Talk:Joseph Massad

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 compatible with other wikipedia entries in terms of style.Nhoad 16:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 27-March-2008: I agree that the remaining quotes are truly necessary to support the intense wording, such as viewing the book as a "work of genuine brilliance" and other phrases that would be flagged for non-neutral WP:NPOV concerns. Removing the direct quotes would certainly cause the wording to be debated for excessive claims, as happened in explaining Hurricane Katrina's damage on the Mississippi coast as "utter total devastation": people who did not witness the damage could not believe that towns were flooded over 90% and refrigerators were found 6 miles away along the I-10 highway (or fishing boats were found in trees) due to the 35-foot waves, thus direct quotes were needed for the controversial subject matter (many people could not would not accept the notion of waves on land reaching the 4 floor); the controversy was fueled by news media focusing on flooded lawns in New Orleans when the town of Biloxi had been submerged under 32 ft (10 m) of raging waters. For controversial subjects, extensive quotes are certainly justified and should be expected as the norm to support intense wording. At this point, I have untagged the article "Joseph Massad" for {quotefarm}, after 150 further revisions spanning another 5 months since the above changes. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yup, there's been a complete rewrite since then. Relata refero (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Most smartest wiki policies on editorials/forums

28-March-2008: In the topic above ("Massad attacks others.."), the User:Technetium25 makes the point that an editorial can establish that an opinion was stated; however, Wikipedia has limited "rules of evidence" and discounts the use of editorials or forums for any type of information. That excessive viewpoint limits Wikipedia in being able to keep up with emerging information. The general problem limiting rules of evidence is analogous to the legal issue of proving action versus intent of committing a crime. At the basic level, the action could be proven to have happened with the defendant; however, at a closer level, the action could be characterized as intended (deliberate), justifiable (such as self-defense) or under duress (forced by captors). Wikipedia should allow similar multiple levels of evidence: at the basic level, showing an opinion (or concept or invention) was stated (as in an editorial, blog or forum); however, at a deeper level, then qualifying that the opinion/invention was true, or accurate, or workable, or quick, etc. as evidenced in a reliable source at that level, able to judge the qualities. It is similar to the notion of quantity versus quality: such as a blog listing 200 opinions favoring a concept, versus an analytical source noting that all 200 opinions came from a single group or location, etc. Currently Wikipedia has a snobbish attitude in the rules of evidence: such as 25 people can testify they saw the defendant shooting the others; however "Wikipedia" rejects those testimonies because the 25 witnesses were not reliable experts writing in professional journals, with doctorates in gun ballistics, and medical degrees in optics for viewing events, so there's no wiki-evidence and the defendant is free to go. Again, it's the simple issue of evidence that various opinions exist, at all, versus evidence of the quality of those opinions (judging truth, accuracy, vengeful, or merciful opinions, etc.). However, it's not the only current wiki-problem: narrow Wikipedia policies on rules of evidence are just one of many areas for improvement in WP. There's no reason to solely blame policies about evidence, because Wikipedia also has problems for the wide left sidebar on each page (couldn't the jigsaw globe be 1 inch wide not 2? why can't the WP sidebar compress to a thin edge?), and Wikipedia can't protect parts of pages against hack edits (why can't Wikipedia compare an edited article to a controlled baseline file of required sections/text and warn users?), etc. There are so many "trivial" issues that Wikipedia (and most wiki projects) handle in a neophyte manner, hence narrow policies of evidence should not be blamed solely. The good news is that the solutions to the numerous problems are trivial, such as WP allowing multiple levels of evidence for quantity/existence versus qualities, supported by appropriate expert sources for each quality under consideration. Progress starts with noting the problems, such as User:Technetium25 making the point that an editorial can establish that an opinion was stated. Wikipedia could be a thousand times better with just a few trivial changes -- it's all so clear to me now. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring article

This article is in terrible shape. When I last worked on it more than a year ago, it was pretty mediocre, but since then, despite vastly increasing in length it's actually gotten worse. I don't mean this as an insult to the efforts of any of the more recent editors, but battling over the details of praise, allegations, and sourcing has left the article unreadable.

As noted at the top the article has too many quotations; it tends to quote positive or negative comments on Massad's work at the expense of actually describing its content. The article also includes extensive sections on Massad's political opinions, or his alleged political opinions (even in some cases where the allegations have been withdrawn!). These appear selected for controversy, in many cases without evidence they have actually caused notable controversy, rather than to provide a concise and accurate overview of his politics. Finally, the structure of the article seems bizarre in some cases. Why are there three separate sections on allegations and counter-allegations of antisemitism? Why do Massad's views on Israel-Nazi comparisons deserve their own section?

Before beginning on any kind of massive rewrite project I want to get some consensus from other editors on what we eventually want the article to look like. Here's what I would propose:

• Split off each of the books into its own article (even if they are only stubs). Leave only brief summaries of their content and even briefer summaries of academic reaction.
• Merge sections 5, 6, and 7 - those that deal with accusations of antisemitism towards Massad, and Massad's accusations of antisemitism towards others - into one, with fewer lengthy quotes.
• Merge sections 4 and 8 - those that deal with Massad's views of Israel and Zionism - into one, with fewer lengthy quotes.
• Add if possible a section on Massad's education and personal life. As it stands this article has very little biographical information in a standard sense.

Objections? Further ideas?

Kalkin (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some more trimming to hopefully make it easier to move the granite blocks of copy around. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not usual for articles about controversial people to become quote-farms about the controversy. See Nadia Abu El Haj for another example. It would be nice if such articles could actually be turned into biographies, but I'm not sure that's possible.

I have removed the sentences at the top of the article about the Columbia Unbecoming fracas. They were inaccurate. Massad was not formally reprimanded by the Ad hoc grievance committee. The committee also only found one alleged "incident" credible - not "many" and all of this is covered with much greater precision in the section of the article dealing with the controversy. Nhoad (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Reorganizing the article so that it focused first on Massad's background and education would be a good start. I'm not sure if there's enough information about each book to spin off articles about them. But I agree that the rest of the article should be arranged thematically. For example, one section about antisemitism — allegations against Massad, his allegations against others, and his views concerning modern-day antisemitism vs. 19th century antisemitism — is better than three. I also think the bibliography at the bottom needs to be cut significantly. Somebody needs to identify Massad's most important papers and the rest should be deleted (as should the book reviews). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not want this page to revert to an edit war. I deleted the innacurate information that had been added to the top of the article, and someone reinstated them with no discussion. here is a link to the Columbia ad hoc grievance report.http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/03/ad_hoc_grievance_committee_report.html Massad was not "charged" with anything. Nor was he reprimanded. Potentially libelous statements do not belong in Wikipedia articles about living persons.Nhoad (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEDE: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." Massad is known—perhaps best-known—for the controversy surrounding the allegations made against him by his students. Removing it from the lede is a whitewash.

If you don't agree with the summary in the lede, edit it. Don't delete it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten the leadNhoad (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The lede as you have reinstated it is serious misinformation, and potentially libelous. To claim that a faculty member was reprimanded by his university when he was not is not defensible. Please read the only official document released by Columbia on the matter: www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/03/ad_hoc_grievance_committee_report.html Where is the reprimand? I am reverting my re-writing of the lede, until proof can be provided of Massad's reprimand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhoad (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lede. It summarizes the article, and it's better than your effort at whitewash. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Better, but still too politicized. A university ad hoc grievance committee does not "charge" anyone with anything. The word "intimidation" is not part of the language of the report, and the report explicitly denies any discrimination. From the report: "C. Across the spectrum of these concerns, we found no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-semitic. Professor Massad, for one, has been categorical in his classes concerning the unacceptability of anti-semitic views.

D. We found no evidence that students had been penalized for their views by receiving lower grades."

There are no university documents that support the idea that any students ever made such accusations of discrimination. I am holding back from accusing you of smearing. Please do not accuse me of whitewashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhoad (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be looking at a different lede than the one I wrote. The words "charged", "intimidation", and "discrimination" don't appear in the lede at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the information about Columbia Unbecoming belongs in the lede at all, and I feel that including it there may be construed as an effort to insert an anti-Massad POV into this article, which is totally inappropriate anyway but serious problematic for a living person. Inserting it in the lede looks to me like an obvious attempt to color the reader's view of the subject, which is not at all the role of WP. When considering the biography of a prominent living person, the lede needs to sum up what is important. Had Massad, say, been charged and convicted of a serious crime in 2004-2005, I can see placing it in the lede. But that is far from the case. All it is is a campus dispute in which some allegations against him were made and completely dismissed more than five years ago. Including such information in the lede is not the norm on WP. To say that the Columbia Unbecoming belongs in the lede, instead of say, the fact that Massad has won prominent awards for his books and academic work is clearly POV and has no place. For this reason, I removed it. The proper place for it to be discussed is in the section on the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirpse77 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the information about the Columbia controversy is adequately covered in the relevant section of the article and is not at all appropriate in the lede.Nhoad (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler reverted a change that two other editors agreed was appropriate and restored POV material without any discussion here. This is verging on vandalism of the page of a living person. Please use the talk page as intended before trying to insert/restore controversial, POV and irrelevant material into this biography.--Tirpse77 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Update

Some more cleanup done. I have removed one quote I am dubious about. It's the Middle East Quarterly review of the Massad book. The MEQ is not really considered a scholarly journal, and I would prefer that we replace it with an equivalent review in a genuinely scholarly source. I would not object to it as a source on a specifically political issue - such as the intimidation controversy - but I would prefer we find non-politicised alternatives for the part of the bio that actually discusses his work. Relata refero (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring in progress done

I've finished working on the sections on Massad's politics.

I've moved stuff around quite a bit - please comment. I've also done some trimming, removing a couple of redundant Massad quotes (either used twice, or essentially identical to quotes that remain), cutting down the extensive block quotes from Massad's "Imperial Mementos", and removing a long section on a misquotation in the Columbia Spectator. Since the paper itself quickly admitted error, I see no reason the misquotation and response are worth noting in the article.

Now I plan to move on to the books...

Kalkin (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

An excellent start. For the books, I'll look around as well. What we have to be careful about is avoiding reviews in sources that are essentially political fora. If possible, we should restrict ourselves to reviews from well-known peer-reviewed journals. It shouldn't be too difficult. Relata refero (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked the books a little, but made few changes. I didn't really evaluate the quality of the reviews, I just tried to make the book sections more readable and ensure that an actual description of the contents of the book was the first long paragraph in each section.

I also added a very short section on Massad's education and career. A few minutes of Googling left me unable to turn up more information; I left an "expand-section" tag. I rewrote the article intro to better reflect the balance of topics in the article. I'm done, for now anyway.

Kalkin (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is now in much better shape.

3 things:

1. The Al-Mheisen review of Colonial Effects has stood without a supporting citation for a very long time now. Unless someone can provide the citation, I propose deleting it. 2. How do we know if Massad is Christian - has he ever self-identified as such? 3. The articles report of the semantics of the Columbia report are a little strong. The committee simply found that Massad had exceeded normal bounds etc in this one disputed instance. He was never formally reprimanded.

Nhoad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Other Criticism section removed without discussion

This whole section was unfairly deleted without discussion. Boodlesthecat claims that a letter to the editor is not a WP:RS. It clearly is a reliable for conveying what the notable author of that letter feels about the subject of this article. Basically, a letter by Foxman reliably proves that Foxman criticizes Mossad.Besides, the letter is also posted as a page on the ADL website, which is also a reliable source. As to Boodlesthecat's claim that "anonymous unproven allegation fails Undue Weight," very briefly mentioning the student's criticism in a criticism section does not seem at all to be undue weight. Finally, no valid reason was given for the removal of the critique by CAMERA. If there are no comments here in a reasonable time period, I will reinsert the criticism section. Gni (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the policies, particularly WP:BLP. Letters to the editor (this one apparently wasn't even published) are not reliable sources on Wikipedia, with some exceptions for letters to peer-reviewed journals. As to "anonymous unproven allegation fails Undue Weight," I think that is self explanatory; why do you think an anonymous student's complaint--unverified, unproven, anonymous--has any place in a biography? this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. as to the CAMERA criticism, someone else removed that, with the explanation that it was "CAMERA spamming"--which I entirely agree with. In fact, it seems what you largely do in your editing is find places to insert the not terribly reliable opinions of CAMERA into various articles, including this one. I believe it does amount to spamming. If you think CAMERA's opinions on Massad (or anything else) are notable,l find reliable sources where those opinions were published. Wikipedia is not a repository for every extreme viewpoint on the CAMERA website--particularly when it concern biographies of living people. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat, you seem to be ignoring the substantive points I've raised. First, the letter by the ADL is also used as a statement by the ADL on the ADL website. Regardless, after looking through WP:BLP and WP:RS, I can find nothing forbidding letters-to-the-editor by the head of a notable organization, let alone an assertion published on that organzation's website. Please relay what specifically on WP:BLP and WP:RS you are talking about. Nor can I find any specific policy stating that an allegation by an anonymous whistleblower quoted in a newspaper cannot be used. Finally, your views on CAMERA are well known. You don't like them. But it is absurd to suggest that they organization cannot be cited in Wikipedia articles. So basically, you are linking to various wikipedia guideline pages that don't support the assertions you are making. Unless there are any actual, specific guidelines barring this criticism section, it should be back up there. Gni (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Other criticism" is rightly removed. It is just a collection of dirt digging by various disgruntled persons. Nearly every notable person has enemies. We are not going to convert wikipedia into a paparazzi-style dirty laundry database. If there is a criticism, it must come from reputable persons, not from some nasty student. Mukadderat (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion, but I removed the material since it clearly isn't NPOV. If there are points that can be added to previous sections, that's fine, or if another balanced section can be created, that's fine as well, but additional sections focused solely on criticism seem pretty clearly not to be consistent with neutrality. Mackan79 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous unproven charges by a "student," self published attack websites and letters to the editor do not meet WP:BLP standards. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Charges published by mainstream newspapers, as well as by well known civil rights organizations clearly meet WPLBLP standards. Removal of well sourced material, on the other hand, is vandalism. Don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing material that doesn't meet WP:BLP standards, as outlined above, is not vandalism. Additionally, you are being tendentious. Please refer to that link, where you will read:

Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopaedia, not a simple difference of opinion.

Additionally, solemn demands to "Don't do it again" are highly uncivil, particularly with regards to an article you have never been involved with. Please moderate your tone. Thanks! Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The material you are removing is well sourced. It was published by mainstream newspapers, and on the web site of a well known civil rights organization. Removing it with the false claim that it is "poorly sourced" makes it hard to assume that you are interested in the quality of the encyclopedia. There is nothing uncivil in requesting that editors refrain form violating wikipedia policies - so, again, please don't do it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and not characterize other editors points as "false claims" and the other 2 or 3 personal attacks in your response above. Once again:

• An anonymous charge, unverified and unproven published in a tabloid does not meet WP:BLP standards.
• Attacks from a highly partisan advocacy group published solely on that groups website does not meet WP:BLP standards.
• A letter to the editor, published on the ADL website (and NOT even in the newspaper it was sent to) does not meet WP:BLP standards. A published report from the ADL on Massad would be acceptable, not a soundbite. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made no personal attack against you. Making such false claims against editors is, in itself, a violation of WP:NPA. You are skating on very thin ice here, and I urge you to take more care with these uncivil accusations. As to your arguments: There is no difference whatsoever, in terms of WP:BLP standards, between an ADL report on the ADL website, and an ADL open letter. The NY Sun is a mainstream newspaper, and if it published the allegations, we can safely repeat them with no violation of BLP. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough of your threatening tone "Dont do it again" "You're skating on thin ice" and your obnoxious insults ""False claims") ("hard to assume that you are interested in the quality of the encyclopedia"). Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making threats, Canadian Monkey. Instead, read Wikipedia's relevant policies: WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS.

• A letter to the editor, even one written by God, is not a reliable source for a biography. The only possible exception might be for a letter to a professional journal whose letters are peer-reviewed before publication.
• Is there any indication that Massad's views concerning the massacre of the Israeli athletes in Munich is significant? You can't include every criticism that has ever been leveled against Massad, no matter how insignificant. See WP:Undue weight and WP:Coatrack.
• CAMERA's criticism of Massad may be meaningful. Find some way to fit it into the article. There's absolutely no reason why an article (other than an attack article) should have a section titled "Other criticism".

If you continue your present course, including your threats, I will report you at WP:ANI. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I sort of agree with Malik Shabazz. Letters to editors are not reliable sources, since anyone can do this (including yourself).Bless sins (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe it depends, as we have used letters to the editor that were published in peer-reviewed medical journals in articles that relate to those medical issues, but here it seems that this letter was not subject to the same rigor and there us the further issue of WP:BLP to worry about, so the letter should be removed for now. Malik is correct as well in the sense that articles about living people need to be written with special care. That Massad has been the subject of criticism for his views is well-documented and notable; how it should be written needs to bo done with care. Personally, I do not believe that CAMERA should be ipso facto inadmissible; they make it their business to monitor those they disagree with, just as CAIR does. But CAMERA criticism needs to be sourced to CAMERA, and it should be brought in proportion to the standard coverage of Massad in the press, as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- Avi (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79 and Malik Shabaaz, there are countless articles on wikipedia on controversial individuals or organizations where "criticism" sections have long been accepted by the wikipedia community. Should this one be any different? Gni (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comment more carefully. There is no question that this article should include meaningful criticism of Massad. But it shouldn't include every criticism of him that has ever been made, no matter how insignificant. If CAMERA's criticism is significant with respect to Massad's life-work, it should be included in connection with the description of Massad's scholarship and works. If the criticism is so out-of-place in the article that it needs a section of its own ("Other criticism"), it probably isn't meaningful to Massad's views (see WP:Undue weight and WP:Coatrack). — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, of course you are right that all insignificant criticisms need not be part of this article. But more than one editor here feels the criticisms are in fact meaningful, to borrow your term. And it doesn't appear that a separate criticism section in and of itself proves that the criticism is out-of-place. As mentioned above, numerous articles on Wikipedia have criticism sections, so clearly the consensus is that such discrete sections are useful in articles about controversial figures. Finally, the inclusion of this section would hardly make the article a coatrack, as an overwhelming majority of the article as it currently stands is devoted to summarizing the professor's works and ideas. Gni (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My complaint is mostly that there is already quite a lot of controversy in the article that is discussed in context, as is appropriate. Adding an "other controversy" section to that is what I find problematic. I suppose it's somewhat one or the other: you could have an article on his views and then a section on criticism, or more ideally, you could do as in this article and discuss both together. But to add an additional criticism section to an article already filled with similar controversies seems like too much. I don't rule out that additional comments he made in the classroom, if well sourced, could be discussed in a section on controversy in the classroom, as we basically have. However, if that leaves some smaller things that don't fit the general structure, I think that's probably where a bio starts leaving things out (I'm sure other more prominent bios leave out much more). Mackan79 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections appear in many articles but (in my view at least) are non-ideal - criticism should be integrated with the rest of the article, not isolated as some sort of counter-balance to a generally positive discussion. As it stands, the article already has three sections that are basically criticism sections, with responses worked in and a best effort at a neutral tone - the "alleged classroom intimidation", obviously, and also the "anti-semitism" and the "views on israel, zionism, and the u.s" sections - the last of which is basically a quotefarm for all the most potentially controversial comments Massad has ever made. The article certainly does not need more criticism for balance. If there is more that is notable, it should go in, but given the current state of the article, we should be extra cautious about giving criticism undue weight, and we absolutely should not create a section for lumping together a list of every criticism too minor to deserve its own section or integration into one of the others. I'm ok with the CAMERA quote, or preferably something better, going into the section on Massad's views; included critics' responses to those views is fair enough. An "other criticism" section? No way. Kalkin (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

New Additions to Section "Desiring Arabs"

To be added to the section on "Desiring Arabs"

One of the book's central arguments is that "The categories gay and lesbian are not universal at all and can only be universalized by the epistemic, ethical, and political violence unleashed on the rest of the world by the very international human rights advocates whose aim is to defend the very people their intervention is creating."

