Talk:Thane Rosenbaum

Disguised resume.

Hi there,

I am not familiar with the details of Wikipedia's rules, but this seems to be a disguised resume. I have removed a long list of articles written by Rosenbaum (complete with full links) and I wonder what other users think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.85.140 (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a fawning puff piece, but now it's even worse. Other people have added even more useless catalogs of trivia. At least the links to the articles he's written let you get a sense of what his ideas are. I think they're better than nothing.

But for Wikipedia style, his most recent editorial on Israel, with its responses, has given him some notability. It's probably a good place to start.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/thane-rosenbaum-civilian-casualties-in-gaza-1405970362

Hamas's Civilian Death Strategy

Gazans shelter terrorists and their weapons in their homes, right beside sofas and dirty diapers.

By Thane Rosenbaum

July 21, 2014

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/thane_rosenbaum_s_wall_street_journal_op_ed_this_new_york_university_professor.html

The Terrorist Logic in Support of Israel

This New York University professor believes Palestinian civilians are legitimate targets because Gazans voted for Hamas.

Slate.com

By Jamelle Bouie

July 22 2014

http://gawker.com/i-wont-pretend-this-is-a-simple-issue-with-a-clear-righ-1608964108

WSJ Op-Ed Defends Killing Gazans in Eerily Familiar Language

Adam Weinstein

Gawker

22 Jul 2014

--Nbauman (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that he's written his own page. Edit warring currently under way. Probably not going to be pretty. Aemathisphd (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent WSJ column

We've got a edit war a brewin' over this column and its inclusion in the biography. For the record, I did not add the material, although I undeleted it. My rationale for doing so was that this is a writing of the subject's that has generated controversy and attention. Indeed, as someone who closely follows the Israel/Palestinian conflict, I was unaware of who he was until he wrote the column in question. I did soften the language as the editing record shows. The contention of Roozee (who is absolutely 1,000% NOT the subject of the article, swear to God, cross my heart, and hope to die) seems to be that the article is either insignificant given the volume of the subject's output and/or that the article has been misinterpreted. I think I've countered the former claim; for the latter claim, rather than deleting the reference, I think it'd be better to further massage the reference to assure NPOV. Aemathisphd (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea: Maybe look at Peter Beinart's page. Or Alan Dershowitz's page. Even Edward Said's page (although to be fair, he is dead). Notice the order in which they're organized. Notice that they contain both positive and negative assessments of the opinions and works. Notice that they contain no new research, which is another key point about Wikipedia. Please don't make me make a project out of this. I only stumbled on your page after reading your column by way of the WaPo and then watching your debate w/Beinart. Aemathisphd (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a quick summary of a recent essay is fair game, though if it generated particular comment or controversy, a brief description of those events too (rather than just a naked quote) would be good. More generally, this article is quite a puff piece, even with some of the more recent additions removed (the name dropping is particularly troublesome) and the article could use a good cleanup. JohnInDC (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realized the minor firestorm that that opinion piece started. It appears that there has been plenty of commentary on it - I note Slate and The Washington Post (an opinion piece too) for starters. I don't know where this imbroglio fits into the larger picture of the subject's life, but if singling it out would not be disproportionate, there is certainly enough sourceable material on this episode to include it here. JohnInDC (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather than edits & reverts, let's discuss what to do here. I don't mind the fairly dispassionate and short entry by an IP, this one: edit. He's a commentator, and this comment drew more than the usual attention. JohnInDC (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we please discuss rather than argue with edit summaries? This is a fairly noteworthy event, bringing he subject quite a bit of attention, and can surely be summarized cleanly, as I have tried now to do. Please discuss before simply removing it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Roozee continues to return to this page every few months to remove the Hamas story. Just sayin'. And again, he's totally not Thane Rosenbaum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nuke and start a new...

If I had ANY writing skills, which I don't, I would nuke this and start a new. The lede should be a summary of the article, which it isn't. There should be "sections" ie early life, career, personal life, reviews, ect. Way to much "listing" of material that doesn't help us to "know" the subject better. A user, Roozee, left a passionate note on my talk page and seems quite "invested" in this article. Maybe I will try to take a stab at a rewrite of this bio in my sandbox. It seems like I can't do much worse :) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, now I feel bad. I legitimately am not trying to honk this guy off, but he seems genuinely not to get that there's an issue here. I am precisely NOT the guy to explain to him why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 02:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel a bit bad, but not too much. The article is a mess, the other editor has a pretty clear COI and point of view to push, and if they're disappointed because they misunderstand how the encyclopedia works (is supposed to work), it's not your fault. It'd be nice if they were to take a step back, learn the ropes and then come back to edit constructively here or elsewhere - they'd be welcome. And if not, well, it's on them. Thanks for doing the right thing here. JohnInDC (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Aemathisphd, I would echo JohnInDC's sentiments above and not feel too bad. You do need a pretty thick skin around this project, especially if you are highly invested in the subject matter. I really enjoy working on articles that I have zero knowledge about or interest since I learn so much and its easy just to "walk away" if an edit war breaks out. I really enjoy biographies as well. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup, July 2014

I've started to rework the article into something more in line with Wikipedia biographies, among other things shifting around the headings, removing excessively promotional material (those endless lists of famous names, places and publications most notably), and hope to keep at it for a bit. But I don't intend or want to do it on my own so please, other editors, help me out here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I would actually get rid of the last five sections, I think they include 1 citation? At least combine them together and only include the really notable, well sourced "stuff". It looks better. I might add an "Early life" section that can be added to as sources are provided. Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of the very early versions of the article, before the COI editing began, may have usefully & neutrally cited material to go from. JohnInDC (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The current version almost looks serviceable from here, so Iam not going to create on in my sandbox, but try to look for further good reliable sources. --Malerooster (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Needs massive deletions

This entry needs massive deletions, and it might be a candidate for speedy deletion altogether -- except for the recent controversy over his article on Gaza.

The Wikipedia critera for whether something belongs in Wikipedia is WP:WEIGHT. WP:WEIGHT requires multiple independent WP:RS, which are generally newspaper or other articles -- not web sites.

In other words, somebody else besides the subject himself should think he's important.

I can't find anything that meets that criteria. For example, the http://www.forumonlawcultureandsociety.org/ isn't a WP:RS for purposes of establishing importance. You could just go down the article, section by section, and delete it all, because it has no WP:RS.

The other problem is that a long bibliography of the subject's publications violates WP guidelines too, such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the publications have been reviewed by a WP:RS, then they can go in, if they make a point. Otherwise, they should be deleted. The entire "Publications and radio" section should be deleted. Bring the publications back one at a time if you can establish their importance under WP:WEIGHT by pointing to multiple references in WP:RS.

I would delete the whole thing and start all over again with his WSJ essay on Gaza, along with the editorial reaction from it, in WP:RSs (not blogs). --Nbauman (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)