Talk:Robert S. Wistrich

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

Robert Wistrich is highly controversial so this section is to keep the Wiki spirit alive if there are issues
I've discussed my criticisms with Robert Wistrich personally and I think my edits are quite fair. There may be a need for a corresponding defender of his work to be added but I have only so much time in the day. You may note that I have worked on other historian pages and I would appreciate if anyone feels that it is necessary please create a criticism section and move the quotes to that.

Any dissension should take place on discussion not via vandalism. I will appreciate message and talk rather than the kind of spurious deletion wars that often eveolve.

Wikidgood (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are WP:BLP issues with the material you've added, so it will be discussed here, not re-added, until they are resolved. Please see section below. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikidgood Reply: Item #1
IN REPLY TO:

1. It fundamentally violates WP:BLP, because the only assessments of his work that are brought are negative. BLP demands balance. For example, the Walter Laqueur review of Wistrich's latest book contains phrases like "Wistrich's volume is a monumental, encyclopedic survey of the new wave of anti-Semitism" and "It would be difficult to think of a more competent author than Wistrich, head of a Jerusalem research institute, who has given decades to the study of the subject and has a good knowledge of recent European history and languages, and particularly of Nazism" and "Wistrich's facts are all true". Yet the only part Wikidgood's insertion includes is that Wistrich may "misinterpret the line between self-hatred and self-criticism"

WIKIDGOOD STATES:

I. The intention was not to make an unbalanced portrayal o f Rob's work but rather to present the main thrust of most of the commentary on his work which has made headlines ( (CITATION: JewsOnFirst.org) when Rabbi Beliak appeared and on camera strenuously objected to "Obsession".

There has been no press conference to my knowledge where his work was defended. But, if there was one, please feel free to contribute that information additively, rather than deletionistically or destructively.

II. a) It would better to supplement the positive material rather than destroy a contribution. I have no problem with addition of the above comments in full or lightly edited. b) It would take LESS time to simply insert or add the balancing material than to delete, post to talk and then debate the matter. i. Thus, creating the appearance of an intent to suppress the criticism. III. Philosophical and pragmatic problems caused by deletionist approach: a) deprives users of information and the right to make up their own mind based upon evidence b) creates a resonance with censorship and book-burning even if not so intended c) slows up rather than speeds up development and promulgation of knowledge: the exact opposite of the purpose and promise of wikipedia and the web d) risks adding grist to the mill that any criticism of pro-Zionist opinion is subject to hyper-scrutiny, which is probably not in the interest of scholarship, Robert Wistrich's intellectual pursuits, or Wikipedia

IV. Proposal for a solution:

I propose that the objected-to item be supplemented with the balancing comment. Please proffer some language to that effect.

V. Final note: it is redundant and vaguely insulting to preface your comment with "as is obvious" in a litigious manner which is not conducive to working up a scholarly article. It also creates the impression that you have an agenda of belittling and discrediting the contributor and predisposing other readers to jump to a conclusion based upon your rhetorical tactic of asserting the supposed obviousness. If it is indeed so obvious, you need not trumpet that fact before laying out your viewpoint.

Certain things are obvious, but your conclusions are not necessarily obvious. Unwary readers may be tricked into concluding that some aspect of your assertion is obvious and that therefore your conclusions are indubitable.