This is a direct quotation from the book, and is the book's main argument. Why is it controversial to add this to the beginning of the section about the book? Technetium25 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Another critical review:

Desiring Arabs was also criticized by James Kirchick, a writer for the New Republic, who wrote that Massad "legitimizes, with a complex academic posture, the deservedly reviled views on homosexuality espoused by [Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," and that Desiring Arabs "might just be the most pernicious book ever published by a respectable academic press." According to Kirchick, Massad argues that "the case for gay rights in the Middle East is an elaborate scheme hatched by activists in the West," and that "Massad's intellectual project is a not-so-tacit apology for the oppression of people who identify openly as homosexual."

This review is carefully cited from a reliable source, namely, The New Republic. And that's a very prominent source. There are glowing reviews about the book, so why not critical reviews from reliable and indeed very prominent sources? Technetium25 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This book has sparked an interesting debate and criticism which the article already gives a fair amount of space to. Kirchick is really addressing a broader criticism he has of "Queer Studies"; it would be best imo to weave his and the other 2 similar critiques together. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that the article gives a fair amount of space is clearly a subjective statement. Kirchick also addresses "Queer Studies," but that does not detract from the fact that the main purpose of his article is that it's a review of Massad's book. It should be included somehow. If you can weave it together with the other reviews, then please do. Otherwise, I'm just going to add it. It makes very substantive criticisms both of Massad's book and of his larger thesis. Technetium25 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly subjective; it's there in the article. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, but what's subjective is that there's enough space devoted already. I wouldn't agree. Who's to say if it's too much? We're talking about a couple of extra sentences here. When in doubt, and when we're not talking about adding extreme quantities of new information, I always think one should err on the side of more information, not less. And considering what we can agree is the rather extreme thesis of the book, I would say that displaying some points from a critical review from The New Republic is pretty fair. Like I said, if it can be weaved together with the other reviews, then so be it. But I'd like to add it nonetheless. It's informative. Technetium25 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a reliable source. However, to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, the question you want to ask yourself right now is "Am I only going to call out the scariest quotes from the review I can find?" Note that the quote from the review by Rayyan Al-Shawaf totally distorts the tenor of that review, which is far more balanced and nuanced than you would guess from the quote used. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you didn't react to the additions from the Al-Shawaf review by simply deleting them. Indeed, if you think that more quotations from the review would be helpful, then by all means, add them. Information is good. It helps people understand what's going on. Meanwhile, tomorrow I am going to add the piece from the New Republic review.

By the way, did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason why there are so many negative reviews of his book is because the book is simply ridiculous? See the thesis quotation above! There is no such thing as homosexuality? It's just a "Western", "social construct"? At what point does a claim simply become objectively wrong? If a book's thesis is ridiculous, then it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to try to balance that out by including equal numbers of positive and negative reviews. If the preponderance of reviews are negative, then that's an objective fact that should be reflected in the section about the book. It's asking a lot just to allot an approximately equal amount of space for positive and negative reviews in the first place, as we are now doing.

An example---suppose that some academic scholar published a book saying that there was no such thing as Jews. That all Jews were fakes, that the concept of Judaism is a recent invention of the 20th century, a lie, a Western invention with no basis in historical fact before the 20th century. One would certainly imagine a hugely negative response. Would we, as Wikipedia editors, be obligated to balance a section about such a book by providing several positive and several negative reviews, as we are now doing for the Massad book about gays? And I'm even allowing for that! Keep the several positive reviews. But don't tell me that the negative ones are too excessive. Please. Technetium25 (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not really our job to add anything based on whether or not we think something is ridiculous or not, but based on what the reliable sources say. The New Republic piece should get a brief mention because its a reliable source, although it's not really a book review, but a political polemic that makes use of Massad's book (and Kirchick is hardly an impartial writer on Middle East issues. We should try to give primacy to peer criticism (see, eg, The Bell Curve of controversial material, rather than outraged pundits. I also think it misunderstands or misrepresents the book, and I think you are misunderstanding it as well. Nowhere does Massad deny the existence of homosexulity/same sex relations (far from it), but instead is discussing "categories gay and lesbian," as identities, as not being universal. For example, those who challenge the imposition of Macdonald's into a third world country aren't denying the existence of food. You would need to read the book, and probably Edward Said's "Orientalism" as well to get into this particular academic mindset. I actually think Massad is trying to navigate the slippery ground of finding a way through the anti-gay bigotry in a lot of the ME and resisting colonialism and imperialism as he sees it. Not an easy job; we know that "outside" attempts to promote equality for women in the region often run counter to indigenous efforts by women to navigate that terrain. And it's hard to argue with a main theme of the book--in Victorian days Arabs were demeaned for a supposed sexual perversity; now, the West attacks Arabs for the reverse, for being sexual prudes. To me, (soapbox), there's not a little bit of hypocrisy in this position coming from a country which has made plain it would rather have a civil war than allow two people of the same sex to marry each other! As to the analogy with a hypothetical author saying Judaism is "fake," of course that would be ridiculous, but I don't think it's a valid analogy, since Massad doesn't say homosexuals are fake. A perhaps stretched analogy would be an author (and there are more than a few) who says that Zionism is not a universal expression of Judaism. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate your excellent incorporation of the quotation into the section on his book. And I appreciate your taking the time to explain your views.

But I disagree when you question whether I understand Massad's book, or Said's work. I can assure you that I've read much of both works, including Orientalism. I've personally read many of Massad's papers, as well. And I am very familiar with the ideology behind them. And of the hideous academic newspeak that characterizes much of it, which seems to have as its essence the goal of obfuscating arguments, being as impenetrable as possible, and attacking the notion that there exist any objective facts whatsoever about the world. As people working on an encyclopedia, whose raison d'etre is the accumulation of knowledge and facts about the world, we should all be offended. But that's beside the point. I wouldn't add my opinions on this issue to an encyclopedia article about Massad. That's not our place. All we can do is report the facts.

So, just as you would appreciate it if I don't make assumptions about where you are coming from, or about what you know, please reciprocate.

