Talk:Tony Martin (professor)

According to whom?
"have been a source of ongoing controversy." --This needs to be sourced. 1. I don't think it's an ongoing controversy because of the time that has passed and 2. A few people posting articles in newspapers does not count as "controversy" at all. --How many people responded to the article? How many people know the professor? controversy is much too strong a word for this little tiff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.196.133 (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

70.185.177.245 (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC) It's a controversy to 'them'.

Something is wrong here
"revert, unsourced and irrelevant claim about the student's ethnicity)"

In regards to the page I read a day or two ago. The claim was sourced, the source used was also reputable. http://www.thejc.com/arts/books/731/review-history-lesson-a-race-odyssey

I still do not see how it is irrelevant, especially when most of this entire page is either about Jewish people and Tony Martin, or Tony Martin and Jewish people. In the context of this current article it makes perfect, relevant, sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.83.11 (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy
The definition of controversy is usually "Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated" -So, I ask for a source that follows the traditional desc. Eminem for example would be considered 'controversial' his music was debated publicly, in the congress, on television, on radio etc etc.

I do not believe that two or three people with a few newspaper articles would count as 'controversy' -I mean go on youtube and search for the professor's name and videos - the view count from 3 years ago (on most) is a paltry 2,100 views. Far from being a public name let alone a "controversial" character.

Please source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The debate we are talking about began in 1992 and abated by the end of the decade, thus I would consider it a "prolonged, public, and heated" disagreement" and therefore think the word controversy is appropriate. The incident between Martin and Lefkowitz was directly related to the "Black Athena" debate (Lefkowitz's review of Bernal's Black Athena in The New Republic was the opening salvo in the dispute). The "Black Athena" debate extended outward from academia and became a subject of national conversation because it related directly to larger concerns such as race, identity, intellectual honest, scholarly conduct, and academic freedom. The debate spawned dozens of books, scholarly articles, and conferences and was consistently reported on in the press. A simple search of just the phrase "Black Athena" on JSTOR finds 642 scholarly articles published since 1987 when the book came out. The debate is, in fact, still ongoing. Lefkowitz published her book History Lesson: A Race Odyssey in 2008 and Bernal published Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization: The Linguistic Evidence, Vol. 3 in 2006. This in spite of the fact that both Lefkowitz and Martin are now retired from Wellesley and teaching entirely. As a result, discussion of this particular incident is not as common as it was fifteen years ago. But that doesn't mean it was an inconsequential, minor or irrelevant. I hope you were joking about the YouTube videos. Just because a topic isn't the subject of a great number of videos uploaded to YouTube doesn't mean it is not serious or important and I'm sure you know that. Inoculatedcities (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up
I have cleaned up the article, removed unsourced and poorly sourced material, NPOVed the article text and wikified it as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

slave trade sources
This is a bio article about a Professor. These sources don't belong here.Kaisershatner 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Point of view
This article is far more neutral and informative than the previous versions written by Martin himself, under the guise of "avocadop". Given his propensity to censor i.e. remove any material that is less than fully flattering, as well as the addition of the aforementioned non-biographical material simply to incite hatred of Jews, I suggest that this current version be given "protected" status.

There is so much unfairness is the above presentation. Anything that embarasses Jewish self esteem is deemed to be anti-semitic - and I am Jewish too. He has been accused of seeking to incite hatred by telling the truth! If the truth is embarassing, apologies and get over it. I have amended the text to show that there are Black Jews who support Tony Martin's right to discuss the role of Jews in the Slave Trade.Napata102 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Dapo Ladimeji
 * Hi, thanks for your contribution to the article. Keep in mind weasel words- "some say" isn't as good as "X, Y, Z say"(with a citation).  And I disagree with your view that Martin is telling "the truth," but that's just my POV.  Let's make sure all of our POVs stay out of the article.  Kaisershatner 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm reading more about Martin, I have to say it's amazing to me that he could read a pamplet that asserts the Holocaust was a fiction fabricated by the Allies and the Jews, and say "Yep, sounds like normal scholarly inquiry to me!" The fact that he chose to defend the publisher and also lent his credentials to a Holocaust Denial conference is just a coincidence?  Kaisershatner 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this for a reply:"Some academics read some Allied pamphlets, watched some propaganda movies implying homicidal gassings of Jews and just concluded: Yes, the Holocaust must be for real. I'm pretty certain you treat historians that acted that way in the same manner you treat Tony Martin. --41.246.229.79 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"Napata102" appears to be the latest of Martin's designated lackies, assigned to whitewash his/her idol's lies, slanders, incitement and outright support for genocidal racism against Jews, regardless of Napata's proclaimed ethnic/religious identity. In fact, many so-called "Black Jews" - such as the kind one sees with bullhorns on 42nd Street in Manhattan - regularly chant the most vile racist diatribes against what they call the "false" (i.e non-black) Jews, replete with the usual Nazi slogans. In that case, this hardly disproves the viewpoint of Martin's critics that his singling out of the Jewish role in the slave trade is disproportionate, and quite possibly motivated by a far more deep-seated racism against Jews and desire to incite hatred and violence against them.

