Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of Pennsylvania Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Journalism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"In 2008, Max Blumenthal stirred up controversy when he put a video on YouTube which featured intoxicated tourists in Israel using expletives about Barack Obama. Blumenthal was accused of peddling anti-semitism as some believed his video was intended to flame up negative feelings about Israel and Jews."

To say "stirred up" is POV. The author is giving his opinion here, by using such language. The phrase implies that Max's intent was to 'stir up' controversy. However, he simply hit a goldmine of Jewish chauvinism/supremacy/racism/ethnocentrism which was enhanced by alcohol. In fact, when you look at his videos, he always goes out of his way to maintain HIS composure and his delivery of questions are always in a calm, sincere tone.

It's his subjects - whether they be Holocaust deniers or Christian Zionists or a group of (what appears to be) yuppie, ignorant, young college Jewish students on a Birthright trip - who make fools of themselves, SIMPLY by being THEMSELVES on CAMERA!

I mean, in the Occupied territories, soldiers and settlers do NOT like getting filmed! Why? Because then people will SEE what they are doing!

The wording should be 'Max Blumenthal's video caused controversy' AMONGST the [wherever] community' - let's be clear here. This was not on TV. It was not 'controversy' that we can measure on any kind of universal scale. This was controversial AMONGST Zionists. And the bias of this entry is so obvious.

Also, nothing is said about the video.

'Intoxicated tourists'? How VAGUE. All were Jewish. And I believe, Max said many were on a BIRTHRIGHT trip. These were Jewish college kids who are about as knowledgeable on Israel as Paris Hilton is on quantum physics. Is that an insult? No, it's true and you can SEE it and HEAR it in the video.

Furthermore, the racism and antisemitism in the video came from the 'intoxicated tourists' - will it CAUSE more anti-Jewish hatred? I don't know. But why single it out? Israel's foreign policy does that just fine. The notion that there should be no documentation of Jews hating other people and being ignorant for the sake of protecting Jews FROM this type of ignorance is beyond hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.104.139 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your concerns have been addressed. The sentence no longer talks about "stirred up". Whether you or I agree with the description of the tourists as intoxicated or not, the sources cited use that term and it is appropriate to use it in the article. As for the article saying nothing about the video: Such statements or descriptions would need to cite sources, and I cannot find any to cite. If you can find cites, please add them. As for whether these college kids are knowledgeable about Judaism or not is not for the article to say. The article is not about the video, but about Max Blumenthal. Additionally, Wikipedia is not about critiquing the video or the people in it. If you wish to create an article about this video, and add cites to it which critique the film and the people in in, I strongly encourage you to do so. - Tim1965 (talk)

I'm no Blumenthal fan (quite the opposite) but I question whether the opening line under this section - "Max Blumenthal tries to pass off unwarranted insults as journalism. He should be ostracized." - should be a part of this article. I'm not going to edit and remove it but just want to point that out to whoever is watching and managing this page. Jgoulden (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the adjectives "liberal-left" to the Nation Institute because a Google search returned the following from the nationinstitute.org website: "A liberal-left independently funded and administered organization, committed to a just society and the principles of the First Amendment." Perhaps that sentence is from metadata from the website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that in the search, but if we want to include it we should be sure it is actually from them and cite it accordingly. I'm not disputing they are left, I've just never seen anyone use the awkward phrase "left-liberal" before, and that unusual phrasing should be cited, or we should just call them whatever they actually use on their website. Gamaliel (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two notable controversies seem to be missing here: His inaccurate attack of O'Keefe (covered by the Columbia Journalism Review) and his smear of Matt Sanchez based on the latter's involvement in pornography (covered by David Horowitz, who also mentioned some other controversies, e.g., one involving him and The Path to 9/11 - see reference 11). Since it's a controversial subject and a BLP, I wanted to mention this here rather than merely adding it. It was added in the past, but was vague and unreferenced, and thus removed.

In addition, referencing is needed for the opening paragraph. For example, there is the claim that his work was featured on NPR. However, a search reveals him as the object of a culture interview on Fresh Air, not someone freelancing or working for the network. As it is now, it's misleading, and I wonder how many other half-truths are in the paragraph. Calbaer (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, and saw this note. I agree about the CJR piece but am not so sure about the Horowitz piece. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get Wikipedia to be fair is the wrong tactic. You have to allow them to be so crazily and obviously biased that normal people will be able to see it clearly. Otherwise, you are just helping them only be solidly biased in a way that is not obvious to normal people. 47.156.21.196 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of this word is political. According to Merriam-Webster,the definition of 'claimed' (transitive verb):

"to assert in the face of possible contradiction"

Why the doubt that he was subjected to death threats? That is the only reason to say 'claimed' rather than a more factual, unbiased, impartial word like 'says'.

Even in the case of 'says', it is still his perspective, so it could be a false statement. However, it is less loaded than 'claimed'. It assumes a POV, because the author who chose to word Max's statement as a claim, is implying that he - the author - thinks Max is being inaccurate/false/lying, etc..

We should simply say, that Max says he was subjected to death threats.

I only mention this small wording issue in light of the entire controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit [1] changed "He works for the progressive organization Media Matters for America" to " He works for Media Matters for America". As the Media Matters article states in its lede "Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group", I reverted the edit, as the original seems to be factual vice a non-NPOV statement.

• I hope this can be discussed, vice edit-warred.
• As a related note, that entire sentence has had a citation needed tag for a year. I'd be OK with it being deleted, if a reference can't be found.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor and I discussed it here: User_talk:JoeSperrazza#MediaMatters. I'm OK with the change. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this [2] source states that Blumenthal used to work for Media Matters. The lede should be changed to reflect this. If no one else gets to it, I'll make the change later. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained to you now 3 times on multiple talk pages why the opinion article you cited is not valid as a WP:RS to call Media Matters progressive. If you continue edit warring and putting in this unsourced information, I will be forced to seek administrative attention. You have given me a warning on my talk page for edit warring when I have in fact made a grand total of 1 revert between the two articles (a revert which you agreed with above). You on the other hand have now made 3 reverts among the two articles in the past 24 hours. Your choice 74.198.87.108 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no explanation on any talk page that the source I cite is not reliable. There are other sources. There's no WP:DEADLINE. I'll gladly provide one. Question - why is this such a hot button for you. As I noted, simple Google Searches show other references that MM is called a Progressive Organization. What's the deal? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this rationally (and, BTW, I agreed that a "Wiki-source" was an issue, albeit a bit of a WP:WIKILAWYER one, but I see many sources available from outside of WP). Here's some other sources. Will any satisfy your desire to, for some reason, remove or caveat the word "Progressive" wherever MM is mentioned in WP?

• [3]
• [4]

JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is rich, Joe, In this revert [5] you say "please see talk page". Not only did you not provide any explanation on the talk page for your revert, but if you had even looked at the talk page, you would have seen the explanation I provided as to why your opinion article is not a WP:RS. Oops? 74.198.87.108 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss changes to articles in those article's talk page. This is Mark Blumenthal. That was an edit to Media Matters. On that talk page, there's an entire new section where I discuss the change I planned to make (and then made). There's also reference to a section of that same talk page that supports the appellation "Progressive" per WP:CONSENSUS. Please don't keep taking this personally, and tone down your comments and avoid personal attacks. Please keep your comments on the relevant article talk pages, so other editors can participate. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I see no explanation on any talk page that the source I cite is not reliable." Your dishonesty and games make it impossible for any other editors to participate. You said there was no explanation on any talk page that the source is not reliable. So I showed you the explanation. Then you say I should only talk about things on this talk page. Give me a break 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, [[WP:WIKILOVE|break given)). The discussion on the other article's talk page is the right place for discussion of the edit you mention. Regarding not seeing your explanation, at the time I responded, I did not see it, but it was not on my talk page, nor on this page - it was in a third place, the Media Matters's talk page. Respectfully, that's why it is better to keep discussions in one place. I suggest keeping things on the MM article's talk page would be a good thing. I also suggest you try to avoid personal attacks. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, you are continuing to play games here and it is reaching the limit of WP:AGF. On the Media Matters article you reverted an edit and used the edit summary "please see talk page". On the Media Matters talk page you provided no further explanation as to why you made the revert. On the Media Matters talk page prior to your revert, I had made it very clear why the opinion article you proposed was not a WP:RS prior to your revert. And yet, as I pointed out above, you still made the revert on the Media Matters article and advised me to look at the Media Matters talk page. That is just about as clear as I can be here. I will now leave it to other editors to take a look at this series of events and judge for themselves who is acting inappropriately.

But as for the content dispute itself, the current situation is as such: you have reinserted the unsourced claim to this article (that Media Matters is progressive). You have added a source to back up that claim, but the source is not a WP:RS. Therefore, the article currently suffers from WP:OR. I will not enter your edit war and revert you, but the fact remains that the article is in violation of Wiki policy. Cheers 74.198.87.40 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the Media Matters talk page, and won't respond more here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Only because discussing this in 2 or 3 places is difficult. Let's get the issue of WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS dealt with in one place (the MM article). Then changes, if any, needed here should suffice. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom11111 recently added a statement cited to an an article in The Jewish Daily Forward to the effect that Goliath, Blumenthal's most recent book, has, " "outside the far-left and anti-Israel blogosphere," been ignored. That begs the question of how many times in the mainstream media 'Goliath' has to be mentioned before the statement can reasonably be counted as being untrue.

As far as mentions in the mainstream media go, we already have:

• An article from The New York Observer which had already been cited in the article.
• The mentions by Eric Alterman in The Nation (such as this one) referred to The Jewish Daily Forward article cited by Shalom11111.

To date, there have also been other mentions in the mainstream media such as the following:

• Haaretz
• The Washington Times
• Foreign Policy Journal

Editors may find the following useful for background:

• Truthdig, Chris Hedges
• Truthdig, Bill Boyarsky
• Truthdig, Larry Gross
• The Polemicist

    ←   ZScarpia   21:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it is a nonsense. There are two possible ways forward, we remove JJ Goldberg claim. Or keep the claim but also add all the mainstream press reviews and coverage of the book. Dlv999 (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You two are misinterpreting the author's intent using the term mainstream. Ignored as in not taken seriously by the mainstream, not a lack of discussion. Most mentions in "mainstream" sources are excoriating the book. And FYI, a "community" contribution to the Washington Times is not an RS, and the far-left "Foreign Policy Journal" is not mainstream. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have about 10 sources at least as notable or more so than the Jewish Daily Forward. I will add them all to the article next time I have the opportunity. Ignored means ignored. Discussed widely does not mean ignored. Criticising a work is not ignoring it either Dlv999 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I back whichever of the suggested solutions you choose to adopt. In my opinion Plot Spoiler's interpretation of the word 'ignored' is counter-intuitive. Also, I think that the Jewish Daily Forward's opinion about the book is of no more significance than other sources listed above.     ←   ZScarpia   17:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has recently been a bit of an edit war over the retention or removal of the text about The Jewish Daily Forward's article going on. In my judgement, the overall consensus taking into account comments on the talkpage above and recent edits to the article is that the text should be removed. Therefore, having first edited the text, I reconsidered and deleted it.     ←   ZScarpia   10:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, not many reliable sources in English have tackled what happened recently in Berlin. Keramiton used this short Bloomberg article, but, in my opinion, didn't render its contents accurately or neutrally. The Jerusalem Post published this piece. Blog pieces reflecting what David Sheen and Max Blumenthal had to say were published in Mondweiss here and The Electronic Intifada here. This EI piece says: "A number of elected politicians alleged that a scheduled talk by Blumenthal and his colleague David Sheen in a Berlin theater would serve “to promote anti-Semitic prejudice.” This was deeply ironic: both Blumenthal and Sheen are themselves Jewish. The politicians denouncing them failed to produce any evidence that they are hostile towards fellow Jews."     ←   ZScarpia   00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Volker Beck and use of the term Judeo-Nazi: "“Beck falsely accused me of using the term ‘Judeo-Nazis’ – he made that claim on Twitter,” Blumenthal said, offering an example of how the smear campaign works. “But I had merely quoted Yeshayahu Leibowitz, one of the most famous Israeli intellectuals in history, using the term.”"[6][7][8][9][10][11]     ←   ZScarpia   13:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also ... Blumenthal's response to Goldberg's claim that "Goliath" had been ignored.     ←   ZScarpia   01:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also ... Blumenthal comments on the #JSIL hashtag:

EF: Not long after your trip to Gaza, you started using the hashtag #JSIL (Jewish State of Israel in the Levant) on Twitter. Making this kind of comparison between the group Islamic State and Israel is taboo in Germany. Why did you dare to do this?

MB: It is strange that you equate, in Germany, IS with Hamas or describe the entire Palestinian national movement as “heirs of the Nazis,” while there is such an outrage regarding my comparison. It was not a direct one-to-one comparison, but I wanted to point out the hypocrisy behind supporting one religiously exclusive state that forces minorities out of its territory while attacking another.

