Talk:Homi Bhabha

message: I agree with the clean up tag. This article appeared to lean heavily on the Harvard profile. 
:My reason for adding the tag was more to do with the fact that article is poorly laid out and formatted, to be honest. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to learn more about formatting. Please advise? (But I also think the critical theory section needs substantive work.)Joaquin Murietta 23:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you, do you have the citation?Joaquin Murietta 07:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Could one of the CT experts please take another whack at this section? Thanks. Joaquin Murietta 18:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical theory section needs work

message: Is there any objection to adding the following section, even though the books are discussed in the Critical theory section? 
Just one minor objection: El Lugar de La Cultura is just the Spanish translation The Location of Culture is the original, so it seems more accurate to use it instead.
--JECompton 06:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you, do you have the citation?Joaquin Murietta 07:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Publications list?

message: I think the Indian physicist Homi J. Bhabha is more famous to readers (He was a pioneer of the Indian nuclear program). Homi Bhabha in my opinion should redirect to the physicist's homepage (or atleast there should be a disambiguation page)
--Rev.bayes 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually both are equally quite famous in their own fields --hydkat 12:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rev.bayes here. I think Homi Bhabha (scientist) is more famous. - Aksi_great (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Homi Bhabha, physicist

message: Why is there so much space devoted to criticizing Bhabha's writing style? And why does some obscure "award" that serves only to insult Bhabha deserve mention on his sparsely written page? Hay4 15:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not come to know of Bhabha because of his writing style and a google search of "Homi Bhabha" reveals no pages that talk about his "bad" writing style. Can you provide any evidence that Bhabha is famous becuase of his "bad writing"? Pointing to links that turn up when you specifically google his name and "bad writing" is pretty weak. If Bhabha is famous BECAUSE of his poor writing skills, there should be a number of reputable sources stating so. Because this is not the case, you will not find those sources. It's utterly silly to devote so much space to smearing Bhabha. Sorry. Hay4 04:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you really think a professor of English and Literature at Harvard is a flat-out incoherent writer? Do you really think that referencing two ultra-right wing periodicals and a journal no one has ever heard of (with a non-functioning link) constitutes good research? Maybe these rightists are smearing Bhabha because he's a leftist and a foreigner. Maybe Denis Dutton, who gave out the silly bad writing awards from 1995 to 1998, is simply jealous of academics that have achieved greater prominence than he. He is a graduate of UC Santa Barbara, so there are plenty of people that have outlcassed him. Holy crap, I solved the riddle! Your "contribution" is an obvious smear. Congrats. Hay4 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would politely request that Mr. Bhabha's "Prose Style" section be restored. I find it rather disappointing that political ideology has now become acceptable grounds for rejecting legitimate criticism of an author's writing style. After only a half-hour of searching, I was able to find two sources that revolve around the lack of clarity (or decipherable meaning) that characterizes some of Mr. Bhabha's work. One source is the New York Times (hardly a bastion of "rightists") and the other comes from the online journal Context and was written by Mark Crispin Miller, a well known critic of the Bush administration. However, I believe that Mr. Bhabha's writing speaks for itself: the sample which "won" him the award for poor writing is so unnecessarily unclear that it does make criticism of his "prose style" a relevant fact to mention in an open encyclopedia (especially since the USA's third-most widely circulated paper chose to write an article mentioning it). Here are the links for the two sources respectively: NYT Article & Context Article Lmangator8 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add to the section on criticisms using legitimate sources, that's fine. Rick James Style used a racist's poorly written blog entry; an article from a little-known rightist newspaper (and the article was not only talking about Bhabha); and a completely meaningless "award" from 1998. These are not acceptable sources. BTW, it seems to me that after half an hour of searching, it is possible to find criticisms of just about anybody in academia. And I question the ethics of taking one sentence from somebody's work out of context and holdig it up as proof that the writer is incoherent. Hay4 09:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Two points: (1) I'm not sure why you take Sailer seriously on any topic. (2) Even if Sailer has areas of competency, there is nothing in his record to indicate that he is a competent reader of Bhabha's. There are a large number of contributors to various publications that have a stature similar to or greater than the National Review. It cannot be that all these people are specially qualified to opine on any topic. Hay4 17:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The statement gives a reason that a lot of people have spent a lot of time denouncing Bhabha. Most allegedely incoherent writers with nothing to say rarely affect people so much. That being said, I'm not partiuclarly attached to that part of the article so I'll delete it. Hay4 17:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Anything that talks about Sailer's views on Bhabha are not acceptable. Additionally, I don't think the "Bad Writing Competition" is a reputable institution. Were it reputable, it would not have been shut down so soon.Hay4 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: RJS, I think your "contributions" to this page are disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself. 141.161.127.75 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contribution. Rick James Style 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Prose Style"

message: Rick: Your recent contributions concerning the NYU and Stanford profs are genuine contributions to the article. Congrats on finally grtting your act together. Maybe you'll eventually find someone that can comment on the content of Bhabha's message. Hay4 17:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: I took out Black Skin White Masks because totally misleading. Frantz Fanon wrote the thing, not Bhabha (so there's nothing about 'with' Fanon died in 1961 which makes a collaboration between the two impossible). I am not aware that Bhabha edited a version of Black Skin, but he certainly wrote the foreword to The Wretched of the Earth therefore I put that in, not stating that Sartre wrote the preface, If someone wants that in as well, go ahead. 
What is also misleading is that the books are not listed by original year of publication.
And the 'articles in books and journals' section is a mess. I'll clean it up a.s.a.p. Sbaina 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating