Talk:Phyllis Chesler/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Advertisement tag

As of 3 August 2011, much of this article is written in promotional terms, in the manner of an advertisement. There is an undue reliance of promotional blurbs for literary reviews, a questionable use of other sources to bolster Chesler's credentials, and an undue emphasis on some of Chesler's media appearances. What's worse, much of the commentary about Chesler is written in accordance with her own POV (e.g., describing CNN as "liberal media").

I've tried to deal with this article in a piecemeal fashion, but there are so many problems with the current draft that an "advertisement" tag seems impossible to avoid. This article needs to be fixed, and soon. CJCurrie (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing the advertisement tag

If this page looks like an advertisement, it is only because Chesler has so many accomplishments and because so many other scholars and writers have praised her work. I took the liberty of looking at a comparable page, that of Tony Judt. Even though Tony Judt's work was highly controversial, the page includes no criticism of his work at all--yet that page has not been tagged as an "advertisement," nor has its neutrality been disputed. Could it be because Tony Judt was a left-liberal and a known anti-Zionist? Can CJCurrie have a political bias that is clouding her judgment?

I also recommend that you look at the pages of Judith Butler, Edward Said, and Norman Finkelstein, all scholars who have gotten away with clear NPOV violations because, unlike Chesler, they are anti-Israel. Said’s article is 85% praise, is written from Said’s own POV, and allows only 15% of the article to cover criticism. Judith Butler’s entry also has 86% praise and only 14% covers criticism of her views—but not criticism of her views on Israel. Norman Finkelstein’s entry has only 8% criticism and 92% praise. Even though his combat with those who have challenged his views is covered here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, Finkelstein is presented as a victim and the POV of the presentation of those who challenge him is Finkelstein’s POV, not neutral. ZaraF (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To expand on this point, I recommend taking a look at Daniel Pipes's Wikipedia page. According to my estimates, 40% of the article is either directly or indirectly critical of his work. This is because he is pro-Israel and opposed to--you guessed it--Islamic gender apartheid. ZaraF (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ZaraF, I have no interest in judging the overall merits of the Judt, Butler, Said, Finkelstein, and Pipes pages in the context of this discussion. I will simply remark that none of those pages is overloaded with hyperbolic praise, as Chesler's article currently is. (I have no idea where you're getting those percentage figures from, btw -- I'd have a hard time believing that Finkelstein's page is "92% praise.")

You have written, "If this page looks like an advertisement, it is only because Chesler has so many accomplishments and because so many other scholars and writers have praised her work." I realize that Chesler is a prolific author, and I don't have any objection to noting her literary accompishments or indicating the critical praise her work has received. I do object to including voluminous clippings of favourable reviews, particularly when some of these are taken from jacket blurbs. I also object to the fact that much of the article's prose is written in a way that bolster's Chesler's POV. Unless these matters are corrected, the page will remain an advertisement.

I would also encourage you to stick to the discussion at hand, rather than suggesting (on the basis of five biographical articles) that there is an anti-Israel bias on the project. CJCurrie (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

CJCurrie has demanded a more critical approach to the issues raised by Chesler’s work and I have begun to drop in precisely such criticism and challenges. I do not understand why CJCurrie keeps disappearing the very criticism for which she has called. by ZaraF

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.1.162 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 

I don't know what ZaraF is referring to here. In any event, I've made a number of adjustments to the article, removing some extremely biased paragraphs (some of which used Chesler's books to represent the views of her opponents, an open door to strawman arguments if ever there was one) and adding some content that summarizes Chesler's views in a clear, NPOV way. I've also removed a reference to various countries that Chesler has written about, as this fact is not of encyclopedic significance. (This is something I should have done a while ago.)

I would strongly encourage all contributing editors to familiarize themselves with the principles of WP:NPOV and to refrain from padding this article with promotional text ("Chesler and others have pointed out that the face veil is not religiously mandated," "Chesler has shown that honor killings are not the same as Western domestic violence and has explained that if we fail to understand this specific kind of violence (etc.)".) We have an obligation to fairly represent Chesler's views, not to promote them.