Algemeiner articles by Ben Cohen: [12][13]

Benjamin Weinthal - Berliner Morgenpost article; Twitter feeds: [14][15][16]

Jerusalem Post opinion piece by Petra Marquardt-Bigman: [17]

Jerusalem Post Benjamin Weinthal articles: [18][19][20]

Lobelog piece about a Weinthal article written for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD): [21]

Mondoweiss - Anna-Esther Younes - The Minds of Others: An interview with Max Blumenthal, 25 November 2014.

PublicSolidarity.de video of meeting on 9 November 2014 in Berlin.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC) (edited: 08:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Read the source before removing: "Two critics of Israeli policies chased the parliamentary leader of Germany’s Left party, Gregor Gysi, down the hall of the lower house in Berlin after he canceled a meeting with them." ... "Sheen and Blumenthal had been invited by other parliamentary members of the Left party, Thalheim said. Gysi canceled the meeting because of their “radical” views on Israeli settlement policies."--Keramiton (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your second quotation is incomplete: you've missed the "he said" from the end (ie. according to Thalheim, Gysi cancelled the meeting because of the radical views of Blumenthal and Sheen).     ←   ZScarpia   20:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keramiton is a blocked sock of the currently banned user Wlglunight93.     ←   ZScarpia   09:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the fact that it was Thalheim who said that(there is some ambiguity in the text as to who said it - Thalheim or Gysi, I'm fine with editors changing it if they have a different interpretation.) Other than that, the text appear to be a very fair representation of what is written in a reliable source. You have now removed this material 3 or 4 times, without much basis. I'd caution you not to do it any more. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below, there are other issues with the text.     ←   ZScarpia   19:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the recent AE case concerning Keramiton to explain the issues relating to Wlglunight93/Keramiton's edit:

<quote>
The subject of the article concerned is Max Blumenthal, an American author and journalist who, among other activities, writes and speaks about the Arab-Israeli conflict, from a position critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. After publishing Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel in 2013 he became a more frequent target of criticism from pro-Israel quarters, including appearing in 9th place in that year's Simon Wiesenthal Center List of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel Slurs. I think that it is obvious why the Wikipedia article on Blumenthal is covered by the ARBPIA case. Blumenthal is still living, so the article is also covered by the WP:BLP policy

The material added by Keramiton relates to a recent incident which is not yet covered well by reliable news sources. Blumenthal and David Sheen, an Israeli journalist, were invited to speak about Israel-Palestine at the Bundestag and a Berlin theatre by a number of Die Linke party politicians. After action by a number of politicians including Gregor Gysi, the leader of the Die Linke party, the invitation to speak at the theatre was withdrawn, but Gregor Gysi, who was ignored by his party members, failed to have the meeting at the Bundestag cancelled. Afterwards, Blumenthal and Sheen attempted to confront Gysi about "why he had endorsed the smear campaign against them." They followed Gysi down a corridor and into what turned out to be a toilet, where Gysi attempted to lock himself into a cubicle. Later, Blumenthal and Sheen were "banned from entering the German parliament in the future." The statement giving notice of the ban issued by the Bundestag chamber’s president, Norbert Lammert, said: "Every attempt to exert pressure on members of parliament, to physically threaten them and thus endanger the parliamentary process is intolerable and must be prevented." I think that it is obvious that the material added by Keramiton falls within the remit of the ARBPIA case.

Keramiton cited this, Bloomberg article as a source. The text he added, though short, misrepresented the source, or was otherwise misleading, in a number of ways:

• Nowhere does the article say that Blumenthal was banned for "chasing a senior left-wing politician into a lavatory." The only information in the source we have which relates to that is what the chamber president is reported to have said, near the end of the article.
• Keramiton wrote that Blumenthal went to confront Gysi after the latter "canceled a meeting with him," giving a false impression. In actual fact, Blumenthal and Sheen went to confront Gysi after he'd successfully managed to stop a meeting at a theatre and unsuccessfully tried to stop a meeting at the Bundestag. Blumenthal and Sheen wanted to confront Gysi as to "why he had endorsed the smear campaign against them [22]."
• Keramiton states as a fact that the cancelled meeting was cancelled because of Blumenthal's radical views, though in the source this view is attributed to a politician, not stated as a fact.

As stated above, currently very few reliable English-language news sources cover the incident. From what is available, though, I would say that Keramiton, as well as failing to represent the source, failed to neutrally represent the incident. Some of what Sheen and Blumenthal had to say about the incident is supplied in the follwing blog pieces: [23][24]. Judging by another blog piece, the Bloomberg article itself appears to be error. Blumenthal and Sheen's complaint was not that Gysi had called them anti-Semites.
</quote>

    ←   ZScarpia   19:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Post, Ben Weinthal article stating that it was only Sheen who followed Gysi into the toilet: [25]     ←   ZScarpia   00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your objection to the current text? The Bloomberg article (a reliable English-language source, more so than any blog post) say both activists are seen in the video: "Gysi can be seen in a YouTube video being pursued down a corridor in the Reichstag building and into a bathroom by activist reporters David Sheen from Canada and Max Blumenthal from the U.S. ". The Mondoweiss blog and Electroinc Intifada are not reliable sources. if you can find Blumenthal's response published in a reliable source, we can add it. Brad Dyer (talk)

Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada, in both of which Blumenthal publishes, are, for the wikipage on Blumenthal, arguably quite acceptable. Where, by the way, has it been determined that Mondoweiss is not a reliable net newspaper?Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contribute here, you should take the time to read the sources available, including the EI and Mondoweiss articles, which are reliable sources for what, respectively, Blumenthal and Sheen had to say about the incident. The Bloomberg article, though reliable, lacks detail and is also contradicted in some respects by other sources. This article is a BLP and therefore extra care should be taken to ensure that source material is rendered accurately.     ←   ZScarpia   19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I don't need your permission to contribute here. (b) Bloomberg is a reliable source, and the Bloomberg article is fairly and accurately represented by the text currently in the article. (c) If you have additional material, from reliable sources (not blogs), you may add it here, but you may NOT continue to remove relevant materiel from reliable sources. Brad Dyer (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you needed my permission; the purport of what I wrote is that, as there is a requirement on you to edit neutrally, you need to know whether there are different points of view and what they are, which means searching around and reading what different sources say. Blogs are reliable in certain circumstances. A blog piece by David Sheen is reliable for the opinions of David Sheen. A blog piece in which Max Blumenthal is being interviewed is reliable for the opinions of Max Blumenthal.     ←   ZScarpia   22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mondoweiss is an anti-Israel (even anti-Semitic, despite its writers being of Jewish descent) propaganda site, not even close to being a reliable source. Electronic Intifada is an anti-Semitic hate site written by Arab extremists. If you think that is a reliable source, I question your ability to neutrally contribute to Judaism-related articles. 186.91.167.73 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Frontpage Mag reliable for the views of David Horowitz?     ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, please explain where the "bad grammar" and "typos, etc." are. As for the "run on sentence", perhaps you could better describe a way of dividing it up.     ←   ZScarpia   13:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC) (Run-on sentence: Wikipedia definition)[reply]

"Blumenthal and Gysi were banned from entering the German parliament, the Bundestag, in future." huh?

"the reason behind the attempts to cancel the meetings, one of which succeeded, was the two's "radical" views on Israeli settlement policies."

I would kindly suggest that you stick to editing the WP of your native language. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are grammatical errors, at least not in non-American varieties of English. Would the text be acceptable if the wording was changed to "in the future" and "of the two"? Were there any other (real) problems with my edit that you could find? You mentioned typos.     ←   ZScarpia   16:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "in" is repeated. This forum is not intended for editors to waste their time correcting the grammar of other editors. This forum is intended for substantive improvement. In the future please make sure your writing conforms with proper contemporaneous English and is error-free. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you didn't point to any grammar errors (unless you're counting a repeated 'in').     ←   ZScarpia   18:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ you're still defending the edit. Honestly it is one of the most poorly written two sentences I have ever come across. Whatever dude, this conversation is pointless. You can get the last word in if you like. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It is one of the most poorly written two sentences"! Doesn't exactly slide through the mind very comfortably. My comments are aimed more at reducing your excuses to revert than defending my changes to Keramiton's original edits.     ←   ZScarpia   20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new version of the text provides the answer of Max Blumenthal and other intellectuals to the Toiletgate controversy so I believe should have precedence on the version by Plot Spoiler that keeps being re-updated and is outdated, not listing Blumenthal as a senior writer for Alternet, his new book, and his new stories. User talk: hsb2121Hsb2121 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the current post to reflect the work that Blumenthal has been doing on Haiti / the Border/ Syria /Islamophobia and Israel-Palestine, referring to his big articles over the years and adding information on his new book, The 51 Day War as well as the Akiva Elbar review for Goliath. This should give the reader an accurate and wide-ranging view of what Blumenthal has been writing about for various publications. I also updated the bio with his current position at alternet, and the prizes that his books have been getting. I created a Controversies sections for the various controversies that sprouted up in Blumenthal's career. I also removed details that were unsourced or claims that were made and not substantiated by the source that supposedly referred to it. I believe this completes a post that was outdated and did not mention what Max wrote about in any depth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationBooks (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! An outdated version of this page by Plot Spoiler keeps being updated again as opposed to 208.105.82.82 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)'s updated version - the new version is updated, and integrates all the text of the original version by Plot Spoiler, except unsourced allegations. It is simply reorganized in a Controversies sections, and includes balancing evidence so to be closer to neutrality. The new version mentions more stories by Max Blumenthal organized in sections, as well as his new book. Is there a way to leave the new version on, as opposed to reverting to an incomplete, outdated and often unsourced version. I think it would make the page more accurate. Thank you! 208.105.82.82 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goliath did NOT receive 'great critical acclaim'. In fact it received great critical criticism. this line shouldn't be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.26.205 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on "controversies" should be avoided. Instead, content needs to be worked an interspersed for an NPOV presentation. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198#Max_Blumenthal. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) I've copied this from the Zion Square assault page.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not draw that wide a conclusion from that discussion. It was not a formal and broad RfC, but an informal discussion about a specific instance. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation was based on a critic's assertion Blumenthal's whole book was "deliberately deceptive", which was comprehensively shown to be 'based on grammatical preferences by the critic, and no other deception that conflicts with reliable source guidelines have surfaced about Blumenthal' as it relates to this referenced claim. I might add everyone had the opportunity to use that RS/N to show grounds for the idea that Blumenthal was an unreliable reporter for facts, and no one came up with any evidence of the kind. It would be rather odd to insist that everytime Blumenthal might be cited for any other fact, in your reading, one can challenge it because RS/N here decided only that his quote was independently verifiable. There was no explicit or implicit suggestion that each and every fact in Blumenthal has to be independently corroborated by a primary or secondary source. Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree, but unfortunately, WP has no system to answer questions like that. One can of course point to the RSN discussion in future discussions, it will carry some rhetorical weight. But that's all that it is: an informal discussion about a specific instance. If one wants to state that he is generally reliable for facts in this area, there needs to be a formal RfC with the statement. I would advise against it, because it would be rather vague, and critics will always find something to nitpick even if it succeeds, no matter how carefully you word it. Beyond some ground rules that major newspapers and university presses are generally reliable, there isn't really any widespread consensus about reliability, which is probably a good thing. Though it can be exhausting to keep arguing the same thing over and over again. Kingsindian ♝♚

What tends to happen with Blumenthal is that, despite several recourses to RS/N which say otherwise, some editors revert him at sight, and say 'prove he's reliable here' or 'there', every time he is used. This is unusual (I' m reminded that some editors think my comments or edits have the same status and should be automatically considered suspect. The burden of the claim, functionally, lies on those who keep making it, without ever winning the argument at RSN. Unless one can come up with a review that actually gives evidence Blumenthal's work is consistently erroneous (like Alan Dershowitz's, for example: there is a notable literature on the errors that pit and pock his screeds, rendering them useless for any serious article except that on himself) I think he fits the general WP:RS recommendations and will act on that premise. Distaste for his views is not a grounds for impugning his reportage, esp. since it is his 'attitude' that editors dislike, which they confuse with his documentary contributions, a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is fine, indeed, one can point to the RSN discussion in future discussions (which are inevitable, I can predict fairly safely) when someone removes his work by claiming that his work is "deliberately deceptive" etc. All I am saying is that one shouldn't overdraw the conclusions from the RSN discussion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the history of Max Blumenthal as written in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Blumenthal. I believe it is noteworthy that his oral and written contributions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as his views about Israel and the Jewish people are posited without any critic of his personal bias. In other words, Wikipedia has presented Max Blumenthal's depictions of Israel, the Israeli people, and Israeli government as 'facts'. Furthermore, Blumenthal's recantations of what enemies of Israel (Gaza Palestinians) professed during the 2014 Gaza conflict are also presented as bonafide. You must be aware of all the anti-Israel writings and statements made by Blumenthal? How about the email correspondence with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which is now on record? Blumenthal has all the rights to his opinions and convictions. However, it seems unethical of Wikipedia to display his history without positing some balance which shows his biases.

Enrique Neidek

Enrique: Max Blumenthal is a virulently partisan individual. He hates Israel and compares it to Nazi Germany, even as he finds time to work for his family's homegrown business -- Democratic Party agendas and bucket lists. I don't hate him, although I dislike him intensely. Why do editors need to pretend to respect those whom they critique when their subjects' words and actions should (and do) speak for themselves? Quis separabit? 23:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The statement made by the writer of the Elie Wiesel sections is subjective and opinionated. Is it possible to state the fact rather than making the section an oped piece? I would highly recommend that the final sentence of the passage below be deleted. It appears that the writer as an agenda that she is pushing forward -- Yes, maybe Blumenthal's comments are not wholly factual, but to say they are "cynical" and "ill founded" is not wholly true either. It should also be mentioned that Hillary hired Blumenthal and that they had a fairly close relationship until he left her staff; however, the writer "forgets" to mention this fact.

Please delete this sentence and possibly the whole paragraph: "Blumenthal refused to apologize for his cynical and ill founded comments."

---It may be worthwhile to read some of their emails, which can be easily found on "Wiki leaks."

Blumenthal's statement, and others that followed, cast the man who survived Auschwitz in the role of a Nazi collaborator — with the State of Israel as the Third Reich and the Palestinians as the Jews in concentration camps. Outrage and disgust from the broader community came shortly thereafter with Hillary Clintondisavowing Blumenthal's "offensive" and "hateful" comments. Blumenthal refused to apologize for his cynical and ill founded comments.

Nickstengl (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  18:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious spite section. Presenting extreme differences doesn't make the entry balanced or neutral.--WatchingContent (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: I don't see how public comments made by an individual who has become well-known and, for many, (in)famous, in large part due to his incendiary comments and well-known positions about Israel and Gaza, to his relentless partisan attacks on Republicans (his well-connected and influential father is a confidant of the Clintons) somehow violate NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and UNDUE.

• NOTNEWS -- manifestly noteworthy; not remotely indiscriminate or OR
• RECENTISM -- not too recent that the facts and nature of the comments are still open to interpretation or revision; he is standing by them
• UNDUE -- purely subjective criterion in this case, particularly considering the use of the term "nonsense" by the editor opposing the inclusion in his edit summary

They should be included in his article because they are a matter of public record. I am all for consensus so let's achieve a consensus. Quis separabit? 23:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) @Becky Sayles: @Malik Shabazz: @Nishidani:[reply]

I don't see how you don't see it. Every word a twitter user types is a "public comment"; are you saying that they're all fodder for encyclopedia articles? Of course not -- that's why we're called editors and not stenographers, because we're supposed to exercise editorial judgment.

To rebut your specific points:

• WP:NOTNEWS has nothing to do with whether a tweet is "noteworthy"; the question is whether anybody cares it after they throw out today's newspaper. Yesterday's boxscore was "noteworthy", but we don't include every pitch in every baseball game and every fumble and tackle in every football game because most of them have no encyclopedic value. The question is which end the tweet falls toward.
• WP:RECENTISM has nothing to do with facts or the nature of the comment and everything to do with an obsession with recent events. That's a healthy obsession for newspaper editors, but an unhealthy one for encyclopedia editors. We're not writing a tabloid, we're (supposedly) writing a biography for an encyclopedia.
• WP:UNDUE -- What is the weight given by reliable sources to the tweet? None? Then we should ignore it as well.

You don't mention it but WP:ONUS says that just because something has appeared in reliable sources doesn't mean it belongs in the encyclopedia. If you want to include it, you need to build consensus for inclusion.

By the way, one of the quirks of the ((ping)) template is that it has to be followed by a signature in order to work. So adding it in a separate edit, after your signature, as you did, renders it useless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks for your reply and the 411 on the ((tl|ping)) Quis separabit? 02:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my editorial judgment it should be included because it received far more extensive coverage than whatever else he is saying these days. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be included.

• WP:NOTNEWS is mostly about notability, and this controversial claim was notable enough for Clinton's campaign to comment upon and major newspapers to report.
• WP:RECENTISM does not apply as the event is about 2 months old. This essay recommends to avoid overburdening the article with recent events, here the controversies are distributed temporarily as MB is creating them.
• WP:UNDUE as about giving fair proportional representation to POVs. In the context of article on MB his view is certainly DUE, and so is the opposing POV "world leaders, public figures, and countless people touched by Wiesel’s works who offered their praises and expressed their mourning".

Since all the claimed policy-based reasons are obviously irrelevant, it seems like the real reason for objecting to inclusion of this controversy is WP:IDL. “WarKosign” 07:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Malik that this is trivial. It also, notably, gives more airing to a response by Clinton's press secretary than to the original statement. If the consensus is to include it, however, this is more or less what the text will end up looking like, if only because it is unencyclopedic to quote one or two one-liners, and follow it up with a rebuttal, when the subject of the bio gave extensive background reasons for taking the view of Wiesel he took in his tweets.

On July 3, 2016, on the death of Holocaust survivor, author, and Nobel Peace laureate Elie Wiesel, Blumenthal tweeted “Elie Wiesel went from a victim of war crimes to a supporter of those who commit them,” and "Elie Wiesel is dead. He spent his last years inciting hatred, defending apartheid & palling around with fascists." He later added that Wiesel had supported ethnic cleansing.^[1][2]Jake Sullivan, policy advisor to Hillary Clinton, responded, "Secretary Clinton emphatically rejects these offensive, hateful, and patently absurd statements about Elie Wiesel.... Elie Wiesel was a hero to her as he was to so many, and she will keep doing everything she can to honor his memory and to carry his message forward."^[3][4][5]

In response, Blumenthal wrote a detailed account of the powerful influence Wiesel’s Night had made on him in boyhood, and the reasons why Wiesel's public record in later decades made him change his perspective.^[6] Wiesel had, he asserted, transformed the Holocaust into a quasi-religion, with Jews the ultimate victims of a ‘unique’ historical event. At the same time he downplayed examples of other peoples who had been subjected to industrial extermination, such as the Armenians. Blumenthal said his impression was that Wiesel seemed to think these other victimized groups were competitors in an oppression Olympics, and a threat to his own moral power. He further stated that Wiesel's loyalty to Israel was such that he kept silent even about Israel's errors, for example, the oppression of Palestinians, despite having declared in his Nobel speech 'silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.' Wiesel, he added, backed the US-led invasion of Iraq and other bellicose initiatives. After losing millions of his own money invested with Bernie Madoff, Blumenthal added, Wiesel had accepted $500,000 as a speech payment from John Hagee an antigay pastor who had penned antisemitic writings and who had called Hitler a ‘half-breed Jew’. Wiesel had also shared a platform with Paul Kagame, whom Blumenthal claimed was involved in genocidal policies in the Congo. He had also accused Hamas of engaging in child sacrifice, a practice, Wiesel said, abandoned by Jews 3,500 years ago. Blumenthal concluded that anyone who criticized Wiesel's anti-Palestinian tirades was branded as a Holocaust denier and hit with torrents of hate speech.^[6]

Unless you give the full record of Blumenthal's reasonings, and boil everything down to tweets, flippant or formal public statement sounds bites by critics or politicians, you are violating WP:BLP by repressing the complete context. So, make up your minds: either the whole record or, as Malik and I suggest, drop it as trivial. Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion dedicates 90% of the section to Blumenthal's antisemitic rants, violating NPOV. “WarKosign” 12:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wave policy flags inanely. WP:NPOV has absolutely nothing to do with construing precisely what a text already cited states. Reducing a remark to scare quotes, and equally silly scare responses, is pointless. Make an argument, and secondly, accusing Blumenthal of being an anti-Semite is a patent violation of WP:BLP, and you should retract that. If you can't edit articles without swinging the anti-Semite sledgehammer, with silencer attached, then refrain from editing here.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani -- your construct of what the Blumenthal/Wiesel entry would look like is mighty impressive, but again it is your narrative and construct. I suspect other editors may want to have a go at it themselves, and maybe trim what seems like undue rhetoric, i.e. "whom Blumenthal stated was involved in genocidal policies in the Congo" and "Blumenthal said his impression" (both of which quotes appear to violate OR and WEASELWORDING) as, here, stated and said his impression equal claimed. Issues which Blumenthal did not even bother to specify himself when he made his first comments after Wiesel's death can be (and are, by many) seen as self-serving justifications for comments deemed offensive in political quarters to which Blumenthal is intrinsically linked as his father, Sidney, is a close Clinton friend and confidant. Max Blumenthal does not even appear to have raised the issues he mentions on Alternet while Wiesel was alive.

Despite your prodigious intellectual and rhetorical gifts, which I have long admired and expressed, Nishidani, even you cannot guarantee what a future article or section thereof will look like after others edit it. What's more there is no obligation to include or exclude anything, as far as I know. Issues regarding Madoff, Armenians, etc. are almost certainly already in Wiesel's article, so there is no need to include them to burnish Blumenthal. By the way is AlterNet truly a reliable source? Quis separabit? 13:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't construct anything. I did what every useful editor every day does: I looked at sources bearing on a specific theme, and paraphrased them. You are saying a paraphrase is a construct, -well, epistemologically it is, but then all paraphrases, what we do as editors, are 'constructs' and we are back to zero via the ouroboric circular route. It's not a matter, either, of 'burnishing' Blumenthal. This is a wiki biography and we are under an obligation to see that whatever we add to it respects the guidelines. I don't think content of the kind: "A said:'That's crap'. B replied:'You're crap'," particularly intelligent, though it's what editors have been doing here, and no one appears to object to it. The objections are to rewrites that say: "A thought X was crap for the following reasons..(B and C rejoined that this was outrageous, because...)'. As to your last point, anything written can be interpreted as a monologue, even if it is addressed to others. Indeed it is a premise of one school of literary theory to approach any text, whatever its public intentions, as essentially an exfoliation of the writer's subjectivity. Since Blumenthal is a published author with a high notability index, where he publishes his views, on AlterNet is immaterial, for his page, according to wiki criteria. Do you really think articles by Blumenthal who is the subject of this wikibio can be dismissed as 'self-serving', while pieces by Noam Rothman and Rick Moran are acceptable pieces by informed experts on both Blumenthal and the topics he comments on?Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Rothman or Moran are or what side of the ideological divide they find themselves, but I do note that neither has an article on Wikipedia, so how notable are they? Quis separabit? 13:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't notable. But they were introduced for the American s sniper section below:.

Max Blumenthal does not even appear to have raised the issues he mentions on Alternet while Wiesel was alive.

Actually, when I edit these hot point issues, I usually do a few hours research on each point, just to be sure I have some grasp of the background behind what the person is reporting. I had on file, for Hagee and Wiesel, to cite one example, the following report from 2009, when Wiesel was alive:

McCain may have been completely unaware of Hagee's sermon declaring the Holocaust to be a divinely ordained incident orchestrated by God to fulfill biblical prophecy; Hagee's accusation that the Jews' rejection of Jesus was the root of anti-Semitism; or his prediction that when the Antichrist returned, he would be homosexual and "partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."(Max Blumenthal 'Elie Wiesel's Shocking Stage Appearance With Mad Preacher and Anti-Semite John Hagee,' AlterNet 28 October 2009)

The question is, in any case, if you include this stuff re Wiesel, then I didn't say I would retaliate by imposing my version: I said, in the logic of Wikipedia, 'this is more or less what the text will end up looking like.' I.e., if editors want to take this step (thinking, though not in your case, it shows Blumenthal in a nasty light!) they'd do well consider for their POV, the collateral effects of prising Pandora's box, or a can of worms. My advice was to editors eager to jag this in, 'don't go there', and intended as sound counsel. I've known about Blumenthal (and many other similar intellectuals') take on Wiesel for donkey's ages, but have never taken it as a mission to rewrite Wiesel's page to score points.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I never mentioned Hagee. I consider him a joke, a dinosaur in 2016. Sometimes we do have to stand or sit next to people we don't like. However, genocidal policies in the Congo is completely different. Anyway, get a nap, so I can get your well-rested opinions later. Bye. Yours, Quis separabit? 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in case anyone take soffense at my comment "get a nap", it is not that I am implying Nishidani is superannuated, it is in reply to his edit summary comment: "Must get a nap. Too many typos." I do not wanna get accused of ageism, even though I am probably older than he (and most editors are), anyway. Quis separabit? 14:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thad's bedda. . .(Rub eyes). If I had to give a personal view - a large part of this whole discursive universe we are obliged to read to edit articles is a joke, in mostly poor taste. I can only keep up, by diving back in regularly to reread Finnegans Wake for the refreshment of one's need for intelligent writing. I'm almost never offended, let alone by personal insults - they tickle me rather, but conscience demands that I register a sense of senescent narcissistic reproof in being told I'm not the oldest editor here. I thought that was one distinction I could lay a claim too. Rats! So, umm . . Fad saol agat, gob fliuch,Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is clearly notable, given the amount of coverage it has received. If we want to elaborate on MB's response, we can discuss how to do that without violating WP:UNDUE. But the complete removal of this incident is not based on Wikipedia policy. Epson Salts (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

translation. Let's get the sneer in, and then editwar over the rest. Predictable.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not nice, Nishidani -- let's deal in good faith. This is a subject we all feel passionately about, one way or the other. Quis separabit? 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wiesel's relationship with Hagee,

Sometimes we do have to stand or sit next to people we don't like

Wiesel didn't just stand near Hagee. He went on and gave a lecture to Hagee's congregation and in return received a %500,000 fee, knowing full well he was being paid by a man who has gone on the record for many anti-Semitic statements. One can disagree thoroughly with the Max Blumenthals of this world -no problem, but his record for documenting things like this is pretty good. (Max Blumenthal, Wiesel scored $500,000 for speech to congregation of Hagee, a Holocaust revisionist Mondoweiss 9 February 9, 2010)

There is no good faith won by WP:HOUNDING, in turning up to make automatic challenges to virtually anything an editor might add to pages; by an obvious tagteaming modus operandi, by not making intelligible policy based edits, nor participating significantly on talk pages except to sneer. Of course, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 there is another matter which is, it's my personal view, almost certainly highly probable from the first edits made, though only administrators can determine whether the obvious passes empirical verification. I've seen several pro-Palestinian IPs edit here. I can't recall ever allowing them to tag in to support me, and I've often reverted them. It's called ethics in the real world.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's your typic MO, no doubt, but no, I am actually interested in improving the encyclopedia. Epson Salts (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(POSSIBLY off-topic reply): Wiesel collected a "500,000 fee, knowing full well he was being paid by a man who has gone on the record for many anti-Semitic statements". If Hagee knew Wiesel was a Jew why would an anti-Semite like Hagee have invited and paid Wiesel? George Soros (who meets and funds anti-Semites around the world) and Henry Kissinger (long retired) who attended the funeral of Franjo Tudjman, a virulent anti-Semite and neo-Ustase thug, have done the same thing, although both European-born men managed to avoid the concentration camps of the Shoah, unlike Wiesel, who may have just wanted or needed the money so he could leave or bequeath something to those persons or causes he cared about. Quis separabit? 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not germane to what we do here, of course. But look at the record from September 3,2009 through October, down to February 2010. Blumenthal is accused of anti-Semitism often enough, as if his right to feel disgust when a figure in his community cosies up (Pastor John) with an anti-Semite is flawed because the eminent fellow Jew must see deeper than he does, When it comes to politics, all that counts is opportunism, and the aggregation of forces in a positional play, as I'm sure you know. I once almost broke up a wedding celebration because I was placed, the only 'commie' in the basically ex-Fascist festive occasion, next to an anti-Semitic moron, to gather from a crack he soon made. But then, I'm not a politician, and I couldn't give a fuck for the idea of allowing considerations about the bride and bridegroom's right to happiness to override my disgust, particularly since 2 other people there nodded that Hitler should have finished the 'job'. Politicians have it easier. As to your questions, several answers, based on quite reasonable inferences about how types like Hagee think and double think, suggest themselves. It's well known that many Christian evangelicals are Zionist because the return to Israel is a premise for the apocalypse, and the destruction or conversion of the Jews as Christ triumphs. This morbid fantasy can be dismissed, politically, for what it is, while the support of those who believe that shit is, in terms of political helf, obviously useful to a certain vein of cynical, but sophisticated, Zionism, who appreciate the numbers game and laugh off the theological hallucination for what it is. One plays theology, the other raw politics, with diametrically opposed ends, and the realist of course makes the proper rational calculation. Politics. In fact, probably 50% of the edits to talk pages or articles made in the I/P area probably have nothing to do with content improvement, but emerge after due consideration of the political implications of the material introduced. That's how you can detect tagteaming: when editors range up and never, never revert or disagree with what they perceive to be 'their side'.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Blumenthal is accused of anti-Semitism often enough, as if his right to feel disgust when a figure in his community" -- I don't think Blumenthal considers himself to be part of the same community as anyone who is pro-Israel. I don't even know if Max Blumenthal is Jewish based on Halacha (Jewish law). I don't know if his mother is Jewish or if she converted or if Max and his brother had bar mitzvahs. So, that's an assumption I would not make. Quis separabit? 22:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of those facts can be ascertained by a few minutes googling. He is Jewish, self-defined thus, had a Jewish religious education, did his bar mitzvah, and in North American Reform Judaism patrilineal descent, the OT model, is accepted. Most of us belong to several communities, each contributing to one's overall identitarian profile. I didn't assume anything. Nothing Blumenthal has said, on Wiesel or many other topics, is peculiar to him, or particularly 'scandalous'. The 'quasi-religious' use of the Holocaust comes from Peter Novick, and had been used of Wiesel back in the 1970s in a number of critiques (by Jewish scholars).Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the addition of this comment can be classified as 'controversy'. I don't mind it being correctly reported, instead of being spun as if he were commenting on a film he pretended he had seen. The film came out that day, and he tweeted immediately on its release, clearly indicating he hadn't yet seen it. In any case, there was no 'controversy' to judge from the hostile material so far: you have two non-notable journos attacking him, Noam Rothman, the day after, and Rick Moran jumping on Rothman's coattails on the 27th. A 'controversy' consisting of two responses in, effectively, the blogosphere, over 2 days is not notable, and only illustrates WP:NOTNEWS,and WP:Undue. The entry of this material can only be justified if you can get over the spin message that 2 bloggers were right in taking him to task for presuming to judge a film without seeing it. But, since he admits he hasn't yet seen it, and asks his readers to correct him if his impression from the release hype is wrong that it shows a sniper killing Iraqis and being anguished, there is no intent to deceive the reader into believing his judgement is based on his preview of the film. So, the POV push is meaningless, if we give the whole record.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a shoot-from-the-hip obiter dictum by a non-notable blogger that Blumenthal's views are "insanely wrong" has no informative purpose. It's like saying: Joe Blow thinks Trump's a dickhead, Tom Dick and Harry agree Hilary's a numbskull. This is an en cyclopedia, not a bathroom to register idle chat, and hot aired prejudices.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not fooling anyone with this bullshit. He wasn't asking anyone a question in his tweet, he was using the rhetorical device "correct me if I'm wrong" to make a statement he believes in. Blumenthal is a barely notable blogger, so it is no surprise that most of the reactions to his tweets and blog posts comes from other bloggers, But, I am glad you feel so strongly about using blog posts by people with no Wikipedia articles about them . I will soon be using that argument in articles closer to your heart where you liberally use such sources when it suits you. In the meantime, you can review more about the controversy, outside the blogosphere here- [26] ,[27]Epson Salts (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A warning. Virtually every article I touch on recently finds you coming in straight afterwards, saying 'no', apart from other considerations (A buen entendedor, pocas palabras). I have edited to show what he said, not, as you have done twice, to suggest he deliberately mislead his readership by making a comment on something he hadn't seen. Try not to deploy the 'rhetorical device' gambit. It doesn't work, for the simple reason that every sentence has its corresponding rhetorical classification, but not for that do we say the form (rhetoric) undercuts the semantic content. 'I came, I saw, I conquered' is analytically a form of homoioptoton, which doesn't therefore imply that the declarative content is irrelevant or void. 'I beg your pardon' is rhetorical, but of what variety is never clear until one clarifies in what sense it is intended, i.e. to mean '(a) Come again (I didn't understand you the first time round) (b)I'm sorry (c) an expostulative phrase of reproof of someone for whatever they said or just did, etc. Your interpretation of what Blumenthal intended is pure WP:OR, and therefore not relevant. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A warning? really? what are you going to do, throw a temper tantrum? after you've had some sleep, tae a look at the edit history, as you seem totally unable to construct a proper timeline: I edited this article on 5 September 2016, and again on 10 September, then you showed up , 30minutes later, to undo my work. You do have some nerve , don;t you?

I have edited the page since March 2015, and thus it is naturally on my watchlist, where I observe abuses like your attempt to smear by innuendo the subject of the biography (see below). That is the 'proper time line'. Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the point: Apparently, English is not your first language, so you don;t understand its idioms and rhetorical devices. As I wrote as as other editors have concurred on my talk page , 'Correct me if I am wrong" is a "supercilious throat clearing and faux rhetorical questioning". he wasn't asking to be corrected, he was making a statement. Epson Salts (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, occasional talk page stalker here. Apparently, English is not your first language': (i) This is not apparent to me. (ii) Even if it were apparent, I don't understand how it would change matters. ¶ Better to comment on the edit(s) than on the editor. ¶ As for another claim, yes, "Correct me if I am wrong" is far less likely to be a directive than mere padding, a sort of throat-clearing. Although I don't understand a distinction between the "rhetorical" and the "faux rhetorical", the fact that I don't (yet) understand it does not make me suspect that Quis separabit? is writing in their second language; and even if it did make me suspect this, then I would be reluctant to say so. ¶ Please cool down. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, English is my first language, and my grammar and slang are often corrected or criticized by my Polish best friend. We can't all be grammarians and academicians. Rhetoric v faux rhetoric. Well, to my mind, since I am the one who used the term "faux rhetoric" to which @Hoary refers, genuine rhetoric and honed rhetorical skills can have proper and benign uses in public speaking. "Faux rhetoric" -- my inventive phrasing, if you will -- was just a reference to, in this case Max Blumenthal, who claimed (not admitted) he didn't see the film (I personally think he is smart enough not to criticize a film he didn't bother to see) but is asking his supporters and groupies and whomever questions to which he already knows the answers and has already staked a partisan position. Thus I used the term "faux rhetoric" to indicate as a step below oratorical rhetoric. Quis separabit? 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If English is indeed your first language (and I have no reason to doubt this), it's unlikely that anyone -- American, Polish, Icelandic -- would be correcting the grammar. More likely, attempting to adjust the grammar to fit their own well-intended but inadequate model of English grammar. (Representative example: all those people who will amicably but wrongheadedly insist that "less bananas" is ungrammatical and should instead be "fewer bananas".) Yes, "faux rhetoric": I see what you mean now; and though I might prefer to call it something else, your naming makes sense. ¶ All this is a bit of a tangent, as "does not make me suspect that Quis separabit? is writing" was a typo for "does not make me suspect that Nishidani is writing"; sorry about that. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the basics. Our obligation is to be neutral, to respect in paraphrase what was said in the source, and abstain from spinning it. It is immaterial if we like or dislike Blumenthal.

• User:WarKosign broke a fundamental rule declaring Blumenthal, a Jew, was culpable of ‘antisemitic rants’. Asked to retract, he won’t budge by withdrawing it.

• The reverts deal with how to neutrally convey the following tweet by Max Blumenthal:

I haven't seen American Sniper, but correct me if I'm wrong: An occupier mows down faceless Iraqis but the real victim is his anguished soul

• User:Epson Salts has proposed several times (here; here, and here) that we elide ‘but correct me if I am wrong’ and showcase the fact he had not seen the film. Thus he wanted

In early 2015 Blumenthal criticized the film American Sniper, which depicts Kyle's tours of duty in Iraq, even though he had not even seen it

• This means that with Blumenthal's text in hand he wants to erase part of it.

I haven't seen American Sniper, but correct me if I'm wrong: An occupier mows down faceless Iraqis but the real victim is his anguished soul

• This edits out material to create the raw impression that Blumenthal, in defiance of the proprieties a serious critic must observe, wrote of something he had no knowledge of.

• Malik Shabazz disagreed (here andhere) on the grounds it was trivial and inappropriate. Privately, I agreed and still do, with his call. I noted that no one had corrected the date: the tweet was posted the morning the film was released, but was dated two months later, for example. So much passion for skewering MB, without tight source control. But seeing the impasse
• I stepped in and offered compromise edit, accepting Epsion Salts’ insistence that Blumenthal had not seen the film while adding that he made the quip within a few hours of its release, and prefaced his comment with the remark that he was open to correction.

Blumenthal, stated that he had not seen it, tweeted to his followers on Twitter to correct him if he was wrong in saying the film’s theme was:”An occupier mows down faceless Iraqis but the real victim is his anguished soul

• This was rejected on the grounds ‘it is a rhetorical device, not a real request.’ That is technically ‘a conjectural interpretation of a source’ to the detriment of the subject whose words are being only partially reported, in order to damage him.
• Nonetheless we get into a discussion on rhetoric.
• The discussion on whether the words ‘correct me if I’m wrong’ though the ipsissima verba of the tweet, can be dismissed as irrelevant, a form of rhetoric, or whether they have a genuine semantic function. The term in this thread, 'rhetoric', has been used abusively by several editors here. This is understandable: Cicero and Quintilian aren't on the high school curriculum these days. Rhetoric(al) does not mean 'hot air'. It primarily refers to the art of constructing, and deconstructing arguments, in order to persuade others, which is what everyone does every time they open their mouths, only like Monsieur Jourdain, they don't realize that they are being 'rhetorical'. The use of the word in all instances above is a catachresis, for (a)even a rhetorical question flags a semantic content (b) Blumenthal's words do not take the form of a 'rhetorical question' as repeatedly asserted, but of a '(rhetorical) imperative.

• Rhetorical means (Merriam-Webster)

of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric :(b) employed for rhetorical effect; especially: asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer. Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message.

Epson Salts is engaging in a WP:OR inference in insisting that Blumenthal, in writing for Twitter, did not expect his followers to comment, contrary to the very purpose of a Twitter account for a member of the commentariat, stating one's opinion on a trending topic in an interactive format designed to allow a social network of readers to respond. We have no right to truncate our report of his tweet under the alibi that his intent is known to be purely 'rhetorical', excluding any chance of being corrected. Since the interpretation can go either way, 'empty'/'intended to elicit a corrective response', we cannot impose either reading. A compromise has been given, which leaves interpretation wholly to the reader. WP:OR-based intransigence has no place here.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Blumenthal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223173802/http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-11/gysi-israel-sheen-blumenthal to http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-11/gysi-israel-sheen-Blumenthal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2013, Blumenthal reported from the Za'atari refugee camp in Jordan for The Nation about the conditions in which he purported that Syrian refugees were living." Now, that is memorably tortured prose, making sure the reader knows that Blumenthal is a journalist who is not following the approved line. Wikipedia might be a much more helpful resource if you were to include a little icon at the top of each biographical article, indicating whether the subject is a Good Guy or a Bad Guy. Maybe black and white hats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:617F:C240:0:DC7A:4ED7:AB0C (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change two books to three in opening paragraph Guccibelucci (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRamirez5:, your reasoning for blanking cited text on Blumenthal's use of Venezuela's state-funded Telesur (TV channel) to source a story, please? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing about Telesur in that text. As I explained in the first place, it was WP:UNDUE emphasis on a third party political opinion. Pretty much anything from that Atlantic screed belongs in the "Controversy" section.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPRamirez5 Atlantic screed ? I do not know what that references; please explain. Both sources mention Telesur, and the text you deleted included the sourced mentions of Telesur. Would you like me to translate (or you can run the Spanish article through a translator); I can if needed. It is not "undue emphasis on a third party"; it is Blumenthal citing a source which is well known to a) be state propaganda, of b) the worst type because the lies, as in this case, are designed to incriminate-- and then building the entire premise of the article around a falsehood (the photo). So, if you could explain "atlantic screed", explain where you don't see Telesur, let me know if you want me to translate, we can try to put the pieces together in a way that works. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, GPRamirez5, from your diff above, I think you are responding to the wrong deletion (you made two), and not referencing the deletion I am talking about. I know nothing of the text you deleted at the top; could you please review what you deleted at the bottom of this text? Perhaps we have a misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR better, I'll make it easier for you-- text below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SandyGeorgia, not sure why this was removed. Placing sourced information back.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we have Blumenthal's WP:PRIMARY source with no independent indication of significance, and a secondary source which doesn't mention Blumenthal at all? Do I have that correct? Please include reliable sources which directly support either:

• This one story is significant to understanding Blumenthal
• This photographer's rebuttal is significant to Blumenthal

Without either of these it's not clear why this is being mentioned at all. This is verging on WP:COATRACK territory. We're not here to compile examples of his work, we should summarize what reliable sources say about his work. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Blumenthal wrote it for Telesur as well, including the controversial images. What do you think SandyGeorgia?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the text to reflect the issue raised by Grayfell.[28] (See below, Venezuela 2) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I recommend changing from "Venezuelan journalist Karla Salcedo Flores who claimed that she had taken the photos and said that Telesur had misused her photos for propaganda purposes after the network claimed protesters burned the supply vehicles" → "Venezuelan journalist Karla Salcedo Flores who stated that she had taken the photos and said that Telesur had misused her photos for propaganda purposes after the network reported protesters burned the supply vehicles".----ZiaLater (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There are messes galore in this article. Someone needs to do some basic cleanup and checking and dead link repair. Since most are missing authors or dead links, it's difficult to assess how deep the problems are and how much is primary sourced. [29] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela

Blumenthal wrote an article for Grayzone entitled "Burning Aid: An Interventionist Deception on Colombia-Venezuela Bridge?" about clashes on 23 February 2019 on the Colombia–Venezuela border during the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. In the article, he questioned whether "Sen. Marco Rubio and coup leaders" may have engaged in deception.^[1] He partly based his analysis on what he called photographs from Venezuela's state-run Telesur that allegedly showed an opposition protestor throwing a molotov cocktail at one of the trucks that was burned while attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Venezuela.^[1] Blumenthal wrote: "Telesur reporter Madelein Garcia published photographs showing a guarimbero with a gas canister next to one of the burning trucks."^[1] La Patilla published a series of tweets from Venezuelan journalist Karla Salcedo Flores who claimed that she had taken the photos and said that Telesur had misused her photos for propaganda purposes after the network claimed protesters burned the supply vehicles.^[2] La Patilla reported on tweets where Salcedo Flores said she saw young people with water that they were using to try to douse the flames, not what Telesur was reporting^[2] and what Blumenthal re-reported.

Venezuela 2

Blumenthal wrote an article for Venezuela's state-run Telesur entitled "Quemando la ayuda: ¿un engaño intervencionista en el puente Colombia-Venezuela?" (English: Burning Aid: An Interventionist Deception on Colombia-Venezuela Bridge?) about clashes on 23 February 2019 on the Colombia–Venezuela border during the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. In the article, he questioned whether what he called "Sen. Marco Rubio and coup leaders" may have engaged in deception,^[3] based partly on what he called photographs from Venezuela's state-run Telesur that allegedly showed an opposition protestor throwing a molotov cocktail at a truck that was burned during attempts to deliver humanitarian aid to Venezuela.^[3] Blumenthal wrote in the Telesur article: "Telesur reporter Madelein Garcia published photographs showing a guarimbero with a gas canister next to one of the burning trucks."^[3] La Patilla and other sources published a series of tweets from Venezuelan journalist Karla Salcedo Flores who claimed that she had taken the photos and alleged that her photos were misused for propaganda purposes.^[2][4] La Patilla reported on tweets where Salcedo Flores said that what she saw and photographed was young people with water that they were using to try to douse the flames, not what Telesur reported.^[2]

Incorrect claim

This section is presently false. Blumenthal did not write the article in question for TeleSUR. He wrote the article for his website, The Grayzone, and then TeleSUR later republished it after the fact. It is false to claim he "wrote an article for Venezuela's state-run Telesur," as the article says right now. That is objectively not true. This article needs to be corrected using the "Venezuela 1" draft above. SpiritofIFStone (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times has published a report confirming that what Blumenthal reported at his website The Grayzone was correct: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html This section must now be updated and corrected. SpiritofIFStone (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following information in the lead is consistently being deleted and I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation:

He was awarded the 2014 Lannan Foundation Cultural Freedom Notable Book Award for his book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel.^[1] He was formerly a writer for The Daily Beast, Al Akhbar, and Media Matters for America,^[2] as well as a Fellow of the Nation Institute.^[3] He is the author of three books, one of which, Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party (2009), appeared on The New York Times bestsellers list.^[4][5][6][7]

GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry can't help with an explanation. I didn't understand the various reasons either. It seems like a reasonable biographical summary and I can't fault the sources. I have seen similar lede's on other pages. I think someone mentioned that the Lannan award was in the main body and so didn't need to be in the lede which does not make sense to me. Another comment suggested providing independent sources but again I am not sure what this was referring to.Burrobert (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRamirez5:, when you use refs on a talk page, could you please remember to add ((reflist-talk))? Could you also explain why you keep deleting that Blumenthal was a former writer for AlterNet, while leaving other outlets that he formerly wrote for? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:, I didn't delete him as "a former writer for Alternet". Your formulation had him as a current senior writer at a Alternet, which is false.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing that: [30] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me my liege! That wasn't you, that was ZiaLater who repeatedly reinserted the falsehood.GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in the lead is awkward and mildly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.106.102 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this text for discussion, due to several problems (generally WP:SYNTH:

• • The New York Times subsequently published a report demonstrating that Maduro's forces had not burned the aid convoy, and the opposition militants were to blame.^[1] Glen Greenwald and The Intercept praised Blumenthal for exposing Trump administration "fake news" on Venezuela.^[2]

1. The New York Times mentions neither Blumenthal nor Madeleine Garcia nor Karla Salcedo Flores, and makes no connection with the alleged plagiarized/falsified photo used by Blumenthal/Garcia as alleged by the original photographer, Salcedo Flores.
2. The NYT did not demonstrate anything, they suggested; please read it carefully.
3. Next we have someone "praising" Blumenthal; I don't see "praise", this is not neutrally worded, and the new report, again, makes no mention that Blumenthal's report used an allegedly falsified photo, independently (maybe) of the photos analyzed by the NYT. Apples and oranges here are being used to "praise" Blumenthal, with a good measure of SYNTH that ignores/overlooks the original problem with his reporting, which was the use of an allegedly falsified photo. According to the photojournalist who took the photo.
4. And finally, we don't know if the NYT analyzed different photos, or the allegedly plagiarized photos.

Lots wrong with the lack of neutrality in how these two sentences are written, and since the NYT piece makes NO connection with Blumenthal and the Salcedo Flores matter, it is synth to use it. Please try to re-write these sentences more neutrally and without SYNTH. What the Intercept writes about Blumenthal makes NO connection whatsover to Blumenthal using an allegedgly plagiarized and/or falsified photo, and connecting these two issues via the NYT piece, when the NYT piece does not even discuss this, is SYNTH. Please write more neutrally about what the Intercept says, without synthesizing to connect the two matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is very obviously not WP:SYNTH because:

1. There is no claim here that the Times mentions Blumenthal—that is why there is no reference to Blumenthal in the sentence which cites the Times. It is, however, very germane to the incident which Telesur covered in the previous paragraph.
2. Blumenthal is praised for exposing fake news by Greenwald, as any reasonable person reading the article can see, and it is an accurate summary to say so.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to craft more neutral and less synthy text, reflecting what the NYT actually said, and watch your edit summaries. One thing is Blumenthal reporting from plagiarized, misrepresented photos, and a whole 'nother thing is The Intercept's reporting on Blumenthal. Stick to the facts. Telesur/Blumenthal reported on one image whose author says it was misrepresented; we don't know if the NYT also used that image or knew its history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia, please familiarize yourself with the WP explanatory page “What SYNTH is Not”

You can begin with this section:

SYNTH is not an advocacy tool. If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be.

GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The New York Times subsequently published a report demonstrating that Maduro's forces had not burned the aid convoy, and the opposition militants were to blame. By using the word "subsequently" here, your text linked it to the previous incident. The New York Times did not mention Blumenthal, has nothing to do with Blumenthal's use of the allegedly falsified photo, and doesn't belong in this article. [Glen Greenwald]] and The Intercept praised Blumenthal for exposing Trump administration "fake news" on Venezuela. I suspect that by focusing on the task at hand, you can write a more neutral and accurate summary of the Intercept statements, taking into account our previous knowledge about the allegedly falsified photos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you added the NYT below the plagiarism allegation with the edit summary, "NY Times supports Maduro version", which gives the appearance that you did not recognize that the earlier story is unrelated, and about Blumenthal relying on an allegedly falsified photo. The synth is revealed in this edit summary, where you are trying to connect the two events. Would you like to propose an attempt at neutral wording of The Intercept, or would you prefer that I do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia is citing a couple of obscure Venezuelan opposition newspapers in Spanish that are known for promoting fake news about this incident to imply that Blumenthal is guilty of some sort of misconduct in his entirely accurate reporting on Venezuela (and possibly to reject the findings of the gold-standard RS The New York Times), even though neither of her sources mention Blumenthal AT ALL. She has egregiously violated WP:BLP by forcing these unsourced, scurrilous smears into this article while simultaneously falsely invoking SYNTH in a failed attempt to exclude the fact that Blumenthal's analysis has been proven true. This egregious misconduct, which should be sanctionable, raises massive red flags about what else this extremely prolific editor may be doing to skew Wikipedia's coverage of the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your edit summaries and personalization of discussions; if you have a point, you should be able to make it without personal attacks. I am hoping you will finish fixing the WP:COATRACK that you left in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK is actually a description of what you dumped on the Venezuela section in the first place, Sandy Georgia. And a person who coatracks, falsely cries SYNTH, and violates WP:BLP is demonstrating a pattern of personal behavior that invites strong and justified criticism.GPRamirez5 (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I suggest you to self revert since there are active measures in the article against more than a single revert per 24 hours. You have not provided sources supporting your claim, and even then the edit summary doesn't justify the removal of content since its intent is not to "refute" The New York Times, but rather to show the point of view of one of the parties involved. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is BLP violating WP:SYNTH. We're not going to cherry-pick self-serving statements from primary sources like the Colombian foreign minister with no direct relation to the subject of this article in order to create a pointless "he-said, she-said" quote farm WP:COATRACK in which objective truth is unknowable and politicians and anti-Maduro activists are given equal weight to RS like The New York Times. You're embarrassing yourself and your cause with this behavior. "You have not provided sources supporting your claim." What are you talking about? You're the one making a claim; that's why you added a source to the article. According to Google translate, this is what your own source states:

The Colombian Foreign Minister, Carlos Holmes Trujillo, denied on Tuesday March 12 that his government manipulated a video that picked up the fire from a convoy with humanitarian aid to Venezuela and insisted that everything happened on 23 February was the responsibility of the Executive of Nicolás Maduro, reviewed EFE.

"Absolute falsehood," Trujillo said when asked about an information in the New York Times, according to which a video of the incident distributed by Colombia would be manipulated, by removing a part that indicates that the fire could be caused by demonstrators from the opposition.

According to the Colombian minister, "everything that happened that day is a consequence of the dictator Maduro [bold in original], the usurper Maduro, prevented by violence that Venezuela's humanitarian aid needed by thousands and thousands of Venezuelan brothers," said the note.

Are you hoping that no-one will check Spanish-language sources to see if you are accurately summarizing them? Either way, you can get off on a technicality because your edit, while misleading, doesn't actually say that Trujillo says that Maduro's troops started the fire: Something that Trujillo was rather careful not to say, and doubtless would have said if he could still say it. Or will you protest that my analysis of this primary source is itself WP:OR? Editorial discretion is permitted on talk pages, but in any case that's why you shouldn't be wading through primary-sourced propaganda to synthesize an alternative narrative to that found in RS.

tl;dr? A government official crying "fake news!" at RS isn't notable. We don't need "Colombia's response" to factual reporting, except possibly when it comes to the assertion that Colombia's government edited the footage, which was not made by Blumenthal and can possibly be omitted altogether.

But, yeah, since you're threatening sanctions based on technicalities, I can let this poorly-sourced, disputed content that you are edit warring into a BLP without consensus sit for another hour. We'll see how well that works out for you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Geez, was that overly aggressive tone really needed? Things such as "You're embarrassing yourself" and "you shouldn't be wading through primary-sourced propaganda" are out of line. Claiming that I have a "cause" or an ulterior motive for editing, or that I "hoped that no-one would check Spanish-language sources", isn't helpful either. You're clearly not assuming good faith and I would ask that you please don't personalize messages in the future. Several guidelines have been quoted and most of them aren't precisely accurate. I'm not sure why BLP is being cited since there aren't particularly defamatory or even negative claims against Blumenthal, and the content in question is sourced. This doesn't seem to be a case of WP:SYNTH because there not a conclusion being drawn directly from the reference, and neither of WP:COATRACK because the content included is directly related to the paragraph, besides that it would constitute only a minority of it.

That being said, the most important thing is that you have not explained why the reference provided is an unreliable or a primary source, unless you mean that the NYT is "more" reliable than El Pitazo and because of that it shouldn't be included. Neither have you explained why quoting a government official isn't notable. Only a single statement is being included per WP:NPOV, far from a "'he-said, she-said' quote farm WP:COATRACK" or referencing every single "politician or anti-Maduro activist". Juan Guaidó was also asked about the NYT and he responded that the article didn't provide a definite conclusion and that three trucks were burned that day, while the article only focuses in a single one, but in my opinion quoting him in the main space would truly be coatracking.

The addition main purpose is to show that a party involved in the event refuted the claims, nothing more. NTN24, the outlet whose journalist first made the claim that Maduro burned the aid, offered a rebuttal too. We could work out the wording, but it isn't a reason to remove all the content, edit war or insult. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesz42, it seems to me that your proposed edit—"However, Colombian foreign minister Carlos Holmes Trujillo rejected the claims by The New York Times and insisted that Nicolás Maduro was responsible"–is an overly broad summary that misrepresents the primary thrust of your own source by implying that Trujillo produced a substantive refutation of the reporting in The New York Times. To the contrary, as quoted above, Trujillo strongly denied that his government edited the footage, calling it "absolute falsehood," and then added that Maduro was ultimately responsible for whatever happened that day either way—a meaningless and unfalsifiable bit of political spin that adds no encyclopedic value to this article. Because your addition is SYNTH (which hardly reduces your WP:BURDEN to gain consensus before reinstating disputed content to a BLP) it may be possible for you to deny the implication, but you are clearly trying to discredit Blumenthal's reporting as well as that of the NYT with this official statement from a government with a huge ax to grind against Venezuela, even though there is no "controversy" here in RS: You have not provided any RS that refute the NYT and Blumenthal, and I assume that you would not be relying on vague talking points supplied by the Colombian foreign minister if you could cite RS instead, yet you seek to diminish the RS reporting on this incident by reducing it to mere "claims," followed by counter-claims. If this precedent is accepted, then the floodgates would be open and it is likely that the entire section and article would devolve into an unencyclopedic "he said, she said" QUOTEFARM imparting no useful information to readers in relatively short order.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Once again I'd ask to stop personalization and not to assume bad faith against me and not to claim that I'm "clearly trying to discredit Blumenthal's reporting" or the NYT's, my additions have been only according to WP:NPOV and they aren't attacks in any way. I included the NTN24 article that I mentioned, hoping that the original outlet that reported on the burning trucks is considered a RS. Cheers. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your new source (the reliability of which is very much in question after this incident) is a three-paragraph-long summary of the NYT report in Spanish, based on no new investigative reporting. Nothing in this source (besides the title "Is the New York Times version of the burning of humanitarian aid believable?," which does not reflect the body of the text) even questions, let alone "rebuts," the NYT's conclusions. I'm honestly not sure how you could think that your description of this source as "a rebuttal to the New York Times article" is accurate. It's just a short summary ("The New York Times ignites the controversy in Venezuela by ridding Nicolás Maduro's regime of blame for the burning of humanitarian aid on February 23, when they tried to enter the country's trucks with food and medicine and Maduro ordered the blockade blocked. An investigation by the US newspaper suggests that the fire was accidentally generated by demonstrators affected by the interim president, Juan Guaidó," per Google Translate) combined with a small amount of political commentary/spin at the end. Assuming good faith, I would have to assume that you are basing your description on the one sentence that repeats the familiar talking point that "whatever happened, Maduro is still ultimately to blame"—or, as the source puts it, "The truth is that Maduro kept his promise not to let humanitarian aid into Venezuela, making a security deployment at the border posts with the Bolivarian National Police and the so-called collectives"—but this, again, does not constitute a meaningful "rebuttal" to highly-reliable NYT reporting.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my edit summary, the reference consists in a 48 minute long special produced by NTN24, far from the "three-paragraph-long summary". --Jamez42 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC): Now Jamez42 is saying that the "rebuttal" is actually contained in an attached 48-minute-long video in Spanish, rather than the text in question. It's impossible for me to verify this claim, although there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of both Jamez42 and Venezuelan opposition media such as NTN24 with a history of promoting fake news about this incident. What seems beyond dispute is that none of this has anything to do with Max Blumenthal, ostensibly the subject of this BLP, because the alleged "rebuttals" by the Colombian foreign minister and NTN24 do not mention Blumenthal and because Jamez42 stated above that he is not citing them in order to discredit Blumenthal's reporting on Venezuela (which would be SYNTH). To the contrary, Jamez42 maintains that since this article cites Greenwald as commenting that the NYT vindicates Blumenthal, it should also include other notable commentary on the NYT article in question, including from Venezuelan opposition media that initially misreported these events. In my opinion, this would be wrong on multiple levels: First, even the NYT would not be cited here without a secondary source (The Intercept) tying it to Blumenthal (and even with a secondary source, Jamez42's frequent collaborator SandyGeorgia still tried to keep it out by crying SYNTH); why, then, should NTN24's alleged "rebuttal" be included without a secondary source mentioning it in relation to Blumenthal's reporting? Furthermore, it really is farcical to suggest that, under Wikipedia policy, NTN24 is considered to occupy the same elite tier of reliable sources as The New York Times, or that there's an honest "debate" about whether tear gas is more likely to ignite a huge fire than Molotov cocktails. In sum: Keep it out.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding the last words was unnecessary. I never claimed that the response was in the text per se in the first place. I referenced directly NTN24 per WP:RS, but if you can't access the video through the article this is the YouTube link included: ¿Es creíble la versión del New York Times sobre la quema de la ayuda humanitaria?. As I have mentioned before, NTN24 was the first outlet to report the burning of the aid, regardless of the motives stated, which is why said important weight has been given to it. After all the details provided in the original Grayzone and the addition of another's claim that the NYT vindicated Blumenthal's article, per WP:NPOV it's advisable that at the very least it is shown that the current version has still been questioned. I changed the wording in an effort to improve neutrality. If you believe that NTN24 does not meet the reliability requirements per the Wikipedia policy, I think the best venue is that you request for a comment at the reliable sources noticeboard.--Jamez42 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a NPOV justification if the subject of this article were the burning of the aid truck. However, the subject of this article is Max Blumenthal. If there is no direct connection to him, it doesn't belong here.GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRamirez5: The edit is a counter view that the NYT vindicated Blumenthal's article, so WP:NPOV still applies. Seeing the insistence to revert even when changes have been suggested remind me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and seeing both the edit history and the talk page of the article, a violation of WP:OWN. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Could you please offer an answer too? WP:BLP explains, bolding in its main page, that information about living persons (original bold), while the information added is regarding a Blumenthal's report, not to say that the information is not poorly sourced, neither does it have libelous material. Quoting that BLP applies here is, in a way, admitting that the information is related to the article. Again, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for not including the content. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez42, I have not explicitly alleged that your edits to this article violate BLP; I have only expressed the view that your reverts are rather trigger-happy for someone who is editing a BLP that is also subject to AE sanctions. The WP:ONUS to gain consensus for disputed content would remain even in the case of an article where such restrictions were irrelevant, but one might expect that you would be on your best behavior here. I genuinely do not see how you could consider the comments above by GPRamirez5 and myself to be ambiguous, in need of further clarification, or consistent with your latest revert, citing this discussion. Until there is consensus on the talk page that a rebuttal to the The New York Times is necessary to achieve NPOV, I would strongly advise you not to restore such a rebuttal for a fifth time (or a third time in the case of the specific NTN24 source that you are currently citing). While WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to exclude content from any article, including a BLP, without a source connecting your proposed addition to Max Blumenthal it is difficult to see why you are so insistent on restoring it; WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid rationale for inclusion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I feel there's effectively a deadlock currently. I think that the best option at the moment is asking for a dispute resolution. What do you think? --Jamez42 (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRamirez5 and TheTimesAreAChanging: From what I've seen, all of your edits in the articles have either been to keep a preferred version or to just disagree with a point of view, without helping to improve the page, effectively stonewalling. This is the case even with the latest addition, which has had three different versions already. Once again I ask you to please participate in the dispute resolution discussion, since I have started it to prevent edit warring. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the discussion has already been closed precisely because no answer was given in 72 hours, even with proper notice. If an argument isn't provided in the following 24 hours, I'll restore to the latest proposed addition. Discussion should not stall proposed changes and improvements, specially when there's no sign of willingness to continue such discussion. Different versions have been proposed per the guidelines and policies cited, and further comments have also been received respective counter-arguments. Therefore, I ask for an explanation for keeping the status quo from the latest suggestion or to start again another dispute resolution discussion. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"From what I've seen, all of your edits in the articles have either been to keep a preferred version or to just disagree with a point of view, without helping to improve the page, effectively stonewalling." You've got it exactly backwards User:Jamez42. The WP:ONUS is not on us, it is on you to convince and build consensus. You have failed to do that.

I expect you will continue to fail because your entire claim of relevancy is so weak it can't be justified. Your grasping use of sourcing and leaps of logic cannot help. If you cite a source that says Jewish men are circumcised and attempt to link that to Max Blumenthal because, after all, he is Jewish and therefore likely circumcised, that is not a worthy addition to the article no matter how many different ways you write it. GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRamirez5: Yes, I'm already familiarized with WP:ONUS, and my addition is verifiable information from a reliable source. Having already cited guidelines and policies, saying that my "claim of relevancy it's so weak it can't be justified", and that my "grasping use of sourcing and leaps of logic cannot help" it's just near another personal attack, so I'll ask once more to stop the insults. Do you disagree that NTN24 is a reliable source? Please argue why. I am committing logical fallacies or contradictions? Please point them out, but don't accuse me baselessly; making a circumcision is a strawman fallacy and does not refute my points. Why didn't you participate in the dispute resolution discussion, which I opened three days ago and I notified you about, since you want consensus to be built? It takes two to tango.

I'll repeat: the content is a opposite view that the NYT vindicated Blumenthal's article. Quoting Greenwald and saying that The New York Times vindicates Blumenthal's report is arguing that they are related, and thus that it is relevant. I'll make a recap of all the current information in the section:

• • Full description of the Grayzone's article, including the dismissal's of the opposition's theory and citing of Bloomberg News footage
  • Anecdote about similar circumstances in the West Bank
  • Full description of the The New York Times' article,
  • Greenwald's quote assuring that the new vindicated the original report

Having the whole two paragrahs and having established that there's relevancy between the articles, the section is unbalanced while there isn't mention that the version is still disputed, and even more when the first media outlet to report the event published a special on the article. Can you think on a proposal or an alternative rather than keeping a prefer version per WP:OWN? If the content can't be included, at the very least I can propose that all the unnecesary details are trimmed. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll repeat: WP:ONUS.GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPRamirez5:If you read my response, you would know that I'm not claiming that "verifiability guarantee inclusion" and that this time I did not insist on adding sources. I strongly advise you to discuss the questions that I made. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a bit busy lately and felt no urgent need to respond, but that was a fine copyedit. I'd recommend an RfC if you want to establish consensus for including any additional disputed content, as DRN is a broken system and the three of us don't appear likely to change our minds anytime soon. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Venezuela" section: followup to the RfC close

Burrobert (talk · contribs) asked me to comment here since I closed an RfC about the "Venezuela" section.

