Talk:Niall Ferguson: Difference between revisions
Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) Reverted 1 edit by 99.190.81.65 (talk): Still no potential relevance to something which could be placed in the article; see WP:TALK. (TW) |
excerpt ... Undid revision 464021111 by Arthur Rubin (talk) |
||
Line 277: | Line 277: | ||
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/dec/08/disappointed-lover-west/ The Disappointed Lover of the West] December 8, 2011 [[The New York Review of Books]] David Bromwich of ''Civilization: The West and the Rest'' by Niall Ferguson, Penguin [[Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188|97.87.29.188]] ([[User talk:97.87.29.188|talk]]) 21:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/dec/08/disappointed-lover-west/ The Disappointed Lover of the West] December 8, 2011 [[The New York Review of Books]] David Bromwich of ''Civilization: The West and the Rest'' by Niall Ferguson, Penguin [[Special:Contributions/97.87.29.188|97.87.29.188]] ([[User talk:97.87.29.188|talk]]) 21:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
== resource == |
|||
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_global_thinkers_20_most_recommended_books?page=0,2 ''The Global Thinkers' Book Club; Want to think like the world's best minds? Start by reading like them. The [[Foreign Policy]] Global Thinkers' 20 most recommended titles. NOVEMBER 28, 2011 |
|||
3) ''Civilization: The West and the Rest'' (2011) by Niall Ferguson |
|||
Recommended by [[Sherry Rehman]] and [[Kenneth Rogoff]] |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/99.19.42.30|99.19.42.30]] ([[User talk:99.19.42.30|talk]]) 07:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.190.81.65|99.190.81.65]] ([[User talk:99.190.81.65|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Here is an excerpt ... {{Quotation|"The critical point is that the differential between [[the West]] and the Rest was institutional. [[Western Europe]] overtook [[China]] partly because in the West there was more competition in both the political and the economic [[Sphere of influence|sphere]]s. [[Austria]], [[Prussia]] and latterly even [[Russia]] became more effective administratively and militarily because the network that produced the [[Scientific Revolution]] arose in the [[Christian world|Christian]] but not in the [[Muslim world]]. The reason [[North America]]'s ex-[[colonies]] did so much better than [[South America]]'s was because [[British settlers]] established a completely different system of [[property rights]] and [[political representation]] in the North from those built by [[Spaniards]] and [[Portuguese]] in the South.… [[European empires]] were able to penetrate [[Africa]] not just because they had the [[Maxim gun]]; they also devised [[vaccines]] against [[tropical diseases]] to which Africans were just as vulnerable. In the same way, the earlier industrialization of the West reflected institutional advantages."}} |
|||
:[[Special:Contributions/99.181.130.209|99.181.130.209]] ([[User talk:99.181.130.209|talk]]) 01:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:25, 5 December 2011
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Ferguson's defence of the British Empire
Anonymous users keep removing the entire section referring to critique of Ferguson's defence of the British Empire. The section appears properly cited and is biographically relevant as this critique has been widely reported and debated in association with Ferguson, so if an editor feels this section should not be in the article it should be debated on the talk page. Ben Whiteside 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This has, I think, got long enough such that it could use to be cleaned up a bit. I'm going to give it a stab in the coming days but I wanted to drop a warning here first, and to solicit suggestions. --Fluxdrip
there needs to be some mention of his current channel 4 tv series which accompanies his new book, war of the world
- As I look at the "Colonialism" section today, it only quotes Johann Hari's personal blog as criticism. This is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. Even though Johann Hari is a professional writer, his personal blog is not "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" as WP:BLPSPS requires. --JHP (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I encountered this article on May 30, 2010, the "As scholar" subsection of the "Criticisms" section contained fake quotes used to disparage Ferguson. I have removed them. --JHP (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Criticism
Criticism is not inherently negative and so both denigration and praise ought to be included. Ferguson is a public figure and so ought to be able to take the brickbats as well as accept the praise and that contrast ought to be included in his biographical entry in any encyclopaedia; he does after all court controversy and seek to polarise debate with his works. If editors do not consider that Ferguson deliberately courts controversy can I suggest they consider his introduction to Virtual History (counter-factualism being historically controversial to start with) where he explicitly equates Fascism, Communism, and Feminism (see p53 & p56). The equation of Fascism and Communism is historically controversial and the equating of both with Feminism is bordering on outrageous.
Historiography includes consideration of politics and social power and so social and/or political criticism of Ferguson are perfectly valid.
