Talk:Phyllis Chesler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] No Personal Attacks

I have tried Google. Thanks. --Tbeatty 22:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I can't find this in the link that was given:

Finkelstein has drawn attention to factual errors in the book, including Chesler's reference to "Arab land such as ... India" and her description of Aung San Suu Kyi as a Muslim intellectual.[1]

If it's there, can you quote the sentence and say where it was published other than on his own website? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I don't have the book with me right now, but I'll add this tomorrow. CJCurrie 02:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I've also removed this:

The book that has been heavily criticized by commentators such as Norman Finkelstein.

Can you please actually list some notable, published criticisms of the book? Amazon reviews don't count, by the way. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page numbers

CJ, thanks for finding the Finkelstein reference. Is the quote on page 34, and the material about the errors on page 51? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. (And thank you for correcting the footnoting style.) CJCurrie 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The disputed sentence

There's actually a second reference to India as an Arab county in The New Anti-Semitism, and it's far more egregious than the one cited. I'll see if I can find it. CJCurrie 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which one does Finkelstein reference? Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
He references both. CJCurrie 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
CJCurrie, I found one other sentence where it's clear she doesn't believe India is an Arab country: "Jews from Arab lands (and from India and Iran) have increasingly become more dominant ... in Israel." (p. 167) I think the first sentence, the one I quoted in the article, was just a question of bad punctuation: she listed the Arab countries and then added "and India," but should have punctuated it differently to make the separation clearer. I can't find the reference to the Buddist. Do you know what page that's on? It would also be helpful to know exactly what Finkelstein said. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't the other reference I was referring to: there's yet another section in The New Anti-Semitism where Chesler specifically mentions Israel as taking in "Arab Jews from India after 1948" (or words to that effect). She also mentions ASSK in a list of "Muslim feminist intellectuals" she's defended.
I don't believe the first reference is a case of bad punctuation: Chesler clearly intended to provide a list of Arab countries. And whether or not Chesler believes India to be an Arab country isn't the point at issue. For our purposes, the important thing is that she describes India as an Arab country on two separate occasions.
To your last point, I strongly recommend that you read the first section of Finkelstien's book. CJCurrie 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you quote exactly what Finkelstein said, if you have the book? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately (and for the second time in a week), I don't physically have the book with me at present. I'll get back to you tomorrow. CJCurrie 22:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"Arab Jews" did live in India; the Baghdadi Jews, to be specific, and Israel did take them in after 1948. Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
But they weren't refugees, were they? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe India's Jews were forced or pressured to leave the country after 1948? CJCurrie 22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, they were refugees from Arab lands; that's why they fled to India. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean that they weren't refugees from India (which might be how Chesler describes them -- I can't remember the exact wording offhand). CJCurrie 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is picking apart the way she writes, rather than being proper criticism. Israel taking in Arab Jews from India is clear to me, and the second reference shows she knows India isn't an Arab country. So we're left only with the first reference, which was an ambiguous use of the serial comma, which happens a lot. She'd have been better making it two sentences, that's all. It beggars belief that someone with a PhD who has lived in Kabul, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and who to some extent specializes in Middle East issues, would believe that India is an Arab country, and we can't make that assertion based on a misplaced serial comma. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can assume it was a misplaced comma. I agree that Chesler probably realizes India is not an Arab country, and it's likely that she simply missed this error in proofreading; all the same, it certainly reads like a factual error. CJCurrie 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What's the historical context? What's now Pakistan used to be part of India. See Partition of India. "Massive population exchanges occurred between the two newly-formed nations in the months immediately following Partition. Once the lines were established, about 14.5 million people crossed the borders to what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority. Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons, 7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India while 7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan immediately after partition." Was Chesler talking about that exodus? --John Nagle 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It's quite clear that Chesler knows that India is not an Arab country, and that Finkelstein is just doing tendentious nit-picking, rather than making serious criticism. The actual statements from the book are far more relevant to the page than Finkelstein's comments - if anything, it is Finkelestein's comments that belong in a footnote. Would you prefer to organize it that way? Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Finkelstein criticizes the general content of The New Anti-Semitism as well as its factual errors. There's no reason not to list him in the main body of the article.
Per yesterday's request, here are the specific "factual error" criticisms mentioned by Finkelstein:
(i) p. 113 - "Arab lands such as ... India" (The "ambiguous serial comma" defence would only make sense if there were another "and" in front of "Morocco".)
(ii) p. 174 - "Arab and Muslim intellectuals, artists, political dissidents" like "Aung Sun Suu Kyi" (there's ambiguity on this one; Chesler clearly includes ASSK in a list of Arab/Muslim intellectuals.)
(iii) p. 228 - "If Israel is a racist apartheid country, why did it absorb dark- and olive-skinned Arab Jews from India [...]" (It's possible that Chesler had the Baghdadi Jewish community in mind when she wrote this, although she doesn't give any indication. Finkelstein could have added that Chesler also mentioned Arab Jews from Iran and Afghanistan in the same sentence.)
I'm quite certain that Chesler realizes India isn't an Arab country, and she may also realize that ASSK is a Buddhist. The point in highlighting these errors may have been to demonstrate that the passages in question, like so much else in the book, were not especially well thought out. CJCurrie 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, as has been noted already, Arab Jews did indeed come from India, and Chesler clearly knows that India is not an Arab country. So what do these "errors" boil down to? As I said above, tendentious nit-picking. Yes, the book could have used one last copyedit; frankly, the whole tone of the book is far too breathless for my liking. However, Finkelstein's "factual error" criticisms are just silly. Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that NF went a bit over-the-top in his criticisms, though I also think Chesler deserved at least some of it. Anyway, we've more-or-less reached equilibrium here. CJCurrie 03:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab Jews from India

You know there are actually Arab Jews from India -- they're called the Baghdadi Jewish community. See Judaism in India and Baghdadi Jews. Did anyone ever think to check this before accusing Chesler? AnonMoos 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this already. Chesler didn't just reference "Arab Jews from India"; she also mentioned "Arab Jews from Afghanistan". It's possible she was thinking of Baghdadi Jews in the first instance; the second suggests a greater likelihood that she made a mistake. CJCurrie 00:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aung San Suu

CJ, on which page is the thing about the above in Chesler's book. I think we should check it out for ourselves in case it's just another editing error. I've looked but I can't find it. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on p. 174, and it's crystal clear: Chesler includes ASSK in a list of Muslim intellectuals. Btw, I don't think we should assume the other mistake was an editing error. CJCurrie 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

CJC, is it necessary for you always to revert and change things, back and forth, as soon as someone makes an edit to a page on your watchlist? It makes for an unpleasant editing experience. Thank you for the page number. I'll look it up. The other thing was clearly a writing/editing error. If these are the only errors she made in a book of that length, that's excellent work, and it makes us look cheap to say otherwise. Count up all the edits you have made at Wikipedia. How many factual and editing errors could we find if we were to pore through them? (Mine too.) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that "Arab lands such as ... India" was an editing error, although a writing error seems more plausible. CJCurrie 07:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP violation removed

I've removed a paragraph that violated WP:BLP. It appeared to be original research sourced entirely to a Kahanist website. I'm certain no reasonable person really thinks that sort of organization is a reliable source when it comes to just about anything, much less the biography of a living person. Quoting from the policy, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." It's not clear how the person who inserted this material was able to decide that the material was notable, given the fact that it has not be reproduced in any reliable source, much less a third-party one as demanded by policy. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting justification for removing the material in question, and I suppose it's technically a valid argument under WP:BLP. It may be worth noting, however, that the interview with Phyllis Chesler was originally published in The Jewish Press, and was only later reposted on the JDL's website. Chesler has also reprinted the interview on her own website, which would appear to resolve any lingering questions as to reliability.
I have now restored the material, with a citation that should pass the test of WP:BLP with flying colours. I commend Jayjg for his vigilance in the matter, and I should also note that I've corrected the wording on one particular point: Chesler's interview was not technically with the Jewish Defense League, merely with a former JDL national director. CJCurrie (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
CJCurrie, it isn't just that the citation must be verifiable. BLP and NOR work hand-in-hand. To begin with, the summary itself is not an accurate portrayal of the contents of the article - as simple examples, she doesn't criticize multiculturalism, but multicultural relativism, which is something else. In addition, she doesn't state that people should support Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson, she says they should support Christian Zionists, and that she has been on Pat Roberston's show twice - again, her words are misrepresented. As a third example, you write she "said she would no longer criticize Israel's occupation of the West Bank." In fact, what she said was "In the past I demonstrated against the "occupation"; I will not do so now. If we Jews have a history anywhere, it is in Shechem, among other places. We see more clearly now what the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza wrought. If there’s a good thing that came out of it, it’s that the world is forced to see who and what Hamas really is." There is a world of difference between "criticizing" and "demonstrating against", and her reasons for her change of heart are left entirely unstated.
But more than these issues are more fundamental ones: Why is so much of the article about New anti-Semitism, when her book on the subject is only one of 13 she has written? And why are *those* particular statements, out of the entire interview, the appropriate ones for a biography of Phyllis Chesler - or indeed, why is this particular interview significant? The interview is a primary source, we need to rely on secondary sources for analysis of which of Chesler's words, are significant - this is a clear an obvious violation of WP:NOR, as stated in my previous comments and edit summary. That the article contains Finkelstein's view of Chesler's book is one thing, but that it contains CJCurrie's analysis of a Chesler interview is quite another (and, of course, forbidden by WP:NOR).
Even worse, why are her arguments not actually presented (see the occupation example above), and instead out of context quotes provided, with what appears to be an eye to maximally damaging her reputation? Why is the interview presented as "a 2007 interview with the Fern Sidman, a former national director of the Jewish Defense League"? Yes, apparently the interviewer was the national director of the JDL from 1983 to 1985, but in the twenty years since then she appears to have worked as a journalist - in fact, the interview is with The Jewish Week, not Fern Sidman, and one wouldn't present an interview in another paper under the byline of the journalist rather than the newspaper. The specific detail regarding the job the interviewer held between 1983 and 1985 seems to have been chosen solely for the purpose of guilt by association.
Perhaps most troubling are edit summaries such as these that indicate to me that your opinion of the subject is too strongly negative to edit this article; indeed, I suspect this is the kind of statement that might well have to be deleted from the article history.
Handling articles about living people properly, especially respected academics such as Chesler, is a very serious enterprise. I am stating this as forcefully as possible; please do not restore the material or any version of it, until there is a strong consensus for doing so. I don't want to have to take even stronger action, but to defend Wikipedia I will not hesitate to do so. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for handling that, Jayjg!QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Let's take this point-by-point:

1. To begin with, the summary itself is not an accurate portrayal of the contents of the article - as simple examples, she doesn't criticize multiculturalism, but multicultural relativism, which is something else.

This criticism is accurate, but it's also banal. Multiculturalism and multicultural relativism are indeed different concepts, but the terms are often used in an interchangeable manner (moreso in Europe than in North America, I grant). In any case, one need only change the wording to read "multicultural relativism" if more precision is required. This doesn't qualify as a significant error, let alone an actionable offense.

2. In addition, she doesn't state that people should support Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson, she says they should support Christian Zionists, and that she has been on Pat Roberston's show twice - again, her words are misrepresented.

Here the exact quote:

It's also very important for Jews to forge alliances with Christian Zionists. I've been on Pat Robertson's show, "The 700 Club," twice and I took holy hell for it from my former feminist friends.

While Chesler may not express the view that "Jews should forge alliances with Christian Zionists such as Pat Robertson" in so many words, the inference is so obvious that it scarcely needs explanation.

In any event, this too is not a significant error. If you're going to insist on a painfully literal reading of WP:NOR, then the solution is again quite simple: simply adjust the wording to read, "Chesler has also called for Jews to forge alliances with Christian Zionists, citing her own appearance on Pat Robertson's program."

3. As a third example, you write she "said she would no longer criticize Israel's occupation of the West Bank." In fact, what she said was "In the past I demonstrated against the "occupation"; I will not do so now. If we Jews have a history anywhere, it is in Shechem, among other places. We see more clearly now what the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza wrought. If there's a good thing that came out of it, it's that the world is forced to see who and what Hamas really is." There is a world of difference between "criticizing" and "demonstrating against", and her reasons for her change of heart are left entirely unstated.

You left out the question to which she was responding:

As someone who once vocally opposed the settlement movement in Israel, what would you say to Jews living in Judea and Samaria who could suffer the same fate as the thousands of Jews still homeless as a result of the 2005 Gaza disengagement?

It's quite obvious that Chesler is indicating her support for the West Bank settlements, as well as for the occupation in a more general sense. The language may need some tightening for precision, but the basic point is quite accurate.

4. But more than these issues are more fundamental ones: Why is so much of the article about New anti-Semitism, when her book on the subject is only one of 13 she has written?

I think the answer is fairly obvious: the article is not particularly long at present. I would have no objection to other editors developing it, and discussing her earlier literature in more detail -- but the fact that this hasn't yet occurred should not be used as justification to remove relevant information that's currently there.

