Talk:Noel Malcolm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

[Untitled]

It took me under a minute to find Malcolm’s undisguised hatred toward Orthodox Christians and the Serbs not willing to accept the establishment of a new world order, points to the ideological and racist motives of the author of the book. among the comments in the newly added link... the overtone of the glorious myth about the always demonized Serbian people is rather obvious. I doubt that many people will take this kind of stuff seriously. --Joy [shallot] 14:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's a pity then that you haven't took a full minute and found sentence which precedes that one, "Malcolm’s claims that the struggle of the Balkan peoples to liberate themselves from the Turks was not justified (p. XXXV)"; if that isn't racism I don't know what is.

I read that, but there isn't a quote to back up this assessment. I can't judge on its veracity until I read the text in question, and the critic isn't helping his cause by failing to provide an exact reference... --Joy [shallot] 13:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And while at it you might also have found "Noel Malcolm’s book Kosovo. A Short History is not a scientific work, yet the general public, and even some professional circles, have accepted it as an objective presentation of the past, notably the past of Kosovo" or "This is classic war propaganda literature".

It is surely easier to believe that Malcolm has ideological and racist motives than that he is a brilliant self-made historian who succeeded where all other failed. Nikola 07:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Nikola 09:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC): I removed this from the article because it's mostly a rant, ambiguous, and most readers won't understand it anyway:

The suspicion that a trained historian might have been tempted not to believe everything Serbs have to say about Kosovo is a well-founded one, and perhaps the 181 works by Serb or Montenegrin authors Malcolm lists as his sources in his endnotes and bibliography are not enough.

On the other hand, someone who has read the latter, as well as his responses to such criticism, could be forgiven for suspecting in his turn that, to the extent that they have read Malcolm beyond page 19, most of those critics resent that, after reading every Serb source at his disposal, he has also read hundreds of others, in nineteen different languages, something which, even with the best of intentions, none of them was willing or able to do.

It is thus true that, until the Serb Communist party hijacked Serb nationalism to keep itself in power in 1987, Serb historiography had a kind of grip on Western understanding of Yugoslav history, and that Noel Malcolm has done his part to widen the perspective; yet one may wonder whether Milosevic's deeds would not have been enough to bring about that result.

I agree entirely with removing this; it's pure POV commentary and doesn't belong in the article. Well spotted, Nikola. -- ChrisO 21:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks. It wasn't hard to spot, though I was of course reluctant to remove it... Nikola 21:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to confess I didn't even notice it. That's the problem with having 900+ items on my watchlist... :-/ -- ChrisO 22:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

---

His comprehensive confrontation of cherished Balkan beliefs with original sources has gained him the hostility of those who had the most myths to expose (see for instance Response to Noel Malcolm's Book "Kosovo: A Short History"). As a consequence, many have accused Malcolm of disregarding Serbian authors in his research. -- --What does that mean? Is the writer trying to say that Serbian historians are full of bunk? If so, it's both a convoluted and somewhat POV way of going about it.Katsam

Eh...

This article lacks the mention of how controversal this figure is. Does anyone now his absolutely silly and biased research on dinosaurs? They even made a mockery of him in the movie Jurassic Park because of his lame hypothetical research. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of his research on dinosaurs? It does seem unlikely since he seems to write mostly on Balkan issues.--Johnbull 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous claims

If people are going to write bullshit nonsense then they need to substantiate it. It is clear that Serbian Historians do not agree with his interpretation of history, and those Serbian concerns have been mentioned in the article. Making accusations such as "written in a hurry", and "disregarding authors that disagree with him" have no place in an Encyclopedia. Firstly because no independent and neutral source was provided to substantiate these claims, and secondly if anybody ever bothered to read the book, they could've seen that most theories (pro-Serb too) were mentioned , examined and responded to in the book.Tonycdp 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with those facts; the article seemed to be a bit POV speaking rather bad about Noel - but one must be also warned what kind of a reader he is. For instance, I would never recommend his books; after partly reading Aspects of Hobbes and his chlidlish articles on dinosaurs, I noticed the high controversy over him. The reader of this article must also realize that Noel's a highly criticized and controversal reporter - and not a historian at all. We down at the US Archaelogical Institute have had for long time an ol' saying of "Noel Malcom" being the synonyme for everything bad or poorly made - I remember a friend of mine, while we were even disputing Darwin's Theory, called him NM. :)

Also, since I have a natural love for dinosaurs; I watch most movies with them. See Jurassiv Park, for instance; where on one occasion while the kid is trapped on the island comments the ridicule of Noel Malcom's research on dinosaurs.

