Talk:David Fromkin
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
ethnic background
editcan someone please tell me his ethnic background (or is fromkin purely anglo-celtic)?
dog trivia
editJerseyDevil and JoanneB removed the section on the dog named after Prof. Fromkin; an anonymous user reverted it, calling it "useful trivia." I agree fully with JerseyDevil and JoanneB---it's not useful trivia and it's not worthy of an encyclopedia. The anonymous user defended the revert as "Well known to colleagues and friends of the Professor, useful additional information"---whether it's well known to friends is irrelevant to an encyclopedia, and the idea that this is "useful" is, IMO, simply wrong. I have removed it, and note that there are at least three users against retention and only one in favor, but ask for further comments here. Theleek 19:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not only did the anonymous user revert my change, without bothering to engage in this discussion, s/he deleted this discussion altogether. The unwillingness to engage in debate---in fact, the attempt to hide the debate---indicates pretty strongly, to me at least, that the anonymous user recognizes that his/her position is indefensible. I am reverting the article. Since the anonymous user appears unwilling to discuss it here, I am asking that user to agree to mediation or other dispute resolution before s/he reverts it again. Theleek 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. Peter O. (Talk) 02:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus---me, Peter O., JerseyDevil, and JoanneB, vs. no one willing to name him/herself---but the anonymous user(s?) continues to revert the item, without doing us the courtesy of discussing it first. If someone in support of the dog item wishes to step out from behind the anonymous IP address and actually identify him/herself, I repeat that I would be willing to mediate. In the meantime, I refer our anonymous friends to the "first step" of resolving a dispute at WP:DR: "talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it." Theleek 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit agrees with the consensus; the anonymous user continues to revert without discussion or justification. Theleek 16:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Dog trivia section is unsourced, unencyclopedic and quite likely just nonsense. If the anonymous user keeps reverting the entirely justifiable removal of this section, he/she may be in violation of WP:3RR - a transgression which may lead to a block. Bwithh 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, why has this article been protected to "resolve the dispute"? There's no reasonable dispute here, just someone causing an annoyance without being constructive e.g. efforts in providing sourcing or reasons why this trivia section should be included. Bwithh 00:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dog trivia section is unsourced, unencyclopedic and quite likely just nonsense. If the anonymous user keeps reverting the entirely justifiable removal of this section, he/she may be in violation of WP:3RR - a transgression which may lead to a block. Bwithh 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to be actually protected---I just edited it. So: more vandalism? Looks like our vandal just added {protect} to make the "protection" box appear. I don't have much experience with protection, since, in my experience, most wikipedia users show enough courtesy to discuss and justify their changes---so I can't say for sure. Needless to say, I agree with Bwithh that the proposed trivia change is totally unreasonable. Theleek 23:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
An assessment and a strangely unmentionable book
edit- The bio currently cites two references. Why are we rejecting a gold standard assessment of Fromkin's work by Noam Chomsky?[1]
- Why are we unwilling to mention that Fromkin wrote a book called Kosovo Crossing: The Reality of American Intervention in the Balkans?[2] Burrobert (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- ¯\_(⊙︿⊙)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Chomsky, Noam (2016). A new generation draws the line : humanitarian intervention and the "responsibility to protect" today (Expanded ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315633237. Retrieved 22 April 2022.
In a widely-praised book on the war, historian David Fromkin asserts without argument that the U.S. and its allies acted out of "altruism" and "moral fervor" alone, forging "a new kind of approach to the use of power in world politics" as they "reacted to the deportation of more than a million Kosovars from their homeland" by bombing so as to save them "from horrors of suffering, or from death".
- ^ Fromkin, David (2002). Kosovo crossing : the reality of American intervention in the Balkans. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780684869537. Retrieved 22 April 2022.