Talk:Tikkun (magazine)

Untitled
This is the definition for Tikkun the book, not the magazine! It should have a separate entry! TaraIngrid 16:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've made a few additions, but the article is still a stub. Am not sure how to expand the article further without it seeming like an advertisement.Michael Sidlofsky 22:38, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following two statements appear to have a strong bias: "is considered the best source for informed commentary about Israeli politics and Jewish life in North America. " "Tikkun was the also first American periodical to actively promote a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Shahar Goldin 14:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As a reader who came to this page out of curiosity about Tikkun in relation to matters that have little to do with Judaism or Israel, the last half of this article strikes me as inconsistent with Wikipedia's NPOV&mdash;hence the request for a POV-check. robbie 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tikkun's bias, not the definition's bias
While it may be that the people who are members of Tikkun and those friendly to its goals might view the entry as hostile, I found the entry to be accurate in the extreme. A person who comes to this entry without the benefit of knowing the founders of Tikkun (the magazine) should learn of the associations of the people and their insights. The insights are provided by Prof. Dershowitz and I would like to point out that the organization is at least glancingly affiliated with these organizations as a member of the "United For Peace and Justice" coalitions. The UFPJ is made up of individuals representing the following groups:

* American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee * American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) * Antiwar.com * Buddhist Peace Fellowship (BPF) * Catholic Worker Movement * Center for Constitutional Rights * Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy * Code Pink * Communist Party USA (CPUSA) * Democratic Socialists of America * Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) * Global Exchange * Greenpeace * Green Party of the United States (GPUS) * Institute for Policy Studies * International Socialist Organization (ISO) * International Solidarity Movement (ISM) * Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) * MoveOn * Not in Our Name (NION) * National Council of Churches * National Lawyers Guild * National Organization for Women (NOW) * National Youth and Student Peace Coalition (NYSPC) * Nevada Shakespeare Company (NSC) * Pacifica Foundation * Peace Action * Quixote Center * Rainbow/Push Coalition * Rainforest Action Network * Refuse+Resist * Ruckus Society * School of the Americas Watch (SOAW) * Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) * Tikkun Community * TransAfrica Forum * TrueMajority * Veterans for Peace * War Resisters League * Working Assets * Z Magazine and ZNET

While one could make the assertion that the entry in relation to Tikkun is biased against the goals of the organization, it's my position that the group is anti-Israel and clearly not in the mainstream of American Jewish organizations. Get2djnow 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC) THe term "anti-Israel" is not NPOV. nor is it an unchallengeable thing to say about Tikkun. It's not "anti-Israel" to support a two-state solution, since a two-state solution obviously involves supporting the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. A publication doesn't have to oppose Palestinian self-determination to be free of the label "anti-Israel". Also, why would you be outraged that Tikkun has ties to the Buddhist Peace Fellowship and the Nevada Shakespeare Company? Last I checked, neither Buddhism nor Shakespeare are evil, and it's impossible for Shakespeare to have been "anti-Israel" given that Israel didn't exist as a country during Shakespeare's lifetime. None of the groups you list there are diabolical and the International Socialist Organization, which was mostly seen as a joke on the Left, has disbanded. And it's not "bias" for a publication to have a point of view; publications have the right to have a point of view; calling that "bias" implies that it is illegitimate for Tikkun or any publication to hold any point of view you happen to disagree with. It's not illegitiamte-it is simply a different persepective, and a perspective that has as much right to be heard as that of Binyamin Netanyahu.

(Ken Burch) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4E00:7876:8C02:C35D:99CC:B193 (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