No, I do not think Massad disputes the existence of same-sex acts. I never questioned that. What I question is his claim that there do not exist people who are, simply, gay. People who simply do not have an attraction to members of the opposite sex but almost completely to members of their own sex. This has become a demonstrable fact of nature. And to assert otherwise is simply ridiculous. Just because the West discovers something doesn't make that a mere social construct. Newton's gravity formula was discovered by the West, and if you dispute it's validity, then, as Hume famously put it, feel free to step outside my 21st-story window.

Kirchick's review attacks Massad's thesis. That's how you review a book centered on a particular thesis. Would you rather Kirchick have spent his time instead commenting on Massad's grammar, his tone, or his vocabulary? So I also dispute your charge that Kirchick's piece is just a polemic and not primarily a review of Massad's book. Technetium25 (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

<---Well then, Technetium25, we are probably akin to 2 blind editors trying to describe the elephant with respect to the book; we're seeing at from different vantage points. I have a particular abhorrence for gay-bashing of any sort, but I don't really see it with this book, although I don't particularly agree with much in it--I pretty much share the opinions of Al-Shawaf in the review cited (the book has good theoretic-historic analysis, but falls short on a practical level). I don't share Kirchick's hostility at all. In fact, I think the book will be (and already is) opening up discussion and debate about an issue that everybody has shoved under the table (honestly, do you picture a Republican OR Democratic US administration standing up for LGBT's in the Middle East? They won't even stand up, on a national level, for American LGBT's). I hope the debate gets heated enough to warrant it's own Wiki article--that would be progress! Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You always surprise me. Just when I think that we're never going to agree about anything, we end up basically agreeing on quite a bit after all. I deeply despise gay-bashing, too, and I also hope that the larger discussion leads to a Wiki article. And I do agree that we seem to be seeing the book from different angles. But that's why it is necessary that there be multiple reviews listed in the entry, as we now have. There are three positive reviews of the book and three negative reviews listed. Before I made any changes, the only reviews mentioned in the article were glowingly positive, and surely you can acknowledge how biased that was. Thanks for helping me incorporate the additional material in a sensible way. Technetium25 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Book reviews in reliable sources are fine, as long as they at some point discuss the work. It's the "So and so is a mean old man" or the "So and so threatened to lock me in the university tower because I disagreed" kind of stuff that's problematic from a WP:BLP angle--even if the words might have appeared in a newspaper. Newspapers are full of people saying all kinds of things about other people. That doesn't mean it's encyclopedia worthy. Again, refer to The Bell Curve article--there's probably a million quotes in reliable sources where someone is calling the authors of that book rabid racist scalawags, but we resist the temptation. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The attempt to include negative reviews by journalists, some known and some unknown, to delegitimize Massad’s scholarship and to equate them with scholarly reviews is hardly a question of balance. First, Democartiya is a minor unknown neoconservative online journal that is hardly a major source on scholarship and Rayyan al-Shawaf has no qualifications whatsoever except as the unknown reviewer for this unknown publication), and morever, the review has been cherry-picked for negative criticisms. Second, Whitaker who attacked Massad in his own book and who Massad responds to in Desiring Arabs is hardly a scholarly source or an objective one. This review of the book focused only on the one chapter in the book that Massad had published before and ignored 400 pages of the book. Kirchick, a young Zionist acolyte, who in turn had not read the book but relied on Whitaker’s review is trudged in as another objective reviewer merely because he published his review in The New Republic and calls in his “review” for Massad to be denied tenure following the earlier call by New Republic editor Martin Peretz on Columbia to deny Massad tenure based on his anti-Israel views - hardly objective people or venues on the matter of Massad. Thirdly, regardless of the value of these journalistic reviews, it is further interesting that the politically motivated insertions of these reviews into the wikipedia entry on Massad did not show interest in quoting from other less politically motivated and arguably more serious newspapers which reviewed the book, namely The Financial Times and the Times Higher Education Supplement whose credibility surely is much greater than Whitaker’s own blog where his review appeared. Moreover a scholarly review in the influential Middle East Report by Harvard Professor Khaled El-Rouayheb is nowhere to be seen in this article. Also if the general media is going to be considered a reliable source in the discussion of scholarship, there is a recent review in the gay newpaper The Guide which had a huge spread on the book and an interview with Massad and positively reviewed the book by its own book editor Bill Andriette. Should this also be added? In the interest of not encumbering the entry on Desiring Arabs with all this politically motivated energy, the entry as it stands begins by saying that the book “received critical praise from academics and journalists.” I think this is sufficient - otherwise this article is going to revert to being a quote-farm (again) quite quickly. The journalistic section should be deleted unless all the other reviews are included. But to cite briefly the positive reviews given the book by the most qualified and credible academics and then dedicate more than half the entry to reviews by minor journalists in obscure blogs and internet magazines, and clearly politically motivated actors is hardly balance. I support deleting this section.Nhoad (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen Nhoad, I don't know what you're background is or where you're coming from, but throwing around terms like "Zionist acolyte" like they're four-letter-words and saying that none of these people actually read Massad's book is tendentious at the least. I'll never describe Khaled El-Rouayheb as an "Arab apologist." That would be equally inappropriate, and probably an ignorant and gross exaggeration, just as your comment is. And, for the record, there are disputes about Massad's work from within academia---see for example criticism from other professors, like Dan Miron, from within his own department at Columbia. Somehow I doubt that such criticisms would survive long in this article, however.

And, by the way, claiming that reviews from other academics are inherently less biased than reviews outside academic is simple-minded and naïve. There's a lot of intellectual incest and backscratching that goes on in academia, as I'm sure you know, and hearing outside voices from mainstream people like, yes, The New Republic, is hardly an unacceptable thing. Sure, add more reviews if you like. But don't throw away reviews that you don't like, and make it look like Desiring Arabs only got a positive reception wherever it went. That's just dishonest.

