Jump to content

Talk:Barry Chamish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.211.168.181 (talk) at 03:04, 21 September 2016 (→https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Chamish: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

"In the book Chamish disagrees that Rabin was assassination by a lone Zionist gunman, as is widely accepted to be the case" Widely agreed by whom? Rabin was murdered by a conspiracy, Amir's brother and another accomplice were likewise convicted of complicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.15.218 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Extreme stubbing

I was forwarded an email complaint from someone, apparently Mr. Chamish, that we call him a "Holocaust Denier" when he isn't. I took one glance at the article and I am horrified by it. It is full of BLP violations. I am taking an extreme step right now and stubbing the article. I think every single claim in the article should be carefully checked and only re-inserted if it is sourced to a reliable source. As it stands now, the article is absolute crap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. "Absolute crap" is putting it mildly. That is one of the lamest entries I have ever read on Wikipedia (or was, before you stubbed it.) Having actually read Chamish's stuff, there's not a "Holocaust denial" anywhere in sight; he totally accepts the history, yet in the (now gone) text, there were at least a half-dozen references to "Holocaust denier," "Holocaust denial sites," etc. The article as was posted was totally un-sourced and filled with nothing but a list of one-sided dismissals. That's scarcely NPOV, and every sentence seemed to violate the Wikipedia rules on biographies of living persons. Ted Newsom (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Ted Newsom[reply]

Incredibly, one of the closest things to a reliable source that we do have in the article, an article by Daniel Pipes, says of Chamish that "he is not a Holocaust denier." [1]. This is from an article about him that is otherwise unrelenting scorn. Incredible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a history of abusive vandalism of this article by the Runtshit vandal. See in particular Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zuminous, though several other edits by Runtshit socks also make such edits. Many of the recent abusive edits share similar characteristics, and I have created an SPI. RolandR (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning more and more towards a nomination for deletion. So far, no one (including me, I'm sorry to report) has gotten the energy to try to write a better article. My review of the reliable sources suggest that the whole thing would be pretty thin anyway... to the extent he has gotten much mainstream notice, it's just as a "conspiracy theorist" - there seems to be virtually no information with which we could write a real biography. I will wait a few more days, though, to see if anything emerges.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't see anything in what few sources that exist to indicate this individual meets notability and aside from that as Jimbo states there are so few references even if he did their would be no way to source most information. I think deletion would probably be best. --108.18.194.162 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty empty attitude. The guy has written a number of books which have sold big numbers both here and in Israel; he clearly had a legitimate career in mainstream journalism before specializing in political and/or conspiratorial subjects; his reputation and statements cause a ruckus-- like the vandalism on this board. Like him or not, just those things alone would qualify him as "notable," as much as, for example, an entry on The Daily Bell website, Mark Lane or lizard-author David Icke, to use some varied examples. The problem is not availablity of information (there is plenty around, pro and con) but intentional vandalism. Reading this is like reading a history of the ACLU as written by the Koch brothers. Ted Newsom (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Ted Newsom[reply]

Hi , thanks for commenting, would you please when you make claims on the talkpage please provide the citations to support then as reviewers can better assess the situation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more interested in the Scrabble angle than the Holocaust myself but notice that the subject was "connected" to Holocaust denial by the Jerusalem Post five years ago. See Steven Plaut (Feb 2, 2006), "Israel's plague of 'conspiracism'", Jerusalem Post. This sounds like a guilt-by-association smear but it doesn't seem to be our doing. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pejorative description by Daniel Pipes removed

I have several times removed a pejorative description of Chamish given by Daniel Pipes is some book review. It has variously been labled "criticism" or "book review" [2]. We don't go about cherrypicking pejorative description of BLP subjects. If there's notable discussion of his theories, then as part of that views of them might be given, but not simply some out of context critical description.--Scott Mac 23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an individual with fringe views and stripping it of all critical content renders it out of objective balance. That said, I'm past worrying about it. Carrite (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Thank you, Off2riorob and Carrite for rewriting the article. Keegan (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes

Please do not remove pending changes from this article without discussion. It was not set as part of the trial, but because of distinct and particular BLP concerns with this article. I am happy to discuss whether this is the best approach for the article, a pragmatic approach to a BLP needs to take precedence over whatever general experiments and discussions are currently happening over FR.

This article has had major BLP issues, and has ongoing problems with edits. It is therefore useful not to have any edit immediately published before being scrutinised, and (if no one else does it) I am willing to scrutinise all edits. The scenario is liable to long term, so absolute prevention methods like protection or semi-protection are undesirable, but the traffic is low enough to scrutinise all edits. I use common sense and the available tools to do what I can for specific articles, and I'm happy to change from this pragmatic approach if someone tells me how using this tool is detrimental to the article in question, or to the goal of encouraging people to improve such articles.--Scott Mac 09:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Guise...

In the Career section, the publication date for Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin? is off by ten years. The next time you go protecting a page, doing a little proofreading first wouldn't hurt. 68.127.147.246 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! Happy138 (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016


https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Chamish 62.211.168.181 (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Chamish

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Chamish

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barry_Chamish&oldid=740442566"