This page still has serious problems; let's not compound them. CJCurrie (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The author's reaction to her Wikipedia page

This entry has now been called to my attention. I find it misleading and strange to cite how my work has been reviewed mainly and only in Canada, specifically in Toronto, and in the 1970s. I see that someone must have deleted some of this Toronto-specific material, but for the record please allow me to note that my work has been reviewed and I have been interviewed around the world in Asia, the Middle East, South America, Australia and New Zealand, more than ten countries in Europe, in at least 30-40 American states, and from coast to coast in Canada. I must assume that CJCurrie mainly has access to the Toronto media, but Wikipedia readers are entitled to a more accurate and global approach. By choosing articles that may present me personally as "strident" or in some way too radical, CJCurrie sidesteps the vital issues that my work deals with. Phyllischesler (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Your critique is well taken.

Sources are generally needed, especially sources that are third-party and secondary. One result is that an editor may know something to be true but often finding a source for that information can be time-consuming even for the knowledgeable. Since editors have many reasons for editing and Wikipedia mostly does not assign editing to anyone, the wish to add a fact is often held up by the need to find a supporting source, especially when the fact is likelier to be challenged, and that's especially likely when the general subject of an article is often controverted. Self-published statements and primary sources can sometimes be used but only within tighter limits.

Articles have a length limit of about 100 KiB (roughly 14,000 words of common English, not counting formatting, linking, and whatnot) and within that there should be a balance of what's important. Articles can link to other articles, including subarticles on separately notable subjects.

Neutrality is required of an article (not of sources or editors), so some criticisms, if published elsewhere, typically belong, albeit usually not as a dominant share of an article and with a balance of what's important.

You're welcome to edit, with caveats that an article may not be owned (in the sense of 'controlled') by any editor or group and edits by an editor with a conflict of interest (COI) are generally allowed but subject to closer scrutiny (an editor with a COI can post a proposed edit on an article's talk page for another editor's consideration). The same caveats apply if an aide or associate of yours edits. A COI should be declared on the talk page of any relevant article (such as here) because transparency helps credibility. As an editor, you can also create a user page for yourself and state qualifications you'd like Wikipedians to know, but you don't have to, and many editors prefer privacy (to start a user page, click on your username at the end of your post above). A user talk page is useful for temporary messages and two-way communication, you can start one by clicking "talk" next to your username above, and, depending on your preferences, if someone posts to your talk page Wikimedia can email you that someone did so, which may be convenient (a user is not given your email address unless you reply to that user).

What I said of ownership in the sense of 'control' differs from ownership of copyright; each editor's edits presumptively remain under copyright and are licensed upon posting by the respective editor as provided in Wikipedia, regardless of one's relationship to the subject of an article. The licensing is named and linked at the bottoms of articles; generally, among other provisions, other people can copy and modify what's posted.

I'm assuming you're the subject of the article. If you're not and you're someone who chose a username that happens to be similar to the subject's, and it isn't coincidentally your real name as well as hers, you may need to change your username, and that probably includes if you're her aide. If you're personally the article's subject, welcome aboard and thanks again.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph explains how subjects of articles may edit. Usually it's confined to correcting errors, taking out objectionable material under WP:BLP policy. If you want more information added, usually it's best to just list it here with WP:Reliable sources references and allow others to do it, to avoid conflict of interest issues and debates which can be more trouble than they are worth. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I-P conflict

I don't have enough knowledge on differences to have a strong view on which phrase should be used, but Wikipedia prefers Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the article is Israeli–Palestinian conflict. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Hello everyone,

I've made a few adjustments to the page; my reasons for doing so follow.

(i) I've removed this line: "Daughter-killing by one’s family of origin is unique to honor killing as is capital punishment for perceived “westernization” or for alleged sexual or marital impropriety." This is presented as a statement of fact, rather than as a position held by Chesler. This seems questionable (I rather doubt that murders resulting from alleged sexual or marital impropriety are unique to "honor killing," for instance). One way or the other, it would require a source.

(ii) I've changed "Chesler has acknowledged that "many honorable feminists disagree with [her] on (her work in this area) and that "understandably, such feminists fear singling out one group for behavior that may be common to all groups" back to "She has acknowledged that "many honorable feminists disagree with [her] on this point" and that "understandably, such feminists fear singling out one group for behaviour that may be common to all groups." My reason is fairly straightforward: it's more consistent with the source.

