Talk:Justus Weiner

deletion?

I think this article should be AfD'd; this guy's only claim to notability seems to be his crusade against a scholar, which has resulted in a grand total of one article, whose claims were roundly disputed by commentators. Are we going to have a WP article for every single person who publishes an article? csloat (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the deletion of this article because this "biography" is bloated and falsified and because it reads like a public relations article for the subject. There are unverified statements. He was known a decade ago for one thing only-- his personal attacks on Edward Said.Skywriter (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not true. He has published widely in respected publications on a wide variety of international law subjects over the past decade. he may not be as "famous" as Edward Said, but most academics are not famous. David Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.180.52 (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Published widely"? Please provide a list of important publications; there are only three mentioned in the article, with no indication that they are of any significance. Still, a list of publications does not make one notable; what we really need is third party sources indicating his articles have had some sort of significant influence. csloat (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Justus Weiner has published in law publications the last 30 years, is one of the most authoritative experts on Christian rights in the West Bank, Gaza and Arab countries. I don't think there's an argument over whether he should have a Wikipedia entry or not. 7:12GM+2, Sept. 6 2012. - Magnusmarkussen

Security Official

I have deleted the claim that Weiner was "former Israeli security official". There is a "source" that says so, but it is not an RS for this purpose and they do not indicate 1) what security official means (did he work for the intelligence agencies, for the ministry of defense?) 2) what are they basing it on. Every other source describes wEiner as a former employee of the Israeli Ministry of Justice. Mashkin (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "not an RS for this purpose"? What purpose is that? And why isn't it an RS? csloat (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of the life story of Weiner. Let me ask first why is it an RS? Specifically what are they basing the claim that Weiner was a "Security Official"? Mashkin (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea; I haven't read it. I did not make an assertion one way or another; you did. Please support your assertion -- why is it not an RS for this purpose? What is the relation between the specific purpose and the reliability of the source? Is it reliable for another purpose? csloat (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a book on depiction on the corporate world and its influence on the depction of families. The authors have no experience nor any indication that they investigated the claims of weiner. To them the fact that he is employed by an institute supported by Milken is damnign enough. They do not say how they came to the conclusion that he was a "security official" (perhaps they call his time at the Justice Misinstry as security work, we just do not know). Mashkin (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What is a biographical article?

This is a biography of a living person. Unfortunately this person is known mostly for one controversial article written 10 years ago, an attack on a famous person.

The claim that the article was "famous" because it was it was cited in several right-leaning opinion pages is beyond the pale.

Weiner has had his 15 seconds of fame for a controversial article in a small circulation periodical. To make a federal case of this article and to make it the explanation for his entire life is folly. I concur with the suggestion made earlier on this page that this person is unworthy of an article on Wikipedia. He just has not accomplished much, and what he is know for is disputed.

It is wrong to use what is supposed to be a biography to pound another person and that is the substance of this article, and as it now reads. Skywriter (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to continue to insist that the decade-old article in the low-circulation magazine has any validity, please address the critique here. This analysis is detailed. It specifically addresses the article of which Weiner received a moment's worth of fame in right-leaning opinion pages, and it points out where he was both wrong and dishonest.Skywriter (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly a critique. it does not address most of the points that Weiner raises. in particualr he shows evidence for successive residence in Cairo. The Gelber assessment is very significant here. Saying things like "says he was an associate..." is significant BLP violation. Mashkin (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The Gelber "assessment" is an offhand comment in a tangential footnote; it is not notable or useful here. You're also already cramming that in another article despite obvious WP:UNDUE concerns. csloat (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree that the article should be deleted. It seems to me there is some chaff with the wheat here. Commentary is a low circulation magazine. Is the New Review of Books a high circulation, or middling circulation periodical? You don't need a lot of circulation to have some influence.

The article was written 10 years ago, but it's an article about history. Maybe a ten-year-old fender bender or weather forecast is not noteworthy, but surely history has a longer shelflife. I haven't verified this but according to Wiener the British Observer newspaper says his article "detonating one of the nastiest rows of its kind to rend New York's intelligentsia in years" [1] Surely the counter attacks by Said and Hitchens alone make the article notable. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Counter attacks? Weiner was called a liar. That's what "mendacious" means. Skywriter (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

right. liars can still be notable and worthy of articles. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone wants to AfD it, we can settle that there, but if we're keeping the article, it should not be used to showcase a minor hatchet job against another biography subject. I don't have a problem citing the published articles that came out in response to Weiner, but showcasing minor footnotes from articles on entirely different topics just to try to bolster Weiner's credibility or to attack Said's boyhood is really not the point of Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The vote is six to delete and three to keep with one more "weak keep." Someone decided this is not consensus. What is consensus on Wikipedia? Does anyone know. Skywriter (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter has a fair question; what makes up a consensus? A 2/3 majority seems pretty compelling, especially when one of the keep's is "weak" and others suggest a merge as a possibility. csloat (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First, let'd get the facts straight.The views expressed were 6 delete, 4 keep and two merge (one with discuss as option). Next, afd discussions are not votes; the losing admin is meant to access the strength of arguments adn ignore "me too" votes, for example. Third there is an option to go to deletion review if you feel you can make a case.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong but take the result to mean that those interested have an obligation to make this article, as time allows, as factual, truthful and even-handed as possible. The article is objectionable because it is not even-handed, not truthful, and it is bloated. I began the process of correction by fact-checking the very first claim, that the article subject is a member of the New York Bar Association. Well, that is not a checkable fact because the NY bar association is a private body and not the legal body where membership is required to practice law in that state. Ergo, whether or not the article subject belongs to the "ny bar association" is irrelevant and skirts the real issue, whether he can practice law in that state. The NY Bar refers inquiries to the courts, where I checked the public document pertaining to article subject. The found facts are now reflected in this article where the previous misleading claim had been. At earlier times, several people including myself have edited some of the bloat out of this article and have been repeatedly reverted. If the reverts continue, then I'd like to know where to take the dispute so as to avoid edit warring.Skywriter (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

The wholesale revert of this article today to an old version, with many errors of fact and which ignore many small edits made over the last few days, is unacceptable. I hope the person who made that massive revert will come to this page to discuss each and every edit that was reverted. There were many. The intent was to change the tone of the article and to make it factual and neutral; the draft that was reverted was a move in the direction of resolving some of the issues with this article. Skywriter (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that csloat has brought back a version that contains biographical material. This is useful. I have taken out the subject's claims to bar association membership because public documents are at odds with the unsourced claims that were in earlier versions of this article. The entire section on the Commentary article needs to be reworked. I was out of time and could not spend more time with this. The current version continues to be choppy and to present the dispute unfairly. I concur with clsoat's comment that this article needs much work.Skywriter (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That version had significant BLP violations and was not helpful at all. Many biographical details such as membership in Bar association and employment are based on bios the subject published. However, nothing there is extraordinary that requires verification from another source.

Please list the changes you wish to make. Mashkin (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please identify what you believe to be BLP violation, mashkin. The version to which you reverted is not neutral and shows the man Weiner smeared in the worst possible light, using his weakest arguments instead of his direct replies to Weiner's allegations.

As i wrote, the most blatant violation are "He says he ..."

But you have not said what are the factual problems with the article.Mashkin (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of times you have reverted edits to this article, I understand you prefer the version that makes Weiner a hero and Said a slime bag. Still, that is not a neutral viewpoint, does not fairly reflect the debate around the article, and excludes relevant viewpoints.

I am perplexed why you insist on not calling a law degree a law degree. Is there a style rule that suggests plain language? You have reverted to Latin five or more times, and frankly, this has become tiresome. Please explain why plain English is not good enough. Please cite Wikipedia source showing that your use of the Latin is preferred usage.

