Talk:John Mearsheimer/Archives/2014/August

Anti-Semitism

What is this anti-semitism you are discussing here? I did not see that term in the article but here you discuss it. However, no-one bothers to define what they mean by anti-semitism. YOu can not go arround asking people 'this sounds a bit ant-semitic, don't you think?' without explaining what you mean by that. Ho else can I answer you? Or are you yourself at loss with the term, trying to find a meaning for it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 0.0.0.0 (talk • contribs)

Don't you think a comment or two on Mearsheimer's anti-semitism is appropriate? How David Duke applauds his latest screed in the London Review of Books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.10.43 (talk • contribs)

Mearsheimers lastest work is not anti-semetic, not even critical of Israel, only critical of U.S. lobbyists (jews and non-jews) having too much power of U.S. mid-east policy. Just because an anti-semetic like David Duke agrees with it does not make it anti-semetic. Everything book Hitler liked was not Nazist either. A human 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I've actually known Mearsheimer for several years and (although he's clearly not pro-Israel) he's never said anything anti-semitic. I also know several Jewish students who've taken his courses, one of whom has dual citizenship in Israel, and they never said they felt even slightly uncomfortable around him. However, it is appropriate in the article to mention the controversy over his article. Palm_Dogg 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

David Duke approves of Mearsheimer's thesis because it supports his belief that Jews control foreign policy along with the banking system, Hollywood, and the media (did I leave anything out?). Is this factually true? Prove it then. Otherwise its only purpose is to be malicious, to stir up hate and resentment. But I guess thats not anti-semitic, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.92.42 (talk • contribs)

It does not support those ideas. You cannot withhold information because some radicals might use it in their propaganda. A human 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling Mearsheimer an anti-Semite is just as valid as calling Darwin an anti-Semite; both of their works might have been used as justification by bigots and supremacists, but that doesn't make them bigots. ApathyInternational

Strong agree. The paper is not anti-Semite and not anti-Israel. It states for example that the lobby is not some conspirational group (unlike the portrayal of (all) Jews in the Protocols) and that the different groups work quite open and observable. In fact Mearsheimer and Walt mention that it is the full right of any organization to lobby to influence policy and that the Israel lobby is just more effective than other groups (well organized, no pro-Arab lobby groups, no American public interest). Furthermore they just state that the Israel lobby consists of jewish "and" evangelist groups. Sijo Ripa 21:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The following may help clarify this debate. In describing the last of three "surprising weaknesses" of the paper, Eric Alterman writes in The Nation, "Third, while it's fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the NRA, Big Pharma and other powerful lobbies. The authors note this but often seem to forget it. This has the effect of making the Jews who read the paper feel unfairly singled out, and inspires much emotionally driven mishigas in reaction. Do these problems justify the inference that the authors are anti-Semitic? Of course not. " 204.210.35.48 13:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone "notes X but seems to forget it" is just a way of saying "even though they say X, I don't think they believe it, even if I don't have any evidence for this belief." Epstein's Mother (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The mangling of anti-Israel with anti-Semitism is in my view the worst kind of injustice towards Jewish people around the world. Not all Jews support Israel (certainly not this one) nor do they view disapproval of the rogue state's apartheid policies as a form of anti-Semitism. The criticism of Israel typically resonates with anti-Semites and is often abused by them, this however does not mean that criticizing Israel and its policies should be stopped or that anyone who does so is an anti-Semite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.254.222.96 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

I changed the heading of the section from 'Criticism' to 'Defence of [GA]'. It is more descriptive of the content, and more accurate because both Mearsheimer's positive opinion of Atzmon's outlook and his critics response are covered here. The 'Holocaust as religion' claim from Atzmon is backed up by the first citation (and The Wandering Who itself) and provides more information to the reader than the repetition of the word 'antisemitism' and its variants. Philip Cross (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also added the more specific charges of Hitler-apology and Holocaust revisionism, which is not a stretch given that the exact words are taken directly from the article title. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the section is inconsistent with WP:BLPSTYLE. In particular, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject" (my bold) and "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content." Content about Atzmon belongs in his article. This article just needs to say that the subject of this article has been criticized and why without the drama. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The section on Gilad Atzmon's book does not belong on Mearsheimer's page because it has hardly anything to do with his work and grossly misrepresents his position regarding Gilan Atzmon, who is a controversial figure in Britain. Mearsheimer provided a blurb for Atzmon's new book, which simply said the book is "fascinating and provocative." He did not endorse any of the book's arguments and he did not say anything about the author himself or any of his other work. His critics in the Israel lobby, who jump at every opportunity to smear him, have said that his endorsement is evidence that he is an anti-Semite, not to mention a Holocaust denier. These charges, which were made on a handful of websites, are ludicrous and not surprisingly the so-called controversy lasted only a few days. In short, this section is a direct attack on Mearsheimer's person -- it is character assassination -- and is not an assessment of anything of any significance that he has written. Therefore I have removed it. Please comment here before restoring the section.--Jhoman (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The section has to be evened out with Mearsheimer's response but sayign that it's all the evil work of his critics in the Israel lobby doesn't cut it in terms of Wikipedia policy. Do not remove the section but modify. You've also pretty clearly been violating WP:3RR Jhoman. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Undid Jhoman's section blanking. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This section has nothing to do with Mearsheimer's work and does not belong on his page. Beyond that it gives the impression that he holds a position that he clearly does not. Evening out the section would still give legitimacy to a section that is clearly aimed at attacking Mearsheimer's character.Jhoman (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the most that could be done would be one/two sentences saying his comments that Atzmon's book was provocative/etc. were criticized by whom so ever. With appropriate refs. Otherwise it looks like we aren't up to date or are "hiding" something and may lead to constant future edits and reverts. It should be in chrono order in a renamed section called "Israel lobby and Israel" so that section can include all relevant comments without that big ugly subsection title. CarolMooreDC 22:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Agreed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Mearsheimer's reply or replies have to be included to NPOV under BLP. I'm researching the issue right now. CarolMooreDC 01:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Here's one response of his [1] but its specifically in response to Jeffrey Goldberg's commentary on Atzmon endorsement. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is edit warring again. So, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Mearsheimer. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd just point out that contrary to BLPN notice, I am not "determined to include information (attributed to the critics published in a secondary source)." I just figure people are going to try to keep inserting it, so let's just make sure it's done in a proper NPOV fashion (including short), which it currently is not. Material should be removed now and a draft should be done here first. I'm researching the topic right now so cannot opine on all sources available on the topic at this moment or exact proposed wording. CarolMooreDC 13:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not you Carol. :) You aren't edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder on opining vs. editing... too early in the morning for me I guess :-) But can we have an opinion from others on bringing a draft here? Otherwise, in near future I'll put in an NPOV version and then see what happens. CarolMooreDC 14:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This shouldn't need to be said, but is apparently necessary. If something is removed in good faith as a BLP violation, you must get consensus for restoring it. Every single editor who has restored this material absent that consensus has violated the very clear words at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content. Quoting the relevant bit, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. nableezy - 19:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summaries (or lack thereof) of the IPs that have blanked the content, you'll see that these they are not "good-faith BLP objections." The IP users have not stated any objections in their edut summaries or on the talk page; this has just been vandalistic removal of material. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Propose BLP compliant wording here

Per your request have removed because of POV BLP violations. So let's have a proposal that we can discuss. CarolMooreDC 00:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I still maintain that this section does not belong on Mearshimer’s bio page. The issue concerns a short blurb he wrote for The Wandering Who by Gilad Atzmon. He said the book was “fascinating and provocative” and worth reading. That was it.

A few of Atzmon's critics wrote blog posts or pieces on the internet saying that Atzmon is a Holocaust denier and that his book is anti-Semitic, and thus because Mearsheimer blurbed the book, he was also guilty of those sins. Of course, this is not true. He responded to those accusations once on a Foreign Policy blog. In total, there have only been a handful of pieces on the whole matter, almost all on the web. The story has not gotten much traction at all.

