Talk:Gilbert Achcar

Added

Infobox and image. Made minor edits. Added 1 wikilink. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

False edit summary

blog post by an, so far, not-notable activist.

The review cancelled was written by Miriyam Aouragh, a Leverhulm Research Fellow at the University of Westminster, with a book and many reliably published articles to her credit, and was not published in a blog. Having an activist interest does not cancel the fact that one is a qualified academic authority on a subject. Since the edit summary falsifies all this, the revert has no justification. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So, when opinions you don't like are used in articles, they are to be removed because the authors are "non notable" (as measured by the lack of wiki page about them) published in a blog, but views you like are always by 'a qualified academic authority" , even though they are published in a group blog, and are non notable as measured by your own standard, above. You employ double standards! color me shocked.

To the point; Mondoweiss is most certainly a blog. It is catalogued as such by Wikipedia's category system - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_political_blogs, it is described as such by its author and owner , in its article "I re-launched my own blog on my own website. It became a collaborative effort a year ago when Adam Horowitz joined Mondoweiss.", and it is described as such by reliable sources: " Mondoweiss, a blog that has become a nucleus of anti-Zionist writing" [1], "The anti-Israel blog Mondoweiss" [2], "Mondoweiss, an anti-Israel blog " [3]. (or rather, it is generously described as a blog. Some less flattering descriptions of it include "hate site" that peddles " raw anti-semitism : and conspiracy theories) - it has no place on Wikipedia. Far from being a ' qualified academic authority on a subject' , the non-notable Ms. Aouragh is an anthropologist whose current research interests are activism on the internet. She is not a historian and has no qualifications whatsoever to comment on the history of Arab relations with Nazism, or the history of anti-semitism. You seem to subscribe to the ridiculous notion that any academic in the humanities is an expert on any topic in the humanities -, which is nonsense. Finally, as you've told me numerous times, the WP:ONUS to include material in the article is on those editors wishing to introduce new material . Two editors have already reverted you, clearly illustrating you do not have consensus for this material, so out it goes, stop edit warring. Epson Salts (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Epson. Mondoweiss is a self-proclaimed group blog. Miriyam Aouragh seems to have zero expertise in the area she's used here for, although I guess "Cyber Politics of the Middle East" would include trying to whitewash historical Arab antisemitism on Wikipedia? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you disagree with Bernard Lewis and Gilbert Achcar on 'historical Arab antisemitism'. Mondoweiss is not a group blog. When this was last discussed at RS/N, we had 5 involved editors, myself, yourself, User:Averysoda (sockpuppet);Bad Dryer (blocked) and Ykantor. The only regular RSN specialist who put in, Rhoark, came down for ther view it is not a blog, but an acceptable source. As to Miriyam Aouragh, she is an Arabist, an anthropologist, a Leverhulme Research Fellow and teaches at theUniversity of Westminster, which is ranked 2nd in Great Britain for her discipline, media studies. On the negative side, she a Moroccan Arab, and was kicked out of Israel once. By wiki criteria, she is perfectly acceptable as a source. Epson Salts dismissed a published scholar as an activist, clearly POV spinning, to erase her review, obscuring the fact that her credentials are scholarly. I'll take it to RS(N if you think that appropriate. I don't question Matthias Küntzel being cited as a critic of Achcar, for example, and I see you don't object to his presence here, despite the fact he doesn't understand a word of Arabic, is totally unqualified in scholarly terms, and passes himself off as an expert on the historical anti-Semitism of Arabs, as Achcar noted in his book. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually do generally agree with Lewis, although from your usage I think you may have missed his main points. I have not read Achcar's book on the Arabs and the Holocaust, but from the reviews I have read it seems that unless you're a committed anti-Zionist or Marxist, you will probably find some major faults with it. I find your comparison to Kuntzel, who is published in CISA and is an expert in this exact field quite amusing. Feel free to open a discussion about removing him if you like.

While your description of the previous RSN is the usual self-serving almost-truth (there's obviously no consensus to include there) feel free to go back and try again. Maybe it will get more participation this time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

My point is, you object to a qualified scholarly Arabist's review of Achcar's book, while you do not object to using a review of Achcar's book by a scholar who has no specialized knowledge of the topic, no knowledge of Arabic, no familiarity with the primary documentation. You can't have it both ways: I object neither to Küntzel nor Miriyam Aouragh's inclusion, you accept Küntzel, a non-Arabist as competent, and reject an Arabist Miriyam Aouragh as incompetent. I'm being coherent . . . As to anti-Zionist/Marxist ergo flawed, well, Zionism, like Marxism, is an ideology, and anti-Zionism is the obverse of Zionism. If there are scholars who, rather than mouth off, write reviews showing serious flaws in Achcar's work, they will be included. But you can't assume from a scholar's putative ideology that his work is flawed, ergo suspect. Benny Morris is a Zionist down to his bootstraps, but notwithstanding his ideological commitment, he is an excellent source.Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Kuntzel is published on this specific topic. Pointing out that you think the fact he doesn't know Arabic means something is a waste of everyone's time as it has zero relevance. I did not assume from Achcar's ideology his work is flawed, I explicitly said that's my impression from the reviews I've read.

Miriyam Aouragh is just some professor you happen to agree with. She and her views lack any notability and she lacks any specific expertise or publication in this area. The fact a group blog is the only place she can publish her views is proof enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

These are your opinions, including your personalizing of this to suggest I included her out of some like. I didn't point out Küntzel's total lack of knowledge of Arabic was invalidating. That's what numerous Arabists say. My opinions of Küntzel are those of a half a dozen scholars of Arabic civilization and Islam who say he writes crap (check his German wiki bio). In fact, no university press seems to publish him. If 'any specific expertise' is requisite, then he fails it, as does David G. Dalin, because he is basically copying memes from Western polemical works that are no longer read. My point remains valid, you are wikilawyering to exclude a qualified scholar of Arabic studies, while loosening the ropes to allow elbow room for a meme-plagiarist whose works on this topic are not under any notable imprint (Elephanten Press/Telos Press). Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That's starting to sound a little desperate. His review was published by CISA. Hers by Mondoweiss. Which is the more scholarly of the two? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You should edit that article on CISA, it lists in the present tense several people who are dead. CISA has a number of fine scholars, and some clunks, like Kuenzel and Daniel Goldhagen. I don't reach much stuff on Mondoweiss either. I'm not interested in ideologists of either camp.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Why should I edit that article? If you see a problem go ahead and fix it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I've taken it to the RSN.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand, Nishidani does not object to the use of Kuentzel in the article (though I think it should be mentioned that Achcar criticized Kuntzel very harshly in his book). The question is whether, given that Kuentzel is cited, should Aouragh be removed?

Actually, I think the entire framework is misleading. Searching on Google Scholar, one finds 78 citations for Achcar's book. One can also look at reviews in general-purpose periodicals. Then one should take a representative sample from there and summarize them. At the moment, only two negative reviews are cited, one on the CISA blog and one in a general-purpose outlet, and one positive review by Tariq Ali. In such areas, a ton of things are written by everyone and their uncle, and it's easy to cherry pick. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering why the insistence on this one source. There must be other, better positive reviews by more qualified people published in higher quality sources if only by virtue of the author being a committed anti-Zionist (see: Mearsheimer/Atzmon, and Achcar's book is an actual scholarly work, not some polemic).

Anyhow, I agree with KI. What the article really needs is a summary of the positive/negative reviews. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Note - the article is almost certainly by Philip Weiss, not Miriyam Aouragh. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As I noted here, this assessment is mostly likely incorrect. Zero^talk 05:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

And here is the proof. Zero^talk 02:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile

I notice Nishidani has added the part of Achcar's book that talks about Nasser and Abu Mazen being Jew haters, only is trying to make it seem as if Achcar is only talking about Nasser when he says "Jew haters" in plural. Rather than argue endlessly, here's what Tariq Ali says in the Guardian:

Achcar also informs us that it is the Arabs with whom the Israelis chose to mate (the late Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Abu Mazen, the current leader of the PLO), who are on record as crude antisemites. [4]

I would rather remove the potential BLP violation, but we should not be trying to change what the sources say. So, remove, or make it clear he's talking about both? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

(a)'I notice Nishidani has added the part of Achcar's book that talks about Nasser and Abu Mazen being Jew haters.'

I quoted Achcar on Sadat, not Nasser.

If you don't familiarize yourself with the topic, confusing Nasser with Sadat, then it's difficult to respond to your arguments. On the Israeli demonization (counter-factual, in Achcar's view, of Nasser as an anti-Semite, see for example here.

(b)You are saying that quoting Achcar's view on Abu Mazen as a Jew-hater is a WP:BLP violation? The logical generalization of this in policy terms would be:

All third party comments on someone as an anti-Semite/Jew hater violate WP:BLP and must be removed.

That is an extremely dangerous precedent, because it would mean you are required to eliminate all accusations of anti-Semitism from Wikipedia bios over numerous pages.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Sadat. My apologies for the brain fart, now could you please address the issue? Either summarize what Achcar is saying properly, or remove it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to summarize what Achcar is saying properly when he is directly quoted. That is obvious. I answered you, so please respond to the point I raised. I'll reframe it. What you are suggesting is that we should not cite Achcar's view on Abbas's putative hatred of Jews for WP:BLP reasons. Thatwould automatically mean we cannot, for example, cite any notable person's opinion that Gilad Atzmon is anti-Semitic, though the wiki bio is crammed with this claim. I'm asking you and the other fellow to apply policy consistently, regardless of the political fall-out. So reply to my request for clarification, please. Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. You keep returning to the BLP thing. I did not conclusively say it's a BLP problem so kindly stop harping on that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You wrote:'I would rather remove the potential BLP violation', and when I asked you to clarify by raising a query you now reply:'I did not conclusively say it's a BLP problem so kindly stop harping on that.' You have questions, I have questions. There is no protocol that reads, the queries of NMMGG must be answered, those of Nishidani ignored.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the text I think it's a reasonable summary of the source and withdraw my objection. I do think it should probably come from a secondary source rather than a summary of the primary one, but meh. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Following your comments here, what do you think about the above discussion? Is there a BLP violation? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the analogy at first glance and I'm away from home with lots of work to do, so you'll need to explain why you think the cases are similar if you want an answer. Zero^talk 05:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)