It is obvious that the item is a critique, but it is not obvious that the best approach is just to nuke the whole section. Wikidgood (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no way Beliak's opinions could comply with WP:BLP, so they're not relevant here.
 * Additions to BLPs must be balanced. One cannot add solely negative information, and then insist that other must add positive information to balance. Biographies of Living People must comply with WP:BLP at all times.
 * Statements or implications that other editors are "deletionist", "destructive", have "intent to suppress", or engage in "censorship" and "book-burning" are inappropriate. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Any future comments that discuss anything besides article content will be ignored. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "No way?" You must be able to understand that is waaay overstating the case. Never ever ever will Rabbi Beliak's opinions ever be able to comply with BLP? Are you of the view that Rabbi Beliak is some kind of rabid extremist? And if so, does that make his critique not worthy of consiceration? What about Lerner? Finkelstein? If you don't qualify that statement, it looks unreasonable and creates the impression that you are crusading to insulate Wistrich's view, which many feel is itself on the extreme edge, from any critical material. Perhaps you are simply trying to alienate from Wikipedia anyone who does not toe the line of the kind of view represented by Wistrich, or to exclude at least people's access to the knowledge of the fact of the existence of criticism of Wistrich? Since you personally have admin powers you do seem to be staking out for yourself an unreasonable censorship privilege which you know would never be sustained by the larger admin community, unless it is so thoroughly saturated by one sided opinion on these topics that you feel that you can successfully intimidate people who lean more toward Beliak or who listen to Beliak and do not toe the line of Rob Wistrich's controversial views. I wouldn't suppose that you would admit that your are overstating your case when you say "no way", but you seem like you might be intelligent enough, and not so clouded by a desire to shut off any criticism of Wistrich from reaching wikipedia readers, that you might specify where on the long list of BLP issues you claim an eternal bar to Beliak on Wistrich is indicated? I have an idea of what straw you might grasp, but it is not IMHO sufficient to sustain the eternal blockade on information you wish to impose. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was quite clear when I wrote: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Any future comments that discuss anything besides article content will be ignored. If you comment solely on article content I will respond. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikidgood's Reply to editorial objection/contention #2
IN A NUTSHELL: WIKIDGOOD asserts in reply to item 2 and/or suggestion of noncompliance with BLP that to the contrary the contested edit is not a point of biographic controversy, there is no biographical fact in contest nor any violation of BLP except insofar as BLP references NPOV, with which the edit is in 80%+ compliance. The remaining issue is: not indicating prominence of opposing views".

BRIEF: There is no allegation by Jayg that the edits are uncited, false, opinion, judgemental, or innaccurate.

However, WIKIDGOOD admits that there is a minor defect in that the deleted edit fails to comply with item 5 of the 5 points for NPOV, listed below as "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views."

That would pertain more saliently if there were a dispute over whether, say, a certain memoir was or was not forged, ie., a material fact, but it is not grossly unreasonable to extent the guideline to this instance.

However, there is no question of fact as to whether the edits are truthful, verifiable, etc. WIKIDGOOD believed when posting and believes now that the edits are indicative of the median of the continuum of critical response, but accepts the qualification via the Lacquer quote.

JAYG is in agreement that there should be a section regarding the critical reception but does not proffer cited, alternative language specifically phrased for that section nor a section title.

What remains to be done is to determine the replacement wording and elsewhere (in another section) '''WIKIDGOOD offers compromise wording on the Walter Laquer quotes. Assuming that or something similar is suitable, the sole remaining issue pertains to the Tikkun material.'''

 WIKIDGOOD denies that it is necessary that any quoted reviewer be a historian and that a mere journalist is disqualified from being a worthy quotation and requests that the JAYG indicate concurrence on cede that point and narrow the issue to whether Tikkun should be described as per the original WIKIDGOOD edit.

WIKIDGOOD admits that the original edit posited that Tikkun is respected but that it may be more NPOV to modify that.THUS WIKIDGOOD requests JAYG suggested alternate language AND/OR additional " balancing" material to add to the Tikkun quote.

Please refere to NPOV GUIDELINES
 * You already have an assessment from a respected historian working in the field. Tikkun is inappropriate, for the reasons stated. Please work with your best sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you admit that Tikkun is appropriate if and only if balanced with other views? Or do you claim that an absolute ban on Tikkun is called for?? As I recall, the "reasons" stated apply to the quote of one Tikkun writer without a balanced quote but for the reason that he was a journalist and not a historian. In my reply, I challenged you with the assertion that it is not necessary for a reviewer or commentator to be a historian per se to comment on Robert Wistrich's writings. Are you a historian yourself? Do you have a Ph D in history? And, granting for the sake of your discussion of this roadblock you are putting up, does a person with a doctorate in journalism and a BA in history qualify?

But you chose not to respond, at all, to that challenge. Rather, you baldly assert "Tikkun is inappropriate, for reasons stated." In other words, you declined to respond and are resting on the fact that you have admin power and I don't and since you have the power you did not take the time to respond so I hereby repeat the challenge. Also, as a point of procedure, on an issue this complex and contentious you need to be in the habit of pasting or summarizing "reasons stated" and the excuse that it takes up your valuable time would be spurious in that you are making very cursory sweeping remarks and using instantantous click/delete powers whereas I am putting in very detailed arguments, based on academic, legal and history training.

Sop please do respond to all three of my current round of challenges, this one being an admission or denial that you are contending that only "historians" are pertinent to reviewing Wistrich material.

I already acceded to your request. I say Tikkun goes in if it is balanced with others. You can put up some Dershowitz but I would reserve the right to counter with Finkelstein, for "obvious" reasons. (For the uniniated, those are two who famously quarrel...) But according to your apparent zeal to restrict information flow, where would the comments of the Muslim and Arab world fit in? If you are trying to prove the wikipedia is NOT a particularly venue for achieving a comprehensive and encyclopedic review of a historian/intellectual and their reception across a broad spectrum of intelligent informed parties, you are succeeding, but to the extent you are trying to cut down wikipedia from less than it could be, there will probably be an evolving tendency to either improve wikipedia, or leave it, and at cost to the reputation of the very causes and opinion shapers you seek to insulate...and as you know there is a wide perception that any critical thinking on the issues raised not so much by Rob Wistrich as the Israel-based academic establishment, insofar as it tends to support what Laquer denomates as "Likud" opinion, is suppressed by Likudists. Your actions - such as your claim of an absolute ban on Beliak's critique - tend to support that view, and to the extent that view gains currency, the interests of, say, Israel, in terms of the public opinion of its intelligentsia, suffers much more than it would if you had not blockaded progress of this wikipedia page.

All I propose is that the page be able to be built up incrementally as long as it proceeds in balance phases, say, two or three opinions at a time. If you are trying to claim that someone must write up the whole entire corpus of Wistrich's reception for all twenty of his books, in one fell swoop, and that the page can't proceed in iterations, you will not likely be regarded as reasonable nor will your holdups be likely sustained. As it stands, you are damaging the credibility of wikipedia just by making the unreasonable assertions that (1) Beliak is blocked and (2) the whole entire section must be completed before ANY review can be put up. Which is not at all in your interest, even if you think that Wistrich is sacrosanct, always right, and that no criticisms of him are at all valid. Because you create the impression that Wistrich followers can't take the heat of critical review without utilizing procedural blockades. \ Eventually, wikipedia itself will probably fix that but by causing delays you are already damaging the reputation of Wistrich's school of thought and leaving yourself open to the charge of obstructionism. I don't know that you care in that you have perhaps already calculate that anyone who wants a fair and balanced and reasonable assessment of such matters is an enemy of the truth as you see it. A very old story. So what will you achieve? One more person, myself, will be convinced that however sympathetic I may be to the unusual thesis of Wistrich, which runs like a thread through so much of his work, his more zealous supporters, such as yourself, are so wary and paranoid of any hint of criticism that they make it impossible to ever really in any way join their team or take their side without the ever present censorious hypervigilance which you have already staked out.

What I am asking at this point is that you qualify your Beliak-blockade and that you admit that a phased building of the page, if balanced, is fine. Otherwise, you will have demonstrated a level of unreasonableness which among other effects will succeed in discourage me from getting intellectually involved with doing anything to help Rob Wistrich's views promulgate, because apparently his supporters have it all figured out and will just quash like a bug anybody or anyting that doesn't have their prior authorization...please advise on these two issues which I have identified. Wikidgood (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was quite clear when I wrote: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Any future comments that discuss anything besides article content will be ignored. If you comment solely on article content I will respond. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


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

Wikidgood's Preliminary Reply to Objection # 3
IN REPLY TO "The insertion is filled with weasel words; it uses phrases such as "critics such as" and "drew heavy fire from various parties" while only citing two individuals, Laqueur and Viorst." Wikidgood states that there are two separate objections conflated into one, to wit: (a)alleged use of 'weasel words' and (b) citing only two individuals. Regarding (a) "weasel" is a prejudcial slang word associated with criminal intent to "weasel" off the hook for misdeeds and in this particular field tending to associate with criminal misreprentation

such as Holocaust denialism, which is a prosecutable offense in many nations.