The truth is that I'm getting pretty tired of all of this. If it weren't for me, this whole article would be simple and utter hagiography, and no one visiting it would have any clue as to why Massad is such a controversial character. If you think that my modifications and additions are simplistic and biased, then fine, but go find a better way to include critical and, yes, sometimes negative, reviews of Massad's work. But considering the history of this article, I seriously doubt that anybody else is willing to paint a balanced portrait of Massad, worts and all. Certainly not an editor for whom the word "Zionist" is thrown around like an indelible stain. Technetium25 (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think using "Zionist acolyte" as an epithet is both unproductive and offensive, but I also think Nhoad has a valid point. Let me put it another way: Surely there were some negative reviews of Desiring Arabs from heavy-weights, whether academics or others. I think the section needs to include valid criticism of the book, but citing popular newspapers and magazines seems frivolous. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point. I agree with you that finding reviews from "heavier" sources would be better. Hopefully somebody who has access to some of these academic journals (which, unfortunately, usually aren't free to access) can do some looking. But I still think that there's value in displaying the reaction to the book from "the masses", at least its more prominent and mainstream representatives like a former editor for the Guardian's Middle East bureau and a chief writer at The New Republic. If people can find better stuff, positive or negative, please do add it! Technetium25 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for hastiness. I did not mean Zionism in any pejorative way. However, and I do not wish to poison the well here, both Martin Peretz and Kirchik have called in print for Massad to be denied tenure at Columbia - rendering them highly partisan- so I hardly think this makes The New Republic a place to find objective assessments of Massad's scholarly work. If I were to add quotes from all the other reviews, I would worry that the article would revert back to the quote farm it was earlier. Moreover I think this section is in danger of becoming a coatrack of sorts. I am not being tendentious when I raise the question of whether Whitaker and Kirchick have read the book. Look at their reviews - this is a +-500 page book. All they discuss is the one chapter that was published earlier in Public Culture - "Re-orienting Desire: The Gay Intermational and the Arab World" on the current state of homo/sexual politics. Nothing is said about the fact that the primary focus of the work is on two-hundred years of Arab intellectual production on questions of sex/sexuality - the excavation and analysis of this largely unkown in English set of works and debates from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and Massad's analysis of it is what is seen as the major contribution of the book by every other reviewer. It appears that unless you are invested in keeping the controversy about Massad alive, that particular chapter is not that central to the book. The argument I am making here is mostly original research and I would not put it in the article. Nonetheless, I do think that the quote from Whitaker should be removed - it appeared on his blog, not in The Guardian and therefore does not pass muster as a reliable source. I think given the public statements on Massad's tenure case by Peretz and Kirchik, that review - whether or not Kirchick actually read the whole book - his review strongly suggests he did not - contravenes NPOV guidelines. If Dan Miron has published a review of Desiring Arabs in a peer-reviewed journal, I think a brief quote from it would be legitimate.Nhoad (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no attempts to justify how Whitaker's blog constitutes a reliable source - so i will delete it. Nhoad (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Given Kirchik's public call to deny Massad tenure in the article cited, I think this contravenes NPOV and the reference also should be deleted. Nhoad (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Since no-one has objected to the claim that Kirchik's public call to deny Massad tenure contravenes NPOV for over a month now, I have deleted this section. I do not think a partisan on-line journal like Democratiya constitutes a reliable source. If anyone can find similar criticisms in a reliable source, I would be amenable to having the criticism section reinstated. Nhoad (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree with the removal of the New Republic review. The magazine, and Jamie Kirchick, are of sufficient notoriety that the review is notable, whether or not it is honest. Its honesty is not Wikipedia's to evaluate, in general. I'm ok with dropping the Democratiya review, which has a less notable source and an author who's not, apparently, notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I'll wait for a response before I take any action to restore it, however. Kalkin (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a desire to reinstate the TNR review, I think it important it be contextualized in the light of the public statements of Peretz and Kirchik, and there have been many other reviews in the gay and mainstream press that also should be added then. See reviews in The Financial Times - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d69aa534-4ed3-11dc-85e7-0000779fd2ac.html and The Guide - http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontentarchive.cfm?GetMagArray=Article as well as others. Thanks. Nhoad (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Democratiya review again. I thought we had established that a non-peer reviewed online journal does not constitute a reliable source. Nhoad (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Someone has reinstated the Democratiya review with no discussion. I think this is threatening to turn into an edit war. An non-peer reviewed online journal does not constitute a reliable source. I am removing it again. I have no problem with someone adding a critical review from a reliable source, but Democratiya does not cut it.72.229.130.126 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, how do you know it is not peer-reviewed? -- Avi (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As described here http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/search.pl?term1=democratiya, with its international review board, it seems like it would be a reliable source. Can you bring evidence, other than personal opinion, that it is not? -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be used as a reference in articles published in International Sociology and Journal of Democracy, which further bolsters its claim as a WP:RS. I have restored it pending proof that it cannot be considered reliable. -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New Addition to Section "Views on Israel, Zionism, and the U.S."

To be added to the section "Views on Israel, Zionism, and the U.S."

At a panel discussion in New York City in February 2007, entitled "Challenging Israeli Apartheid," Massad was quoted by the Columbia Spectator as saying "The only thing threatening Jews is its [Israel's] commitment to Apartheid and its racist people."

This statement is directly relevant to Massad's views on Israel and Zionism, and is supported by a reliable source, namely, a contemporary report in the university's student newspaper. Why not include it just because it might seem harsh? We aren't doing hagiography here. He said these words, and this is the reason why there is so much interest in him in academic circles these days. Technetium25 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A. What does this add? The section has ample representation of his views on the matter.

B. Read the bottom of this little article, where it says "CORRECTION:[...] The article also misquoted Massad as saying, "Does it [Palestine] threaten Jews? Absolutely not. ... The only thing threatening Jews is its commitment to apartheid and its racist people." Massad's original statement on this matter was phrased differently." Does this seem like a reliable source to you, with it's admitted problem of misquoting? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your second point is correct. I hadn't noticed the correction at the bottom of the article. Please disregard this addition. Technetium25 (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Section "Columbia Unbecoming"

I propose removing this passage from the section "Columbia Unbecoming"

In an editorial discussing the case one week after the release of the Committee report, the New York Times noted that while it believed Massad had been guilty of inappropriate behavior, it found the controversy overblown and professors such as Massad themselves victimized:

There is no evidence that anyone's grade suffered for challenging the pro-Palestinian views of any teacher or that any professors made anti-Semitic statements. The professors who were targeted have legitimate complaints themselves. Their classes were infiltrated by hecklers and surreptitious monitors, and they received hate mail and death threats.

Every other statement from a newspaper editorial has been removed from this article, in keeping with WP:RS. Just look at the rest of the talk page for countless examples! Yet this blatant editorial opinion from the New York Times remains. Why are only favorable editorials kept while unfavorable ones removed?