In any event, the space devoted to "New Anti-Semitism" is hardly disproporate in the grand scheme of things -- four paragraphs doesn't amount to a voluminous total.

5. And why are *those* particular statements, out of the entire interview, the appropriate ones for a biography of Phyllis Chesler - or indeed, why is this particular interview significant?

The interview was significant enough to be published by a credible journal, and Chesler evidently thought it important enough to be reposted on her website. Her statements here are in any event representative of her views on "new anti-Semitism" and Islam, which she has repeated several times in different forums (albeit seldom in so direct a fashion).

You must surely be aware that there are no "hard and fast" rules on what materials may be included and excluded from this project, and your insistence that this particular material be rejected as unencyclopedic could very easily be interpreted as falling into the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

6. The interview is a primary source, we need to rely on secondary sources for analysis of which of Chesler's words, are significant - this is a clear an obvious violation of WP:NOR, as stated in my previous comments and edit summary.

This is simply untrue. WP:NOR does not forbid the use of primary sources: it merely indicates that we should use them with caution and limit ourselves to descriptive claims that are easily verifiable.

Assuming these precautions are taken seriously (and I believe they have been), the disputed text should not be interpreted as "a clear an obvious violation" of anything.

That the article contains Finkelstein's view of Chesler's book is one thing, but that it contains CJCurrie's analysis of a Chesler interview is quite another (and, of course, forbidden by WP:NOR).

Fortunately, the article does not contain CJCurrie's analysis of a Chesler interview.

7. Even worse, why are her arguments not actually presented (see the occupation example above), and instead out of context quotes provided, with what appears to be an eye to maximally damaging her reputation?

Really, Jay -- you're referring to what are at most minor instances of language imprecision.

8. Why is the interview presented as "a 2007 interview with the Fern Sidman, a former national director of the Jewish Defense League"? Yes, apparently the interviewer was the national director of the JDL from 1983 to 1985, but in the twenty years since then she appears to have worked as a journalist - in fact, the interview is with The Jewish Week, not Fern Sidman, and one wouldn't present an interview in another paper under the byline of the journalist rather than the newspaper.

You win ... on this point.

I was initially under the mistaken impression that the interview was sponsored by the JDL. I now realize that this was an error (albeit a good-faith one), and I'm prepared to remove the reference entirely.

9. Perhaps most troubling are edit summaries such as these that indicate to me that your opinion of the subject is too strongly negative to edit this article; indeed, I suspect this is the kind of statement that might well have to be deleted from the article history.

<rolls eyes>

I suspect most readers will recognize that I wasn't entirely serious with that particular remark, and that I pretty obviously wasn't endorsing the prior edit (which is why I deleted it, a fact that you've curiously omitted from your summary).

You've also neglected to mention the fact that I deleted unsourced and potentially damaging references to Chesler on five other occasions in the last few months. How you've concluded from this that my opinion of the subject is "too strongly negative" to edit the article is a mystery to me.

10. Handling articles about living people properly, especially respected academics such as Chesler, is a very serious enterprise.

I agree that handling articles about living people is a very serious enterprise, and would add that it's quite important that we not make skewed and polemical edits about living people.

The problem in this instance is that Chesler actually did make all of the statements credited to her:

My editor at Jossey Bass challenged me: Are you sure you ought to say this – that anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism and that Islamic anti-Semitism is lethal in nature? Are you really sure you're right? And I said yes.
It's easy to say, yes, the Muslims are against everyone who is not a Muslim. And it's true. That's part of what jihad is about, that's part of the history of Islam. But it doesn't account for the incessant, infernal feuds among the Muslim religious sects and tribes that are bloody, deadly. Here's the thing. The West, and that means Jews and Israelis, would like to lead sweet and peaceful lives. We're up against an enemy now that is dying to kill us, that lives to kill, and that at best merely wishes to impose on the rest of us its laws and strictures.
It's also very important for Jews to forge alliances with Christian Zionists. I've been on Pat Robertson's show, "The 700 Club," twice and I took holy hell for it from my former feminist friends.
In the past I demonstrated against the "occupation"; I will not do so now. If we Jews have a history anywhere, it is in Shechem, among other places. We see more clearly now what the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza wrought. If there's a good thing that came out of it, it's that the world is forced to see who and what Hamas really is.

http://76.12.0.56/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=350&Itemid=127

I realize that some of these statements could be interpreted in a negative light, but that isn't really our concern. We aren't mandated to protect Chesler from herself, after all.

