Talk:Stanford J. Shaw

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

this article is almost entirely based upon three online articles. two are cited (the CNES and the Arkun articles), but the third is his biography on the Bilkent Univ website: http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~shaw/profile.html i believe this article needs some serious revisions, or else it is a copywright violation. dgl 09:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This biographic article -like many other similar ones- is based upon -not copy-pasted- some sources, and all sources are referenced clearly; this is hardly a "copywright/copyright violation". The biographic information from the Bilkent University website covers some common facts. On the other hand, I agree that the article needs improvements and criticism -preferably constructive ones- to expand its content.Vikici 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, there are some clear cut-and-paste quotes from the Bilkent website, with no citation. the same problem was with the CNES website, and i edited the article so that it at least put the CNES sentences in quotations. the Bilkent copying was far more frequent and led me to believe that a more thorough rewrite is needing. dgl 10:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rename of Category

Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is here. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family

Quoting the notice of his memorial service, Bilkent [University] News Interactive 2006-12-28 [1]

"At the end of all of the speeches, participants gathered to express their condolences to his wife Prof. Ayşe Ezel Kural-Shaw, his daughter Dr. Wendy Meryem Kural-Shaw-Arslan and his son-in-law Dr. Savaş Arslan."

This suggests identity of Ezel Kural Shaw, aka E. K. Shaw, and Ayşe Ezel Kural-Shaw.

--P64 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


—— This entire article is based on a polemic written by Armenian authors or Armenian sympathetic authors and presenting their opinions on Professor Shaw’s work as fact. Seriously problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungitow (talk • contribs) 07:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian issue

There seems to be concerted effort to malign this scholar in light of his scholarly views re the Armenian events. Additionally, a weird sentence is inserted to dismiss the Armenian terrorist bombing of his home. Ungitow (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his denial of the Armenian genocide is one of the main things he is known for. It's unknown who did the bombing. (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has a scholarly opinion, calling him a 'bad scholar' or 'lack of factual accuracy' is to pass judgement on his views. It's the opposite of a neutral wikipedia article. Shaw has his opinions, and whoever wrote this article doesn't like it so they call it 'bad' or a 'pro Turkish bias'. And who else would plant the bomb? Shaw received death threats for his work on the Armenian issue. There are active Armenian terrorist organizations in Los Angeles, JCAG, ASALA, that assassinated prominent Turkish diplomats and their families in that same period. Shaw is known for his study of provincial Ottoman Egypt, and the Ottoman census. Nobody has ever called his scholarship into question on any issue whatsoever but Armenians attack him because Shaw's scholarship on the 19th-20th c Ottoman-Armenians doesn't fit their political agenda. The Armenian community's 21st c consensus on these events is not necessarily the one and only historical perspective or the most accurate interpretation of the historical facts. Shaw is a trained historian with impeccable credentials. Ungitow (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this whole 'lacking factual accuracy' because I don't like it editing style is extremely inappropriate. You can state his actual views and then let the reader evaluate them instead of pulling a 'he was delusional because he said things I don't like'. It's Undue-to the max. Ungitow (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not your beliefs. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reliable source for 'he has pro Turkish bias'? Ungitow (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Shaw's works have been criticized for their lack of factual accuracy as well as denial of the Armenian genocide, and other pro-Turkish bias."
So what if there are 1-2 books that don't like him? I can put in some books that say he's the best. Then this can go on and on. The point is that attacking him is inappropriate and it's editorialization/opinionated writing. Ungitow (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're familiar with historical academic scholarship but it's based on a lot of criticisms/histiographical traditions. Marc Baer doesn't like Shaw and that's his revisionist-historiography on Shaw's established authoritative scholarship. The whole article is based on Baer and Hovhanssian's opinions about Shaw's academic work.
"In this book Shaw falsely claims, based on purported interviews, that Jews happily paid the 1942 Capital Tax, a discriminatory tax designed to financially ruin non-Muslim citizens of Turkey, and repeats the antisemitic discourse of Jews as war profiteers."
What does 'falsely claims' mean? Shaw has sources in his book, and Baer is saying he doesn't like them and that his interpretation of this law is the only one. There is no proof in Baer's book for these claims, it's a hit piece opinion published with the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR). Ungitow (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article already cites several other historians who are critical of the factual inaccuarcies found in Shaw's books. I agree that the article could use a restructure to present, first of all, a summary of what Shaw wrote followed by reception by other historians. However, as far as I can tell he was very much a product of the era when Turkish studies was funded by the Turkish government and to a large extent conformed to the Turkish government's position. For example, in his paper "Children of Özal: The New Face of Turkish Studies" Howard Eisenstadt states: "Major scholars in the field, figures like Bernard Lewis or Stanford Shaw, identified closely not only with Turkey, but with the Kemalist project itself and specialists in Turkish Studies not infrequently supported Turkish public diplomacy efforts." The article should reflect this.
BLP applies to talk pages as well and I wouldn't throw around accusations like that about a living person (Baer) without any evidence. The criticism of Shaw's views on Turkish Jewish history doesn't just come from Baer; there are also other historians like Rifat Bali and Cory Guttstadt. The latter in particular proved that Shaw had repeated unsubstantiated and false claims by Turkish diplomats to present Turkey in a positive light. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These historians are his ideological opponents, not neutral sources. You can't cite their attacks on him. They are also not relevant. Most of it is: "he believes this, he has this Turkish bias", not substantive issues. Ungitow (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like what? The ww2 cables. Go read Shaw's books. The cables are in the book. Ihrig's book also reproduces it, and Ihrig is hardly a 'Turkish nationalist' or a 'Turkish diplomat'. Ungitow (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'HE IS CLOSE TO THE TURKISH VIEW' is not proof that he is wrong. Have you considered that the Turkish view about Turkish history might be on to something? It's not like we cite only Russian or Soviet authors on American history pages. Ungitow (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been fixed

