Talk:Joseph Massad

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)

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)

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)

Allegations from serious people - like a U.S. congressman, and a former U.S. prosecutor - are not to be taken lighly, and are a matter of public record. They probably do belong in this article. I have made an attempt at putting them in along with Massad's denials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningside Clio (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Category: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; Category:Anti-Zionists and even Category: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)

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)

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)

major update

This entry needs updating. There are no reviews of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. The reviews of Colonial Effects seem highly selective, and the negative reviews, which all come from very politically motivated sources are given far more space than the positive ones, even though the consensus amongst academic journals is that Colonial Effects is a field defining book. The only review of Desiring Arabs cited is Whitaker's hatchet job which is simply a rehash of his response to Massad's 2002 Public Culture Essay in Whitaker's Unspeakable Love and the review does not mention, let alone engage, the other 400 or so pages of Desiring Arabs. I have added reviews of all three books that represent with much greater accuracy the reviews of the books in general. If Massad's scholarship is to be discussed, I think fairness is important. I have not edited the representation of the David project/academic freedom controversy, but have commented on the section speculatively calling Massad an Orientalist, largely because I think it shows no understanding of what Orientalism is/was. My edits have made the entry much longer, mostly through the addition of bits from the twenty plus reviews the entry never mentions. In the interest of full disclosure, I did organize a petition in defense of Massad against the smear campagin mounted by the David Project, which is why I feel I am too interested a party to comment on that aspect of the entry. Fire away. Thanks.Nhoad 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV and Poisoning the well. Terms similar to "overwhelmingly positive," are weasel words. The reviews were mixed, with both positive and negative results. Statements such as "an Israeli pundit associated with Campus Watch, who has attacked Massad's scholarship and politics since 2002," etc. are poisoning the well, trying to minimize the credibility of the reviwer by appealing to something other than their expertise. Near the entire "An irresponsible book review" text, etc. is a point-of-view diatribe without any support. Lastly, prose needs to be written from a formal, encyclopedic perspective, not like an attack or defense site. Thank you. -- Avi 02:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ORIENTALISM I don't see the point of the section asking: "Is Massad an Orientalist?". The term can be defined in various ways and tends to be used more as an insult than as a meaningful criticism. Trying to prove that he's an "orientalist" doesn't achieve anything in my view; it's more productive to examine the substance of his arguments. It would therefore be useful to include a section on the page giving a factual summary of Massad's views on homosexuality, which people can then agree or disagree with. [Brian Whitaker] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.101.101 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section makes no sense, and it is hardly written from a neutral point of view. Only one of the reviewers - Mheisen - calls Massad an orientalist. None of the other three uses the term at all, so the entry appears to be fabricating an accusation in this section. Moreover, Whitaker is the only reviewer of Desiring Arabs mentioned. There have been others, and the entry has no real mention of the critical response to The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. I think the entry needs expansion and the "Is Massad an Orientalist?" section should be removed. What do other people think? Nhoad 14:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Subject of this article

I note that this article contains approximately 2900 words of text ("Works" and "References" not included), yet 1900 of these deal specifically with coverage of Colonial Effects, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question and Desiring Arabs. Assuming these books warrant such coverage, I suggest that each should be accorded separate articles. I write this recognizing that the current sections devoted to these books can be consdered little more than quotefarms. Victoriagirl 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I think the extended quotes were mostly located in the section on Desiring Arabs. I just edited that section by substantially reducing the quotes. The quotes that remain, I believe, are important as they attest to the reception of the book. I also believe that they are comaptible with other wikipedia entries in terms of style.Nhoad 16:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have attempted to balnnce this article by adding some statements's of Massad's that are widely quoted by his critics.

Look, this guy is the poster child outspoken anti-Israel critic in the American Academy. Two weeks ago th guy was denied tenure by Columbia after several years of regularly making headlines for his colorful criticism of Israel. Some of that material needs to be in the article so that a reader coming to Wikipedia to find out what all the fuss is about will leave puzzled and unenlightened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningside Clio (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone is removing material critical of Massad. Thie is not a hagiography, nor is it Massad's personal C.V, with all negative material cleaned up. Negative and mixed reviews of his book from major magazines and academic journals belong on this page. And if responisble public figures , such as United States congressmen, make such a serious allegation as anti-Semitism - it belongs on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Clio (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanket edit?

i have just restored my edits of 18:25, 20 November 2007, which appear to have been caught up in a blanket edit. I write this as I do not see how correcting spelling and applying WP:MOS guidelines concerning biographies, overlinking and redlinks can be considered "Pov Pushing", an accusation made in the edit summary. Indeed, I have removed the statement that "Jordan expert Asher Susser, essentially argues that Massad is an Orientalist" which I believe runs counter to WP:NPOV. In short, Susser makes no such argument in the reference provided - the claim that he "essentially argues" is POV. I have also removed a reference which fails to support the accompanying statement - one that is critical of Massad. A citation request has been inserted in its place. Finally, I have no "personal grudge" against the subject and can only assume the accusation was addressed to another. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Massad attacks others with charges of racism and anti-Semitism

The strongest charge against Massad by his critics is that he is supposedly anti-Semitic and possibly racist, and that he fends off these charges while at the same time attacking others in the same way. So in an article about Massad, Massad's criticism of others and their arguments as racist and anti-Semitic is certainly a crucial issue. This is precisely the sort of thing others who hear about controversies involving Massad would find relevant information. I have included specific references to numerous articles in which Massad attacks others by calling them racist and anti-Semitic. In one article I cite, Massad uses the words "racist" or "racism" a stunning 35 times! These are facts. Could somebody explain how this is vandalism, rather than just deleting what they don't like? 151.199.47.84 (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I deleting something simply because i don't like it? Not at all. The reasons given by myself and others for removing the material in question have been clearly presented in the accompanying edit summaries. To address your post. The charge you mention in your first sentence is not supported by any sources. Who are these critics? Not one name is given, not one quotation is provided. As such, the material is, as Malik Shabazz has pointed out, synthesis. Editorial comments like "Massad uses the words 'racist' or 'racism' over 30 times in this article" and "Massad refers to American Christian supporters of Israel as anti-Semites several times", appended to references, only serve to support this.Victoriagirl (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your edits are vandalism, but your persistence despite Wikipedia policies to the contrary may make other editors think they are. The article discusses, as it should, accusations of racism that Massad makes of others. It is synthesis, however, to tie his accusations concerning others to similar allegations made against him — unless that connection is made by a reliable source. Please read Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position for an explanation, and post here if you still have any questions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now explicitly added citations by both the New York Sun (a critic) and the Nation (a supporters) who specifically and directly acknowledge Massad's frequent use of the term "racist" against his opponents. This specifically addresses your points. Thanks for pointing them out. It makes for a better entry when everything is more carefully cited. Technetium25 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue of synthesis at all. Nobody is disputing that Massad accuses other people of racism. The synthesis is the attempt to connect such accusations to allegations that Massad is an antisemite or a racist. You can't state two facts (A = Massad denies that he is antisemitic. B = Massad routinely calls other people racist or antisemitic.) to advance a position (C = The pot is calling the kettle black.) The use of the word "However" is a dead give-away. Unless a reliable source specifically ties Massad's accusations that others are racist or antisemitic with allegations by others that he is antisemitic, putting them together in this article is synthesis. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You have misinterpreted what I'm arguing. I never argue or state anywhere that Massad is a racist or an anti-Semite. I am saying that he denies these charges while accusing others of them. That's all I'm saying. And that's clearly a fact in evidence, according to the citations provided. In my most recent edit, I was very careful to avoid any insinuations of any other than Massad's practice of calling others racist and anti-Semitic. No more synthesis! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technetium25 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You specifically said "Nobody is disputing that Massad accuses other people of racism." And yet you deleted a contribution by saying that he is not "accusing others of being racist." No matter. I have removed any assertion that Massad is calling anything or anyone racist. All that remains is the fact that Massad uses the terms "racist" and "anti-Semitic" frequently in his works, with citations, and that critics and supporters have noted this, again with citations. Now there is no editorializing, just a clear note of the facts. Technetium25 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First, a newspaper editorial isn't a reliable source. Second, I wrote that calling Israel a "racist state" or referring to its policies as racist is not an example of "accus[ing] others and their viewpoints as being racist", which is how you characterized it. You're accurate to describe it as "us[ing] the term racist", but that undermines the section header ("Charges by Massad of racism by others"). Take your pick. Either Massad accuses others of racism, or he uses the word often. The heading and the text have to be consistent. For the time being, I'll change the header to match your text. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree on your edit of the title of the section. It was inconsistent with the new language of the section. However, I am concerned about your removal of the reference from the New York Sun. I wrote in the article that Massad's critics accuse him of using the terms "racist" and "racism". The New York Sun editorial board is a critic. I am not citing the New York Sun for informational content---that would indeed be wrong, as I am citing an editorial, not a reporting piece. But the point is to identify a critic who says that Massad uses terms like "racist" and "racism." And that's all that the citation does. There's no other way to show the existence of critics who say things unless you cite those critics. It's a catch-22. The entry now says that there exist critics who say that Massad uses terms like "racist" and "racism," and the citation merely establishes the existence of one such critic. It is a fact that these critics exist and have these opinions, without regard to the truth of those opinions. That's the full extent to which I am using the citation.Technetium25 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a newspaper editorial board is a critic of Massad doesn't make it a reliable source. Newspaper editorials aren't considered "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And you are citing the Sun for informational content: "[Massad] routinely calls [Israel's policies] 'racist.'" That is informational content. A reliable source would be a news article or book that reports that Massad's critics say that he frequently uses the word racist. See the lede of Al Sharpton as an example of a reliable source that reports what supporters and critics say about a controversial public figure. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So I need a reliable source that itself notes the existence of critics, rather than simply listing the critics myself. Acknowledged. I appreciate that you did not simply delete mention of this issue in the Wikipedia entry, but simply noted the need for a better citation. I think we can both agree that there exist critics who say that Massad uses the word "racist" and "racism." I don't think anybody could justifiable dispute that such critics exist. But I definitely concede and understand your point about sources here. I really appreciate your assistance and judiciousness. Technetium25 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what evidence is there that The Nation is a supporter of Massad? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The explicit quotation from The Nation is:

