Talk:Robert S. Wistrich

message: is specific content at issue or just the user name? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that Dr. Wistrich may be editing the article himself. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  anyone want to elaborate on COI issues?  

message: I've discussed my criticisms with Robert Wistrich personally and I think my edits are quite fair. There may be a need for a corresponding defender of his work to be added but I have only so much time in the day. You may note that I have worked on other historian pages and I would appreciate if anyone feels that it is necessary please create a criticism section and move the quotes to that. 
Any dissension should take place on discussion not via vandalism. I will appreciate message and talk rather than the kind of spurious deletion wars that often eveolve. 
Wikidgood (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are WP:BLP issues with the material you've added, so it will be discussed here, not re-added, until they are resolved. Please see section below. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Wistrich is highly controversial so this section is to keep the Wiki spirit alive if there are issues 

message: User:Wikidgood has recently added the following material, based on his assertion that Wistrich is "highly controversial":
More recently, his publications have drawn fire as by critics such as author Walter Laquer, writing in the Washington Post, contending that Wistrich may "misinterpret the line between self-hatred and self-criticism" in his argument for a more pro-active Jewish community.
His participation in the film Obsession drew heavy fire from various parties such as       writing in the respected liberal Jewish affairs periodical Tikkun, who went so far as to lament what he characterized as "Wistrich’s journey from scholarship to propaganda. A Lethal Obsession reads as if it had been sponsored by AIPAC or Likud..."
As is obvious, there are several significant issues with the material:
#It fundamentally violates WP:BLP, because the only assessments of his work that are brought are negative. BLP demands balance. For example, the Walter Laqueur review of Wistrich's latest book contains phrases like "Wistrich's volume is a monumental, encyclopedic survey of the new wave of anti-Semitism" and "It would be difficult to think of a more competent author than Wistrich, head of a Jerusalem research institute, who has given decades to the study of the subject and has a good knowledge of recent European history and languages, and particularly of Nazism" and "Wistrich's facts are all true". Yet the only part Wikidgood's insertion includes is that Wistrich may "misinterpret the line between self-hatred and self-criticism"
#The second critical view is Milton Viorst writing in Tikkun magazine. Why this would be a significant enough criticism to satisfy the WP:RS requirements of WP:BLP is not clear. Though Viorst does write about the Middle East, he's a former journalist, not a historian or scholar of antisemitism. Also, he's writing in Tikkun; despite the non-neutral puffery in the insertion describing it ("the respected liberal Jewish affairs periodical"), its a small circulation (15,000 claimed), non-scholarly magazine, with a strongly political agenda.
#The insertion is filled with weasel words; it uses phrases such as "critics such as" and "drew heavy fire from various parties" while only citing two individuals, Laqueur and Viorst.
An assessment of Wistrich is a good idea, but it will have to use better sources, cite its sources better, and be balanced before it can be included. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently added material