I have now put la degree, though JD is probably better since there is no doubt what is the degree. Mashkin (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I find it reprehensible that anyone would exclude the biographical information that I took pains to incorporate yesterday, the fact that Weiner was Boston-born, the year of his birth, and other facts drawn from cited sources. This is supposed to be a neutral article about a live person. So far I see nothing but axe-grinding in these reverts and a wholesale lack of proper referencing, and a pathetic lack of biographical detail. What little detail there is, you reverted. Please explain why you removed basic biographical detail, among other well-sourced facts. Thank you. Skywriter (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added some of the bio stuff, but not the year of birth, since it was accurate. Mashkin (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts, one day

One editor has chosen edit warring over talk page discussion. Skywriter (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another hour, another revert

Justus Reid Weiner a human rights lawyer and a scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. [1] A former official of the Israeli Ministry of Justice, Weiner garnered some fame from a 1999 Commentary article which suggested that Palestinian intellectual Edward Said has misled the public about his past.[2] Said accused Weiner as trying to "make a name for himself by attacking a better known person's reputation"

This draft is misleading and dishonest. Biographical articles begin with biographical information, such as age, place of birth etc. This one, reverted to this early version for the fourth time today, skips over the basic bio info and jumps right into controversy putting it forward in a non-neutral manner. garnered some fame is not neutral. Why not infamy? That's relevant too. He was accused of lying about Said. Why isn't that in the lead? On equal footing. Oh why be neutral? Or fair? Oh yes, the reader does get the impression the article favors Weiner in this dispute and that the attacks on Said are fair and well-stated. Let's leave out all the errors of fact. And the prejudice. And world view. To include errors of fact with garnering fame suggests that what Weiner did was applauded by all.

Said accused Weiner of trying to "make a name for himself by attacking a better known person's reputation" is a cheap shot at Said who said this off the cuff but then replied in detail to the specifics of what Weiner alleged. Therefore this too is dishonest, and favors Weiner's attack on Said. Where is the fairness? Where is neutrality? Oh, I get it. The point is for this article to be neither neutral nor fair. The point is to attack Said by any and all means, the truth of the matter be damned.

Also dishonest and not neutral is leaving out the relevant fact that Said and more than five well-known persons were critical of Weiner's attack on Said, and this is not reflected in the garnered fame sentence. Why be even-handed when there are axes to grind? This article in fact takes up the axe that Weiner is grinding-- there is no mistaking that a good part of his attack on Said is that his family had money. Several of Weiner's critics pointed out that Weiner's fixation on the Said family's earned wealth was irrelevant to the article's central point.Skywriter (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skywriter. Many of Mashkin's revisions are unacceptable. We also need to properly cover the only thing Weiner is known for, which is the scurrilous attack on Said. There are no BLP issues involved in acknowledging that this attack was roundly condemned, and that commentators indicated that it said more about Weiner than about Said. I will include specific quotations as I have time, but to whitewash Weiner's attack is unacceptable and to shout "BLP" as a means of protecting Weiner from criticism is dishonest.

We also need to get rid of trivial and irrelevant information. The specifics of who Said's classmates were is just not central to any of this. And the footnote from Gelber once again is absolutely unacceptable. It is a tangential footnote in an article about something entirely different. It is not an article about Weiner or Said, and his assertion in a footnote is not a notable event in Weiner's life. It must go. Do we have anyone who disagrees besides Mashkin? Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not telling the truth in the title of the section, I did not make another revert. Lying is not a good strategy in Wikipedia.

Gelber's quote is of utmost importance, I guess that is why you do not like it. He is talking exactly about the article and its reliability.

So far the stuff that you two do not like is (i) garnered fame and (ii) Gelber. Well instead of garnered fame we can have "exposed Edward Said's deceptions". Seriously, under the circumstance garnered fame is pretty neutral. Mashkin (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You made four reverts in three hours. You should be blocked but I generously just gave you a warning rather than reporting you. You also need to lay off the personal attacks -- see the additional warning I added to your page.

If Gelber's comments were "of the utmost importance," why did he tuck them away in a footnote of an article on a completely different topic? Anyway we already know what you think about it, I asked what others feel. You're going to have to go with consensus on this one; pulling junk out of footnotes in tangential comments in articles on other topics is really not the best way to detail what is notable about a topic.

Saying someone "exposed Said's deceptions" is problematic for many reasons. Obviously the BLP issues are still there; somebody dying does not give everyone a license to attack them in an encyclopedia. Second, it's a blatant falsehood, as you are well aware, Said did not deceive anyone; in fact, Weiner had to go on a stalking mission for three years to dig up minor inconsistencies in Said's boyhood memories in order to come up with such a claim. And even those inconsistencies have been well explained in the responses. So there simply were no deceptions from Said. But even if there were, that is not for Wikipedia to decide.

Finally, the big problem here is not "garnered fame" but the complete whitewashing of Weiner's defamatory attack on Said. That will be rectified until this article is eventually deleted (which I have no doubt it will be eventually; the only reason it wasn't is because of the dubious claim that Weiner has some sort of notability outside of his libeling of a scholar; that claim is easily laid to rest). Cheers, csloat (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check intermediate edits when you revert

During the edit-warring, someone has undone uncontroversial edits of mine which merged the duplicated mention of Charles Lane's rejection of Weiner's manuscript when Weiner refused to look at the galley proofs of Said's memoir. Can whoever removed it pelase reinstate my changes?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Peter, yesterday you wholesale reverted my non-controversial intermediate edits, all of which are now reinstated. Yes, that's hard work! I noticed you wholesale reverted only once while someone else is cursed with a knee-jerk repetitious revert reaction. (That's KJ-RRR). Having to reinstate non-controversial edits is a price of mindless edit warring. Frustrating and time-wasting, isn't it? Someone is also hiding behind the claim of BLP to revert what does not suit his POV. Imagine! Skywriter (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've checked the article and talk page hsitories and I did no reverts yesterday.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it was unexpected for you to revert but failed to inspect the history. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justus_Weiner&diff=296843197&oldid=296838847 Mea culpa.Skywriter (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why the greatly expanded section on subject's criticism of Said?

This is a biography of a living person, not an excuse for an extended section on one article the subject wrote. Please explain why this section should not be edited for length to a reasonable size? Thank you.Skywriter (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It could probably be cut down a bit, or we could just expand the "Work" section. Weiner's criticism of Said is the basis for much of the subject's notability. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd go further than that; it's pretty much the only thing this guy is known for. He has apparently published three comments in law reviews but there is no indication from any third party that these articles are notable for anything. Rather than editing this section, if anything, we should be proposing to delete this article for lack of notability and make it a footnote to the Said article, or, perhaps, rename it something like "Justus Weiner Allegations against Edward Said." I don't think the latter article would be notable at all, so I would lean toward deletion, but if we're going to have this article, that is definitely its main focus. csloat (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No question this is on the thinnest ground as a biographical article. Because of its many errors and perhaps due to the resulting notoriety, the article (by a first-and only-time author for Commentary) was not chosen by Commentary to be among its free articles. For starters, I would delete the first paragraph of the section and leave the second paragraph summary by Jonathan Tobin. Anyone disagree? 01:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you delete the first paragraph? That seems to be the most important paragraph, structurally, in the entire section. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it is long and windy and the Tobin summary says what readers need to know. But on the whole, this is just plain weird as an encyclopedia article.Skywriter (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we just propose a merge and redirect to Edward Said? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's already a too-long section in Said that is skewing that biographical article. The major thing is that Weiner wrote an article riddled with error. He didn't contact the subject because he made assumptions that the subject was a liar. So much of this article (and one section of the Said article) focuses on Weiner's errors made more than a decade ago in a minor magazine. He said this though it wasn't true. He said that but it was false. All the biographical errors chipped into Weiner's credibility. Wikipedia skews his importance in Edward Said's life by keeping the claims and counter claims alive. Errors are kept alive by repeating them. Everyone else has moved on. Skywriter (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Weiner's article was not "riddled with error." There were a few minor errors in a very long article. But this is offset by the major falsehoods of Said that Weiner exposed, such as (1) Said claiming he was driven out of Talbieh (and Palestine) by a sound truck incident that actually occurred three months after he left; (2) Said claiming that Martin Buber lived in the house after the Said's were "expelled" when in fact he lived in a section he rented well before the alleged expulsion and was himself expelled when Said's aunt broke the lease on grounds of "need" :(3) Said claiming that he lived his early years in Palestine when in fact he was a resident of Cairo; (4) Said claiming that his father co-owned the house when the land registry records prove otherwise (Said's excuse about unofficial co-ownership is unproven and unverifiable). Weiner's claims are supported by phone directories, land registry records, contemporary newspaper articles, court transcripts and the dispatches of the British High Commissioner to Palestine - hardly "biased sources." User:Dpakessler 17:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.64.200.6 (talk)

