Talk:Joseph Massad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Footnote about Amazon

As the editor who restored the footnote about Amazon's selective quotation noted, it is indeed telling. However, as far as I can see it's telling about Amazon, rather than about Massad, since I do not believe Amazon allows authors editorial control over their books' pages, aside from occasionally deleting allegedly offensive reviews. Can anyone explain why this footnote is needed in an article about Massad? Kalkin 20:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has commented, so I'm going to remove the footnote.Kalkin 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

the David Project

The David Project's mission statement, from the front page of its website:

The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership promotes a fair and honest understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We work to develop educated, skilled and courageous leaders to counter the ideological assault on Israel found on campuses, high schools, churches and in the general community.

It is clearly self-identified as a pro-Israel advocacy organization, not an academic freedom group. It's not even a matter of dispute, like with Campus Watch, etc. So would anonymous editors please stop describing it as "an organization that advocates balanced classroom lectures regarding the Middle East and opposes anti-Zionist lectures as inappropriate activism"? Thanks. Kalkin 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there an original source for the committee's "reprimand"? From the quotes I could find on the internet, it doesn't seem they accepted that he yelled at her to "get out," but simply stated that his response appeared to have been more heated than was appropriate. Mackan79 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes in the section, in which I attempted to remove some of the sillier bias. Various transcripts of the procedings make clear that not even the student alleged that he told her to get out, nor that he referenced "Israeli atrocities." In current form, the full alleged statement is there, in the second paragraph. Both sides get heard, with Massad's slightly better explained than before. A little more back and forth, rather than piling it all on, followed by a little hobbled "defense." More work should be done, but I think it's an improvement. Mackan79 05:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

It is a clear violation of WP:NPOV to place Massad in this category. It has been alleged by the presidents of several countries that George W. Bush is a terrorist, and by David Icke that he is a Reptilian; whether or not one believe these accusations (I believe the former, not the latter) they do not warrant placing him in Category:Terrorists or Category:Reptilians. The same applies here, since Massad disputes the case. See WP:BLP:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
• The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation.

Kalkin 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think enough caution has been given - he's been accused as anti semite by WP:RS and he actually calls zionists anti-semites so it's relevant category. btw, likening Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to a nazi and israelis to nazis is most certainly an anti-semite comment, and he doesn't deny those comments. Amoruso 00:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He denies likening Israelis or Zionists in general to Nazis and he hasn't been quoted directly as doing so - the source is some guy saying he got that impression from the speech. Likening Sharon to a Nazi is not antisemitic. I don't think that the comparison is great, although Sharon is a war criminal, but it's hardly antisemitic to simply liken any particular Jew to a Nazi. I don't think even comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany are necessarily antisemitic, although I suppose they can be. And an accusation is certainly not enough to put him in the category. Isn't a professor at Columbia a reputable source? So should we categorize Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes as anti-semites, because Massad has accused them? Kalkin 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

well no doubt the article deals with anti-semitism. see what others think before changing it to anti-semites. Amoruso 00:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the broader category, since Massad has been very vocal about anti-Semitism. Kalkin 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If he is an anti-semitic person he blongs in the people category. Holocaust museum's are also in the broader category--it is too broad IMO. Thanks. -- Avi 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but there's dispute about whether he's actually an anti-semitic person, whereas there's no dispute that his views are one way or another relevant to anti-semitism. Even if he had never been accused of anti-semitism he might be placed in that category for his unusual arguments regarding the alleged anti-semitism of Israel supporters. Re 3RR, please see my comment on my talk page. Kalkin 04:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations from serious people - like a U.S. congressman, and a former U.S. prosecutor - are not to be taken lighly, and are a matter of public record. They probably do belong in this article. I have made an attempt at putting them in along with Massad's denials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningside Clio (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I've posted a request for informal mediation just on the issue of the category. Really this ought to be simple, I think the involvement of a neutral will help. Kalkin 02:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've opened the mediation case, and to be honest it's more of a questionable mediation case if it's purely asking for a 3rd opinion - usually a poll should be conducted for that. However, I've opened it, with my opinions subject to other mediators' opinions too. See [1] for more details. Jsw663 10:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is questionable. I should have just posted an RFC. I've done that now. Feel free to close the mediation case if you want. Kalkin 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've closed the mediation case. Jsw663 14:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to rescue your comment from that page, though (it was the only substantive one):

I personally think the main catch here is what exactly is defined as 'anti-semitism'. I know very little about this professor, but if he was truly anti-Semitic he probably wouldn't still be employed by Columbia, which is a reputable university. There is a difference between attacking someone who is pro-Israel, and attacking someone because they are Israeli. I incline towards NOT including this person in the category of anti-Semitic people - that category should be left for true neo-Nazis, Fascists, or extremely right-wing persons, etc. However, this may be a controversial topic so it would be better if other mediators also made their POV in this matter clear. Jsw663 10:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kalkin 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment. I think that placing (esp. living) people into Category:Anti-Semitic people should be done with extreme caution and reserved only to those who self-identify as such or like ("Jew haters"). Not knowing the Massad, I glanced over the article, and while his Anti-Zionist and even anti-Israeli attitude is fairly clear, anti-Semitism is still a far long shot from here. IMO it requires more than an accusation to be placed to that category; Category:Anti-Zionists and even Category:Anti-Semitism IMO suffice. Duja 14:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment: I concur that placing someone in the category of "Anti-Semitic people" should rarely, if ever, be done for people who do not themselves self-identify that way. It might be acceptable to put such a person into a category if there was an overwhelming consensus among the reliable sources that unequivocally state the person IS anti-semitic. But it's a definite case to error on the side caution. --Alecmconroy 20:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

This debate appears to hinge on whether anti-Zionism is itself anti-Semitic (a rather vague term since it can apply to either anti-Arab or anti-Jewish sentiments). This is a deep and problematic question that Wikipedia should not attempt to decide editorially. Per WP:BLP I think Wikipedia should avoid categorizing Professor Massad as anti-Semitic. Durova 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have come for via the RfC page. Slander is dangerous. Placing that accusation in the article is one thing, placing it as a category is another thing. Please don't put it in that category. I agree with Durova.--Connor K. 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

outside comment: I'm here because I saw the RfC. Before I started writing I read what other users have to say. In short, I believe that allegations about being anti-Semitic should be mentioned in the article, as well as argumentation to the opposite by Massad himself or any other person. But, he should not be included in the category, which is something conclusive.--Atavi 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also coming here from rfc. The issue seems to be what he said, and whether those are anti-semitic comments. Further, anti-semite is itself a loose and politically charged term, thanks to political lobbyists blurrring the distinction between anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. I rather think the anti-semite category itself should be renamed to get around that blurring. WP:BLP does note that "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material". In that regard, his controversial views should certainly be included (along with relevant linked cites to back this assertion up). The category is a bit harder to decide on. Currently it categorieses him as an anti-Zionist, and denying "the right of Israel to exist as a 'Jewish state'" seems to count as that. That doesn't necessary imply anti-Jewish or anti-Israel though. And anti-Semite is sucha vague (not to mention politicised) term that I wouldn't want to see it used as a category. Rhialto 12:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Position in Columbia

I've corrected a factual error. The article referred to Rashid Khalidi as "the head of Columbia University’s department of Middle Eastern and Asian Languages and Cultures". He is actually a professor in Columbia's department of history and holds no appointment of any kind in the MEALAC department. He is the director of the university's interdisciplinary Middle East institute, and the article now reflects this fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.225.247 (talk • contribs) 05:58, October 29, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 13:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

major update

This entry needs updating. There are no reviews of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. The reviews of Colonial Effects seem highly selective, and the negative reviews, which all come from very politically motivated sources are given far more space than the positive ones, even though the consensus amongst academic journals is that Colonial Effects is a field defining book. The only review of Desiring Arabs cited is Whitaker's hatchet job which is simply a rehash of his response to Massad's 2002 Public Culture Essay in Whitaker's Unspeakable Love and the review does not mention, let alone engage, the other 400 or so pages of Desiring Arabs. I have added reviews of all three books that represent with much greater accuracy the reviews of the books in general. If Massad's scholarship is to be discussed, I think fairness is important. I have not edited the representation of the David project/academic freedom controversy, but have commented on the section speculatively calling Massad an Orientalist, largely because I think it shows no understanding of what Orientalism is/was. My edits have made the entry much longer, mostly through the addition of bits from the twenty plus reviews the entry never mentions. In the interest of full disclosure, I did organize a petition in defense of Massad against the smear campagin mounted by the David Project, which is why I feel I am too interested a party to comment on that aspect of the entry. Fire away. Thanks.Nhoad 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV and Poisoning the well. Terms similar to "overwhelmingly positive," are weasel words. The reviews were mixed, with both positive and negative results. Statements such as "an Israeli pundit associated with Campus Watch, who has attacked Massad's scholarship and politics since 2002," etc. are poisoning the well, trying to minimize the credibility of the reviwer by appealing to something other than their expertise. Near the entire "An irresponsible book review" text, etc. is a point-of-view diatribe without any support. Lastly, prose needs to be written from a formal, encyclopedic perspective, not like an attack or defense site. Thank you. -- Avi 02:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ORIENTALISM I don't see the point of the section asking: "Is Massad an Orientalist?". The term can be defined in various ways and tends to be used more as an insult than as a meaningful criticism. Trying to prove that he's an "orientalist" doesn't achieve anything in my view; it's more productive to examine the substance of his arguments. It would therefore be useful to include a section on the page giving a factual summary of Massad's views on homosexuality, which people can then agree or disagree with. [Brian Whitaker] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.101.101 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section makes no sense, and it is hardly written from a neutral point of view. Only one of the reviewers - Mheisen - calls Massad an orientalist. None of the other three uses the term at all, so the entry appears to be fabricating an accusation in this section. Moreover, Whitaker is the only reviewer of Desiring Arabs mentioned. There have been others, and the entry has no real mention of the critical response to The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. I think the entry needs expansion and the "Is Massad an Orientalist?" section should be removed. What do other people think? Nhoad 14:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Subject of this article

I note that this article contains approximately 2900 words of text ("Works" and "References" not included), yet 1900 of these deal specifically with coverage of Colonial Effects, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question and Desiring Arabs. Assuming these books warrant such coverage, I suggest that each should be accorded separate articles. I write this recognizing that the current sections devoted to these books can be consdered little more than quotefarms. Victoriagirl 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have attempted to balnnce this article by adding some statements's of Massad's that are widely quoted by his critics.

Look, this guy is the poster child outspoken anti-Israel critic in the American Academy. Two weeks ago th guy was denied tenure by Columbia after several years of regularly making headlines for his colorful criticism of Israel. Some of that material needs to be in the article so that a reader coming to Wikipedia to find out what all the fuss is about will leave puzzled and unenlightened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningside Clio (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone is removing material critical of Massad. Thie is not a hagiography, nor is it Massad's personal C.V, with all negative material cleaned up. Negative and mixed reviews of his book from major magazines and academic journals belong on this page. And if responisble public figures , such as United States congressmen, make such a serious allegation as anti-Semitism - it belongs on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Clio (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone is happy, because the article has now been wiped totally clean. A near-total whitewash. All public criticism of his books is gone (even the heavily criticized "Desiring Arabs"), and most of the public criticism of his views has been removed as well. (What remains is now heavily qualified.) Congratulations; you now have a beautiful hagiography. I don't know that anyone arriving at this page would have any idea why he is so controversial. 68.160.35.35 (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has two sections on Massad's political views which are largely compilations of the most controversial things he has said and include explicit accusations of anti-semitism, as well as a section devoted exclusively to allegations of classroom intimidation. Together, these sections make up half the article. To describe this as a "whitewash" or a "hagiography" is absurd, and I'd hate to see what you consider a balanced critical biography.

It's not true that criticism of his books is absent; the section on Colonial Effects includes negative quotes from two reviews. It's true that the Desiring Arabs section has only positive reviews, mostly derived from its Amazon page; if you know of negative reviews of Desiring Arabs in academic journals, please cite them in the appropriate section, in neutral fashion.

Kalkin (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanket edit?

i have just restored my edits of 18:25, 20 November 2007, which appear to have been caught up in a blanket edit. I write this as I do not see how correcting spelling and applying WP:MOS guidelines concerning biographies, overlinking and redlinks can be considered "Pov Pushing", an accusation made in the edit summary. Indeed, I have removed the statement that "Jordan expert Asher Susser, essentially argues that Massad is an Orientalist" which I believe runs counter to WP:NPOV. In short, Susser makes no such argument in the reference provided - the claim that he "essentially argues" is POV. I have also removed a reference which fails to support the accompanying statement - one that is critical of Massad. A citation request has been inserted in its place. Finally, I have no "personal grudge" against the subject and can only assume the accusation was addressed to another. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Massad attacks others with charges of racism and anti-Semitism

The strongest charge against Massad by his critics is that he is supposedly anti-Semitic and possibly racist, and that he fends off these charges while at the same time attacking others in the same way. So in an article about Massad, Massad's criticism of others and their arguments as racist and anti-Semitic is certainly a crucial issue. This is precisely the sort of thing others who hear about controversies involving Massad would find relevant information. I have included specific references to numerous articles in which Massad attacks others by calling them racist and anti-Semitic. In one article I cite, Massad uses the words "racist" or "racism" a stunning 35 times! These are facts. Could somebody explain how this is vandalism, rather than just deleting what they don't like? 151.199.47.84 (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I deleting something simply because i don't like it? Not at all. The reasons given by myself and others for removing the material in question have been clearly presented in the accompanying edit summaries. To address your post. The charge you mention in your first sentence is not supported by any sources. Who are these critics? Not one name is given, not one quotation is provided. As such, the material is, as Malik Shabazz has pointed out, synthesis. Editorial comments like "Massad uses the words 'racist' or 'racism' over 30 times in this article" and "Massad refers to American Christian supporters of Israel as anti-Semites several times", appended to references, only serve to support this.Victoriagirl (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your edits are vandalism, but your persistence despite Wikipedia policies to the contrary may make other editors think they are. The article discusses, as it should, accusations of racism that Massad makes of others. It is synthesis, however, to tie his accusations concerning others to similar allegations made against him — unless that connection is made by a reliable source. Please read Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position for an explanation, and post here if you still have any questions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now explicitly added citations by both the New York Sun (a critic) and the Nation (a supporters) who specifically and directly acknowledge Massad's frequent use of the term "racist" against his opponents. This specifically addresses your points. Thanks for pointing them out. It makes for a better entry when everything is more carefully cited. Technetium25 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue of synthesis at all. Nobody is disputing that Massad accuses other people of racism. The synthesis is the attempt to connect such accusations to allegations that Massad is an antisemite or a racist. You can't state two facts (A = Massad denies that he is antisemitic. B = Massad routinely calls other people racist or antisemitic.) to advance a position (C = The pot is calling the kettle black.) The use of the word "However" is a dead give-away. Unless a reliable source specifically ties Massad's accusations that others are racist or antisemitic with allegations by others that he is antisemitic, putting them together in this article is synthesis. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You have misinterpreted what I'm arguing. I never argue or state anywhere that Massad is a racist or an anti-Semite. I am saying that he denies these charges while accusing others of them. That's all I'm saying. And that's clearly a fact in evidence, according to the citations provided. In my most recent edit, I was very careful to avoid any insinuations of any other than Massad's practice of calling others racist and anti-Semitic. No more synthesis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technetium25 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You specifically said "Nobody is disputing that Massad accuses other people of racism." And yet you deleted a contribution by saying that he is not "accusing others of being racist." No matter. I have removed any assertion that Massad is calling anything or anyone racist. All that remains is the fact that Massad uses the terms "racist" and "anti-Semitic" frequently in his works, with citations, and that critics and supporters have noted this, again with citations. Now there is no editorializing, just a clear note of the facts. Technetium25 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First, a newspaper editorial isn't a reliable source. Second, I wrote that calling Israel a "racist state" or referring to its policies as racist is not an example of "accus[ing] others and their viewpoints as being racist", which is how you characterized it. You're accurate to describe it as "us[ing] the term racist", but that undermines the section header ("Charges by Massad of racism by others"). Take your pick. Either Massad accuses others of racism, or he uses the word often. The heading and the text have to be consistent. For the time being, I'll change the header to match your text. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree on your edit of the title of the section. It was inconsistent with the new language of the section. However, I am concerned about your removal of the reference from the New York Sun. I wrote in the article that Massad's critics accuse him of using the terms "racist" and "racism". The New York Sun editorial board is a critic. I am not citing the New York Sun for informational content---that would indeed be wrong, as I am citing an editorial, not a reporting piece. But the point is to identify a critic who says that Massad uses terms like "racist" and "racism." And that's all that the citation does. There's no other way to show the existence of critics who say things unless you cite those critics. It's a catch-22. The entry now says that there exist critics who say that Massad uses terms like "racist" and "racism," and the citation merely establishes the existence of one such critic. It is a fact that these critics exist and have these opinions, without regard to the truth of those opinions. That's the full extent to which I am using the citation.Technetium25 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a newspaper editorial board is a critic of Massad doesn't make it a reliable source. Newspaper editorials aren't considered "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And you are citing the Sun for informational content: "[Massad] routinely calls [Israel's policies] 'racist.'" That is informational content. A reliable source would be a news article or book that reports that Massad's critics say that he frequently uses the word racist. See the lede of Al Sharpton as an example of a reliable source that reports what supporters and critics say about a controversial public figure. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So I need a reliable source that itself notes the existence of critics, rather than simply listing the critics myself. Acknowledged. I appreciate that you did not simply delete mention of this issue in the Wikipedia entry, but simply noted the need for a better citation. I think we can both agree that there exist critics who say that Massad uses the word "racist" and "racism." I don't think anybody could justifiable dispute that such critics exist. But I definitely concede and understand your point about sources here. I really appreciate your assistance and judiciousness. Technetium25 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what evidence is there that The Nation is a supporter of Massad? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The explicit quotation from The Nation is:

For Pipes & Co., Massad is something of a gift: He is strident, dogmatic, proud, deliberately provocative and utterly uncompromising in his defense of the Palestinian struggle. He is a man who traffics in absolutes, a man who often infuriates even those who are sympathetic to his views. Said worried about his young friend's propensity for careless rhetoric--a point that Massad himself acknowledged in his Al-Ahram obituary of Said: "He would caution (actually yell at) me against giving way to my 'youthful' enthusiasm in a world in which we have few friends and numerous enemies." Massad is a ferocious critic of Israel and Zionism, but he is also withering on the subject of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. (He supports a single, binational state.) To his detractors he is a devil figure, a "dangerous intellectual." Massad frequently acts out the role by unleashing a steady stream of inflammatory anti-Zionist rhetoric: "racist Jewish state" is a locution he constantly employs. (Emphasis added.)

The Nation article is specifically talking about how supporters of Massad, like Edward Said, acknowledge his use of inflammatory rhetoric, and his use the term "racist." Nowhere do I say that The Nation is a supporter of Massad---that would be an original inference on my part. I am simply quoting The Nation's own words that Massad's supporters note his use of this terminology. That's precisely what it says in the text. Technetium25 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you've misrepresented the source by your choice of a pull-quote: "Massad frequently acts out the role by unleashing a steady stream of inflammatory anti-Zionist rhetoric: 'racist Jewish state' is a locution he constantly employs." That is a direct statement by the author of the article, and the context suggests that the author, or The Nation, is a supporter of Massad. I'll edit the article to clarify your point. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly correct, and I concede your point. Your edits to the Wikipedia entry seem very clear, and I much appreciate them. Thanks again for your help! Technetium25 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Nazi comparison" claims--bogus original research

Ive deleted the section below as bogus original research. If you read the "very controversial passage" supposedly pointed to by (unnamed) critics, you can see that Massad clearly does not compare Israel to Nazi Germany. The first part, about David Project claims, is just too sketchy to include in a biography (Despite the fact that this article seems to be a repository for every press release CAMERA ever issued on the guy). Section below:
Accusations that Massad compares Israel to Nazi Germany
Massad has strenuously denied making any comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, writing in 2004, during the controversy over a film by the pro-Israel group the David Project: "Moreover, the lie that the film propagates claiming that I would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is abhorrent. I have never made such a reprehensible equation."

Critics, however, have pointed to an article written by Massad that appeared in a 2000 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies. In a very controversial passage, reprinted here in its entirety, Massad writes:

Palestinians and Arabs were not the only ones cast as Nazis. Israel was also accused — by Israelis as well as by Palestinians — of Nazi-style crimes. In the context of Israeli massacres of Palestinians in 1948, a number of Israeli ministers referred to the actions of Israeli soldiers as "Nazi actions," prompting Benny Marshak, the education officer of the Palmach, to ask them to stop using the term. Indeed, after the massacre at al-Dawayima, Agriculture Minister Aharon Zisling asserted in a cabinet meeting that he "couldn't sleep all night... Jews too have committed Nazi acts." Similar language was used after the Israeli army gunned down forty-seven Israeli Palestinian men, women, and children at Kafr Qasim in 1956. While most Israeli newspapers at the time played down the massacre, a rabbi rote that "we must demand of the entire nation a sense of shame and humiliation... that soon we will be like Nazias and the perpetrators of pogroms."

The Palestinians were soon to level the same accusation against the Israelis. Such accusations increased during the intifada. One of the communiqués issued by the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising defined the intifada as consisting of "the children and young men of the stones and Molotov cocktails, the thousands of women who miscarried as a result of poison gas and tear gas grenades, and those women whose sons and husbands were thrown in the Nazi prisons." The Israelis were always outraged by such accusations, even when the similarities were stark. When the board of Yad Vashem, for example, was asked to condemn the act of an Israeli army officer who instructed his soldiers to inscribe numbers on the arms of Palestinians, board chairman Gideon Hausner "squelched the initiative, ruling that it had no relevance to the Holocaust."

Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And the line: "The Israelis were always outraged by such accusations, even when the similarities were stark." Those are Massad's words. He's not quoting anybody else. He says right there that sometimes the similarities are stark. That's not original research. That's what Massad is explicitly saying. Technetium25 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Please review WP:SYNTH: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

If Massad writes that the moon is made of cheese, and NASA says that the moon is made of rocks, the article can't have a section about "Contested claims about the composition of the moon" unless a reliable source has written about the conflict between the two accounts in relation to Massad. Without such a source, a section about "Contested claims about the composition of the moon" is original research and will be removed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not only original research, it's selective quoting that distorts and mangles the source used to support it. Massad is actually recounting an incident (almost verbatim) that was in Tom Segev's, which discussed Israeli Jews protesting actions such as the one described. To characterize (as Massad does) soldiers being ordered to "inscribe numbers on the arms of Palestinians" as a striking similarity to Nazi actions isn't "comparing Israel to Nazi Germany," it's simply pointing to an indisputable similarity in those actions.

What the Massad article actually is about is the incessant Nazi baiting of Arabs and Palestinians, or as he puts it, "various aspects of Israel's implicit linkage of the Jewish holocaust with its right to exist and Palestinian and Arab responses to that linkage" and "Israel's rhetorical equation of Arab and Palestinian leaders with Nazis." He discusses among other things the PLO's acknowledgment of the Holocaust and its victims, which he feels has been fruitless. Massad concluded (echoing a number of Israeli writers, among others) "As Palestinian recent history has shown, no Palestinian engagement with the holocaust will be satisfactory to Israel and its supporters. Israeli demands that Palestinians recognize the holocaust are not about the holocaust at all, but rather about the other part of the package, namely recognizing and submitting to Israel's "right to exist" as a colonial-settler racist state."

So I would suggest finding an acceptable reliable source to make the point that apparently some editors are making here to the effect that Massad is fibbing when he says he didnt equate Israel and Nazi Germany; even the maniacally Massad bashing NY Sun has a bit more delicacy, saying Massad "also compares Israel's treatment of Palestinians to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews." They (or their lawyers) seem to get the point that that is different than comparing the Israeli state to the Nazi state.Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose deleting all claims without reliable sources. They have stood unsupported for too long now.Nhoad (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of the uncited charges have now been removed. Technetium25 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but many still remain, and the section on the Talmud is entirely original research. I also propose that it be deleted.Nhoad (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please list all disputed charges. As for the section on the Talmud, what appears is Massad's quotation, followed by a fact about the Talmud, with no opinion rendered in the text. As I said before, if Isaac Newton had pontificated publicly about the Holy Trinity or Alchemy or Numerology (which he did), those claims and that work would have to go in any legitimate encyclopedia entry on the man (as they generally do), although a good encyclopedia entry should not render any explicit value judgments and just let the facts speak for themselves. I suppose we could remove the historical fact about the Talmud. But Massad's words are not original research, and so they are perfectly legitimate for an encyclopedia entry on him. Res ipsum loquitor. Nowhere is there an opinion stated in the text. If his words sound absurd, well, you'll have to take that up with him. But I appreciate very much that we are having a discussion about this, without people just going and deleting stuff outright, in keeping with the very first Wikipedia dispute rule. Technetium25 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Without a citation to a reliable source that also points out that Massad may have the languages of the Talmud wrong, this is original research, i.e. nowhere else besides this Wikipedia article has this issue come up - hence original research. If someone were to go through Massad's scholarship and list arbitrary facts that he got right, would that also have a place in an encyclopedia entry that has to rely on reliable sources? The only source we have for this claim of error - about which the author of this section of the article may very well be right - is the author of this section. If that is not original research, what is ? There are many venues where a critical reading of Massad's work is a worthy task - a Wikipedia encyclopedia entry is not one of them. The selection of this particular issue as noteworthy strikes me as ideologically motivated, but that is irrelevant - so no supporting citation for the claim/demonstration of error equals original research. If you can find a credible source, the section could stand, if not it is clearly original research and should be deleted.

2) RE the unsubstantiated claims: For a start wherever (citation needed) appears, plus "some critics," "some supporters" etc stand without adequate citational support. I will get back to you with more details later.Nhoad (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What you are describing is classic original research as outlined in WP:SYN:

Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research

There doesn't appear to be anything in the literature indicating that Massad's musings on the Talmud are at all noteworthy; if anyone has anything to the contrary, please feel free to include it. Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad Hoc Committee Composition (Alleged Classroom Intimidation)

I see that the following information was condensed into the statement "There had been some complaints that the committee contained members who had anti-Israel views." I have added the following information as additional citations. Thanks for cleaning this up! Technetium25 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The composition of the committee was itself a focal point of further controversy. According to a report in the university newspaper at the time:

The committee is comprised of Lisa Anderson, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs; history professor Mark Mazower; Farah Griffin, professor of English and comparative literature and director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies; Jean Howard, professor of English and vice provost for Diversity Initiatives; and professor of political science and history Ira Katznelson...

The students’ primary concerns about the constitution of the committee stem from the alleged personal and professional connections between its members and some of the professors being called into question for their behavior in the classroom, as well as connections between members of the committee and anti-Israel statements and causes. Anderson advised MEALAC professor Joseph Massad on his Ph.D. thesis... Mazower wrote publicly in The Financial Times that the United States is waging the recent war in Iraq for the sake of Israel, and that Israel is also to blame for global anti-Semitism. Griffin and Howard signed a 2002 divestment petition demanding that Columbia withdraw economic support from Israel.

Critics of the committee's composition included student Zac Frank, who wrote in the university newspaper:

The appointment of the ad-hoc committee investigating intimidation, however, was incredibly misguided. While I do have confidence in the ability of the committee to be impartial and fair, it is not surprising that students making accusations would have a problem with its composition of Columbia faculty and administrators, some with ties to the professors involved. When there was a controversy surrounding the English department, a committee was convened with members from outside the University. If Bollinger were serious about this investigation and had any sense, he would have done the same in this situation, if for nothing else than to avoid even the appearance of conflict.

Statements about the Talmud

The title "Contested Historical Claims about the Talmud" was antiquated (there are no longer any comments about critics contesting his statements), and so I replaced the title merely with "Statements about the Talmud." Now there are no editorial comments, just Massad's statements, which are in the factual record. Technetium25 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The following entry was completely deleted by Malik Shabazz, who cited it as "original research":

== Statements about the Talmud ==

In an article in Al-Ahram, Massad writes:

In keeping with the Protestant Reformation's abduction of the Hebrew bible into its new religion and its positing of modern European Jews as direct descendants of the ancient Hebrews, post-Enlightenment haters of Jews began to identify Jews as "Semites" on account of their alleged ancestors having spoken Hebrew. In fact the ancient Hebrews spoke Aramaic, the language in which the Talmud was written, as well as parts of the bible.

:The Babylonian Talmud, comprising both the Mishnah and the Gemara, contains large swaths of both Hebrew and Aramaic. The central portion is in Hebrew.

While Aramaic and Arabic were spoken for a long time by ancient Jews, Hebrew, in various forms and at various historical stages, was also continuously used. Hebrew was used for the writing of religious texts, poetry, and so forth, as well as for speech. Even after the introduction of Aramaic, and its influence on Late Biblical Hebrew, Hebrew continued to develop, and today scholars use terms like Mishnaic/Rabbinic Hebrew and Medieval Hebrew.

Original research, such as synthesis, would be making some additional statement that is not made by the references. No such statement is made. There are no synthesized opinions here. All that is stated is A, a quotation from Massad, and B, a fact about the Talmud. Where's the original research? Nowhere is there any statement about Massad or an opinion about him whatsoever. These are facts. It is unprofessional to you delete things without first explaining your reasoning. Technetium25 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find your recent changes unprofessional and inexplicable. If you do not cease or at least provide a detailed explanation, I will report you. Technetium25 (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The very first rule in Wikipedia's entry on "Dispute Resolution" is:

When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. Make sure that you provide reliable sources...
Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. If you can say it in one line, use the edit summary; for longer explanations, use the talk page and add "see talk" to the edit summary.

Technetium25 (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Placing two true statements alongside one another for the purpose of advancing a point not made by a reliable source is synthesis:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

(A) "Massad says the ancient Hebrews spoke Aramaic and the Talmud was written in Aramaic", (B) "The Talmud was written in both Hebrew and Aramaic", (C) [left to the reader] "Massad is either ignorant or he's lying".

As the policy says, it's original research unless a reliable source has made the connection with respect to Massad.

With respect to your threat to "report me", be my guest. WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material gives editors authority to remove poorly sourced material and conjectural interpretations (i.e., original research). I explained in a preceding section why this was original research. Your response to my message was to remove the banner and change a few words. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia policy is on my side. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is your opinion that (C) is "Massad is either ignorant or he's lying", since you say that it is "left to the reader" to decide that. That's an opinion on your part! No such statement is made. Massad is an academic, and he made a statement about an important historical document, the Talmud. This statement is not relevant in an encyclopedia entry on the man? These are facts! There are no value judgments made in the entry. You can't criticize me for making a comment (c) when no such comment is made! No, I don't think the Wikipedia policy is on your side, unless there's a policy against making invisible statements. Technetium25 (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's explicitly what it says in the Wikipedia policy that you cite: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. No such material exists here. There isn't one sentence that falls into any of the three categories.

And yes, let's consider the moon and cheese analogy. Please do tell me, if this were an encyclopedia article on a n astronomer who famously said that the moon was made of cheese, don't you think that would be a relevant item to note in his encyclopedia entry? Massad is a scholar of the Middle East, and he makes a statement about the Talmud. The reader is certainly free to agree with him if he or she wishes. But merely deleting that statement is just hiding stuff you don't like.Technetium25 (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Middle Eastern Studies with Jewish Studies or Religion. What a professor of Arab History has to say about the language spoken by the Jews 1500-2400 years ago is no more significant than his opinion about what the moon is made of — both are outside his area of expertise.

Correct. But if a famous scholar on British history made prominent, non-facetious statements that the moon was made of cheese, I think that would be relevant to mention in an encyclopedia article, leaving the reader to make up his or her own mind about what it means. If it was discovered that Newton made countless prominent statements about the Holy Trinity (and he did), then even though this was not his field of expertise, it would still be highly important information to include in a biographical encyclopedia entry on him (as it is in many such entries on Newton). Otherwise you get a distorted picture of Newton. His claims about the Trinity, and about Alchemy, and about numerology, were vital to understanding his character. Nowhere does an encyclopedia entry have to make value judgments or express opinions on these beliefs.

I'm not going to revert you and start an edit war, but you are wrong. As the discussions above — and your recent edits — indicate, you have no understanding of WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"but you are wrong, "you have no understanding." I understand these things full well. We disagree on how these rules should be interpreted in this particular context---we have agreed on its interpretation in other contexts, as you will recall. In the existence of such a dispute, I err on the side of leaving facts in place. Meanwhile, all opinions have been excised from the entry.

Sharon quotation

In the latest edit, it says that the fraudulent Sharon quotation ("we, the Jewish people control America and the Americans know it") appeared in mainstream press outlets. I did a lot of searching, and I could only find it mentioned on internet hate sites. I don't like erasing possibly factual statements, so I added a "citation needed" tag, and it now awaits someone to find citations to mainstream news outlets. Technetium25 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Malik Shabazz has removed the "citation needed" label, because the source points out that the quotation "I control America" appeared in a column by Georgie Anne Geyer that appeared in the Chicago Tribune and the San Diego Tribune. But this is a very different quotation. Surely everyone can appreciate the difference between claiming that Sharon said "I control America" and "we, the Jewish people control America." So I dispute the claim that the fraudulent quotation used by Massad ever appeared in the mainstream press. Technetium25 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the text so that the "citation needed" tag is no longer necessary. Now the entry specifically notes that a different variant of the Sharon quotation was used in the mainstream press. Technetium25 (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is the full quotation from Massad's paper:

...more recently, in late September 2001, and during an acrimonious argument which erupted in a weekly Israeli cabinet meeting between Prime Minister [Ariel Sharon] and his Foreign Minister [Shimon Peres], the following interchange unfolded: Peres was warning Sharon that refusing to heed American requests for a ceasefire would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the U.S. against us." Sharon yelled at Peres in exasperation: "every time we do something you tell me the Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clearly, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America and the Americans know it." This major ideological convergence between anti-Semites and Jewish supremacists in Israel is hardly surprising if one understood Zionism's project as nothing short of turning the Jew into the anti-Semite.

Technetium25 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz eliminated the beginning of the quotation "I want to tell you something very clearly, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America and the Americans know it," saying that he was "shortening quote so it makes sense in context". Please explain. What is the context, and why is cutting out these words necessary? Technetium25 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the phrase "I want to tell you something very clearly, don't worry about American pressure on Israel", which makes no sense in the sentence:

The article itself included a passage in which former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was quoted as saying "I want to tell you something very clearly, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America and the Americans know it."

Who cares whether Sharon was being misquoted about whether he said he wanted to say something clearly, or that nobody should worry about American pressure on Israel? The key point of the alleged quote was that Sharon was claiming that the Jews control America. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Used in mainstream press

From the CAMERA reference:
'As it turns out, it is a hoax. Sharon never made either statement. Nor did Kol Yisrael ever report that he did.

Yet syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer wrote in her May 10, 2002 opinion column, which appeared in the Chicago Tribune, San Diego Tribune, and other newspapers:

In fact, it [American support for Israel’‘s actions] led Prime Minister Sharon to tell his Cabinet recently, "I control America." Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd read my comment before you would have noted that I specifically pointed out that Geyer said "I control America" not "we, the Jewish people control America." Can't you tell the difference? Massad is the only one who used the latter quotation. Technetium25 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of false quotation

An editor has deleted this, which seems valid, given that it was an error that was corrected. I assume we should assume good faith in biography subjects absent a reliable source proving otherwise.Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Massad did not retract the quotation or acknowledge the error. He quietly removed it in a second publication of the article in another journal, clearly hoping that nobody would notice. Had he actually published a retraction, then that would be a different story.

I can't help but feel that every deletion here has been pro-Massad. I don't care whether material in this entry is pro-Massad or anti-Massad. But facts are facts, and it's really disgusting the way they are being selectively deleted. If you have information that you feel presents Massad in a different light, then by all means, add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technetium25 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to correct errors, the fact that Massad didn't "retract the quotation or acknowledge the error" might be an issue for you, but not for an encyclopedia. Please explain why this is encyclopedia worthy (for example, provide a reliable source reporting on the matter) before you revert. By the way, if you feel any "deletions" are in error, please explain. Calling them "disgusting" is not only rude, it isn't an explanation.Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Joseph Massad/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is clearly not neutral, and does not live up to the neutral POV standards. Seriously, how can you accept "crack-pot scholarship" as a sub cat?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.158.78 (talk • contribs) 13:34, August 25, 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)