Do not revert to the heavily biased/low quality prior version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungitow (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some users who are not interested in the 'neutral point of view' mandated in the Wikipedia style guide. I recommend you go back to the style guide and read about neutral sources, neutral tone, undue weight, and related topics. Do not revert this article to the extremely poor state it was in previously. Ungitow (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop reverting the fixes @Yerevantsi, you already have a history of making edits based on changes you want to see, and you've been warned over this. Ungitow (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@YEREVANTSIUndue/relevance all come into play. Your edits are equivalent to saying you don't like Shaw, and his "wrong" views, and using Turkish source is not enough to disqualify someone as a scholar or academic -- despite what you might personally believe. Ungitow (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yerevantsi You cannot cite Marc Baer's OPINIONS about someone as FACT. If you really want to educate the planet on Marc Baer's views, edit his own personal wikipedia page to fill it up. These are not relevant. Read this in full:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Ungitow (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the boss of everybody. If you want your POV version to remain, you need to convince people that there are good reasons for it. See
WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Until now, you failed to convince even one person. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok. Do you disagree with my reasoning. Let's talk. Who are the people here? Who do I need to convince? What if they don't even engage my argument and just ignore it and then revert my edits, the net effect would be that the bad current article stands. Ungitow (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also as you can see, nobody has replied to my talk pings here. Just go over the edits and see what you think. The article is in extremely poor condition. It's filled to the brim with hit pieces by pro Armenian sources and they are even belittling the assassination attempt on this man. Ungitow (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who do I need to convince? That question makes no sense. Nobody is better than anyone else here. You need to achieve consensus.
nobody has replied to my talk pings here You seem to think that people have nothing else to do but editing Wikipedia Talk pages, and especially this one. You need to give it time.
You deleted Shaw's works have been criticized for their lack of factual accuracy as well as denial of the Armenian genocide, and other pro-Turkish bias from the lede, which alone is a reason to revert everything else because removing criticism pegs you as a POV warrior and irrational. Trying to force your deletions by reverting reverts is another reason not to take you seriously. You will have a hard time convincing anyone that any of your edits have merit, with the handicap you gave yourself.
WP:NPOV does not mean what you think it means. If sources which are reliable for the subject (that is, historians) agree that Shaw's opinions have no merit, that is what Wikipedia will say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
>Shaw's works have been criticized for their lack of factual accuracy as well as denial of the Armenian genocide, and other pro-Turkish bias
So I don't agree that Shaw's page should be only about the Armenian criticism of him. If you want to put it in a small section, ok, but otherwise it is undue weight. This vague sentence is on the first paragraph and what is the relevance that he is 'criticized for pro Turkish bias'? Can you give me an answer to that? Think it through, I mean that sincerely, what is the real relevance? It's an attempt to say the man is a bad historian, but is that relevant? Shaw is a Princeton/Oxford trained professor with decades of experience. Nobody thinks he is a bad historian, and if some blogger thinks Plato is wrong on the nous, should we change the Plato article to read: "Plato's works have been criticized for their lack of factual accuracy"? Or if someone thinks Lincoln is a bad guy, should his article read: "Lincoln's speeches have been criticized for their lack of factual accuracy[by whom and why should we care???] as well as his denial of the Genocide of the Planter class, and other pro-Union bias". No I don't think so.
>If sources which are reliable for the subject (that is, historians) agree that Shaw's opinions have no merit, that is what Wikipedia will say.
As I said, Shaw was a world renowned historian. Some Armenian historians -- again this is history not chemistry -- don't like him. 'Historians' agreeing that 'Shaw's opinions have no merit' is not accurate. Some historians don't like him and some users took the time to plant this page with their views of Shaw. Do you really want me to find 100s of historians who like Shaw and then I can make the page say, but this person says Shaw is good here and there? I would rather we remove the assassination attempt of his legacy.