?
I just saw this article for the first time, and something is wrong with it. The middle is a hodge-podge of Wikipedia text, quotes from articles, and http addresses. Would somebody who contributed to the article care to clean it up a bit? Malik Shabazz 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I've been through the History of this page, I see that this paragraph was added by one editor who added essentially the same language to Jewish Voice for Peace as well. I'll try to clean it up a little. Malik Shabazz 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep flogging a dead horse, but I went to the sources of that paragraph and they seem to be blogs and personal attacks. I also looked at the other edits made by 160.39.35.21 and concluded that the best course was removing the paragraph altogether. Malik Shabazz 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tikkun's POV
Every issue of Tikkun has a bold disclaimer that opinions expressed in the magazine are not endorsed by the editor or the magazine, unless they appear in editorials, but that they are intended to stimulate discussion. (I don't have a copy handy, but I'll post the exact language when I get the next issue.) I am going to correct the sentence about the magazine calling for divestment, because the article clearly appeared under somebody else's by-line, not Lerner's. In fact, Lerner has repeatedly argued against divestment in his editorials. Malik Shabazz 21:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
Articles are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean that this article shouldn't mention legitimate criticism of Tikkun &mdash it absolutely should, and it already has one paragraph that does. But I don't think that the text I removed did that. I support Tikkun, and I make no apologies for it, but discussing criticism of the group belongs in the article. Just keep a neutral point of view. Malik Shabazz 02:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Opinion columns by Alan Dershowitz are not legitimate sources with which to document an encyclopedia article. Especially since Dershowitz has an axe to grind with Tikkun -- a review of his book in the magazine included personal criticism, he wrote a letter to the editor which was published with a response from the magazine, which brought another letter to the editor. He has been criticized in Tikkun several times since then.
 * The paragraph that was allegedly supported by the JTA article was a misrepresentation of what the JTA article says.


 * I explained above why I don't think Alan Dershowitz is a reliable source for this article. Also, as I wrote above, your other assertion is not supported by your reference:


 * On Jan. 28, 2007, more than 50 Jewish organizations convened a conference of Jewish progressives active in a range of progressive political causes, especially in the peace movement, for the purpose of discussing the rise in anti-Semitism. Tikkun was "not invited to co-sponsor the conference. " http://jta.org/page_print_story.asp?intarticleid=17507&intcategoryid=4 -- (a) The reference does not describe a "a conference of Jewish progressives." (b) The reference doesn't indicate any criticism of Tikkun. (c) So why is it in this article?


 * I'm not looking to start an editing war, so I've asked an impartial third-party to review your additions to this article. Malik Shabazz 04:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the bottom half of the article does seem to maintain a neutral point of view, I feel that it is not written in an encyclopedic fashion. This may make it seem that it is no longer NPOV. If rewritten it may seem more NPOV. --Merhawie 17:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Substantial info from longtime reader
I'm a longtime reader of the magazine who added substantial info last night and intending to go over again with citations soon. Thanks to all those who've made efforts to improve this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.42.208 (talk • contribs) 20:34, August 3, 2007


 * From one long-time reader to another, thank you. Please take a few minutes to review Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. Content in articles should be attributed to reliable sources.


 * As a reader of the magazine, I think that most of what you wrote is true. As a Wikipedia editor, I'm afraid that I have to delete some portions of it because they appear to represent opinions, not statements made in secondary sources.


 * If you have newspaper or magazine articles about Tikkun, or books that describe it, please add them as references. If you have any questions about how to do that, please leave a note here or on my Talk page and I'll be happy to help.—Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

List article in category
This article on Tikkun magazine should be added to the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_magazines_published_in_the_United_States but I don't know how to do it so I am just posting this suggestion here. Mfrphoto (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged" Improprieties?
I don't see why we add "Alleged" to the section title when the paragraph itself states that the editor-in-chief admitted he did what he was accused of: he had written 'letters to the editor' in praise of himself and published them under a pseudonym. How is that a merely "alleged" impropriety? Even if it wasn't and won't be proven in court (I doubt it constitutes a crime), the facts are sourced by both the former editors making the accusation and Lerner himself copping to it. I'm removing the extra word, but let me know if you have a good reason for keeping it in. PublicolaMinor (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing for Derkowitz criticism and Letters to Editor content?
The final 'controversy/criticism' section could use a bit of help with sourcing. We state that Tikkun published criticism of Alan Derkowitz for multiple issues prior to his criticism in response; however, for reference, we only cite "(for example: May/June 1997, September/October 1997, November/December 1997, January/February 1999)". Setting aside the fact that these are improperly formatted, can we get actual articles and authors to go with that, rather than raw issue numbers? I'd also appreciate individual sources for the two Letters to the Editor. Those two quotes are mentioned in the JWeekly source, but I'd feel better if we could at least direct readers to the full context. PublicolaMinor (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tikkun (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20081002001335/http://beyttikkun.org/fmd/files/foundingperspective.pdf to http://www.beyttikkun.org/fmd/files/FoundingPerspective.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought
69.181.23.220 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought. ISSN 0885-8659.
 * https://www.worldcat.org/title/shmate/oclc/615559641
 * https://www.worldcat.org/title/shmate/oclc/8441686
 * https://chomsky.info/198805__/