For Pipes & Co., Massad is something of a gift: He is strident, dogmatic, proud, deliberately provocative and utterly uncompromising in his defense of the Palestinian struggle. He is a man who traffics in absolutes, a man who often infuriates even those who are sympathetic to his views. Said worried about his young friend's propensity for careless rhetoric--a point that Massad himself acknowledged in his Al-Ahram obituary of Said: "He would caution (actually yell at) me against giving way to my 'youthful' enthusiasm in a world in which we have few friends and numerous enemies." Massad is a ferocious critic of Israel and Zionism, but he is also withering on the subject of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority. (He supports a single, binational state.) To his detractors he is a devil figure, a "dangerous intellectual." Massad frequently acts out the role by unleashing a steady stream of inflammatory anti-Zionist rhetoric: "racist Jewish state" is a locution he constantly employs. (Emphasis added.)

The Nation article is specifically talking about how supporters of Massad, like Edward Said, acknowledge his use of inflammatory rhetoric, and his use the term "racist." Nowhere do I say that The Nation is a supporter of Massad---that would be an original inference on my part. I am simply quoting The Nation's own words that Massad's supporters note his use of this terminology. That's precisely what it says in the text. Technetium25 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you've misrepresented the source by your choice of a pull-quote: "Massad frequently acts out the role by unleashing a steady stream of inflammatory anti-Zionist rhetoric: 'racist Jewish state' is a locution he constantly employs." That is a direct statement by the author of the article, and the context suggests that the author, or The Nation, is a supporter of Massad. I'll edit the article to clarify your point. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly correct, and I concede your point. Your edits to the Wikipedia entry seem very clear, and I much appreciate them. Thanks again for your help! Technetium25 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Nazi comparison" claims--bogus original research

Ive deleted the section below as bogus original research. If you read the "very controversial passage" supposedly pointed to by (unnamed) critics, you can see that Massad clearly does not compare Israel to Nazi Germany. The first part, about David Project claims, is just too sketchy to include in a biography (Despite the fact that this article seems to be a repository for every press release CAMERA ever issued on the guy). Section below:
Accusations that Massad compares Israel to Nazi Germany
Massad has strenuously denied making any comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, writing in 2004, during the controversy over a film by the pro-Israel group the David Project: "Moreover, the lie that the film propagates claiming that I would equate Israel with Nazi Germany is abhorrent. I have never made such a reprehensible equation."

Critics, however, have pointed to an article written by Massad that appeared in a 2000 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies. In a very controversial passage, reprinted here in its entirety, Massad writes:

Palestinians and Arabs were not the only ones cast as Nazis. Israel was also accused — by Israelis as well as by Palestinians — of Nazi-style crimes. In the context of Israeli massacres of Palestinians in 1948, a number of Israeli ministers referred to the actions of Israeli soldiers as "Nazi actions," prompting Benny Marshak, the education officer of the Palmach, to ask them to stop using the term. Indeed, after the massacre at al-Dawayima, Agriculture Minister Aharon Zisling asserted in a cabinet meeting that he "couldn't sleep all night... Jews too have committed Nazi acts." Similar language was used after the Israeli army gunned down forty-seven Israeli Palestinian men, women, and children at Kafr Qasim in 1956. While most Israeli newspapers at the time played down the massacre, a rabbi rote that "we must demand of the entire nation a sense of shame and humiliation... that soon we will be like Nazias and the perpetrators of pogroms."

