Talk:Noel Malcolm/Archive 2

Noel Malcolm is a pseudohistorian
It is a known fact that he is not a historian, but a pseudohistorian. His views on alternative history of the Balkans is not supported by any historical evidence, nor the academic history as whole. Most of his views are supported by subjective views of the ones interviewed, rather than archeological, ethno-linguistical, historical research of the region. This has to be stated. As an example of his historical analysis I will quote a part of his work "Short History of Bosnia":

''... the term "Vlach" was used just to mean "shepherd" and did not imply any ethnic or linguistic difference -- so that most of these people were really just Serbs with sheep. This view is rejected by the leading modern expert on Vlachs in the early Ottoman Balkans, who insists that they were regarded as distinct population.''

No expert is being mentioned, no source is being mentioned. This is a clear case of alternative history, based arround ones point of view.

Wikipedia is not meant to be misused for foreign propaganda, therefore adressing Noel Malcolm and his works as a part of academic history is invalid.
 * Don't shout . You need sources, not unsubstantiated assertions. Without sources your edits to this effect will be reverted and ultimately reported. Bring your sources here for discussion on talk, otherwise don't bother editing this or any other article. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No shouting just stating, the sources as asked:

Serbia In the Eyes of the "Merciful Angel": The Phenomenon of Historian as a Destructionist

Prof. Slavenko Terzic, Ph.D Institute of History of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.255.65 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And who is that written by? Where, by whom and when was it published? That is how we determine whether a source is WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Get serious. That's your source for the "pseudo-historian" bit? Try finding a scholarly review by someone other than a Serb. This is WP:BLP, you'll get yourself in deep trouble real quick with this rot. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, is this really written in Wikipedia my a moderator. It is a work by a PHd in History, irrelevant which ethnicity wrote it, be it Albanian or Serb or Bosniak or American, it is a profesional analsys of a pseudo historic work, which any person who understands a bit English can follow and analyse for himself.

Denouncing a work because of its ethnic heritage is chauvinism, and for this you will be reported. Denouncing a scholary review because the writers ethnicity doesn't fit the biased agenda of an pro-Bosniak Anglo-Australian, is not academic nor scholary nor has anything to search for in Wikipedia.

