Talk:Phyllis Chesler/Archive 1

No Personal Attacks
I have tried Google. Thanks. --Tbeatty 22:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
I can't find this in the link that was given:


 * Finkelstein has drawn attention to factual errors in the book, including Chesler's reference to "Arab land such as ... India" and her description of Aung San Suu Kyi as a Muslim intellectual.

If it's there, can you quote the sentence and say where it was published other than on his own website? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't have the book with me right now, but I'll add this tomorrow.  CJCurrie 02:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also removed this:
 * "The book that has been heavily criticized by commentators such as Norman Finkelstein."
 * Can you please actually list some notable, published criticisms of the book? Amazon reviews don't count, by the way. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers
CJ, thanks for finding the Finkelstein reference. Is the quote on page 34, and the material about the errors on page 51? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. (And thank you for correcting the footnoting style.) CJCurrie 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The disputed sentence
There's actually a second reference to India as an Arab county in The New Anti-Semitism, and it's far more egregious than the one cited. I'll see if I can find it. CJCurrie 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which one does Finkelstein reference? Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He references both. CJCurrie 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * CJCurrie, I found one other sentence where it's clear she doesn't believe India is an Arab country: "Jews from Arab lands (and from India and Iran) have increasingly become more dominant ... in Israel." (p. 167) I think the first sentence, the one I quoted in the article, was just a question of bad punctuation: she listed the Arab countries and then added "and India," but should have punctuated it differently to make the separation clearer. I can't find the reference to the Buddist. Do you know what page that's on? It would also be helpful to know exactly what Finkelstein said. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That wasn't the other reference I was referring to: there's yet another section in The New Anti-Semitism where Chesler specifically mentions Israel as taking in "Arab Jews from India after 1948" (or words to that effect). She also mentions ASSK in a list of "Muslim feminist intellectuals" she's defended.


 * I don't believe the first reference is a case of bad punctuation: Chesler clearly intended to provide a list of Arab countries. And whether or not Chesler believes India to be an Arab country isn't the point at issue.  For our purposes, the important thing is that she describes India as an Arab country on two separate occasions.


 * To your last point, I strongly recommend that you read the first section of Finkelstien's book. CJCurrie 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you quote exactly what Finkelstein said, if you have the book? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately (and for the second time in a week), I don't physically have the book with me at present. I'll get back to you tomorrow.  CJCurrie 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Arab Jews" did live in India; the Baghdadi Jews, to be specific, and Israel did take them in after 1948. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But they weren't refugees, were they? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe India's Jews were forced or pressured to leave the country after 1948?  CJCurrie 22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, they were refugees from Arab lands; that's why they fled to India. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean that they weren't refugees from India (which might be how Chesler describes them -- I can't remember the exact wording offhand). CJCurrie 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is picking apart the way she writes, rather than being proper criticism. Israel taking in Arab Jews from India is clear to me, and the second reference shows she knows India isn't an Arab country. So we're left only with the first reference, which was an ambiguous use of the serial comma, which happens a lot. She'd have been better making it two sentences, that's all. It beggars belief that someone with a PhD who has lived in Kabul, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and who to some extent specializes in Middle East issues, would believe that India is an Arab country, and we can't make that assertion based on a misplaced serial comma. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can assume it was a misplaced comma. I agree that Chesler probably realizes India is not an Arab country, and it's likely that she simply missed this error in proofreading; all the same, it certainly reads like a factual error.  CJCurrie 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the historical context? What's now Pakistan used to be part of India.  See Partition of India. "Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly-formed nations in the months immediately following Partition. Once the lines were established, about 14.5 million people crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority. Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition." Was Chesler talking about that exodus? --John Nagle 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's quite clear that Chesler knows that India is not an Arab country, and that Finkelstein is just doing tendentious nit-picking, rather than making serious criticism. The actual statements from the book are far more relevant to the page than Finkelstein's comments - if anything, it is Finkelestein's comments that belong in a footnote. Would you prefer to organize it that way? Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Finkelstein criticizes the general content of The New Anti-Semitism as well as its factual errors. There's no reason not to list him in the main body of the article.


 * Per yesterday's request, here are the specific "factual error" criticisms mentioned by Finkelstein:


 * (i) p. 113 - "Arab lands such as ... India" (The "ambiguous serial comma" defence would only make sense if there were another "and" in front of "Morocco".)


 * (ii) p. 174 - "Arab and Muslim intellectuals, artists, political dissidents" like "Aung Sun Suu Kyi" (there's ambiguity on this one; Chesler clearly includes ASSK in a list of Arab/Muslim intellectuals.)


 * (iii) p. 228 - "If Israel is a racist apartheid country, why did it absorb dark- and olive-skinned Arab Jews from India [...]" (It's possible that Chesler had the Baghdadi Jewish community in mind when she wrote this, although she doesn't give any indication. Finkelstein could have added that Chesler also mentioned Arab Jews from Iran and Afghanistan in the same sentence.)


 * I'm quite certain that Chesler realizes India isn't an Arab country, and she may also realize that ASSK is a Buddhist. The point in highlighting these errors may have been to demonstrate that the passages in question, like so much else in the book, were not especially well thought out.  CJCurrie 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as has been noted already, Arab Jews did indeed come from India, and Chesler clearly knows that India is not an Arab country. So what do these "errors" boil down to? As I said above, tendentious nit-picking. Yes, the book could have used one last copyedit; frankly, the whole tone of the book is far too breathless for my liking.  However, Finkelstein's "factual error" criticisms are just silly. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that NF went a bit over-the-top in his criticisms, though I also think Chesler deserved at least some of it. Anyway, we've more-or-less reached equilibrium here.  CJCurrie 03:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Arab Jews from India
You know there are actually Arab Jews from India -- they're called the Baghdadi Jewish community. See Judaism in India and Baghdadi Jews. Did anyone ever think to check this before accusing Chesler? AnonMoos 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We've been through this already. Chesler didn't just reference "Arab Jews from India"; she also mentioned "Arab Jews from Afghanistan".  It's possible she was thinking of Baghdadi Jews in the first instance; the second suggests a greater likelihood that she made a mistake.  CJCurrie 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aung San Suu
CJ, on which page is the thing about the above in Chesler's book. I think we should check it out for ourselves in case it's just another editing error. I've looked but I can't find it. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on p. 174, and it's crystal clear: Chesler includes ASSK in a list of Muslim intellectuals. Btw, I don't think we should assume the other mistake was an editing error. CJCurrie 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * CJC, is it necessary for you always to revert and change things, back and forth, as soon as someone makes an edit to a page on your watchlist? It makes for an unpleasant editing experience. Thank you for the page number. I'll look it up. The other thing was clearly a writing/editing error. If these are the only errors she made in a book of that length, that's excellent work, and it makes us look cheap to say otherwise. Count up all the edits you have made at Wikipedia. How many factual and editing errors could we find if we were to pore through them? (Mine too.) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced that "Arab lands such as ... India" was an editing error, although a writing error seems more plausible. CJCurrie 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation removed
I've removed a paragraph that violated WP:BLP. It appeared to be original research sourced entirely to a Kahanist website. I'm certain no reasonable person really thinks that sort of organization is a reliable source when it comes to just about anything, much less the biography of a living person. Quoting from the policy, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." It's not clear how the person who inserted this material was able to decide that the material was notable, given the fact that it has not be reproduced in any reliable source, much less a third-party one as demanded by policy. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting justification for removing the material in question, and I suppose it's technically a valid argument under WP:BLP. It may be worth noting, however, that the interview with Phyllis Chesler was originally published in The Jewish Press, and was only later reposted on the JDL's website.   Chesler has also reprinted the interview on her own website, which would appear to resolve any lingering questions as to reliability.


