editor(s) again misinterpreting or misquoting what is written in refed sources, so we get in article ("Reviews" section, now "Debate"): Djilas cites the work of authors that are considered by "the vast majority of scholars in the field" to be "the most biased on the Yugoslav conflict" which Ramet praises while questioning more objective academics, where as Djilas in sourced paper simply makes assumption of his own, albeit contradicting himself in the broader context of the paper: "In my opinion, the vast majority of scholars in the field would consider these books to be among the most biased on the Yugoslav conflict"; who are these "vast majority" in the field and how and on what grounds he developed his opinion, Djilas does not say - but, if "academic West" is so biased and anti-Serb and everyone else (especially Croatian, Bosnian and Kosovo authors) are nationalistic and ant-Serb to begin with, who's left to form this "vast majority" !?

Anyhow, Djilas' all 11 pp. paper, "The academic West and the Balkan test", published in "Review" section of the journal of SEB/SENES, is actually polemical critique of entire mainstream western scholarship, as well as the Balkans', and is a little more than an attack paper. It's directed not only at Ramet and Lampe, but at, as he calls it, "academic West", with few "obvious" exceptions, mostly among those authors he perceives to be unbiased, or he deem uninfluenced by (evil?) Western media, whose works are not subverted by unspoken (West's) agenda, which in essence means those more amenable, to a various degrees, to Serbian narratives in relation to break-up of Yugoslavia and war (Woodward, for example) - everyone else are regarded as either biased, or nationalists, or anti-Serb. Djilas encroach on a territory dangerously close to anti-Serb conspiracy, his opinions transcribed and (mis)quoted here are extraordinary, not to mention contradictory (maybe deceitful as well) - first he point to bulk of mainstream authors and accuses them of holding ant-Serb animus and then assert majority would agree with him that Ramet's and Lampe's books are "most biased" of all. Djilas in its opening lines (p.2 in pdf / p.323 in print) outright and completely dismisses Ramet's book, but for most unlikely and unusual reason - her book can't be dismissed for factual errors and/or subversion of empirical data or lack thereof, but for perceived "profound bias" - in his words: "Yet hers is not a book that can be recommended. Its bane is not to be found in ignorance but, alas, in the author’s profound bias, which causes her to evade difficulties and conceal complexities".
Ramet (Lampe too), expectedly, had a good response for Djilas: "My book, Thinking about Yugoslavia, has received rave reviews from Gale Stokes, Ivo Goldstein, Alex Bellamy, and Denisa Kostovičova and Vesna Bojičić-Dželilović, among others. The fact that major figures in the field of Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav studies have found merit in my book should suggest that it ought not to be dismissed out of hand."

Bottom line, balance is not created by adding a "Reviews" section "for balance" by including only one perspective or just one negative review, and in tone that is far from NPOV - I am not saying that shouldn't be done, only that it shouldn't be (mis)presented as "balancing". I apologize for longer than usual post.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the longer post. Agreed, we should expand the section so that it reflects how Ramet's work has been assessed in international bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have removed some uncited negative material including quotes. Happy for it to be reinstated with citations, but this is a BLP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know examples from similar articles but at first I personally do not see that this section is needed. Some historian has very strong criticism and that's all. Here we read about some review(debate) of some historian, who he is, and why he or his opinion would be essential for the article? If there are problems with books or claims of Sabrina P. Ramet then in section must be multiple sources as confirmation. Reading this part of the article I did not learn anything interesting. Mikola22 (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE that the main assessment of a figure with thousands of citations is by someone who got ~300 citations for a work published ca. 30 years ago. We could remove it or expand the section on the basis of the broader consensus about Ramet in bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If more of critics and sources appear then we can talk about a new section. This is some kind of personal war which does not contribute to the quality of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a form of poisoning the well since they can't remove the sources.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, "Debate" section, as it looks now in its current revision after Peacemaker67 tweaks (I am content with it, it looks more appropriate and i don't see need for reintroduction of any specifics, refed or no reefed), actually strengthens Ramet's academic integrity (there is a third paper, reply by Đilas, which is written like someone who felt like a rabbit caught in the headlights). Similarly to Mikola22, I also think that if book reviews are to be included in the future, then the new section "Reviews" should be created.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point I'm for removing this section. Mikola22 (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I added and improved material which was previously poorly inserted and paraphrased by another editor. Everything I added was taken from the sources and cited. As you can see, I had also added Ramet and Lampe's response because I do think it's important to balance things out. If there's an issue with the neutrality of a section, then we add more content for balance or phrase things in a more NPOV manner. We don't remove information just because it's negative and therefore WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, that's just censorship. I'm sure Djilas has his own biases, but as a fellow at Harvard who is published in Western academia, he meets WP:SECONDARY and WP:RELIABLE for inclusion. I don't think some of the direct quotes and terminology used by Djilas should have been removed but you are right in that he doesn't really explain properly how he views Ramet and others as so biased. --Griboski (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify in regards to claims about misrepresenting or misquoting sources, Djilas writes: On the one hand, well-known professors who have devoted their lives to Yugoslav studies, like Paul Shoup, Susan Woodward, Steven Burg and Robert Hayden, are accused of nothing less than moral relativism. But it is precisely their successful avoidance of media hype and resistance to political pressures while providing a complete picture and balanced analysis of the wars of Yugoslavia’s disintegration that earned them the respect of their peers. On the other hand, Ramet is full of admiration for Croatian nationalists like Branimir Anzulovic, Stjepan G. Mestrovic, Ivo Zanic, Branka Magas and her son Marko Attila Hoare, or politically involved academics like James Gow... So he does in fact cite authors which Ramet praises while questioning more objective academics (according to him), I just conflated that passage with the next paragraph where he talks about Ramet's 'personal favourites' which presumably contains a different set of works and authors. Those are the ones he says are considered by "the vast majority of scholars in the field" to be "the most biased on the Yugoslav conflict", that was a mistake on my part. The rest of the information was quoted verbatim and accurately conveyed. Now, your personal assessment of his views is a whole other issue. --Griboski (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that you were doing anything terribly wrong, even with source misinterpretation and citing out of context - all edits can be improved. However, it seem that this boils down to understanding how project works, more specifically, forgetting how we don't use everything just because it exists out there even if it comes with credentials - credibility, on the other hand, is another matter altogether, on which we decide upon by applying rational thought and informed opinion. And when it comes to editors' opinion, we base our actions on our opinions all the time, we simply wouldn't be able to contribute anything without it - the only question is, are we base our contribution on informed opinion (by reading credible sources) or are we form one by letting our subjective experiences to get overwhelmed with emotional preconception and reflexes of character. The more we use informed opinion to judge and decide what is credible, more, less, or not at all, the better our contribution gets.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Djilas' review (as well as Pavlowitch's) was in the article for years, and written in a poor and unbalanced fashion at that. Yet, in the past Peacemaker67 has reverted attempts by other editors to remove it and I'm pretty sure an admin is well versed in how the project works. If a section features content that isn't representative of the consensus view, then a neutrality tag can be placed and further content can be added to improve it. Wording can also be changed if it's an issue with how the source was represented. This is preferable to simply removing the negative or minority-held information altogether, especially if it comes from a RS. My implicit intent with a reviews section was to elicit the addition of more positive content on Ramet's books for balance, of which I'm sure there's plenty. Anyway, for compromise and fairness' sake, I'm fine with the current revision. --Griboski (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, in principle anyway. Also, I noticed and have always appreciated your candor and mild tone in TP discussions - it means a lot for maintaining decorum.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks. All the best. --Griboski (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)