In addition, some of these opinions are untenable. Shaw is criticized for 'being pro Turkish' as if that should be a crime by itself. Can you explain to me why it would be? Or he is criticized because Turkish people also think what he thinks, as if that alone is a crime and proof he is bad. Can you reply to that at all? Ungitow (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page about a historian and his work written in the style of his worst ideological critics (people who hate him and want to destroy him because of their ideology, not because they really care about wha the had to say) . That's not what wikipedia is about. Ungitow (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that my edit is a neutral edit and reflects Shaw's views closely. The edit you restored wants to adjudicate on the historical topics Shaw wrote about. Ungitow (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's change Heidegger's wikipedia page to include, on every other sentence, "Heidegger was wrong about this" -- Analytical philosopher. Sounds good? That's what you've done here. Ungitow (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+
Marc Baer's views should be presented as facts, so let's edit every Heidegger and Nietzsche related topic (not just their biographies) and do for them what Baer has done for Shaw.... let's put in Karl Popper's opinions about Heidegger and Nietzsche (he thought they were wrong about everything and bad people basically). So in the article for 'dasein', lets start with 'Heidegger wrongly believed that Dasein was a proper way to describe human being in the world' and "Heidegger's factually incorrect analysis of being towards death reflects his pro-obscurantist bias". So we should change Nietzsche's "Zarathustra" page to read: "Nietzsche is condemned by many for being a dead-end and useless writer". Really high quality edits.
Sounds good? Ungitow (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for 'genocide'. I don't mind including that Armenians believe Shaw 'denies' their 'genocide'. The best way to say this is that: The Armenian community regarded Shaw's book as 'denying' the 'genocide'. They did. Sure. Also, He does, at least the version that they believe. He regards the Armenian uprisings (Fedayeen, 300k strong in favor of the Russian army in ww1) to be the primary reason there were deportations. This is his view, and it's shared by a lot of people in Turkey and elsewhere too -- Berkeley/Stanford trained historian Sean McMeekin has made the same argument based on a reading of Russian military archives (they corroborate the Turkish claim that Armenians engaged in a revolutionary uprising in 1915). So that's all fine, but it's not ok to say Shaw is a bad scholar because he disagrees with what Armenians thinks. That's the tenor of that article. Shaw is 'factually incorrect' because he has different interpretations than the revanchist ultra nationalist Armenian lobby.
The article leads with "he is a genocide denier pro Turk" as if that is really all that relevant to anyone who isn't an Armenian activist. Let's consider the proper value of "undue-weight" here. If Shaw had finished his full history on the Ottoman Empire at the date of 1817, they wouldn't care what he thinks about the 1517 Egyptian tax system or the Iraqi environmental policy in 1644. The fact is that Shaw's life and career has a whole range, and his refusal to play ball on a political characterization of the Armenian events has upset a large activist community. For the actual context of his life as a scholar, and his work, the Armenian-characterization deserves the spot I gave it -- in the discussion of his major works. Ungitow (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about pro-Turkish and anti-Turkish. It is about pseudohistory and about genocide denial. There is an international consensus that the Armenian genocide happened, based on clear evidence, but that consensus seems to stop at the Turkish border, for obvious jingoistic reasons. This makes the "pro-Turkish" view
WP:YWAB
has examples where fringe proponents cry that Wikipedia is biased, but none of them has any merit. Your reasoning is pretty much the same as the reasoning of editors who defend other fringe positions.
If we have reliable sources saying Heidegger was wrong, then the article should quote them. That does not help your case one bit. See also
WP:OTHERCONTENT
.