 * I have now restored the material, with a citation that should pass the test of WP:BLP with flying colours. I commend Jayjg for his vigilance in the matter, and I should also note that I've corrected the wording on one particular point: Chesler's interview was not technically with the Jewish Defense League, merely with a former JDL national director.  CJCurrie (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * CJCurrie, it isn't just that the citation must be verifiable. BLP and NOR work hand-in-hand. To begin with, the summary itself is not an accurate portrayal of the contents of the article - as simple examples, she doesn't criticize multiculturalism, but multicultural relativism, which is something else. In addition, she doesn't state that people should support Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson, she says they should support Christian Zionists, and that she has been on Pat Roberston's show twice - again, her words are misrepresented. As a third example, you write she "said she would no longer criticize Israel's occupation of the West Bank." In fact, what she said was "In the past I demonstrated against the "occupation"; I will not do so now. If we Jews have a history anywhere, it is in Shechem, among other places. We see more clearly now what the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza wrought. If there’s a good thing that came out of it, it’s that the world is forced to see who and what Hamas really is." There is a world of difference between "criticizing" and "demonstrating against", and her reasons for her change of heart are left entirely unstated.
 * But more than these issues are more fundamental ones: Why is so much of the article about New anti-Semitism, when her book on the subject is only one of 13 she has written? And why are *those* particular statements, out of the entire interview, the appropriate ones for a biography of Phyllis Chesler - or indeed, why is this particular interview significant? The interview is a primary source, we need to rely on secondary sources for analysis of which of Chesler's words, are significant - this is a clear an obvious violation of WP:NOR, as stated in my previous comments and edit summary. That the article contains Finkelstein's view of Chesler's book is one thing, but that it contains CJCurrie's analysis of a Chesler interview is quite another (and, of course, forbidden by WP:NOR).
 * Even worse, why are her arguments not actually presented (see the occupation example above), and instead out of context quotes provided, with what appears to be an eye to maximally damaging her reputation? Why is the interview presented as "a 2007 interview with the Fern Sidman, a former national director of the Jewish Defense League"? Yes, apparently the interviewer was the national director of the JDL from 1983 to 1985, but in the twenty years since then she appears to have worked as a journalist - in fact, the interview is with The Jewish Week, not Fern Sidman, and one wouldn't present an interview in another paper under the byline of the journalist rather than the newspaper. The specific detail regarding the job the interviewer held between 1983 and 1985 seems to have been chosen solely for the purpose of guilt by association.
 * Perhaps most troubling are edit summaries such as these that indicate to me that your opinion of the subject is too strongly negative to edit this article; indeed, I suspect this is the kind of statement that might well have to be deleted from the article history.
 * Handling articles about living people properly, especially respected academics such as Chesler, is a very serious enterprise. I am stating this as forcefully as possible; please do not restore the material or any version of it, until there is a strong consensus for doing so. I don't want to have to take even stronger action, but to defend Wikipedia I will not hesitate to do so. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling that, Jayjg!QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Response
Let's take this point-by-point:

1. To begin with, the summary itself is not an accurate portrayal of the contents of the article - as simple examples, she doesn't criticize multiculturalism, but multicultural relativism, which is something else.

This criticism is accurate, but it's also banal. Multiculturalism and multicultural relativism are indeed different concepts, but the terms are often used in an interchangeable manner (moreso in Europe than in North America, I grant). In any case, one need only change the wording to read "multicultural relativism" if more precision is required. This doesn't qualify as a significant error, let alone an actionable offense.

2. In addition, she doesn't state that people should support Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson, she says they should support Christian Zionists, and that she has been on Pat Roberston's show twice - again, her words are misrepresented.

Here the exact quote:


 * It's also very important for Jews to forge alliances with Christian Zionists. I've been on Pat Robertson's show, "The 700 Club," twice and I took holy hell for it from my former feminist friends.

While Chesler may not express the view that "Jews should forge alliances with Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson" in so many words, the inference is so obvious that it scarcely needs explanation.

In any event, this too is not a significant error. If you're going to insist on a painfully literal reading of WP:NOR, then the solution is again quite simple: simply adjust the wording to read, "Chesler has also called for Jews to forge alliances with Christian Zionists, citing her own appearance on Pat Robertson's program."

3. ''As a third example, you write she "said she would no longer criticize Israel's occupation of the West Bank." In fact, what she said was "In the past I demonstrated against the "occupation"; I will not do so now. If we Jews have a history anywhere, it is in Shechem, among other places. We see more clearly now what the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza wrought. If there's a good thing that came out of it, it's that the world is forced to see who and what Hamas really is." There is a world of difference between "criticizing" and "demonstrating against", and her reasons for her change of heart are left entirely unstated.''

You left out the question to which she was responding:


 * As someone who once vocally opposed the settlement movement in Israel, what would you say to Jews living in Judea and Samaria who could suffer the same fate as the thousands of Jews still homeless as a result of the 2005 Gaza disengagement?

It's quite obvious that Chesler is indicating her support for the West Bank settlements, as well as for the occupation in a more general sense. The language may need some tightening for precision, but the basic point is quite accurate.

4. But more than these issues are more fundamental ones: Why is so much of the article about New anti-Semitism, when her book on the subject is only one of 13 she has written?

I think the answer is fairly obvious: the article is not particularly long at present. I would have no objection to other editors developing it, and discussing her earlier literature in more detail -- but the fact that this hasn't yet occurred should not be used as justification to remove relevant information that's currently there.

In any event, the space devoted to "New Anti-Semitism" is hardly disproporate in the grand scheme of things -- four paragraphs doesn't amount to a voluminous total.

5. And why are *those* particular statements, out of the entire interview, the appropriate ones for a biography of Phyllis Chesler - or indeed, why is this particular interview significant?

The interview was significant enough to be published by a credible journal, and Chesler evidently thought it important enough to be reposted on her website. Her statements here are in any event representative of her views on "new anti-Semitism" and Islam, which she has repeated several times in different forums (albeit seldom in so direct a fashion).

You must surely be aware that there are no "hard and fast" rules on what materials may be included and excluded from this project, and your insistence that this particular material be rejected as unencyclopedic could very easily be interpreted as falling into the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

6. The interview is a primary source, we need to rely on secondary sources for analysis of which of Chesler's words, are significant - this is a clear an obvious violation of WP:NOR, as stated in my previous comments and edit summary.

This is simply untrue. WP:NOR does not forbid the use of primary sources: it merely indicates that we should use them with caution and limit ourselves to descriptive claims that are easily verifiable.

Assuming these precautions are taken seriously (and I believe they have been), the disputed text should not be interpreted as "a clear an obvious violation" of anything.


 * That the article contains Finkelstein's view of Chesler's book is one thing, but that it contains CJCurrie's analysis of a Chesler interview is quite another (and, of course, forbidden by WP:NOR).

Fortunately, the article does not contain CJCurrie's analysis of a Chesler interview.

7. Even worse, why are her arguments not actually presented (see the occupation example above), and instead out of context quotes provided, with what appears to be an eye to maximally damaging her reputation?

Really, Jay -- you're referring to what are at most minor instances of language imprecision.

8. ''Why is the interview presented as "a 2007 interview with the Fern Sidman, a former national director of the Jewish Defense League"? Yes, apparently the interviewer was the national director of the JDL from 1983 to 1985, but in the twenty years since then she appears to have worked as a journalist - in fact, the interview is with The Jewish Week, not Fern Sidman, and one wouldn't present an interview in another paper under the byline of the journalist rather than the newspaper.''

You win ... on this point.

I was initially under the mistaken impression that the interview was sponsored by the JDL. I now realize that this was an error (albeit a good-faith one), and I'm prepared to remove the reference entirely.

9. Perhaps most troubling are edit summaries such as these that indicate to me that your opinion of the subject is too strongly negative to edit this article; indeed, I suspect this is the kind of statement that might well have to be deleted from the article history.

I suspect most readers will recognize that I wasn't entirely serious with that particular remark, and that I pretty obviously wasn't endorsing the prior edit (which is why I deleted it, a fact that you've curiously omitted from your summary).

You've also neglected to mention the fact that I deleted unsourced and potentially damaging references to Chesler on five other occasions in the last few months. How you've concluded from this that my opinion of the subject is "too strongly negative" to edit the article is a mystery to me.

10. Handling articles about living people properly, especially respected academics such as Chesler, is a very serious enterprise.

I agree that handling articles about living people is a very serious enterprise, and would add that it's quite important that we not make skewed and polemical edits about living people.

The problem in this instance is that Chesler actually did make all of the statements credited to her:


 * My editor at Jossey Bass challenged me: Are you sure you ought to say this – that anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism and that Islamic anti-Semitism is lethal in nature? Are you really sure you're right? And I said yes.


 * It's easy to say, yes, the Muslims are against everyone who is not a Muslim. And it's true. That's part of what jihad is about, that's part of the history of Islam. But it doesn't account for the incessant, infernal feuds among the Muslim religious sects and tribes that are bloody, deadly. Here's the thing. The West, and that means Jews and Israelis, would like to lead sweet and peaceful lives. We're up against an enemy now that is dying to kill us, that lives to kill, and that at best merely wishes to impose on the rest of us its laws and strictures.


 * It's also very important for Jews to forge alliances with Christian Zionists. I've been on Pat Robertson's show, "The 700 Club," twice and I took holy hell for it from my former feminist friends.