It seems like this article is getting to be a collection of "this side thinks" and "that side thinks". I agree that very often, truth is not on one side, and there are at least two points of views on each story. But last time I checked wikipedia, the Holocaust did happen, and those who deny it did are called holocaust deniers. So let's not start fake debates, like, quote: "Anything that embarasses Jewish self esteem is deemed to be anti-semitic", followed by the ever-popular argument "and I am Jewish too". Benisek00 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Slandering Henry Louis Gates, Jr.?
I have tried to edit this article several times in vain efforts to introduce something resembling a neutral point of view. Lately, I've attempted several times to delete one particularly egregious paragraph under the rubric of Professor Martin's anti-Semitic "Jewish Onslaught" screed; the paragraph I have tried to delete deals with an editorial written by Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates about the Nation of Islam's anti-Jewish conspiracy on the slave trade. The paragraph essentially amounts to a gratuitous smear of Professor Gates, who wrote his editorial two years before Martin wrote "The Jewish Onslaught": the paragraph in question contributes nothing to either the factual content of the dispute or to the questions that motivated Martin's fulminations. It is merely a slander of Gates, one using an offensive and racially insensitive epithet, at that. It has absolutely no place in a Wikipedia article, and yet every time I delete it "somebody" ("avocadop"?) re-introduces it, whole cloth.... Little help, anybody?! Zarafan 16:23, 4 March 2007
 * Hey, Zarafan. Thanks for your comments.  I have to agree with you that the nasty criticism of Gates was poorly placed, since it had to do with a prior issue, Gates' view of the NOI work.  On the other hand, "no place in a WP article" - there I disagree with you.  This is a biographical article about an academic; his views about other prominent academics in his field (and in this case, arguably the most famous or prominent among them), are relevant to his biography.  I put the quotation into its own section to avoid the problem you pointed out.  Also, what about the article isn't neutral, in your view- since you say you are making an effort to "introduce something resembling a neutral point of view."  Where can we do better?  Kaisershatner 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kasisershatner: Thank you for your response. I think Martin's criticism of Gates is something of a non-issue: instead of raising a substantive critique of Gates's scholarship or politics, he offers a series of increasingly offensive insults--to a person who has never baited, attacked, or responded to Martin directly. Is every aspect of Martin's personality of issue in a WP article? How much rope do we need to give for this guy to hang himself? In an article about Lyndon LaRouche, for example, is it enough to say that he's a conspiracy theorist who makes reckless charges about world leaders, or do we have to quote exactly why he thinks Henry Kissinger and Queen Elizabeth are involved in the drug trade?