I'm all for removing all editorial opinions. After all, this is an encyclopedia article. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Technetium25 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Which deletions are you referring to? It's a lot easier to discuss changes if you can just give examples, rather than complaints; and it's also easier to assume you are proposing changes in good faith to further the quality of this encyclopedia entry if you don't give as a rationale "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Other than that, it seems an opinion piece from "a high-quality news organization" such as the New York Times is fine per WP:RS, especially given that it's directly addressing the issue of the controversy that the producers of "Columbia Unbecoming" engendered themselves (and not being cited simply as an ad hominen negative or positive statement). So, (in perhaps a variation of geese and ganders), if an organization like the David Project is going to incite such a controversy, it seems quite fair and NPOV to include the opinion of a high-quality news organization on the matter. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do a search for the word "editorial" in this Talk page. There are so many examples I can't even begin to list them all. But I was directly challenged several times from mentioning editorials from several newspapers, like the NYSun, even when I was only citing them to point out the mere existence of critics of certain statements that Massad has made. So please explain to me why a pure editorial opinion from the NYTimes is more reliable than that of any other widely-circulated paper. I mean, the NYSun's editorial page has certain slants, but then again, so does the Times'. On what objective grounds do you consider the NYTimes editorial page "high quality"? You say that the NYTimes "seems" to be a "high quality" news organization. I might agree with you (and I do), but I also know a lot of people who would disagree. It sounds more like you just like the fact that the NYTimes happens to be giving a favorable review of the situation. Again, I propose deleting any editorial opinions from this article on Massad, good or bad. Technetium25 (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your claiming that I "just like the fact that the NYTimes happens to be giving a favorable review of the situation," let me remind you of Wikipedia's guidelines of assuming good faith about other editors. For instance, although your edit history for the past three months seems to consist exclusively of adding negative information about Massad to this article, I am drawing no conclusions about your motivations. The admissibility of opinions from high-quality news organizations comes from WP:RS, not me. Check it out. As to a comparison of the NY Times and the NY Sun as high quality news organizations, I don't know what to tell you, although the fact that you "know a lot of people who would disagree" about the NY Times doesn't strike me as a persuasive argument against considering the Times to be a high quality news organization. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that you're acting in good faith. I happen to know that you've stood up several times against people on Wikipedia who have espoused really horrible views, including people who were viciously anti-Semitic. And I deeply respect that. But in the present context, I think that there's no objective way to claim that the NYTimes editorial page is in any way higher quality than the editorial page of, say, the NYSun, except maybe to say that the NYTimes has a larger readership or a larger budget. So if we explicitly include an opinion from the NYTimes editorial page, I say that we add an opinion from another widely circulated NY-based newspaper editorial page that was following the controversy. It would be misleading to lead people to assume that the general consensus in New York, as expressed by typical editorial pages, basically came out on MEALAC's side in the controversy. Technetium25 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, to me it seems common knowledge that the New York Times would fall into WP:RS's category of high-quality and the New York Sun, launched just six years ago by a group headed by a convicted criminal, is not. But more to the point, the Times in this instance is commenting on the Columbia controversy that Massad was embroiled in (in part, with the egging on of highly partisan sources such as the New York Sun). The editorial from the Sun you unsuccessfully tried to include earlier was being used inappropriately to state facts, not to provide commentary on a situation from a high quality news org. In any case, it seems like night and day difference to me, but if you want to pursue it, feel free to request comment. But i think we've covered this ground already. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"...to me it seems common knowledge that..." Come on! This is just your opinion again! And, while Conrad Black is obviously a jerk and a criminal, you know full well that he was not a convicted criminal when he started the paper. These post-hoc rationalizations are clearly logical fallacies. If Sulzberger were suddenly convicted of, I don't know, child molestation, would that nullify the NYTimes as a high-quality paper?

This is ridiculous. I agree that using a NYSun editorial for factual information may not be acceptable. But it's a NY newspaper that was covering the MEALAC controversy. So were the Daily News and others. So, if we're going to include the NYTimes editorial specifically for its views on this conflict, why can we not include similar statements from the editorials of other prominent local newspapers on the conflict, say, just below the NYTimes statement? Again, I don't propose going back and adding statements of fact from editorials. I'm saying that if we include a pure opinion from the NYTimes, then we should add just below it a contrasting opinion on the outcome of the committee's report from another prominent local newspaper. Or, we could just eliminate all editorials as sources and be done with it. There is no objective argument against this, and you full well know it. Technetium25 (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I just looked again at the NYTimes editorial, and the quotation pulled for the Wikipedia article totally warps the message of the editorial. The Times writes: "Sad to say, the school has botched the handling of this emotionally charged issue from the start, thereby allowing festering concerns to erupt into a full-scale boil." Then the editorial says:

[Columbia] botched this job, too, by appointing one member who had been the dissertation adviser for a professor who had drawn criticism and appointing three members who had expressed anti-Israel views that, critics allege, might incline them to soft-pedal complaints. It also limited the panel's mandate to include only some of the areas of complaint. People involved in the deliberations believe that the panel proceeded carefully and objectively in evaluating the evidence, but its composition ensured that the results would be greeted with skepticism.

Then they write: "And it has recognized that the Middle East studies department was out of control and, with the goal of strengthening its scholarship, has wrested away its power to appoint and promote faculty." They also say that Massad was "judged clearly guilty of inappropriate conduct." And then there's the conclusion:

But in the end, the report is deeply unsatisfactory because the panel's mandate was so limited. Most student complaints were not really about intimidation, but about allegations of stridently pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias on the part of several professors. The panel had no mandate to examine the quality and fairness of teaching. That leaves the university to follow up on complaints about politicized courses and a lack of scholarly rigor as part of its effort to upgrade the department. One can only hope that Columbia will proceed with more determination and care than it has heretofore.

Now I must turn your earlier Clint Eastwood remark back to you, Boodles. Don't you think it's strange that the only quotation pulled from this long editorial was the one that made Massad look good, and totally altered the spirit of the larger editorial? Why, may I ask, have I been so heavily attacked for allegedly pulling quotations out of articles that make Massad look bad, but nobody else seems to have treated cases like this one in the same way? Technetium25 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, but we're focusing on Massad (the article subject), not the panel or the overall investigation. We include the Times noting the "inappropriate conduct", and their opinion about the findings re: the intimidation against Massad et al. The opinions about the limitations of the panel, as they see it, are peripheral (although it is covered earler in the section anyway). Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is biased. We note the the committee found one allegation of abuse credible, but we omit evidence that 20 students say the same alleged instance of abuse never happend. Why not include all the evidence and let the public decide? Isn't inclusion of FACTS what this is all about? I will change unless I hear a good reason otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.238.226 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not omitted. If you read the entire section you'll see that that the info on the 20 students is included.ShamWow (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

New Additions and Changes

If there are no objections in a reasonable period of time, say, in a couple of days, then I will carry out the aforementioned changes. Technetium25 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify the proposed changes - are you only suggesting removing content based on the NYT editorial? Should we remove the Village Voice mention at the same time? PhilKnight (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Technetium is talking about either, but I'd like to register that I think both the NYT and the Village Voice references should stay. The judgments of relative non-partisans on the issue will probably be helpful to casual readers. I don't object to including newspaper editorials - as I recall, imperfectly I'm sure, the ones that were removed were removed because they were 1) from tabloids (the Sun & Post are simply less reliable than the Times & Voice) and 2) pretty plainly based on serious confusions. Kalkin (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions to Section "The Persistence of the Palestinian Question"

