Talk:Marty Peretz/Archives/2015

old comments

Martin Peretz (also Marty Peretz) is a Harvard lecturer who is the owner and editor-in-chief of The New Republic, which he purchased in 1975.

Is Peretz the sole owner of The New Republic? According to this article in The Daily News, "New York financiers Michael Steinhardt and Roger Hertog, now chairman, bought two-thirds of the Washington-based mag in 2001 from editor in chief Martin Peretz, previously the chairman and sole owner." - New York Daily News, August 20, 2004, Business, pg. 44. [1]

accusations against Indyk

Why were these removed? I think it's relevant to the larger article about Peretz.

For reasons of verifiability. Please provide sources to back up your additions. In fact, the whole article needs to be properly sourced and fact-checked. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dean's "anti-Israel" candidacy

I think it's inaccurate to characterize Howard Dean's candidacy as "anti-Israel" (as the current version of this article does). While Dean was criticized for calling for an "even-handed" approach to Israel/Palestine, his proposed Israel policy was not that different from that of George Bush or John Kerry, and his campaign co-chair was former AIPAC president Steven Grossman, who could hardly be called antagonistic to Israel. [2] --(Somewhat later edit: I've edited out the "anti-Israel" descriptor; if this is a problem I'm sure it can be handled here)

Basic details, DOB, etc.

Is there any available information on his date of birth? I've been trying to find it somewhere but can't.

Bias in quotations

This article suffers from major neutrality issues... the whole things reads like one long criticism of Martin Peretz

In addition to article bias, pretty much the whole list of quotations singles out from the huge body of Peretz's writing only his comments on Israel and the Arabs...the selection of quotations seems more geared towards proving the points of Anti-Peretz critics than providing a reasonable scope of his writing, editorial stance, and beliefs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asherba2 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

That's a fair criticism of the quotation selection and I will accordingly refrain from adding the quotation about anti-Israeli bias in British journalism I was about to add. But it is certainly true that the plurality of the posts in his blog (The Spine) nowadays concern those subjects -- a little over half of his posts for the last week as I write this (April 18, 2007) have concerned Israel-haters or violent acts perpetrated by Arabs or Muslims.

I agree, there is bias and POV. Posting someone else's opinion is not neutral POV. Calling them "media critics" doesn't legitimize them as peer-reviewed sources. I've deleted most of the POV weasel-word junk. What's left barely squeezes by. This is an encyclopedia article about Peretz, not a soap box disguised as literary/political criticism/analysis. "...assumed hawkish and strong pro-Israel stances in foreign affairs" adequately summarizes his views. — J M Rice 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up (very lightly) the "editorial stance" section by placing the quote from Prof. Alterman (whose title I also corrected - he teaches at Brooklyn College, not CUNY) in context - not, as stated, from a "profile" of Peretz, but from a harsh critique. It's fine to quote that, so long as the reader is not mislead as to the source. I do think the editorial stance section is poorly structured, overemphasizing Israel as opposed to the numerous important American political stances TNR under Peretz has taken over 30 years. I leave this to this page's capable regulars to sort out. -- YCubed (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pius XII controversy

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but Peretz was involved in the Pius XII controversy, where he was one of the late pontiff's critics. He was subsequently criticized by the leader of the Catholic League for calling Pius an evil man. [3] [4] [5] ADM (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Block quote from March 6, 2010 in the Spine

So the quote I found here is not the same as in the post as of 10:00AM. It occurred to me that perhaps the editor saw an earlier version which Peretz later changed to the current wording. However, I have to primarily assume it was just a mistaken quotation. Then, when I saw this talk page with multiple editors putting forth a theory that the quotes on this page have generally reflected a non-neutral POV against Peretz, I had to consider the possibility that the post was purposefully misquoted, as the former version had Mr. Peretz making a statement that most would interpret as more broadly anti-Arabic.

If the other editor has cache data or a screenshot of the post with the original language, works for me. But I don't think that to AGF and keep the initial quote, especially when it goes against the current source material, is warranted here. -- Leeatcookerly (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No the quote is accurate, however Peretz changed it after realizing it was controversial, without any indication that it had been changed. This makes the incident even more controversial because now it is a story about a lack of ethics not just racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.134.145 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Looks like Peretz has made racist comments:

About Latinos: [6]

About black women: [7]

Should these be worked into the article somehow? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Over Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim Bigotry

I've changed the name of the section to a neutral form: "Controversy Over Views On Arabs and Muslims". It should be obvious why. The issue is a controversy by the very fact that his critics view his statements as bigotry; if we are to simply label them as such, then it's silly to call it a "controversy". Clearly the man is a virulent bigot, but it's not the job of an encyclopedia to make up readers' minds for them on that determination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.60.94 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for Peretz character used in Jim Lehrer novel

Borock removed the relevant paragraphs that mention Jim Lehrer's use of Peretz as a character in his 1993 novel Blue Hearts. The reliable source for this fact is the Slate Magazine article Shafer, Jack (2010-09-14). "In Praise of Marty Peretz". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2010-09-22. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) I have added this information back in the article and mentioned Slate explicitly in the text, although it was already well-referenced. AdamKesher (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. We cannot use a description of a fictional character, even if based on a real person, as a descriptive quotation in a BLP - it simply cannot be done as the source is not about person themself. Exxolon (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Quotes from fiction are out. However the fact that Mr. Lehrer based a character on him could be mentioned, with ref provided of course. There is already an "in popular culture" section to put it in. Borock (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The quote from Jim Lehrer's novel is about Marty Peretz—that's what "roman à clef" means! Lehrer specifically refers to Peretz's editorial stance at The New Republic and identifying details of his personal background. I can point to other BLP's who have roman à clef descriptive quotes in their biographies, and this is appropriate. Furthermore, I see nothing in WP:BLP that would prohibit the inclusion of roman à clef descriptions of a living person. I won't add the quote back yet until Borock, Exxolon, or other editors show how WP:BLP prohibits the inclusion of properly sourced roman à clef descriptions of living persons. AdamKesher (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

For one thing it would take original research to say: "The author said this about the fictional character which was based on a real person, therefore what he said must also be true about the real person." Also, the article on roman à clef gives as a reason for writing this way: "Writing about controversial topics and/or reporting inside information on scandals without giving rise to charges of libel." This is exactly the main concern of WP BLP policies. Besides that there is plenty of negative material in the article already. Borock (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael_Crichton#Michael_Crowley is why we don't allow this sort of thing. If other bio's have this kind of content it should probably be removed also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The current info is a good compromise - it gives the information that the roman a clef character exists without using the blp-violating quote. Exxolon (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also the option to write an article on the book. The fact of the character's being based on Peretz could be given (since it is sourced.) Then info on the character could be given from the novel itself with no OR or BLP concerns. Or anyway with less concerns. It would probably not be removed. Borock (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I added an NPOV tag here because I feel the article takes a stridently negative tone. There is a laundry list of bad things that Peretz has said but I'm not convinced that the article is actually examining these claims. Let's take one sentence for example:

Inter alia, Peretz has said that Palestinians are unfit to have their own country, suggested that Arabs are genetically violent,[19] that Latin society is congenitally corrupt,[20] and that "in the ghetto a lot of mothers don't appreciate the importance of schooling … a mother who is on crack is in no position to help her children get through school."[20]

Here's what the citation actually says:

"Peretz, who is a strident supporter of Israel, has said in conversation that he believes Palestinians are unfit to have their own country and suggested that Arabs are genetically violent."

The Guardian doesn't tell us when Peretz said these things, or who he said them to or what the context was, or what their source is. I don't think that an unattributed accusation that is impossible to verify belongs in an encyclopedia. If it does, it requires more than just half a sentence.

that Latin society is congenitally corrupt

If you look at the context, it seems like he's saying that corruption is endemic in Latin American countries. Maybe this is an unfair comment but it needs more than a few words. [8] (I'm much more bothered by the phrase "near-tropical work habits")

"in the ghetto a lot of mothers don't appreciate the importance of schooling … a mother who is on crack is in no position to help her children get through school."

Again, we're given no context here. GabrielF (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"admitted he was prejudiced against Arabs"

I think this wording accurately summarizes what Peretz wrote. However, I'm open to changing it, as I think it's important to have the quote (and the subsequent decision by Peretz to edit his piece without comment) included in the bigotry section, regardless of how it's initially presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.204.31 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Peretz wrote this very awkwardly and I'm not sure what he was saying. His overall point seems to be that he's pleasantly surprised that "Iraq is on its way to making its own inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian history, and it will be a relatively democratic history." He's modified the piece so it now reads (to me at least): "Given the current circumstances in the Arab world (such as the limited experience with democracy, the extensive experience with autocracy and the history of religious or ethnic conflict) I didn't think this would work." I think this is what he meant to say in the first place because he goes on to praise Fouad Ajami's quote that people have misread Arab history. He could mean something like: "I didn't expect this to work because the Arabs are violent and they just tell us what we want to hear" but that doesn't seem to fit as well with the rest of the piece.

I guess my point is that this is ambiguous and I'm not sure he's saying that he's prejudiced against Arabs. I'm also not sure that this is all that significant a quote compared to the piece that Krugman criticized. This section is already longer than his biography and I think we have to consider whether or not it would be fair to give this section even more weight. GabrielF (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the following interview will give more insight (good or otherwise) into Marty: Martin Peretz: From Truman to McGovern to Obama by Sohrab Ahmari (Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2012).

Sample quote: 'Most Arab and Muslim states, by contrast, are inherently unstable. To Mr. Peretz, the notion that Arab cultures are beset with endemic pathologies is noncontroversial, almost a banal point. "[Mitt] Romney was said to have made a tremendous faux pas when he said that the difference between the Palestinians and the Israelis is a matter of culture," alluding to historian David Landes's book, "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations."

"Mostly David discusses their social cooping up of women as a factor in Arab poverty, backwardness, et cetera," Mr. Peretz explains. "Now, this would be, if you were talking generally, a very acceptable and progressive critique." Indeed, "one of the reasons that you have economic backwardness is that women do not work and women do not get education."

That Mr. Romney should have to go on the defensive over his remarks, Mr. Peretz thinks, has to do with the fact that "the magazines and the websites that are popular among the liberal, semi-intelligent, semi-intellectual readership of America have their own ideological blinders."

Mr. Peretz has little patience for such pieties. And he holds few hopes that the recent Arab uprisings will make the region more liberal or peaceful.' Asteriks (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor

I am a previously uninvolved editor here as a result of a posting on WP:BLPN. I just made some edits to the article, chiefly removing material sourced to blogs and self published sources, use of which is unaccepable under our policy WP:BLPSPS. I made one other revision for weight, moving some material to a footnote. The article needs a lot more work to achieve neutrality and proper weighting, and is also a WP:QUOTEFARM; the lengthy quotes need to be shortened or summarized, as well as evaluated for balance, and I will be back to take a look at that. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)