message: IN A NUTSHELL: WIKIDGOOD asserts in reply to item 2 and/or suggestion of noncompliance with BLP that to the contrary the contested edit is not a point of biographic controversy, there is no biographical fact in contest nor any violation of BLP except insofar as BLP references NPOV, with which the edit is in 80%+ compliance. The remaining issue is: not indicating prominence of opposing views".
BRIEF:
There is no allegation by Jayg that the edits are uncited, false, opinion, judgemental, or innaccurate. 
However, WIKIDGOOD admits that there is a minor defect in that the deleted edit fails to comply with item 5 of the 5 points for NPOV, listed below as "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."
That would pertain more saliently if there were a dispute over whether, say, a certain memoir was or was not forged, ie., a material fact, but it is not grossly unreasonable to extent the guideline to this instance.
However, there is no question of fact as to whether the edits are truthful, verifiable, etc. WIKIDGOOD believed when posting and believes now that the edits are indicative of the median of the continuum of critical response, but accepts the qualification via the Lacquer quote.
JAYG is in agreement that there should be a section regarding the critical reception but does not proffer cited, alternative language specifically phrased for that section nor a section title. 
What remains to be done is to determine the replacement wording and elsewhere (in another section) WIKIDGOOD offers compromise wording on the Walter Laquer quotes. Assuming that or something similar is suitable, the sole remaining issue pertains to the Tikkun material.
'''
WIKIDGOOD denies that it is necessary that any quoted reviewer be a historian and that a mere journalist is disqualified from being a worthy quotation and requests that the JAYG indicate concurrence on  cede that point and narrow the issue to whether Tikkun should be described as per the original WIKIDGOOD edit.
WIKIDGOOD admits that the original edit posited that Tikkun is respected but that it may be more NPOV to modify that.THUS WIKIDGOOD requests JAYG suggested alternate language AND/OR additional " balancing" material to add to the Tikkun quote.
Please refere to NPOV GUIDELINES
:You already have an assessment from a respected historian working in the field. Tikkun is inappropriate, for the reasons stated. Please work with your best sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you admit that Tikkun is appropriate if and only if balanced with other views? Or do you claim that an absolute ban on Tikkun is called for?? As I recall, the "reasons" stated apply to the quote of one Tikkun writer without a balanced quote but for the reason that he was a journalist and not a historian. In my reply, I challenged you with the assertion that it is not necessary for a reviewer or commentator to be a historian per se to comment on Robert Wistrich's writings. Are you a historian yourself? Do you have a Ph D in history? And, granting for the sake of your discussion of this roadblock you are putting up, does a person with a doctorate in journalism and a BA in history qualify? 
But you chose not to respond, at all, to that challenge. Rather, you baldly assert "Tikkun is inappropriate, for reasons stated." In other words, you declined to respond and are resting on the fact that you have admin power and I don't and since you have the power you did not take the time to respond so I hereby repeat the challenge. Also, as a point of procedure, on an issue this complex and contentious you need to be in the habit of pasting or summarizing "reasons stated" and the excuse that it takes up your valuable time would be spurious in that you are making very cursory sweeping remarks and using instantantous click/delete powers whereas I am putting in very detailed arguments, based on academic, legal and history training.
Sop please do respond to all three of my current round of challenges, this one being an admission or denial that you are contending that only "historians" are pertinent to reviewing Wistrich material.
I already acceded to your request. I say Tikkun goes in if it is balanced with others. You can put up some Dershowitz but I would reserve the right to counter with Finkelstein, for "obvious" reasons. (For the uniniated, those are two who famously quarrel...) But according to your apparent zeal to restrict information flow, where would the comments of the Muslim and Arab world fit in? If you are trying to prove the wikipedia is NOT a particularly venue for achieving a comprehensive and encyclopedic review of a historian/intellectual and their reception across a broad spectrum of intelligent informed parties, you are succeeding, but to the extent you are trying to cut down wikipedia from less than it could be, there will probably be an evolving tendency to either improve wikipedia, or leave it, and at cost to the reputation of the very causes and opinion shapers you seek to insulate...and as you know there is a wide perception that any critical thinking on the issues raised not so much by Rob Wistrich as the Israel-based academic establishment, insofar as it tends to support what Laquer denomates as "Likud" opinion, is suppressed by Likudists. Your actions - such as your claim of an absolute ban on Beliak's critique - tend to support that view, and to the extent that view gains currency, the interests of, say, Israel, in terms of the public opinion of its intelligentsia, suffers much more than it would if you had not blockaded progress of this wikipedia page.
All I propose is that the page be able to be built up incrementally as long as it proceeds in balance phases, say, two or three opinions at a time. If you are trying to claim that someone must write up the whole entire corpus of Wistrich's reception for all twenty of his books, in one fell swoop, and that the page can't proceed in iterations, you will not likely be regarded as reasonable nor will your holdups be likely sustained. As it stands, you are damaging the credibility of wikipedia just by making the unreasonable assertions that (1) Beliak is blocked and (2) the whole entire section must be completed before ANY review can be put up. Which is not at all in your interest, even if you think that Wistrich is sacrosanct, always right, and that no criticisms of him are at all valid. Because you create the impression that Wistrich followers can't take the heat of critical review without utilizing procedural blockades. 
\
Eventually, wikipedia itself will probably fix that but by causing delays you are already damaging the reputation of Wistrich's school of thought and leaving yourself open to the charge of obstructionism. I don't know that you care in that you have perhaps already calculate that anyone who wants a fair and balanced and reasonable assessment of such matters is an enemy of the truth as you see it. A very old story. So what will you achieve? One more person, myself, will be convinced that however sympathetic I may be to the unusual thesis of Wistrich, which runs like a thread through so much of his work, his more zealous supporters, such as yourself, are so wary and paranoid of any hint of criticism that they make it impossible to ever really in any way join their team or take their side without the ever present censorious hypervigilance which you have already staked out. 
What I am asking at this point is that you qualify your Beliak-blockade and that you admit that a phased building of the page, if balanced, is fine. Otherwise, you will have demonstrated a level of unreasonableness which among other effects will succeed in discourage me from getting intellectually involved with doing anything to help Rob Wistrich's views promulgate, because apparently his supporters have it all figured out and will just quash like a bug anybody or anyting that doesn't have their prior authorization...please advise on these two issues which I have identified.   Wikidgood (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I was quite clear when I wrote: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Any future comments that discuss anything besides article content will be ignored. If you comment solely on article content I will respond. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You neglect to respond to the content above but rather take refuge behind the characterization of my lengthly reply as an alleged comment on the contributor. I don't see that as such, but even if buried in the text is some characterization of your editorial ACTIVITY, that is not a "personal attack" not even slightly, and the fact remains that you failed to answer the express requests for comment. For instance, you have not replied to the request to modify your suggestion that ONLY historians are suitable reviewers of historian Robert Wistrich. If you are in good faith or would like to conduct yourself in good faith please modify your rigid broad position or at least itemize your responses to my itemized requests for clarification. By citing WP:NPA rather than respond to the content-based discussion you really are avoiding dialogue and at least implying an attack on this poster. THis whole lousy level of discourse resulting from your failure to discuss the specific issues I bring up is really a disservice to Robert WIstrich, whom I know personally and like, and to Wikipedia. Please do me a favor and parse these comments, copy the specific requests for clarification of your position, even if you wish to resist budging, and paste a response to each such comment in a new section. Wikidgood (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained, I will respond to any comments that only discuss article content, not editors. Please parse your own comments so that they comply with this policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the editorial policy you implement which is subject to criticism. That is not a "personal attack". By linking to that policy, you suggest a different scenario altogether than what has transpired. FYI the term "deletionism" is not something I came up with it a term another editor introduced me to in his mea culpa for essentially vandalizing my work. After he reviewed my posts and taught me how to put up In-Use and Under-Construction tags, he more or less apologized and corrected the damage. The suggestion that my critique of your imposed editorial policy constitutes a "personal attack" makes me feel harassed and threatened with some kind of block. This feeling was exacerbated by other posts you have made and I feel completely thwarted from any good faith dialogue on the critical reception of Robert Wistrich's unusual theories. Even if I come to agree with his thesis, I will long remember the way administrative authority, with vield threats of block, made me feel that I would not be permitted to engage in NPOV work on this article. You have not had one encouraging word to suggest that you had any respect for the fact that I have researched and made myself familiar with this profligate intellectual Robert Wistrich. Most people don't even have a clue who he is. I would like it if you would retract your suggestion that my objections constitute personal attack, or, de minimus, your suggestion that the Kibhutz Shield was some kind of evasion...Wikidgood (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikidgood's Reply to editorial objection/contention #2