'''You are being reported for ethnic chauvinism, for not allowing scholary work based on writers ethnicity. While supporting alternative history by writers with a clear bias, like presidents of Anglo-Albanian and Bosnian Charity Organisations writing their own versions of history, without any sources mentioned, and any experience in that field of work.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.255.65 (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Peacemaker67: Will you please be so kind to explain your position toward scholars of Serb ethnicity?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Slavenko Terzić is a senator of Republika Srpska, a diplomat for the Republic of Serbia, and was also a defence witness at the Trial of Slobodan Milošević. He is clearly a Serbian historian, and from the source, it's fair to say that he has engaged in a public attack on Malcolm, but presenting this politician's opinion as universal facts would be preposterous and would get one laughed out of WP:RSN. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to mention WP:BLPN, where there will now be some attention to this article. The IP editor should take care to avoid re-adding that material without consensus here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, looking up the referenced article at scholar.google.com brings up little other than the article itself, and nothing I recognize as a reliable source. OTOH Mile Bjelajac wrote a decidedly more balanced article about it which is available at the same website the anonymous used, http://www.kosovo.net/nmalk6.html, so IMO this anonymous user has lost the presumption of good faith with their obvious disregard for elementary encyclopedic standards which may actually favor their own argument. POV-pushing is a big no-no per WP:ARBMAC as well. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ah, Antidiskriminator. Not surprising, but always a true pleasure. Thanks for linking the WP:TLDR post, BTW. I have nothing against scholars of Serb ethnicity, nor anything against plumbers or any other occupational category of person of Serb ethnicity, of course. But I do not expect you to accept my assertion of goodwill to all Serbs, given our previous interaction on WP. What I object to is the editing of a WP:BLP article by a completely new IP editor who knows WP syntax and apparently also knows WP policies, and who quotes a webpage ostensibly by a Serb historian to reflect the supposed views of that historian on one of the works of Noel Malcolm. Further that this is used in order to make changes to that article that clearly infringe WP:BLP. What I would expect is that if Malcolm's work is so bad/pseudo, something other than a website that purports to carry the work of a Serbian historian (who, if it is his work can be reasonably expected to have at least the perception of some bias) might be backed up by scholarly review in a, I don't know, scholarly journal or similar. Not an altogether unreasonable expectation given we are in WP:BLP territory. Happy now? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy now? My happiness is irrelevant for this discussion. Please respect WP:NPA and comment on content, not on contributor. You insisted on "a scholarly review by someone other than a Serb". I am afraid that your statement that historians "can be reasonably expected to have at least the perception of some bias" if their ethnicity is Serbian might be perceived as hate speech. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh grow up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Joy &#91;shallot&#93; according to you, Noel Malcolm a president of Anglo-Albanian and Bosnian Charity Organisations, shows no bias in his own alternative interpretation of the regions history? Yes this is a chauvinist article, not supported by anything nearly academic. Noel Malcolm is not denounced for being an Englishman, nor is he denounced for his open bias in his works, that he supports by holding the functions he holds, he is denounced for producing alternative history without the usage of academic historical methodology. Slavko Terzić and Milorad Ekmečić are denounced for being of Serbian ethnicity, that is a nice way to act on Wikipedia, opened chauvinism. However they were profesional enough to invite Noel Malcolm to the discussion about his work, however he declined, out of obvious reasons. I invite you to read the work of Slavko Terzić and Milorad Ekmečić, hoping you are introduced to academic historical methodology, really hoping, since I fail to see that other than open chauvinism against Serbs as a nation. The work is available on the internet, [], if you see anything openly biased, unsupported in their analsys of Noel Malcolms work, then please object. I also assume you read Noel Malcolms works as well, if not I see no point for you moderating this article.
 * let's get down to it. Who (other than Terzić) claims he is a "pseudo-historian"? Ekmečić even dismisses Deak and Pavlowitch because they "don't understand the details"? Deak and Pavlowitch? Get serious. If there are serious unbiased historians such as Pavlowitch that question Malcolm's work in any respect, they need to be balanced in the article with those that praise it (even if faintly or with reservations). That is the essence of the way WP handles BLP, cautiously and ensuring balance at all times. If you don't like it, don't edit BLP articles. Sheesh. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having read both Ekmečić's review and the book it purportedly reviews, I am sure that the review should not be taken at face value. bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing chauvinist in the article; it may be incomplete, but it does not appear to be misrepresenting the person. I have not "denounced" Terzić or Ekmečić, nor I have mentioned them in a context even resembling chauvinism; another editor's mention of their ethnicity was implicitly interpreted as such without a particularly reasonable justification. At this point you've produced a series of egregious errors, gravely misrepresented the views of other editors, in addition to adding your faulty content to the article four times now, which is four times too many for something in this topic area, and once too many for WP:3RR. Please cease this abuse and read up on WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Civility. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. @Peacemaker67 please take advice of Joy and read up on WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Civility. Besides, your speculations about Terzić and Ekmedžić not being serious unbiased historians is not the way WP handles BLP. The tone of your comments "Happy now?...Oh grow up...Get serious..." can indeed be seen as breach of WP:Civility. This abuse should indeed be ceased. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AD, you seem to be perpetuating a largely unrelated dispute with Pm67 here. The reaction to the anonymous by Pm67 wasn't the least bit as contentious as the anonymous' article abuse, and that's what the users see. Pm67 did not wrongly identify a source as reliable here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Joy, please read Please do not bite the newcomers. You should have explained to IP user that he should carefully attribute criticism of Malcolm's work to two scholars from Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, within separate section designated to criticism, not in the first sentence. Instead you decided to accuse IP user for loosing "the presumption of good faith with their obvious disregard for elementary encyclopedic standards which may actually favor their own argument. POV-pushing". You also decided to attribute motives to me and to criticize me and to support Peacemaker67 regardless of his ethnicity based arguments and violations of WP:CIVILITY and WP:BLP. This is not the first time you fail to act in neutral manner in case of issues related to Balkan. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, an actual newcomer doesn't put obviously contentious stuff in the lead section of a biography and then reverts to have his way several times despite other people's advice. In fact, at that point they still had the assumption of good faith, but to call the reaction to them biting is ridiculous when all the biting was actually done by them!
 * In the rest of your response, you've gone from a legitimate argument (even if I think it is wrong) to completely overblowing the issue in an apparent effort to discredit myself and others. I suggest you put your money where your mouth is by actually trying to get someone else to analyze my admin actions for abuse - you'll see then how WP:BOOMERANG operates. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I most certainly did not "attribute motives" to you - I literally said that you implicitly interpreted something as problematic and that this was done without a particularly reasonable justification. If you feel that saying something like this is unacceptable, that you are beyond this kind of criticism, then I'm sorry - I don't see any reason to think that you are. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. When I explained how another editor evidently violated wikipedia policies and guidelines you tried to defend him by implying that my explanation was motivated by some unrelated dispute I supposedly have with him.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