(iii) I've removed this: "Islamist and Muslim groups have criticized Chesler for pursuing this line of research. They insist that honor killings do not exist or have nothing to do with Islam, that they are pre-Islamic tribal customs; and that domestic violence exists everywhere.refSoundVision.com, Aug. 24, 2000, Musaji, “The Death of Aqsa Parvez Should Be an Interfaith Call to Action”ref"

My reason: "SoundVision.com" is a self-proclaimed "Islamic Information and Products site." There is nothing to indicate that this site is notable in the modern intellectual discourse concerning Islam, let alone that it is representative of Muslim (or "Islamist and Muslim") opinion. Whether intended or not, presenting the site in this context comes off as a straw man argument -- it would be a rather unusual claim to suggest that Muslim groups generally "insist that honor killings do not exist," for instance.

I could add that a casual reference to "Islamist and Muslim groups" isn't particularly good form, as it seems to lump everyone in the same category.

(iv) I've also removed this: "Some Western feminists have challenged Chesler in terms of focusing overly much on honor killings.ref“Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?”; A Civilized Dialogue about Islam and Honor Killing; When Feminist Heroes Disagree,” Chesler Chronicles, Mar. 2, 2009/ref Such feminists are uncomfortable singling out one group of perpetrators, especially an immigrant or Muslim group. In addition, they fear that the smaller number of sensational cases will serve to disappear the larger number of non-honor killing incidents of domestic violence in the West."

Reasons: (i) this point is already covered above, in more neutral language; (ii) "Chesler Chronicles" is a Phyllis Chesler project, and allowing her represent the views of her opponents seems an unusual privilege. I could add that "uncomfortable" is slanted language -- one could just as easily, and more neutrally, write that "Such feminists object to singling out one group of perpetrators."

(v) I've removed this: "Increasingly, Chesler notes, as Daniel Pipes has, that common thieves and terrorists have also used the burqa for criminal purposes."ref Pipes, Daniel. "Ban the Burqa-and the Niqab Too." Jerusalem Post (2007)./ref

Reason: Pipes's article has nothing to do with Chesler. The only purpose I can imagine for including this line would be to bolster her argument, and that's not proper encyclopedic form.

(vi) I've removed the section entitled "Sexual Violence in Muslim Countries." Reason: the paragraph depicted Chesler's claims as though they were accepted facts. This too is not consistent with encyclopedic practice. It might be possible to return some of this paragraph, but only if it's written much more carefully.

I hope that people will take these changes seriously and will refrain from blanket-reverting the page with no effort to engage in this discussion. The page is still very close to an advertisement at present; as before, we shouldn't make matters worse.

On another matter, it seems that some people believe I'm overly dependent on Canadian sources for this article. I can only respond that I have access to many articles from multiple countries, and that I did not consciously set out to find Canadian sources to use here (I've found it ironic that so many have turned up, but there was no design involved). One way or the other, I don't believe "too many Canadian sources" is a valid cause for BLP-related concerns. CJCurrie (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I've asked contributors to Wikiproject:Feminism to review this content dispute. This argument needs new voices. CJCurrie (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

============

It's a long time since I edited Wikipedia - so please forgive me if I can't remember all the symbols & protocols. I just wanted to say that it seems to me that CJCurrie is pushing a strong agenda in his/her criticism here. Just as a small example, a statement like 'I rather doubt that murders resulting from alleged sexual or marital impropriety are unique to "honor killing"' can be taken at face value. Unless of course we all put our heads in the sand and refuse to read the newspapers. Sure, every now and again someone kills their daughter for sexual misconduct and doesn't call it an honor killing - but the overwhelming number of such murders in the name of "honor killing" makes Cheslers' argument fact, not opinion.Hpaami (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that murders resulting from alleged sexual and marital improprietry are not unique to honor killing, a statement so banal that it hardly requires proof. CJCurrie (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it is Chesler's opinion and should be described as such. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Beware WP:Coatrack

There definitely is a tendency I've found in a few feminist articles to use the topic of treatment of women in some Islamic countries not as a legitimate criticism but as a way of Muslim bashing for political purposes, including by using her quotes and also with highly visible sectioning. The "Views and writings on Muslim culture" section has just such questionable sectioning. On lead paragraph and one paragraph on each topic should be more than enough. Also, that she is a Zionist does need to be mentioned and ref'd other places she's quoted on this topic. And obviously to be included in this article. Probably more info could be included than what I just added, but what I added is relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason that "Views and writings on Muslim culture" is a "highly visible" section is because her views and writings on Muslim culture are a "highly visible" part of her work, especially her recent work. No bias here.

