Talk:Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend

Reliable sources

Are Z-mag and Electronic Intifada WP:RS?Historicist (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's described as "marginal" expecially on political issues [1]Historicist (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing material from Electronic Intifada and Counter Punch and Z Magazine as per WP Reliable source notice board, these sources are reliable for matters of opinion, not for matters of fact as they are used inths article.Historicist (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

and for some reason you are using CAMERA instead as well as using NGO Monitor all over the place? Gotta love the consistency. nableezy - 22:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that CAMERA can be trusted in this particular matter, i.e., reporting on a hoax that, by the organization's own confession, it was fooled by. However, if you think that it is not reliable, then, by all means. remove it too. Do note that my citations of [[NGO Monitor}} are of that organisation's opinions and allegations, not to matters of fact. There can be, no question that Electronic Intifada and Counter Punch and Z Magazine are not WP:RS for questions of fact.Historicist (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I will go through and explicitly cite the info to either the author or the publication for any of the ones you object to. nableezy - 23:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• All of the below are assertions of fact cited to sources that are not WP reliable for assertions of fact. The facts may be true, but you need to find reliable sources for them. Merely making authorship explicit is insufficient in when there are assertions like "was ostensibly published" , "no such letter was published in any of...", "most modern-day renditions omit this "crucial context."" and pretty much everything in between since these are asseritions of fact, not of the author's opinion. Similarly, the first Tim Wise citation: Tim Wise, an independent anti-racism researcher, and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel media watchdog group, have both stated that the letter is a hoax, though they disagree on the extent to which it reflects King's actual views.' is problematic because we are being asked to trust Wise's assertion that "the letter is a hoax" although an essay in Z Magasine is not a WP:RS. I am willing to accept CAMERA because in this case they are accusing themselves of having been hoaxed. And, frankly, because politics aside, CAMERS=A's only job in life is to accuse others of getting the facts wrong and for that reason they check their facts obsessively and are rarely in error. (The bias that makes people who hate Israel hate CAMERA is that they only check facts for the purpose of defending Israel. That, however, does not blind objective observer's to CAMERA's notoriously meticulous fact checking.) Surely there must be other reliable sources for this article Historicist (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• The "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" was ostensibly published in an August 1967 issue of Saturday Review. However, investigations have shown that no such letter was published in any of the four Saturday Review issues released that month.[2][3] The letter was allegedly re-published in This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but no book by that name has ever been located.[2][4]
• Tim Wise suggests that it originated with Marc Schneier, who published portions of it in Shared Dreams: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Jewish Community that year.[2
• Fadi Kiblawi and Will Youmans have questioned the authenticity of Lipset's account. According to their research, a Harvard Crimson article published on April 8, 1968 (after King's death) stated that King had not been to Cambridge since April 23, 1967. Stanford University's archives also show no speeches by King in Cambridge or Boston in 1968.[4]
• The false letter was quoted by Ariel Sharon before the Knesset on January 26, 2005.[7] It has also been cited by the Anti-Defamation League in testimony before the United States House of Representatives.[4] Other prominent individuals quoting the letter include Natan Sharansky (in a November 2003 issue of Commentary) and Mortimer Zuckerman (in a September 2001 issue of U.S. News & World Report).[2][7]
• Tim Wise notes that King "appears never to have made any public comment about Zionism per se." According to Wise, the Lipset quote does not support the "claim that opposition to Zionism was inherently anti-Semitic," and the comment in question may have been limited to the specific circumstances: we "can only speculate" what King might say about the modern-day Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[2] Fadi Kiblawi and Will Youmans suggest that a reliance on King's views in this matter constitutes a fallacious argument from authority, since Middle East issues were not among King's areas of expertise. They also suggest that the Lipset quote, if genuine, was a reply to explicitly anti-white and anti-Semitic militancy of the time, and that most modern-day renditions omit this "crucial context."[4]Historicist (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If the lines are presented as the views of those saying them it is not being presented as fact and the sources are fine. Nearly everything you wrote above is presented as the opinion of the person who wrote it. Your first bullet point is the only one where there is an issue. The rest of the citations are fine. Will fix the first one now. nableezy - 02:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Many of these points are repeated in multiple sources. For example, CAMERA and Wise both mention the Congressional testimony and the letter's first appearance in Schneier's book (although CAMERA is careful not to accuse Schneier of perpetrating the fraud). Sundquist also repeats some points that are sourced to CAMERA or Wise.