JFTR the anonymous with the Telekom Austria address returned with a different IP address and posted a lenghty diatribe. AD's been fixing it, but it's still lacking. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am following Please do not bite the newcomers and "treat newcomers with kindness and patience". I believe it is more constructive than tagbombing and comments about contributors and their internet providers. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AD, it was clear pretty quickly that the "newcomer" wasn't. And please stop perpetuating the wiki lawyering. It's a waste of everyone's time, either you have a case you can take against Joy and or myself or you don't. I'm happy to defend my edits in front of the wider community, so either put your money where your mouth is or drop it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw AD wrote an article on Ekmecic and then tried to add his views in various articles. These "source legitimization" attempts are quite disruptive, not to mention that the more he uses him as a source, the more fringe and utterly unreliable Ekmecic becomes.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source?
I'm not sure that http://www.kosovo.net/nmalk6.html will satisfy WP:RS. If a reasonable view cannot be developed here, we can go to WP:RSN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * JFTR, I do not believe it is a RS. If this review was published in a reputable journal, or even a blog by the professor, then of course that would be a different matter. But on the basis of the current publisher, not reliable in my view. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its been published by the Institut of History of the Serbian Academy.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop doing that, it's dismissive and insulting to other editors. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain yourself?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your use of "resolved" tags, obviously. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. There is nothing dismissive and insulting to other editors in it. On the contrary, it is very useful. I remember you also used it before. My edits were only constructive. I don't expect your gratitude because I dealt with all major issues of the newie's edits or because I helped resolving your concerns about the publisher of one work, but my edits certainly don't deserve such unnecessary harsh tone.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The publisher, on its own, does not indicate the source is reliable. The several mirrors providing apparently full text versions, often on junky looking websites, are most likely copyright violations. Media or scholarly coverage of the criticism is required to indicate the topic merits any WP:WEIGHT at all in the article. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case the publisher is not the only indication of the reliability of the presented sources. The authors of the work (professional historians, some of them members of the Academy) and their work also indicate that source used in Criticism section is reliable.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In every case, as you well know, the piece of work, the creator of the work and the publisher of the work can all affect reliability. I think the query here is what is the piece of work? Is it a book, a journal article? So far, as clearly pointed out above, we are seeing mirror websites which are probably copyvios. Then there is the issue of whether this review by members of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences has been the subject of any media or scholarly coverage. As an example, the extended debate between Djilas and Malcolm in various journals, but notably Foreign Affairs in 1998/99 would be sufficient to accord it some weight in the article. Of course, if there was media or scholarly debate of the work published by the SAAS then that would probably qualify it to be accorded some weight as well. However, if it went unnoticed then I agree with JFHJr. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * what is the piece of work? Here is it:
 * It contains all three elements of reliability. The author, the creator and even link to his work at one internet library. I also agree with JFHJr. That is why work itself and its author are not the main sources of cited assertions because it is a study of the reviews of Malcolm's book (see further explanation in the section below).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism by the Milosevic regime is hardly evidence of actual academic criticism.--20:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism by the Milosevic regime is hardly evidence of actual academic criticism.--20:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section