Please refrain from using slang terminology and find less prejudicial nomenclature at risk of vitiating your credibility.

As to the substance of the allegation, ignoring its tone, the accuasation is that offering an example constitutes an attempt to "weasel", i.e., to evade.

There is no such intention. Thus, the characterization as an "obvious...weasel" is inapposite. There are literally thousands of people who have criticized Rob Wistrich in very harsh terms indeed, and the suggestion that the offering of two relatively mild criticisms as examples is an attempt to "weasel" can only indicate that the objector is either misinformed, or attempting to conceal the vast body of criticism of Wistrich. Do you really think that he is NON controversial? And note that Rabbi Beliak was not quoted.

Note also, no Muslim critic was quoted, sparing the subject of some of the most "unbalanced" criticism.

Admittedly, Tikkun represents a progressive critique, but it is, after all, an American Jewish critique, and Rabbi Lerner, the editor of Tikkun, is above such reproach as seems to be implied by the objector's dismissive ("obviously") and derogatory ("weasel") characterizations of a good faith attempt to add depth to the Wikipedia article on this important historian. Wikidgood (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not concerned with the opinions of various unnamed "thousands of people"; it is only concerned with the views of reliable sources. So far, your best source is Laqueur. Please use him and/or sources equally good. Jayjg (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So does this mean that you contend that anything in Tikkun is a priori a non-reliable source? Wikidgood (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You already have an appropriate source, one far better than Tikkun. Given that, and given that this is a WP:BLP, Tikkun is not appropriate here. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSED INTERIM COMPROMISE Draft merger text: Laquer, "balanced"
'''Wistrich's work is respected for comprehensive scope and its depth, but highly controversial with regard to its conclusion and tone. It is difficult to objectively evaluate the relative importance of different commentators because of vastly different base assumptions about the nature of the linkage between anti-Semitism and Nazism and because of his unique perspective. Even individual critics present dichotomous evaluations. For instance,Walter Laqueur's review of Wistrich's latest book contains laudatory language.'''

""It would be difficult to think of a more competent author than Wistrich, head of a Jerusalem research institute, who has given decades to the study of the subject and has a good knowledge of recent European history and languages, and particularly of Nazism" and "Wistrich's facts are all true"."

Indeed, he states that""Wistrich's volume is a monumental, encyclopedic survey of the new wave of anti-Semitism"" and

Yet that same author Walter Laquer, writing in the Washington Post, contended that Wistrich may ""misinterpret the line between self-hatred and self-criticism"" DELETED:in his argument for a more pro-active Jewish community

[1] His participation in the film Obsession drew (*)criticism from various parties such as REINSERT AUTHOR & CITATION writing in (**) Tikkun, who went so far as to lament what he characterized as "Wistrich’s journey from scholarship to propaganda. A Lethal Obsession reads as if it had been sponsored by AIPAC or Likud..."


 * DELETING: "heavy fire"