With respect to the general neutrality of the article, I think it's much better than it once was, and as I say I've tried to play a role in changing it from a puff piece into an encyclopedia article. But it's an "objective" truth that Tony Martin is a pathetic bigot who has squandered whatever academic reputation he once had in service of his own anti-Semitic obsessions, and that's something that a WP article cannot speak to, for obvious stylistic and methodological reasons. Barring a unanimous and universal consensus that he's merely a nutjob, I think there are two areas where this entry might be improved: (1) the so-called academic responses to the Jewish Onslaught--from the likes of Molefi Asante (a fellow Afrocentrist, and though a more important academic figure than Martin, not exactly a neutral observer) and "Jewish scholar" Steve Bloom (whoever in the world that is)--really amount to flak-work on behalf of Martin. They need at least to be better contextualized, if not deleted. (2) There really needs to be a better concluding or summary paragraph for this entry; the assertion that the Holocaust did occur, or else that Martin has signed on to a pamphlet which denies the existence of the Holocaust, though suitably goofy enough to discredit Martin in the eyes of nearly anybody, reads too much like an equivocation or anti-climax. Thanks again for your response to my query. Zarafan
 * Zarafan, I don't want to get too metaphysical but it isn't that simple to decide what to include and what not to include, there's a whole category of Inclusionist and Deletionist commentary on that. Generally I'm in favor of keeping- if Martin warrants a page at all, his public comments are all fair game for inclusion.  The vicious one about Gates just serves as additional evidence of Martin's general viewpoint, which is something the article should address (and is also what makes him notable- I think he got comparatively less national media attention for his work about Garvey).  As far as the fleshing out of the Asante and Bloom quotations, I agree.  Some googling suggests Bloom may the a prof at U of Iowa, there is one by that name with some Jewish writings, but right now I'm not up to digging at it.  The "Jewish scholar" descriptor probably could be deleted.  If it's a comment about Bloom's religion then it's irrelevant (the views of any one Jewish person aren't a litmus test for what is anti-Semitic.  Jews, like anyone else, will disagree about that.  If it's a point about his job, as in he writes about Jewish issues, then that might be different (although I would still disagree with his view). Kaisershatner 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kaisershatner: Thanks for your clarification; I'll continue to keep an eye on this article. zarafan

Something worrying here
Weasle words are all over this, is this allowed in a BIO?? No it isnt so why is it here. Why have a section about Holocaust denying when Martin Never denied the holocaust and said it isnt his area to say anything for or against. But putting it in that language paints the picture that he is part of some crowd. And that stupid tag is history let me tell you that. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Martin remains proudly a son of Trinidad, West Indies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.227.132 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
I edited this article pretty thoroughly today and checked all the sources. I think it's neutral now and propose eliminating the tag.86.44.89.116 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not NPOV because it has been written to introduce the illusion that the man is a Jewish holocaust denier, despite having no evidence that he has done this. So he is guilty because Jews dont like him for his work on their involvement in the African Holocaust.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me add it is a serious thing when messing around with a living persons bio, wikipedia take this a little more serious than messing around with other things. Statements, accusations which slander a person must air on the side of caution. Dont drop tags on people for things they never did. Any such attempts will immediately be reported.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denier is not a title of a person
Seems any edits are reverted by Jayjig. He is always right you know. But Hitler is best know for being Evil, racist, etc. However you do not add it before his name anytime it is mentioned. Osama Bin Ladin is best known as a terrorist, but do you insert it before his name every time it appears on wikipedia? PHD, is a title, Scholar is a profession, Holocaust denier is an ACT.not something obtained in a university. The problem here is to try and throw as much negative associations in front of Tony Martin to give the reader the illusion of him being a Holocaust Denier or guilty by association (since there is no evidence of him Holocaust denying). I am using the talk page, please use it before constantly undoing my work--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Irving is best known as a Holocaust denier, so that's how the article describes him. Reputable people wouldn't be expected to speak at conferences of his. Bin Laden is much better known than Irving, so a description is not necessary. Regarding the rest, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the rest review how Wikipedia works, and how multiply editors contribute to making an article better. shame i dont really care enough to chase these things down. Work v reward. Why dont you do as such and let the talk page sort it out? Cuz it seems to be a one way system. Please spare me your opinion on reputable people, you are editing here not passing judgment one reputable. I have a very different set of standards on what honest and reputable people do. For one they dont own slaves, invade peoples countries, and kill women and children. Our only mission is NPOV not trying to tarnish someone because we dont like the crowd they keep. It can get very subjective when you start picking and choosing what people are know for. And if the user wants more he can always click the link.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they can click on the link for the details, but almost everyone is described by at least a couple of words. "British chemist X writes", "American journalist Y stated", etc. Jayjg (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is a reliable source for this approach? Is there any prove that this description "holocaus denier" is valid and true? It is rather libel and slander to call the honorable late Tony Martin such a thing. --92.74.110.206 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Yellow Badging
Stop removing the Jewish Chronicle source about the alleged harassment of a Jewish student. It is pertinent to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 October 2011 UTC
 * How so? Jayjg (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? More than half of this article concerns Jews and or alleged anti-semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.218 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 1 November 2011‎ UTC
 * Why is the religion or ethnicity of this student relevant to this article? Please explain why clearly on this talk page; do no re-insert the material. Jayjg (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. you explain to me why the information is not relevant when it comes from a reputable source. If not, I'm putting it back up as valid information. In good faith. There are no Wikipedia guidelines which bar identifying the religious or ethnic backgrounds of a person. In fact right now you're violating a few of the guidelines yourself. (Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.) - I am simply adding more information for people who view this article and this information comes from a reputable source.