The only reviews listed for this book are glowingly positive. I think it's fairly safe to say that this presents a rather biased and inaccurate portrayal of the book's actual reception in the academic and historical community. I will collect critical reviews and add them to this section. Technetium25 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, I remember reading a critical review that specifically addressed Massad's abundant use of the so-called "academic newspeak". For example, from Ch. 1 of Massad's book The Persistence of the Palestinian Question:

Whereas the genetic moment of every national interpellation secures the subsequent claims made by popular nationalism anchoring the political and popular concept of the nation, every retelling of the story of the nation becomes in fact a moment of sublation (incorporation and transcendence), wherein the newly constituted Jordanian identity sublates its predecessor in an interminable process, and whereby the new Jordanian identity is reinscribed as the one that had always already existed as it does today.

Technetium25 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am beginning to question Technetium's credibility. This is not a quote from "The Persistence of the Palestinian Question," but a quote from Massad's first book, "Colonial Effects." Under the ruse of balance, this editor seems to be willing to risk risible error in an attempt to discredit Massad. This is either bad faith or gross carelessness- neither of which are good for verifiable encyclopedic content. Nhoad (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My incorrect attribution of this quotation, to which I admitted my uncertainty, was a mistake on my part. The talk page exists precisely for dealing with such uncertainty in a civilized way. Your direct attack on my credibility and your claim that I'm just trying to "discredit" Massad displays quite clearly your own biases on the subject. Personally, I like the quotation precisely because it is Massad's writing in the flesh so to speak, not filtered through a reviewer or anything else. I think any visitor to this Wikipedia article would be fascinated to see a small sample of Massad's actual academic writing. What could be more informative? Technetium25 (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nhoad, please read Wikipedia's policies concerning civility and personal attacks and its guideline concerning assuming good faith. Editors who engage in personal attacks may be blocked. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to be personal here, but Technetium, where in your first posting do you admit uncertainty concerning the source of the quote? Secondly what do you mean by the so-called "academic newspeak." The sentences you cite - while academic - are not new or news. They are simply an application of Hegel's dialectic, particularly his idea of "aufhebung" - usually translated into English as "sublation" or "supercession" to a theory of postcolonial nationalism. I am interested to know why you think one of the places where Massad is most philosophically rigorous is necessarily representative of his work?Nhoad (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My uncertainty was implicit in my statement that I remembered reading this review somewhere, but didn't remember where or remember any further details about it. I was hoping somebody else had seen it and could remind me where to find it. As to my use of the term "academic newspeak", I am referring to the interesting phenomenon, admittedly a subjective observation on the part of its critics, wherein scholars in disciplines like history, languages, and culture (like Prof. Massad, a member of the Middle Eastern Languages and Culture [MEALAC] department at Columbia) have introduced esoteric and extremely obtuse language into their work, some of which is borrowed from the most impenetrable recesses of disciplines like philosophy, like Hegel's work. (Can you really dispute my contention that Hegel's is one of the more inscrutable frameworks in philosophy?) Mere mortals like myself assume that historians and scholars of culture are focussed primarily on the accumulation of facts, the application of analysis to those facts, the comparison to the present day, and rough predictions about the future. Indeed, most do just this sort of thing. But it is always fascinating to see the work of professors who take a different approach. That's my point. And I think people would benefit from seeing it in Massad's work for themselves. This is revealing look into how Massad studies history and culture. By the way, I love seeing the words "philosophical" and "rigorous" appear in the same sentence. Warms my heart. And I say that as someone who happens to love philosophy. Technetium25 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I have archived all discussions with no comments more recent than January 2008 into /Archive 1. This was a little bit tricky because a few old discussions had been commented on (stopping this was one of the reasons I wanted to archive), and I had to cut and paste around them. Let me know if I appear to have screwed anything up. Kalkin (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone!

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributed to the rewrite. I'd come to this page earlier this year looking for information about Massad's books and wasn't able to get any clear idea of his positions from it. At that time, the article just seemed like a lot of alternating praise and criticism bandied back and forth, but no real discussion of his work. Didn't edit it then because I didn't know enough about his scholarship, or the controversy in general, to contribute reliably. But this page is so much clearer now, and seems more balanced despite becoming shorter, while still including different sides of the controversy. As far as I can tell, the current article is a great example of being as NPOV as possible in contentious circumstances. So thanks, Wikifolks! (P.S. This is in response to the Jun 13 version of the page.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.2.156 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of the excised sections have ended up on the new Wikiquote page. Where can I find the relevant policies for wikiquote? Thanks. Nhoad (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Libel suit

settling a libel suit by agreeing to pay damages and and issue a formal statement that an academic article contained false material is pretty significant. something this serious belongs on this man's page.Elan26 (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26

It's very serious, but did Massad settle the suit? Was he a party to the suit? From what you've written, it seems like he was a third party. Sorry, but that makes the information irrelevant to his biography. See WP:COATRACK. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. Massad wrote a review of an important pro-Palestinian artist that was so libelous, with its allegations of plagiarism, that it got his journal sued; when his journal decided to settle, Massad called them "cowards." That's not relevant to his biography? He was merely a "third party" to all this? You're kidding, right? The whole case was about him! These people were all suing over his work! You are setting up a logical fallacy by defining away anybody who isn't the plaintiff or the defendant as merely a "third party"; the subject, in this case, Massad, is just as important and central! This isn't an "innocent bystander" we're talking about! And you don't think that this information is informative about the human being Joseph Massad, and is relevant to the biography of an academic? I'm reinstating the change.Technetium25 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reducing "Works" Section

Wikipedia is not a compendium of an academic's published work. This section needs to be shortened. In my view, the books should of course be kept, as well as only a minimal number of articles and book reviews to show the sort of work he has done. Thoughts? ShamWow (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If somebody doesn't reduce Massad's work section, I will. I prefer somebody that is familiar with his works does so. Wikipedia is not a compendium of an author's works. Please help.ShamWow (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

section for tenure

According to the New york Post Massad has received his tenure earlier this month. I was surprised that there is no section about the controversy about giving him tenure (began in late 2004 [1] [2]).

I don't want start an edit war, but i'm thinking about adding a brief (few sentences) section about this. what do u think? --Histolo2 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Adding something with regards to the controversy is necessary. It doesn't have to be a coatrack but the entire controversy is quite notable. ShamWow (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)