 * In the past I demonstrated against the "occupation"; I will not do so now. If we Jews have a history anywhere, it is in Shechem, among other places. We see more clearly now what the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza wrought. If there's a good thing that came out of it, it's that the world is forced to see who and what Hamas really is.

http://76.12.0.56/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=350&Itemid=127

I realize that some of these statements could be interpreted in a negative light, but that isn't really our concern. We aren't mandated to protect Chesler from herself, after all.

11. ''I am stating this as forcefully as possible; please do not restore the material or any version of it, until there is a strong consensus for doing so. I don't want to have to take even stronger action, but to defend Wikipedia I will not hesitate to do so.''

Ah, yes ... there's nothing like a threat to make things really interesting.

Please tell me, Jay, what sort of "stronger action" do you have in mind. Will I be dragged before the ArbComm if I restore the edit? Will I be suspended without any further warning (or barred from editing this article)? Will you try to impose a community ban? Will the article be gutted, censored and permanently protected? Please tell me, Jay, what sort of "stronger action" (in the interest of defending Wikipedia, of course) are you proposing?



On another matter, your extended rationalization for removing the disputed text might have been more convincing, had you not attempted to remove the very same text only three days earlier, using an entirely different rationalization.

A cynic might conclude that the disputed paragraph is really in violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than WP:BLP, WP:NOR or any related policies. CJCurrie (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point by point
 * 1. They mean different things, though that's not the main issue.
 * 2. Inaccurate synthesis must be avoided in BLPs above all, though that's not the main issue.
 * 3. Misses the point entirely; demonstrating against something is considerably stronger than criticizing, though that's not the main issue.
 * 4. WP:BLP (and NOR) are quite clear that one cannot unbalance an article in this way. The section on New anti-Semitism was already larger than any other; on cannot continue to add to the problem for whatever reason.
 * 5. The issue here is use of primary sources, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR.
 * 6. As is trivially obvious, both paragraphs were CJCurrie's analysis of an interview which, apparently, no secondary source in the world saw fit to discuss. BLP *must* rely on secondary sources to avoid all sorts of issues, as listed above.
 * 7. These are serious issues, particularly in BLPs.
 * 8. Thank you, though it's not the main issue, and is unlikely to be relevant.
 * 9. The edit summary was highly prejudicial, and it's certainly not clear to the reader that it was intended in anything but utter seriousness. Removing a serious BLP violation while commenting "but that's the kind of thing she would say/do" is as bad as the BLP itself.
 * 10. Using original research to cherry-pick apparently negative items from primary sources is forbidden by policy. Period.
 * 11. Is that what will be required to protect Wikipedia from further WP:BLP violations on this article?
 * 12. Three days earlier I used the exact same reasons for removing the text.
 * 13. Please focus on article content, not other editors. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point by point (and omitting areas were further discussion would be superfluous)
 * 4. I don't see a total of four paragraphs as problematic.
 * 5-6. Primary sources are not forbidden; they merely need to be used with caution. Frankly, I'm inclined to regard an interview in a credible, widely-read newspaper as something of a gray area to begin with, as regards the distinction between primary and secondary sources.  This certainly isn't the sort of thing that should be forbidden outright.
 * 10. Chesler doesn't seem to think that the items in question were "negative", and I suspect that some of her supporters would readily approve of her sentiments as well. These interpretations are in the eye of the beholder.
 * 11. I'm prepared to discuss serious WP:BLP violations, but (i) I don't believe there were any in the disputed text, and (ii) I'm not inclined to bend to unspecified threats. Please be specific: what action do you think will be appropriate if the text is returned?
 * 12. It's not the main issue, but your reasons were not the same three days earlier.
 * 13. I've seen this film too many times before. CJCurrie (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Four paragraphs about one book in an article that only has four other paragraphs is absurd: The woman wrote 13 books! As for use of primary sources, they certainly cannot be used in a BLP to produce a synthesis - this is *absolutely* forbidden outright, and Jimbo himself has outright deleted BLPs that relied too heavily on primary sources (e.g. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey). As for the interview, it was carried in a fairly popular regional ethnic weekly (it calls itself national, but it's fairly New York centric). I'm familiar with the paper (having created the article about it), and it's a fine little weekly, but it's no New York Times, or even a Detroit Free Press. The current section actually uses a proper secondary source to critique her book; unsurprisingly, the critique reads as fairly rational and reasonable. If some reliable secondary source ever decides to discuss that interview in The Jewish Press, then we can discuss this further. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And things had been so peaceful here since August. --John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think discussion should focus on items 4, 5, and 6 above – that is, the questions regarding how much weight should be given to individual statements in the context of the overall interview, and in turn how much weight should be given to the interview in the context of Chesler's overall career. Those are salient questions; it's too bad they were virtually buried in charges of "original research," selective quotation, and content distortion – charges that turn out, upon inspection, to be entirely bogus. I also think the threats – not to mention the sanctimony about BLP, as if the first editor were well-placed to lecture the second about that "serious enterprise" – have been unwarranted and unhelpful.--G-Dett (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Chesler's stay in Afghanistan and U.S. citizenship
I updated the link to the referenced article, which is the subject's own memoir in Middle East Quarterly. Here, Chesler made claims about how one can lose one's U.S. citizenship. These claims were put into the Wikipedia article. They are outrageously false, so I have deleted them. Chesler is full of crap in saying that you lose your citizenship by marrying a foreign national. Historically, as I read many times starting in the 1960's, there were two ways to lose your citizenship: to explicitly renounce it, or to serve a foreign country as a government official or as a member of its armed forces. It turns out that the latter ceased to be true in the 1960s or 1970s, despite being repeated. One can get the authoritative info by searching the Web (I did so once). In summary, U.S. case law is such that no U.S. court is going to find that a U.S. citizen has forfeited their citizenship unless they declare explicitly their wish to do exactly that, forfeit their citizenship. But Chesler is just wacko when claiming that an Anerican woman in our lifetimes could ever forfeit her citizenship by marrying a non-American. So we can't trust a thing she recollects. But do note that in her memoir, she claimed that it was U.S. Marines at the embassy gate who advised her on citizenship law and refused her admission. This is also bullshit, because (1) foreigners are not denied entry to embassies except in rare circumstances -- country X with an embassy in country Y has many occasions to deal with citizens of the host country -- embassies issue visas, for goodness' sake, so Chesler would not have been refused entry; (2) embassy guards are not the ones who pass judgement on citizenship or immigration, e.g., Marine guards are not the ones in charge of issuing or denying visas. Anyhow, the details of her virtual captivity in Afghanistan do not make a difference to the rest of the article. Hurmata (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on my own remarks, immediately above. Just in case it isn't clear enough: Chesler's implication is that U.S. embassies only let in visitors who are Americans. That is wack job bullshit. Moving on, it *may be* that Moslem Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries regard the foreign spouse of one of their citizens as also one of their citizens; but the *USA* certainly does not! Consider that a large fraction of American Wikipedians have known at least one couple consisting of an American and a foreign citizen. Neither spouse's citizenship changed as a consequence of them having gotten married. This is *wild*: a lifelong academic spouting nonsense about U.S. laws, and to top it off, while disussing her own life. Hurmata (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find your comments unconvincing. You're using modern laws when talking about an incident that occurred in the 1960s. Chesler has said that according to Afghan law, the wife of an Afghan citizen must renounce citizenship to other countries. They consequently confiscated her passport upon entry to Afghanistan. Chesler, unfamiliar with this implications, surrendered her passport. Ergo, it appeared that she had renounced her citizenship. Thus, by your own information you gathered, she lost he citizenship. Now, that might not be good enough in a court of law, and that's likely how she was able to get her citizenship restored. But it's enough to cause her problems in returning to the U.S. I don't have detailed knowledge of how U.S. Embassy guards behaved in Afghanistan in the late 1960s, so I can't address the issue of them letting her in or refusing to let her in. However, given that she was there and neither of us were, it's not particularly convincing evidence to dismiss the claim merely by pronouncing them "wacko." We should keep her account as she asserts it, unless you can come up with hard evidence to refute it. QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "by your own information you gathered" -- no, you're misreading what I said, I mentioned joins a foreign government or foreign armed forces, not "gets married". And you claim "Chesler has said X". Reasonable enough, maybe she did furnish the elaboration you cite. But that was not in the article used as a source for the citation in this Wikipedia entry. Another point where you're WRONG is the applicable laws: I made clear that I was describing the laws of 50 years ago. As I also explained, they are even more liberal now. You are claiming that merely surrendering one's passport constitutes renunciation of citizenship. That is almost certainly not true anywhere in the world. Another outrageous claim. After all, so often a government will *seize* as visitor's passport. Very likely that's what happened to Chesler, her being a female. Perhaps you're also unaware that in some countries, like former USSR, foreigners have to leave their passport with the management of whatever hotel they were staying in. Everything you and Chesler say contradicts common knowledge and most people's experiences in this area. Changing the subject, I repeat: none of this detail one way or the other contributes much to the article. What I left in is plenty for the purpose of appreciating Chesler intellectual formation -- at least given the current short length of the entry. Hurmata (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Quizzical Bee, you didn't understand that the burden of "hard evidence" is on the claim's *you* support, because Chesler's claims are implausible. Hurmata (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * QBee, you should only have undone the edits you specifically disagreed with. My edits included miscellaneous copy edit improvements and formatting refinements (see WP:CITE), so unless you genuinely took exception to all of that too, you should not have used the whole article undo. Hurmata (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some Wikipedians have a tendency to ignore arguments raised by those who disagree with them. The argument I have in mind is about the Marines advising her. Now, let's go and actually find out *what Chesler has written* about this: "Each time, the Marines would escort me back home. They told me that as the "wife of an Afghan national," I was no longer an American citizen entitled to American protection." Notice: *they TOLD me this is so*, not *this IS so*. Now, it's certainly possible that the Marines would intercept her and not let her plead her case to State Dept. staff in the American embassy. But whatever Marine guards might say would not be an authoritative source for U.S. law or policy. It's also possible that out of some scandalous timidity, the U.S. acquiesced to Afghan customs or laws. That is a far cry from the U.S. Congress adopting (through an enactment) the principle that a U.S. citizen who marries a foreigner automatically loses their right to U.S. protection just because a foreign government makes a claim on the American! Besides, note this INCONGRUITY in Chesler's story: she returned home on an Afghan passport. Why, then, was she not deported back to Afghanistan upon her arrival in America, as a supposedly *former* U.S. citizen?! Hurmata (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only source for Chesler's story being implausible is your repeated insistence that it must be so. Yet I see no cause to say it is implausible. Afghanistan of that day, like the U.S. until the first half of the 20th century, required that a wife's nationality be the same as her husband's. The Afghanis at immigration therefore took her American passport away to make her citizenship be exclusively Afghan, a tacit renunciation on her part of American citizenship, though she claims she did not know it at the time. This is not the same as a hotel keeping a passport in its possession while you're visiting. This is a destruction of passport due to it no longer being valid. Two entirely different circumstances. And yes, it was a cowardly act on the U.S. government embassy's part to agree with Afghan law's determination that she was no longer an American citizen. But they were on Afghan soil. Obviously such a foreign law wouldn't stand in a court of law while she was in the U.S., but according to Chesler, it was enough for the guards to prevent her entry. The guards are not the ones who ultiimately make such a determination, but they are, quite literally, the gatekeepers. You have no grounds to say they couldn't possibly have acted that way because it defies logic. Many things people do defy logic. Many things are unfair. The point remains that these are the things that Chesler says happened, this is her page, so her version needs to be mentioned. People can then evaluate for themselves whether they find it to be true or not. But you are censoring her version just because you find it to be unconvincing. According to neutral point of view, we shouldn't be censoring on those grounds. In addition, your argument that it is illogical that the embassy wouldn't allow a foreigner in because they issue visas is not supported. All embassies have security measures that limit entry according to certain rules. They don't allow free and uncontrolled access. She had no valid form of ID, and thus the guards denied her entry. This is not "wack job bullshit." Please refrain from using such offensive language. It's a violation of Wikipedia policy. And the following is not an incongruity: "Besides, note this INCONGRUITY in Chesler's story: she returned home on an Afghan passport. Why, then, was she not deported back to Afghanistan upon her arrival in America, as a supposedly *former* U.S. citizen?!" I will have to find the exact reference, but Chesler has said that she came to the U.S. on a visa. That's why she wasn't deported. Presumably she was then able to get everything straightened out in a U.S. court. You keep looking for reasons why it couldn't possibly have happened a certain way. But in fact, there are logical reasons why it could happen. You have no call to delete Chesler's version of events. If you can prove that her version isn't true, then you can say the reasons why her version was incorrect. But you have no call to decide for yourself that people didn't say the things they said to her, or do the things they did to her, because you personally find them to be implausible.QuizzicalBee (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that some of the things I objected to were not necessarily out of the mind of Chesler, but misinterpretations by somebody else. I noticed this while enlarging this entry with both text and citations. Hurmata (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to summarize the previous content of this topic and comment further. Quizzical Bee seems to have held the inappropriate assumption that whatever is already written in a Wikipedia article should be presumed to be correct. QBee also made an error in not checking the source given in support of the disputed passage (I too did not -- at first -- check this source). It turns out that the source DID NOT substantiate the disputed content. Therefore, not only does the Wikipedia article contain a declaration which (yesterday) drew the accusation of implausibility, but it turns out that no source was given that actually contains the disputed declaration! What there is instead is Chesler's assertion that *other persons* made the declaration. Hurmata (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedian who wishes to insert controversial statements when they are UNSOURCED bears a heavy burden of justification. You have a moral obligation to defend your actions when they are called into question. If you refuse, then stop editing. Today, QBee reinserted the assertion that in 1961 in Afghanistan, the U.S. State Department (through its local embassy) considered Chesler to no longer be a U.S. citizen. I have redeleted this assertion for two reasons, both discussed above: it is implausible, AND it is unsourced. Hurmata (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