If you want to delete the criticism, you have to bring reliable sources saying that Shaw's position is within the mainstream. You won't, because it isn't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence that deportations happened, and demographic changes occurred. Whether you call it a genocide is a political decision and depends on what you think about a terrorist movement during wartime. Is the US war against ISIS a genocide because it led to the bombing of Mosul and Raqaa with a lot of civilian residents? Is the US Native American policy or the Us-filipino war a genocide? These are contested by US historians and I don't see every US historian wiki page led by 'Native American genocide denier'. So what is so special with Armenians that they get to undue-weigh everything based on their views? Ungitow (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also you didn't even even read Shaw, and yet you're passionate about this edit. Curious. So how can you talk about pseudo history?
There can be no reliable sources saying Heidegger war wrong, because it's his interpretation buddy. Shaw interprets facts to mean that Ottoman Empire engaged in a lawful deportation order and fought illegal Armenian revolutionaries. To call this a 'genocide' is an arbitrary designation.
I don't want to delete criticism either. Make a different page with 'criticisms of Stanford shaw' if you think it's relevant. But this page is ALL criticism and his major works aren't discussed, it just leads with (barely sourced, not sourced at all, since the source leads to an opinion when the matter under discussion is a substantive fact) 'he is wrong', 'he is pro Turkish'. It reads like gibberish. Why would you even want that style of writing on wikipedia?
I changed it to read: Major Works where I outlined Shaw's views. That's appropriate. The article isn't even about these topics, it's about Shaw.
Also, lets get specific. Shaw's views on Jewish-Turkish history are attacked with vicious vitriol based on -- what? Nothing. Please show me. But because the Armenians and their friends want to attack him anywhere and everywhere they attack him here too. Ungitow (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article about Shaw is written from the point of view that this Princeton/Oxford trained UCLA/Oxford professor until he died (by emeritus rights) is "factually incorrect" about everything because he doesn't agree with Armenian political activists.
You're trying to enforce a historical interpretation and basically calling Shaw stupid ("factually incorrect" give me a break, why not say: interpretively incorrect since that's closer to what you mean) because he didn't agree.
Do you know how the Armenians got their 'mainstream consensus', well Shaw's biography gives you a hint. They threaten with violence. Shaw was bombed and received death threats. He had to leave the country. You clearly think that's great. This article you edited agrees. The article belittles the terrorist attempt on Shaw's life. What kind of circus is this? Get real. This is not a professionally written article that you've reverted. Ungitow (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a couple days to review these notes THEN I'm reverting my edit. I'll take this as high as it needs to go buddy. I don't care. You're wrong here. Go write a blog post about why Stanford Shaw is a bad historian (read him first maybe?) but this is his wikipedia biography page and he is a prominent highly competent stellar historian. Ungitow (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This style is so repugnant to me. You don't agree with him so you attack him, it's ad hominem to the max. "I don't like Gordon Wood's interpretations of so I will attack his entire life". This kind of Astroturfing by Armenian activists who mass-edit these topics is really inappropriate. What do you hope to accomplish? Someone looks like Stanford Shaw and they will think he is a bad historian? Why don't we summarize his books accurately and then let people judge? Instead of giving them random views of pro Armenian bloggers? Ungitow (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's note that none of these criticisms cite Shaw's books directly, not of them source Shaw's books when they claim he is factually incorrect. It is all some select (and repeating, 3 in particular) second-hand sources who aren't cited properly either. Ungitow (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Historian Marc David Baer writes that the book was written with the help of Turkish career foreign service personnel and Turkish Jewish leaders. He states that the book " brought together Armenian genocide denial and an updated version of the centuries-old theme of utopian relations between Muslims and Jews in the face of the Christian enemy". Baer faults Shaw for relying on unverified statements by Turkish ambassadors to create a myth of Turkish heroism."
Let's dig into this criticism. Baer provides no evidence that the book was written with the help of Turkish diplomats, he just wildly makes an accusation. Baer's interpretation of the book might be interesting for Baer's own wikipedia page but it's not relevant here (can you explain why?), and then Baer doesn't like Shaw for using Turkish diplomatic source material in his book on Turkish diplomatic actions in world war two. What does he expect? A 1942 Turkish consul's cables should have been copied and verified in real time by a third country? Ungitow (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro Turkish bias"

I am asking a hard question for some of the people here, but so what? This is a biography page of the man, who is a respected historian (perhaps that's what's at stake here). This is not a hate blog for the man based on the very vocal and organized Armenian opinion of him, which by the way is not relevant to anyone else.

Also the source for 'pro Turkish bias' is Marc Baer, and what is the basis for this view? Marc Baer believes it. OK. It's a fact.

In some corners of the internet, a Turkish-topic must cite only anti-Turkish people. Let's talk about the content then, if we do so, we'd delete this and restore my edit since the entire content in this page is 'Shaw is bad'(source: Baer or someone else). 'Shaw is pro Turkish (and therefore bad' -- (source:Baer). Shaw thinks what the Turkish government also thinks, and this fact alone is enough to disqualify him (sourcE: Baer, Hovhanssian).

Why is this relevant and how is it not undue-weight on the views of a number of academics (Baer and friends) who have a vendetta against Shaw.

Is it relevant that "Shaw's works have been criticized for their lack of factual accuracy as well as denial of the Armenian genocide, and other pro-Turkish bias.[1][2]"?

Criticized by whom, pro Armenian authors. It's the ultimate non-statement. "People have said you're a bad person" -- source: people, including me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungitow (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion

  • Note While
    policy, and is explicit that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. All may rest assured that material that has been removed at least once qualifies as disputed. SN54129 11:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Wonderful. So, if I want to remove sourced material that is inconvenient to me, all I have to do is delete it once, reason not needed? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some of the criticisms are genuine but representing them excessively while virtually omitting to positive reviews causes bias. The lead strikes me particularly—the criticisms here seem undue as they are not balanced with positive receptions. Therefore, I am temporarily removing them until the content is balanced.--176.219.153.24 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you shouldn't be evading your block. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been blocked. You surely must be confusing me with someone else. 176.219.155.220 (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the judge of that. You need consensus first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not a single valid reason was shown for
WP:DUE sourced content removal. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I have already shared my reasoning on why it is not DUE and it is *you* who need consensus to add the disputed material.
WP:ONUS is clear on that, just like SN54129 pointed out.--176.219.215.34 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I repeat: So, if I want to remove sourced material that is inconvenient to me, all I have to do is delete it once, reason not needed? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS doesn't change anything here, the information was in the article for a very long time it's not like it was just added to "need consensus". You're the one who needs to achieve consensus, especially when you're removing DUE sourced content considering Shaw's views and the criticism he received, Stanford_J._Shaw#Criticism. You're just disrupting and removing it with no consensus, while trying to abuse guidelines in the process without even understanding them. I have nothing else to say to you unless you demonstrate a valid reason as to why exactly you're removing a long-standing well sourced content, instead of playing a wiki-lawyer here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There have been discussions on this, see previous sections.
WP:DETCON says, Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. No valid, policy-based reasons for deleting the material were given, only for keeping it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hob Gadling thank you for pointing this out. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanford_J._Shaw&oldid=1195558239"