As to whether Ferguson counts is a 'complex thinker' well that itself is a matter for debate and it would seem that debate is the heart of wikipedia.Rykalski (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Jackass! Now try posting again without taking his comment in Virtual History out of context. My God, one should have to take an IQ test before being allowed to post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.114.60 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no contextomy in my above statement but I note a lack of Civility on your - anonymous - part. The discussion referred to in Virtual History is all of a piece and the intention to taint both communism and feminism with the same odour of fascism is quite obvious. On which basis I suggest that it is not in your best interest to demand an IQ qualification for wikipedia editing. Also please note I was not suggesting the above for inclusion in this biography page but using it as an example of why critical statements ought to be considered for inclusion within it.Rykalski (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. Harvard, eh? How delightful. Isn't Ferguson there now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rykalski (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no contextomy in my above statement but I note a lack of Civility on your - anonymous - part. The discussion referred to in Virtual History is all of a piece and the intention to taint both communism and feminism with the same odour of fascism is quite obvious. On which basis I suggest that it is not in your best interest to demand an IQ qualification for wikipedia editing. Also please note I was not suggesting the above for inclusion in this biography page but using it as an example of why critical statements ought to be considered for inclusion within it.Rykalski (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
As there were no objections regarding the above, I have added the link to the interview with Niall Ferguson.Taleinfo 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is terrible.
I don't think I've ever seen a more biased article on Wikipedia than this. Personally, I don't have much respect for Niall Ferguson and I think he indulges in pseudo-history far too often, but I at least have the common sense not to put my biased views down in a Wikipedia article, which is supposed to be academic. Besides the tiny review of a small portion of his work in the beginning of the article, the entire thing is devoted to blatantly bashing his work. By far the sorriest article I've come across on Wikipedia, and I don't even like the guy.
I agree fully, there is far too much of the article dedicated to criticisms. The article needs to be rewritten. Jacknife737 08:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen an article this poor.
This article really is appalling...an example of all that is bad on wikipedia. Just read it. It's one huge personal attack on Niall Ferguson and about as biased as an article can be. no wonder wikipedia has such a poor reputation.
-This is not that bad an attempt to grapple with the hydra of Ferguson's works. How large would the article have to be to treat each of Ferguson's positions in a fully analytical fashion. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a collection of doctoral theses. Rykalski (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is noting differences "unnecessary"?
During May 2007 a new paragraph was added to the section on the Niall Ferguson book "War of the World" listing some aspects of the London edition of the book (the American edition turns out to be different in some respects and I was going to make some changes to reflect those differences) with page numbers and references, including government websites and historical diary and letter references, providing an alternative perspective than that provided in the book.
The aspects identified are not normally subject to much debate or much heated opinion (I am not are of debate favouring "Ottowa" over "Ottowa"), so it seemed quite useful to identify them to the regular reader, so they can make their own assessment of the book, being forwarned about some aspects. Yet the section was removed with the comment "unnecessary information". Since the deleted paragraph sought to help readers assess the "verifiability" of some sections of the book, it should be of special interest in Wikipedia. Yet the history page shows "20:34, 30 May 2007 Jacknife737 (Talk | contribs) (25,297 bytes) (→War of the World - removed unnecessary information)"
It would seem very useful for Wikipedia to include a section on some of the contested "facts" for each non-fiction book, especially those that run counter to the current academic consensus.
72.1.195.5 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I am not User:Jacknife737, I am offering my view as a third party. The detailed critique of Ferguson's "War of the World" belongs to an article dedicated to the book, and not to this article, where the focus should be on Ferguson himself. You might want to create a new article on "War of the Worlds".
- It appears that the critique of the book, though uncontroversial, is your own. I have no objection to its inclusion in Wikipedia as long as it is factually verifiable. However, it does violate the "No original research" (Wikipedia:NOR) policy.
- Alternatively, you might place the critique on this Talk page for reference.--Palaeoviatalk 23:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Just to clarify further, does "No original research" disallow disputing a claimed "fact" by checking sources or alternative sources? To give a simple example, to support the view that the 1932 Imperial Econonmic Conference was held in Ottawa and not Ottowa, two links were provided, one to entry on a British government document on the conference and another to a Canadian government link. Does that make it original research? Or is searching for a character string via a search facility for say diary entries, considered "original research"? Even or especially, if it is looking for the source or context of a quotation?
