Talk:Jasbir Puar

Blood libeling
Looks like all traces of her blood libeling have been removed. Arguably this is the only thing she's notable for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.50.77 (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

removed section lacking notability
Article consisted mainly of a lengthy text describing Puar's academic papers, and sources exclusively to those papers. article has been tagged for sourcing, notability since last summer. But the problem with this article, and with the material I removed, is not the lack of sourcing per se. It is that Wikipedia does not have articles about the work of scholars. It has articles about scholars who are notable - usually because of their work. And to establish that notability, it is necessary for the work to be extensively discussed in reliable secondary sources. Lengthy descriptions of a scholar's non-notable work sourced to that work are not acceptable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability
Serious doubts about notability of this minor academic. I wonder if we should merge articles of this type into some sort of list of Academics involved in anti-Semitic activism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Notability is without any problem, she's a reputable scholar with numerous works translated in many languages. Only problem is that Zios just don't like her. Avoid baseless accusations or you'll get reported. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Queried notability of this article on what looks like a minor, not yet notable academic/ political activist. Lede reads like PROMO and "Academic career" section is largely sourced to her own articles. The "blood libel" section is reasonably well sourced.  but the lede, & academic career sections need sources to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. This page should be deleted.  --GHcool (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's "anti-Semitic" claim, above, is absurd. Anti-Zionist is the term they're looking for. The "controversy" is totally irrelevant—sourced only to a few conservative and Zionist publications—and should not take up half of the article. 198.167.171.110 (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Restoring massive deletion
By IP 198.167.171.110 who explained: "totally irrelevant—sourced only to a few conservative and Zionist publications—and should not take up half of the article." Material in question is sourced to Mark Yudof, Kenneth Waltzer, Liel Leibovitz. Wall Street Journal and New York Jewish Week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I added a section on antisemitic controversy- I'll check your sources too. Jacker1968 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed primary
Removed statements of support for Puar by organizations sourced only to the websites of those organizations. (also removed non-notalbe prizes, like a "Excellence in Graduate Teaching Award" given by the school where she teaches.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Blood Libel / Antisemitism
According to JOHN-PAUL PAGANO September 23, 2019, writing in the national review https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/blood-libel-anti-semitism-conspiracy-theory/ "Recently Rutgers University professor Jasbir Puar was celebrated for enrobing the canard of Jewish organ theft in a sumptuous fabric of critical theory." Jacker1968 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition she has been written about by Israel National News, which says "Last week Jasbir Puar, an assistant professor at Rutgers University's Department of Women's and Gender Studies who was visiting Vassar, gave a guest lecture entitled "Inhumanist Biopolitics: How Palestine Matters," in which she expressed a litany of complaints against Israel, including that it "assassinates" teenagers, harvests organs, and deliberately prevents resources from reaching Gaza in order to "maim" and "stunt" the growth of Palestinians." http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/207758#.VrsZglh97IX The blood libel (accusations that Israel "harvests organs of Palestinians" is extremely serious and should therefore be included in rebuttals or criticism of her "Terrorist assemblages"

(these are precisely the kind of accusations that cause antisemitic riots getting Jews murdered) Jacker1968 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Jacker1968 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You guys are full of nonsense. Her book talks about Israel, not the Jewish people. Just because a bunch of Zionuts call her an anti-Semite does not make it so! 142.189.242.234 (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The first link is primary source to an opinion piece. Are there secondary sources noting the controversy? The second source is a news article and incident might be noteworthy, but is Arutz Sheva definitely an RS? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On searching, it looks like this material is noteworthy and should be covered (but obviously in a careful way, as this is a BLP):
 * BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) PS we should not say in our voice that the subject of the BLP is antisemitic; we should neutrally report the controversy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it neutral to not mention that Israel has admitted to harvesting organs in the past,   that there has been extensive reporting on illegal organ harvesting in Israel through the 2000s-2010s, and that Israel is currently being accused of harvesting organs  ? The "libel" part of blood libel is important, and leaving this context out implies the accusation of anti-semitism is legitimated by the facts, which is absolutely not neutral reporting. 01:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Infocidal (talk)
 * Realizing the comment at the bottom has also pointed this out. Why is this smear paragraph allowed to persist here? Infocidal (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) PS we should not say in our voice that the subject of the BLP is antisemitic; we should neutrally report the controversy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it neutral to not mention that Israel has admitted to harvesting organs in the past,   that there has been extensive reporting on illegal organ harvesting in Israel through the 2000s-2010s, and that Israel is currently being accused of harvesting organs  ? The "libel" part of blood libel is important, and leaving this context out implies the accusation of anti-semitism is legitimated by the facts, which is absolutely not neutral reporting. 01:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Infocidal (talk)
 * Realizing the comment at the bottom has also pointed this out. Why is this smear paragraph allowed to persist here? Infocidal (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) PS we should not say in our voice that the subject of the BLP is antisemitic; we should neutrally report the controversy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it neutral to not mention that Israel has admitted to harvesting organs in the past,   that there has been extensive reporting on illegal organ harvesting in Israel through the 2000s-2010s, and that Israel is currently being accused of harvesting organs  ? The "libel" part of blood libel is important, and leaving this context out implies the accusation of anti-semitism is legitimated by the facts, which is absolutely not neutral reporting. 01:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Infocidal (talk)
 * Realizing the comment at the bottom has also pointed this out. Why is this smear paragraph allowed to persist here? Infocidal (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it neutral to not mention that Israel has admitted to harvesting organs in the past,   that there has been extensive reporting on illegal organ harvesting in Israel through the 2000s-2010s, and that Israel is currently being accused of harvesting organs  ? The "libel" part of blood libel is important, and leaving this context out implies the accusation of anti-semitism is legitimated by the facts, which is absolutely not neutral reporting. 01:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Infocidal (talk)
 * Realizing the comment at the bottom has also pointed this out. Why is this smear paragraph allowed to persist here? Infocidal (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagged for Bias (Mar. 2022)
I tagged this article for bias because of its shoddy sourcing, promotional tone and content, and its curated omission of its subject's most notable public incident. The subject is not independently more notable than any academic online, and this is Wikipedia, not a Google scholar page, so not every scholar gets to have one. This page likely seems to be self-promotional or at least part of a reputation management effort in the wake of said public incident. EWBlyden 85 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section
Edits need to be made to the controversy section, which should be sourced better and outline the claims being objected to by the National Review and Israel National News sources. For instance, the most substantial cause for objection in this section is the claim that Israel has harvested organs, which has been reported as a practice in the 1990s, for instance in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

Further details on this claim can be found on the Wikipedia page 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy Handpigdad (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what this is supposed to address, but either way, the section should be removed, it's a targeted harassment campaign against a scholar for talking about established and admitted facts. Infocidal (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)