Also please stop adding "facts needed", when you just need to have a look at the sources presented (I looked through them, unlike you). --PaxEquilibrium 13:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This User is a comedian. I really don't know what to say. Do you know how many "Noel Malcolms" are out there. Show some proof you are talking about the same person here.Tonycdp 09:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I consider this a personal attack. How many Noel Malcoms are there, that are British journalists who like to occasionally make researches on all kinds of things; such as Bosnia, Kosovo, dinosaurs, Romanian actors and other tiny things that pass-by the globe unnoticed? --PaxEquilibrium 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone provide any links to criticism of 'Aspects of Hobbes'? I have read it (amongst others, natch) for a history course at Oxford and have yet to find any substantively negative reviews. If this book is part of the "high controversy over him" I fail to see any evidence, at least in this case. Furthermore regarding the claim that he is just a political columnist I would say that his numerous books and articles, recognition by Oxford and Cambridge, and his position at All Souls College gives him as strong a claim as many. Furthermore being a historian and a political columnist are not mutually exclusive, for example Anne-Maria Misra writes on Indian economic and social history and also for the New Statesman, The Guardian, The Times; Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie has written for the Le Nouvel Observateur, the L’Express, and Le Monde etc. Where's the beef? (Birdoman (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Tonycdp

What's wrong with this guy. All the time he edits this page to look like he wants it, ignoring the talk page and ignoring the opinions of others. When he insert ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  into the article he thinks it's fine and NPOV. When others do it, he accuses us of vandalism even if the statements are just as vague. This guy is using Wikipedia for a political agenda, as can be seen from his whole history of edits both on this page and on other pages. JdeJ 10:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing your political agenda here. There's no NEUTRAL source to substantiate those irresponsible claims towards a Historian. He is recognised as such by the whole world other than the Serbs who still live in their own little world, and Evangelist extremists like yourself who completely ignore neutral facts to support their christian "brothers" at any cost. Oh please.Tonycdp 10:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And please stop giving me lessons on the History of my edits. Anyone with half the intelligence can see your POVs.Tonycdp 10:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't edited anything about Kosovo or Serbia except for this page, and I edit it because I disagree with the standard of Malcolm's research. So it would be interesting to know how my interest in issues such as French Canada, Acadia, Celtin things and Norwegian history makes my a POV commentator on Malcolm. You, on the other hand, only edit things connected to Kosovo, so I don't think you have a case for your POV-accusations.

Neither had I any idea that I was an Evangelist extremist. I must be the only one who is for a separation of church and state and who has never once edited an Evangelical page on Wikipedia. In other words, your accusation are just slander and a personal attack. I will not sink to the same level, but I will report your behaviour. JdeJ 10:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You've just said it yourself. YOU disagree with his research. And just because you disagree does not give you the right to stick {{Fact}} tags on the obvious (substantiated) facts, it is irresponsible. And this exposes your bias.Tonycdp 10:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with parts of his research. As does almost every academic in the particular field (the origins of Thracians and Illyrians). To point out obvious errors is not bias, bias is if I do it for some other reason. I think that most things in his books are correct and I don't take sides in the Kosovo conflict, but those things are wrong and it does have a negative impact on his credibility. But I agree with you, {{Fact}} tags should not be put after substantiated facts and I'm perfectly happy with the references you have provided regarding Hobbes and his language knowledge. Needless to say, I'm not going to insert the {{Fact}} tags again. It still does not mean that his bold personal theories on Illryians and Thracians are accepted by the academic community. JdeJ 10:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the origins of Thracians and Illyrians. But I know that History is not exact, it is not a science. People will agree and disagree and will have their own versions. If there are reliable sources on the internet that prove the disagreemens in the same way that there are sources that prove the support for him, why don't we include those, instead of making this article a complete joke. Tonycdp 11:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That is all very well. I'm the opposite, I know about Thracians and Illyrians but don't know more than the average person on the other chapters in the book. About the present conflict (and everything that has happened in Kosovo for the past 800 years) I don't take sides (having both Serbian and Albanian friends but not being from that part of the world myself) and I don't have enough knowledge to claim one thing or another. I'll post some references for the Thracian/Illyrian question later on. Regarding other aspects of Malcolm and his books, I leave it to others to work out. JdeJ 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

References

[1] here's a reference that supports the first paragraph of this article. I'm reverting vandalism, user involved warned on talk page.Tonycdp 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Matters

