Talk:Debbie Schlussel/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


> MBA, University of Wisconsin > JD, University of Wisconsin > BA, University of Michigan > Published in the Wall Street Journal: > > Profiled here in the Detroit Free Press: >

Debbie has asked that this article be expanded a bit and made more balanced. I've encouraged her to contribute but of course I hope also that the links and facts she gave me (above) will be incorporated into the article, as well as anything else useful that can be found.

--Jimbo Wales 9 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

  • I think this is a decent start. I'll see what else I can dig up later, but it's much more balanced than it was before, IMO --Badlydrawnjeff 17:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Debbie has asked that this article be expanded a bit"? What, she's going to sue Wikipedia for libel for something? I find that statement itself to be anti-NPOV. Even though the original entry that simply says she labels everyone terrorists needed a major NPOV revisit (something I did and you vastly improved on too.....her expose where she went into a mosque is very daring and something I admire and it is good to see that included), it is sounding like she herself is "monitoring" this entry. That can't be a good thing for the Wikipedia community.

I think the Yahoo fan club is noteworthy and I have put it back without the "sex symbol" part.

--hairymon 04:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I kind of wish she'd make a few changes herself, especially if we have some facts wrong or whatever. She's certainly notable enough to deserve a well-rounded article...--Badlydrawnjeff 06:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Racism, Sexism, Homophobia and Marla Ruzicka

The Wikipedia defines racism as is the belief that people of different races differ in value, that these differences can be measured on a ranked, hierarchical scale, and that result in the social, political, and economic advantage of one group in relation to others. It also defines Hate Speech as a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.

Debbie Schlussel has repeatedly lumped all practicers of the islamic faith and members of the Arab and Persian races as "terrorists" several times in both print and broadcast media. That is a racist practice and thus make her a racist. Her editorials are intended to degrade Muslims and members of the Islamic faith and that make them hate speech.

I added This is considered racist hate speech by many in the Arab-American community. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee considers her work racist hate speech and has a section on her in their 2002 Hate Crime report in the section : Media Bias and Defamation : Hostile Commentary in Print .

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has a section on her in their 2002 Hate Crime report in the section : Media Bias and Defamation : Hostile Commentary in Print .

The Wikipedia defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals". It is derived from the words homosexual and phobia. The term itself is however often broadened to encompass other feelings such as aversion to, disparagement of, or discrimination against gay people, their lifestyle, or culture.

"They aren't making a scale version of Dydek Barbie anytime soon. Dyslexic young girls might unscramble the letters of her surname and get the right idea of what the WNBA is really about"

She has made homophobic remarks centered around all female professional basket ball players in her editorial. This makes her homophobic and sexist.

I added She has made homophobic and sexist remarks centered around all female professional basketball players in her editorials. See Don't Judge the Criticism by the Critics.

She published derogatory remarks about peace activist Marla Ruzicka the founder of Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), when she was killed in Iraq on a refugee mission helping the civilian victims of the war.

I added She published derogatory remarks about peace activist Marla Ruzicka the founder of Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), when she was killed in Iraq on a refugee mission helping the civilian victims of the war. See. Horowitz's Gang Smears the Dead and Schlussel Carves Up Marla Ruzicka.