 * DELETING: "respected liberal Jewish affairs periodical" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The following material is pure original research
 * "Wistrich's work is respected for comprehensive scope and its depth, but highly controversial with regard to its conclusion and tone. It is difficult to objectively evaluate the relative importance of different commentators because of vastly different base assumptions about the nature of the linkage between anti-Semitism and Nazism and because of his unique perspective. Even individual critics present dichotomous evaluations. For instance"
 * None of the reliable sources make any of these claims. It cannot possibly be added to this article. The Tikkun source is inappropriate, for the reasons already given. The statement "criticism from various parties such as" is also unsourced WP:NOR. It cannot be included. In addition, please recall that Laqueur is reviewing only one of Wistrich's 20 or so books. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it is not-yet sourced. You missed the implicit "..." There is a vast literature critical of Rob's thesis but I think you might as well be the one to write the section because you never lose an opportunity to nit pick and will shape the article to your liking. If the section will reflect your POV I am not going to be the one to do all the work. There is never pure nuetrality there is always some level of implicit perspective, IMO, and clearly you are in a position to determine the shape of any posts on this type of article. I am going to work on addressing hate rhetoric trends in other areas and if you are concerned with the work that Robert Wistrich does you should at least be neutral on my work in creating NPOV encyclopedic references with regard to vulnerable populations. If you are concerned with the thrust of Jewish history you should not be of a mind to thwart such efforts, although I am sure there are certain approaches you would probably dislike. My perspective fits much better with mainstream Jewish intellegentsia so I don't think you will be so vigorously critical as you are on this topic of what IMO are somewhat Islamaphobic theorists such as Rob Wistrich. I give up on trying to write about the critical reception of Robert Wistrich's point of view, and am not likely to become interested unless you withdraw the insinuation that the Kibbutzshield account was an attenpt to circumvent rules, which you had no basis to do. Good bye, say hello to Rob if you see him, I don't know him well enough to care about dealing with this article on this webpage, any further.Wikidgood (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Section Name Revision
(1)Please take note that the deleted material did have a section name, something like "Criticism of Wistrich's Late Work" or "Recent Criticisms". JAYG did not quote the Section Name when reposting into talk, thus anyone coming into the discussion would not be aware of the rubric which had been established for the deleted writing.

(2) Wikidgood does not at all object to the readjustment proposing that a section for the evaluation/assessment history would be preferable to coverage of only "criticism". I am in 100% agreement. However, it would be far preferable to add material rather than subtract because what was subtracted was (a) true, (b) by no means "obviously" unbalanced - there are many more negative criticisms out there, IMHO the ones offered are at about median and

(3) no evidence, proof or citation to the contrary is offered, only other statements which were weighted more differently,

(4) the offered proof, in the form of additional Laquer quotation, supports the balanced nature of the original deleted post insofar as it proves that Laquer is not an "anti-Wistrich" writer.(5)Proposed section name: Critical Reception. Wikidgood (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wistrich has written 20 books and dozens of other works. A "Critical reception" of his work needs to cover a fair sample of that, not just his latest book. Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My objections to this are offered above, but to summarize, the two critiques are not the "Flat Earthers" refered to in WP:UNDUE, actually they are not too far from Wistrich. Tikkun supports Israel and is focused on Judaica. To balance its liberalism, I offered Laquer. You sound like you will only be satisfied if Tikkun community is excluded and perhaps Podhoretz and Dershowitz are in. That what it looks like. You are trying to censor Rabbi Lerner AND Rabbi Beliak. So who do you think would be "balanced"? List two or three please. DO you feel Laquer is about in the middle? Or do you think that Norman Podhoretz is in the middle and perhaps Avigdor Lieberman should be the "balance" for Podhoretz. Please - pony up with some suggestions or you are merely being negative and obstructionist. Wikidgood (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was quite clear when I wrote: Statements or implications that other editors are "deletionist", "destructive", have "intent to suppress", or engage in "censorship" and "book-burning" are inappropriate. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Any future comments that discuss anything besides article content will be ignored. If you comment solely on article content I will respond. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a rich variety of comment which is on content to which you also do not respond, ie. ignore. While it is possible thawt there may have been a remark using the term "deletionism" here or on my talk page, that doesn't really excuse ignoring the substantive remarks and ignoring the proposed compromise language. But since you are stonewalling and possess vastly more power through admin privilege and technical knowledge of wikipedia lawyering, I am not inclined to waste very much time until and unless you show good faith by responding to questions and proposed compromise language. I conceded the point that my initial post was not entirely balanced, but the high road would be to proffer alternative content or additional counterbalancing review of Wistrich. His primary thesis is itself very off the beaten track, ie., that criticisms of Israel are a direct continuation of "Nazism" and while I have discussed this with him personally and achieved a balanced "Point of View" the zeal - and I did not say "zealotry" with which you are ignoring my substantive remarks and limiting your response to accusing me of nothing but ad hominen, which is itself ad hominent, is really below the level of intellectual integrity which Rob himself does manifest. Whatever objections you may have to Tikkun, your contention that any comment which is published in Tikkun is per se objectionable and unworthy of wikipedia is itself objectionable and arbitrary and actually degrades wikipedia. Is it not possible to exercise critical judgement on the topic of anything which touches on Israel and zionism and anti-semitism withouth heavy handed heightened scrutiny which devalues, for instance, anything and everything that has anything to do with TIkkun?

