Talk:Joseph Massad

message: I think the extended quotes were mostly located in the section on Desiring Arabs. I just edited that section by substantially reducing the quotes. The quotes that remain, I believe, are important as they attest to the reception of the book. I also believe that they are compatible with other wikipedia entries in terms of style.Nhoad 16:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: 28-March-2008: In the topic above ("Massad attacks others.."), the User:Technetium25 makes the point that an editorial can establish that an opinion was stated; however, Wikipedia has limited "rules of evidence" and discounts the use of editorials or forums for any type of information. That excessive viewpoint limits Wikipedia in being able to keep up with emerging information. The general problem limiting rules of evidence is analogous to the legal issue of proving action versus intent of committing a crime.  At the basic level, the action could be proven to have happened with the defendant; however, at a closer level, the action could be characterized as intended (deliberate), justifiable (such as self-defense) or under duress (forced by captors). Wikipedia should allow similar multiple levels of evidence: at the basic level, showing an opinion (or concept or invention) was stated (as in an editorial, blog or forum); however, at a deeper level, then qualifying that the opinion/invention was true, or accurate, or workable, or quick, etc. as evidenced in a reliable source at that level, able to judge the qualities.  It is similar to the notion of quantity versus quality: such as a blog listing 200 opinions favoring a concept, versus an analytical source noting that all 200 opinions came from a single group or location, etc.  Currently Wikipedia has a snobbish attitude in the rules of evidence: such as 25 people can testify they saw the defendant shooting the others; however "Wikipedia" rejects those testimonies because the 25 witnesses were not reliable experts writing in professional journals, with doctorates in gun ballistics, and medical degrees in optics for viewing events, so there's no wiki-evidence and the defendant is free to go.  Again, it's the simple issue of evidence that various opinions exist, at all, versus evidence of the quality of those opinions (judging truth, accuracy, vengeful, or merciful opinions, etc.).  However, it's not the only current wiki-problem: narrow Wikipedia policies on rules of evidence are just one of many areas for improvement in WP.  There's no reason to solely blame policies about evidence, because Wikipedia also has problems for the wide left sidebar on each page (couldn't the jigsaw globe be 1 inch wide not 2? why can't the WP sidebar compress to a thin edge?), and Wikipedia can't protect parts of pages against hack edits (why can't Wikipedia compare an edited article to a controlled baseline file of required sections/text and warn users?), etc.  There are so many "trivial" issues that Wikipedia (and most wiki projects) handle in a neophyte manner, hence narrow policies of evidence should not be blamed solely.  The good news is that the solutions to the numerous problems are trivial, such as WP allowing multiple levels of evidence for quantity/existence versus qualities, supported by appropriate expert sources for each quality under consideration.  Progress starts with noting the problems, such as User:Technetium25 making the point that an editorial can establish that an opinion was stated.  Wikipedia could be a thousand times better with just a few trivial changes -- it's all so clear to me now. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Most smartest wiki policies on editorials/forums

message: Some more cleanup done. I have removed one quote I am dubious about. It's the Middle East Quarterly review of the Massad book. The MEQ is not really considered a scholarly journal, and I would prefer that we replace it with an equivalent review in a genuinely scholarly source. I would not object to it as a source on a specifically political issue - such as the intimidation controversy - but I would prefer we find non-politicised alternatives for the part of the bio that actually discusses his work. Relata refero (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: If there are no objections in a reasonable period of time, say, in a couple of days, then I will carry out the aforementioned changes. Technetium25 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify the proposed changes - are you only suggesting removing content based on the NYT editorial? Should we remove the Village Voice mention at the same time? PhilKnight (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what Technetium is talking about either, but I'd like to register that I think both the NYT and the Village Voice references should stay.  The judgments of relative non-partisans on the issue will probably be helpful to casual readers.  I don't object to including newspaper editorials - as I recall, imperfectly I'm sure, the ones that were removed were removed because they were 1) from tabloids (the Sun & Post are simply less reliable than the Times & Voice) and 2) pretty plainly based on serious confusions. Kalkin (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Additions and Changes 

message: The only reviews listed for this book are glowingly positive. I think it's fairly safe to say that this presents a rather biased and inaccurate portrayal of the book's actual reception in the academic and historical community. I will collect critical reviews and add them to this section. Technetium25 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My incorrect attribution of this quotation, to which I admitted my uncertainty, was a mistake on my part. The talk page exists precisely for dealing with such uncertainty in a civilized way. Your direct attack on my credibility and your claim that I'm just trying to "discredit" Massad displays quite clearly your own biases on the subject. Personally, I like the quotation precisely because it is Massad's writing in the flesh so to speak, not filtered through a reviewer or anything else. I think any visitor to this Wikipedia article would be fascinated to see a small sample of Massad's actual academic writing. What could be more informative? Technetium25 (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nhoad, please read Wikipedia's policies concerning civility and personal attacks and its guideline concerning assuming good faith. Editors who engage in personal attacks may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: My uncertainty was implicit in my statement that I remembered reading this review somewhere, but didn't remember where or remember any further details about it. I was hoping somebody else had seen it and could remind me where to find it. As to my use of the term "academic newspeak", I am referring to the interesting phenomenon, admittedly a subjective observation on the part of its critics, wherein scholars in disciplines like history, languages, and culture (like Prof. Massad, a member of the Middle Eastern Languages and Culture [MEALAC] department at Columbia) have introduced esoteric and extremely obtuse language into their work, some of which is borrowed from the most impenetrable recesses of disciplines like philosophy, like Hegel's work. (Can you really dispute my contention that Hegel's is one of the more inscrutable frameworks in philosophy?) Mere mortals like myself assume that historians and scholars of culture are focussed primarily on the accumulation of facts, the application of analysis to those facts, the comparison to the present day, and rough predictions about the future. Indeed, most do just this sort of thing. But it is always fascinating to see the work of professors who take a different approach. That's my point. And I think people would benefit from seeing it in Massad's work for themselves. This is revealing look into how Massad studies history and culture. By the way, I love seeing the words "philosophical" and "rigorous" appear in the same sentence. Warms my heart. And I say that as someone who happens to love philosophy. Technetium25 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Section "The Persistence of the Palestinian Question" 