I've removed the criticism section, as I don't believe any of the sources are reliable enough to base WP:BLP content in the first place, let alone support the WP:WEIGHT of any critical passages. University discussion fora and self-publications like the Ratsko Project are neither reliable for adverse content nor strikingly neutral, especially in biographies of living persons. Citing to Worldcat indicates a "response" publication exists, but that isn't particularly good for indicating its importance and relevance here, in the subject's biography. Of course, criticism and critical reception are not out of bounds. Squarely reliable mainstream media and scholarly publications are required to support such content, however. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All good points, and thanks for your intervention here. I have located several reviews across a range from journals such as The American Historical Review, Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans Online, Americal Historical Review and Foreign Affairs, including Malcolm's responses to criticism which should probably be used to provide balance to any criticism. If you think they are acceptable, I will start adding some balanced and neutrally worded "critical review" material. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice. I noticed a string of edits, so I'll check back in a day or two once things are stable. One final emphasis: Has the criticism itself been reliably covered, reported, mentioned, studied etc. by a third party? If so, such third parties would indicate due WP:WEIGHT. Critical receptions containing friendly, balanced, or neutral prose, even by well-known parties, are alone insufficient to show the significance of the criticism. Criticism doesn't support a discussion of the criticism but it does support a discussion of the subject and his works. It's important to remember what's being covered in the sources cited. Only noteworthy opinions on a person's work should appear in his biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @JFHJr: I agree with almost everything you wrote but I think that you should have investigated the issue more thoroughly before you deleted the whole section with properly cited text from the article:
 * Rastko Project is an internet library, not publisher so WP:BLPSPS does not apply here.
 * The source presented in deleted section is exactly what you insisted upon. It does not contain opinion of authors of the "response publication" but Bjelajac's (and not only his) study of criticism of Malcolm's work by many different scholars, i.e.:
 * British historian Stevan K. Pavlowitch
 * Thomas Emerat
 * Tim Judah (certainly not pro-Serb)
 * Misha Glenny also criticizes Malcolm for the evident absence of Serb archival sources in his book
 * Christian A. Nielsen
 * Aleksa Djilas in Foreign Affairs,
 * George Kenney in The Nation ("Malcolm claims to be objective. I say he is not.")
 * Malcolm's work was reviewed by above mentioned scholars. The assertions at criticism section were mainly based on the review of above mentioned reviews. Insisting to provide additional weight by presenting review of the review of the reviews would be absurd. Don't you agree?
 * Taking in consideration that criticism of Malcolm's work is not presented as scientific consensus but carefully attributed there is no reason to remove the criticism section (the only properly cited section in the article). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation is diabolically convoluted and semi-rhetorical. You make a statement that clearly runs across what I have just said then ask me "Don't you agree?". Obviously I do not. It appears that JFHJr does not. Your tone is annoying and condescending. Stop it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with the tone of my comment. I wish I could say the same for your comments. Almost all your comments to me are unnecessarily harsh. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One just cannot believe the amount of ethnic chauvinism presented by the moderator under the name Peacemaker67, the criticism section should be reestablished, since the criticism is legitimate and supported by clear reference, as well as unbiased since it presents a variety of experts rather than one ethnic group whose views it may not share. Ethnic and political bias, as presented by the moderators Joy(Shallot) and Peacemaker67, propagating the view presented only by the western media coverage is not healthy. Wikipedia is turning from a knowledge database into a western political propaganda machinery in the style of RFE/RL, under the manipulation of moderators driven by racial, ethnic, political chauvinism, like Joy(Shallot) and Peacemaker67 are examples of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.78.170 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Parts of your comment can be perceived as personal attack. There is a policy which prohibit comments about contributors. Please respect it and comment on content, not on contributor. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Parts of it? :) If the anonymous had (baselessly) accused you to be "driven by racial, ethnic, political chauvinism", would you "perceive" that to be an attack? :) This is about the limit of WP:NOTAFORUM violations I'm going to tolerate here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