I know that Noel has become increasingly popular among Bosniacs and Albanians because of his Illyric-origin theories; but I have to draw a thing - please, (to users writing this article), do not bind yourselves to Noel, relying on him - whereas he is an ordinary journalist, people might think that the Bosniak and Albanian historic theories are amateurish irridentism. I have to express sadness, because Noel Malcolm is the meaning of History in Bosnia today, and as far as it goes he will be in Kosovo (some day), as his research is already attractive to Albania. Please, do not misunderstand me, but this mind end up like to whole canvas of irridentistic research. A thing that is never mentioned, for instance, is that great Serbian historian, Aleksandar D. came up with the Albanian Illyrian origin theory, and he has done plenty of researches on Kosovar Albanians and their culture & history (very different to most Albanians). For instance - I am a nobody - but even I, when I read something, can recognize nonsense. a good sample are most Serbian researches on Dubrovnik (e. g. Jeremija Mitrovic's "Serbdom of Dubrovnik"), Croat historical arguements on Red Croatia, claiming all of Montenegro and much of Albania as ethnicly originally Croat - Noel Malcolm's research is a part (although a lot more objective) vague researches done by unqualified people, inspired by romance. --PaxEquilibrium 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist POV

It's a shame that some Bosniaks and Albanians have taken the extreme stand that because Malcolm's book is sympathetic to their cause, all criticism of him should be discouraged. I, for one, find his book on Bosnia to be very good and it's the book I would recommend to anyone interested in reading about Bosnia. His book about Kosovo is a good deal less interesting and well researched, but I still find many merits in it. That does not alter the fact that Malcolm's highly speculative theory about the origin of Albanians is presented as a fact to readers of his Kosovo book even though it has no foundation whatsoever and would be deleted from Wikipedia for being original research. I'm not saying that the theory is wrong, it might be wrong or it might be right. The problem is that Malcolm is pushing his own home made theory in an area where he doesn't know more than the man on the street. And the problem here is that all criticism of Malcolm is deleted over and over again by a handful of users from two countries who hardly represent a NPOV view on Malcolm and his research. JdeJ 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. I am not going to deny that I'm sympathetic to Malcolm; I believe he offers a fairly accurate portrayal of Balkan history that is free from nationalist preconceptions. That said, there is nothing POV-pushing about what I'm doing here - your edits are simply wrong. Your text basically tries to "accuse" Malcolm of presenting his own theory, grounded on previous research by others, as a plausible answer in regards to the origins of the Albanians. Question: isn't this precisely what Historians in general are supposed to do? Malcolm would never "have his readers believe there is [a] consensus among experts on this issue"; in fact, he spends the bulk of the chapter exploring and discussing older and alternative theories before arriving at his own conclusion. Any astute reader can well determine that there is no consensus on the issue. Apparently, according to you, Malcolm's "crime" is that he favors his own interpretation of events over others. Unbelievable. In response to your other comments: 1.) Malcolm's text would never be posted on Wikipedia because it is one author's historical analysis whereas this is an encyclopedia, 2.) Malcolm studied history and researched this specific topic extensively; he most certainly knows a lot more than "the man on the street", and 3.) I ask you once again to provide some significant examples of scholarly criticism to Malcolm's works OUTSIDE of Serbia. Live Forever 18:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Being sympathetic to Malcolm is not a problem, but when his texts are treated as canons that cannot be criticised we enter into problems, and that is sometimes the approach taken here. To begin with, I'm not sure with what competence you state that my edits are wrong. That you don't agree with them does not be definition make them wrong, that is part of the canonisation going on here. You asked a question about if Malcolm's action isn't what historians are supposed to do? Answer: Definitely not in that way. To take an area that you don't know more about than the man in the street (Malcolm has no academic education in the comparative philology) and present your own guesses with very few references is definitely not what a historian or any other academic is supposed to do. So Malcolm's "crime", as you term it, is doing sloppy research before taking on a subject that he simply does not know. If he indeed did research on this specific topic, it's too bad that it doesn't show in his conclusions. That is also the reason you won't find much scholarly criticism of Malcolm. A guy decided to write a book about a topic in which he is a layman and came up with very speculative ideas. Just as you won't find many geographers writing scholarly criticism against the thought that the world is flat, you should not expect any historian to spend time on penning scholarly criticism of a work that is far from scholarly. JdeJ 10:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I never said your edits are POV.

2. Why are my edits bad (which?)?

You totally misinterpreted my reply. Please calm down (stay cool!) and read it again. --PaxEquilibrium 13:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? I was responding to JdeJ. Live Forever 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

---

One of my clear drawn arguments was that Noel is a political columnist - neither a writer (well, maybe) nor a historian. In the way of the many books that Vojislav Seselj and Franjo Tudjman wrote... My memory still holds fresh his "research" on dinosaurs... lol. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Try reading around the critics of the works he did on Hobbes, that's probably the most fascinating thing he wrote (although, not to be POV, it itself is POV ;). --PaxEquilibrium 13:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to my comments above on Malcolm's Hobbes work. While I can no longer access JSTOR for the harder-to-find academic reviews, a quick google gave me these:

For the 'Correspondence':

"Another reason for reading these volumes is to delight in Noel Malcolm's scholarship. He provides artful transcriptions and sound translations" London Review of Books.