Here is the sequence of edits:

1. 18:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC): Jamez42 removed the "Venezuela" section, writing, "Removing section per RfC".
2. 01:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC): Burrobert reverted, writing, "My understanding of the RFC is that it refers to the highlighted text at the bottom of the paragraph, not to the whole paragraph itself."
3. 19:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC): Jamez42 replaced the section, writing, "You're right. A shorter version was proposed; including."
4. 02:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC): Burrobert reverted, writing, "The RfC didn't agree to summarising the text. It was a suggestion by one of the participants. Returning the text that was approved by the RfC."
5. 22:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC): Jamez42 reverted, writing, "Is that the only reason why you're reverting? You are the only editor oppossing change along with TheTimesAreAChanging. Two other editors showed support of removing the entire section".

The RfC was about only the bolded text that was proposed to be added after the two paragraphs in the "Venezuela" section that another editor has removed and replaced here. The RfC's conclusion was to reject each proposed addition. The RfC close did not make a judgment on the existence of the "Venezuela" section or the then-wording of the "Venezuela" section since editors were not asked those questions. I recommend creating a new RfC to ask the community two questions:

1. Should the "Venezuela" section be kept or deleted?
2. If the consensus is to keep the "Venezuela" section, which version of the text should be used: this one or this one or a different version?

My reading of the RfC consensus is that there was a clear consensus against adding the bolded text because it was a coatrack. One of the additions the RfC rejected was:

However, Colombian foreign minister Carlos Holmes Trujillo rejected the claims by The New York Times and insisted that Nicolás Maduro was responsible.

Jamez42's edit here condenses the section. The summary has this sentence:

The article suggested the cause was Molotov cocktails thrown by opposition protesters, a claim supported by The New York Times but rejected by Colombian foreign minister Carlos Holmes Trujillo.

The consensus in the RfC was to exclude the mention of Colombian foreign minister Carlos Holmes Trujillo, so I consider the part of the sentence about the claim being "rejected by Colombian foreign minister Carlos Holmes Trujillo" to be a violation of the RfC consensus. I recommend removing this part of the sentence unless and until there is a consensus to include this material. I also recommend restoring the status quo version of the article to this 02:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC) edit by Burrorobert unless and until there is a consensus to change it.

Cunard (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look Cunard (talk · contribs). I think your analysis is accurate. I'll give other editors a chance to comment before making your suggested edits to the disputed text. Burrobert (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Cunard:. I have restored the section per your advice. I would like to start another RfC to clarify this point, but I would be grateful if somebody does it before. Best regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Thank you, Jamez42 (talk · contribs), for restoring the section per my suggestion. I agree that another RfC would be very useful to determine the community consensus on these questions. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As referenced here: https://thegrayzone.com/author/max-blumenthal/ . Can't edit as don't have 500 edits or something Apeholder (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article is locked. The Grayzone is mentioned in the body of the article. I have added a sentence about it to the leading paragraph as well. Burrobert (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Blumenthal is a frequent contributor to Mint Press News. See: https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/max-blumenthal/ Please add this information to the appropriate paragraph under "Career".

The neutrality tag has been in place since July 2019. What issues are unresolved? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history it was placed by Jamez42 with comment "Placing neutrality tag, given the current dispute in the talk page. Will start a RfC shortly". There has been a completed RfC on Venezuela since then so perhaps the issue has been resolved. The Venezuela section seems fine to me but perhaps Jamez42 should have a look and give an opinion. Burrobert (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Jamez42 as they just made a reference to the neutrality tag in an edit summary. @Jamez42: Can you please explain what the current issues on the page are, in your view? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. As I commented in my edit summary, I fell that the Venezuela section currently has unnecessary and excessive details, and it should be mentioned that the first added version was quite different from the current one. There's still an ongoing discussion on wherever to trim the section or not, but there are some improvements that I've thought about doing once it ends.

However, this seems to be a problem in the rest of the sections regarding Syria, Russia and Saudi Arabia, as examples, where they talk more about political positions rather than Blumenthal's actual career or articles. Again, I think these improvements could be done once the RfC ends. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do improvements to Syria, Russia, and Saudi Arabia need to wait until the Venezuela RfC ends? I've noticed some issues with the Russia section in particular as well, which is largely populated by descriptions of attacks on him (e.g., referring to him as a "useful idiot" for Putin, comparing him to InfoWars, etc.). Per WP:BLPBALANCE we should probably avoid giving disproportionate space and undue weight to these smears. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: Please explain this revert of my revert. I reverted your edit because you removed content from the lead and moved it to the body of the article, apparently not noticing that the material is already in the body of the article, only one paragraph above where you copied it to. The article now reads:

Blumenthal's articles and video documentaries have been published in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, The Nation, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Independent Film Channel, Salon, The Real News, Al Jazeera English,[4] Sputnik,[14] and the Columbia Journalism Review.[15] [paragraph break] Blumenthal has written for The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, The Huffington Post, the Independent Film Channel, Salon.com, Al Jazeera English and other publications.[16]

This is hopelessly redundant and can't possibly be construed as an improvement to the article, so I reverted it. In the same edit, you also removed the term "award-winning" from the lead without explaining it. I don't have strong opinions about whether this should be there, but since you didn't give any reason and it's obviously true, I reverted the whole edit.

In your revert, you say: WP:UNDUE and WP:LABEL. The article is already tagged with NPOV, it should be tried to be improved. I don't see how either of the cited policies apply.

1. Please explain why you think summarizing the venues in which Blumenthal has been published is undue in the lead but not undue in the body. Similar material appears in the leads of other articles about journalists, e.g., Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and leads are supposed to summarize the article, which is what the content you removed does.
2. As for "award-winning", I'm not sure how this is a "contentious label", since it's actually a fact, but again, I don't have a strong opinion about including it or not.

I'd also like to say that editing would be more productive if you followed WP:BRD and did not restore your own bold edits after they have been removed—especially when doing so would objectively make the article worse by introducing repetition (as I stated in my edit summary, which you seem not to have read). If you believe a policy is being violated you should explain it clearly on talk rather than just linking the policy page in your edit summary. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "award-winning" is loaded to include in the lead. Even Stephen King, arguably the most prolific writer in the last years, does not have any similar description, and lets the article content to describe his merits, as well as other details in the content.

As of the awards, I did not remove them, but moved them. They were added directly to the lead, and not having said text in the section defeats the whole purpose of a lead to summarize the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: OK, it seems like maybe you don't understand what you did. Please look at the diff of yours that I linked again. You did not remove awards from the lead. You removed the summary of venues in which Blumenthal's work has been published, and his position as a fellow at the Nation Institute. You moved this information to the body of the article, directly below where near-identical material was already found, which had the effect of (a) removing the information from the lead, and (b) repeating near-identical information in the body of the article.

Since this seems to have been a mistake, I'll restore the information to the lead. Please read carefully next time before jumping the gun. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke, you could also have interpreted that instead of saying "I didn't understand what I did". I made a different edit to solve the issue. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for failing to read your mind. Why did you remove the NYT, the Guardian, and other highly-regarded sources that Blumenthal has written for, leaving only the more marginal sources? I don't see the value of this change and think they should be re-added. The lead is short and doesn't need to be trimmed. Also, the wording "was formerly" is also not really verifiable, unless you have a source that says he's terminated his relationship with those sources? The original wording, "has written for" is more accurate. Can you explain why you changed it? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of what you're talking about. Compare these https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Blumenthal&oldid=931707088 two versions and you'll see that the main change was moving statements, while the wording change was just to include "Blumenthal has written for media outlets and publications". I ask you to stop snarky remarks. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that that the "was formerly" wording wasn't yours, sorry. Why did you feel the need to eliminate the mentions of the specific publications he's written for? "Blumenthal has written for several outlets and publications" is a vague statement that says essentially nothing (it's established in the previous paragraph), and is not an improvement over the previous text, which gave specific examples. The lead did not need trimming so it's unclear what problem you were attempting to solve. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the arguments of Cmonghost about and his/recent edits restoring content. Jamez42 please do not keep deleting this material from the WP:LEDE. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I can say is that the lead is the summary of the article, and repeating all of the publications mentioned in the content defeats its purpose; only Sputnik and the Columbia Journalism Review are left out. This is particularly concerning considering the current POV tag. If I may, maybe we can include the three or four most important publications instead of all of them, as a possible alternative. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is particularly concerning considering the current POV tag. You are the one who put the tag there. I don't see why multiple editors disagreeing with what *you* want in the lede are somehow "particularly concerning", because you had previously put the POV tag on the article, and are still not satisfied when the RfC's are showing that editors don't agree with you. Strange. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Doing a quick read across the talk page shows that I'm clearly not the first editor to express POV concerns. If these positions are based policies or guidelines, I don't see which the problem is. It should be mentioned that the RfC is only about the Venezuela section, and a discussion about other sections has not started. I wouldn't mind pinging said editors to know about their arguments, but I don't think it'd be correct per WP:CANVASS. I have made the edit per the proposal, including The New York Times, The Nation, The Guardian and Al Jazeera English as publications examples. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Syria section of this article it states that Blumenthal "started promoting views supportive of Bashar al Assad". Wikipedia does not link to a single article where Max has said supportive things of the Assad government. (and by the way he has criticized the Syrian government for being an authoritarian police state and using Vietnam era weapons to violently put down an insurgency). The difference though between him and many of the western intervention cheerleaders it that he has also criticized the sectarianism of the rebels (who have worked with AQ and ISIS, at different points) and he has criticized the role of the US and other powerful forces in trying to expand and continue the war- reproducing the bloodshed rather than helping to push for peace and compromise. These criticisms have been conflated with "support for Assad" which is so clearly a smear meant to silence him and scare off other people from his work. Wikipedia can do better than this.

Also the page states "Blumenthal had allegedly mocked Syrians for preparing plastic bags to protect against alleged Syrian government chemical weapons attacks." IF you go back and look at the tweet and the context he was mocking international coverage of events in Syria, when it was so clear that media coverage was not critically investigating the chemical weapons attacks and was instead echoing claims made by jihadist and islamist organizations to provoke US military intervention. This whole Syria section is so biased and clearly written by people who support intervention and want to smear this author.

It also states " In 2019, he visited Damascus to take part in a trade union convention. He received criticism from some exiled Syrians for allegedly promoting views that favour Assad during his visit." But here it says nothing about what exactly he was talking about that upset supporters of the rebels. He was writing and tweeting about the role of the sanctions in carrying out collective punishment, blocking fuel, finances, trade, similar to the hybrid wars being carried out on Venezuela and Iran. These page is only referencing the smears of those who criticize him on Syria, but dosnt actually reflect any of the content of his writings on Syria. It also falsely labels him as an Assadist and makes it sound as if his critics have "no ball in the game", so to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some or much of what you say may be true. However, Wikipedia relies on what is written in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources (WP:RS). The tweets and article by Blumenthal are not secondary but WP:PRIMARY. And some of the things you stated that are objectionable appear to have been written in the RS. If you can provide other WP:RS that disagrees, that can be added. I'm going to parse some of your statement based on this. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Under the Syria section of this article it states that Blumenthal "started promoting views supportive of Bashar al Assad". Wikipedia does not link to a single article where Max has said supportive things of the Assad government.

This article in the New York TimesNY Review of Books calls Blumenthal "an Assad apologist" and says, "Another prominent pro-Assad figure is Max Blumenthal." So the statement is sourced to WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. Is there WP:RS that challenges this assertion? Is there any WP:RS that supports any of the other claims made in the first paragraph? Perhaps, non-American media? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC) [revised 08:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC) per next comment.][reply]

It's actually from the NY Review of Books, and it reads like an opinion piece (e.g., describing things as "maddening", using "unfortunately" in reference to the author's opinion, etc). It should at least be attributed, probably. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I will fix. I agree it should be attributed, ideally to the author of the piece. Can you do it?--David Tornheim (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an opinion piece, that never actually factually validates its claim that Blumenthal is an Assadist, allowed to remain here? This is definitely a smear and does not hold up to Wikipedia standards for defining the totality of how someone feels about a contemporary event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the page states "Blumenthal had allegedly mocked Syrians for preparing plastic bags to protect against alleged Syrian government chemical weapons attacks. This was sourced to this article in The Jerusalem Post, a periodical that I am not familiar. Are you suggesting it is unreliable? That articles lede says "Blumenthal has mocked Syrians in the past for preparing plastic bags to protect against Syrian regime chemical weapons attacks." Is there WP:RS that says this article is in error or gives a different take on the tweets in question? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem post is definitely unreliable source for explaining Blumenthal. He is a top critic of Israeli foreign policy and this newspaper is owned by people directly connected with the Israeli government and takes a very pro-interventionist line for that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IF you go back and look at the tweet and the context he was mocking international coverage of events in Syria,...

Could indeed be true. But, I believe this would be original research, WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SELFPUB. Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR and let me know if you think there is a reason that the original tweet(s) could be added. Can you provide a link to any tweet you think would be worthy of inclusion and the justification for that inclusion? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• when it was so clear that media coverage was not critically investigating the chemical weapons attacks and was instead echoing claims made by jihadist and islamist organizations to provoke US military intervention. This whole Syria section is so biased and clearly written by people who support intervention and want to smear this author.

This may be true, but please see WP:NOTTRUTH. I have noted my concerns about U.S. media bias since I first started editing and the fact that this same media is frequently used as WP:RS: See User:David_Tornheim#Mainstream_Media. Also, please see Media_bias_in_the_United_States, Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Pro-power_and_pro-government_bias, and Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Coverage_of_foreign_issues.

One way to address such bias is to find equal or more reliable sources (e.g. academic journals, experts, etc.) that do not have such a bias or that provide a different viewpoint. Foreign press is acceptable. Do you have WP:RS that says any of what you claim above? That's the best way to address your concern. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• [Third paragraph]

I haven't reviewed the concerns of the third paragraph. Those would likely be addressed in the same way as mentioned above--using reliable sources that support claims you have made. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

question::

Why is Janine di Giovanni quoted to explain Blumenthal's "support for Assad"? Janine di Giovanni does not accurately depict Max's views and instead engages in a smear. This smear is not supported by any evidence. Wikipedia cannot find a single shred of evidence where Max says he supports Assad. So why is this smear left up? So Wikipedia will quote a smear as long as it is cited? Also, now you have a better segment under "Career" referring to Max's history on Syria. However, he did not just "claim" that the White helmets were connected to islamist extremists and Al Nusra, he actually documented it.

The section on Syria under "Career" should be moved down to the part of the text that is actually on Syria. His career spans a huge amount of topics, and how you have it now it makes it appear as if he has focused on Syria, which is not accurate.

Again the sentence "Blumenthal had allegedly mocked Syrians for preparing plastic bags to protect against alleged Syrian government chemical weapons attacks" should be changed to something like "Pro-interventionist Critics of Blumenthal have alleged he has mocked Syrians for preparing plastic bags to protect against alleged Syrian government chemical weapons attacks, when if taken in context he was poking criticism at the mass media's uncritical reporting on chemical weapons attacks." Are you all watching how numerous experts at the OPCW have now come forward challenging the narrative on chemical weapons in Syria? Max is not alone on this, and he has done it in a careful and professional investigative way. You can watch the videos of Aaron Mate at the Grayzone (Max's outlet) where he interviews numerous experts on Chemical weapons and the OPCW controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.197.20 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding OPCW, I found this report from March 2019. Is this the most recent report? No comment on the other issues at this time. I think some of them may have been addressed by another editor. Major changes to the article have taken place in the last couple of days. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean these:

• Maté, Aaron (2019-06-18). "Top scientist slams OPCW leadership for repressing dissenting report on Syria gas attack". The Grayzone. Retrieved 2019-12-27.
• and this video: Newsweek reporter quits after editors block coverage of OPCW Syria scandal, retrieved 2019-12-27

Is there are other material to look at? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found more material from this section:

Talk:Douma_chemical_attack#WikiLeaks

based on ZScarpia's comment below. ZScarpia: Do you have any thoughts on the above? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writers such as Janine di Giovanni have referred to others as Assad-friendly or Assad-apologists when, if you examine their writing, they have been very critical of the Assad regime. Being opposed to attempts by outside governments to engineer regime change in places such as Syria doesn't necessarily make people supporters of the regimes there ("spreading democracy" hasn't worked very well in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and the Ukraine and those doing the spreading have a record of unseating democratic governments in places like Chile and Iran when it suited them). Neutrality means that nothing can be stated as a fact (rather than a point of view) here if other reliable sources contradict it. If there aren't any contradictory reliable sources, I think it becomes legitimate to quote the subjects themselves in order to show that they have expressed views contradictory to those being represented, though care needs to be taken not to do it in such a way that introduces original research or synthesis.     ←   ZScarpia   13:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blumenthal says much the same as the regime about the White Helmets (their claims have been rejected by admissible sources). In September, with his associates, he had access to government-controlled areas of Syria which Assad's critics do not. He was accompanied by the head of the Syrian Solidarity Movement which six years ago organised the visit to the United States by Mother Agnes, another Assadist (read the sources used in her article). The citations other editors object to do use evidence. Of course, Blumenthal is going deny defending the Syrian government, the reverse would not be a wise action, but all Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect multiple points of view. And Blumenthal has become a controversial figure. Philip Cross (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: your reference to this RS/N entry which is nearly a decade old and refers to a disputed Nelson Mandela quote in a 1990 article is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of Commentary. Nor is you assertion that the Bruce Bawer article is "biased" sufficient for its deletion. Blumenthal is a controversial figure who gains a strong reaction and inevitably the article is going to reflect that. Positive mentions of him in RS are a small minority.

You have restored a RT (Russia Today) reference, which especially on international politics (as here, even if the event was in Moscow), is not considered reliable by the editing community. The event four years ago has plenty of good third party sources. I considered the mention of Michael Flynn, and a British politician, off-topic so I removed it. Philip Cross (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To your concerns:

• Commentary (magazine) is a neo-con advocacy magazine [31].
• Bruce Bawer is conservative figure, who is associated with Neo-conservativism. He and the magazine can hardly be objective in commenting on a writer so openly opposed to hawkish neo-conservativism.
• Attendance of Michael Flynn and politician Ken Livingstone (and even Jill Stein) show that attendance at the event is not as controversial or unusual as the articles are trying to make it.
• The quotes on the on the reliability of RT were selective. It also says: "There is no consensus on the reliability of RT (formerly Russia Today)." I think it is safe to say that RT knows who attended their own event. That hardly seems controversial or "international politics".

Let's see what other editors think. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia does not discount sources on the basis of their politics or personal preference, but on the basis of not being a reliable source; an argument better than you have provided on Commentary and Bawer is required. On the basis of the attendees in Moscow, I would read their articles as their inclusion does not benefit Blumenthal (allegedly pro-Putin, etc). Michael Flynn (the case is on appeal) has a conviction for accepting funds from a foreign government without authorization (Turkey), illicit contact with officials from a second government (Russia) and making false statements. Philip Cross (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bawer's opinion piece calling Blumenthal an "idiot" in the way you added it was far WP:UNDUE and hardly WP:NPOV. The piece. If you wanted to put it in a criticism section, that may be okay, especially if the author of the piece is identified as being both conservative and a neo-con. But if you want to include someone with such strong opinions from the right, it seems only fair that for balance you include opinions of the many notable figures who support him, such as Medea Benjamin from Code Pink (e.g. this article)? Right? (For disclosure: I have donated to Code Pink User:David_Tornheim#Code_Pink_and_Medea_Benjamin and am friends with her on Facebook to receive her reporting). Or Maduro himself: [32]. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not normally have "Criticism" sections on NPOV grounds and the labeling you suggest is unsourced and POV. Sources do not need to be "balanced" to be used here. Bawer's article also backed up the "pro-Assad" claim which was a little contentious a few days ago. Incidentally, Bawer's article was not the only source to use the "Useful Idiot" tag in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Bawer is a writer with a reputation for somewhat extreme views.[33][34] Commentary is a magazine with a Neo-conservative bent and a focus on "Jewish affairs". Given their viewpoint, both are obviously going to have fairly partisan opinions about Blumenthal. While that doesn't rule out using them in the article, it begs the question of why you would want to.

Perhaps there's a bit of a double standard in operation here, given that the use of the reporting and commentary of better known writers was objected to in the article on the Douma attack.[35]

    ←   ZScarpia   12:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP is clear regarding the result of the discussion of RT's reliability: RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The quotes on the on the reliability of RT were selective. It also says: "There is no consensus on the reliability of RT (formerly Russia Today)." I think it is safe to say that RT knows who attended their own event. That hardly seems controversial or "international politics". (which I had already written above). --David Tornheim (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A gathering of individuals from the West in Moscow clearly counts as "international politics" on which the perennial sources page is quite clear: don't cite RT.

On the previous issue, personal preferences rather than Wikipedia policy are taking priority here. Only one objection to citing Commentary on RS/N has been located (by David Tornheim above) which applied to one incident thirty years ago, so policy arguments against citing the magazine are weak. The somewhat unsourced page on Bawer on RationalWiki, inferior to the Wikipedia page, would not be accepted here. Philip Cross (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not alone in objecting to Bawer's piece in Commentary. ZScarpia did here.

As I have continually explained [36][37], RT's ability to factually identify who was at the event is hardly controversial or "international politics". --David Tornheim (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse

Philip Cross You have used Pulse for quite a few refs e.g. [38][39]. Please explain why what appears to be a blog and WP:SPS (see https://pulsemedia.org/about/) is WP:RS for this article. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse is co-edited by Dr Idrees Ahmad of the University of Stirling. I believe it can be considered RS. Philip Cross (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Politics

Philip Cross I'd also see your justification of using this opinion piece in New Politics that has the title "troll" is WP:RS. Putting an ad hominem in the title hardly seems like objective reporting. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article you cite says New Politics is an "independent socialist journal" associated with a "'Neither Washington Nor Moscow!' Third Camp, democratic Marxist perspective." Not exactly a conservative/neo-conservative publication then. Unless you consider a list of contributors including Noam Chomsky, Paul Buhle, Cornel West and Howard Zinn to be so. Philip Cross (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip Cross:, @Doug Weller:: Regarding the claims that this award is non-notable [40][41]: The award is not limited to coverage by its sponsor Middle East Monitor, but is also mentioned in other WP:RS and/or by notable organizations:

• Middle East Eye: "Annual Palestine Book Awards shortlist announced in London". Middle East Eye édition française (in French). Retrieved 2019-12-27.
• recognized by Stanford University Press: here
• The Muslim News here
• "'Palestine Book Awards' Gives First-ever Award in Translation Category". & Arablit. 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-12-27.
• attacked by Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law here
• mentioned in culture section of Iran Daily [42]

Hence, I have restored mention of the award. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the research. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section Max_Blumenthal#The_51_Day_War_(2015) lacks WP:NPOV. I did a quick Google search on the book, which shows that the overwhelming majority of reviews of the book are favorable, e.g. L.A. Review of Books, Kirkus Reviews, In these Times. I don't understand why a single negative review should dominate the section. It is WP:UNDUE. It can be removed as WP:UNDUE, or--better--balanced by a representative sample which includes the favorable reviews. I believe the bias tag needs to stay until this section appropriately summarizes the WP:RS reporting on this book. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, the Los Angeles Review of Books and Kirkus Reviews are now cited, although the LARB reviewer commending his treatment of the "resistance", or rather Hamas, is probably not what you had in mind. If articles are not to be overwhelmed by minutiae, it helps to provide claims/evidence of the subject's sympathies. If Blumenthal has said something like "I am ambivalent about/against Hamas", or words to the effect, that could be cited as well. It seems unlikely he has. Philip Cross (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you cite a source like that you have to be WP:NPOV, not to simply add the quotes that you think are most likely to make the subject look bad, inconsistent, etc. It looks a lot like WP:OR. Instead, please summarize what the source says about him, which I am not seeing. I may take this to an WP:NPOV/N because of my concerns that these quotes are not accurately representing the WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are two paragraphs dedicated to the Blumenthal's coverage of the "resistance" in Sonali Kolhatkar's LARB review (and the Israeli response) beginning: "But what sets this reportage apart is the author’s added focus on Palestinian resistance...", from which I drew. A biographical article on Blumenthal is likely to discuss his personal qualities and there are other Wikipedia articles about the war itself in which his work is cited. Citing the reference to "Blumenthal’s urgent prose", or similar, is insubstantial, and much of the review is an outline of the war itself though drawing on the book. Philip Cross (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please cut & paste this under external links:

Wikiquote has quotations related to Max Blumenthal.

Anutherconcerned (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: Not sure what your problem with this quote is [43]. Sure, he's being sarcastic, but that seems to be kind of the point he's making - he's finds it over the top to be lumped with Ali Khamenei. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted as video sources are discouraged. The original rendering mentioned Ayatollah Khomeini, who has been dead for thirty years, rather than Khamenei, which I changed without watching the video (I had problems with my computer speakers at the time.) In fact, Blumenthal clearly says "Khomeini" in the first minute of the video. It is a poor joke (rather the transcription error I believed more likely) which I would suggest shows him in a bad light trivializing the issue of antisemitism. There are many better sources making assertions about Blumenthal's attitude towards (Zionist) Jews currently included in the article, without the need for this one. I am not necessarily referring to Blumenthal, but being Jewish does not mean people cannot be antisemites. I will change Khamenei back to Khomeini. Philip Cross (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]