192.30.202.28 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose the relevant guideline is Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position (WP:SYN). The guideline requires that verifiable, sourced facts should not be collected creatively (as an original contribution) by an editor to advance a certain view. There should not be a hidden agenda behind an assembly of facts.
- I've not seen similar critique (focused on possible factual errors found by the editors) on any non-fiction book in Wikipedia. Have a look at Lists of books.
- In practice, individual disputes on whether an edit constitutes original research are settled by applying "community standards", the standards of the group of Wikipedians paying attention to the article in question. Where an article touches controversial matters, even sourced edits can be endlessly disputed as to the reliability of the sources. --Palaeoviatalk 01:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a Terrible Article
The criticism section is WAY too long and some of it is in the praise section. I added some more to the praise section but for some reason it was removed! What's up with that? Led125
I agree, there is still too much focus on the criticism section, there needs to be more of a balance in the article. Jacknife737 21:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Who keeps posting criticisms of Ferguson? This is totally unacceptable!
I repeat: who keeps posting criticisms of Ferguson? Don't just put them back up without justifying it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.114.59 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) BUT BUT I DONT LIKE THE BRITISH WAHHHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.174 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
These comments are inappropriate, while the criticism is properly cited. Ferguson is one of the most criticized people in the public eye because of his radical ideas. He does us all a service, but deserves the criticism he receives. Ollie Garkey (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit attempt
Given the large number of complaints that this is a 'terrible' article, because it contains too many spurious criticisms of the subject, i've deleted most of the section devoted to Johann Hari. This is partly because Hari is a minor British journalist and not an historian and not an authority on British imperialism, but also because the way it was presented was far too dense, containing a number of block quotes that made the whole thing a very awkward read. I didn't want to make any other changes to this article until I got some feedback, but I think the whole thing could be improved greatly, by keeping the piece as neutral as possible. This could mean deleting both the 'criticisms' and 'praise' sections and embedding them into the article. Ferguson is a very successful but polemical historian and therefore doesn't need separate sections to inform the reader that he has been criticised and praised; the entry can show this without loads of critical block quotes by obscure hacks or back-slaps by his pals. Any other thoughts on this?
- Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Yes, I have thoughts. "Criticism" sections as isolated chunks of articles may not be the best way of presenting controversies. On the other hand, it is not great simply to cut out well-referenced material. A process of integrating material appropriately, retaining essential references while giving critical comments proportionate space, is sometimes called for. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It is outrageous to not have a well-sourced criticisms section. This guy is seriously controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.146.208 (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Not really. Nope, I'm sorry. He's not all that controversial. The people who say that are probably the same who say that it's controversial not to live in their parent's basement.
It's a bit extreme to call a well respected Harvard historian "seriously controversial", he's no David Irving. Although, like many academics/authors he most certainly has attracted some criticism, however, the section of the article which is dedicated to criticism is disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article (it takes up about a 1/3 of the entire article!). We don't have to outline in detail every single objection that a critic has raised concerning Ferguson's work. The criticism section (which should remain or more favourably be integrated into the rest of the article) needs to be seriously reviewed and revised. Jacknife737 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Is this a game of top-trumps? Hari's criticisms of Ferguson's position on the British Empire are not undone because he is a journalist and Ferguson works as a historian. Their arguments count not their status. As to Ferguson's controversial status it might be worth listening to this - Start the Week on British Empire - and then make a judgement about whether he courts controversy at every turn (I am of the opinion that he does).Rykalski (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- When discussing academic work, we would prefer that we receive academic commentary. If Hari's comments are themselves notable - as in, other people have remarked on them - then we will introduce some of them, sure. But academic commentary is more relevant to an academic's bio, if nothing else. Relata refero (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Are we discussing 'academic' work? Ferguson's work covers radio, TV, and print journalism (either in his own name or under the pseudonyms Alec Campbell and FF Gillespie which he utilised when writing 'comment & opinion' for the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph) and the un-academic pseudo-historical 'Virtual History'. If Ferguson didn't participate in 'journalistic debate' then journalists wouldn't comment on him and his ideas. The press-conference and the editorial are not standard aspects of the work of academic historians yet they make up a goodly part of Ferguson's activities.
