Talk:Fred Halliday
Could it be that you have the hardback in your hands and the softback is scheduled for Sept? --Bob Burton 18:27, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Bob, Saqi only prints softbacks. Do you want a copy?? Great book BTW. Antidotto 19:15, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)
The difference is that the September 2005 is for US RELEASE ... according to the publisher. Artificial Intelligence 18:59, 14 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Contents
hmmm....
hmmm... as far as i know saqi is a wee publisher in london, and yesterday they held the book launch... now, to countenance a separate "september" launch in the u.s. that would be mind bending. but, of course, i read this book a month ago...
Source for paragaphs
PaulR .. Suggest adding source links for paragraphs 2 and 3. Artificial Intelligence 06:02, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Source: the origin of these comments come from the April 13 talk when one of the questions had to do with the state and nature of M.E. studies. He gave a long scathing answer, and I will see if i can find the transcript to add as a reference. As of today the transcript is not yet ready. I thought his criticism of the way this area studies program has been neglected, manipulated... was very interesting. Here we are going into war in the region big time, and concurrently there is less knowledge and emphasis place in studying the area!! Also, there is a new breed of "expert" who doesnt even speak Arabic or Persian -- all of it is done in English.
Thanks for fixing the section. I wonder about your interest in F.H.: are you also a fan of his books? I think his brother Jon is also superlative, and his books on Japan are very important.
For your amusement: during the talk he stated that the current focus on OBL and suggestion that the "culture" was the responsible for terror etc., overlooked the fact that "OBL is the illegitimate son of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher"!!! (i need to get this off the transcript, but i will enter it as soon as i have the correct reference).
split para
Hi AI
you've split a paragraph that is best left unified -- about nature of ME studies and the scholars not being consulted etc.
Also, Kramer is such a schmuck/together with daniel pipes, and would not like to see him as a source for opinion on F.H. I don't think that is fair given the nature of Kramer's writings which simply wield the smear brush against people like Said, Chomsky, Massad, Khalidi, and similar important scholars/activists. Kindly refrain from using this dubious operator as a source.
Kind rgds PaulR
PaulR .. IMO I think that it is significant to cite dissenting, as well as questionable sources for opinions. Lacking the expertise to discern among all the players, therefore, an explanation to that effect placed on the main page would be appropriate ... by you.
In order to be "fair and balanced", and present all sides to any article, I feel that it is equally important to cite opinions from those we do not favor as well as from those we do.
As for my particular interest, a brief glance at Halliday quickly showed that there is a lot to this man's work to be highlighted, especially in light of his observation that there are few qualified "experts" available to properly address the Middle East and all its many facets. Hence, an effort to expand the article ... enlightenment. Artificial Intelligence 07:23, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Another critique:
"Terrorism and the Language of the Devil," Language Log, March 12, 2004.
reasons for deletion of Kramer rsc
Martin Kramer is a hardline crass zionist propagandist who doesnt let any bit of fairness or truth stand in his way of smearing/attacking folks who are critical of Israel. Smears, misquotations, misinterpretations, and absurd interpretations of contemporary events are his hallmark. Kramer is a dubious operator par exellance. On the other hand Halliday is a reputable and important analyst/historian of the Middle East, and thus it is not fair to have Kramer commenting on Halliday.
Kramer is a major contributor and responsible for disemmination of much disinformation. It is important to separate his commentary of legitimate people. NB: there is a group of zionists in Wikipedia who seem to enter articles by Pipes, Kramer and ilk into all spots in that resource. I would hope that we could avoid similar pitfalls here. One thing is pluralism/open debate, another scenario is where pernicious propagandists like Kramer (1) denigrate others and (2) remove rationality from the debate. There is no place for the latter.
For more info on Kramer see: http://www.corkpsc.org/db.php?auid=486
Maybe we should enter Kramer as an article in SW, but patience and time are the issue.
Sorry, didn't get the memo that SW was not including articles about or citing opinions by and/or about "hardline crass zionist propagandist[s]" anymore. Have we met our quota? Could you please forward a copy, PaulR? Artificial Intelligence 11:44, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