I think it is important that the biographical page represent Mearsheimer’s key works and the key events of his life. This blurb is hardly an important issue, as all it was only a few words about another person's book saying that it was “fascinating and provocative.” Second, the “controversy” surrounding the blurb was clearly an attempt to smear Mearsheimer and make him look like an anti-Semite. Of course, there is no evidence to support that loathsome charge. Including this section on his page gives legitimacy to something that began as an attack based on no factual support.

I strongly suggest we leave the section down. --Jhoman (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I think it's worth mentioning is because Israeli partisans will keep coming here for year writing nasty versions like the one removed, so it's better to pre-empt them with an NPOV version. Let's see if anyone writes one. I'm not motivated now but may be when get around to working on that part of the Atzmon article. CarolMooreDC 21:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jhoman is entitled to his opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Mearsheimer&action=edit&section=13 regarding criticism of Mearsheimer's blurb for Gilad Atzmon's new book. However, if this criticism is found in reliable sources, then editors are free to include NPOV versions of them in Wikipedia. Jhoman may believe that such criticisms are misplaced (or are part of some nefarious scheme to "smear" Mearsheimer), but this alone is not a sufficient reason to prevent this issue from being included in this article.

And for the record, the word "fascinating" means "extremely interesting or charming" (according to Mr. Merriam-Webster), which can certainly be interpreted as an endorsement or approval of something. Given the tone and content of Atzmon's book - (i.e. “[T]o be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order” (p.20) and this commitment “pulls more and more Jews into an obscure, dangerous and unethical fellowship” (p.21); that "The history of Jewish persecution is a myth, and if there was any persecution the Jews brought it on themselves." (p.175, 182); and that "Israel and Zionism … have instituted the plunder promised by the Hebrew God in the Judaic holy scriptures”(p.121)) - it is not surprising that people may question what exactly is "extremely interesting or charming" about a book that makes such claims and why Mearsheimer would go out of his way to describe it as such and encourage others to read it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Agreed w/ HyperionSteel arguments based on WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. We should definitely be aware of WP:Undue concerns but that doesn't preclude this information from being included. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just produce a draft that reasonable Wikipedians - here and/or at WP:BLPN - would consider NPOV per ths section's subject heading. CarolMooreDC 00:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What if we added this below the text that was most recently removed?

Mearsheimer argues that Atzmon has written a “provocative” book, but that he is neither a Holocaust denier nor an anti-Semite. Indeed, Atzmon talks movingly in his book about growing up in Israel among Holocaust survivors. Mearsheimer says the book tells a “fascinating” story about a man who grew up in Israel as a hardcore right-winger and became a fierce critic of Jewish identity politics, not Judaism or Jewish people. Mearsheimer maintains that all of this commotion about a short blurb in which he does not endorse any of Atzmon’s arguments is part of a longstanding effort to smear him for writing critically about the Israel lobby. One critic of Dershowitz’s attack on Mearsheimer said it “fits perfectly in his greater narrative of preventing any criticisms of Israeli policies. The New York Sun published an article on March 24, 2006, in which Dershowitz declared that a substantial part of The Israel Lobby, a joint collaboration between Mearsheimer and Harvard Professor Stephen Walt, was lifted from neo-Nazi websites. According to a Harvard Crimson article from the same year, Dershowitz has also labeled both Mearsheimer and Walt as ‘liars’ and ‘bigots.’ Both of these incidents occurred long before the recent endorsement.”--Jhoman (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably good to discuss who section we want to add and then make the whole thing shorter :-) CarolMooreDC 16:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I can merge and shorten the two paragraphs. I'm a little tied up due to the holiday, but should be able to get it done in a day or two. Anyone know how I can view the paragraph that was most recently taken down? Thanks. --Jhoman (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at history. Click either the version you want to look at or the diff. If you don't understand, just click away til you figure it out. :-)

What do we think about this? Once we agree on the language, I can add references, unless you would rather have them now, but should be the standard fare. I feel like this includes both sides, but does not favor either.