message: I have archived all discussions with no comments more recent than January 2008 into /Archive 1.  This was a little bit tricky because a few old discussions had been commented on (stopping this was one of the reasons I wanted to archive), and I had to cut and paste around them.  Let me know if I appear to have screwed anything up. Kalkin (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributed to the rewrite. I'd come to this page earlier this year looking for information about Massad's books and wasn't able to get any clear idea of his positions from it. At that time, the article just seemed like a lot of alternating praise and criticism bandied back and forth, but no real discussion of his work. Didn't edit it then because I didn't know enough about his scholarship, or the controversy in general, to contribute reliably. But this page is so much clearer now, and seems more balanced despite becoming shorter, while still including different sides of the controversy. As far as I can tell, the current article is a great example of being as NPOV as possible in contentious circumstances. So thanks, Wikifolks! (P.S. This is in response to the Jun 13 version of the page.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.2.156 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks, everyone! 

message: settling a  libel suit by agreeing to pay  damages and and issue a formal statement that an academic article contained false material is pretty significant.  something this serious belongs on this man's page.Elan26 (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very serious, but did Massad settle the suit? Was he a party to the suit? From what you've written, it seems like he was a third party. Sorry, but that makes the information irrelevant to his biography. See WP:COATRACK. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to be joking. Massad wrote a review of an important pro-Palestinian artist that was so libelous, with its allegations of plagiarism, that it got his journal sued; when his journal decided to settle, Massad called them "cowards." That's not relevant to his biography? He was merely a "third party" to all this? You're kidding, right? The whole case was about him! These people were all suing over his work! You are setting up a logical fallacy by defining away anybody who isn't the plaintiff or the defendant as merely a "third party"; the subject, in this case, Massad, is just as important and central! This isn't an "innocent bystander" we're talking about! And you don't think that this information is informative about the human being Joseph Massad, and is relevant to the biography of an academic? I'm reinstating the change.Technetium25 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Libel suit

message: Wikipedia is not a compendium of an academic's published work. This section needs to be shortened. In my view, the books should of course be kept, as well as only a minimal number of articles and book reviews to show the sort of work he has done. Thoughts? ShamWow (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If somebody doesn't reduce Massad's work section, I will. I prefer somebody that is familiar with his works does so. Wikipedia is not a compendium of an author's works. Please help.ShamWow (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing "Works" Section 

message: According to the New york Post Massad has received his tenure earlier this month. I was surprised that there is no section about the controversy about giving him tenure (began in late 2004  ).
I don't want start an edit war, but i'm thinking about adding a brief (few sentences) section about this. what do u think? --Histolo2 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Adding something with regards to the controversy is necessary. It doesn't have to be a coatrack but the entire controversy is quite notable. ShamWow (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  section for tenure 

message: I am removing the reference to Massad being "Christian" because no one has provided any RS for this claim. Before anyone puts it back, please explain the factual basis for this claim and provide an RS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.180.183 (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian 

message: ...Massad's recent opinion piece in Al Jazeera here may be useful. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Truths, facts and facts on the ground"

message: I believe that there should be a link to the article genetic studies on Jews under the part where Massad claims modern Jews have no links to the ancient Hebrews, because these studies are more modern (and thus, not "European antisemitic constructions") and prove that European Jews do actually have origins in, and derive much of their ancestry from, the Fertile Crescent. His argument that they all look like Europeans is flawed, because there are many who look like Middle Easterners as well.69.248.98.23 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Has a reliable source made the connection between the genetic studies in question and Massad? If not, adding them to this article is considered impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern genetic studies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Joseph Massad. 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/20071212131105/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/720/op63.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/720/op63.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212131105/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/720/op63.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/720/op63.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220181531/http://www.bwog.net/publicate/index.php?page=post&article_id=3115 to http://www.bwog.net/publicate/index.php?page=post&article_id=3115
*Added  tag to http://www2.nysun.com/article/6826?page_no=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Joseph Massad. 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/20081002220337/http://democratiya.org/review.asp?reviews_id=148 to http://democratiya.org/review.asp?reviews_id=148
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918010623/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/623/op33.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/623/op33.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001093109/http://counterpunch.org/massad03252006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/massad03252006.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216085324/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/691/op2.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/691/op2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415164645/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/375/cult4.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/375/cult4.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/opinions/2005/04/04/2005-04-04_columbia_s_blind_spot__dilut.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joseph Massad. 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/20060913023411/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mealac/faculty/massad/ to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mealac/faculty/massad/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Joseph Massad praised the October 7th Hamas terror attacks in Israel as "jubilant" and "awesome" in an article published on electronicintifada.net. He is an antisemite who uses the legitimacy of his academic post to disseminate Jew-hatred. 71.255.70.84 (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2023 

message: Add a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews to the existing section, "On Israel and Zionism", paragraph 2, somewhere within "Massad has spoken of genetic links being established between 19th-century European Jews" to add context to the discussion cited.
To 
Massad has spoken of genetic links being established between 19th-century European Jews
:  It baffles me that this request has remained open for so long. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Israel and Zionism Section: Add link to genetic studies of Jews page