Talk:Anne Applebaum

Middle East

This topic has appeared numerous times over the years, but I would liek to state it conclusively, that whatever Applebaum may have written once about the Iraq war, it is not sufficient to list on this page. It goes against the guidelines, and so I am removing it. Sniper247 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE please dont keep trying to add sections for Iraq, Israel or the Middle east. She has never written significantly about the region. Sniper247 (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just noting my agreement. I've been reading Applebaum for 20+ years, and the Middle East / Israel / Iraq is just not a significant focus. Unless there is a shift in her writing in coming years, a section on this would be UNDUE. CAVincent (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Applebaum published several noteworthy articles before and after the Iraq war declaring her position on the issue. I completely disagree with not including this in her ‘Positions’ section, and I suggest reverting my edit. Catofminerva (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know I came here after hearing about Applebaum's opinions on Palestinian journalism. Perhaps it's significant enough to be addressed, as Applebaum has addressed it twice recently: once in a media interview, where she seems to not recall it, and again in a follow up note. Frybread (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

In which she responds to a gotcha question about something she wrote more than two decades ago that she did not write the headline and "obviously I don't think media outlets should be killed or journalists are combatants." I don't see that Wikipedia should collaborate on efforts to inflate this decades-old by treating it as similar in importance to the work she spent months, years, and yes decades doing. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What's a "gotcha question"? She stood by her original writing in the followup, which I think is notable enough to include when we re-add the Middle East section. Frybread (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Applebaum continues to write about the middle east. Here's her latest article on Syria. A synopsis of her work on the region would fit well in the "Positions" section. Frybread (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The collapse of Syrian government after Assad's "Russian backers began to transfer men and equipment to Ukraine, starting in 2022" is closely related to AA's interest in Russia/Ukraine, not a generic excuse to drag in decades-old comments on a different topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. That article is less "on Syria" than on the implications of Assad's fall for Russia and other authoritarian regimes. It's not really even a plausible stretch to call it evidence of a focus on the middle east. CAVincent (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Good point, it should be mentioned in both Middle East and Russia sections. Frybread (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

If AA begins to write extensively about the Middle East, then eventually a Middle East section will belong in the article, which currently devotes 4 paragraphs to her views of the Soviet Union/Russia, a major focus of her writing since at least 1989 -- less than one paragraph per decade. Per WP:BALASP: "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." HouseOfChange (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We have one editor who has been guarding this page for years and reverting every edit that mentions Iraq, which has the convenient effect of removing much of the criticism of Applebaum from the article (that she got it wrong). Just a cursory search shows Applebaum has published more than a dozen pieces about the Iraq War in multiple outlets, which makes her commentary on the subject beyond a one-off remark. A brief paragraph or two about her stance would not outweigh the rest of the article, and it would reflect a recurring theme in her public commentary over time. She explicitly stated her position on the issue before and after the war. Catofminerva (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea who you mean by "one editor ... guarding this page for years", but I would ask you to Assume Good Faith. CAVincent (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Catofminerva I just read another article on the middle east on her website from 2021, after hearing about it on a podcast. I agree it's fine to include a paragraph about a topic she's spent decades on. Frybread (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

NOTE: It is a serious problem that Applebaum's views on Israel and Palestine are clearly being purposely kept removed from this article, when they are a key aspect of Applebaum's views and commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.114.217 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree and while largely agree with her on domestic US politics and Ukraine policy, see Why do America’s liberal hawks attack Russia while giving Israel a free pass?. Peter Beinart, The Guardian, 29 January 2024. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Historian?

Does applebaum meet the requirements to be called a “historian” in the academic meaning of the word. The Wikipedia article on “historian” defines it as such: “a person studies and writes about the past and is regarded as an authority on it.”

Key word being “authority”. Does Applebaum meet the requirements for this? Her book ‘red famine’ is largely critiqued by many historians who actually specialise in the Holodomor, Mark B Tauger and Stephen G Wheatcroft for instance. These scholars are considered authorities on the matter (especially Wheatcroft) thus this contradicts the notion of Applebaum as an authority(on Soviet agriculture). Applebaum has also never taught at a university nor college as a lecturer, nor have they been a fellow at any such institution for history. It does say she is a “senior fellow” for “the school of advanced International studies” which does not necessarily indicate that she is a historian as “The school is devoted to the study of international relations, diplomacy, national security, economics, and public policy.” 80.44.139.82 (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia repeats what reliable sources say, and reliable sources call a Applebaum a historian. Britannica for example calls her a historian. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think she meets the requirement to be called a historian in the academic sense (no PhD), but we're not strictly chained to using words exactly like they are in academia, and she does meet the broader definition you cited. That said, if you can think of a better phrasing that would make it clear she studies and writes about history but isn't an academic, I'd love to hear it! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)