"Mearsheimer has been criticized for his October 2011 endorsement of the book The Wandering Who by Gilad Atzmon. Political commentator Alan Dershowitz said the book crossed the line from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism and challenged "Mearsheimer…to a debate on whether [he has] endorsed an anti-Semitic book." Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League said the endorsement of the book revealed what he knew--that Mearsheimer is an anti-Semite.

"Mearsheimer responded that his blurb has been misrepresented as have many of Atzmon's arguments. He simply said that The Wandering Who is a "fascinating and provocative" story about a man who grew up in Israel as a hardcore right-winger and became a fierce critic of Jewish identity politics, not Judaism or Jewish people. He did not endorse any of Atzmon's arguments. Mearsheimer maintains that this controversy is part of a longstanding effort to smear him for writing critically about the Israel lobby. One critic of Dershowitz’s attack “fits perfectly in his greater narrative of preventing any criticisms of Israeli policies” as well as with his past attacks on Mearsheimer and his co-author, Stephen Walt." --Jhoman (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mearsheimer did more than just write a blurb, as was linked to above he wrote a long, elaborate defense of Atzmon, including (incorrectly) absolving him of Holocaust denial and anti-semitism and excusing Atzmon's Jew-hatred while simultaneously accepting his claim regarding "the tribalism that he believes is common to most Jews" (Mearsheimer adds, in contrast to Atzmon's views, that tribalism is a universal trait, unfortunately Atzmon disagrees and considers Jews "separate from humanity".) and railing against the "Jewish establishment" http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/25/mearsheimer_responds_to_goldbergs_latest_smear Drsmoo (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Undue on Future of Palestine

Given the article links to the speech which has this subject in its title, two paragraphs on the topic of Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners is WP:Undue. One sentence saying that he actually makes such a distinction so that people who care can go read about it is more than sufficient. CarolMooreDC 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree although I think the section should just provide a summary of his speech rather than pick one aspect of it. When I first saw the section it was basically just a list of people. This struck me as odd. So, I tried to rewrite the section to summarize the main points of the speech removing the named people. I removed the named people because, as Mearsheimer makes clear, they are simply provided as representative example instances of notable people from much larger sets of people in order to illustrate the nature of the sets. Mearsheimer's analysis is about what the sets will do in the future and, if we are talking about what is notable, in his anaysis, it's the "great ambivalent middle", the set with no examples that matters in his story. Furthermore, I don't know why a partisan opinion piece by Petra Marquardt-Bigman that adds no value at all is being used as a reference. A reference for what ? Sources like that can't be used to source facts about anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that his listing of prominent Jewish Americans into righteous and "new Afrikaners" is certainly notable enough to be included. He provides a specific list and names names (which is extremely bold). Since the term "Afrikaners" is extremely perjorative, his listing of numerous prominent Jewish Americans as such is certainly notable. As for the opinion piece, which is indeed partisan (as opinion pieces about the Israel/Palestine conflict tend to be), it is only being cited because it mentions Mearsheimer's speech (and criticises his the labels he applies) - the facts of this section are not in doubt. In any event, I will add new citations that mention Mearsheimer's speech (and list).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Please re-read WP:Coatrack: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject...Enforcement of the policies on biographies of living individuals and what Wikipedia is not makes it clear that "coatrack" articles are a particularly pressing problem where living individuals are concerned. Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. In either case the article should be corrected. The coatrack is to use Wikipedia to punish those who too explicitly criticize Israel or its most vehement supporters; WP:undue = excessive focus. We all know that any time anyone is too critical of these groups 20 "WP:RS" will jump up and scream bloody murder. But wikipedia IS NOT a place for such advocacy. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. A short mention of controversy, sure, full scale quoting and 11 footnotes, many from advocacy groups. I don't think so. CarolMooreDC 05:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Earlier, there was concern that this item wasn't notable and/or wasn't widely discussed (initially this only cited the speech itself and one other link). I included these citations to show that it is indeed notable and widely discussed. For the record, one of the references I included supports Mearsheimer (the MPACUK). If you want to add additional references which support Mearsheimer, please do so (I will look for some myself). The only source which that contains material cited in the article was Martin Peretz's response to Mearsheimer (because Mearsheimer included him on his list of anti-Righteous Jews). The rest of these citations are simply references - this does not mean they are endorsed by Wikipedia, and are not a coatrack. The actual Wikipedia article (aside from Meretz's response) is unchanged. The fact is that Mearsheimer's classification of Jews into "Righteous" and "New Afrikaners" has drawn criticism, and this should be reflected in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Length of quotes and overlinking ad nauseum to highly partisan individuals and/or advocacy groups is what makes it WP:Undue. In next few days hopefully I'll have a chance to NPOV the article in a couple places. CarolMooreDC 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Its true that eleven citations may be too much (this number can be reduced). The point I was trying to make was that this issue is significant, which is why it deserves several paragraphs.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