Ah, I figured as much. So how about a redirect (just to preserve attribution)? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what that means. Do what you think best.Skywriter (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can't simply delete this article, or else dozens of editors would lose their credit for contributing to this article. Since this individual isn't notable outside of his criticism of Said, and since the text here is well-covered in the Said article, we should just redirect Justus Weiner to Edward Said#Claims about Said's early life. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that since the stink is mostly about Weiner and his controversial research methods to summarize in a sentence or two in the Said article that there was some controversy about Weiner's article about Said's early life and to redirect that section to this article about Weiner (and to delete most of what is there on this subject). All the he said & she saids can be reflected here but the argument over Weiner accuracy won't detract from the article about Edward Said. Skywriter (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an acceptable solution, in my opinion. Of course, you'll need to go to Talk:Edward Said to see what the consensus is. I do recall there was an edit war over the validity of the section back in June, but I'm not sure if the issue was ever resolved. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this too; see my comment on the talk page there. I really think we should just have a footnote about this and be done with it. This article should be deleted, but if not, it should accurately reflect that the only thing notable about this guy at all is his obsession with this campaign of character assassination based on bogus and poorly researched attacks on a scholar's childhood. csloat (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm slowly paring down the section at Edward Said and will add a {{main}} link to this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Human rights activist??

nishkid, one can find "human rights" 8 times in the article: 1) in the context that while he worked for the Israeli Ministry of Justice he investigated claims BROUGHT BY human rights groups (and media organizations) about Israeli conduct toward Palestinians; which is everything but human rights work. 2) that he discussed human rights of christian palestinians as a journalist; 3) that he styles HIMSELF a "human rights lawyer"; 4) his claim that someone urged him to investigate human rights abuses; 5) as description of israel shahak; 6) in the title of an article of him at the JCPA website; 7) in the title of an article of him in a law journal; 8) finally, the category...i'm still waiting for an hint that he's a human rights activist (and that the category is justified). oh, by the way, it's amazing that non-jewish americans are entitled to immigrate to israel and work for a ministry there.--Severino (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E directly applies to this article