I've cleaned up a lot of this, and will probably work on more later. The controversy section is now longer than the entire rest of the article by a wide margin, and needs to be balanced out. --badlydrawnjeff 13:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing columnists that are critical of her commentary are not just "Cleaning Up" --8bitJake 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll let someone else fight with you over whether is a really reasonable and notable criticism (I, personally, do not), but I've made the links as footnotes like the rest of them for consistency. --badlydrawnjeff 19:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The readers of Wikipedia don't need to have links to critical articles of new framed in a negative light that diminishes their impact. To do so violates NPOV. --8bitJake 19:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, so to present them without comment in the context of the criticism they addressed is the most NPOV to do so. You're once again choosing to edit war as opposed to reaching consensus. Stop. --badlydrawnjeff 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what you want is not exactly a consensus. This article deserve imput from different sources. --8bitJake 19:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The sources are represented already, Jake. You simply want to make sure non-notable names get in there and the obviously POV names of the article get in there to sway things further. Again, take a look at how criticisms are handled in other articles with similar links within paragraphs. --badlydrawnjeff 19:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel herself is a non-notable name with a clear POV. Her articles and name are in other articles and it is worthwhile to mention her critical articles by name. I have a strange feeling that I have read this conversation before. --8bitJake 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unlike your two links, Schlussel is a syndicated columnist with a wealth of legitimate publications under her belt and numerous TV and radio appearances. The "critical articles" are on non-notable websites that don't even have WP entries or are published anywhere legitimately. --badlydrawnjeff 20:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are syndicated columnists. It is really sad that you have to file a false 3RR claim when you are the one who has reverted first and keeps reverting my additions. --8bitJake 20:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are they syndicated? And you're the last person to be discussing false 3RR claims. If you broke the rule, deal with it. --badlydrawnjeff 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You should do some simple Google serch before making wild claims. --8bitJake 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have. Where are they syndicated? What major publications? --badlydrawnjeff 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well to start How many do you want? They also have several books published. Unfortunatly they are not on yet. --8bitJake 20:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So, no major publications, outside of The Nation for Berkowitz (in 2002! 3 years old!), as I already knew. I was incorrect about Berkowitz to a point, although even his 6 articles didn't really grant him much in the way of notability. Joshua Frank still hasn't had anything published anywhere. Meanwhile, " " is THE DETROIT FREE PRESS, a major newspaper which Schlussel has a column in every week, and last had one posted this past Sunday. Certainly, you're not attempting to equate Schlussel with these two internet journalists. --badlydrawnjeff 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For reasons which are unclear, proof of homophobia is being deleted from this page. I recently added information, taken from her own website no less, in which she claims the Oscars were run by a "gay agenda" forcing homosexuality on its viewers. --AWF

The reason is clear, if you read the discussion below. She says lots of things on her website, her every move isn't notable. Have reliable sources been criticizing her for her position on the "gay agenda?" If so, link 'em up and the information can be re-added. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?)

NY Post and other notes

"A syndicated columnist with a wealth of legitimate publications under her belt"??? When was Schlussel published in the NY Post? An author search of their online edition I did on 26 January 2006, going back to August 1998 (which is as far back as the online archives go) turned up NOTHING.

What's more, an author search that same day of the online edition of The Wall Street Journal turned up ONE article written by her between the earliest date for which text is available, 1 January 1984, and 19 January 2006, the most recent date available at that time.

I never heard of her until she showed up on the Howard Stern show. I really like the way Artie Lange makes fun of her, pointing out how she is just playing a bizarre version of the six-degrees-of-separation/Kevin Bacon game whenever she slings her ridiculous charges of "terrorist-sympathizer/collaborator" against various "left-wing" celebrities. Jason Alexander did a great job rebutting her when she called in to criticize him for his association with a charity which she claimed was linked to terrorists.

I must admit, though, that she has a sexy voice, and that she looks good when disguised as a Muslim woman, assuming that this is her in this picture: -- 23:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Her NY Post column is archived here, I don't know why it's not at the main site. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Land Bridge and WP:OR

The reason I kept removing it is because, unlike just about everything else in the controversy section, *why* it's controversial is linked. When we have an ever-expanding controversy section that can probably be scaled back as is, and we're adding unsourced information in violation of WP:OR, it's a problem. In the land bridge case, who's saying it's controversial? Who's calling her out? If we're just saying it's controversial, it's OR. Hopefully someone who keeps adding it back will add a source in the next few days, or it should be removed. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 03:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the statement after nothing being provided for 10 days. There's nothing to indicate anyone finds her position on the land bridge to be controversial. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Please keep WP:RS in mind, too. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It has a source. Since she is a very minor media figure your can’t expect major media outlets to cover her every time she says something insane or racist.--8bitJake 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