QBee has just again made the reinsertion. They justify it in a way that confuses what the source says with what the Wikipedia editor wrote. The justification is "The line says "she reports"--it is her version of events. Do not censor a person's own account of an event." QBee misunderstands what Chesler's version of events is. *I* am the one who wrote the words, "She reports". She did NOT assert that she had lost her citizenship, what she asserted is that embassy entrance guards said so. Even if she had written she believed had lost her citizenship, that would not be an event she witnessed, but an opinion she had formed. Since it is an inaccurate belief, and since the flow of the rest of the article is not disrupted by omitting it, it ought to be omitted. Anyhow, in a Wikipedia article, it is OK to contradict statements of opinion made by a person being cited. Hurmata (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To summarize the controversy that has arisen over 11 June to 12 June: (1) I believe we should not put words in Phyllis Chesler's mouth. A previous contributor did just that. Now that I have tried to set this right, "Quzzical Bee" (Q Bee) insists the old misinterpretation was not a misinterpretation. (2) We do not want to impart and disseminate nonfactual beliefs to people who consult Wikipedia. For that reason, unsurprisingly, I believe we should disallow text such as "Phyllis Chesler stated that Chicago is the largest city in the United States") unless accompanied by a disclaimer, such as "erroneously" (e.g., "Phyllis Chesler erroneously stated that Chicago is the largest city in the United States"). Q Bee is persistently inserting a nonfactual statement without a disclaimer, complaining of "censorship". Again, the assertion in question is an assertion Chesler didn't even quite make, and whose absence would not negatively affect this BLP. (3) Q Bee refuses to debate objections about article editing raised by other Wikipedians. Hurmata (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Copying of text from a particular Web site; need for rewriting
While getting started with enlarging the entry, I have just discovered that much of the version as of this morning seems to have been copied from a bio at http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/chesler.html. (Or maybe it's the other way around.) I have not scrutinized to see *how* much. It would be nice to edit Wikipedia's entry to make the wording of such portions distinct. I have also done some fact checking. Hurmata (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello, I am Atyndall and I have volunteered to take on your mediation case, during this discussion I will remain neutral with both sides of this argument and will endeavor to solve your dispute. After having a look at the discussion above, this is what I have found: "QuizzicalBee has been adding the sentence 'According to Chesler, the the U.S. embassy repeatedly refused to help her leave the country as they no longer recognized her as a U.S. citizen.', Hurmata has been reverting this back to 'She reports that the U.S. embassy repeatedly refused to help her leave the country. Hurmata objects to QuizzicalBee's sentence as he/she thinks that the source is incorrect as the guards would have allowed Chesler into the embassy and first hand accounts from Chesler herself does not qualify as a reliable source. QB objects, saying that maybe in the 1960s US citizenship could have been revoked by the US/Afgan government at that time and perhaps in the past the guards may have denied entry and that her claim should have been presumed true until proven false. Hurmata countered that the citation threat that QB was referring to is not the one that was cited . QB states that there is no evidence disproving her claims, so they are valid." Could the involved users please place # ~ below to verify that this statement is correct or suggest why it is not correct? Thankyou, Atyndall93 | talk 11:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick attention. I think each of the parts of the statement is correct in and of itself, but the whole does not reflect either my chain of reasoning or the real relative importances between the parts. So here's my abstract, which borrows the first two sentences. "QuizzicalBee has been . . . . Hurmata has been . . . . Hu objects to QB's sentence on the grounds that (1) it has been confirmed that under U.S. law, Chesler had never ceased to be a U.S. citizen, and (2) nowhere in the source used (namely, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2006) does Chesler affirm either that she herself believed what the guards told her or that she supposed the U.S. diplomats to believe it. QB rejects these two objections and further contends that the assertion as to loss of citizenship ought to be retained because the article should present Chesler's account of her experiences and editors ought to presume her account is accurate until proven otherwise. Hu raises many reasons for rejecting this line of argument." When you say, "Hurmata countered that the citation threat [sic] QB was referring to is not the one that was cited," I don't recognize which of my comments you're referring to.
 * 1) Hurmata (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Opps, thats just a spelling mistake, I meant to say "that" Atyndall93 | talk 01:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't recognize which comment you're referring to. Hurmata (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "But that was not in the article used as a source for the citation in this Wikipedia entry." Atyndall93 | talk 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, just as I supposed, you misunderstood. You err in having me implying there was another source that QB was invoking. It's not a matter of that QB and I were invoking distinct sources. There are (currently) three sources cited in the Wikipedia paragraph that contains the controversial statement. However, of those three sources -- three *citations*, only one touches on the issue of U.S. citizenship and marriage to a foreigner. My statement referred to by you meant that the *claim* QB makes is not supported by *that* lone *source* (or "citation" if one wishes). Perhaps your misunderstanding turned on competing definitions of the term, 'citation'. In any case, a citation is not a piece of information *per se*, e.g., "Paris is the capital of France". Basically, 'citation' is the act of citing a piece of information. It seems to me that in general usage, 'citation' is taken to mean (operationally) either a publication alone (e.g., "Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, page XX") or the pairing of a piece of information with the publication where the information has been found. In hindsight, I regret my wording, "source for the citation". I ought to have said rather something like "source for the statement". Hurmata (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I made an ambiguous statement. It's ambiguous literally because of what "is" is (what "is" might mean). When I wrote, "a citation is not a piece of information *per se*", I meant, "a piece of information in and of itself does not constitute a citation". Hurmata (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now all I am waiting for (if the above paragraph is acceptable to you) is QB to endorse its truth, then the mediation can continue. Atyndall93 | talk 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Following on to Atyndall at 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)) I note your amendment to the summary of the exchanges (which you made in accordance with my correction). In the meantime, here's the entire text that has served as a source for the controverted passage in the Wikipedia entry. It's a single block of text. I can't cite a page number for the block because the online version has not been provided with indications of the original page breaks. However, I *can* indicate that text block occurs right in the middle of the article (the source). "I [would present] myself at the American embassy, which was located right next door. The embassy rented the property from my father-in-law. 'I want to go home. I'm an American citizen,' I said. 'Where is your passport?' The marine guard would ask. 'They took it away from me when our plane landed. But, they told me that I'd get it back.' Each time, the Marines would escort me back home. They told me that as the 'wife of an Afghan national,' I was no longer an American citizen entitled to American protection. -- Phyllis Chesler, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2006, pp. 3-10" As I say, this text block is all there is in the entire article that alludes to Chesler making an appeal for help to any sort of American *officials* or alludes to U.S. citizenship laws. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it; you can search through the rest of the article yourself. Hurmata (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of "Chesler's stay in Afghanistan", starting 13 June 2008
That section is getting long, so I've created this fresh heading. In this first entry, I reply to a reply by QuizzicalBee (it was three indents in, posted 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)). BTW, I am aware of the comment posted by the volunteer mediator, and I will respond shortly.

