Talk:Tom Paulin

Comment
I seem to recall one time Paulin having quite a rant about the talents (or rather lack of them) of Alain De Botton in an episode of Newsnight Review, which was passed over by host Mark Lawson and his fellow guests. Is there more to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.3.50 (talk • contribs).
 * I would like to think that someone has publicly ranted about De Botton's lack of talent, because I consider him a 24-carat fuckwit, but comments on a TV show are not relevant to this article, unfortunately. Lexo (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Paulin and anti-Semitism
This is not, IMO, a very good article, if only because it leaves out scads of information about Paulin. There is no attempt to register critical response to him as a poet, for example. His critical writings have been largely ignored. It is mostly about Paulin the TV personality. I am no great fan of the man's work; my admiration for his stuff is confined to some of the poetry he published in the 1980s, and I have little time for his criticism and no time at all for the cantankerous TV persona. Nevertheless this article is in my opinion in violation of WP:NPOV, and requires improvement. The section on his alleged anti-Semitism is especially slanted. The section in question appears to have been edited by someone who was working from the presupposition that anyone who is anti-Zionist (whatever that might mean) is therefore anti-Semitic. That presupposition is at least arguable. In the meantime, Paulin's highly positive review of Anthony Julius's scathingly critical book on T.S. Eliot's evident but arguably latent anti-Semitism is not mentioned at all.

I am not proposing that the article should not mention that some people (who, exactly?) appear to have perceived that Paulin is anti-Semitic. Some people think he is, even though I think they're wrong. But as it reads now, the article's general tendency is IMO to suggest that he is anti-Semitic. It appears to depend on your definition of "anti-Semitism". I think that the evidence suggests that he isn't, but in any case, wikipedia standards demand that the article should not try to come down on one side or other, but should instead reflect the nature of the controversy. Lexo (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As Zionism is the belief in the Jewish right of self-determination, after centuries of persecution, then Paulin's open hostility towards Israel - the predominantly Jewish state - is, ultimately, anti-Semitic. He belongs to a large anti-Jewish movement that is prevalent in Ireland, where they have never really accepted the Papal decree of 1965 that the Jews did not kill Jesus Christ (an Israeli Jew). AR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.22.114 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Zionism is also a C19th secular racist colonialist ideology which is inherently antisemitic.Keith-264 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit
I just removed a duplicate quote in the same section: "Paulin has described himself as a lifelong opponent of anti-Semitism, and also stated that he does not support attacks on Israeli citizens under any circumstances." It wasn't clear from my edit summary. Span (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of material
This ''Paulin subsequently said that his views were "distorted". In a letter to The Independent, Paulin wrote: "I have been, and am, a lifelong opponent of anti-Semitism ... I do not support attacks on Israeli civilians under any circumstances."[6]"'' refers to material that was deleted. That is unacceptable. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for a response to this. It does not make sense as is. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The views that Paulin said where distorted are these, per the source: "If there is one thing Paulin clearly abhors about Israel, it is the Brooklyn--born Jewish settlers. "They should be shot dead," he says forcefully. "I think they are Nazis, racists, I feel nothing but hatred for them." So, if we have the counter from Paulin, we need to say in the article what he was referring to. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting that his counter was only in reference to the single quote? I took his statement as being in reference to the entire "controversy" corpus.  Collect (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would you think Paulin will refer to "I do not support attacks on Israeli civilians under any circumstances"? He said that because in Al Ahram, he said what he said about shooting settlers to death.  Here is an article in the Harvard Crimson that puts these two statements together and in context:  -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Is the "Controversy" section in this BLP as of 17:00 8 Sep 2014 of proper, insufficient, or excessive weight to the entire BLP? Does the section as constituted comply with WP:NPOV? 17:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