She is a major media figure. And stop removing {{fact}} tags, and stop edit warring. You need to read WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. You had 10 days to dig up a reliable source, and you didn't step up to the plate. Why now? Why didn't you? Because it's original research, perhaps? You've reverted me, so it's worthless to self-revert at this stage, but you're being completely unreasonable, again. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there is a source now so what is your problem? She is a racist bomb thrower blowhard and making inflammatory and contervercial remarks is what she does as a supposed media professional. I see this article getting very long if we wanted to make a list of all the racist rants that she has published.--8bitJake 23:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. You apparently don't understand it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your vehemence in keeping that paragraph out. The land bridge argument is self-evidently controversial. She is saying that American Indians have no legitimate claim to any land or special circumstances because they didn't spontaneously come into existence in the Americas. One could spend a lifetime cataloging evidence to the contrary in the form of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, reservations throughout the Americas and even the gambling industry in the United States. All of it is predicated on the concept that land was appropriated from the Indians by Europeans. To assert otherwise is unequivocally controversial. --AStanhope 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Who reliable has reference that her opinion on the matter is controversial? To claim that her article is controversial without any reliable sourcing to say as much is against basic Wikipedia policy. Combine that with my talk message from 11 days ago requesting sourcing that no one could provide, and there's my protest. And PLEASE STOP removing the {{fact}} tag from the section above it, it needs a reference, period. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I've got no problem with the FACT tag. If I removed it in the course of reverting I did so unintentionally. The FACT tag should stay - as will the Land Bridge paragraph. Will you restore the fact tag, please? I'm not sure where you want it to go. Thanks! --AStanhope 16:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You'll have to explain how the land bridge paragraph supports the guidelines in WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS before adding it again. If you feel the need to be difficult and revert instead of addressing these issues, don't revert the extra sourcing I've added to other sections. Then again, there's currently no reason to add the section back, so we shouldn't have any problems. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm assuming, since you readded it, that the problems inherent in the section are dealt with? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
            • You are bringing a POV agenda to this article. Your User page explicitly states that your political inclinations are Conservative and you have categorized yourself as part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." This is no place for POV warring. You are clearly embarrassed about the inclusion of that very reasonable paragraph. If you can't keep your POV out of your editing then you really shouldn't participate in articles about polarizing political figures. --AStanhope 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
              • WP:AGF, buddy. The only POV pushing I'm seeing is by editors who want to insert unveriafiable original research, including one editor on a revert war who calls her a "racist bomb thrower." If you're going to accuse me of POV pushing, you'd better start by deomstrating what POV I'm pushing. Then again, you can't demonstrate the controversy of her remarks regarding the land bridge, either, so I won't hold my breath. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
                • I don't recall calling her a "racist bomb thrower." --AStanhope 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • I don't recall calling you one. However, I do find the POV accusations funny coming from someone who appears to post at DailyKos (assuming this is you, which evidence seems to pile up about, you refer to Schlussel here as an extreme wingnut and is part of the Boston "Drinking Liberally" chapter. Also, I'm certainly going to hope that the random IP reversion didn't come from a certain high speed internet provider in your hometown to dodge any 3RR issues. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • Looks like it came from ComCast in NJ or PA... There is also an Adam Stanhope that was the CEO of RaptureTV in London, sort of an MTV ripoff. That's not me either. I did review the books on Amazon, though. --AStanhope 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • Regardless, someone who is on record as referring to Schlussel as an "extreme wingnut" on a high-traffic far-left blog has absolutely no place accusing anyone else of POV on this article, especially when they continually fail to demonstrate the simple verifibility and notability that the section requires via Wikipedia policy. But hey, can't deal with the issue on the table, so you'll just attack the editor. I see how it unfortunately has to go. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I called her a "a racist bomb thrower blowhard". If you are going to quote me feel free to use the whole quote. --8bitJake 06:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Regarding sources in the Controversy section, there doesn't have to (and there shouldn't) be a source of whether or not she's right or not. The source should show that there is a controversy regarding her statements at all. If some random person says something like "The Earth is flat," but nobody cares about what the person thinks, it's NOT controversial, because it's not a controversy. Regarding this, it doesn't matter whether she's right or wrong, it just matters that a controversy exists. I'm not sure of the exact circumstances here, since I actually have no clue who this woman is (I got drawn into this for fixing a wikilink after investigating a possible vandalism), but that is the standard on what sources should be, and must be, included. --Rory096 20:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Derogatory comments about Marla Ruzicka