message: IN REPLY TO "The insertion is filled with weasel words; it uses phrases such as "critics such as" and "drew heavy fire from various parties" while only citing two individuals, Laqueur and Viorst." Wikidgood states that there are two separate objections conflated into one, to wit: (a)alleged use of 'weasel words' and (b) citing only two individuals. 
Regarding (a) "weasel" is a prejudcial slang word associated with criminal intent to "weasel" off the hook for misdeeds and in this particular field tending to associate with criminal misreprentation 
such as Holocaust denialism, which is a prosecutable offense in many nations. 
Please refrain from using slang terminology and find less prejudicial nomenclature at risk of vitiating your credibility.
As to the substance of the allegation, 
ignoring its tone, the accuasation is that 
offering an example constitutes an attempt to "weasel", 
i.e., to evade. 
There is no such intention. Thus,
the characterization as an "obvious...weasel" is 
inapposite. There are literally thousands of people 
who have criticized Rob Wistrich in very harsh terms 
indeed, and the suggestion that the offering of two
relatively mild criticisms as examples is an attempt
to "weasel" can only indicate that the objector is
either misinformed, or attempting to conceal 
the vast body of criticism of Wistrich.
Do you really think that he is NON controversial?
And note that Rabbi Beliak was not quoted. 
Note also, no Muslim critic was quoted,
sparing the subject
of some of the most "unbalanced" criticism.
Admittedly, Tikkun represents a progressive critique,
but it is, after all, an American Jewish critique, 
and Rabbi Lerner, the editor of Tikkun,
is above such reproach as seems to be implied
by the objector's dismissive ("obviously")
and derogatory ("weasel") characterizations 
of a good faith attempt to add depth to the
Wikipedia article on this important historian.
Wikidgood (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not concerned with the opinions of various unnamed "thousands of people"; it is only concerned with the views of reliable sources. So far, your best source is Laqueur. Please use him and/or sources equally good. Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this mean that you contend that anything in Tikkun is a priori a non-reliable source? Wikidgood (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You already have an appropriate source, one far better than Tikkun. Given that, and given that this is a WP:BLP, Tikkun is not appropriate here. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikidgood's Preliminary Reply to Objection # 3 