Subject is known for one event only and nothing else. Article has been tagged since last year with no activity. If you disagree, please show eactly why subject is notable for anything else, using reliable sources. Thanks, IronDuke. Skywriter (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are violating WP:COATRACK, and background information on a subject is always welcome, if it comes from good sources. Why are the sources you are erasing bad? IronDuke 00:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are misinformed and have not answered the question. What is this guy notable for, besides writing the article about Said? Skywriter (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke, the material you added back into the article is peripheral and not notable at all. If you believe it to be notable, please show it, using reliable sources, showing suject is known for anything other than this one event. WP:BLP1E applies here and the responsibility lies with you to show notability of the information you re-inserted. None of it would be in Wikipedia if you had not added it and if the one-event controversy concerning Commentary magazine had not been in play. Resolving this as a one-shot WP:BLP1E event removes all controvery and the tags that have been afffixed to this article for a long time. This article was a candidate for deletion and overwhelmingly, the vote was to delete. One person said the vote was not consensus and so it has continued with no activity since August. If you think this guy is notable, show us why he is and why WP:BLP1E does not apply. He was famous for 15 minutes 11 years ago and then he faded into the woodwork. Don't agree? Show he didn't and flesh out his biography. What has been there for a year is shy on facts. Thanks.Skywriter (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You have missed the point entirely, and this discussion was had when you attempted to have the article deleted. Taking a metaphorical roofing axe to it is not your consolation prize for not getting it deleted. He has a number of publications to his name, see here, what earthly reason can there be for deleting them? It's a BLP vio to say where he's been published? WP:BLP1E applies here not at all. What are your specific problems with what you deleted from the article? IronDuke 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke wrongly uses Wikipedia publication list within this article to show notability. The list proves nothing. It is incumbent on anyone arguing that this guy is notable to use scholarly or secondary sources showing why he's notable. That he's written a few articles in 30 years just doesn't come close to meeting the guidelines. I don't understand why you are so invested in this. If you like the guy so much, add material that will persuade readers that he's worth an encyclopedia article. If you can't do this, and know of nothing notable about him, other than this one event, less is more. Please let the article be edited so it is readable and readers won't keep wondering what the dispute is about and why the article meanders all over the place with no focus.Skywriter (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete. What is your definition of "overwhelmingly," exactly? His bio could have more, but that doesn't mean he doesn't meet the WP threshhold for notability. He does -- easily. And even if that were not the case, you're arguing for deletion, and yet you didn't delete the article. When a subject is not notable, how can the answer be to make the article say less? Does that confer greater notability? It makes no sense. Oh, and one more thing: don't you think it would be a good idea to discuss a contentious change like this first? Thanks. IronDuke 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing delete. I edited the article so the important stuff is left in and the peripheral stuff is out. You have not made the case why it is intrinsically important and should be left in. Skywriter (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You edited out a substantial part of his bio, making it seem like he had no credentials other than one article. I understand why you did it, but it's in no way defensible. IronDuke 01:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That he's written a few articles is beside the point. Lots of people have. The question is whether scholarly sources or otherwise reliable publications have discussed him and his contributions and as I am sure, you can assure yourself, no one has. A mere listing of what he's written counts for nothing. What confuses me is that you are willing to hang last year's dispute tag on this article and allow it to continue indefinitely without making one single change in the article that changes anyone's mind as to its notability. If you look at the poll taken last year, most people who weighed in questioned its notability. That was not my argument at the time though now I see the wisdom of that position. This guy is known for one thing and one thing only, and he was known in only one conservative and several liberal publications. Other than that, no one knows or cares who he is because he's not notable. The stale stuff you reverted to is not notable. If you like this guy so much, why don't you show us, not tell us what he's notable for, aside from this one event. What follows is Wikipedia policy that applies in this case.Skywriter (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to remove the "disputed" tag, I would not object. I replaced it becaue it seemed to me very much like we were having a dispute about it. He has writen books and articles, at least one highly notable. People who do that often get a list of what they have published in their articles. And they should always get it. If we have a JW article, why not have what he published? And you are quite wrong about him being known for one thing only, see for example, here, an interview with him conducted by scholar only a few years ago. He's quite active on a number of I-P issues. And there's more out there, if you really want to dig for it. And you haven't said why the stuff he published isn't useful info to have here, in keeping with the letter and spirit of wiki bios. (I'm still wondering how you define "overwhelmingly," or why you wouldn't get consensus first for a radical gutting of the article) IronDuke 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want the disputed tag taken off this deeply troubled article. I edited it to what I think it is worth. You reverted to last year's tags. The revert means that the trouble with the article last year is again the trouble with the article this year.

Last year's vote was six to delete, two to keep, and one "weak keep." One of the six keeps was a delete that was reversed based on the desire not to merge the he said/she saids with the Said bio.

As to the evidence you present, two footnotes in 30 years in an obscure book do not equal notability. Is that all you've got? Skywriter (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing me now. Are you saying JW isn't notable? Isn't that an argument for deletion? IronDuke 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm seeing 6 votes to delete, 4 to keep, and two to merge, closed as "no consensus." Wrong? IronDuke 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That count distorts the intent of those who voted. There was one vote to keep; one to keep or merge; one to keep or delete altogether (rather than merge because the writer of the one article for which he is notable is widely viewed as a distortion), one merge and one "weak" keep.

You are confusing yourself. Weiner is notable for one event only --the one event in which he attacked a famous person and was found to have misled his readers as to the facts of his assertions. The puffery you insist be added to this article is not notable--and is just that--puffery. Skywriter (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I still see four votes with the word keep in them, as opposed to six deletes. Alas, I am unable to divine the intent behind every vote: I can only see that there was no consensus.