There is nothing POV about recognizing that the following assertions made by Debbie Schlussel about Marla Ruzicka are derogatory: [1]

  • Schlussel accuses Ruzicka of blackmail
  • Schlussel accuses Ruzicka of aiding and abetting the enemy
  • "bad fashion taste"
  • Ruzicka wears a hijab in Iraq so that she may be "down with her new Islamist homies"
  • Schlussel calls Ruzicka a "neo-Commie"
  • Schlussel calls Ruzicka am "America-hater"
  • Schlussel calls Ruzicka "pro-Saddam"
  • Schlussel calls Ruzicka's death by a suicide bomb in Baghdad "poetic justice"

If that isn't a list of derogatory remarks, I don't know what is. Whether or not I called them "self-evidentally derogative" in the edit summary doesn't change the fact that these remarks are objectively derogative, regardless of one's political persuasion. I'm sure that Schlussel herself would identify these remarks as derogatory.

If they aren't "derogatory," are they complimentary?

I am removing the qualification of "derogatory" from the article and letting it stand by itself. --AStanhope 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should just be removed? After all, the two columnists accusing her of it aren't notable, and Marla Ruzicka is an unknown person to begin with. Regardless, we're not here to make "self-evident" claims, nor would some people consider "neo-Commie," "America hater" or "pro-Saddam" inherently derogatory. Thus the need for the clarification of who said it. We have two choices: either note who claims they're derogatory, or remove the line item outright, both of which are in line with WP:NPOV, and which your edits are not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that "America-hater" and calling her death "poetic justice" are derogatory. The section will not be removed, nor is there a need to add the columnists. What about accusing someone of blackmail isn't derogatory? --AStanhope 21:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think, when trying to achieve NPOV, that we can agree on that at all. Per the policy at NPOV, we have two options, otherwise we're asserting that she's being derogatory, and we don't assert things here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should get some other peoples' opinion. --AStanhope 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Added to RfC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Link? --AStanhope 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Schlussel - Ruzicka business was a big thing and I remember it well - Marla Ruzicka wasn't an unknown person. What happened was that Schlussel misjudged the mood terribly and tried to repeat a Rachel Corrie type hatchet job. Unfortunately many commentators including Chris Hitchens knew of the lady and were distinctly unimpressed. Forcing a veiled backtrack out of David Horowitz for hosting the article. I don't think the "derogatory" term needs qualifying. Regardless of the political slurs, saying that someone has "bad fashion taste" is clearly intended to be derogatory.--Zleitzen 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My issue, however, is that we're simply stating that she's being derogatory without any qualifiers - who says she's being derogatory? Are we actually in a position to make that judgement, or do we follow NPOV and not make judgements? The concern is valid - we've had a number of issues with this article, and I don't want to see it happen again, and perhaps this can be expanded to include the Hitch stuff that I was unaware of, but I don't see how we can simply state it and still stay within policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hitch wrote "David Horowitz can well defend himself and has I believe already done so. Still, I must say I resent the further imputation about my friend Marla Ruzicka, about whom I wrote a short obituary and for whose bereaved family my wife gave a reception at our home. [2]. Partly as a response to nemesis Max Blumenthal who also wrote about Schlussel's "technique to smear the heroic humanitarian worker Marla Ruzicka"" [3]. Both of these writers are more notable than Schlussel herself. As is Justin Raimondo who called her piece a "hate-filled screed" [4]. So you could use all three quotes there. "Derogatory" seems quite mild in comparison. Actually, I rather like the Raimondo description of Schlussel's article as a "river of Sh*t" - can we have that in the article? ;) --Zleitzen 02:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually not opposed to the better wording at all. As long as we reference the who and what, I'm game. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
My initial problem with the language used was how it was qualified. It said something to the extent of, "Several commentators like ABC and XYZ felt that her comments were derogatory." This creates the distinct POV impression that whoever wrote that DOESN'T in fact believe that the comments were derogatory. I think what Zleitzen and I are saying is that some or all of what Schlussel said is objectively and unequivocally "derogatory." Because of this we do NOT need the "who and what." --AStanhope 18:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
And my entire problem with not sourcing them is simply because we, as an encyclopedia, are not in a position to decide what's derogatory, even if we all believe it is in our own minds. That's why we source them and point out who's saying it. Since there's significantly more information coming up about it, we can probably rewrite the seciton so it stays NPOV and is more detailed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Jeff and Astanhope are correct in this sense. Of course the remarks were deliberately derogatory - but that in itself doesn't work in the context of the "controversies" section. It would be better to fashion a sentence or so, stating that "Schlussel's piece created controversy and was criticised by both pro and anti war commentators - Hitchens resented the dishonest slurs of Schussel's attacks whilst Raimondo described it as a "hate filled screed". In Raimondo's case there are many alternatives to pick from his furious reposte, but the general universality of the negative response can be highlighted to give a more accurate picture - whilst remaining NPOV and not letting Schlussel "off the hook" - as her article clearly was controversial. --Zleitzen 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic Background