Prologue: Readers please take note: since I started editing this BLP 1-1/2 days ago, I have added text, advanced the Wikification of the citations, and improved the outlining. (There had been no description of the most noteworthy thing she's done, her 1972 book!) I rewrote the account of Chesler's 1961 ordeal in Afghanistan with more sophistication and the *only* thing I really deleted was this one claim about her losing her U.S. citizenship by marrying an Afghan. That one *counterfactual* claim is what this is all about. And the basis for the conflict is a few paragraphs Chesler published 44 years later.

I have split QBee's contribution into pieces which I reply to individually. Her words are indicated by "Stm" for "statement" and my words are indicated by "Ans" for "answer".

But before I do that sentence by sentence rebuttal, here are some overall comments. Many of QBee's rebuttals of my points involve her making up facts by playing off my words on this Talk page or off Chesler's words. She claims specific events happened to Chesler or makes assertions as to how certain things were done generally. I will identify all such instances of fiction. Next, we need to pause and put this discussion on a factual basis. QBee all along has been relying on the conjecture that an American woman would have lost her U.S. citizenship by marrying any foreign man or perhaps just men from certain countries, and this notion turns out to be flat wrong. On the one hand, it was indeed true within living memory. On the other hand, that state of affairs was abolished in two stages between 1922 (twenty two) and 1931 (thirty one) -- 30 years before Chesler's experience!! (In 1922, the Cable Act had decreed that marriage would no longer have any affect on an American woman's citizenship except for marriage to foreign men "racially ineligible for citizenship" namely, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, other East Asians. But even this exception was abolished in 1931.)

Next, QBee -- as pointed out before -- hugely reads things into a single sentence of Chesler's. I explained this earlier, in vain. When Chesler quoted embassy guards, she did *not* go on to write words to the effect of, "and I believed the Marines' explanation. They convinced me that I truly had lost my U.S. citizenship". But notice that it is EASY to misinterpret Chesler as having said these things -- QBee and others have done so. THAT is a second argument for leaving it out! (The first is that factually, she had *not* lost it.) Contrary to QBee's logic, if Chesler writes "I spent three years in Chicago, the nation's largest city", we would be wrong to simply accept it "because that was how she understood things to be". We would have two proper choices: either "censor" the statement, or add a disclaimer. Wikipedia isn't just an amateur historiography amusement park (historiography being to judiciously select sources to arrive at a best justified, yet irremediably subjective and incomplete narrative). Wikipedia the encyclopedia is partly about imparting absolute truth, where that exists. It does exist, in a few limited cases. Some truths are not relative, not uncertain, not subjective. The capital of France *is* Paris. We at Wikipedia have a responsibility not to impart falsehoods. If you write "Phyllis Chesler was told in Afghanistan that she had lost her U.S. citizenship", unsophisticated readers are going to believe she lost it, and they will disseminate this false belief, and they will compound the falsehood by generalizing to all American women (or at least all American women 50 years ago).

In taking QBee's remarks one by one, I'm starting with the last one, then I'll address the rest of them in the original order. QBee Stm. You have no call to delete Chesler's version of events. If you can prove that her version isn't true, then you can say the reasons why her version was incorrect. But you have no call to decide for yourself that people didn't say the things they said to her, or do the things they did to her, because you personally find them to be implausible. Hurmata Ans. That philosophy is really wrong. When there is strong reason to doubt their factuality. What a horrible idea, that anything autobiographical goes until you can disprove it 100 percent. You're also promoting a notion that an editor's own lifetime's worth of knowledge, what they have gained outside of "reliable sources" or a "biographee's" own assertions, has almost no place in deciding what text to allow. You also disregard the fact that any article inevitable excludes a lot. You make it sound like the BLP of Phyllis Chesler has to include all dozen of her books and everything else she ever published. But since you wouldn't actually advocate that, then your censorship argument is phony -- there is no moral need to include *this one* assertion that *she* didn't even make.

Stm. The only source for Chesler's story being implausible is your repeated insistence that it must be so. Ans. You should have said "reason to believe", not "source". Plausibily and implausibility are not about having sources.

Stm. Yet I see no cause to say it is implausible. Afghanistan of that day, like the U.S. until the first half of the 20th century, required that a wife's nationality be the same as her husband's. Ans. You're dodging the question. The issue is not what Afghanistan's law was, it's what the USA's law was. The point is whether, when some country might declare, "your female citizen is now our citizen" in 1961, the USA would say, "fine, then we abandon her". You're totally wrong: under law, she would remain a U.S. citizen.