- Further I'm not sure that academic commentary has anything to say about Ferguson's biography it has things to say about his ideas. Finally if you want to engage with the 'academic' commentary on Ferguson can I recommend;
- Aviezer Tucker, Review: Historiographical Counterfactuals and Historical Contingency (Reviewed Work: Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals by Niall Ferguson), History and Theory, Vol. 38, No. 2 (May, 1999), pp. 264-276 Rykalski (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A question of his treatment of WW1
Out of curiosity In what way does he deal in his book on WW1 with Imperial Germany's ethnic expulsion plans towards Poles and Jews, and Imperial Germany's plans to dominate Slavic and Balt populated countries by German minority strenghtened by colonists ?--Molobo (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC) [1] A good responce.--Molobo (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"Controversy" Section
I just wanted to say, that I believe this section fits the article better, then the overlong individual sections of both praise and criticism. Jacknife737 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add Lawrence James's critique of johann hari. It shows that Hari's own views are contested.-Led125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.36.53 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disgaree with the near-excision of the criticisms. As several wikipedians comment above, Ferguson is seriously controverial, and the wiki entry must reflect that fact, offering a range of both praise and criticism.
I would advise you to check out the rule that wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia and does not need to make cuts for space, and also the rules concerning POV.David r from meth productions (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It’s interesting that you only brought back the criticism section. Jacknife737 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to add more criticisms then use the controversy section format, please. I realise we aren't pushed for space, but devoting multiple paragraphs to quotes from some or other journalist is disproportionate. Need I remind you that grandstanding is also unencyclopedic? 86.27.175.228 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not grandstanding to quote a range of critics, along with people who praise Ferguson. It's outragoues to delete these well-sourced passages and turn this into a hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.90 (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It is grandstanding to give a disproportionate amount of space to a person's views, or a category of views (I note you didn't replace the "Controversy" section with both the "Criticism" and "Praise" sections, just the "Criticism" section). Johann Hari, for instance, is not an historian and was writing for a low-circulation newspaper (less than quarter of a million), yet his comments got several paragraphs and block quotes. If someone's comments are particularly pertinent, for instance if they are an eminent historian who engaged in a high profile public debate with Ferguson on some or other issue, then by all means elaborate appropriately, but it seems to me that your criteria for handing out space are not based on the relevance or interest of their views, but on how much they agree with your own. 81.109.243.220 (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the criticisms have been acknowledged, and if the reader wants further information they can examine the sources provided.Jacknife737 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I advise you both to look to how many wiki users complained when there were sparse criticisms of Ferguson, because he is very seriously controversial.
The critic you are referring to, Johann Hari, was described as the best journalist in Britain by Amnesty International and has won several awards. He is relevant here, not least because Ferguson chose to engage in a public debate with him.
Jackknife, your argument that people can follow the sources is not valid. If the criticisms are worth noting, they are worth describing here. Please look at the rules concerning wiki is not a paper encyclopedia.
In the interests of compromise, I am prepared to consider some trimming of these criticisms, but your proposed cuts as they stand go far too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.142.132 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed the BLP concerning material, and protected the article. If I find people inserting mounds of BLP-violating stuff again, on this or other articles, I will take even more serious actions. Work out these issues on Talk:, and get agreement, keeping in mind that WP:BLP is a very serious matter. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh? There were three critics mentioned, perhaps with excessive quoting, but all sourced to impeccable daily papers. How the hell was BLP violated in a manner justifying this over-reaction? Bad protection. Relata refero (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The editor in question seems to edit Wikipedia mostly for the purpose of promoting Johann Hari and slagging people he disagrees with; that, of course, is a BLP issue. At least some of the references used go back to personal websites. If you feel you can write a non-BLP violating version of the text, please do so, I'm happy when articles can be brought into line with WP:NPOV without violating WP:BLP. Are you willing to take on that task? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly. Once you unprotect it. Relata refero (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- None of these articles are sourced to personal websites. The few that are sourced to Johan Hari's site are word-for-word reproductions from his Independent articles, as you can see if you look at the website. It is essential, as several editors said above, that there are well-sourced criticisms of this extremely controversial figure. At the moment it is a hagiography, and unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.142.118 (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly. Once you unprotect it. Relata refero (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The editor in question seems to edit Wikipedia mostly for the purpose of promoting Johann Hari and slagging people he disagrees with; that, of course, is a BLP issue. At least some of the references used go back to personal websites. If you feel you can write a non-BLP violating version of the text, please do so, I'm happy when articles can be brought into line with WP:NPOV without violating WP:BLP. Are you willing to take on that task? Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh? There were three critics mentioned, perhaps with excessive quoting, but all sourced to impeccable daily papers. How the hell was BLP violated in a manner justifying this over-reaction? Bad protection. Relata refero (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Having read several of Hari's pieces on Huffington Post Imust say, I would not consider anyone who believes that "quite possibly the best British film ever made (sic)was: Peeping Tom, released in 1960." a reliable source. Nitpyck (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Redircect fix.
A redirect here is The War of the World. Instead it should be the novel instead. Anyone agree with me?--Vjingo (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The article states that Ferguson cites "Taylor" as an inspiration for becoming a historian. Does this "Taylor" only have a single name? There is no citation or even a link to this mysterious Taylor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.40.197 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I assume AJP Taylor is meant but that seems highly unlikely given the ideological and methodological gulf between them.Rykalski (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of Wikipedia?
Many of the comments here, both pro and con, confuse two issues. One is whether NF is right or left, or loved by the right or left. That is not an issue for Wikipedia, unless his work is so bad as to not merit attention except on political grounds. It is not.
There is a different, and more serious issue which should be part of this entry: his work is actually quite mediocre. Without his endless self-promotion, his wife's connections, etc., he would be viewed for what he is, a not very good popularizer of claims that are banal, wrong, or not his own.
I say this with some authority; I do not want to reveal my identity, but I can say in all seriousness that even those who agree with him think he has done almost nothing serious as a scholar, and that none of his work since the Rothschild book can be taken at all seriously. I should also say that even that work leans very heavily on the work of others, and he does not acknowledge that truth. The work since often is little more than a summary of what others have done, and again, he is not always generous about acknowledging that he is just repeating something already said better, elsewhere. Magacepas (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe this to be the case, please be bold and edit the article to reflect this, making sure to add reliable sources for the material that you add. For a topic such as history, the best sources are likely to be found within the academic literature. Also, given your remarks, it sounds like you could have a conflict of interest — don't let that stop you editing, but do be careful that material you add conforms to appropriate guidance. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good point. But it of course raises a general issue: most people who actually know enough to discuss something like this will have a conflict of interest, at some level. And for the record, I once tried to add some critical commentary on another living person, complete with citations to very negative book reviews, and it was immediately deleted. I was not even allowed to note some very plain facts (for example, that the person writes on a European topic but never cites anything that is not in English...) Magacepas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
- Editing the biographies of living people is slightly more complicated than for other articles because we must conform to extra guidance. Also, guidance the that applies to all articles is often enforced more carefully when a living breathing person is the subject of an article. If, as you say, you added very negative reviews, you must be careful that this still conforms to a neutral point of view. The books may have had positive review too. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Niall Ferguson's underlying narrative is clearly right-wing, with a few observations to placate people on the left thrown in to create the perception of balance. @Magacepas, one of the great problems of Wikipedia which is yet to be resolved is the fact that some editors sit on pages and impose their worldview on the topic at hand. So while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", don't expect your edits to stay for very long. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- It didn't. The edit from User:Magacepas suggesting that Ferguson was making "laughable" claims and taking the credit for the work of others was a contravention of the WP:BLP policy; it wasn't removed as an imposition of any page-sitter's world view. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Niall Ferguson's underlying narrative is clearly right-wing, with a few observations to placate people on the left thrown in to create the perception of balance. @Magacepas, one of the great problems of Wikipedia which is yet to be resolved is the fact that some editors sit on pages and impose their worldview on the topic at hand. So while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", don't expect your edits to stay for very long. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Are these really five different books
It really takes a lot of gall to write and publish 5 books on the Rothchilds in the same year. You'd think he could have either written one big book. Wait could they all be different editions of the same book? I don't know, I can't even pronounce Niall.
- Ferguson, Niall (1999). The House of Rothschild: The World's Banker, 1849–1999. New York, N.Y.: Viking. ISBN 0-670-88794-3.
- Ferguson, Niall (1998). The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-81539-3.
- Ferguson, Niall (1998). The House of Rothschild. New York, N.Y.: Viking. ISBN 0-670-85768-8.
And on Amazon- The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money's Prophets: 1798-1848, The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World's Banker: 1849-1999 Nitpyck (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Hari
This quote seems way too long and inappropriate to the criticism section. "In his response, Ferguson accused Hari of relying on books such as Caroline Elkins' Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya which explicitly compared British Imperial Rule with 20th century totalitarian governments. This was evidence, Ferguson said, of their sensationalism. (In response Hari queried why,[18] if this was the case, Ferguson endorsed Elkins' book for "the most painstaking research".[19]) Ferguson himself cited David Anderson's book on the Kenyan Mau Mau uprising, Histories of the Hanged: The Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire, to argue that the scale of the violence in Kenya was "exceptional" rather than typical of British rule, and cited Anderson's lower figures of 1,090 Kikuyu hanged, 150,000 "detained at one time or another", and 20,000 rebels killed in combat (he also noted that 'this was a civil war in which the rebels killed at least 1,800 African civilians, 200 British soldiers and policemen, and 32 European settlers'). Ferguson argued the decline of the British Empire was itself one of the causes of violence such as that seen in Kenya, saying It is an empirically verifiable fact that violence tends to increase as empires unravel, as indigenous ethnic groups compete, often violently, for future shares of power.[20]"
If his reply should be kept at all perhaps - In response Ferguson wrote "Hari simultaneously misrepresented my work and caricatured to the point of absurdity the history of British imperialism."[20] would be sufficient. Nitpyck (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Separated from his wife
This is patently untrue, like a huge amount of other things on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.228 (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed it, (along with the bit about the 80 lb salmon). Thanks for the catch! Is there anything else you see on there that's problematic? TallNapoleon (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe not - article in 7 February 2010 mail on sunday (UK) - [2]
- Daily Mail is a reliable source, yes? Then this should probably be in the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Any sources at all or can this paragrah be removed
"Another strong criticism has been made of Ferguson's omittance of Ireland in his Empire thesis despite much of Britain's Empire being defined by Irish resistance. There has also been accusations of anti Irish sentiment against the writer who grew up in a strong anti Irish environment in Glasgow." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.92.229 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, there seems to be no references for these strong criticisms and they appear to have no truth behind them. In the UK edition of Empire Ireland is mentioned more than Jamaica or Canada. I can also remember Ferguson being filmed walking the streets of Derry discussing Ireland in the television series relating to the book. Is there any evidence of his upbringing in a strong anti-Irish environment? Benson85 (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds very improbable. With a name like Ferguson he has probably has left-footers in his recent ancestry.130.225.25.207 (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Bilderberg participant
Participant in the 2010 Bulderberg meeting. What are his interests there? He has a right to his own opinions, NOT to his own facts. Progressives are literally rewriting history, creating their own fantasy world. This man is dangerous to the sovereignty of America, and nobody should take his teachings seriously. 24.62.53.208 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC) WLH OWO Association of America
WSJ resource, regarding Euro fiscal union, Late-2000s financial crisis, Treaty of Lisbon, ...
2021: The New Europe; Niall Ferguson peers into Europe's future and sees Greek gardeners, German sunbathers—and a new fiscal union. Welcome to the other United States. Novemeber 19, 2011
Also see "United States of Europe 99.56.120.136 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The New York Review of Books resource
The Disappointed Lover of the West December 8, 2011 The New York Review of Books David Bromwich of Civilization: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson, Penguin 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
resource
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_global_thinkers_20_most_recommended_books?page=0,2 The Global Thinkers' Book Club; Want to think like the world's best minds? Start by reading like them. The Foreign Policy Global Thinkers' 20 most recommended titles. NOVEMBER 28, 2011
3) Civilization: The West and the Rest (2011) by Niall Ferguson Recommended by Sherry Rehman and Kenneth Rogoff
99.19.42.30 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.81.65 (talk)
- Here is an excerpt ...
"The critical point is that the differential between the West and the Rest was institutional. Western Europe overtook China partly because in the West there was more competition in both the political and the economic spheres. Austria, Prussia and latterly even Russia became more effective administratively and militarily because the network that produced the Scientific Revolution arose in the Christian but not in the Muslim world. The reason North America's ex-colonies did so much better than South America's was because British settlers established a completely different system of property rights and political representation in the North from those built by Spaniards and Portuguese in the South.… European empires were able to penetrate Africa not just because they had the Maxim gun; they also devised vaccines against tropical diseases to which Africans were just as vulnerable. In the same way, the earlier industrialization of the West reflected institutional advantages."
- 99.181.130.209 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class University of Oxford articles
- Unknown-importance University of Oxford articles
- B-Class University of Oxford (colleges) articles
- Automatically assessed University of Oxford articles
- WikiProject University of Oxford articles
- B-Class Scotland articles
- Mid-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- B-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- B-Class history articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles