Talk:Max Blumenthal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Antisemitism section of this article is biased

"In 2008, Max Blumenthal stirred up controversy when he put a video on YouTube which featured intoxicated tourists in Israel using expletives about Barack Obama. Blumenthal was accused of peddling anti-semitism as some believed his video was intended to flame up negative feelings about Israel and Jews."

To say "stirred up" is POV. The author is giving his opinion here, by using such language. The phrase implies that Max's intent was to 'stir up' controversy. However, he simply hit a goldmine of Jewish chauvinism/supremacy/racism/ethnocentrism which was enhanced by alcohol. In fact, when you look at his videos, he always goes out of his way to maintain HIS composure and his delivery of questions are always in a calm, sincere tone.

It's his subjects - whether they be Holocaust deniers or Christian Zionists or a group of (what appears to be) yuppie, ignorant, young college Jewish students on a Birthright trip - who make fools of themselves, SIMPLY by being THEMSELVES on CAMERA!

I mean, in the Occupied territories, soldiers and settlers do NOT like getting filmed! Why? Because then people will SEE what they are doing!

The wording should be 'Max Blumenthal's video caused controversy' AMONGST the [wherever] community' - let's be clear here. This was not on TV. It was not 'controversy' that we can measure on any kind of universal scale. This was controversial AMONGST Zionists. And the bias of this entry is so obvious.

Also, nothing is said about the video.

'Intoxicated tourists'? How VAGUE. All were Jewish. And I believe, Max said many were on a BIRTHRIGHT trip. These were Jewish college kids who are about as knowledgeable on Israel as Paris Hilton is on quantum physics. Is that an insult? No, it's true and you can SEE it and HEAR it in the video.

Furthermore, the racism and antisemitism in the video came from the 'intoxicated tourists' - will it CAUSE more anti-Jewish hatred? I don't know. But why single it out? Israel's foreign policy does that just fine. The notion that there should be no documentation of Jews hating other people and being ignorant for the sake of protecting Jews FROM this type of ignorance is beyond hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.104.139 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your concerns have been addressed. The sentence no longer talks about "stirred up". Whether you or I agree with the description of the tourists as intoxicated or not, the sources cited use that term and it is appropriate to use it in the article. As for the article saying nothing about the video: Such statements or descriptions would need to cite sources, and I cannot find any to cite. If you can find cites, please add them. As for whether these college kids are knowledgeable about Judaism or not is not for the article to say. The article is not about the video, but about Max Blumenthal. Additionally, Wikipedia is not about critiquing the video or the people in it. If you wish to create an article about this video, and add cites to it which critique the film and the people in in, I strongly encourage you to do so. - Tim1965 (talk)

Investigative Journalism

I'm no Blumenthal fan (quite the opposite) but I question whether the opening line under this section - "Max Blumenthal tries to pass off unwarranted insults as journalism. He should be ostracized." - should be a part of this article. I'm not going to edit and remove it but just want to point that out to whoever is watching and managing this page. Jgoulden (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Nation Institute

I added the adjectives "liberal-left" to the Nation Institute because a Google search returned the following from the nationinstitute.org website: "A liberal-left independently funded and administered organization, committed to a just society and the principles of the First Amendment." Perhaps that sentence is from metadata from the website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that in the search, but if we want to include it we should be sure it is actually from them and cite it accordingly. I'm not disputing they are left, I've just never seen anyone use the awkward phrase "left-liberal" before, and that unusual phrasing should be cited, or we should just call them whatever they actually use on their website. Gamaliel (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing controversies

Two notable controversies seem to be missing here: His inaccurate attack of O'Keefe (covered by the Columbia Journalism Review) and his smear of Matt Sanchez based on the latter's involvement in pornography (covered by David Horowitz, who also mentioned some other controversies, e.g., one involving him and The Path to 9/11 - see reference 11). Since it's a controversial subject and a BLP, I wanted to mention this here rather than merely adding it. It was added in the past, but was vague and unreferenced, and thus removed.

In addition, referencing is needed for the opening paragraph. For example, there is the claim that his work was featured on NPR. However, a search reveals him as the object of a culture interview on Fresh Air, not someone freelancing or working for the network. As it is now, it's misleading, and I wonder how many other half-truths are in the paragraph. Calbaer (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just passing by, and saw this note. I agree about the CJR piece but am not so sure about the Horowitz piece. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get Wikipedia to be fair is the wrong tactic. You have to allow them to be so crazily and obviously biased that normal people will be able to see it clearly. Otherwise, you are just helping them only be solidly biased in a way that is not obvious to normal people. 47.156.21.196 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"claimed" he was subjected to death threats

The usage of this word is political. According to Merriam-Webster,the definition of 'claimed' (transitive verb):

"to assert in the face of possible contradiction"

Why the doubt that he was subjected to death threats? That is the only reason to say 'claimed' rather than a more factual, unbiased, impartial word like 'says'.

Even in the case of 'says', it is still his perspective, so it could be a false statement. However, it is less loaded than 'claimed'. It assumes a POV, because the author who chose to word Max's statement as a claim, is implying that he - the author - thinks Max is being inaccurate/false/lying, etc..

We should simply say, that Max says he was subjected to death threats.

I only mention this small wording issue in light of the entire controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Media Matters

A recent edit [1] changed "He works for the progressive organization Media Matters for America" to " He works for Media Matters for America". As the Media Matters article states in its lede "Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group", I reverted the edit, as the original seems to be factual vice a non-NPOV statement.

• I hope this can be discussed, vice edit-warred.
• As a related note, that entire sentence has had a citation needed tag for a year. I'd be OK with it being deleted, if a reference can't be found.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor and I discussed it here: User_talk:JoeSperrazza#MediaMatters. I'm OK with the change. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this [2] source states that Blumenthal used to work for Media Matters. The lede should be changed to reflect this. If no one else gets to it, I'll make the change later. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have explained to you now 3 times on multiple talk pages why the opinion article you cited is not valid as a WP:RS to call Media Matters progressive. If you continue edit warring and putting in this unsourced information, I will be forced to seek administrative attention. You have given me a warning on my talk page for edit warring when I have in fact made a grand total of 1 revert between the two articles (a revert which you agreed with above). You on the other hand have now made 3 reverts among the two articles in the past 24 hours. Your choice 74.198.87.108 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no explanation on any talk page that the source I cite is not reliable. There are other sources. There's no WP:DEADLINE. I'll gladly provide one. Question - why is this such a hot button for you. As I noted, simple Google Searches show other references that MM is called a Progressive Organization. What's the deal? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss this rationally (and, BTW, I agreed that a "Wiki-source" was an issue, albeit a bit of a WP:WIKILAWYER one, but I see many sources available from outside of WP). Here's some other sources. Will any satisfy your desire to, for some reason, remove or caveat the word "Progressive" wherever MM is mentioned in WP?

• http://  www.breitbart.com /Big-Government/2012/05/16/progressives-attack-on-alec-are-an-attack-on-our-free-speech *** link removed due to blacklist at time of archiving ***
• [3]

JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That is rich, Joe, In this revert [4] you say "please see talk page". Not only did you not provide any explanation on the talk page for your revert, but if you had even looked at the talk page, you would have seen the explanation I provided as to why your opinion article is not a WP:RS. Oops? 74.198.87.108 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss changes to articles in those article's talk page. This is Mark Blumenthal. That was an edit to Media Matters. On that talk page, there's an entire new section where I discuss the change I planned to make (and then made). There's also reference to a section of that same talk page that supports the appellation "Progressive" per WP:CONSENSUS. Please don't keep taking this personally, and tone down your comments and avoid personal attacks. Please keep your comments on the relevant article talk pages, so other editors can participate. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"I see no explanation on any talk page that the source I cite is not reliable." Your dishonesty and games make it impossible for any other editors to participate. You said there was no explanation on any talk page that the source is not reliable. So I showed you the explanation. Then you say I should only talk about things on this talk page. Give me a break 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, [[WP:WIKILOVE|break given}}. The discussion on the other article's talk page is the right place for discussion of the edit you mention. Regarding not seeing your explanation, at the time I responded, I did not see it, but it was not on my talk page, nor on this page - it was in a third place, the Media Matters's talk page. Respectfully, that's why it is better to keep discussions in one place. I suggest keeping things on the MM article's talk page would be a good thing. I also suggest you try to avoid personal attacks. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe, you are continuing to play games here and it is reaching the limit of WP:AGF. On the Media Matters article you reverted an edit and used the edit summary "please see talk page". On the Media Matters talk page you provided no further explanation as to why you made the revert. On the Media Matters talk page prior to your revert, I had made it very clear why the opinion article you proposed was not a WP:RS prior to your revert. And yet, as I pointed out above, you still made the revert on the Media Matters article and advised me to look at the Media Matters talk page. That is just about as clear as I can be here. I will now leave it to other editors to take a look at this series of events and judge for themselves who is acting inappropriately.

But as for the content dispute itself, the current situation is as such: you have reinserted the unsourced claim to this article (that Media Matters is progressive). You have added a source to back up that claim, but the source is not a WP:RS. Therefore, the article currently suffers from WP:OR. I will not enter your edit war and revert you, but the fact remains that the article is in violation of Wiki policy. Cheers 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on the Media Matters talk page, and won't respond more here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Only because discussing this in 2 or 3 places is difficult. Let's get the issue of WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS dealt with in one place (the MM article). Then changes, if any, needed here should suffice. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring of 'Goliath' in the mainstream media

Shalom11111 recently added a statement cited to an an article in The Jewish Daily Forward to the effect that Goliath, Blumenthal's most recent book, has, " "outside the far-left and anti-Israel blogosphere," been ignored. That begs the question of how many times in the mainstream media 'Goliath' has to be mentioned before the statement can reasonably be counted as being untrue.

As far as mentions in the mainstream media go, we already have:

• An article from The New York Observer which had already been cited in the article.
• The mentions by Eric Alterman in The Nation (such as this one) referred to The Jewish Daily Forward article cited by Shalom11111.

To date, there have also been other mentions in the mainstream media such as the following:

• Haaretz
• The Washington Times
• Foreign Policy Journal

Editors may find the following useful for background:

• Truthdig, Chris Hedges
• Truthdig, Bill Boyarsky
• Truthdig, Larry Gross
• The Polemicist

    ←   ZScarpia   21:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree it is a nonsense. There are two possible ways forward, we remove JJ Goldberg claim. Or keep the claim but also add all the mainstream press reviews and coverage of the book. Dlv999 (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You two are misinterpreting the author's intent using the term mainstream. Ignored as in not taken seriously by the mainstream, not a lack of discussion. Most mentions in "mainstream" sources are excoriating the book. And FYI, a "community" contribution to the Washington Times is not an RS, and the far-left "Foreign Policy Journal" is not mainstream. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have about 10 sources at least as notable or more so than the Jewish Daily Forward. I will add them all to the article next time I have the opportunity. Ignored means ignored. Discussed widely does not mean ignored. Criticising a work is not ignoring it either Dlv999 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I back whichever of the suggested solutions you choose to adopt. In my opinion Plot Spoiler's interpretation of the word 'ignored' is counter-intuitive. Also, I think that the Jewish Daily Forward's opinion about the book is of no more significance than other sources listed above.     ←   ZScarpia   17:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There has recently been a bit of an edit war over the retention or removal of the text about The Jewish Daily Forward's article going on. In my judgement, the overall consensus taking into account comments on the talkpage above and recent edits to the article is that the text should be removed. Therefore, having first edited the text, I reconsidered and deleted it.     ←   ZScarpia   10:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Gysi, the Volksbühne and the Bundestag etc.

Currently, not many reliable sources in English have tackled what happened recently in Berlin. Keramiton used this short Bloomberg article, but, in my opinion, didn't render its contents accurately or neutrally. The Jerusalem Post published this piece. Blog pieces reflecting what David Sheen and Max Blumenthal had to say were published in Mondweiss here and The Electronic Intifada here. This EI piece says: "A number of elected politicians alleged that a scheduled talk by Blumenthal and his colleague David Sheen in a Berlin theater would serve “to promote anti-Semitic prejudice.” This was deeply ironic: both Blumenthal and Sheen are themselves Jewish. The politicians denouncing them failed to produce any evidence that they are hostile towards fellow Jews."     ←   ZScarpia   00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

On Volker Beck and use of the term Judeo-Nazi: "“Beck falsely accused me of using the term ‘Judeo-Nazis’ – he made that claim on Twitter,” Blumenthal said, offering an example of how the smear campaign works. “But I had merely quoted Yeshayahu Leibowitz, one of the most famous Israeli intellectuals in history, using the term.”"[5][6][7][8][9][10]     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also ... Blumenthal's response to Goldberg's claim that "Goliath" had been ignored.     ←   ZScarpia   01:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also ... Blumenthal comments on the #JSIL hashtag:

EF: Not long after your trip to Gaza, you started using the hashtag #JSIL (Jewish State of Israel in the Levant) on Twitter. Making this kind of comparison between the group Islamic State and Israel is taboo in Germany. Why did you dare to do this?

MB: It is strange that you equate, in Germany, IS with Hamas or describe the entire Palestinian national movement as “heirs of the Nazis,” while there is such an outrage regarding my comparison. It was not a direct one-to-one comparison, but I wanted to point out the hypocrisy behind supporting one religiously exclusive state that forces minorities out of its territory while attacking another.

Algemeiner articles by Ben Cohen: [11][12]

Benjamin Weinthal - Berliner Morgenpost article; Twitter feeds: [13][14][15]

Jerusalem Post opinion piece by Petra Marquardt-Bigman: [16]

Jerusalem Post Benjamin Weinthal articles: [17][18][19]

Lobelog piece about a Weinthal article written for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD): [20]

Mondoweiss - Anna-Esther Younes - The Minds of Others: An interview with Max Blumenthal, 25 November 2014.

PublicSolidarity.de video of meeting on 9 November 2014 in Berlin.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) (edited: 08:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC))

Read the source before removing: "Two critics of Israeli policies chased the parliamentary leader of Germany’s Left party, Gregor Gysi, down the hall of the lower house in Berlin after he canceled a meeting with them." ... "Sheen and Blumenthal had been invited by other parliamentary members of the Left party, Thalheim said. Gysi canceled the meeting because of their “radical” views on Israeli settlement policies."--Keramiton (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your second quotation is incomplete: you've missed the "he said" from the end (ie. according to Thalheim, Gysi cancelled the meeting because of the radical views of Blumenthal and Sheen).     ←   ZScarpia   20:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Keramiton is a blocked sock of the currently banned user Wlglunight93.     ←   ZScarpia   09:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added the fact that it was Thalheim who said that(there is some ambiguity in the text as to who said it - Thalheim or Gysi, I'm fine with editors changing it if they have a different interpretation.) Other than that, the text appear to be a very fair representation of what is written in a reliable source. You have now removed this material 3 or 4 times, without much basis. I'd caution you not to do it any more. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

See below, there are other issues with the text.     ←   ZScarpia   19:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copied from the recent AE case concerning Keramiton to explain the issues relating to Wlglunight93/Keramiton's edit:

<quote>
The subject of the article concerned is Max Blumenthal, an American author and journalist who, among other activities, writes and speaks about the Arab-Israeli conflict, from a position critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. After publishing Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel in 2013 he became a more frequent target of criticism from pro-Israel quarters, including appearing in 9th place in that year's Simon Wiesenthal Center List of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel Slurs. I think that it is obvious why the Wikipedia article on Blumenthal is covered by the ARBPIA case. Blumenthal is still living, so the article is also covered by the WP:BLP policy

The material added by Keramiton relates to a recent incident which is not yet covered well by reliable news sources. Blumenthal and David Sheen, an Israeli journalist, were invited to speak about Israel-Palestine at the Bundestag and a Berlin theatre by a number of Die Linke party politicians. After action by a number of politicians including Gregor Gysi, the leader of the Die Linke party, the invitation to speak at the theatre was withdrawn, but Gregor Gysi, who was ignored by his party members, failed to have the meeting at the Bundestag cancelled. Afterwards, Blumenthal and Sheen attempted to confront Gysi about "why he had endorsed the smear campaign against them." They followed Gysi down a corridor and into what turned out to be a toilet, where Gysi attempted to lock himself into a cubicle. Later, Blumenthal and Sheen were "banned from entering the German parliament in the future." The statement giving notice of the ban issued by the Bundestag chamber’s president, Norbert Lammert, said: "Every attempt to exert pressure on members of parliament, to physically threaten them and thus endanger the parliamentary process is intolerable and must be prevented." I think that it is obvious that the material added by Keramiton falls within the remit of the ARBPIA case.

Keramiton cited this, Bloomberg article as a source. The text he added, though short, misrepresented the source, or was otherwise misleading, in a number of ways:

• Nowhere does the article say that Blumenthal was banned for "chasing a senior left-wing politician into a lavatory." The only information in the source we have which relates to that is what the chamber president is reported to have said, near the end of the article.
• Keramiton wrote that Blumenthal went to confront Gysi after the latter "canceled a meeting with him," giving a false impression. In actual fact, Blumenthal and Sheen went to confront Gysi after he'd successfully managed to stop a meeting at a theatre and unsuccessfully tried to stop a meeting at the Bundestag. Blumenthal and Sheen wanted to confront Gysi as to "why he had endorsed the smear campaign against them [21]."
• Keramiton states as a fact that the cancelled meeting was cancelled because of Blumenthal's radical views, though in the source this view is attributed to a politician, not stated as a fact.

As stated above, currently very few reliable English-language news sources cover the incident. From what is available, though, I would say that Keramiton, as well as failing to represent the source, failed to neutrally represent the incident. Some of what Sheen and Blumenthal had to say about the incident is supplied in the follwing blog pieces: [22][23]. Judging by another blog piece, the Bloomberg article itself appears to be error. Blumenthal and Sheen's complaint was not that Gysi had called them anti-Semites.
</quote>

    ←   ZScarpia   19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post, Ben Weinthal article stating that it was only Sheen who followed Gysi into the toilet: [24]     ←   ZScarpia   00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection to the current text? The Bloomberg article (a reliable English-language source, more so than any blog post) say both activists are seen in the video: "Gysi can be seen in a YouTube video being pursued down a corridor in the Reichstag building and into a bathroom by activist reporters David Sheen from Canada and Max Blumenthal from the U.S. ". The Mondoweiss blog and Electroinc Intifada are not reliable sources. if you can find Blumenthal's response published in a reliable source, we can add it. Brad Dyer (talk)

Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada, in both of which Blumenthal publishes, are, for the wikipage on Blumenthal, arguably quite acceptable. Where, by the way, has it been determined that Mondoweiss is not a reliable net newspaper?Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to contribute here, you should take the time to read the sources available, including the EI and Mondoweiss articles, which are reliable sources for what, respectively, Blumenthal and Sheen had to say about the incident. The Bloomberg article, though reliable, lacks detail and is also contradicted in some respects by other sources. This article is a BLP and therefore extra care should be taken to ensure that source material is rendered accurately.     ←   ZScarpia   19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(a) I don't need your permission to contribute here. (b) Bloomberg is a reliable source, and the Bloomberg article is fairly and accurately represented by the text currently in the article. (c) If you have additional material, from reliable sources (not blogs), you may add it here, but you may NOT continue to remove relevant materiel from reliable sources. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say you needed my permission; the purport of what I wrote is that, as there is a requirement on you to edit neutrally, you need to know whether there are different points of view and what they are, which means searching around and reading what different sources say. Blogs are reliable in certain circumstances. A blog piece by David Sheen is reliable for the opinions of David Sheen. A blog piece in which Max Blumenthal is being interviewed is reliable for the opinions of Max Blumenthal.     ←   ZScarpia   22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is an anti-Israel (even anti-Semitic, despite its writers being of Jewish descent) propaganda site, not even close to being a reliable source. Electronic Intifada is an anti-Semitic hate site written by Arab extremists. If you think that is a reliable source, I question your ability to neutrally contribute to Judaism-related articles. 186.91.167.73 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Frontpage Mag reliable for the views of David Horowitz?     ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, please explain where the "bad grammar" and "typos, etc." are. As for the "run on sentence", perhaps you could better describe a way of dividing it up.     ←   ZScarpia   13:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC) (Run-on sentence: Wikipedia definition)

"Blumenthal and Gysi were banned from entering the German parliament, the Bundestag, in future." huh?

"the reason behind the attempts to cancel the meetings, one of which succeeded, was the two's "radical" views on Israeli settlement policies."

I would kindly suggest that you stick to editing the WP of your native language. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those are grammatical errors, at least not in non-American varieties of English. Would the text be acceptable if the wording was changed to "in the future" and "of the two"? Were there any other (real) problems with my edit that you could find? You mentioned typos.     ←   ZScarpia   16:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The word "in" is repeated. This forum is not intended for editors to waste their time correcting the grammar of other editors. This forum is intended for substantive improvement. In the future please make sure your writing conforms with proper contemporaneous English and is error-free. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you didn't point to any grammar errors (unless you're counting a repeated 'in').     ←   ZScarpia   18:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Christ you're still defending the edit. Honestly it is one of the most poorly written two sentences I have ever come across. Whatever dude, this conversation is pointless. You can get the last word in if you like. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"It is one of the most poorly written two sentences"! Doesn't exactly slide through the mind very comfortably. My comments are aimed more at reducing your excuses to revert than defending my changes to Keramiton's original edits.     ←   ZScarpia   20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The new version of the text provides the answer of Max Blumenthal and other intellectuals to the Toiletgate controversy so I believe should have precedence on the version by Plot Spoiler that keeps being re-updated and is outdated, not listing Blumenthal as a senior writer for Alternet, his new book, and his new stories. User talk: hsb2121Hsb2121 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Updating/adding information

I updated the current post to reflect the work that Blumenthal has been doing on Haiti / the Border/ Syria /Islamophobia and Israel-Palestine, referring to his big articles over the years and adding information on his new book, The 51 Day War as well as the Akiva Elbar review for Goliath. This should give the reader an accurate and wide-ranging view of what Blumenthal has been writing about for various publications. I also updated the bio with his current position at alternet, and the prizes that his books have been getting. I created a Controversies sections for the various controversies that sprouted up in Blumenthal's career. I also removed details that were unsourced or claims that were made and not substantiated by the source that supposedly referred to it. I believe this completes a post that was outdated and did not mention what Max wrote about in any depth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationBooks (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

New version of page is updated, but page reverts back to outdated version with no explanation

Hi! An outdated version of this page by Plot Spoiler keeps being updated again as opposed to 208.105.82.82 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)'s updated version - the new version is updated, and integrates all the text of the original version by Plot Spoiler, except unsourced allegations. It is simply reorganized in a Controversies sections, and includes balancing evidence so to be closer to neutrality. The new version mentions more stories by Max Blumenthal organized in sections, as well as his new book. Is there a way to leave the new version on, as opposed to reverting to an incomplete, outdated and often unsourced version. I think it would make the page more accurate. Thank you! 208.105.82.82 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Goliath did NOT receive 'great critical acclaim'. In fact it received great critical criticism. this line shouldn't be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.26.205 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

Sections on "controversies" should be avoided. Instead, content needs to be worked an interspersed for an NPOV presentation. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RS/N result on Blumenthal as a reliable source. He is for details in this area

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Max_Blumenthal. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) I've copied this from the Zion Square assault page.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I would not draw that wide a conclusion from that discussion. It was not a formal and broad RfC, but an informal discussion about a specific instance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The accusation was based on a critic's assertion Blumenthal's whole book was "deliberately deceptive", which was comprehensively shown to be 'based on grammatical preferences by the critic, and no other deception that conflicts with reliable source guidelines have surfaced about Blumenthal' as it relates to this referenced claim. I might add everyone had the opportunity to use that RS/N to show grounds for the idea that Blumenthal was an unreliable reporter for facts, and no one came up with any evidence of the kind. It would be rather odd to insist that everytime Blumenthal might be cited for any other fact, in your reading, one can challenge it because RS/N here decided only that his quote was independently verifiable. There was no explicit or implicit suggestion that each and every fact in Blumenthal has to be independently corroborated by a primary or secondary source. Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but unfortunately, WP has no system to answer questions like that. One can of course point to the RSN discussion in future discussions, it will carry some rhetorical weight. But that's all that it is: an informal discussion about a specific instance. If one wants to state that he is generally reliable for facts in this area, there needs to be a formal RfC with the statement. I would advise against it, because it would be rather vague, and critics will always find something to nitpick even if it succeeds, no matter how carefully you word it. Beyond some ground rules that major newspapers and university presses are generally reliable, there isn't really any widespread consensus about reliability, which is probably a good thing. Though it can be exhausting to keep arguing the same thing over and over again. Kingsindian ♝♚

What tends to happen with Blumenthal is that, despite several recourses to RS/N which say otherwise, some editors revert him at sight, and say 'prove he's reliable here' or 'there', every time he is used. This is unusual (I' m reminded that some editors think my comments or edits have the same status and should be automatically considered suspect. The burden of the claim, functionally, lies on those who keep making it, without ever winning the argument at RSN. Unless one can come up with a review that actually gives evidence Blumenthal's work is consistently erroneous (like Alan Dershowitz's, for example: there is a notable literature on the errors that pit and pock his screeds, rendering them useless for any serious article except that on himself) I think he fits the general WP:RS recommendations and will act on that premise. Distaste for his views is not a grounds for impugning his reportage, esp. since it is his 'attitude' that editors dislike, which they confuse with his documentary contributions, a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that is fine, indeed, one can point to the RSN discussion in future discussions (which are inevitable, I can predict fairly safely) when someone removes his work by claiming that his work is "deliberately deceptive" etc. All I am saying is that one shouldn't overdraw the conclusions from the RSN discussion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Blumenthal: a biased depiction of his background and views

I read the history of Max Blumenthal as written in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Blumenthal. I believe it is noteworthy that his oral and written contributions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as his views about Israel and the Jewish people are posited without any critic of his personal bias. In other words, Wikipedia has presented Max Blumenthal's depictions of Israel, the Israeli people, and Israeli government as 'facts'. Furthermore, Blumenthal's recantations of what enemies of Israel (Gaza Palestinians) professed during the 2014 Gaza conflict are also presented as bonafide. You must be aware of all the anti-Israel writings and statements made by Blumenthal? How about the email correspondence with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which is now on record? Blumenthal has all the rights to his opinions and convictions. However, it seems unethical of Wikipedia to display his history without positing some balance which shows his biases.