message: (1)Please take note that the deleted material did have a section name, something like "Criticism of Wistrich's Late Work" or "Recent Criticisms".  JAYG did not quote the Section Name when reposting into talk, thus  anyone coming into the discussion would not be aware of the rubric which had been established for the deleted writing. 
(2) Wikidgood does not at all object to the readjustment proposing that a section for the evaluation/assessment history would be preferable to coverage of only "criticism". I am in 100% agreement. However, it would be far preferable to add material rather than subtract because what was subtracted was (a) true, (b) by no means "obviously" unbalanced - there are many more negative criticisms out there, IMHO the ones offered are at about median and 
(3) no evidence, proof or citation to the contrary is offered, only other statements which were weighted more differently, 
(4) the offered proof, in the form of additional Laquer quotation, supports the balanced nature of the original deleted post insofar as it proves that Laquer is not an "anti-Wistrich" writer.(5)Proposed section name: Critical Reception.  Wikidgood (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wistrich has written 20 books and dozens of other works. A "Critical reception" of his work needs to cover a fair sample of that, not just his latest book. Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I was quite clear when I wrote: Statements or implications that other editors are "deletionist", "destructive", have "intent to suppress", or engage in "censorship" and "book-burning" are inappropriate. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Any future comments that discuss anything besides article content will be ignored.  If you comment solely on article content I will respond. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Your comment included the phrase "you are stonewalling", and made other comments about me. As explained previously, I will respond to any comments that only discuss article content. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Name Revision 

message: Regarding the apparent designation of any and all articles published in Tikkun as per se not worthy of citatoin on Wikipedia, which is an apparent edict by Jayg which has not to date been modified or qualified, please take notice of the below evidence which suggests that Bernie Morris has published in Tikkun. 
http://books.google.com/books?id=vNb5VkyxDlYC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Tikkun+FInkelstein&source=bl&ots=B2CVLcax6u&sig=yO5s6TlZZq1356-_Jfe7Y7GFDsg&hl=en&ei=ixlXTY28HomesQPew8WcDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
If accurate, this presents the corrollary question to Jayg to wit, is Bernie Morris not worthy of citation on WIkipedia ONLY when writing in Tikkun, or, in the alternative, AT ALL TIMES?
Wikidgood (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't stated that "any and all articles published in Tikkun as per se not worthy of citatoin on Wikipedia"; please review my comments to understand what they actually say. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy: Matter in Evidence: Is All Tikkun-Published Content Atuomatically invalid?  