By the way, has anybody actually seen Lipset's book, or are we relying on the footnote in Sundquist about what Lipset says on page 7? If so, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google Books displays only a snippet view, but using the search feature indicates that Lipset's book does contain the information cited. See [2] which demonstrates that the "You're talking anti-Semitism" bit is in there. The words "King" and "Cambridge" also are verified to appear on page 7. *** Crotalus *** 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Crotalus, it is good practice to walk to a library before citing fomr google books. Reason is, a snippet may actually lead you into errors that you would not commit if you could see the index, and other pages int he book on the same topic, or read the relevant chapters. You would do us all a favor if you, the author of the article, would read the Lipse book. He may, after all, have written something relevant.Historicist (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sundquist's book, published by Harvard University Press, cites both the Lee Green CAMERA article and the Kiblawi/Youmans EI article as "corroboration of the hoax." A book published by a university press is clearly a WP:RS, and if Sundquist's book considers these articles reliable sources, I think Wikipedia should do the same. We generally don't make categorical rulings that certain sources are always bad — even if CAMERA and EI are not always reliable sources, they appear to be here. If we can't come to a consensus on this page, I would have no objection to discussing this case on WP:RSN. *** Crotalus *** 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hell, I cite sources in all my books that are unreliable as sources of facts, that is part of what scholars do, one cites the work of political activists to establish that the full range of opinion on a ausbject, not because political activists are reliable reporters of fact. Scholarly publishing is not so different from WP:RS.Historicist (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would be fine with removing all the political sources from the article and just citing Sundquist and the general circulation journals. You can take it tot the WP:RSN, but that will not turn Electornic Intifada or Counterpunch into a WP:RS.Historicist (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What are they being used for that is not explicitly citing the author? They are reliable sources for their own views and that is what they are being used for. nableezy - 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On ABC in 1967, after the Six Day War, King said: " I think for the ultimate peace and security of the situation it will probably be necessary for Israel to give up this conquered territory." https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/martin-luther-king-jr-mlk-israel-palestine-1967-video/ 209.55.84.135 (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

1971 citation

Found on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=08htAAAAMAAJ&q=%22When+people+criticize+Zionists+they+mean+Jews%22&dq=%22When+people+criticize+Zionists+they+mean+Jews%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj26OOS5a7SAhXl3YMKHWe8CtkQ6AEIJDAC Proof that it is actually 1971: https://books.google.com/books?id=vQ5CAAAAIAAJ&dq=the+new+left+and+the+jews&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=1971--Simplificationalizer (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

See link #2 above, ostensibly from 1969. A snippet view of a page in Google Books is not a reliable source for anything controversial, though. If professional historians say it wasn't published -- and they do -- I take their word over Google Books snippet view any day. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I looked at this. It is an article of Lipset that matches what Sunquist claims of it. Of course no source reports what comment MLK was supposedly responding to. Zero^talk 11:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Counterpunch / Kiblawi and Youmans

Much of the current article text is currently devoted to the opinions of Kiblawi and Youmans published in Counterpunch (which does not seem to be a RS) in 2004. Neither are particularly notable. Both were student activists. Kiblawi seems to be a practicing lawyer now (not sure), and Will Youmans has done various things (though I wouldn't be sure he'd pass AfD). Using student activists as a source is unreliable and WP:UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain what notability has to do with whether their opinions are relevant. (Hint: Nothing.) Also, please explain why a reliable source is required as a source for an opinion. (Hint: It isn't.) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, rolling with your view, we could insert anyone's opinion to main article space. We typically require that an opinion be important in its own right - either being referred to widely or made by an expert in the field. Treating pro-Palestinian student activists as experts on MLK is a stretch.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

My view? Don't you mean Wikipedia policies and guidelines? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to show why the opinion of these student activists should be included at all, let alone take 20% of the article, and is not WP:UNDUE and is WP:BALASP.Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Their opinions don't take up 20% of the article. I can't reason with people who live in a different reality. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

1600 of 8000 bytes is 20%. diff. This also includes cutting out SYNTH from Harvard Crimson that was connecting an arguement by Kiblawi.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You're insane. Read WP:Readable prose. And BLP applies to talk pages, so please keep your childish opinions to yourself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Surely the BLP's chosen stage name is not a BLP vio if he uses it himself. As for prose length in the diff above it is similar to the byte size diff.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this topic satisfies notability guidelines at all. That is, I don't think this article should exist. Zero^talk 10:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1483
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100519132025/http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/historicalspeeches/344.shtml to http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/historicalspeeches/344.shtml

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Scope of this article

To editor Jaredscribe: This article is about an apocryphal letter. It isn't an article about MLK's attitude to Israel. (Maybe it should be, as that would give it more depth, but until an agreement on that is reached and the article is renamed, it isn't.) There are several problems with your addition. First, you wrote that Lewis "recalled the exchange at the Harvard meeting" but that is not what Lewis wrote. He only wrote that it happened, not that he witnessed it. Such a repetition on trust from somewhere else is commonplace and has no value as an additional source. Second, you added a quote from Lewis' memory that is not about the letter. Lewis does not associate the quote with the letter, so you aren't allowed to associate it either: that is what the policy WP:SYNTH says. All in all, I don't think that any of your addition belongs. Zero^talk 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Reworded: "mentioned" the exchange rather than "recalled" it, since he didn't claim to have witnessed it, as you correctly point out. The Lewis quote is about the subject matter of the letter, and about the verbal exchange at Harvard and the quote from Dr. King that it was allegedly based on.Jaredscribe (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Lots of people "mentioned" it. Why is it notable that Lewis mentioned it? Should we list all the others? The other part is still SYNTH. You can see the difference between what you added and what is cited to Sundquist: in the case of Sundquist it is the source which relates the text of the hoax letter to MLK's views, but in the your case it is you who are making the connection. That's exactly what SYNTH is. You are also not correct: read the hoax letter and Lewis' quote carefully and you will see quite little overlap between them. The Lewis quote is about democracy and security but these are not even mentioned in the hoax letter. Zero^talk 06:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)