"Superb....The state of our knowledge has suddenly been transformed....We must be grateful not merely for the letters that remain but for the truly spectacular job that Dr. Malcolm has done in making them available. The concept of definitive scholarship has been made to seem almost paradoxical in these post-modern days. But research of the quality displayed in these volumes reminds us that the ideal is by no means wholly out of reach."--Quentin Skinner, New York Review of Books

"In these two thick volumes, we witness yet another aspect of Malcolm's prodigious gifts....We are presented with a comprehensive and meticulous example of scholarship."--The Times

"One can feel nothing but gratitude for Malcolm's labours and admiration at their outcome. Hobbe's philosophy will, for the first time, have a real editor, and also one day, we can now hope, a real author."--Times Literary Supplement

"The fluency and elegance of this translation is a fair sampling of Noel Malcolm's skill. He has rounded off his Herculean labours with a biographical register that will be of value to all students of 17th-century culture and indispensable to anyone interested in Hobbes."--The Independent

For 'Aspects of Hobbes':

"Magnificent ... The book is a monument to scholarship. It shows what can be achieved when a fine historian gets to grips with a great philosopher, and it is worth any number of internalist re-readings of Hobbes's texts." Mark Goldie, Times Literary Supplement

"Aspects of Hobbes is an unassuming title for what is no less than a landmark in Hobbes studies. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in the world of Hobbes." Renaissance Quarterly

"[Noel Malcolm] is a figure of incisive intelligence and great literary tact. Aspects of Hobbes shows his astonishing range to great advantage, casting light from all points of the compass on his single most enduring obsession, the incomparable Thomas Hobbes." Times Higher Education Supplement

"One of the most comprehensive portraits of Hobbes's intellectual development, career and contexts yet written ... Malcolm's essay 'Hobbes's theory of International Relations' should be required reading for all students of IR ... this is a very impressive book by one of the world's leading Hobbes scholars. It is elegantly written and massively erudite throughout, covering a vast and complex range of issues, ideas and personalities. As well as brilliant snapshots of some of the lesser known and even arcane aspects of the life and works of Thomas Hobbes, it provides a necessary corrective to the simplistic and unhistorical way in which he has been appropriated by generations of IR scholars." Duncan S. A. Bell, University of Cambridge

Aspects of Hobbes brings together for the first time Malcolm's published essays on Hobbes with extensive new contributions, many of which substantially alter our understanding of the great philosopher ... Malcolm's formidable intellectual range matches that of his subject. Jon Parkin, The Guardian

Considering the critical importance of these books they should provide anyone with a clear idea of Noel's interpretation of Hobbes. As I view these publications as broadly trustworthy (especially Quentin Skinner's review) I would be very interested and surprised if someone could find any critical views from established authors (or indeed anyone). If anyone does, please provide links. Birdoman (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs

If anyone can provide some evidence of Noel Malcolm's writing on dinosaurs and clearly demonstrate that it is the same Noel Malcolm, it would be greatly appreciated. Daniel.McCarley (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's something missing...

I recall from the 1990s that Malcolm was also President of the Anglo-Albanian Association and yet this is not included under the 'Life' section which in itself is surprisingly anaemic and in scope. This is certainly relevant to this biography on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the AAA website ([2]) is inaccessible though can be seen via the Way Back Machine [3] with Dr. Malcolm's name as President. A web search gives references as recent as 2006 (see below) though I have also been unable to uncover if he is still President now in 2009.

Links:

Historical dictionary of Kosova by by Robert Elsie (published 2004) From Amazon.co.uk, page 116 : [4]

"Malcolm, Noel (1956.12.26-). British scholar and historian... He is currently president of the Anglo-Albanian Association in London"

Albania as dictatorship and democracy By Owen Pearson (published 2006), in the acknowledgements, page ix. [5]

"Within the Anglo-Albanian Association I must remember the wonderful hospitality over many years Denys Salt and Harry Hodgkinson, to both of whom I am enormously grateful. Also Dr. Noel Malcolm, the President of the Association, and Alexander Duma, the Chairman..."

Considering the popularity of his short histories of Bosnia and Kosovo, surely it is even more important to correct these omissions of his political activity on subjects that people believe him to be 'impartial' for simple want of information:

[6]

"...Malcolm lives in London where he also serves as President of the Anglo-Albanian Association; he was recently elected to the steering committee of the Free Kosova Committee of which Professor Adrian Hastings and Bianca Jagger are co-chairman."

AlexFromUK (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Cheers, Alex

Thanks for the info. It was far more useful than the article.--Faveladweller (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Noel Malcolm.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Noel Malcolm.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Noel Malcolm.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)