 * Unless you have evidence that the source of the information is incorrect or some other valid reason. Do not remove my edit. Thank you. 216.246.233.218 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if something is verefiable, that is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in an article. Material must conform with all of our policies, particularly (in this case) WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Please explain why you think it is relevant to list the religion or ethnicity of this student in this article. If you simply re-add this material, administrative action will be the next step. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes plenty of sense to keep the fact that she was a Jewish woman up. Amongst other reasons; most of this article seems to be about the professor's writings and or interactions with Jewish people. That said, I see no reason why it should not be included in the article. The source of the information is also reputable and really, NPOV? It's not the editors point of view that she was Jewish, it's a published fact that she was/is. I also see nothing in violation of WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.83.11 (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster. I don't know why this edit was undone, I'm reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.196.133 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's so cute when people agree with themselves. --jpgordon:==( o ) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

More details on Death
More info on death, I think It was me that added that he died, some more info would be good.--Inayity (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Alleged No precedent for that in a lead
It can get tricky when we start putting in terms like Alleged. It becomes like the word so-called. Because what is the criteria. It is political. Tony Martin wrote on Jewish involvement in the Atlantic Slave trade, there is nothing disputed about that. From the POV that he did write about that topic with that title (a fact) and from the historical POV that Jews were involved in the slave trade another fact. No reading of NPOV supports "alleged" and other migratory statements which clearly are political to debunk his work. And that is a problem, because it introduces bias. Let the sources for and against speak for themselves. and I have noticed how the article on Jewish involvement got the title (antisemitic canard) so we all know what this is about.--Inayity (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The real issue here is that he alleged Jewish responsibility for the American slave trade, so I've modified the lead to reflect that. Also, there are no NPOV issues with stating that he made those allegations, which he did. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ALLEGED you will notice I took my time on this one because I was searching. Clearly when you insert alleged you are creating DOUBT, and I think that is a political tool. I have actually read some of the book. He is discussing Jewish Involvement in the Atlantic Slave trade. I do not think that is a myth, But his work does not need any modifiers, no other author has modifiers infront of their research that I know of. If there are specific allegations within his work, then that is another matter, but the broad description of his work does not need any supporting bias language.--Inayity (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw Man statement which is not accurate regarding Jewish Involvement not responsiblity
Jewish responsibility for the Slave Trade is very different from Jewish Involvement. There is no using terminology to change reality. So when you say "responsibility" you make it look like he is saying Jews were all to blame, he did not say that. World's of difference and clearly misrepresents what he is discussing. Ref, Role in, involvement, he did not say Responsibility, so why is it there? So the crux of the matter is make the statement in NPOV terms as it is ! He wrote on Jewish involvement/role in the Atlantic slave trade. Just as people write about African involvement/role in the Slave Trade. Hardly deserving of alleged. because if it is alleged for one, then it must be alleged for all. --Inayity (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm writing from memory, but Prof Martin stipulates Jewish responsibility in the slave trade, just not sole responsibility. His point is also that Jews have denied any responsibility and engaged in character assassination and dirty tricks against him. --41.246.229.79 (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tony Martin (professor). 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://web.archive.org/web/20100704190022/http://www.blacksandjews.com/TonyMartin.html to http://www.blacksandjews.com/TonyMartin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704190022/http://www.blacksandjews.com/TonyMartin.html to http://www.blacksandjews.com/TonyMartin.html

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) 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)