discussion
The issue is clear, IMO, and should await people who have not heretofore examined this BLP. Collect (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of the controversies, but better summarized than in the diff offered above which removed material that is relevant, and kept material that responds to criticism which was removed. After all, the notability of this person is in no small part due to the controversial statements he has made. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- I think you may have a dog in the hunt here, as you have made clear. I was rather hoping to find someone who had not already made up their mind that every iota of criticism that can be found about a living person ought to be in their BLP.  That you think he is not notable except for the criticism is interesting, but not, alas, something which WP:NPOV and WP:BLP favour in encyclopedia articles.  The criticism is now only about half the entire article substance (discounting date of birth etc.)  I would, in fact, prefer that people who had no ax to grind of any sort showed up here.  I would,moreover, point out that I came here from WP:BLP/N as clearly at least one person did find the material violated WP:BLP.  Collect (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is more material about this person, then add it for balance. But don't delete material that is properly sourced and directly relevant to his notability. I have no axe to grind here, I actually agree with many some of the things that Paulin has said, and which you have deleted on a false reading of WP:BLP and without much knowledge of the subject if I may say so. Also note I came here from BLP/N as well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are about 420 books that refer to Paulin in the context of his controversial comments on Zionism. You are a fan of Google books, right? so maybe do some research before you comment on articles? As BLP/N patrollers we all should do that. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear me -- resorting to ad homs is not impressing me much at all. Cheer. Collect (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't know much about the subject of the article, but it seems excessive to me to have a controversy section in an article that is pretty short. This section seems to raise NPOV and UNDUE WEIGHT issues. It makes it seem like the main thing to know about him is that he might be anti-semetic.   His appology in the same section indicates otherwise.  Given what I can determine about the so called controversial- it seems way too much to have it in a BLP. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I couldn't boil this down to a simple vote but I think the section is a little excessive. As someone vaguely aware of Paulin (through Newsnight and the crossfire controversy) I agree that it's one of the things that needs to be mentioned. it feels odd to have 315 words in 5 paragraphs on controversy when there are only 303 words in 5 paragraphs on his employment and poetry. That said I'm not certain which way to go to balance the weight, I would prefer expansion of the rest of the article but I certainly think the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the controversy section can be trimmed and combined. The issue with the Asian student doesn't really seem worthy of a mention given how little of the coverage focused on Paulin. I'm also not sure the Tony Blairs zionist government comment belongs in controversy rather than work. &#32;SPACKlick (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that we need to expand on material about other aspects of his poetry and work. There are substantial sources out there, so improving this article is all a matter of adding, not subtracting. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  14:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It is absolutely clear that there is more than sufficient weight given to the "controversy" section, that the use of such a section in any BLP is strongly deprecated as a rule, and that increasing the section is violative of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The limited commentary on his "anti-Zionism" can be placed in two or three sentences under his work.  But increasing the mass already here is abhorrent to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that a controversy section is not good practice, so I have merged all the content under work. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the section could be consolidated into a couple sentences mentioning, perhaps, the final quote. --Shabidoo | Talk 02:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I believe the controversy should be more concise and separated into a small sub-section if it cannot be condensed. Fraulein451 | Talk 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Fake source?
http://www.inminds.com/boycott-news-0038.html contains an article purporting to come from The Independent. It was being used as a reference in this article. However, no such article exists in the newspaper's online archive for 28 April 2002, or a day either side of that date. It is written in a suspiciously amateurish style, and when one googles copies of sections of the text, all that is found is the inminds webpage. For example:  Because of this I think it is a fake article, and I have deleted it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think The Independent has online archives for material prior to 2010. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It has archives, see but I don't know if it is an archive of every opinion piece in that issue. However, don't think an article in The Independent from 2002 would entirely vanish from the online world except for one website. Nor do I think an article of that amateurishness would be published in The Independent. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks like another fake Independent article by the same "Robert Mendick" - look at this google search . Robert Mendick does exist  but these writings in their style do not appear to be the work of a "senior reporter" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lexis has a match for this in the Independent on Sunday (London), April 28, 2002, page 7. Comparing the two texts for a few seconds, they appear identical. I have the results (4 news articles matching "Mendick and Tom Paulin" between 2000 to 2005) as a pdf, if anyone wants a copy for research purposes please email me. Due to copyright concerns I should not publish the results. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely astonished if it actually is a real article written by a professional journalist and published in a mainstream media source. It (and even more so in the 2nd article I cited) is so badly written, the worst sort of trash journalism. In both articles, the use of just about every weasely, snide, underhand trick in the book is so obvious that they would make the worst tabloid journalist blush. It all poses questions about the motivation of this Robert Mendick. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * we don't care on the quality of writing, if it can be verified -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We DO care about the quality in a BLP. We have a partisan writer making vague accusation after vague accusation. "Pressure mounts for the poet to be thrown out of Hertford College and Oxford University". What pressure? Pressure from whom? A "self-proclaimed Zionist"? Claims that "Fellows at Hertford may be losing patience". MAY? Means that Mendick doesn't actually know if anyone is loosing any patience (not that that stops him making the implication that everyone is). And not even a single named staff member. Just some UNAMED "former tutor" (dismissed for doing who knows what?) voicing his opinions (if the person actually even exists). I doubt he does exist - sounds like just Mendick throwing tantrum about the fact that he's not on TV. "It is not clear whether the college will stand by Dr Paulin" - a weasel-worded admission that the college has not said anything? Not much in the way of "pressure", is there? This is just an early example of "a concerted Jewish lobby" attempting to tar anyone who raises even a little finger of objection (or a line in a poem) against Israel's military actions by labeling them "anti-semite". "Jews are furious" - so what? This article is not for "furious Jews". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do do care about BLPs, of course, but that does not include removing content just because we believe the author in a source we use does not know how to write. That decision was for the editor of The Independent, not for us. (BTW, I agree with your assessment) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Appeared to wish?
The text now reads: After his comments in Al-Ahram appeared to wish “Brooklyn--born Jewish settlers” to be shot dead.

This is the full quote: ""They should be shot dead," he says forcefully. "I think they are Nazis, racists, I feel nothing but hatred for them." - I don't think we can report that his comments "appeared to wish". -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously he walked away from these comments later on (and we say that in the article), but the comments were quite direct and forceful, per the source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Al-Ahram article's quotes of Paulin do not show Paulin using the actual words "Brooklyn-born Jewish settlers". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I removed the quote, using just "settlers". -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * Use of a summary style for quotes is reasonable and proper on Wikipedia - especially when it is clear that he regarded the quote as hyperbole, and did not intend a literal meaning. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That does not sound hyperbole to me, in particular coming from a poet who know very well the power of words. He said what he said quite deliberately and forcefully for full effect, and who are we to second guess him? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the poet himself said his words were distorted, I suggest we rely on his own opinion of his words.  I would also note that it is not unknown for poets to use hyperbole in their work, and I can think of few poets who never did so.  I would also note that it is your opinion that he did use the words deliberately and with a literal intent.    Frankly a "poetic intent" is more common for poets, but YMMV. Collect (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there was nothing poetic about that IMO, but I could live with the "appearing to wish" wording as a compromise. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)