11. I am stating this as forcefully as possible; please do not restore the material or any version of it, until there is a strong consensus for doing so. I don't want to have to take even stronger action, but to defend Wikipedia I will not hesitate to do so.

Ah, yes ... there's nothing like a threat to make things really interesting.

Please tell me, Jay, what sort of "stronger action" do you have in mind. Will I be dragged before the ArbComm if I restore the edit? Will I be suspended without any further warning (or barred from editing this article)? Will you try to impose a community ban? Will the article be gutted, censored and permanently protected? Please tell me, Jay, what sort of "stronger action" (in the interest of defending Wikipedia, of course) are you proposing?

On another matter, your extended rationalization for removing the disputed text might have been more convincing, had you not attempted to remove the very same text only three days earlier, using an entirely different rationalization ([2]).

A cynic might conclude that the disputed paragraph is really in violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than WP:BLP, WP:NOR or any related policies. CJCurrie (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Point by point
1. They mean different things, though that's not the main issue.
2. Inaccurate synthesis must be avoided in BLPs above all, though that's not the main issue.
3. Misses the point entirely; demonstrating against something is considerably stronger than criticizing, though that's not the main issue.
4. WP:BLP (and NOR) are quite clear that one cannot unbalance an article in this way. The section on New anti-Semitism was already larger than any other; on cannot continue to add to the problem for whatever reason.
5. The issue here is use of primary sources, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR.
6. As is trivially obvious, both paragraphs were CJCurrie's analysis of an interview which, apparently, no secondary source in the world saw fit to discuss. BLP *must* rely on secondary sources to avoid all sorts of issues, as listed above.
7. These are serious issues, particularly in BLPs.
8. Thank you, though it's not the main issue, and is unlikely to be relevant.
9. The edit summary was highly prejudicial, and it's certainly not clear to the reader that it was intended in anything but utter seriousness. Removing a serious BLP violation while commenting "but that's the kind of thing she would say/do" is as bad as the BLP itself.
10. Using original research to cherry-pick apparently negative items from primary sources is forbidden by policy. Period.
11. Is that what will be required to protect Wikipedia from further WP:BLP violations on this article?
12. Three days earlier I used the exact same reasons for removing the text.
13. Please focus on article content, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Point by point (and omitting areas were further discussion would be superfluous)
4. I don't see a total of four paragraphs as problematic.
5-6. Primary sources are not forbidden; they merely need to be used with caution. Frankly, I'm inclined to regard an interview in a credible, widely-read newspaper as something of a gray area to begin with, as regards the distinction between primary and secondary sources. This certainly isn't the sort of thing that should be forbidden outright.
10. Chesler doesn't seem to think that the items in question were "negative", and I suspect that some of her supporters would readily approve of her sentiments as well. These interpretations are in the eye of the beholder.
11. I'm prepared to discuss serious WP:BLP violations, but (i) I don't believe there were any in the disputed text, and (ii) I'm not inclined to bend to unspecified threats. Please be specific: what action do you think will be appropriate if the text is returned?
12. It's not the main issue, but your reasons were not the same three days earlier.
13. I've seen this film too many times before. CJCurrie (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Four paragraphs about one book in an article that only has four other paragraphs is absurd: The woman wrote 13 books! As for use of primary sources, they certainly cannot be used in a BLP to produce a synthesis - this is *absolutely* forbidden outright, and Jimbo himself has outright deleted BLPs that relied too heavily on primary sources (e.g. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey). As for the interview, it was carried in a fairly popular regional ethnic weekly (it calls itself national, but it's fairly New York centric). I'm familiar with the paper (having created the article about it), and it's a fine little weekly, but it's no New York Times, or even a Detroit Free Press. The current section actually uses a proper secondary source to critique her book; unsurprisingly, the critique reads as fairly rational and reasonable. If some reliable secondary source ever decides to discuss that interview in The Jewish Press, then we can discuss this further. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And things had been so peaceful here since August. --John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think discussion should focus on items 4, 5, and 6 above – that is, the questions regarding how much weight should be given to individual statements in the context of the overall interview, and in turn how much weight should be given to the interview in the context of Chesler's overall career. Those are salient questions; it's too bad they were virtually buried in charges of "original research," selective quotation, and content distortion – charges that turn out, upon inspection, to be entirely bogus. I also think the threats – not to mention the sanctimony about BLP, as if the first editor were well-placed to lecture the second about that "serious enterprise" – have been unwarranted and unhelpful.--G-Dett (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)