One cannot comment on content, since the content is censored by a biased moderator, who is however not allowed to be criticised. It is not a personal attack, but a statement on chauvinism by clearly biased moderators, which one experiences. The statements such as "do not post Serb sources" and "we only accept foreign western sources which do not criticise the works of Noel Malcolm" are a farce. Chauvinist contributors and moderators will be criticised, even if Wikipedia prohibits it, it is the matter of Wikipedia will the rule be neglected or not. Chauvinism of those moderators like experienced, will however always be criticised and commented. Wikipedia should not become a political platform for propaganda and alternative history, written from an absolute biased perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.78.170 (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

More so, to add: ''Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.'' [|Wikipedia Rule]

The moderator/editor Joy(Shallot) and Peacemaker67 have an obvious relevant conflict of interest, while also discrediting sources based on clear ad hominems, like "he is a Serbian academician/politician, by that his source is not allowed to be referenced in an article about Serbian History." While in the same time, propagating unreferenced articles, and censoring criticism of the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.78.170 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop with comments about other editors and read WP:AGF. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, over such a comment: ''Try finding a scholarly review by someone other than a Serb. This is WP:BLP, you'll get yourself in deep trouble real quick with this rot. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)''

This is a clear ad hominem based on a mainstream ethnic bias, in contradiction with rules stated in No personal attacks. I quote: ''Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.''

Also it is not a personal attack, but "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand."

Assuming good faith, over clear and constant violation of Wikipedia policy, which they ought to respect as Wikipedia editors, is a bit 'over the top' don't you think? The editors in question show clear instrumentalisation of Wikipedia for their personal benefit, in this case propagation of political agenda, which is also a WP:NOTAFORUM violation. This has to be stated and thoroughly dealt with.

Yours sincerely, a Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.78.170 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now restored the section with a description of the debate in Foreign Affairs and other reviews regarding Kosovo: A Short History. I welcome addition of properly sourced and balanced material regarding Malcolm. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The section you added is another COATRACK of yours. It deals mainly with criticism of scholars who criticized Malcolm not with real criticism of Malcolm's work. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Another" coatrack eh? What other "coatracks" would they be? And "apparently" I am the one who is "always harsh" when I respond to you? You are the king of double standards. Pull your head in. It is properly sourced, completely unlike the "attack article" this article was becoming. Feel free to add your own sourced material, just make sure it is reliable sourced and you don't deleted properly sourced material. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not you. Your comments are always unnecessarily harsh to me. I pointed to the fact that most of the section you added presents the criticism of scholars who criticized Malcolm's work. Not positive and critic reviews of Malcolm's works.
 * Your comment is another personal attack. This is not the first time you call me names, although I already asked you not to repeat it. I am afraid that you will continue with personal attacks until someone stops you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd suggested you'd struggle to avoid the boomerang given your comments to me, so you'd better get someone to do it for you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

List of publications
The list of publications is a formidable glut, comprising most of the article. Biographies aren't supposed to be WP:RESUMEs. The significance of the publications is not supported by any third party source. This is where critical reviews might come in handy. I won't remove anything immediately, as I'm unsure at first glance what should stay or go, but the section should clearly be trimmed. Thoughts anyone? JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but perhaps a new article, something akin to Christopher Hitchens bibliography and Milton Friedman bibliography, would be better. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 07:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly his "Bosnia. A Short History.", and "Kosovo. A Short History." should stay. They have received a lot of critical comment, and the various argybargy between Djilas and others and Malcolm is notable in and of itself. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)