FYI, the wikipedia entry for Tikkun itself has a section called "Criticism" which is itself lacking the balance you demand for Wistrich article. Ableit there is a separate, much shorter section which has some positive comment. But it is not "balanced". Furthermore, the link to the Criticism section is a dead link. A dead link is not a citation, thus it is an uncited derogatory remark.

Again, would you admit that a author who had no particular idiosyncratic derogatories on his academic record who chose to write in Tikkun would not per se be deletable on sight?

And you seem to be waiving objection to the proposed name change for the section. Am I correct to assume that you do not object then to the proposed name change for the section, or do you? Wikidgood (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment included the phrase "you are stonewalling", and made other comments about me. As explained previously, I will respond to any comments that only discuss article content. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy: Matter in Evidence: Is All Tikkun-Published Content Atuomatically invalid?
Regarding the apparent designation of any and all articles published in Tikkun as per se not worthy of citatoin on Wikipedia, which is an apparent edict by Jayg which has not to date been modified or qualified, please take notice of the below evidence which suggests that Bernie Morris has published in Tikkun.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vNb5VkyxDlYC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Tikkun+FInkelstein&source=bl&ots=B2CVLcax6u&sig=yO5s6TlZZq1356-_Jfe7Y7GFDsg&hl=en&ei=ixlXTY28HomesQPew8WcDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

If accurate, this presents the corrollary question to Jayg to wit, is Bernie Morris not worthy of citation on WIkipedia ONLY when writing in Tikkun, or, in the alternative, AT ALL TIMES?

Wikidgood (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't stated that "any and all articles published in Tikkun as per se not worthy of citatoin on Wikipedia"; please review my comments to understand what they actually say. Jayjg (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Status Update: Area of Agreement
1)An assessment of Wistrich is a good idea.

2)Be balanced before it can be included.

3)The following are appropriate additions:

"Walter Laqueur's review of Wistrich's latest book ... "Wistrich's volume is a monumental, encyclopedic survey of the new wave of anti-Semitism" and "It would be difficult to think of a more competent author than Wistrich, head of a Jerusalem research institute, who has given decades to the study of the subject..."

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

Invitation to productive collaboration
Maybe a fresh start will help with this situation. Take a look at my comment on the talk page at the anti-Semitism article. I attended an entire graduate seminar on the topic and I find the article lede to be too simplistic and not accurate.

I would almost say sophomoric, but that is too strong and could be taken as a bit insulting, at the antisemitism article. It generalizes and omits many factors. If anyone is reading this talk page, rather than continue to spin our wheels, perhaps we can move forward at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism#Lede_has_POV._OR_generalization_which_I_dispute This is just an attempt to create some kind of positive and constructive collaboration because it looks like we are pretty much stuck on the Wistrich page. Just let me know if you have any issues with what I am doing on that page. I would think, not, but, if so, it would probably just prove to me there is no use trying to play a constructive role at WMF on anything that matters. Unless I was convinced that I was in error. Wikidgood (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have an appropriate source, Laqueur, but you refuse to use it appropriately. The reasons why are still not clear. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Viorst as a source
JAYG wrote: "The second critical view is Milton Viorst writing in Tikkun magazine. Why this would be a significant enough criticism to satisfy the WP:RS requirements of WP:BLP is not clear."

RESPONSE: Jayg's own words 'clarify' this.

JAYG CONTINUED:

"Though Viorst does write about the Middle East, he's a former journalist, not a historian or scholar of antisemitism."

RESPONSE: A Middle East affairs journalist per se meets WP:RS.

Wikidgood (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is always within a context. Viorst would be considered a somewhat WP:RS when writing about Middle Eastern affairs, but he doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS (particularly in a WP:BLP) when it comes to antisemitism. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)