Enrique Neidek

Enrique: Max Blumenthal is a virulently partisan individual. He hates Israel and compares it to Nazi Germany, even as he finds time to work for his family's homegrown business -- Democratic Party agendas and bucket lists. I don't hate him, although I dislike him intensely. Why do editors need to pretend to respect those whom they critique when their subjects' words and actions should (and do) speak for themselves? Quis separabit? 23:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

The statement made by the writer of the Elie Wiesel sections is subjective and opinionated. Is it possible to state the fact rather than making the section an oped piece? I would highly recommend that the final sentence of the passage below be deleted. It appears that the writer as an agenda that she is pushing forward -- Yes, maybe Blumenthal's comments are not wholly factual, but to say they are "cynical" and "ill founded" is not wholly true either. It should also be mentioned that Hillary hired Blumenthal and that they had a fairly close relationship until he left her staff; however, the writer "forgets" to mention this fact.

Please delete this sentence and possibly the whole paragraph: "Blumenthal refused to apologize for his cynical and ill founded comments."

---It may be worthwhile to read some of their emails, which can be easily found on "Wiki leaks."

Blumenthal's statement, and others that followed, cast the man who survived Auschwitz in the role of a Nazi collaborator — with the State of Israel as the Third Reich and the Palestinians as the Jews in concentration camps. Outrage and disgust from the broader community came shortly thereafter with Hillary Clintondisavowing Blumenthal's "offensive" and "hateful" comments. Blumenthal refused to apologize for his cynical and ill founded comments.

Nickstengl (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  18:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

Obvious spite section. Presenting extreme differences doesn't make the entry balanced or neutral.--WatchingContent (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal (Redux)

RE: I don't see how public comments made by an individual who has become well-known and, for many, (in)famous, in large part due to his incendiary comments and well-known positions about Israel and Gaza, to his relentless partisan attacks on Republicans (his well-connected and influential father is a confidant of the Clintons) somehow violate NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and UNDUE.

• NOTNEWS -- manifestly noteworthy; not remotely indiscriminate or OR
• RECENTISM -- not too recent that the facts and nature of the comments are still open to interpretation or revision; he is standing by them
• UNDUE -- purely subjective criterion in this case, particularly considering the use of the term "nonsense" by the editor opposing the inclusion in his edit summary

They should be included in his article because they are a matter of public record. I am all for consensus so let's achieve a consensus. Quis separabit? 23:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) @Becky Sayles: @Malik Shabazz: @Nishidani:

I don't see how you don't see it. Every word a twitter user types is a "public comment"; are you saying that they're all fodder for encyclopedia articles? Of course not -- that's why we're called editors and not stenographers, because we're supposed to exercise editorial judgment.

To rebut your specific points:

• WP:NOTNEWS has nothing to do with whether a tweet is "noteworthy"; the question is whether anybody cares it after they throw out today's newspaper. Yesterday's boxscore was "noteworthy", but we don't include every pitch in every baseball game and every fumble and tackle in every football game because most of them have no encyclopedic value. The question is which end the tweet falls toward.
• WP:RECENTISM has nothing to do with facts or the nature of the comment and everything to do with an obsession with recent events. That's a healthy obsession for newspaper editors, but an unhealthy one for encyclopedia editors. We're not writing a tabloid, we're (supposedly) writing a biography for an encyclopedia.
• WP:UNDUE -- What is the weight given by reliable sources to the tweet? None? Then we should ignore it as well.

You don't mention it but WP:ONUS says that just because something has appeared in reliable sources doesn't mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. If you want to include it, you need to build consensus for inclusion.

By the way, one of the quirks of the {{ping}} template is that it has to be followed by a signature in order to work. So adding it in a separate edit, after your signature, as you did, renders it useless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for your reply and the 411 on the {{tl|ping}} Quis separabit? 02:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

In my editorial judgment it should be included because it received far more extensive coverage than whatever else he is saying these days. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it should be included.

• WP:NOTNEWS is mostly about notability, and this controversial claim was notable enough for Clinton's campaign to comment upon and major newspapers to report.
• WP:RECENTISM does not apply as the event is about 2 months old. This essay recommends to avoid overburdening the article with recent events, here the controversies are distributed temporarily as MB is creating them.
• WP:UNDUE as about giving fair proportional representation to POVs. In the context of article on MB his view is certainly DUE, and so is the opposing POV "world leaders, public figures, and countless people touched by Wiesel’s works who offered their praises and expressed their mourning".

Since all the claimed policy-based reasons are obviously irrelevant, it seems like the real reason for objecting to inclusion of this controversy is WP:IDL. “WarKosign” 07:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Malik that this is trivial. It also, notably, gives more airing to a response by Clinton's press secretary than to the original statement. If the consensus is to include it, however, this is more or less what the text will end up looking like, if only because it is unencyclopedic to quote one or two one-liners, and follow it up with a rebuttal, when the subject of the bio gave extensive background reasons for taking the view of Wiesel he took in his tweets.

On July 3, 2016, on the death of Holocaust survivor, author, and Nobel Peace laureate Elie Wiesel, Blumenthal tweeted “Elie Wiesel went from a victim of war crimes to a supporter of those who commit them,” and "Elie Wiesel is dead. He spent his last years inciting hatred, defending apartheid & palling around with fascists." He later added that Wiesel had supported ethnic cleansing.Jake Sullivan, policy advisor to Hillary Clinton, responded, "Secretary Clinton emphatically rejects these offensive, hateful, and patently absurd statements about Elie Wiesel.... Elie Wiesel was a hero to her as he was to so many, and she will keep doing everything she can to honor his memory and to carry his message forward."

In response, Blumenthal wrote a detailed account of the powerful influence Wiesel’s Night had made on him in boyhood, and the reasons why Wiesel's public record in later decades made him change his perspective. Wiesel had, he asserted, transformed the Holocaust into a quasi-religion, with Jews the ultimate victims of a ‘unique’ historical event. At the same time he downplayed examples of other peoples who had been subjected to industrial extermination, such as the Armenians. Blumenthal said his impression was that Wiesel seemed to think these other victimized groups were competitors in an oppression Olympics, and a threat to his own moral power. He further stated that Wiesel's loyalty to Israel was such that he kept silent even about Israel's errors, for example, the oppression of Palestinians, despite having declared in his Nobel speech 'silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.' Wiesel, he added, backed the US-led invasion of Iraq and other bellicose initiatives. After losing millions of his own money invested with Bernie Madoff, Blumenthal added, Wiesel had accepted $500,000 as a speech payment from John Hagee an antigay pastor who had penned antisemitic writings and who had called Hitler a ‘half-breed Jew’. Wiesel had also shared a platform with Paul Kagame, whom Blumenthal claimed was involved in genocidal policies in the Congo. He had also accused Hamas of engaging in child sacrifice, a practice, Wiesel said, abandoned by Jews 3,500 years ago. Blumenthal concluded that anyone who criticized Wiesel's anti-Palestinian tirades was branded as a Holocaust denier and hit with torrents of hate speech.