message: 1)An assessment of Wistrich is a good idea.
2)Be balanced before it can be included.
3)The following are appropriate additions:
"Walter Laqueur's review of Wistrich's latest book ... "Wistrich's volume is a monumental, encyclopedic survey of the new wave of anti-Semitism" and "It would be difficult to think of a more competent author than Wistrich, head of a Jerusalem research institute, who has given decades to the study of the subject..."
Wikidgood (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We should certainly start with Laqueur's review; we don't necessarily have to include those specific passages, but whatever is included from it must be balanced. Also please keep in mind that, as stated before, Wistrich as written 20 books, so the article cannot devote WP:UNDUE weight to any of them. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. We need to do a systematic review and weight appropriately. IMO Rob's theory of Nazi/Islamist contiguity is kind of  out there on the bell curve, even if true, and hence much weight should go to critics. Among those, I don't see how it is appropriate to exclude Tikkun and Lerner but maybe you know more than I do. It seemed pretty arbitrary to blanketly exclude any Tikkun contributor or contribution but maybe you just mean that they are under heightened scrutiny? I don't know maybe that group is schlockier than I had thought. I was quite surprised how vigorously you seem to derogate Lerner's group but until I learn more I don't feel qualified to defend him. Maybe you can find some others including critics. Maybe I will discover Rob is more correct than I had thought but he seems to be quite POV....Wikidgood (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've explained at length above (in previous threads) why the specific sources you mentioned weren't appropriate here. Please review those comments. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay you are too intelligent and experienced to really hold fast to excluding ANY contributor to TIKKUN from being cited, come on. I understand that Rabbi Lerner has some warts exposed on his wikipedia entry but it is not demonstrated that any and every collaborator with his leftish peacenik journal is so anathematized that they are per se unworthy of inclusion on WMF. But then, that is probably not what you would hold to if I produced a quote, from Tikkun, which was otherwise unobjectionable. But yeah, this kind of argument wears me out and I guess that the write up of Rob's critical reception is not a job I feel like taking on at this time. Too bad, I guess, but maybe I will feel differently in a couple of weeks. Sorry. Wikidgood (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Status Update: Area of Agreement

message: Maybe a fresh start will help with this situation. Take a look at my comment on the talk page at the anti-Semitism article. I attended an entire graduate seminar on the topic and I find the article lede to be too simplistic and not accurate.
I would almost say sophomoric, but that is too strong and could be taken as a bit insulting, at the antisemitism article. It generalizes and omits many factors. If anyone is reading this talk page, rather than continue to spin our wheels, perhaps we can move forward at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism#Lede_has_POV._OR_generalization_which_I_dispute
This is just an attempt to create some kind of positive and constructive collaboration because it looks like we are pretty much stuck on the Wistrich page. Just let me know if you have any issues with what I am doing on that page. I would think, not, but, if so, it would probably just prove to me there is no use trying to play a constructive role at WMF on anything that matters. Unless I was convinced that I was in error. Wikidgood (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have an appropriate source, Laqueur, but you refuse to use it appropriately. The reasons why are still not clear. Jayjg (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to productive collaboration 

message: JAYG wrote:
"The second critical view is Milton Viorst writing in Tikkun magazine. Why this would be a significant enough criticism to satisfy the WP:RS requirements of WP:BLP is not clear."
RESPONSE: Jayg's own words 'clarify' this.
JAYG CONTINUED:
"Though Viorst does write about the Middle East, he's a former journalist, not a historian or scholar of antisemitism."
RESPONSE: A Middle East affairs journalist per se meets WP:RS.
 Wikidgood (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS is always within a context. Viorst would be considered a somewhat WP:RS when writing about Middle Eastern affairs, but he doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS (particularly in a WP:BLP) when it comes to antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viorst as a source