Stm. The Afghanis at immigration therefore took her American passport away to make her citizenship be exclusively Afghan, a tacit renunciation on her part of American citizenship, though she claims she did not know it at the time. This is not the same as a hotel keeping a passport in its possession while you're visiting. This is a destruction of passport due to it no longer being valid. Two entirely different circumstances. Ans. Total invention on your part. Citizenship has NOTHING to do with possessing a passport. For somebody who claims to have visited 22 countries (as you say on your member page), you have astounding misconceptions. Suggesting that merely being deprived of your U.S. passport extinguishes your U.S. citizenship! Besides, Chesler never declared she knew the reason for them confiscating her passport. She speculated the obvious -- to hamper her from leaving the country! No mystery there -- countries don't like to let people without passports enter and leave! Chesler made no suggestion that the passport was destroyed -- that's another of your inventions.

Stm. And yes, it was a cowardly act on the U.S. government embassy's part to agree with Afghan law's determination that she was no longer an American citizen. But they were on Afghan soil. Obviously such a foreign law wouldn't stand in a court of law while she was in the U.S., but according to Chesler, it was enough for the guards to prevent her entry. Ans. You are misinterpretating Chesler's report, as I already explained above. If Chesler's account is truthful, then all we know is that the U.S. embassy refused to help her. We could not rely on the words of the embassy guards for the real reason. But we can know that the reported words of the guards were false. If the U.S. *diplomats* had instructed the guards to say such things, the diplomats would have been acting with deceit. It it impossible that they would have "agreed with Afghan law's determination" -- if that even was Afghan law -- because the U.S. law had been otherwise for 30 years at that point. Note that we do not yet have a reliable source for what Afghan law was. You also seem not to notice the likelihood that the men of this culture did not care about a wife's citizenship. They believed *culturally* that a wife belongs to her husband.

Stm. The point remains that these are the things that Chesler says happened, this is her page, so her version needs to be mentioned. People can then evaluate for themselves whether they find it to be true or not. But you are censoring her version just because you find it to be unconvincing. Ans. These things are not what she says happened. And as encyclopedia makers we have to add information to put the readers in a position to do the evaluation, especially with articles that involve a lot of subjectivity. As encyclopedia makers, again, we leave some things out. And really, Chesler's story *is* fishy. Quoting only lowly entrance guards, she coyly *hints* that she thought she lost her citizenship. But she later reports she socialized numerous times with "diplomats" -- she withholds whether any of them were American -- yet doesn't claim that any of *these diplomats* said she'd lost her citizenship. Then she fails to explain what, if anything, she had to do upon her arrival back home with a foreign passport. And she's writing 44 years after the fact, so she has a duty to also report what the rules actually were, not just what she thought they were at the time she was having her experience. She doesn't report EITHER version.

Stm. According to neutral point of view, we shouldn't be censoring on those grounds. Ans. Irrelevant: my objections aren't about a point of view. NPOV doesn't apply to a bald reality of law or nature. E.g., if someone says, "I knew the penalty for third degree murder in Wisconsin was up to ten years in prison", and I know that they "knew" wrong, it would be wrong to leave the quote alone, and that's not a POV violation! Some things in law are *not* matters of interpretation. The maximum prison sentence for crime X in state Y is stipulated in the state's laws. Likewise, the capital of France is Paris -- no ifs, ands, or buts.

Stm. In addition, your argument that it is illogical that the embassy wouldn't allow a foreigner in because they issue visas is not supported. All embassies have security measures that limit entry according to certain rules. They don't allow free and uncontrolled access. She had no valid form of ID, and thus the guards denied her entry. This is not "wack job bullshit." Please refrain from using such offensive language. It's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Ans. Again you're making things up as you go along! Nowhere does Chesler mention "valid form of I.D." You're just making things up, absolutely putting words in her mouth. Not only that, but you are naively extending an aspect of contemporary Western living, needing I.D. for many social and official transactions, to central Asia 50 years ago. Also, you are exercising rhetorical distortion of my argument with wording, "free and uncontrolled access". If you are not carrying weapons and you want to ask about immigration or offer information potentially useful to the foreign country, you will be admitted into its embassy. For them not to admit an American would be wicked, which could well happen, but it would be highly *irregular*.

Stm And the following is not an incongruity: "Besides, note this INCONGRUITY in Chesler's story: she returned home on an Afghan passport. Why, then, was she not deported back to Afghanistan upon her arrival in America, as a supposedly *former* U.S. citizen?!" I will have to find the exact reference, but Chesler has said that she came to the U.S. on a visa. That's why she wasn't deported. Presumably she was then able to get everything straightened out in a U.S. court. Ans. This is inattentive. Why do you need to find a reference about a visa?: she said (as I mentioned previously) she returned on an Afghan passport, therefore it doesn't matter about a visa! I will grant that if -- hypothetically -- she had lost her citizenship, the laws in force provided for her to apply to regain it.

Stm. You keep looking for reasons why it couldn't possibly have happened a certain way. But in fact, there are logical reasons why it could happen. Ans. Distinguish between "could" and "did". An encyclopedia's emphasis should be on "did". Hurmata (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is my above summary of your dispute correct? Atyndall93 | talk 13:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation has become stale
There has been no activity on the mediation case for a long time. Is mediation still required? —Atyndall &#91;citation needed&#93; 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More comments by CJCurrie
I've made several adjustments to this article over the last hour or so. I'm not going to justify every change that I've made, but I'll cover the main points here:


 * (i) "Islamic gender apartheid"

There is absolutely no justification for including this phrase as though it were an agreed-upon concept. We would not, and should not, allow a Wikipedia article to use the term "Israeli apartheid" in this fashion; neither should we allow "Islamic gender apartheid."


 * (ii) Favourable literary notices

There are actually two issues here:

(a) Excessive quoting from favourable reviews is a form of undue weight. I have no problem with some such quoting, but there's a point beyond which it detracts from the article's value. As I wrote above, Wikipedia doesn't exist as a repository of favourable (or unfavourable) press notices.

(b) Blurbing is not the same as reviewing, and some of the favourable "reviews" referenced in this article appear, on further examination, to be blurbs. If we're going to cover the critical reaction to any of Chesler's works, we should probably look a bit further than the writing on the inside jacket cover.


 * (iii) The introduction

Introductions are meant to summarize the subject of an article. In its previous form, the introduction was overloaded with unnecessary details about Chesler's recent publications (not to mention an out-of-place reference to an unpublished manuscript). I've taken the liberty of making the text more succinct.

CJCurrie (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

ZARAF: I disagree. I don't think that the details, particularly about Chesler's recent publications, are unnecessary. There are many other similar BLPs that have longer introductions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaraF (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I imagine there are many similar BLPs that *shouldn't* have longer introductions. CJCurrie (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Islamic gender apartheid"
way too many topics above to functionally be able to deal with them in an orderly fashion. so, i will start with this one: "Islamic gender apartheid" - it is a real term, used by chesler. perhaps it is not the most appropriate politically correct term, but having it in quotes should allay those worries. let's keep it for now and see if anyone else wants to comment on it. perhaps an alternative would be to use Gender Apartheid in Iran and the Muslim World. (this is her focus, and not the broader concept of 'views on muslim culture'. Soosim (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Soosim, my preferred version of this article *does* use the term "Islamic gender apartheid," in quotes (i.e., wording to the effect of, "Chesler believes there is such a thing as ...") -- I just don't use it as a subject header, where it's completely inappropriate. The fact that it's politically incorrect isn't the issue; the fact that it's a POV phrase most certainly is. CJCurrie (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * it is not POV. sorry. it is a descriptive term. no different than many others used out there (and yes, i know that 'other stuff exists', but i am referring to this one). Soosim (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to CJCurrie

 * (i) Islamic gender apartheid

Even though I think the term "Israeli apartheid" is wildly inaccurate, I would have no problem with it appearing on a Wikipedia page so long as the page is about a scholar whose work makes heavy use of the term. It is impossible to give Wikipedia's readers an understanding of Chesler's recent work without emphasizing the term "Islamic gender apartheid".

If your argument represents Wikipedia policy, then why does a search for "Islamic gender apartheid" direct me automatically to an existing Wikipedia page?

Moreover, I think that your choice of "Views on Muslim Culture" as a header for the section in Islamic gender apartheid is unfair because it wrongly suggests that Chesler opposes Muslim culture per se and believes that it is inherently segregationist and anti-Western. As one of the sentences you deleted makes clear, Chesler has worked with and for Muslim dissidents in the past and is certainly not anti-Islam.

As for the quote from the Jewish Press, I object to it because it is so unrepresentative of Chesler's recent work. I can't see why you would bring it in now, devoid of context, except to make Chesler look bad.


 * (ii) Understood.