Unless you give the full record of Blumenthal's reasonings, and boil everything down to tweets, flippant or formal public statement sounds bites by critics or politicians, you are violating WP:BLP by repressing the complete context. So, make up your minds: either the whole record or, as Malik and I suggest, drop it as trivial. Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion dedicates 90% of the section to Blumenthal's antisemitic rants, violating NPOV. “WarKosign” 12:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't wave policy flags inanely. WP:NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with construing precisely what a text already cited states. Reducing a remark to scare quotes, and equally silly scare responses, is pointless. Make an argument, and secondly, accusing Blumenthal of being an anti-Semite is a patent violation of WP:BLP, and you should retract that. If you can't edit articles without swinging the anti-Semite sledgehammer, with silencer attached, then refrain from editing here.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani -- your construct of what the Blumenthal/Wiesel entry would look like is mighty impressive, but again it is your narrative and construct. I suspect other editors may want to have a go at it themselves, and maybe trim what seems like undue rhetoric, i.e. "whom Blumenthal stated was involved in genocidal policies in the Congo" and "Blumenthal said his impression" (both of which quotes appear to violate OR and WEASELWORDING) as, here, stated and said his impression equal claimed. Issues which Blumenthal did not even bother to specify himself when he made his first comments after Wiesel's death can be (and are, by many) seen as self-serving justifications for comments deemed offensive in political quarters to which Blumenthal is intrinsically linked as his father, Sidney, is a close Clinton friend and confidant. Max Blumenthal does not even appear to have raised the issues he mentions on Alternet while Wiesel was alive.

Despite your prodigious intellectual and rhetorical gifts, which I have long admired and expressed, Nishidani, even you cannot guarantee what a future article or section thereof will look like after others edit it. What's more there is no obligation to include or exclude anything, as far as I know. Issues regarding Madoff, Armenians, etc. are almost certainly already in Wiesel's article, so there is no need to include them to burnish Blumenthal. By the way is AlterNet truly a reliable source? Quis separabit? 13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't construct anything. I did what every useful editor every day does: I looked at sources bearing on a specific theme, and paraphrased them. You are saying a paraphrase is a construct, -well, epistemologically it is, but then all paraphrases, what we do as editors, are 'constructs' and we are back to zero via the ouroboric circular route. It's not a matter, either, of 'burnishing' Blumenthal. This is a wiki biography and we are under an obligation to see that whatever we add to it respects the guidelines. I don't think content of the kind: "A said:'That's crap'. B replied:'You're crap'," particularly intelligent, though it's what editors have been doing here, and no one appears to object to it. The objections are to rewrites that say: "A thought X was crap for the following reasons..(B and C rejoined that this was outrageous, because...)'. As to your last point, anything written can be interpreted as a monologue, even if it is addressed to others. Indeed it is a premise of one school of literary theory to approach any text, whatever its public intentions, as essentially an exfoliation of the writer's subjectivity. Since Blumenthal is a published author with a high notability index, where he publishes his views, on AlterNet is immaterial, for his page, according to wiki criteria. Do you really think articles by Blumenthal who is the subject of this wikibio can be dismissed as 'self-serving', while pieces by Noam Rothman and Rick Moran are acceptable pieces by informed experts on both Blumenthal and the topics he comments on?Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who Rothman or Moran are or what side of the ideological divide they find themselves, but I do note that neither has an article on Wikipedia, so how notable are they? Quis separabit? 13:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

They aren't notable. But they were introduced for the American s sniper section below:.

Max Blumenthal does not even appear to have raised the issues he mentions on Alternet while Wiesel was alive.

Actually, when I edit these hot point issues, I usually do a few hours research on each point, just to be sure I have some grasp of the background behind what the person is reporting. I had on file, for Hagee and Wiesel, to cite one example, the following report from 2009, when Wiesel was alive:

McCain may have been completely unaware of Hagee's sermon declaring the Holocaust to be a divinely ordained incident orchestrated by God to fulfill biblical prophecy; Hagee's accusation that the Jews' rejection of Jesus was the root of anti-Semitism; or his prediction that when the Antichrist returned, he would be homosexual and "partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."(Max Blumenthal 'Elie Wiesel's Shocking Stage Appearance With Mad Preacher and Anti-Semite John Hagee,' AlterNet 28 October 2009)

The question is, in any case, if you include this stuff re Wiesel, then I didn't say I would retaliate by imposing my version: I said, in the logic of Wikipedia, 'this is more or less what the text will end up looking like.' I.e., if editors want to take this step (thinking, though not in your case, it shows Blumenthal in a nasty light!) they'd do well consider for their POV, the collateral effects of prising Pandora's box, or a can of worms. My advice was to editors eager to jag this in, 'don't go there', and intended as sound counsel. I've known about Blumenthal (and many other similar intellectuals') take on Wiesel for donkey's ages, but have never taken it as a mission to rewrite Wiesel's page to score points.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I never mentioned Hagee. I consider him a joke, a dinosaur in 2016. Sometimes we do have to stand or sit next to people we don't like. However, genocidal policies in the Congo is completely different. Anyway, get a nap, so I can get your well-rested opinions later. Bye. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. in case anyone take soffense at my comment "get a nap", it is not that I am implying Nishidani is superannuated, it is in reply to his edit summary comment: "Must get a nap. Too many typos." I do not wanna get accused of ageism, even though I am probably older than he (and most editors are), anyway. Quis separabit? 14:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thad's bedda. . .(Rub eyes). If I had to give a personal view - a large part of this whole discursive universe we are obliged to read to edit articles is a joke, in mostly poor taste. I can only keep up, by diving back in regularly to reread Finnegans Wake for the refreshment of one's need for intelligent writing. I'm almost never offended, let alone by personal insults - they tickle me rather, but conscience demands that I register a sense of senescent narcissistic reproof in being told I'm not the oldest editor here. I thought that was one distinction I could lay a claim too. Rats! So, umm . . Fad saol agat, gob fliuch,Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is clearly notable, given the amount of coverage it has received. If we want to elaborate on MB's response, we can discuss how to do that without violating WP:UNDUE. But the complete removal of this incident is not based on Wikipedia policy. Epson Salts (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

translation. Let's get the sneer in, and then editwar over the rest. Predictable.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not nice, Nishidani -- let's deal in good faith. This is a subject we all feel passionately about, one way or the other. Quis separabit? 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Re Wiesel's relationship with Hagee,

Sometimes we do have to stand or sit next to people we don't like

Wiesel didn't just stand near Hagee. He went on and gave a lecture to Hagee's congregation and in return received a %500,000 fee, knowing full well he was being paid by a man who has gone on the record for many anti-Semitic statements. One can disagree thoroughly with the Max Blumenthals of this world -no problem, but his record for documenting things like this is pretty good. (Max Blumenthal, Wiesel scored $500,000 for speech to congregation of Hagee, a Holocaust revisionist Mondoweiss 9 February 9, 2010)

There is no good faith won by WP:HOUNDING, in turning up to make automatic challenges to virtually anything an editor might add to pages; by an obvious tagteaming modus operandi, by not making intelligible policy based edits, nor participating significantly on talk pages except to sneer. Of course, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 there is another matter which is, it's my personal view, almost certainly highly probable from the first edits made, though only administrators can determine whether the obvious passes empirical verification. I've seen several pro-Palestinian IPs edit here. I can't recall ever allowing them to tag in to support me, and I've often reverted them. It's called ethics in the real world.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That's your typic MO, no doubt, but no, I am actually interested in improving the encyclopedia. Epson Salts (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

(POSSIBLY off-topic reply): Wiesel collected a "500,000 fee, knowing full well he was being paid by a man who has gone on the record for many anti-Semitic statements". If Hagee knew Wiesel was a Jew why would an anti-Semite like Hagee have invited and paid Wiesel? George Soros (who meets and funds anti-Semites around the world) and Henry Kissinger (long retired) who attended the funeral of Franjo Tudjman, a virulent anti-Semite and neo-Ustase thug, have done the same thing, although both European-born men managed to avoid the concentration camps of the Shoah, unlike Wiesel, who may have just wanted or needed the money so he could leave or bequeath something to those persons or causes he cared about. Quis separabit? 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not germane to what we do here, of course. But look at the record from September 3,2009 through October, down to February 2010. Blumenthal is accused of anti-Semitism often enough, as if his right to feel disgust when a figure in his community cosies up (Pastor John) with an anti-Semite is flawed because the eminent fellow Jew must see deeper than he does, When it comes to politics, all that counts is opportunism, and the aggregation of forces in a positional play, as I'm sure you know. I once almost broke up a wedding celebration because I was placed, the only 'commie' in the basically ex-Fascist festive occasion, next to an anti-Semitic moron, to gather from a crack he soon made. But then, I'm not a politician, and I couldn't give a fuck for the idea of allowing considerations about the bride and bridegroom's right to happiness to override my disgust, particularly since 2 other people there nodded that Hitler should have finished the 'job'. Politicians have it easier. As to your questions, several answers, based on quite reasonable inferences about how types like Hagee think and double think, suggest themselves. It's well known that many Christian evangelicals are Zionist because the return to Israel is a premise for the apocalypse, and the destruction or conversion of the Jews as Christ triumphs. This morbid fantasy can be dismissed, politically, for what it is, while the support of those who believe that shit is, in terms of political helf, obviously useful to a certain vein of cynical, but sophisticated, Zionism, who appreciate the numbers game and laugh off the theological hallucination for what it is. One plays theology, the other raw politics, with diametrically opposed ends, and the realist of course makes the proper rational calculation. Politics. In fact, probably 50% of the edits to talk pages or articles made in the I/P area probably have nothing to do with content improvement, but emerge after due consideration of the political implications of the material introduced. That's how you can detect tagteaming: when editors range up and never, never revert or disagree with what they perceive to be 'their side'.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Blumenthal is accused of anti-Semitism often enough, as if his right to feel disgust when a figure in his community" -- I don't think Blumenthal considers himself to be part of the same community as anyone who is pro-Israel. I don't even know if Max Blumenthal is Jewish based on Halacha (Jewish law). I don't know if his mother is Jewish or if she converted or if Max and his brother had bar mitzvahs. So, that's an assumption I would not make. Quis separabit? 22:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

All of those facts can be ascertained by a few minutes googling. He is Jewish, self-defined thus, had a Jewish religious education, did his bar mitzvah, and in North American Reform Judaism patrilineal descent, the OT model, is accepted. Most of us belong to several communities, each contributing to one's overall identitarian profile. I didn't assume anything. Nothing Blumenthal has said, on Wiesel or many other topics, is peculiar to him, or particularly 'scandalous'. The 'quasi-religious' use of the Holocaust comes from Peter Novick, and had been used of Wiesel back in the 1970s in a number of critiques (by Jewish scholars).Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

American Sniper

I don't think the addition of this comment can be classified as 'controversy'. I don't mind it being correctly reported, instead of being spun as if he were commenting on a film he pretended he had seen. The film came out that day, and he tweeted immediately on its release, clearly indicating he hadn't yet seen it. In any case, there was no 'controversy' to judge from the hostile material so far: you have two non-notable journos attacking him, Noam Rothman, the day after, and Rick Moran jumping on Rothman's coattails on the 27th. A 'controversy' consisting of two responses in, effectively, the blogosphere, over 2 days is not notable, and only illustrates WP:NOTNEWS,and WP:Undue. The entry of this material can only be justified if you can get over the spin message that 2 bloggers were right in taking him to task for presuming to judge a film without seeing it. But, since he admits he hasn't yet seen it, and asks his readers to correct him if his impression from the release hype is wrong that it shows a sniper killing Iraqis and being anguished, there is no intent to deceive the reader into believing his judgement is based on his preview of the film. So, the POV push is meaningless, if we give the whole record.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding a shoot-from-the-hip obiter dictum by a non-notable blogger that Blumenthal's views are "insanely wrong" has no informative purpose. It's like saying: Joe Blow thinks Trump's a dickhead, Tom Dick and Harry agree Hilary's a numbskull. This is an en cyclopedia, not a bathroom to register idle chat, and hot aired prejudices.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You're not fooling anyone with this bullshit. He wasn't asking anyone a question in his tweet, he was using the rhetorical device "correct me if I'm wrong" to make a statement he believes in. Blumenthal is a barely notable blogger, so it is no surprise that most of the reactions to his tweets and blog posts comes from other bloggers, But, I am glad you feel so strongly about using blog posts by people with no Wikipedia articles about them . I will soon be using that argument in articles closer to your heart where you liberally use such sources when it suits you. In the meantime, you can review more about the controversy, outside the blogosphere here- [25] ,[26]Epson Salts (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A warning. Virtually every article I touch on recently finds you coming in straight afterwards, saying 'no', apart from other considerations (A buen entendedor, pocas palabras). I have edited to show what he said, not, as you have done twice, to suggest he deliberately mislead his readership by making a comment on something he hadn't seen. Try not to deploy the 'rhetorical device' gambit. It doesn't work, for the simple reason that every sentence has its corresponding rhetorical classification, but not for that do we say the form (rhetoric) undercuts the semantic content. 'I came, I saw, I conquered' is analytically a form of homoioptoton, which doesn't therefore imply that the declarative content is irrelevant or void. 'I beg your pardon' is rhetorical, but of what variety is never clear until one clarifies in what sense it is intended, i.e. to mean '(a) Come again (I didn't understand you the first time round) (b)I'm sorry (c) an expostulative phrase of reproof of someone for whatever they said or just did, etc. Your interpretation of what Blumenthal intended is pure WP:OR, and therefore not relevant. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A warning? really? what are you going to do, throw a temper tantrum? after you've had some sleep, tae a look at the edit history, as you seem totally unable to construct a proper timeline: I edited this article on 5 September 2016, and again on 10 September, then you showed up , 30minutes later, to undo my work. You do have some nerve , don;t you?

