Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Chamish


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. All due respect to Mr. Wales, but an article having problems is generally not considered a valid rationale to delete it. I will take the additional step of perusing the history and using revision deletion to remove any serious BLP problems from the history, and the article now has pending changes protection on it which should slow down any further attempts to damage or distort the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Barry Chamish

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article was a BLP disaster - claiming the man is a holocaust denier even though the only thing approaching a reliable source on that point, which was a blog, plainly said that he is not. That stayed in the article for a month.

I stubbed it due to many inflammatory assertions, and after some time, no one has bothered to add anything back. At BLPN editors noted that this article has long been a target of BLP vandalism. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – When one of the first references I find states; “Israel's best known [Yitzhak Rabin] assassination "conspiracist" is the burly and bearded Barry Chamish - Jerusalem Post - ProQuest Archiver - Apr 7, 1997, I’m a little reluctant to !vote for delete. With regards that the item is a BLP disaster, that may be true, but isn’t that a reason to clean-up the piece rather than delete or is the concern that misinformation was present for a month?  Sorry to say, any and all articles on Wikipedia are subject to misinformation which we do recognize when we state “…Older articles tend to grow more comprehensive and balanced; newer articles may contain misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Awareness of this aids obtaining valid information and avoiding recently added misinformation (see Researching with Wikipedia)”.  In other words we have to be more diligent.  This however is not valid reason to delete the piece.  Finally with regards to stubbing the piece and the persistent vandalism.  You are absolutely right in stubbing the article until the  information added back follows our current policies that all information be verifiable – reliable – creditable from secondary sources.  What I didn’t realize that there were now timeframes on adding back information.  Which leaves us with vandalism.  I noticed the piece is semi-protected now which should eliminate that problem.  All in all I couldn’t figure out if this was a valid AFD nomination or an exercise, either way, clearly a keep for Mr. Chamish  ShoesssS Talk 16:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * delete marginal notability, and long-term severe BLP disaster shows we haven't maintained this and are unlikely to going forward. Had someone written a half-decent article I might have opined differently.--Scott Mac 17:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He has twice been a national Scrabble champion and is notable for this alone, never mind the other stuff. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We need a source for this claim (it is not mentioned in the source cited). In any case, this is probably the least notable thing in this bio; if Chamish is notable, it is for his Rabin conspiracy theories and other right-wing journalism, and not as a Scrabble player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talk • contribs) 14:34, 5 March 2011
 * I have done some cleanup and provided more sources such as Former Winnipegger Israeli Scrabble Whiz (the profile is on the right of the two page spread) Colonel Warden (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Being such a devotee of championship Scrabble, the Colonel will be delighted to learn that Mr. Chamish says he is now a 4-time champion of Israel. The only print verification is of the first championship, but I'll see if I can find a source documenting the other three. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - low notability, of local infamy only, blogging scrabble player that we have allowed to be slandered through the project for far too long. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I'm unsure yet as to notability, but I will note that Wales is incorrect in asserting that no-one added anything back after he stubbed it: I restored the long list of books Chamish has published. The scrabble bit seems trivial, but he publishes quite a bit -- most of it impossibly nutty (Shimon Peres killed Rabin).  In any event I've been familiar with him for many years.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Scrabble title is notable enough but significant contribution to the Rabin assassination conspiracy theory is much more well known. Wales was bold in cutting up the article, but deleting it for lack of traffic is not the next step for such a well known author. --Zangvill (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not much of a rationale for deletion, considering the BLP issues have already been handled. I'm kind of surprised to see Jimbo make this nom as it's something I would've expected from most hardline deletionists. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fairly clearly a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biographical coverage. Copious Google hits on the specific name (112,000). Though the subject may hold controversial views, this is not a valid reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I add that this is the count of English-language hits; the number of Hebrew language hits would increase the count considerably. I'm going to do a little bit of work on this page, this seems like an interesting person. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've fully revised the article. Admittedly a good deal of this information is from the subject's own website — but the big criticism has been that erroneous or distorted material has dominated and that's no longer a valid concern. One of Chamish's books was reviewed by Daniel Pipes in Middle East Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal, indicating that this is not a person of "local infamy." There is now a framework up for some proper additional biographical writing. This is clearly improvable further by normal editing procedures. Carrite (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies to the Colonel, I accidentally mutilated his added source. Will get that back into play momentarily. Carrite (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ahhh... "Wikipedia False Claims on Barry Chamish as ‘Holocaust Denier,'" (Feb. 26, 2011). Carrite (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to move to support but - the tidy up is limited, there is still limited reliable independent coverage and the article will be attacked, the Jews hate him sections of the the Jewish community hate him and they will keep at it and slowly slowly he will get slandered and attacked again through en wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned at statements such as "the Jews hate him". What -- all of us? I have no opinion either way; but it is clear that Chamish does have enemies (notably Steven Plaut) and supporters. Any collective statement such as the one above is likely to be untrue, if not actually offensive, and should be avoided. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All criticism of Chamish has been completely sanitized from the revised article, which is thereby rendered unbalanced... Wiping out all criticism only opens the door for another over-the-top rewrite. The above comment "The Jews hate him" ENTIRELY misses the point that this is a dedicated supporter of Israel who believes he has been maligned as a "holocaust denier" by sloppy editorial work on Wikipedia and a systemic prevention of his correcting of this distortion. That charge comes from the Daniel Pipes criticism (published in a peer-reviewed journal), which has been stricken this afternoon. This seems to have happened before in 2007, see the Talk page... There needs to be a neutral description of that criticism with an article link, which was previously up. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Edited Carrite (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm more or less okay with the heavily trimmed Pipes criticism as long as the footnote is there. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is this person who claims the Jews hate Chamish? This is ridiculous and completely OR from riorob. So what does he suggest? Not to support the article because it will get attacked? Good indecisiveness. --Zangvill (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to Zangvill. Peace, friend, I think he mistook where the heat was coming from about this article. I have been in touch with Mr. Chamish in an effort to get this thing factually tight, hoping also to help calm troubled waters. Earlier versions of this article were gravely erroneous about him, based on lazy misinterpretations of polemics. I have no views whatsoever of Mr. Chamish's specific opinions. I just want to get this bio RIGHT. And yes, he is notable in Wikipedia terms. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question. I'm highly sympathetic to concerns about BLP disasters.  But might there not be other tools to protect against that?  Page protection comes to mind, in one of its various forms.  I had thought that we shied away from deletion as a response to BLP vandalism, as that could naturally be extended to a call for all manner of controversial articles to be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - I have altered the comment about who hates him - to sections of the jewish community, all the infighting in this region go over my head but basically its the Zionists and supporters of Zionism as he doesn't like Zionists and so they attack him and attempt to say that he is a holocaust denier. I have seen it before at wikipedia. As for the comments that keep he is notable and we will protect the article now - this is becoming increasingly a false claim - either start protecting articles about living people or the subjects desires to opt out are going to end up increasingly approved without any discussion at all - You will just find the articles gone and when you look for it or attempt to recreate it you will get the message - After being repeatedly attacked through content published via wikipedia this living person has asked to be removed from the project - please do not allow recreation.Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for amending that, Rob. But I think you are still mistaken. As far as I understand, Chamish is a Zionist himself, though of a fringe ultra-right kind. He is so fringe that other right-wing Zionists such as Plaut and Daniel Pipes attack him; but his books are published by a set-up called the Zionist Book Club, and he seems to consider himself a "true Zionist" in opposition to the hijacking of the name and movement. It would certainly be misleading to consider him an anti-Zionist, and to place him alongside Uri Davis and Israel Shahak. RolandR (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for your informed description of the finer details, which as I said do go over my head, extreme right wing fringe Zionists, so its more like zionist infighting, wow, anyway I accept your comment and stand corrected. My main issue is that this person should not be attacked via this project. Whoever they are they should get themselves blogs if they want to attack people and not use and demean this project to assert and propagate their POV. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct that this hubub is at root a factional issue between conservative Zionists. The issue is not that he "wants to be removed from the project" (although that may be true — or may not), the issue is that for an extended period of time this Wikipedia biography stated that this BLP subject is a holocaust denier. This is absolutely, positively false. Looking back at the tortured edit history here, this should have been taken to ArbCom a long, long time ago and there should have been a whole host of outright bannings and topic bannings delivered as a result, in my opinion. Now the subject is angry and has indicated a desire to sue Wikipedia — news of which which broke on the web on February 24, the same day this article was stubbed out by the deletion nominator. My take is that this individual SHOULD have a biography in Wikipedia, that he is a public figure with sufficient career achievement and independent media coverage to merit inclusion and that our job is to deliver a fair and accurate biography. The man holds controversial views and all criticism of these views should not be swept under the rug. There is a little snip remaining, but there should be a section stating contrarian views directly, even-handedly, and without malice. This article will need to be policed carefully against a repetition of the previous transgressions forever — and if anyone uses libelous words about the subject such as, for example, "nazi sympathizer" or "holocaust denier," that editor should be banned from Wikipedia immediately, without warning or pussyfooting around. That crap must be stopped AT ONCE. I would also favor a retroactive review of the edit history of this article and discipline meted out to those who deserve it. Ultimately, however, as a matter of Wikipedia principle, we should not bend WHO is covered in Wikipedia based on threats of legal action. Content is another matter altogether — that must be carefully monitored. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get this. Despite Chamish's claims, it does not appear that this article has persistently described him as a holocaust denier. The claim has indeed been frequently inserted; and just as frequently deleted within minutes. In every instance that I can find, the insertion has been made by a sockpuppet of the Runtshit vandal, who apparently has a grudge against Chamish in addition to his animus against me and other anti-Zionists. These editors have been immediately blocked. I can see no evidence that such defamatory claims have been allowed to remain in the article, or that editors have been prevented from removing this.
 * I agree that such false claims should not not be allowed to be inserted. But, since they all appear to have been reverted swiftly, and the perpetrators banned as socks of an exceptionally persistent vandal, I cannot see any way in which Wikipedia could be held liable. RolandR (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The key thing is that this biography be protected against potentially-libelous vandalism from now on. Carrite (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I gave it a quick tidy-up edit and the article is fact-based (and neutral) in it's current state. Perhaps Mr Chamish might even approve it? If the article attracts vandalism and edits that introduce opinion (undesirable in a BLP), could it stay in its current protected state in perpetuity? I've dealt with a lot of biography articles, and this one is far more "notable" than many others (he is a published author who has won prizes for his work). (Declaration: I'm an Inclusionist; however I understand that WP has to be very careful with BLPs). GFHandel . 20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - good job on Jim to get the community aware of this article and thus fix it up :-) ...not the best but will do for a keep for notability.Moxy (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've got two questions. (1) I seem to recall some mechanism for hiding the edit history of potentially libelous material from general public view. I would strongly recommend that such an action be taken for this article for all edits which preceded the article's re-stubbing on Feb. 24. (2) Is there a precedent for taking an article like this to ArbCom for review of its edit history and disciplinary action against abusive editors? Carrite (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I note above, it appears that all of the abusive editors have already been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of Runtshit. RolandR (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear, I'll take your word for that. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - NN TruthGal (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "NN"? I have to ask: are you really saying that WP should return nothing if a reader wishes to learn more about an award-winning author? An author published in multiple languages? An author whose name returns over 100,000 Google matches? If you really believe that, could you please direct us to the parts of Notability that caused you to comment "NN"? (Please note that the article was not originally challenged on grounds of "notability"). GFHandel . 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per GFHandel and Shoessss. How can anyone contend a controversial high-profile multiply published author is low notability? What happened to the Wiki credo, be bold? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.