I don't see how JCPA doesn't count as a notable source. And the Virginia Journal of International Law is puffery, too? And that he seems often to be quoted on issues relating to housing in the IP conflict? Puffery? IronDuke 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The two of you seem to be misunderstanding each other's arguments completely. But in spite of that some interesting questions are raised here -- it is possible that it is time to take this to AfD again to see if a more rigorous discussion of the issues can be had. I'm still not sure anything about this person is notable, but certainly if he is notable it is only for the Said attacks, not for an article in the Virginia law review. csloat (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think I get Skywriter's points pretty well, if I do say so myself. And I did some checking last night, I think there's a good deal more that could be put in here, enough to make this article stand on its own without the Said piece. Don't think an AfD would result in consensus to delete, or any useful additional comments, really, but you're welcome to give it a whirl. IronDuke 00:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you understand his points, you're not showing any evidence of that here. And if you found anything new to make this person notable, it would be great if you shared it with us; it's kind of amazing that it has been missed by all of the mass media. I'll see where this goes before participating in an AfD but I can't imagine how this article would pass notability guidelines based on what's here. A minor footnote to the Said article is more attention than this deserves. csloat (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Weiner being "hired"

I have taken out the reference to Weiner being hired (which was outside the quotes around Said's reply). It is not supported by any evidence and is potentially libelous. There is no evidence that he wrote the article on anything other than his own initiative. The onus is on those who contend otherwise to present theirevidence. A paraphrase (or even a quote) of Said is not evidence. WHO hired him? When did they hire him? How much did they hire him for? Where is the evidence for the answers to those questions? Furthermore, it is important to remember that libel laws apply.

It may be necessary to clean up the quote to make it link up properly. But leaving in an unsubstantiated allegation that Weiner was "hired" by others would be legally problematical as well as lacking in academic rigour.

WP:RS, WP:NPOV

the article reflects the image cultivation of weiner and his camp and is based on highly biased "sources" (JCPA, frontpagemag,...) which are to be attributed to this camp. revision, taking into account more objective views, absolutely essential!--Severino (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

one example: "human rights activist" or "human rights lawyer" is -unlike "lawyer"- something which is not clearly defined, a description which is very subjective. characterizing somebody this way under reference to institutions which he is member of or very close to, is highly dubious. even if we had one or two media organizations which call him that, would it be dubious as it's still a matter of view, while it is presented here as a fact.--Severino (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

therefore i nominated this article to be checked for neutrality. one can receive the impression that some would like to support the "notability", "credibility" and "respectability" of weiner in order to support his claims about said.--Severino (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

agree -- "human rights lawyer" is sheer puffery. csloat (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cites

I would like to put to bed the notion that Weiner is not an international lawyer of some reputation; and that his notability only concerns the one thing he wrote about Ed Said. The following are just a few of the citations that other writers and scholars have made of his work that have zero to do with Ed Said. More references available upon request!

• "See Justus R. Weiner, "Israel's Expulsion of Islamic Militants to Southern Lebanon," 26 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 357 (1995) ... 21; see also Justus R. Weiner, The Hebron Protocol: The End of the Beginning or the Beginning of the ..."[4]

• "For a summary of a position justifying Israel's settlements on the West Bank, see Justus R. Weiner, "The Settlements in Judea and Samaria: A Legal View," Midstream, Aug.-Sept. 1986, 24-26. Weiner argues that Geneva IV does not forbid ..."[5]

• "Justus R. Weiner, Co-existence Without Conflict: The Implementation of Legal Structures for Israeli-Palestinian Cooperation Pursuant to the Interim Peace Agreements, in: 26 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 591, at n. 407 (2000). ..."[6]

• "Sometimes Christians, particularly Palestinian Christians, have experienced hostile persecution from both Arabs and Israeli Jews. Dr. Justus Weiner, a scholar in residence at the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs and a leading ..." [7]

• ...attorney Justus Weiner has written how Palestinian Christians suffer in PA areas due to Muslim discrimination. His research does not blame Israel. Another concept that all of you need to become familiar with is that of waqf. ..."[8]

• "30 See Justus R. Weiner, Co-Existence Without Conflict: The Implementation of Legal Structures for Israeli–Palestinian Cooperation Pursuant to the Interim Peace Agreements 26 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 591, 600–612 (2000). ..."[9]

• "125 (1995); Justus R. Weiner, "Hard Facts Meet Soft Law— The Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles and the Prospects for Peace: A Response to Katherine W. Meighan," 35 Virginia Journal of International Law (Virg. J. Int'l L.) 931, ...[10]

• "J. INT'L L. 435 (¡994) and especially at 467 and contra Justus Weiner. Hard Facts Meet Soft Law—The Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles and the Prospect for Peace, 35 VA. J. INT'L L. 93¡ (j995). 11. Literally, 'Those who are about to ..."[11]

• ".. of International Law and Politics, vol. 24(4), p. 1399 (1992). Justus Weiner, “The Palestinian Refugees' 'Right to Return' and the Peace Process,” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 20, p. 1 (1997). ...[12]

• "Justus R. Weiner. Wye River Memorandum: A Transition to Final Peace?, 24 Hastings Int'l & Comp. ... Justus R. Weiner, An Analysis of the Oslo 11 Agreement in Light of the Expectations of Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas, 17 MICH. ..."[13]

Miamosa (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Without examing now WHO refered to Weiner here (that might confirm my assessment), and just taking a look at the content of Weiners cited writings, these articles (justifying the jewish settlements and calling the area in question "Samaria and Judea", denying the Palestinian's Refugees Right to Return, with oddles of quotation marks when mentioning these terms, involving/usurping the palestinian Christians in order to defame the Palestinians,...) actually have a lot "to do" with Weiner's dealing with Edward Said and only confirms his bias/partisanship/missing independence. They also confirm the lecking neutrality of the article. Maybe Weiner is notable but we should write about his background (Israeli gvt official), write what he stands for (instead of sugarcoating him a "human rights lawyer"), include criticism, based on RS (not JCPA which he works for as also one of your articles say).--Severino (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This does not appear related in any way to the tag you put on the article, which has numerous sources. Two for the show (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Severino - the attempt to portray this guy as a "human rights lawyer" known for something other than his stalking campaign is absurd, and the topics of these citations support that claim rather than refute it. The cherry picking tag may not be the right tag for this but this is clearly a grave departure from what should be justifiable in an encyclopedia article. csloat (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

update - I removed the "international human rights" part to fix this a little bit. Interestingly, reading the extensive footnotes about his legal research, it might be more accurate to claim that he is an "anti-human rights" lawyer, since his work seems focused more on investigating the claims of human rights organizations and contesting them rather than actually looking into human rights issues himself. Obviously that would raise substantial POV issues; I don't see how the same issues are not raised by the "human rights lawyer" designation. I think we can all agree that "lawyer" is the most accurate term to use here. csloat (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pov

I have no idea how much of Weiner's story hold's water, but this article doesn't tell me. But ss it stands, this article is pure propaganda, and relies on sources of dubious reputation, such as Israel Shahak and Alexander Cockburn. The editors appear to believe that Israel is the devil and that Israelis are demons. This point of view might be useful on the op-ed pages of the Guardian, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I suggest that these obsessive partisan editors might take some time off and insult, perhaps, Finns or Canadians for a while and allow serious scholars a chance to produce something useful. 68.5.46.91 (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

for wikipedia it doesn't really matter that your national feelings were hurt, IP, because the article about weiner and his fabrications did not become a hagiography as it is tried by "obsessive partisan editors". the tag is insofar justified as there is still a clear bias to the favour of weiner and his adorers in the article now, citing op-ed's from the "jewish world review" and the like instead of serious (and neutral) sources.--Severino (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Weiner's article did not contain any fabrications, Severino. If it did, some one would be able to name one. David Kessler (author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.85.143 (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Justus Weiner. 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/20090108190813/http://www.counterpunch.org/said1.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/said1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215035815/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/444/op2.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/444/op2.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)