I have edited the page since March 2015, and thus it is naturally on my watchlist, where I observe abuses like your attempt to smear by innuendo the subject of the biography (see below). That is the 'proper time line'. Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To the point: Apparently, English is not your first language, so you don;t understand its idioms and rhetorical devices. As I wrote as as other editors have concurred on my talk page , 'Correct me if I am wrong" is a "supercilious throat clearing and faux rhetorical questioning". he wasn't asking to be corrected, he was making a statement. Epson Salts (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, occasional talk page stalker here. Apparently, English is not your first language': (i) This is not apparent to me. (ii) Even if it were apparent, I don't understand how it would change matters. ¶ Better to comment on the edit(s) than on the editor. ¶ As for another claim, yes, "Correct me if I am wrong" is far less likely to be a directive than mere padding, a sort of throat-clearing. Although I don't understand a distinction between the "rhetorical" and the "faux rhetorical", the fact that I don't (yet) understand it does not make me suspect that Quis separabit? is writing in their second language; and even if it did make me suspect this, then I would be reluctant to say so. ¶ Please cool down. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, English is my first language, and my grammar and slang are often corrected or criticized by my Polish best friend. We can't all be grammarians and academicians. Rhetoric v faux rhetoric. Well, to my mind, since I am the one who used the term "faux rhetoric" to which @Hoary refers, genuine rhetoric and honed rhetorical skills can have proper and benign uses in public speaking. "Faux rhetoric" -- my inventive phrasing, if you will -- was just a reference to, in this case Max Blumenthal, who claimed (not admitted) he didn't see the film (I personally think he is smart enough not to criticize a film he didn't bother to see) but is asking his supporters and groupies and whomever questions to which he already knows the answers and has already staked a partisan position. Thus I used the term "faux rhetoric" to indicate as a step below oratorical rhetoric. Quis separabit? 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If English is indeed your first language (and I have no reason to doubt this), it's unlikely that anyone -- American, Polish, Icelandic -- would be correcting the grammar. More likely, attempting to adjust the grammar to fit their own well-intended but inadequate model of English grammar. (Representative example: all those people who will amicably but wrongheadedly insist that "less bananas" is ungrammatical and should instead be "fewer bananas".) Yes, "faux rhetoric": I see what you mean now; and though I might prefer to call it something else, your naming makes sense. ¶ All this is a bit of a tangent, as "does not make me suspect that Quis separabit? is writing" was a typo for "does not make me suspect that Nishidani is writing"; sorry about that. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Back to the basics. Our obligation is to be neutral, to respect in paraphrase what was said in the source, and abstain from spinning it. It is immaterial if we like or dislike Blumenthal.

• User:WarKosign broke a fundamental rule declaring Blumenthal, a Jew, was culpable of ‘antisemitic rants’. Asked to retract, he won’t budge by withdrawing it.

• The reverts deal with how to neutrally convey the following tweet by Max Blumenthal:

I haven't seen American Sniper, but correct me if I'm wrong: An occupier mows down faceless Iraqis but the real victim is his anguished soul

• User:Epson Salts has proposed several times (here; here, and here) that we elide ‘but correct me if I am wrong’ and showcase the fact he had not seen the film. Thus he wanted

In early 2015 Blumenthal criticized the film American Sniper, which depicts Kyle's tours of duty in Iraq, even though he had not even seen it

• This means that with Blumenthal's text in hand he wants to erase part of it.

I haven't seen American Sniper, but correct me if I'm wrong: An occupier mows down faceless Iraqis but the real victim is his anguished soul

• This edits out material to create the raw impression that Blumenthal, in defiance of the proprieties a serious critic must observe, wrote of something he had no knowledge of.

• Malik Shabazz disagreed (here andhere) on the grounds it was trivial and inappropriate. Privately, I agreed and still do, with his call. I noted that no one had corrected the date: the tweet was posted the morning the film was released, but was dated two months later, for example. So much passion for skewering MB, without tight source control. But seeing the impasse
• I stepped in and offered compromise edit, accepting Epsion Salts’ insistence that Blumenthal had not seen the film while adding that he made the quip within a few hours of its release, and prefaced his comment with the remark that he was open to correction.

Blumenthal, stated that he had not seen it, tweeted to his followers on Twitter to correct him if he was wrong in saying the film’s theme was:”An occupier mows down faceless Iraqis but the real victim is his anguished soul

• This was rejected on the grounds ‘it is a rhetorical device, not a real request.’ That is technically ‘a conjectural interpretation of a source’ to the detriment of the subject whose words are being only partially reported, in order to damage him.
• Nonetheless we get into a discussion on rhetoric.
• The discussion on whether the words ‘correct me if I’m wrong’ though the ipsissima verba of the tweet, can be dismissed as irrelevant, a form of rhetoric, or whether they have a genuine semantic function. The term in this thread, 'rhetoric', has been used abusively by several editors here. This is understandable: Cicero and Quintilian aren't on the high school curriculum these days. Rhetoric(al) does not mean 'hot air'. It primarily refers to the art of constructing, and deconstructing arguments, in order to persuade others, which is what everyone does every time they open their mouths, only like Monsieur Jourdain, they don't realize that they are being 'rhetorical'. The use of the word in all instances above is a catachresis, for (a)even a rhetorical question flags a semantic content (b) Blumenthal's words do not take the form of a 'rhetorical question' as repeatedly asserted, but of a '(rhetorical) imperative.

• Rhetorical means (Merriam-Webster)

of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric :(b) employed for rhetorical effect; especially: asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer. Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message.

Epson Salts is engaging in a WP:OR inference in insisting that Blumenthal, in writing for Twitter, did not expect his followers to comment, contrary to the very purpose of a Twitter account for a member of the commentariat, stating one's opinion on a trending topic in an interactive format designed to allow a social network of readers to respond. We have no right to truncate our report of his tweet under the alibi that his intent is known to be purely 'rhetorical', excluding any chance of being corrected. Since the interpretation can go either way, 'empty'/'intended to elicit a corrective response', we cannot impose either reading. A compromise has been given, which leaves interpretation wholly to the reader. WP:OR-based intransigence has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Blumenthal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223173802/http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-11/gysi-israel-sheen-blumenthal to http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-11/gysi-israel-sheen-Blumenthal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki-propaganda

"In 2013, Blumenthal reported from the Za'atari refugee camp in Jordan for The Nation about the conditions in which he purported that Syrian refugees were living." Now, that is memorably tortured prose, making sure the reader knows that Blumenthal is a journalist who is not following the approved line. Wikipedia might be a much more helpful resource if you were to include a little icon at the top of each biographical article, indicating whether the subject is a Good Guy or a Bad Guy. Maybe black and white hats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:617F:C240:0:DC7A:4ED7:AB0C (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2019

Change two books to three in opening paragraph Guccibelucci (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)