Why does it need to be mentioned that Chesler is a Zionist? So are a majority of the world's 13 million or so Jews. It's not a big deal and doesn't merit mention in an encyclopedia. If you're going to mention that she is a Zionist, you should only do so in the context of the many articles that she's written on the subject and her years as a pro-Israel activist. The way the article looks now, with just a single sentence saying that she is a Zionist, makes it look like you are trying to smear her. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Zionist, i.e. someone who supports the Jewish people's right to self-determination in its ancestral homeland, but the word is sometimes used as invective (kind of like the word "liberal"). It's important to be careful with the Z-word. Nmbloom (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously more can be written on the subject of her Zionism. Plus I know I've read criticism of her writing about Islam and women even from feminists. More research needed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that Nmbloom reverted that paragraph (since properly reverted back) without replying to my comment about "more can be written on the subject of her Zionism." Do you want more on the subject? I'll be happy to provide it. CarolMooreDC 14:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that User: Aa2643 who has all of two edits, both on this article, deleted the above writing: Deleted last sentence of the Introduction Biography: Phyllis' work on behalf of Israel and women are not necessarily tied. The statement was misleading and inappropriately placed. If User: Aa2643 would like to say where she thinks the additional info I'll put in should be placed "appropriately," fine. Is that "Women and Judaism" (and hopefully in any case we'll find some of her criticism of fundamentalist Jews who have various separatist practices) or "Statements and writings on Islam"? I'll put more info in where I decide it should be and then we can discuss if it needs to be in the lead or not in conjunction with other material there. CarolMooreDC 14:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Journalism section

ZScarpia inserted the following section, which I've moved to the talk page for discussion:

Op-ed articles by Chesler are published by the Israeli media network Arutz Sheva and and by The Jewish Press. Articles by her also appear in FrontPage Magazine.

It's pure WP:OR - an editor has taken it upon himself to look through some publications and decide which ones are publishing Chesler. But because I'm in the mood to call a spade a spade, I'll point out that it was added for the purpose of associating Chesler with right-wing Jewish publications, and in so-doing undermine her. That's why WP:BLP required its removal. Of course, if reliable secondary sources make these kinds of claims about Chesler, then it could be included citing those reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's one for starters, last line of page 147 of Islamic terror: conscious and unconscious motives by Avner Falk which explicitly mentions she is frequently published in the "neoconservative" Front page magazine.

Additionally her web page lists a bunch of articles and where published. Mentioning the top five to eight would seem to me to be an NPOV enough venture. CarolMooreDC 00:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phyllis Chesler. 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/20140913164716/http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/topics/14/devrai-torah to http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/topics/14/devrai-torah
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314222208/http://womenofthewall.org.il/archives/category/divrei-torah to http://womenofthewall.org.il/archives/category/divrei-torah
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141004091010/http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/books/with-child-a-diary-of-motherhood to http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/books/with-child-a-diary-of-motherhood
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202161946/http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/books/an-american-bride-in-kabul to http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/books/an-american-bride-in-kabul

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

flag by anonymous IP

I'm removing the NPOV flag by the anonymous IP because there's no discussion on the talk page about this issue, and the complaints about the article in the edit summary do not appear to hold up. For one, the IP's claim that Phyllis Chester is a figure associated with the "far right" is dubious. The IP also claims that the article lacks criticism of the subject, despite the inclusion of critical receptions of several of her books. Given that this article falls under WP:BLP it seems unlikely that the type of undefined "criticism" that the IP is requesting would be acceptable in Wikipedia policy. OtterAM (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)