Talk:Liah Greenfeld

Untitled
This page could benefit from additional citations linking to journal articles.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Liah Greenfeld.jpg

Criticism
While there is room for a section regarding criticism of any public intellectual, the current section essentially consists of a diatribe against the subject containing much NPOV and original research/conclusions, all from an account evidently created for the sole purpose of attacking Greenfield and her work. Some of the critical comments cited may have a place in a neutral, well-:presented criticism section, but they are too tightly woven into the diatribe to pull out and salvage. I'm deleting the section, perhaps someone else can do the painstaking work to cobble together something a little less agenda driven out of the prior material. Grifter84 - Доверяй, но проверяй 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Not wishing to start a reversion war here, I have excised the more offending OR content, while leaving intact as much of the text as possible that actually depends on reliable secondary sources. That said, this edit conflict illustrates perfectly why WP:CRIT discourages sections devoted to criticism of the subject. To the extent such sections are valid, they must be treated with great care. ExposingGreenfeld has done the opposite. Using a single-purpose account, they have gone beyond the published material and improperly inserted their own analysis, i.e. repeatedly referring to the subject's work as "misleading" or suggesting that other, extraneous material "refutes" or "undermines" the subject. While those conclusions may well be valid, and are clearly meant sincerely, they violate WP:OR. Additionally, ExposingGreenfeld has admitted to citing to their own review as a major source for this section, which explicitly violates WP:BLPSPS. Grifter84 - Доверяй, но проверяй 13:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Response to Grifter84 by ExposingGreenfeld

In defending the choice to delete the section in which I provide examples of misrepresentation by Liah Greenfeld, Grifter84 writes: 'While there is room for a section regarding criticism of any public intellectual, the current section essentially consists of a diatribe against the subject containing much NPOV and original research/conclusions (...)' I am glad to see that Grifter84 has changed his mind, for earlier, Grifter84 deleted the entire section 'Criticism'.

I have indeed an agenda. Liah Greenfeld is regarded as a key theorist of nationalism, and she continues to be invited to write books and chapters on the subject. Readers of the lemma on Greenfeld deserve to get an impression of the criticisms other scholars have of her work, and because even the most negative reviewers failed to recognize the fact that Greenfeld misrepresented sources on many occasions in her book Mind, Modernity, Madness, I felt compelled to uncover these gross violations of academic principles in my review.

Grifter84 laments that I wrote a diatribe against Greenfeld and complains that I use words such as 'misleading', 'refute', 'undermine'. I challenge Grifter84 to answer these questions yes or no:

- Are the examples of misrepresentation I provided in the section 'Criticism' factually incorrect?

- Do readers of the lemma on Greenfeld deserve to know that she misrepresented sources and thus violated academic norms?

- Does Grifter84 dispute the fact that the truth that emerges out of historical dictionaries factually refutes Greenfeld's  aetiology on modern emotions and her theory on the origins of nationalism and modernity?

- Does Grifter84 consider the factual refutation of the theory of nationalism and modernity of one of the biggest names in the field irrelevant?

I take Grifter84's point on avoiding references to self-published sources. It is an interesting ongoing experiment to see how long it will take before others decide to inform readers of the lemma on Greenfeld that she structurally violated academic principles. It ought to speak for itself that this is an important fact about Greenfeld. --ExposingGreenfeld (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Response to ExposingGreenfeld by Grifter84

TLDR: I did not delete the section because anything contained therein was "wrong." I deleted it because, wrong or right, it was not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

I decline to endorse or dispute any of the assertions ExposingGreenfeld advances for two reasons. First, I do not claim to possess any expertise on the subject matter, and I am therefore in no position to evaluate any assertions, factual or otherwise, regarding Greenfeld's work.

Second, and more importantly, my answers to those challenges have no bearing whatsoever on the justifications for my edits. Their purpose was to enforce Wikipedia content policy, not to engage in any substantive argument on the merits of the subject matter. I cited to the relevant policies above, and I encourage ExposingGreenfeld to spend more time studying them. They make plain that, to the extent controversy exists regarding a scholar's work, the pages of Wikipedia are the wrong forum to litigate such disputes. If an editor believes that a writer has violated norms or committed other errors in their work, that editor is free to argue the point in the scholarly press, blogs, Amazon book reviews, etc. If the idea gains traction within the relevant community of experts, as evidenced by a review of published material, it might meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. What is explicitly against policy is for that editor to manufacture expert consensus where none exists by unilaterally inserting such arguments into the body of the scholar's Wikipedia entry in the authoritative voice of Wikipedia. It is for this reason that I have preserved the text that consists of direct quotes attributed to reliable secondary sources that speak directly to the subject Greenfeld's work. While ideally these critical statements should be incorporated into the same section of the article as the work they are critiquing, and not in a set-apart Criticism section per WP:CRITS, I thought it better to leave it up to other editors with more expertise to put them in the right place. Hopefully whoever takes up the job does so with due consideration to the tonal restraint required by WP:IMPARTIAL.

Additionally, it bears mentioning that I am not prepared to concede that the criticisms identified by ExposingGreenfeld are "facts" in the ordinary sense accepted by Wikipedia. I don't think it's necessary to go into elaborate detail here, but I trust interested editors will find that these statements actually constitute analysis and synthesis of the type specifically enjoined by WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH.

Finally, I fully understand the frustration that can stem from witnessing a scholar one does not hold in high regard enjoy what appears to be undeserved respect and legitimation. However, Wikipedia is not the right place to set the scholarly record straight. These policies exist for a reason, and even if the truth is on ExposingGreenfeld's side, the public deserving the truth is not sufficient justification for violating those policies. Sometimes on Wikipedia, simply being right isn't enough. Grifter84 - Доверяй, но проверяй 14:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * October 10, 2016.png

Close connection to subject
Both the main article text and the criticism section contain assessments violating WP:NPOV and have a level of detail that would seem to require (to my uninformed eyes) a close connection to the author. I suggest a neutral editor examine and clean up the article to deal with potential bias here. Bigbattery (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)