The Palestinians were soon to level the same accusation against the Israelis. Such accusations increased during the intifada. One of the communiqués issued by the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising defined the intifada as consisting of "the children and young men of the stones and Molotov cocktails, the thousands of women who miscarried as a result of poison gas and tear gas grenades, and those women whose sons and husbands were thrown in the Nazi prisons." The Israelis were always outraged by such accusations, even when the similarities were stark. When the board of Yad Vashem, for example, was asked to condemn the act of an Israeli army officer who instructed his soldiers to inscribe numbers on the arms of Palestinians, board chairman Gideon Hausner "squelched the initiative, ruling that it had no relevance to the Holocaust."

Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And the line: "The Israelis were always outraged by such accusations, even when the similarities were stark." Those are Massad's words. He's not quoting anybody else. He says right there that sometimes the similarities are stark. That's not original research. That's what Massad is explicitly saying. Technetium25 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Please review WP:SYNTH: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

If Massad writes that the moon is made of cheese, and NASA says that the moon is made of rocks, the article can't have a section about "Contested claims about the composition of the moon" unless a reliable source has written about the conflict between the two accounts in relation to Massad. Without such a source, a section about "Contested claims about the composition of the moon" is original research and will be removed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not only original research, it's selective quoting that distorts and mangles the source used to support it. Massad is actually recounting an incident (almost verbatim) that was in Tom Segev's, which discussed Israeli Jews protesting actions such as the one described. To characterize (as Massad does) soldiers being ordered to "inscribe numbers on the arms of Palestinians" as a striking similarity to Nazi actions isn't "comparing Israel to Nazi Germany," it's simply pointing to an indisputable similarity in those actions.

What the Massad article actually is about is the incessant Nazi baiting of Arabs and Palestinians, or as he puts it, "various aspects of Israel's implicit linkage of the Jewish holocaust with its right to exist and Palestinian and Arab responses to that linkage" and "Israel's rhetorical equation of Arab and Palestinian leaders with Nazis." He discusses among other things the PLO's acknowledgment of the Holocaust and its victims, which he feels has been fruitless. Massad concluded (echoing a number of Israeli writers, among others) "As Palestinian recent history has shown, no Palestinian engagement with the holocaust will be satisfactory to Israel and its supporters. Israeli demands that Palestinians recognize the holocaust are not about the holocaust at all, but rather about the other part of the package, namely recognizing and submitting to Israel's "right to exist" as a colonial-settler racist state."

So I would suggest finding an acceptable reliable source to make the point that apparently some editors are making here to the effect that Massad is fibbing when he says he didnt equate Israel and Nazi Germany; even the maniacally Massad bashing NY Sun has a bit more delicacy, saying Massad "also compares Israel's treatment of Palestinians to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews." They (or their lawyers) seem to get the point that that is different than comparing the Israeli state to the Nazi state.Boodlesthecat (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose deleting all claims without reliable sources. They have stood unsupported for too long now.Nhoad (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad Hoc Committee Composition (Alleged Classroom Intimidation)

I see that the following information was condensed into the statement "There had been some complaints that the committee contained members who had anti-Israel views." I have added the following information as additional citations. Thanks for cleaning this up! Technetium25 (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The composition of the committee was itself a focal point of further controversy. According to a report in the university newspaper at the time:

The committee is comprised of Lisa Anderson, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs; history professor Mark Mazower; Farah Griffin, professor of English and comparative literature and director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies; Jean Howard, professor of English and vice provost for Diversity Initiatives; and professor of political science and history Ira Katznelson...

The students’ primary concerns about the constitution of the committee stem from the alleged personal and professional connections between its members and some of the professors being called into question for their behavior in the classroom, as well as connections between members of the committee and anti-Israel statements and causes. Anderson advised MEALAC professor Joseph Massad on his Ph.D. thesis... Mazower wrote publicly in The Financial Times that the United States is waging the recent war in Iraq for the sake of Israel, and that Israel is also to blame for global anti-Semitism. Griffin and Howard signed a 2002 divestment petition demanding that Columbia withdraw economic support from Israel.

Critics of the committee's composition included student Zac Frank, who wrote in the university newspaper:

The appointment of the ad-hoc committee investigating intimidation, however, was incredibly misguided. While I do have confidence in the ability of the committee to be impartial and fair, it is not surprising that students making accusations would have a problem with its composition of Columbia faculty and administrators, some with ties to the professors involved. When there was a controversy surrounding the English department, a committee was convened with members from outside the University. If Bollinger were serious about this investigation and had any sense, he would have done the same in this situation, if for nothing else than to avoid even the appearance of conflict.