Talk:Joseph Massad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph Massad article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 Footnote about Amazon 2 the David Project 3 Category:Anti-Semitic people 4 Mediation 5 RfC 6 Position in Columbia

[edit] Footnote about Amazon

As the editor who restored the footnote about Amazon's selective quotation noted, it is indeed telling. However, as far as I can see it's telling about Amazon, rather than about Massad, since I do not believe Amazon allows authors editorial control over their books' pages, aside from occasionally deleting allegedly offensive reviews. Can anyone explain why this footnote is needed in an article about Massad? Kalkin 20:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No one has commented, so I'm going to remove the footnote.Kalkin 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the David Project

The David Project's mission statement, from the front page of its website:

The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership promotes a fair and honest understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We work to develop educated, skilled and courageous leaders to counter the ideological assault on Israel found on campuses, high schools, churches and in the general community.

It is clearly self-identified as a pro-Israel advocacy organization, not an academic freedom group. It's not even a matter of dispute, like with Campus Watch, etc. So would anonymous editors please stop describing it as "an organization that advocates balanced classroom lectures regarding the Middle East and opposes anti-Zionist lectures as inappropriate activism"? Thanks. Kalkin 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there an original source for the committee's "reprimand"? From the quotes I could find on the internet, it doesn't seem they accepted that he yelled at her to "get out," but simply stated that his response appeared to have been more heated than was appropriate. Mackan79 18:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes in the section, in which I attempted to remove some of the sillier bias. Various transcripts of the procedings make clear that not even the student alleged that he told her to get out, nor that he referenced "Israeli atrocities." In current form, the full alleged statement is there, in the second paragraph. Both sides get heard, with Massad's slightly better explained than before. A little more back and forth, rather than piling it all on, followed by a little hobbled "defense." More work should be done, but I think it's an improvement. Mackan79 05:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Semitic people

It is a clear violation of WP:NPOV to place Massad in this category. It has been alleged by the presidents of several countries that George W. Bush is a terrorist, and by David Icke that he is a Reptilian; whether or not one believe these accusations (I believe the former, not the latter) they do not warrant placing him in Category:Terrorists or Category:Reptilians. The same applies here, since Massad disputes the case. See WP:BLP:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
• The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation.

Kalkin 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think enough caution has been given - he's been accused as anti semite by WP:RS and he actually calls zionists anti-semites so it's relevant category. btw, likening Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to a nazi and israelis to nazis is most certainly an anti-semite comment, and he doesn't deny those comments. Amoruso 00:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

He denies likening Israelis or Zionists in general to Nazis and he hasn't been quoted directly as doing so - the source is some guy saying he got that impression from the speech. Likening Sharon to a Nazi is not antisemitic. I don't think that the comparison is great, although Sharon is a war criminal, but it's hardly antisemitic to simply liken any particular Jew to a Nazi. I don't think even comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany are necessarily antisemitic, although I suppose they can be. And an accusation is certainly not enough to put him in the category. Isn't a professor at Columbia a reputable source? So should we categorize Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes as anti-semites, because Massad has accused them? Kalkin 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

well no doubt the article deals with anti-semitism. see what others think before changing it to anti-semites. Amoruso 00:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the broader category, since Massad has been very vocal about anti-Semitism. Kalkin 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If he is an anti-semitic person he blongs in the people category. Holocaust museum's are also in the broader category--it is too broad IMO. Thanks. -- Avi 02:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but there's dispute about whether he's actually an anti-semitic person, whereas there's no dispute that his views are one way or another relevant to anti-semitism. Even if he had never been accused of anti-semitism he might be placed in that category for his unusual arguments regarding the alleged anti-semitism of Israel supporters. Re 3RR, please see my comment on my talk page. Kalkin 04:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I've posted a request for informal mediation just on the issue of the category. Really this ought to be simple, I think the involvement of a neutral will help. Kalkin 02:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've opened the mediation case, and to be honest it's more of a questionable mediation case if it's purely asking for a 3rd opinion - usually a poll should be conducted for that. However, I've opened it, with my opinions subject to other mediators' opinions too. See [1] for more details. Jsw663 10:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is questionable. I should have just posted an RFC. I've done that now. Feel free to close the mediation case if you want. Kalkin 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've closed the mediation case. Jsw663 14:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to rescue your comment from that page, though (it was the only substantive one):

I personally think the main catch here is what exactly is defined as 'anti-semitism'. I know very little about this professor, but if he was truly anti-Semitic he probably wouldn't still be employed by Columbia, which is a reputable university. There is a difference between attacking someone who is pro-Israel, and attacking someone because they are Israeli. I incline towards NOT including this person in the category of anti-Semitic people - that category should be left for true neo-Nazis, Fascists, or extremely right-wing persons, etc. However, this may be a controversial topic so it would be better if other mediators also made their POV in this matter clear. Jsw663 10:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kalkin 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment. I think that placing (esp. living) people into Cat:Anti-Semitic people should be done with extreme caution and reserved only to those who self-identify as such or like ("Jew haters"). Not knowing the Massad, I glanced over the article, and while his Anti-Zionist and even anti-Israeli attitude is fairly clear, anti-Semitism is still a far long shot from here. IMO it requires more than an accusation to be placed to that category; Cat:Anti-Zionists and even Cat:Anti-Semitism IMO suffice. Duja 14:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment: I concur that placing someone in the category of "Anti-Semitic people" should rarely, if ever, be done for people who do not themselves self-identify that way. It might be acceptable to put such a person into a category if there was an overwhelming consensus among the reliable sources that unequivocally state the person IS anti-semitic. But it's a definite case to error on the side caution. --Alecmconroy 20:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

This debate appears to hinge on whether anti-Zionism is itself anti-Semitic (a rather vague term since it can apply to either anti-Arab or anti-Jewish sentiments). This is a deep and problematic question that Wikipedia should not attempt to decide editorially. Per WP:BLP I think Wikipedia should avoid categorizing Professor Massad as anti-Semitic. Durova 22:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have come for via the RfC page. Slander is dangerous. Placing that accusation in the article is one thing, placing it as a category is another thing. Please don't put it in that category. I agree with Durova.--Connor K. 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

outside comment: I'm here because I saw the RfC. Before I started writing I read what other users have to say. In short, I believe that allegations about being anti-Semitic should be mentioned in the article, as well as argumentation to the opposite by Massad himself or any other person. But, he should not be included in the category, which is something conclusive.--Atavi 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also coming here from rfc. The issue seems to be what he said, and whether those are anti-semitic comments. Further, anti-semite is itself a loose and politically charged term, thanks to political lobbyists blurrring the distinction between anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. I rather think the anti-semite category itself should be renamed to get around that blurring. WP:BLP does note that "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material". In that regard, his controversial views should certainly be included (along with relevant linked cites to back this assertion up). The category is a bit harder to decide on. Currently it categorieses him as an anti-Zionist, and denying "the right of Israel to exist as a 'Jewish state'" seems to count as that. That doesn't necessary imply anti-Jewish or anti-Israel though. And anti-Semite is sucha vague (not to mention politicised) term that I wouldn't want to see it used as a category. Rhialto 12:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position in Columbia

I've corrected a factual error. The article referred to Rashid Khalidi as "the head of Columbia University’s department of Middle Eastern and Asian Languages and Cultures". He is actually a professor in Columbia's department of history and holds no appointment of any kind in the MEALAC department. He is the director of the university's interdisciplinary Middle East institute, and the article now reflects this fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.225.247 (talk • contribs) 05:58, October 29, 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 13:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)