Did Schlussel earn any degree? If so, please add that.

Stop Removing the part about her anti-WNBA pieces and movie reviews

Badlydrawnjeff, please stop removing the parts about Debbie Schlussel being anti-feminist (particularly in regard to the WNBA) and her movie reviews. If you go to her blog/site, she does plenty of this, she just doesn't make it easy to search her site for exact references. The thing about her cousin writing a rebuttal is on her site as well, it's just awhile ago and hard to find. It all is as significant a part of her persona as is her anti-terrorism stuff. Maybe you don't consider it "controversy", but it does say "controversy and criticism" and it certainly is criticism.

Rather than remove it, which I think is very POV (and I don't totally disagree with her, unlike the WNBA and movie review pieces, I actually mostly agree with what may appear to be her terrorist paranoia), why don't you go look for the pieces and mark them on the Wikipedia entry yourself if your so concerned?

I looked for it on her site and couldn't find it month ago when I cleaned it up. Take a look at WP:BLP sometime and you'll see why it's important.As no controvery or criticism has been verified for it (and I've asked for it for a while now), it shouldn't be here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that if she takes a position like that, it's worth mentioning in the entry. Badlydrawnjeff, the piece is here: And if you want criticism of her, you need only read this: --Fingerknöchelkopf 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


The Corsi stuff is here because of the recent request for comment, why are we adding this stuff further? Is there any evidence of the other two actually being a criticism of her? Are they at all noted as anything major by anyone other than those reading Schlussel's work? Should any of it be there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been nearly a week since I mentioned this. Does anyone have an answer? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The section on death threats needs to be removed. None of the death threats are serious, because if they were the police would get inlvovled which they have'nt

  • Have you actually read the article? There have been 2 arrests and indictments. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The photograph needs to be removed, Schlussel has made copyright complaints to others

While I think most wikipedia photographs are fine and fair use, I think the photograph of Schlussel needs to be removed as Schlussel has complained when reporters/bloggers/radio personalities have used copyrighted photographs of Schlussel.

I am planning on removing the link to the photograph from this article with five days. The photograph should be replaced, if at all, with a public domain photograph.

Again, this has nothing to do with the usual wikipedia copyright photograph controversy, this is merely respecting the evident wishes of Ms. Schlussel and protecting the wiki from lawsuit. [Debbie Schlussel Threatens Me with a Lawsuit] 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works, and I'll be reverting you if you do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I take exception at your threat. I explain my reasoning, and I give a reasonable deadline, and your behavior is to simply state with no explanation a) that is not how it works, and b) to threaten reversion. I believe you are ignoring the fundamental wikipedia premise which is to treat each other with respect, to help out and educate, and to improve rather than remove. Shame on you. 17:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Your reasoning is irrelevant to Wikipedia, and may, in fact, constitute a legal threat if someone was feeling generous. The image illustrates a portion of her career, that's all we need to concern ourselves with, not how she may treat opponents on other site with no link to this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, and I thank you for the explanation, but don't blame me when she sues the wikipedia. I tried to warn you. 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Given her history with the site, I have no concerns about that whatsoever. I still think there's a major weight issue coming up yet again, though, but that's for the next section. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

The criticism section is, unsurprisingly, ballooning again. Can some people justify the majority of these, or should we begin removing some of the lesser "controversies," like the HuffPost ones or ones that received limited/no coverage? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the criticism section should be completely removed. Rush Limbaugh is a much more controversial figure than Schlussel by comparison, and yet, whenever anyone edits Limbaugh's page or his shows page to enumerate or detail the controversies, those pages are cleaned up in supposedly to keep with wikipedia policies. Why is it okay to enumerate or detail Schlussel controversys and not Rush's? It seems there is only a few reasons and that is either a) wiki is scared of rush, or b) something bad about the way the wikipedia runs allows people to selectively clean up and remove factual based information on one person while allowing (or even encouraging) disparaging but accurate information to be maintained and developed on another person. That hardly seems fair or a way to create an accurate encyclopedia. I propose we remove all factually based by potentially derogatory comments from the following profiles: Shlussel, Hannity, Rice, Bush, Genghis Kahn.
Well, that would be some undue weight in the other direction. Your list of names keeps me from taking you too seriously here, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion addition

Why is this controversial? Who said? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're speaking of her comments on the Paula Zahn Show, it caused enough stir for her to post about all the email she was receiving and for CNN to invite Richard Dawkins onto the show tonight. The video was spread through many of the atheists blogs and did spark a reaction (as would be expected when someone tells an entire group to shut up on national television). Shadowin 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Death Threats

This section needs to be removed. None of the threats are serious, because if they were the police would get involved which they have not. The threats are just a bunch of angry people with no intention of doing anything.

There have been two arrests and indictments. So the police are very much involved. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Attacks and accusations of Pakis

Debbie accused pakistani 'pakis' at VTech as being the possible culprits of the mass shooting when the initial reports said "asian". This did cause some online controversy already. Don't have time to add it with references, so just mentioning it so others can add to the controbersy section later. Fermat1999 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to find another link (can we use cached copies if they exist?) for the references to her Pakistani comments because she has edited that particular entry (and removed another entry where she speculates about whether or not a photo of someone in another person's flickr account was the killer based on the fact that his nickname was Ishmael and his name was similar to the VTech shooter). The entry now reads -- "I've removed this entry, mostly because I am spending too much time monitoring the slimy comments from the Nazi-infested Media Matters for America cretins." Lostinube 13:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The salon link still quotes it in good detail.
This has been fixed. Therefore 21:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maccabiah games

Schlussel didn't represent the US at the 1985 Maccabiah Games (though she says "she was a finalist to represent the U.S. in tennis") - so she certainly didn't win any medals. She says she won "several medals in tennis, track and cross country running in the 1984 Maccabi Games (the Junior Jewish Olympics)" in 1984. This is somewhat deceptive - it implies these junior games were held internationally. The event in 1984 was the "2nd North America Maccabi Youth Games, Detroit" and had 1100 participants. Does this qualify as a significant event? [5]

I wrote this section using what's in the external links section. I may have misrepresented that inadvertently, being unaware of the levels of Maccabiah games, so feel free to repair it at will. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I will rewrite. I was torn between deleting the reference entirely and correcting it. Is it germane that a journalist appeared in a junior event for Jewish athletes twenty or so years ago or not? If they'd won a race at their school sports' day, we wouldn't include it. If they'd won an Olympic gold medal, we would. Where does this lie on that continuum? (sorry for forgetting to sign before)Fiveoldroad 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends on how important the event is. I was under the mistaken impression that it was the major one, and it appears I was wrong. You seem to know more about the games than I do, so I'll defer, but I think it's a pretty interesting note to mention in a paragraph about her early life regardless of how important the event is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I edited as you were posting this. Please revert if you think the games are relevant to the biog.Fiveoldroad 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


It's clear there are problems with the sourcing of the biographical details. Good sources do not exist in most cases. I thought it was worth clarifying, however, that footnote 1 is a reprint of Debbie's own biography, not an independent source.Fiveoldroad 03:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. See WP:V. I haven't really had the push to get inline links in on this one, as I've been focused on other things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh - perhaps I've misunderstood then. My reasoning, under WP:V, was that the only source for the biog is a self-published one (and arguably self-serving). It seemed better to reference directly to the self-published source than to a source that a reader might mistake as a reliable one, but that is in fact a straight reprint of the self-published one.Fiveoldroad 04:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Self published sources are not considered notable. I hold most of her biography should be deleted. Auxiliary salesman (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Mansoor

A reference to Michael Mansoor is used in support of the assertion that Schlussel is not racist. Schlussel has indeed referred to him as a 'patriotic Arab-American'. A few thoughts. (1) Schlussel has been accused of racism by her critics, but she is more commonly accused of being anti-Islam; (2) Mansoor is the son of a Christian/Egyptian father and a Finnish mother, and was born in California - don't know what religion he is, but probably not Muslim; (3) Mansoor himself strongly objects to being described as an Arab-American: "I am an American – without a hyphen." I therefore propose the reference is deleted. [6][7]Fiveoldroad 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevant biog details

A recent edit has clarified that Schlussel's father did not serve in Vietnam, but rather served is a 'a Vietnam-era Army Veteran'. In another article, Schlussel says that 'unlike Lieberman -- and Cheney -- my Dad got no deferments, serving proudly in the Army during Korea and Vietnam.' I take from this that he was in the army during the 50s but did not see active service in either Korea or Vietnam. I am not sure that is "relevant to the person's notability" - so have removed completely WP:SELFPUB. In contrast, her mother's birth in a concentration camp does seem relevant to Schlussel's views, so I have clarified and expanded this. [8] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fiveoldroad (talkcontribs) 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC).Fiveoldroad 22:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this one - I think her father's time in the army has a similar impact on her views on the military and whatnot. I think this should be restored. I'm also beginning to get concerned about the balance of this article, but i;ll wait until you're done working with it before getting into it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. I was also struggling with the chronology and how to phrase it. He served during Korea (50-53) and Vietnam (59-75), but not in either. So he must have been serving throughout much of the 50s I suppose - but based elsewhere (say Germany). Not quite sure what point you're making about balance though.Fiveoldroad 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Death threats redux

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves states:

Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

I think there's a BLP problem here. We can't use her self-published sources to verify those claims. I am temporarily removing the section. If secondary reliable sources can be located, then maybe some or all of it can go back in. At least one claim shouldn't be too difficult to verify. - Crockspot 02:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it fits the second clause that you didn't bold, where it's an event directly related to the subject. I'm pretty sure this qualifies with ease, although I've been a bit indifferent about its inclusion on a usefulness standpoint. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is contentious, and arguably self-serving as well. But the BLP problem involves the third parties. The conviction shouldn't be hard to find a news report on. - Crockspot 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)By the way, that's an either/or criteria. It should probably be split into two bullet points. - Crockspot 02:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if I agree but I'm not sad to see it go, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If secondary reliable sources ARE found, I think it's probably fine to include the self published source as an additional cite, as long as the secondary source fully verifies the claim. - Crockspot 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Schlussel postings are used not to demonstrate the truth of the matters asserted but to show that Schlussel has made these accusations. In the case of the indictments the actual court documents are attached. To remove them is to hide crucial information about this person. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. It wasn't characterized as her accusations, it was stated as fact. Court documents are still primary sources as well. It can be used to back up a secondary source. Still need the secondary. Was there not a single news report about it? - Crockspot 03:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that an official court document cannot be used as a reliable source of its own existence and contents? Why would that be? I think we have all kinds of documents used as sources on Wikipedia, not just news reports. Maybe it needs to be put on "Wikisource" first? (Since it is a U.S. government document it is not copyrighted so that is not a problem.) 6SJ7 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording of WP:V has now changed slightly, I adjusted my quote of the policy above to reflect the new wording. - Crockspot 12:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed death threat section

While folks try to figure this out, I have removed it as unsourced per above. Thanks --Tom 15:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is figured out, it clearly violates WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Removing again. - Crockspot 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not "figured out" at all in the way you assert. The first paragraph, about the indicted and convicted threat makers, is sourced to publicly available court documents. The second, about Lola Elzein makes it very clear that Schlussel has made a highly public accusation of a crime against this individual. The fact of the accusation is evident and needs no source beyond Schlussel's site because Schlussel herself is the one who made it. The allegation of threat is noteworthy whether or not the threat was ever made. The article makes no comment on the truth of Schlussel's claim and notes that Elzein has not been indicted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can rewrite it and resource it so that it does not use Schlussel's self-published sources, then feel free to work it back in. But with the Schlussel blog sources most certainly violate WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, no matter how you try to dance around it. I asked for this to be done quite some time ago, and no one seems to have made an effort to improve the sourcing. Also, if you are going to cite primary sources (court docs), you also need a secondary reliable source referencing it. We do not source such contentious material with primary sources alone. - Crockspot 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I took a closer look this time, there are some better sources now, but the schlussel blog posts and the sources must come out. Neither one is a reliable source. Would you like to remove them and rewrite, or do you want me to do it? - Crockspot 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comment on her bias

Why was my comment highlighting her bias removed? She clearly focusus only on Muslim extremisim and not any other religions. THere is no libel as I explained my point

Your explanation of your point would be original research. Citing of reliable secondary sources explaining that point would be allowable. - Crockspot 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

This article should probably mention...

Her role in the Anti-Obama whisper campaign, specifically by perpetuating false rumours that Barack Obama is a Muslim. From this article [9]:

"The first clear appearance of the theme on the Web came in a Dec. 18, 2006, column by Debbie Schlussel, a Detroit-based writer who often alleges ties between mainstream American figures — most recently, former Sen. Fred Thompson — and Islamic radicalism.
“I had a lot of readers ask me about Barack Obama and his background, and a lot of them had heard he was a Muslim or thought he was a Muslim,” Schlussel said. “I looked into it, I found out his middle name was Hussein.”
The result: a column titled “Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always a Muslim."

This definitely seems worth mentioning here to me. Terraxos (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreee... AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


How could her mother have been born at and lived at Bergen-Belsen until she was six years old when Bergen-Belsen as a concentration camp was only open from 1942-1945?--Mcpaul1998 (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed passage about Shaquille O'Neal

I removed the passage about Shaquille O'Neal in the introduction, along with the lengthy quote, for the following reasons:

  1. There was no link to verify the quote, and I could not verify it with the help of google. I found a few columns about Shaquille O'Neal, but none contained the quoted passage.
  2. Putting such a lengthy quote into the introduction gives undue weight to a topic that is not very central to Schlussel's writing.
  3. The passage didn't meet Wikipedia's standards, the quote was rather arbitrary, and "recent column" is not a good description in an undated text.—Graf Bobby (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable Feud

Debbie Schussel has been involved in a fairly one sided feud with fellow political commentator and radio host Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Uygur has repeatedly criticized Schussel on his radio program and has coined the phrase "Schwang wang wang Debbie Schussel" to denote his disapproval of both Schussel and of the topic being discussed. This phrase has become popular amongst Uygur's fans as indicated by the frequent usage of the phrase as a comment on Ms. Schussel's Youtube videos as well as on her Youtube channel. The phrase has also been added as content on the popular web-based Urban Dictionary. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

--Unkindunkin (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)