 * (iii) Agreed, in particular about the reference to the unpublished manuscript.Nmbloom (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Responses:


 * (i) "Islamic gender apartheid" is a functioning redirect for the same reason that "Israeli apartheid" is a functioning redirect -- enough people have used the term to justify linking to a page that covers the broader debate. This doesn't mean that we should present the term as it were an accepted concept.


 * It would not be appropriate to write "So-and-so has been fighting Israeli apartheid for x number of year" on a Wikipedia article, even if the article in question is a biography page about a scholar whose work addresses the subject.


 * (ii) Further to the above, "Muslim dissidents" is also a term that we should avoid using as though it were an accepted concept (just as we should avoid using terms like "Jewish dissidents," "Jainist dissidents," etc.).


 * (iii) "Views on Muslim culture" strikes me as an accurate subject heading, though I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to some modification.


 * (iv) The Jewish Press quote is in-context within the framework of the article. If you think it's unrepresentative of Chesler's work generally, free feel to add something else (properly sourced, of course) in the space after it. CJCurrie (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

NMBloom Responses


 * (i) OK.


 * (ii) This I don't understand. "Jewish dissidents" is totally accepted, e.g. "Jewish dissidents in the USSR". On what grounds is "Muslim dissidents" not accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmbloom (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Jewish dissidents in the USSR" weren't dissidents within the framework of Judaism, so that's not really a comparable term. CJCurrie (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. Human Rights Watch has an article with "Muslim dissidents" in the headline. In other words, it's not just a "right-wing" term.Nmbloom (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Muslim dissidents in Uzbekistan" referenced in that article are political dissidents. I'm sure that Googling "Muslim dissidents" will yield other more-or-less neutral uses of the term (e.g., in China or perhaps Chechyna), but these examples aren't reflective of the way Chesler uses the term. CJCurrie (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * cj - you are not the editor-in-chief, so please, watch your tone and your comments. muslim dissidents exist. chesler describes them. renaming them is just another attempt at watering down a perfectly good term. enough already, ok? Soosim (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing conflicts
There seems to be a conflict regarding the content of this article involving the editors CJCurrie and ZaraF. The conflict has led to an unstable article that is worse than it was to start with. Both editors are acting unconstructively in my opinion.

CJCurrie: Please do not just delete the work of other editors wholesale unless it is an obvious WP:BLP violation. If someone has added substantial content, please discuss the problems on the talk page rather than just deleting it.

ZaraF: In biographies of living people, Wikipedia has a policy that articles must use references. Please do not delete inline references or the references section at the end of the article. Also, please cite your sources when adding new material to the article. Otherwise the material may be deleted. Also please do not write in a promotional style or in a way that does not reflect a neutral point of view.

This article will get a lot further if you both work together rather than reverting each other. Feel free to continue discussion below. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ZaraF,

I have removed the following passage from this article:
 * Wikipedia Readers Beware! Someone keeps erasing the more accurate and comprehensive information about Dr. Phyllis Chesler. There is no guarantee that what you are reading is up to date, true, or balanced. As quickly as we post the more accurate version, someone quickly and systematically erases it and replaces it with a false, minimal, highly biased version. We will try to do the same on behalf of the truth. If the more accurate and comprehensive version is erased often enough, legal and other action will be considered.

There are a number of things that you should consider before replacing this:
 * Wikipedia has a policy against the making of legal threats please read WP:LEGAL;
 * the assertion that you would be in a position to take legal action suggests that you may have a conflict of interest, accordingly, please read WP:COI;
 * the fact that you use the phrase "we post", suggests that a group of individuals are working together to ensure that this article represents one view of the subject, while your comment may not actually represent the situation please see WP:MEAT;
 * comment on articles rather than content should be posted to the article's talk page rather than the article; and
 * it appears that you are actually removing a significant number of references from the article, while accusing others of reducing the article to being a minimal and biased version.

If you feel that one or more individuals are actually vandalising the page please use the user warning machanism see WP:UW, or request administrator intervention rather then getting into an edit war. You should also be very careful about the 3 revert rule please see WP:3RR FrankFlanagan (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC) I certainly withdraw all legal threats. I simply could not understand why factual material was being deleted. The original entry was short and barely covered the scope of Dr. Chesler’s work. I tried to update it and bring it up to date, and I tried to include important accomplishments from the past that are objectivity verifiable. For example, I do not believe Dr. Chesler is not the daughter of Jewish immigrants. I have read interviews that she has given and her many works, and I intended to footnote everything and to provide living links if that is desired.
 * I was surprised that only the negative reviews of her book on anti-Semitism were shown, and even more surprised that there was no mention made of her work with Muslim dissidents and Muslim feminists. -ZaraF

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaraF (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ZaraF,
 * Ok, I know Wikipedia is difficult to understand at first but:
 * If you think an article reflects a biased point of view you can put a on the top of the article or at the section that you think is biased.
 * Wikipedia articles should remain neutral, so if one editor has included and cited negative reviews they should not be removed (assuming that they are real reviews), rather you should seek to introduce material to balance the article.
 * If you want to add material to a biography of a living person you need to cite references to support this material. Take a look at and . It may be somewhat frustrating but you can not simply write an essay even if you know that every word of it is factually correct. The two citations that I added, to support two of your positive reviews are not great citations, being to an Amazon page about the book, but as a stopgap they provide some support.
 * Material that is not supported by citations will tend to be removed almost on sight.
 * Finally, ask for help rather then getting into an edit war. An edit war and especially breaking the WP:3RR is likely to get you blocked from editing.
 * Please try not to get too frustrated, it takes time to get used to how Wikipedia works and nobody has a personal vendetta against you.

FrankFlanagan (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) (i) Many aspects of this article, in its current form, are not consistent with Wikipedia's standards. I do not believe that User:ZaraF consciously set out to disrupt or undermine Wikipedia, and I recognize that most of the problems with the current edit are the result of this editor's inexperience. All the same, the content needs to be changed.
 * Statement(s) from CJCurrie

I have already removed one particularly problematic line: "Much of Dr. Chesler's recent work has focused on Islamic gender and religious apartheid." There is no agreement that "Islamic gender and religious apartheid" is a legitimate phrase; I believe it to be completely unacceptable in accordance with the principles of WP:NPOV. I will soon remove other problematic lines, and I will explain my logic on this page. CJCurrie (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

How is Islamic gender and religious apartheid not a legitimate phrase? Chesler has written hundreds of articles and an entire book on this topic. I am not analyzing Islamic gender and religious apartheid, but simply stating that this is a topic that Chesler writes about extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaraF (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response from NMBloom

"Islamic gender apartheid" may be harsh and politically incorrect, but it is a very concise and accurate way of describing what goes on in many Muslim-majority countries. You can find many examples at Wikipedia's "Gender Segregation and Islam" page. I could refer instead to "systematic discrimination against women in Muslim countries that is justified by Muslim clerics in the name of Islam" to describe the same phenomenon, but why waste Wikipedia real estate? Nmbloom (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've now added a new section titled "Islamic Gender Apartheid," and I think I've managed to do it in a way that's faithful to Wikipedia's style. My hope is that this will satisfy all sides.Nmbloom (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(ii) I've removed the following lines:


 * Her current work covers diverse topics, including academic freedom, women’s rights, human rights, and civil rights, the failure of multicultural relativism, the dangers of terrorism, the nature of jihad, and the rise of anti-Semitism in the last decade.


 * Since 9/11, her work has been concerned both with the lingering vestiges of racism in general and with the potential dangers of misogynistic Islamist parallel societies in the West. Based on her research and experience living in the Muslim world, she came to espouse "the necessity of applying a single standard of human rights, not one tailored to each culture."

Phrases such as "the failure of multicultural relativism" and "misogynistic Islamist parallel societies" are clearly inconsistent with WP:NPOV. For that matter, "the nature of jihad" and "the rise of anti-Semitism in the last decade" are probably inconsistent with WP:NPOV as well.

I would be prepared to accept a modified version of this text, streamlined and made consistent with NPOV, although I think it would be redundant to return the text in any form. CJCurrie (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(iii) I have changed this:


 * "The authorities forced her to surrender her U.S. passport. Because of local custom, she ended up a virtual prisoner in her in-laws' house, treated as chattel by her husband."

To this:


 * "The authorities forced her to surrender her U.S. passport, and she ended up a virtual prisoner in her in-laws' house, treated as chattel by her husband."

My rationale: "Because of local custom" is an ambiguous phrase and could be read as indicting an entire culture. It is not suitable for Wikipedia. CJCurrie (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(iv) I have changed this:


 * "Chesler has recently become known for her campaign against the "new anti-Semitism". She wrote about the rise of genocidal racism in the Muslim world and among leftists and progressives in the West in her book The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It (2003)."

To this:

"Chesler has recently become known for her campaign against what she and others regard as a "new anti-Semitism," a subject that she addressed in her book The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It (2003)."

My rationale: a phrase like "genocidal racism in the Muslim world and among leftists and progressives in the West" is completely antithetical to the spirit of WP:NPOV. Beyond this, "new anti-Semitism" is more of a concept/subject than an undisputed phenomenon. CJCurrie (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(v) I have removed this:

"They have abandoned a universal vision of human rights and women’s rights and have been cautious about speaking out about Islamic gender apartheid because they are afraid they will be called racists or “Islamophobes.” In her view, this is the new McCarthyism. Western intellectuals are afraid to condemn Islam’s long history of imperialism, colonialism, genocide, sexual slavery and sexual trafficking for the same reason. This work has also garnered praise from the leading Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents."

My rationale: There was a quotation error in this paragraph, and I'm not certain if the first sentence was intended to be a direct quote. Until the matter is clarified, I'll have to assume it was not. As I've already mentioned, the phrase "Islamic gender apartheid" is not consistent with NPOV; so to is "Islam’s long history of imperialism, colonialism, genocide, sexual slavery and sexual trafficking." Also, "Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents" is no more an acceptable phrase than "Jewish and ex-Jewish dissidents" or "Christian and ex-Christian dissidents" (etc.) would be. CJCurrie (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(vi) I have changed this:

"She is not opposed to the headscarf (hijab) because it does not obscure a woman’s facial identity and allows her to engage in normal social interactions."

To this:

"She is not opposed to the headscarf (hijab) because it does not obscure a woman’s facial identity."

My rationale: There is no universal definition of "normal social interactions," and the term is not consistent with NPOV. CJCurrie (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(vii) I have changed this:

"In 2009 and 2010, Dr. Chesler published two major academic studies about honor killings in both the West and Muslim-majority countries."

To this:

"In 2009 and 2010, Chesler published two studies about honor killings."

My rationale: A source would be required for the claim that these studies were "major academic" documents. The phrase "in both the West and Muslim-majority countries" is not so much objectionable as unnecessary. We don't refer to people by their titles in the article text. CJCurrie (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(viii) I have changed this:

"As an activist for Muslim women’s rights, she has submitted affidavits on behalf of girls and women in flight from being honor killed who sought asylum and citizenship in the United States."

To this:

"She has submitted affidavits on behalf of women in danger being honor killed who have sought asylum and citizenship in the United States."

My rationale: There is emphatically no agreement that Chesler is an activist for Muslim women's rights. The phrase "in flight" less encyclopedic than "in danger." CJCurrie (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(ix) I have changed this:

"With the new release of Mothers on Trial, Chesler is now turning her attention to divorce and custody battles. The book has been reviewed by Library Journal (“Heavily documenting her book with legal precedent, expert input, and studies, Chesler makes her case with all of her zeal intact. Fresh, timely content.”) It has also been reviewed by Kirkus (“An unblinking look at gender bias in child-custody battles. Chesler storms the gates with a compelling and well-researched update of her 1986 landmark title…The author outlines the decline in legal justice many mothers have experienced since 1986…Chesler weaves heart-rending (and enraging) stories of the ‘good enough’ mother, a sole caregiver often slandered as morally questionable.”)"

To this:

"Chesler's Mothers on Trial is focused on divorce and custody battles. It was received favourable reviews from the Library Journal and Kirkus."

My rationale: quoting blurbs verbatim doesn't strike me as on par with Wikipedia's standards.

Comments welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working to integrate the new material into the article. I think it seems more balanced now. What's your opinion ZaraF? Kaldari (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

(x) I've now removed these:


 * Ibn Warraq writes, "Chesler's book is a welcome critique of the Feminist Left's willful and shameful neglect of their sisters' plight in the Islamic World....Chesler paints a truthful picture of the world that women under Islam have to live in. One hopes Chesler's book will bring about not only a change in attitudes but some sort of political and social action on behalf of women suffering because of the totalitarian and misogynistic tenets of Islam."


 * Amir Taheri writes, “Feminism is dead; long live new feminism. This is the message of Phyllis Chesler’s fascinating study of Islamic gender apartheid that, transcending the traditional frontiers of Islam, is spreading to the West, including the United States. Anyone interested in understanding Islamism, this latest enemy of open societies, should read this book.”


 * Feminist leader, Kate Milllet praised the book and writes, “Chesler knows whereof she speaks…and in telling her story she is sounding a warning to the west that it ignores to its peril.”


 * About Mothers On Trial'', The 2011 Library Journal Review writes, “Heavily documenting her book with legal precedent, expert input, and studies, Chesler makes her case with all of her zeal intact. Fresh, timely content… “Library Journal, July, 2011


 * ''Kirkus Reviews writes, "An unblinking look at gender bias in child-custody battles…Chesler weaves heart-rending (and enraging) stories of the “good enough” mother, a sole caregiver often slandered as morally questionable."Kirkus Reviews, July 2011

My rationale is fairly simple: Wikipedia doesn't exist to be a repository of favourable press notices. If Chesler wishes to include these references in her press kit, she's welcome to do so; this is not the place for it.

You could, perhaps, summarize the above content by writing, "Chesler's title received favourable notices from such-and-such and so-and-so," and I wouldn't even be averse to having a short quote thrown into the bargain. In doing so, however, we also should clarify the nature of these notices (which to my mind read suspiciously like jacket blurbs).

We should also include proper references, which generally require a bit more detail than, for instance, "Library Journal, July, 2011". CJCurrie (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(xi)

I have removed this:

"Her current work covers ... the nature of Jihad."

My rationale: "the nature of Jihad" is a slanted phrase, even if it wasn't intended as such. CJCurrie (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by ZaraF "Ibn Warraq writes.....Amir Taheri writes..." My rationale: On your removal of positive reviews of the Death of Feminism: The reviewers of The Death of Feminism are respected scholars These scholars also write about religious and gender apartheid. I am not able to find negative reviews, but if they exist, you or anyone else may post excerpts from them. CJCurrie did not seek out a single positive endorsement or review of any of Chesler’s works, and this struck me as far from neutral and in need of correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.1.162 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Chesler writes about...the nature of Jihad..."

My rationale: Jihad is has been widely used to describe the military aggression that is essentially religious as well imperialistic in nature that Muslim and Islamists leaders have undertaken in the past and today. There is an alternate description of jihad as an inner spiritual struggle. Both forms of Jihad exist, and we cannot write about one without writing about the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.1.162 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2011 By ZaraF

On my removal of "Chesler is a daughter of Jewish immigrants." My rationale: Chesler is not the daughter of immigrants. I recently conducted a personal interview to verify this information. I should also be able to cite this fact from other sources shortly. by ZaraF

Comments by Frank Flanagan

Zara F,

while it is apparent that 68.173.1.162 is you, now that you have created a user name please log in to edit. It makes things easier for all involved to see what is happening and avoids the potential for allegations of sock puppetry or attempts to circumvent the WP:3RR.

You might also sign entries on talk pages by using ~

I am sorry that you have had something of a rough introduction to Wikipedia but I believe that this article is converging, if perhaps asymptotically, towards a measure of agreement. You might let us have your views. I have reinserted female serial killer in the sentence about Aileen Wuornos, I assume that this deletion was accidental and you are not seeking to promulgate a new version of the book of Genesis or equivalent.

I have reverted this sentence to argues: "Chesler argues multicultural relativism to have failed." The use of the word "understands" in this sentence appears to be POV.

I have reverted your reference to a personal interview with Ms. Chesler to 'citation needed'. The content of articles, and especially biographies, needs verifiable sources.

I have replaced the reference attached to writings attributed to Ibn Warraq with 'Citation needed' as the reference was to Ms. Chesler. If the reference is to a quote provided for the cover please feel reference it as Ibn Warraq quoted on the cover of...

Amir Taheri ditto.

I leave Jihad entirely to others.

159.134.159.218 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Preceding comment saved by me, by accident without being logged in, apologies. FrankFlanagan (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Stability?
I think this article is approaching some form of equlibrium. Subject to the views of all of involved, and no substantial edits in the next couple of days I believe the POV tag on the article might be deleted. FrankFlanagan (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

CJcurrie, a more balanced perspective was suggested and I am right now trying to present just that by presenting critical views of Chesler's work in serveral areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.1.162 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)