The first and last sentence of Peretz paragraph are more than enough to balance as much as really needs to be here anyway. People can follow the link. Otherwise rather it's just WP:Undue advocacy propaganda. And the listing of names itself could be seen as propaganda either way, which probably is why Goodwinsands deleted it and one reason I deleted it. It's significant he named names and started a debate, but not enough for that large a percentage of the article. CarolMooreDC 14:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the listing of names propaganda? In his speech, Mearsheimer openly lists a number of very prominent Jewish Americans as either "Righteous" or "New Afrikaners." How is the material cited in this article (which quotes directly from his speech) propaganda? What is being presented as one-sided, or being taken out-of-context (let alone being inaccurate, libelous, etc.)? It's true that his labelling of many prominent Jewish Americans with what many consider to be an extremely derogatory term may not reflect positively on him, but that alone is not propaganda, nor is it a reason to keep it out of Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

<- Enough. It's gone, all the names, all the links that don't verify content and the randomly chosen response. If any of this content is to be restored there must be consensus, actual consensus, not consensus would be nice but I'll restore it in the meantime while we talk about it. As far as I can tell there is only one editor pressing for the inclusion of this material. Editors can't act unilaterally when the objections raised are reasonable. There is a disagreement about this content. This is a BLP so the issue needs to be resolved on the talk page and the content agreed. It can stay out in the meantime. There's no deadline. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Propose BLP compliant wording here

Agreed with above. Repeated refusal to try to consense on the talk page and just putting back disputed edited is known as edit warring. CarolMooreDC 16:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat my previous question - how is citing his naming of promient Jewish Americans as "New Afrikaners" a BLP violation? The source is his own speech in which he specifically names people using what many consider to be a very derogatory term. I would argue this is extremely notable (and the number of links discussing this issue indicate that it is an important topic). I'm not suggesting that we clutter this section with criticism of his remarks, but rather that the remarks themselves are properly laid out.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

I wonder, shouldn't we agree on BLP compliant language here before restoring a section? It seems like there are a number of folks who disagree with the language and only one who supports it. I, for one, think the language before Hyperionsteel's additions was more than sufficient. --Jhoman (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All I did was cite (from Mearsheimer's own words) the specific Jewish "businessmen," "media personalities" and "individuals who head the Israel lobby’s major organizations" that are included in Mearsheimer's "list." These are his own words. Furthermore, the fact that his list includes some (actually many) of the most prominent Jews in the United States is certainly notable. How is this a BLP violation?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

I understand your position. However, I do think it makes sense to have a consensus here before restoring the section. It would be great to have some input from some of the other folks who had issues with this section so we could move forward.--Jhoman (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Coming back a month later it's hard to keep track/wade through past talk. What's the edit in question (diff) and is it still in there? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 14:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is whether or not any of the specific Jewish Americans that Mearsheimer includes in his "list" of "New Afrikaners" should be included in this article. My position is that including these names is not a BLP violation nor is it a "smear" against Mearsheimer, as these are Mearsheimer's own words. Likewise, Mearsheimer's characterization of numerous prominent Jewish Americans as "New Afrikaners" is certainable notable, at least in my opinion. But getting back to the main issue, how exactly does including the specific names Mearsheimer cites constitute a BLP violation?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC))