Talk:Edward Said/Archive 1

misleading and unsourced

The article says "Ultimately, Said came to prefer and to support a state that would afford Palestinians a home with equal human rights in place of the 'Jewish' state of modern-day Israel."

A. Palestinians in Israel(20% of the population) have full and equal human rights, that is, every single right the Jews and other non Jewish citizens in Israel have. A more accurate statement would be that he believes refugees who are currently not Israeli citizens should become Israeli citizens who would then have full rights.

B. the statement is unsourced, shouldn't be hard to find a source.

Drsmoo 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The article states:

"...his extended family became refugees in 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War when his family home in Talbiya was stolen by Jewish militia groups, along with the western part of Jerusalem, which became part of the State of Israel:"

STOLEN? That's not a neutral word.

Should we also say that the Muslim armies, from 632 to 750, STOLE Syria, Armenia, Egypt, North Africa, Persia, as well as parts of Spain and India?

209.122.217.104 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

/in Lebanon - moved out of the article namespace. Cyan 07:14, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

These changes to Edward Said are as NPOV as I can make them. I think this is a better article for several other reasons, even if some people may not want to hear that Said may have falsified his resume. If there are mitigating points to be made on the other side of this issue, someone should add them, but it is a fact, not an opinion, that Said's story of his background has been authoritatively questioned, and that should remain, regardless of how this article evolves.

If there is any question, I am not an expert on the Middle East. I am working from journalistic accounts. I am not Jewish, am generally pro-Israel, and think the Palestinians are getting a raw deal from the Arabs as well as from the Israelis.Ortolan88 June 02

Generally, I agree with the changes, except that no one questions that Said was born in Jerusalem. The question is over whether he lived there, studied there, and was expelled from there. Danny

Check! My mistake. Thanks! Ortolan88

---

I removed the following material (which I have since formatted here so as to consume less space):

"Among Jews Said is notorious for promoting a Neo-Nazi anti-Semitic attack on Jews by Israel Shahak. Edward Said wrote an eight page introduction to a French book, "Jewish Religion, Jewish History" (La Vieille Taupe, 1996) published by a French Neo-Nazi group that denies that the Holocaust existed. in this booklet Said promotes the following Anti-Semitic myths (none of which are true):

• The Chmielnicki pogroms of the 17th century that were events that shoudl be admired by progressives.
• The Talmud tells Jews to hate all non-Jews.
• Jewish children must utter curses at dead gentiles when walking by a gentile cemetary.
• Orthodox Jews say a prayer in worship of Satan when they wash their hands.
• Orthodox Jews murder non-Orthodox rabbis.

"Jewish Religion, Jewish History" is hard to obtain; it is available from the book's distributor, the Librairie du Savoir in Paris. This book is listed in the OCLC world catalog and in the catalogue of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

The material seems to come exclusively from Werner Cohn's review of Said available here. One thing you'll note quickly is that the first paragraph attempts to paint Said as guilty by association by the fact that Said's works were published by a group which (according to Cohn, I have no idea if it's true) denies the Holocaust happened. But Said has also fought against holocaust denial amongst Arabs, which Cohn notes, but we don't. This is a very awful tactic.

If you think that Said's promotion of Neo-Nazi material is awful, then this really tells us what you think about Edward Said. Don't blame the messenger.

No, I'm not saying that Said is using an awful tactic; I'm saying that we are. We are implying that Said is a holocaust-denier, when in fact he actively fights holocaust denial. This is a misleading smear at best and something that has no place in an encyclopedia. Also, I have only skimmed Shahak's book, but from my cursory reading, calling it Neo-Nazi is absolutely and utterly incorrect.

Fair claim. In fact, I did not mean to imply that Edward Said is a Holocaust-denier. He is not. RK

---

Secondly, the information here is inaccurate. Said, again according to Cohn, wrote an introduction to a book by Shahak, which was later translated into French and published by La Vielle Taupe. He did not write an introduction to a French book. [note--I checked again and now I'm not sure which was written first, the english or the french. --dk] Thirdly, the text says "Jewish Religion, Jewish History" is hard to obtain; this is false. It is sold by Amazon.com.

The original French version is not available. There are differences between this and the English version. (Is this really so surprising? The French also put a book on the best-seller list which denies that half of 9-11 ever happened, and denies that Arab terrorists ever dive-bombed a jet into the Pentagon.) RK

First, I'm very offended at the way you use one broadstroke to characterize "The French" as an entire group of people. French people are heterogenous, like any other group of people. Second, I think in no way should we rely on Werner Cohn, who provides no quotes or context, except the one in which Said credits Shahak, which is evidence of nothing. If we can't find the French version or other reviews of it, then I think we're best just not including it rather than including Cohn's uncredited review of it. Third, I found the English text of the book published here and it seems to be made clear in Chapter 1 that the book was originally written in English and later translated into French, which makes all the goings-on about it being "difficult to obtain" and published by a publisher Werner Cohn says published holocaust-denial materials pretty irrelevant. (The version at that site does not include Said's foreword.)

Given these inaccuracies and the fact that Cohn does not even bother to quote Said when he accuses him of holding the above beliefs, or provide any context for the beliefs whatsoever, I think it would be better if we did not include it, pending further examination. DanKeshet 03:01 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

The text, as originally written, doesn't say that Edward Said believes these things, as such. It says that Shakah believes these things, and Said promotes this book. On about a thousand other places on the Internet, Edward Said has claimed that Shahak is one of the best and most imporant historians of Judaism. What does this tell you? RK

Sorry, I misread the text. Particularly, it says "in this booklet Said promotes the following Anti-Semitic myths:". I read that as "Said promotes the following anti-Semitic myths", not "This booklet promotes the following anti-semitic myths." My mistake, though it should be better written. But this is even worse than the original! This material, if properly credited, belongs on Israel Shahak, not here. DanKeshet 15:48 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

I would think that this material belongs here; Edward Said is clearly promoting these anti-Semitic myths. Does it make a difference if he is the author of them, or if he merely does hisbest to spread them? No Neo-Nazi group today is the author of Hitler's Mein Kampf. However, it is agreed that people who write congraulatory letters to Hitler in new editions of this book, and who claim that Hitler is correct in his descriptions of Jewish people, are themselves anti-Semites. RK

---

Sorry for the delay; I'm barely on the internet these days. I don't disagree with the idea of mentioning that Said wrote the forward to the second edition of Shahak's book, though among the many hundreds of books and articles Said has written, I don't think it's particularly important. But clearly it stuck in the mind of Werner Cohn, among others.

However, I have gone ahead and read Shahak's book and our characterization of it (which resembles Cohn's characterization so much as to beg questions about copyright law) is grossly misleading. It does not tell us what Shahak's book is about (the history of Judaism and Jewish law, the history of Jewish people's connections to non-Jewish cultures, and the effects of these histories on Zionism and present-day Zionists) nor Shahak's theses (I might not be getting these quite right, but I'll do my best: that Jewish cultures have had a long history of internal totalitarian relations between the leadership and the ordinary membership of the community, that Jewish peoples between the years 800 and around 1850 frequently acted as a buffer class between the nobility and peasantry of gentile societies, that Jewish law discriminates against non-Jews, that Jewish law is set up in a way that advances the class interests of the ruling class of Jewish society, and that the anti-zionist left has misunderstood Zionism because they view it only through the prism of colonialism without taking into account the peculiarities of Jewish society.).

So, after failing to tell the reader what the book is about, we then pick out five things from the book without any context and hold them up for ridicule. I will now go these five "myths" one by one, finding the context which I believe they were drawn from in Shahak's book and attempt to show that our characterization fails to accurately and usefully explain Shahak's book, nor does it usefully dispute Shahak's book. (Please note, however, that neither our text or Cohn's provide references, so I can't be sure that this is what our text was referring to.)

• The Chmielnicki pogroms of the 17th century that were events that shoudl be admired by progressives.

This is a value judgment and therefore can not possibly be called a myth. But I'll give some context. Shahak claims that the events referred to (which he calls a rebellion, not a pogrom) were "the unprivileged, the subjects, the Ukrainians, the Orthodox [persecuted by the Polish Catholic church] were rising against their Catholic Polish masters, particularly against their masters' bailiffs, clergy and Jews" and not a specifically anti-Jewish event. He then, later, compares these rebellions to Irish peasant rebellions against their English overlords and to slave revolutions in Santo Domingo which killed French women and children, as well as many other rebellions by oppressed peoples and slaves. He then says "What is the position of true progressives ... on these rebellions? ... To ask the question is to answer it." (Chapter 4)

I am not interested enough to determine what the class and communitarian character of the Ukrainian incident was. But I am qualified to say that our description of Shahak's prose is woefully inadequate. For one, he never actually says that the pogrom/rebellion should be admired; what he says is that it should be viewed in the same way as other rebellions which he feels share a similar class character. The way progressives feel about those rebellions is far more complex than simple admiration. For another, our text implies that Shahak agrees with the basic analysis of the event as an anti-Jewish pogrom and admires that.

• The Talmud tells Jews to hate all non-Jews.
• Jewish children must utter curses at dead gentiles when walking by a gentile cemetary.

The first one is presumably drawn from the line "some of these occasional prayers serve to inculcate hatred and scorn for all Gentiles" (Chapter 5) while the second presumably comes from "now one can read quite freely - and Jewish children are actually taught - passages such as that l8 which commands every Jew, whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead 19 if it is non-Jewish." (Chapter 2, numbers are ferences). These two aren't particularly bad summaries of Shahak's points, though they are out of context. A sentence that might have more accurately summarized his theme is "One theme of Shahak's book is the idea that Jewish law consistently discriminates against non-Jews."

Again, I am not interested enough to confirm or disprove Shahak's statements, but I do note that apparently neither is Cohn nor are we, as neither Cohn's statements nor ours bother to dispute the specific evidence Shahak presents (nor the 1,000 other similar bits of evidence Shahak presents to try to show that Jewish law discriminates against non-Jews).

• Orthodox Jews say a prayer in worship of Satan when they wash their hans.

This is almost definitely drawn from the following passage in Chapter 3: "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshiping Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter." It should be noted that while our text only says that Shahak says this prayer is in worship of Satan, Shahak's text says that (some Orthodox) Jews are attempting to fool Satan by distracting him.

The quoted text is in Shahak's explanation of the kaballah. The points he was making in that section were twofold: 1) most non-Jews don't understand religious elements of (some sectors of) Judaism, and 2) Judaism is based on ritual and therefore different Jews can do the same rituals for different reasons without (openly) conflicting.

• Orthodox Jews murder non-Orthodox rabbis.

This is almost surely drawn from this text in Chapter 2: "During 1848, when the [Metternich] regime's power was temporarily weakened [in Austria], the first thing the leaders of the Jewish community in the Galician city of Lemberg (now Lvov) did with their newly regained freedom was to poison the liberal rabbi of the city, whom the tiny non-Orthodox Jewish group in the city had imported from Germany."

Here Shahak claims that there was one specific murder by the leadership of the Orthodox community against one specific liberal rabbi, a claim that our text nor Cohn's does not bother mentioning or disputing. Shahak draws a very large distinction between the leadership of the Orthodox community and the membership, which he considers to be oppressed by the leadership, a distinction which neither we nor Cohn make. A more accurate generalization about Shahak's text would be "Orthodox Jews were oppressed by their leadership, who used illegal methods with impunity, including murder, to maintain their dominance within the Jewish community, especially prior to the Enlightenment in Europe."

So, let me summarize my points:

1. Our text is so similar to Cohn's as to warrant questions about copyright law.
2. Our text claims that Shahak's text is counterfactual, while failing to give references to specific points in Shahak's text and failing to give any evidence that Shahak's text is incorrect or address the specific evidence which Shahak uses.
3. On the specific points our text brings up, it selectively states some of Shahak's argument while not stating other parts and/or it generalizes specific arguments in a way that Shahak does not. Both of these techniques distort the meaning of Shahak's text. In addition, it simply misparaphrases at least one of Shahak's points.
4. While the fact that Said wrote a forward for Shahak's book is of marginal relevance, the characterization of Shahak's book belongs somewhere else (Israel Shahak, perhaps?)
5. The characterization of Shahak's text as "anti-Semitic" or "neo-Nazi"--and by extension, both Shahak and Said--is so far from true as to render those two words meaningless epithets.

DanKeshet

---

When I get a chance I am going to junk this article and replace it by a NPOV biography. It appears that most of the article is nothing more than a polemic attack. Of course Said writes on controversial issues and makes enemies. The more important controversies should be mentioned, but simply repeating charges as if they are fact is not good enough even if they are followed by some silly "but some people claim he did", "but some other people claim he didn't" nonsense. I'll give some examples of why the current article is unacceptable.

• Said created a school of thought that he terms Orientalism, which aims to be a critical view of the Western attitude about the Middle East. -- No, Orientalism is the (somewhat dated) name Said uses for a style of Middle Eastern study practiced in the West. Said is a critic of it, not the creator of it.
• His book of that name, Orientalism 1978, promotes Anti-Zionism, -- Although Said's position is strongly anti-Zionist, that is NOT the subject of that particular book. I think whoever wrote this has not read the book.
• Said holds that the State of Israel must be removed (a position which most Israelies hold to be a virtual declaration of war) and replaced with one state, with a large Arab majority, in which both Arabs and Jews would have equal rights. -- Said is a proponent of a bi-national state, which has a long history of support (but always minority support) amongst both Arabs and Jews. Of course many arguments can be made against it but this is not the place to make them, especially not in such a juvenile fashion. Btw, a professor of English can't declare war so the parenthetical comment is stupid.
• Eyewitnesses claim that Said was lying; The London Daily Post reported that Said was observed hurling stones, in a group, at Israel soldiers in an Israeli watchtower. -- According to the British Library (which claims to index all British newspapers ever published) there has not been a London Daily Post, nor a Daily Post published in London, since 1746. The only significant Daily Post published in England is the Liverpool Daily Post, but in any case their opinion is irrelevant unless they had a reporter on the scene or interviewed eyewitnesses.
• The student newspaper where he teaches, the Columbia Daily Spectator, commented that Said's "hypocritical violent action" was "alien to this or any other institution of higher learning." -- My God, the NPOV rules for Wikipedia ask us to keep our own opinions out of the articles but some missionary thinks it is ok to repeat the opinion of some student newspaper!
• Said's orientalism and related academic beliefs... -- Whoever wrote that does not understand it. Orientialism is not a belief, it is a field of study, in particular the name of a certain field of study some of whose best-known practitioners are criticised by Said. Incidentally, what's an "academic belief"?
• Dr. Said's supporters have challenged all of these criticisms, but Said himself has not refuted any of the specific charges that were recently raised about his life. -- Of course that is nonsense. Said has refuted them repeatedly. This whole issue of Justus Weiner deserves mention only because it is a well known public controversy. The actual content is a storm in a teacup. Who cares what school he went to in Jerusalem? (It was St. Georges's School just like he said, as former teachers, former students, and the school itself have testified.) And similarly for the other "charges".

I only just touched on the problems, and I can't see that less than a thorough rewrite can bring this article up to Wikipedia standards.

-- zero UTC 13:00 6 Aug 2003.

/in Lebanon - moved out of the article namespace. Cyan 07:14, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Stone-throwing incident

I have moved the following section here. It is not that I deny it happened nor that it is relevant, but I believe it is ludicrous for to devote this much space to the incident in such a short article. I will try to research the matter and rewrite it in 1/3 the space, but personally I think it would be more useful to expand the section on his academic work, ie, Orientalism, which is much more interesting and important. -- Viajero 07:57, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. We have no space limitations. Very often people perceive undeveloped articles as unbalanced, due to the fact that some topics have more written about them than other topics. The answer, however, is not to trim away all other topics to make them proportional in size to the smaller topics! The answer is to keep the material we have, and expand the other sections. That is how so many of our best articles have slowly been improved to the great state that they are in. Think about this issue: There are only three short paragraphs, about an incident of great importance that made waves at Professor Said's own university, and in the Jewish community. Making it any shorter would take away a lot, and add nothing to our understanding of this episode. Three paragraphs is not a lot of text; as such, this article should not be made any smaller. Rather, other topics in this article need to be fleshed out, especially the section on his biography, his bibliography, his current writings, his professional affiliations, and the current stance of which works of his are generally accepted or not. RK 23:25, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In July 2000 Said travelled to Lebanon, where along with other Arabs he began hurling large rocks into Israel towards a group of Israeli soldiers. Agence France Press released a photograph showing him during this attack. When asked about this event, Said told reporters that this was "a symbolic gesture of joy", and aimed at an empty place. Eyewitnesses claim that Said was lying; The London Daily Post reported that Said was observed hurling stones, in a group, at Israel soldiers in an Israeli watchtower. Said was criticised for this action by the moderate Arab Press. A report in the Beirut Daily Star stated that they were disappointed that a scholar "who has labored ... to dispel stereotypes about Arabs being 'violent'" reversed couse, and let himself "be swayed by a crowd into picking up a stone and lofting it across the international border." The student newspaper where he teaches, the Columbia Daily Spectator, commented that Said's "hypocritical violent action" was "alien to this or any other institution of higher learning."

Several months later, in an interview with an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz English Edition, August 18, 2000) Said reversed his story, and denied his previous description. He now claims "in fact what happened was that my son and some of the other young men were trying to see who could throw stones furthest. And since my son is a rather big fellow - he is an American who plays baseball - he threw furthest. My daughter said to me, 'Daddy can you throw a stone as far as Wadia?' and that of course stirred the usual kind of oedipal competition. So I picked up a stone and threw it." This latest revision is commonly held to be facetious.

Horse is dead, I realize, but it strikes me Said was affiliated with Columbia University, not the New York Yankees. The stone-throwing got deserved attention at the time, and shouldn't be ignored, but it would be weird to mention it out of proportion to his academic work. --Calieber 21:30, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I understand it, the group of Israeli soldiers was quite far from where Said was standing and there was no chance at all that he would have hit any of them. Throwing stones toward a group of soldiers is not the same as throwing stones at them, which is what his detractors claim happened. To call the incident an "attack" is to uncritically accept the detractors' version of events. Besides, this single incident deserves -- at most -- a footnote in so short a discussion of an important figure like Said.

---

I removed this:

In 1999, Said was accused by the American Jewish magazine Commentary of falsifying his account of his early years to portray himself as a refugee, suggesting that Said grew up in Cairo, but these assertions have been refuted as groundless.

because it is misleading. In fact Said never denied that he spent most of his childhood in Cairo. His autobiography (the very book that Weiner attacked) devotes many pages to his memories of Cairo and only says that his family stayed in Palestine for a few extended periods, the longest of which was most of 1947. Since he was absent from Palestine at the moment Israel declared independence, he lost the right under Israeli law to live there. He is not a refugee according to the UNRWA definition but to the best of my knowledge he never claimed to be. Also he wasn't accused by Commentary but by a particular person writing in Commentary. Perhaps this Justus Weiner thing deserves a mention (like the stone throwing thing does) but it has to be written accurately. So far the accounts of these two things have been propagandistic and very far from NPOV. -- zero 13:14, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good, maybe we can also junk the links to the Weiner article and the responses to it... -- Viajero 14:32, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I must correct you on one point: Justus Weiner did NOT claim that it was in his autobiography that Said claimed to have spent his formative years in Palestine. It was in earlier writings that Said made this claim and Weiner was very specific about this. Weiner also acknowledged that Said's biography corrected this myth, but raised the question of why Said did not acknowledge his earlier falsehoods or explain them.--Dpakessler 18:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.23.160 (talk)

---

Why is Said's book being called "eponymous"? Eponymy means naming a thing after a person; the eponym is the person after whom it is named. E.g., the 19th-century French acrobat Leotard became the eponym of the garment later worn by many acrobats. 128.101.130.129 23:14, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I suggest that the fourth and sixth links in the final group of six either be reclassified or removed. Surely calling ad hominen attacks on Said's accusers refutations does not conform to NPOV, whether the accusations are true or false. -- Alan Peakall 11:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I was just in the process of deleting the junk text that RK inserted but Viajero beat me to it. Since when does throwing a stone towards someone constitute an "attack"? Not only is it disputed whether there were soldiers nearby, nobody but nobody who was a witness ever claimed that soldiers were within stone range. If they were "in a watchtower", they certainly weren't in range. So it wasn't an "attack" at all, except in the most symbolic sense. And look at the rest of this crap. The London Daily Post has not published anything since 1746. What incredible prophetic powers! Let's see what else... the opinions of a Lebanese newspaper that RK wouldn't quote in a fit if they wrote something anti-Israeli, plus the rhetoric of some damn student newspaper! How would they know what Said did in Lebanon? Why not quote my Aunt Mable who said, "That Professor Edward, he's so kind he couldn't hurt a flea!"? No, this "incident" was never more than a politically-motivated beat-up and there are hundreds of things more deserving of inclusion in the article. --zero 15:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Moreover, the full text of the Haaretz article does not contradict Said's previous account so that part of it is rubbish too. --zero 16:15, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is not right to say "Said was best known for his theory of Orientalism", because it sounds like he invented a theory of that name. Not so. Orientalism is the study of the Orient (see the article Orientalism for a more accurate definition) and that name has been used for the discipline at least since the 18th century. What Said did in his book was to critically review the discipline of Orientalism and its practitioners. Therefore I changed "theory" into "critique". --zero 15:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, "critique" is the right term. I didn't like 'opinion' because anyone can have opinions on anything, wether or not there's a basis to that opinion. What Said wrote is rather more robust and valuable than just an 'opinion'. --pir 16:25, 26 Sep 2003

Rock-throwing incident

Would anyone who can document the rock-throwing incident please do so? Quotes from the Arab press critical of Said for reinforcing stereotypes; eyewitness accounts; versions of Said's testimony and/or motives.

Assuming he did it: was he just having fun? Were people hit? Hard enought to injure or kill them?

If we don't know for sure whether he did it or not, let's get the conflicting accounts on the record. Like that girl Rachel who tried to block the bulldozer several months ago.

I don't want to smear Said -- I've never even heard of him before -- but I don't want to whitewash any anti-Jewish violence by a "peaceful" scholar, either. --Uncle Ed 16:31, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Apparently, a NY Times article described the situation thus: "'To my knowledge, the stone was directed at no one; no law was broken; no indictment was made; no criminal or civil action has been taken against Professor Said,' Jonathan R. Cole, the provost and dean of faculties, wrote in an open letter to Columbia's student government and the student newspaper, The Columbia Daily Spectator." This can be found here PEN-L archive and this is the only reference I found to the student newspaper.

I found a small photo at this page : Vigilance at the Border and Beyond. I also can't find much else about the photo, other than this: "Except for an Agence France-Presse credit, the shooter remains anonymous. AFP confirms that it was not one of their photographers and the name of the photographer is not available." (At this page:PhotoDistrict Newswire - 11.01.00). While this certainly doesn't refute the story, it doesn't add much credibility either.

Most of the rest of the criticism seems to be based on a Sept. 2000 article by columnist Jeff Jacoby which can be found at THE TRUTH AND EDWARD SAID By Jeff Jacoby. Jacoby is well known here in Boston as a conservative writer who was suspended in 2000 for "serious journalistic misconduct" by the Boston Globe. -- Bcorr 18:10, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hitchens on Said

Ed, I haven't read the Hitchens piece yet, but it is a critique of Said, no? The quote as it stands is out of context. Hitchens disagreed with Said; he thought "Western engagement in the region" WAS legitimate. Suggest you include this nuance or drop the quote. Best, Viajero 21:25, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You're welcome to do either -- yourself! (I won't revert; I don't even like Hitchens :-) --Uncle Ed 21:29, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking it should be removed. We shouldn't give any weight to anything he says, because few people familiar with him do. Does anyone take him seriously, at least in the last few years? I can't remember the last thing he wrote that wasn't a vitriolic, nonsensical attack against some figure associated with "the Left," capital L, despite past or even present agreement with their views (he usually takes issue with presentation). --Tothebarricades.tk 04:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Subpages

Whatever you do, please get rid of the subpages! See Wikipedia:Do not use subpages.—Eloquence 22:33, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ummm, like, where have you been the past week, —Eloquence? It is a temporary measure to resolve a dispute. -- Viajero 09:06, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Orientalism

I read a column in today's NY Daily News by Zev Chafets which reminded me of an old Diane Ravitch article in American Scholar magazine. She described Orientalism -- if I can recall correctly today an article I read 10 years ago -- just as Chafets did and pretty much the same as Hitchens did: as making the claim that Westerners are inherently incapable of understanding anything non-Western, particularly Islam, and that attempts to do so are necessarily "imperialistic".

Chafets writes:

• 'Like all great polemics, "Orientalism" rests on a simple thesis: Westerners are inherently unable to fairly judge, or ever grasp, the Arab world. In fact, any attempt to do so amounts to an art of intellectual imperialism. ...Indeed, studying the subject is tantamount to colonialist aggression'

In other words, hands off, or we'll nail your politically incorrect hide to the wall. --Uncle Ed 19:44, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, that's not really correct. Said's theory was that the West understood itself as forward, progressive, and modern against a backwards and primitive East. Take a look at the entry for "Orientalism."

No, the other guy pretty much had it. While what you say is true, this was not to be Said's lasting impact or even the central thesis of the work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 05:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The West-Eastern Divan link

hi.

I wanted to change the link on the The West-Eastern Divan orchestra, to the already existing content here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projects_working_for_peace_among_Israelis_and_Arabs#The_West-Eastern_Divan but i don't know how. If anyone does, please could you do this for me?

Said / Weiner-controversy

Having had the privilege of attending lectures by both Edward Said (at Columbia) and Justus Weiner (at the Hebrew University), and having followed the controversy surrounding the identity of mr. Said, I must confess myself dumbfounded at finding no reference whatsoever to this scandal on this Wikipedia-page on Edward Said.

As much as I appreciate people having gone through this article and striving to make it NPOV, I feel they may have -perhaps without realising it- made it POV in mr. Said's favour. Now, I don't profess to having a monopoly on the truth, but I do feel that some form of reference to Weiner's accusations are necessary for the completeness of this article.

The thing is that no adequate, founded defence has ever been given by Said or his people to Weiner's claims. Weiner backs his accusations with hard facts and proof. Said has consistently responded to this by personal attacks on Weiner's person, calling him a racist, a hate-mongerer, a spy, and whatnot. But he never actually responded to the verity of the claims set forth against him. When I once tried asking Said about this, in a way of seeking him to strengthen my belief in him (which I held strongly at that point), he replied so irrationally and off-topic that he made me doubt him. Not once did he refute the claims put against him. After this event, I was interested in the other side's POV and endeavoured to attend a series of lectures by mr. Weiner in Israel. Mr. Weiner was happy to discuss the proof of his findings and showed me in a way that convinced me entirely, that large parts of mr. Said's version of his own childhood has been fabricated. This does not in any way detract from his skills as a writer, a lecturer, a researcher and an activist, but is certainly a controversy deserving of mention, I feel.

While such falsifications would be important to note for anyone, I believe they're especially important for Said - as one of the key points in his Orientalism states that no person can understand the mindset of a people if he has not been raised as part of those people and experienced what those people experienced. Thus, it makes quite a considerable difference if Said was (as he claims) raised in battle-torn Jerusalem and driven into exile by the IDF, or whether he was (as Weiner claims) raised in an affluent neighbourhood of Cairo and driven nowhere but to private-school by his own driver.

Eager to read your opinions I remain,

Alan

(Above comment is mine - I've been lurking on this site for a long time, yet this is my first edit. --Alan Phoenix 13:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC))

I'm not sure how well acquainted you are with what Said actually says about his background. In his autobiography, Out of Place, he clearly states that he spent his childhood shuttling between Cairo and Jerusalem - rather more Cairo than Jerusalem, judging by the relative numbers of pages - although he was born in Jerusalem and says he went there with his family in 1947, not too long before it fell. - Mustafaa 15:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for responding :). I am aware of what Said said in his autobiography, but am afraid that his word is under severe criticism. Rather substansive evidence contradicts his claims of having spent more time in Jerusalem than just for holidays. If he happened to be in East-Jerusalem at the time of the Israeli invasion -unlikely, but possible- it would have been a coincidence. Now, as I said before: I understand that many choose to believe Said on his word and don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth. But I do believe that enough doubt has been shed on the veracity of Said's claims that a mention of the controversy is in order. Changing the info in the first paragraph to something along the lines of "Said grew up in Cairo where he attended exclusive British private-schools" could be seen as POV, but so is saying that he lived in the Talbiya-neighborhood and attended St. George's. We could change it to something like "Said claims he..." or, less laden "According to his official autobiography, Said..." Either that, or leaving it as is but adding a sub-header 'Controversy' in which the controversy about his identity is briefly touched upon, without choosing sides. --Alan Phoenix 05:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point, whilst Said acknowledged in his autobiography that his family divided their time between Cairo and Jerusalem, he did (in other of his writings) portray Jerusalem as his normal place of residence. Justus Weiner's article was researched and prepared for the most part while Said's autobiography was in the later stages of preparation, but before it was published. Thus it referred mostly to the claims Said had made before his autobiography was published. Weiner was aware of the revised account in the Out of Place and did acknowledge the changes in Said's account of his background - but correctly pointed out that they WERE changes, and could not wipe out the record of what Said had claimed earlier. Dpakessler 17:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.23.160 (talk)

Does no one find this line a bit odd? "Weiner argues that Said's name is not on the school registry and that David Eben-Ezra, whom Said mentioned as a classmate, has no recollections of him" How would Said be able to mention a classmate by name if he never went to the school? 198.22.236.230 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point. I've embellished the section from the provided sources, one of which includes an interview with a former classmate of Said, who remembers his fellow Christian classmate well and who was interviewed at length by Weiner for the article; he was surprised to see his own name omitted from Weiner's piece, and the suggestion that Said's presence in Jerusalem was unattested. The answer, it seems, is that Weiner was lying. DBaba (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward Said's Birthplace

Even according to his own claims, Edward Said claims to have been born in Jerusalem to a Cairo family who knew medical care would be better there. Source: "Even though they lived in Cairo in 1935, my parents made sure that I was born in Jerusalem. . . . Hilda had already given birth to a male child, to be called Gerald, in a Cairo hospital, where he developed an infection and died soon after birth. As a radical alternative to another hospital disaster, my parents traveled to Jerusalem. . . ." Out of Place, 20. This is confirmed by his Birth Certificate, which has his permanent address in Cairo, and no local residency. Mikeage 10:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His family lived in Cairo at the time of this birth, but it considered itself Palestinian; it had a house in Jerusalem and Said's family had many (Palestinian) relatives living Palestine. -- Viajero 11:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edward Said's name was added to the list of people born in Jerusalem at the end of that article. It was removed, and I reverted it back in. Can anyone give good enough evidence that he was born in Jerusalem rather than in Cairo? Gareth Hughes 15:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nope, nobody can, because there is no evidence aside from his own claims. We spent an entire class in one of my history seminars on the issue of falsification of one's own biography, and this was the case in point. In contrast, the evidence that his family lived in Cairo and that he was born in Cairo is rather overwhelming. So I re-reverted it. So we have lots of evidence on one hand, and none on the other (aside from baldly self-interested claims). Generally, the policy is to find evidence BEFORE you revert, not after. - Loweeel 16:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A good piece of evidence is the very article Loweeel linked to: http://www.meforum.org/article/191 [1]. Generally, the policy is to read your sources before you cite them. It says, btw: "I discovered many interesting points: that Said was in fact "born in Jerusalem," but only because his parents feared hygienic conditions in Cairo hospitals after their previously born son died of an infection within days of his delivery."- Mustafaa 08:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mustafaa, I was beginning to doubt my own mind. I have believed what I'd read in Out of Place and various articles on Edward Said. I saw an anonoymous user had added him to the Jerusalem article, and that addition had been removed stating he had been born in Cairo. I checked this article and found that the consensus here was with me, and reverted to what I thought was a worthy addition. Checking sources, I think there is an overwhelming consensus that he was born in Jerusalem. I find Mikeage's referrence to the birth certificate interesting (is the information publically available?): it seems to suggest that the 'permanent address' is given as somewhere in Cairo, but that the certificate itself was issued in Jerusalem. This would account for some thinking he was born in Cairo. Gareth Hughes 12:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alan, I agree. Said is a controversials figure, and Weiner's observations deserve mention here. If there is ample evidence that Said fabricated his birthplace to further his political aims, then this potentially casts a shadow of doubt on his integrity. Certainly, something of this magnitude deserves mention here. Moreover, this is not a fringe controvery; if I recall, it appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere. At the very least, we must write, "According to his own accounts, Edward Said was born in Jerusalem." As a result of the inconsistencies, the burden of the exposition was on Said, and I am not aware that he ever adequately (academically) addressed the controversy of his birthplace. If there is evidence indicating that he was not born in Jerusalem, then why is this not mentioned? Furthermore, Weiner brings to light numerous other inconsistencies, that--together--make a case against the veracity of certain aspects of Said's autobiography. I wouldn't like to think that we're promoting political propagada by not addressing this known controversy.

The thing is, there's no evidence, none, that he wasn't telling the truth. He said he was born in Jerusalem, Weiner investigated the claim and found it true, and that ought to be the end of it. There is no need to drum up controversy regarding his birthplace where none exists. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

POV TAG

I have added a POV tag to this article as there seems to be plenty of discussion on what should/should not be included in Said's bio, such as other books he wrote, anti-Semitic quotes attributable to him, and connections to organizations normally deemed terrorist. KaintheScion

The POV tag is meant to be placed in articles that are not considered to be neutral. Said was a contoversial figure, and, therefore, some of the source material for the article might be considered non-neutral, but the article should treat the subject as a whole from a neutral perspective: controversial does not imply lack of article neutrality. What is non-neutral is use of a blanket term like anti-Semitic: does it mean anti-Israel, anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish, anti-Judaism (against a political entity, people, race or religion): the difference is important. Tell us why you think this article is non-neutral. --Gareth Hughes 11:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"bête noire"

What the fuck does that mean and why is it in this article?

Look at bête noire -- expanding your vocabulary might disable the need to swear at people you've never met. --Gareth Hughes 29 June 2005 11:08 (UTC)

Actually, neither of the current Wikipedia articles pointed to by the disambiguation page indicate the correct meaning of bête noire in this sense ("a solo album by Bryan Ferry"? "a rich flourless chocolate cake"?). The Wiktionary entry does, though.

columbia news quote

the quote in the opening section of the article lauding him is from the Columbia University newspaper, I assume. Well why wouldn't they praise him, he worked at Columbia most of his life didn't he! this seems kind of silly. obviously they liked him, since he was one of their own.--Alhutch 21:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian dress?

The caption to the picture of young Said said that he wears a "traditional Palestinian dress", which I changed to "traditional Arab dress". Is there is such a thing as "traditional Palestinian dress" at all? If so, can anyone provide references?--Pecher 12:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only is there such a thing as traditional Palestinian dress, but there are distinctly different traditional forms between different parts of Palestine. Palmiro | Talk 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What about references?--Pecher 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This page gives many examples of Palestinian dress and also lets you compare it to Syrian dress. The style of female attire is especially characteristic of Palestine. --Zero 10:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The page left me bewildered, though. To classify something as a distinctive category, e.g. "Palestinian" or "Syrian," we need to show that there is a certain attribute or a unique set of attributes that is common to all the items in that category, while absent in all other items. My impression from the article that you provided was that there is nothing that the dresses designated as "Palestinian" have in common. Syrian dresses appear to be more alike; however, at least several completely disparate groups can be distinguished between them - presumably, from different regions. In a nutshell, designations "Palestinian" or "Syrian" appear to reflect the political situation rather than the genuine existence of some traditional Palestinian or Syrian attire. If Israel and Lebanon were parts of Syria now, any traditional dress from Aleppo, Jaffo, or Bekaa valley would be labeled "Syrian." Simiarly, if no country called "Syria" existed now, we would never see examples of traditional Syrian dress, but could see instead "Damascus" or "Aleppo" dresses.--Pecher 19:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for discovering what we've known all along. Saying "Arab dress" is way too vague. Yuber^(talk) 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take your time to read WP:CIVIL. What is so "Palestinian" about that dress that permits it to be labeled as such?--Pecher 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that it's from Palestine? This is getting silly. Palmiro | Talk 21:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How do we know that "it's from Palestine"?--Pecher 22:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can identify it as from a particular place in Palestine that would be even better, but meanwhile the best we can do is Palestine. --Zero 01:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not from Syria or Egypt? I know I am pesky, but we need to be careful and make sure that the information we present here is accurate.--Pecher 08:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You need an explanation Pecher? Here you go.

Natural Syrian traditional dresses are very different from other forms of Arab dresses. In Arabia for instance, they use white and bright color clothing which is made of light materials as it is usually hot and sunny. The costume of men there consists of thin dresses, head-covers (called shmagh) which are of a bright color and light materials, and an outer coat (‘abayah) used at night and by wealthy chiefs. Plain colors are used and there are almost no beautifying features because strict religious belief calls for modesty in dress and food. Arabian women would have a costume that is also plain but of dark color (they don't leave houses and are not exposed to sun in most cases) that covers all body parts. Gold and silver coins cover the head-dress of an Arabian woman (as well as women from the desert of Southern Syria) and these are usually the coins given to the bride when engaged for marriage. Arabia has always been rich in silver and gold.

On the other hand, the traditional Natural Syrian dress is different in many ways. Dark colors are used as well as bright colors, and embroidery is the distinguishing characteristic. While men in Arabia use the "shmagh", men of Syria use the "koufeyyah" a similar head-dress of darker colors: black-white checkered in Palestine, green-white checkered in Syria and Lebanon, and deep-red in Jordan. We are talking about tribes that existed in different geographic locations and picked certain costumes to identify themselves. We have to understand that the freedom of movement before the colonial era and the human flows in the region fostered limited exchanges in costumes. For instance, Palestinian Arabs would primarily wear black-white checkered hair dress, but you'll also find in Palestine plain white and deep-red checkered head dresses (later adopted by Palestinian Communist Parties) as well as green and white head-dresses. The Natural Syrian man working in mountainous farms and fields always wore trousers "sirwal" or "shirwal" which are of a very distinct form and of black color usually made of thick material. Trousers in Arabia and Egypt were not used until very late in the nineteenth century. Also, the Turkish red hat (cone), aka "Tarboosh" was used in Egypt and Natural Syria but never in Arabia.

Palestinian dress can be distinguished from Syrian and Lebanese dresses easily, and any 80 year old Palestinian woman would be able to tell you which village the dress came from, given the pattern of embroidery. In some villages of Ramallah, the district of olives, white dresses are used with dark-green embroidery. In Hebron, the district of Grapes, the embroidery pattern will include grape vines. Geographic segregation and distance naturally give places and people distinct characteristics, so yes, there is such a thing as Palestinian-specific dress.

Palestine, Lebanon and Syria were the most open of Arab countries in the late nineteenth century (as well as northern Egypt) as they had the central ports of the region. The western dress became common very quickly, in Palestine especially due to the European Jewish immigration. However, traditional dresses are still in use and are especially used in occasions such as marriage and festivals, etc. In the case of a wedding between a man and a woman from different regions of Palestine, the families will make sure they put on their distinct costumes so that within the wedding, people would know who is relative of the bride and who is a relative of the groom.

Reverts by Yuber

Without any explanation, User:Yuber reverted some recent edits by me and other users. I find the reverts unsubstantiated and will explain my reasoning here. First, I inserted the reference to the fact that Said spent most of his career at Columbia into the inro. The information is highly relevant after the quotation from Columbia News calling him "one of the most influential scholars in the world." Secondly, I removed the reference to "West Jerusalem" from bio because "West Jerusalem" could only be a meaningful term only when applied to the period of 1948-1967 when Jerusalem was partitioned. Thirdly, I changed the wording of the time of time when his family became refugees from "just prior to the capture of West Jerusalem by Zionist militias" to "during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War". The former version does not refer to any known historical fact, while the latter is balanced and historically correct. Fourthly, I moved the lengthy quote "So far as the United States seems to be concerned,..." from the section on Palestinian activism to the orientalism section. There, Said talks about the lack of understanding of Arab culture in the US, which is relevant to orientalism, but has little to do with his Palestinian activism. Fifthly, I inserted a topic sentence into the paragraph starting with "From 1977 until 1991...". Topic sentences are a convenient way of summarizing the content of the paragraph, so I see no reason for them to be removed. I will be glad to discuss other opinions here.--Pecher 11:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of your version is ok, except for one point. The fact that Said's childhood home was in West Jerusalem explains why his family could not return to it after the war. That made the family experience quite different from what it would have been if their home was in East Jerusalem. So it is relevant. I'm adding this information somewhat differently from before, though. --Zero 13:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a research center, so we should refrain from adding information that we cannot reliably source. Now the article says: "His family became refugees in 1948 during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, since the family home was in the western part of Jerusalem that was annexed by Israel." There is no clear-cut causal relationship here: many Arabs chose to stay on the territories that became part of Israel. The exact reason why Said's family emigrated is just our conjecture. The sentence implies (without stating any specific reason, by the way, despite the word "since") that they feared violence from the Israelis, but it's not necessarily the case. Just as well, they could be fleeing from the hardships of the Arab siege of Jerusalem in 1948. Or the Saids wanted to escape the Jordanian shelling of the city. Or there was some other reason, we just don't know. It could be helpful to refer to Said's autobiography for a clue, but until that is done, I am disinclined to state or imply any specific reason for emigrating.--Pecher 22:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any recorded cases of Palestinian Arabs deciding to stay in West Jerusalem or to return to it after the war, and being able to execute such a decision. Do you know of any? Palmiro | Talk 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Said's were out of Palestine during the crucial phases of the war, so they lost their right to return there and lost the property they owned there. That's what happened to every Arab in similar situation. It doesn't have anything to do with the reason they were absent in the first place. Also (though it does not apply to the Said's) Ian is correct that Arabs who attempted to remain in western Jerusalem were generally unsuccessful. Those who left then tried to return were of course prevented from doing so. --Zero 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Humanist and Palestinian writer

The article says that Said was "literary theorist, critic, and outspoken Palestinian activist"; thus, not a writer. A Google test for the number of hits for "Edward Said"+"Humanist" is hardly appropriate, as totally unrelated subjects may pop up together in this way. Try googling "Saddam Hussein"+animal; the search will reveal about 6,170,000 hits, but that's not an argument for putting Saddam Hussein in the Animals category.--Pecher 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"not a writer"? Did you miss the lengthy list of his writings or something? —Charles P.  (Mirv) 21:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The term writer "usually designates those who write creatively or professionally, or those who have written in many different forms." Said was an academic, not a person who writes for a living. By your logic, we could designate as "writer" any scholar who ever published a book.--Pecher 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

He didn't only do academic writing. He also write popular articles and books. He was a writer obviously. As for humanist, when you do a google search you are allowed to look at the results. You will see that very many people, many notable people, have called him a humanist. Regardless of whether you agree with them, this is enough excuse to get him into the category. --Zero 12:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

More Weiner

There is no Justus Weiner controversy. Weiner did a hit piece on him, that ended up being debunked. A full list of the inaccuracies and distortions may be found at a Counterpunch collection of articles dedicated to the topic.

I checked out the article you mention, but couldn't find anything that debunked Weiner's claims. All they did was cite a truthful sentence Weiner had written and then criticize the tone in which it was written - hardly a debunking! User: David Kessler 02:45, 17 December 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.23.160 (talk)

I am not adverse to covering the nonsense Justus Weiner attempted to kick up, but it has to be treated for what it is - an attempt by an anti-Palestinian writer of an anti-Palestinian think-tank to attempt to say that Edward Said, the best known Palestinian in the United States, wasn't a Palestinian (and furthermore, that "there are no Palestinians.") --Daniel 15:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Both POVs are represented now. See article. Pecher ^Talk 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your additions are outrageously biased. It is only because I don't have time at the moment that I'm leaving them for now. --Zero 12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is something mischievous about wanting to insert what may be pure fiction (or defamation as Said called it) and calling it 'a POV'. Evidence seems to suggest that Weiner's work is not a POV, but mere garbage. This work is not notable enough to have most of the Life section devoted to it. As Daniel says, there is no 'controversy' as far as I understand. I will support whatever way Zero amends this article unless someone can show me evidence of an actual controversy that goes beyond this one Weiner article, or any other outside evidence supportive of Weiner's argument. Otherwise, it's just not worth mentioning, because if this is a POV, boy are there a lot of 'POVs' (cough) we could add to the rest of Wikipedia! Ramallite ^(talk) 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am alarmed by your willingness to accept any edits by a certain editor, regardless of their merit. Looks like you care more about who edits, rather than what that person edits. Evidence seems to suggest... Sorry, that's just original research. We do not establish truth in Wikipedia; we just record the research of others. As long as something is sourced and meets Wikipedia policies, there is no reason why it should not be included in an article. Weiner's research was re-published in very reputable periodicals. What Edward Said says in response appears more to buttress Weiner's points than to refute them. Look, he doesn't say "My family owned the house and lost it after becoming refugees." Instead, he says something like "Well, you know, I have always talked about our family in extended sense, meaning my aunt too." The same with the school. First, he says: "I spent my formative years in Jerusalem." Caught that his name was not on the school's registry, he shouts: "Gotcha, I attended St. George's only in 1947; you're lying, Mr. Weiner, my name could not be on the registry at all." My goodness, Said was 12 years old in 1947, what school did he attend before that? None at all? Son of a wealthy businessman only went to school at the age of 12? You must be kidding. In Out of Place, Said supplies the response: he attended the Gezira Preparatory School from 1941 to 1946, with a few interruptions, the Cairo School for American Children from 1946 to 1948. How could he live in Jerusalem for extended time periods in his childhood and attend schools in Cairo? Even if, as he says, he spent his early life "between Jerusalem, Cairo and Dhour Al-Shweir (Lebanon)"? Sorry, Said essentially admitted he had previously been lying, but covers this admission with anti-Zionist rhetoric and abuse hurled at Weiner. Of course, Said merely attempted to save his face because it's always difficult to say: "I have been misleading you. Please forgive me, I feel ashamed after all these years. You know I am very sick, and the time has come for me to set the record straight." Wikipedia is not a place to call a person a liar, so we won't. But we must dispassionately present to the reader what he has said and what the other people have said about him. Pecher ^Talk 21:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow - and you call me the 'original researcher' !!!! Ramallite ^(talk) 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. We cannot allow our OR to influence the content of the articles, but if you wish to discuss the subject, why not? Pecher ^Talk 22:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you first wrote that my edits above are OR even though they were in the discussion pages. I can assure you that I am very well aware of Wikipedia policies, including those regarding WP:NOR. Next, you wrote "We cannot allow our OR to influence the content of the articles", yet it would be easy to argue that your analysis above, (clearly your OR), has influenced the "Life" section of this article, wouldn't it? Ramallite ^(talk) 16:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No, what influenced the "Life" section is actually the existence of a scholarly analysis published by very reputable papers. Note that the standard for the alternative POV is enormously lower: Counterpunch is nowhere near The Daily Telegraph.Pecher ^Talk 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Weiner "controversy" into the activism section. Does not make sense to include it in the Life section. Regarind the comments above, the daily telegraph is well known in England as being a Tabloid in broadsheet format. Furthermore its ex-owner is now sued by the American Authorities. So we cannot argue that it set standards for scholarly work. If you need a definition of scholarly work please refer to Edward Said writing, specially relating to role of the intellectual and all those so-called scholars [User:Hkm|Hkm]. It is

• • Echoing the statement above, with some more elucidation: there is no objective criteria under which the Telegraph is a more objective (or "reputable") source than Counterpunch. The Telegraph was a part of the Hollinger International chain of newspapers, whose board of directors happened to include one Richard Perle -- a known American conservative and supporter of the Israeli right-wing. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is likewise a think tank and reliquary for Israeli right-wingers (retired military and diplomatic staff especially) and funded by convicted felon Michael Milken. It is not hard to see that a right-wing ideologue Weiner did a hit-piece on Edward Said using funds from a right-wing think tank, published it in a right wing journal (Commentary), that was picked up by a sympathetic newspaper (the Daily Telegraph).

Presenting either the Jerusalem Center or the Telegraph as "objective" is an obvious distortion, that only owes itself to the right-wing media having warped the meaning of "objective" and "fair and balanced". The attack pieces on Edward Said have to be treated as just that - attack pieces, not scholarship. If we run them here, Said's supporters get a free shot to refute them as well. --Daniel 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't agree that there was a lack of objectivity in Weiner's article. (I must declare an interest: I was one of his researchers.) The piece never claimed to be "balanced" in the sense of an overall summary of Said's life. But it presented well-documented evidence of serious discrepancies between Said's earlier claims on the one hand and provable facts on the other. Weiner's article acknowledged that Said's autobiography corrected some of the earlier false claims, but pointed out that the autobiography did not acknowledge making the earlier claims or explain why Said made them.

Also, are you serious with that McCarthy-style guilt-by-association argument about Michael Milken? Are you seriously suggesting that the scholarship of ANYONE who works for an institution that received money from ANYONE who was once convicted of securities violations is tainted? Does that also apply to Edward Said because he was a professor at CUNY, which ALSO received money from Michael Milken? Or is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? --Dpakessler 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Defamation and proposal for new section

It is quite obvious that several participants to this page have no other goals than to tarnished/distort Edward Said views and life. For once it is absolutely RIDICULOUS that some people are systematically referring to him as an ARAB rather than PALESTINIAN. Attitudes have evolved even in Israel, the time of Gold Meir and the "Palestinian people do not exist" stance is over. I think those people that are continuously making those change, should give him a break. the guy is dead and yes his was palestinian and so was his father.

Regarding the "controversies" in which he was involved and other political attacks that he systematically and successfully refuted. I suggest to include a "Controversies and Attacks section" where they can be listed. Since his life was spent in the arenas of politics and ideas then there will be an awful lot to list.

Hkm

Leave political attacks to your blog. You may use blogspot.com, typepad.com, or whatever, to ascribe political motives to editors of this page and researchers quoted here, but keep those insinuations out of the talk page. They-are-lying-because-they-are-right-wing arguments are just halfpenny ad hominem attacks, not worthy of being discussed. Pecher ^Talk 09:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, I agree with you. Political attacks should be left for people's blog. And they should definitely not be part of the article about Edward Said. " They-are-lying-because-they-are-right-wing arguments are just halfpenny ad hominem attacks" agreed, but how said that?

below is the list of problems I see regarding the version of his life you are promoting: 1) you give a lot of importance to Weiner's attacks against Said: what is your rationale for this? a) Weiner is a "scholar"? the quality of his research and his allegations were rubbished by Said and others. Shall we list here all the crass attacks against Said, even though they are proved not to be substantiated. The very use of the word scholar here is to give credibility to Weiner's allegations.

b)Why insisting on this being part of his life rather than part of a separate section? if you take this logic: Orientalism is part of his life, so is Activism. I suggest to keep the life section to the basics : birth, death etc..

2) There can be no justification for you refusing to acknowledge Said as Palestinian. Do you believe that Palestinian people exist? If so what are the criteria that have to be fulfiled to be Palestinian in your eyes? Solal ^Talk 12:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Weiner's criticisms were not unsubtantiated. They were documented in the minutest detail. Not a single one has been refuted. What Said's supporters did was they cited Said's later claims that corrected his earlier lies. But Weiner himself acknowledged these later claims but also pointed out that Said offered no explanation or even acknowledgement of his earlier lies.David Kessler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.180.52 (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd to last paragraph NPOV?

Can the following be regarded as NPOV?

This attack epitomise some of the virulent and intellectually fraudulent tactics of Said's opponents bend onto undermining his intellectual credibility and denying his very existence as palestinian (as did the official Israeli discourse denying the very existence of a Palestinian people, since Israel was the "land without people for a people without land")

Attacks and controversies section

I've deleted this section, as there just isn't really anything of value in there. It's largely a condemnation of Said's critics, without any actual evidence for those condemnations. The entire section served mainly to document "numerous politically and ideologically motivated attacks", however, it failed to do so in any real way. Rather it covered a particular, and seemingly relatively minor controversy regarding Said's autobiography. That relevance of that controversy in general is questionable, and as it pertains to "numerous politically and ideologically motivated attacks", nonexistent.

This is addition to the free-associative style with which this section was written. It lacked proper grammar and citations, and in no real way approached a NPOV.

If anyone would care to rewrite this section, I feel it would be a worthy addition to this article. However, what was there was simply beyond saving it appeared, and requires a total rewrite.

Bibigon 07:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR

I note on WP:NOR it states:

Disputes over how established a view is

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research because there may be a lack of sufficiently credible, third-party, published sources to back it up.

From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

So the question is does Weiner have prominent people who have backed his arguments in published material? Arniep 01:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Weiner is a notable scholar himself; in addition, his work was reprinted in The Daily Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal, which is by itself sufficient grounds for inclusion of the controversy into the article. The mentioning of the reprints was lost somewhere in the process of reverting. Russian Wikipedia, for example, is quite happy with including the whole controversy. Pecher ^Talk 08:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

But do we have on record people supporting and agreeing with Weiner's theories? We would need this to satisfy Jimbo Wales' requirements. Arniep 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't. Publication in reputable sources is sufficient for the NOR issue not to be raised. Pecher ^Talk 10:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Weiner fuss can be mentioned because it was widely publicised. However it has to be kept separate from the biographical part of the article. --Zero 11:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Many things widely publicised in newspapers turn out to be wrong. Jimbo Wales has said,

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents.

I merely ask people to name the people who publically supported and agreed with Weiner's conclusions. Arniep

We do not establish truth in Wikipedia, so it's not ourjob to establish whether Weiner's arguments are truthful or not. Even if they had been proved to be wrong beyond any reasonable doubt (they were not), the controversy was notable enough to merit a place in Wikipedia. Being NPOV, we present Weiner's viewpoint, as well as the viewpoint of Said and those who supported him. Pecher ^Talk 16:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That does not correspond with what J. Wales has said. If we do not have anyone on record agreeing with Weiner the information should go in an article on Weiner not this article. Arniep 20:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo was talking about scientific theories; by spirit, this statement is not directly applicable here. Biography of Edward Said is not an academic discipline, so we have no academic community of Edward Said's biogrpahers to say whether any specific view is held by a majority, significant minority, or tiny minority. It's no big deal to find statements by different people, both supportive of Said or of Weiner - just hit the Google, but such statements are are just outside views of certain individuals, nothing more. Pecher ^Talk 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pecher/Solal Controversy

In addition to other bigoted POV contributions, in the process of his edits Solal has vandalized the link to the article on Edward Said in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Look at the line 214 of this edit. Pecher ^Talk 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Pecher, I might have inadvertently lost a link while reverting your edits. Apologies for that, however the real vandalism is your contributions on this article. You're unfounded insistance to have Weiner version of Said's life legitimised when it had be proven to be a piece of slander. You can check by yourself through the different answers made to his piece. Let's not start calling name please, that's very childish. Out of curiosity have you ever read any of Said's book? or is your intent purely to discredit him as an honest intellectual? Regards,

Solal

Beginning from this edit], you have repeatedly vandalized the link by replacing it with nonsense. Pecher ^Talk 10:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure which link you are referring to. I am afraid that you have been continuosly vandalising all the changes I made and it seems without even bother reading them.

Regarding my questions above you have not reply, so?

Solal

Pro-Palestinian vs Palestinian rights

This edit summary is confusing: "saying he was an advocate of rights implies 2 POVs: one that Palestinians are or were denied certain rights and the other that he campaigned for those rights rather than for his own political agenda"

• This current edit warring is based on an attempt to remove the word 'Palestinian' from before Edward Said's name and place it later in the sentence. Why these continued efforts to do so????? Why is calling him Palestinian so offensive?
• Saying that he was a "Palestinian American.... who was pro Palestinian" was a bit redundant. That is why I reverted to Palmiro's "Palestinian rights" version.
• As far as the edit summary above: that Palestinians are denied basic rights is no more POV than saying the sky is blue; nobody (not even the most right wing) contests this, different people just have different explanations as to why this is so (or why Palestinians deserve or don't deserve this). It is extremely hard to see how something as factual as this is POV. The second half, "he campaigned for those rights rather than for his own political agenda", well, I'm not trying to be facetious here, but I honestly don't know what this means.
• One may argue that the term 'pro-Palestinian' is POV because it implies that Palestinians exist! More seriously, there are many Palestinians who probably did not think Said was pro-Palestinian at all, especially those who disagreed sharply with his political message.

Ramallite ^(talk) 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with this, it's not really POV to say he was an advocate for Palestinian rights, first, because there are obviously certain rights the Palestinians do not currently have. That's not to say they should have those rights, perhaps they deserve to have them taken away, none of that is contained within an aknowledgement of the existence of Palestinian rights. Furthermore, being an advocate of rights doesn't necessarily even convey a denial of those rights. That said, I don't see a difference between saying he's an advocate for Palestinian rights and saying he's a pro-Palestinian activist. Both seem pretty NPOV to me, and I'm having a hard time seeing why it matters. Bibigon 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should read Palestinian Rights rather than pro-Palestinian. In any case this is not the most controversial part of this article. The Weiner is definitely very POV. It harms the quality of this article to have such rubbish that has been totally discredited presented here as "scholarly" view and given such an importance in Said's life. I question the motives of the people pushing for that...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.58.34 (talk)

Edward Said's Palestinian identity and rock throwing incident

I think the issue of the Palestinian identity is not as trivial as might first sounds, I think before one discusses Edward Said's case, one should define who is a Palestinian. In the Arabic Language there exists two words for the English nationality, Kawmiya and Wataniya, Kawmiya is derived from the world Kawm, meaning people, all Arabic people share the Kawmiya Arabiya, the Arabic nationality, Wataniya is derived from the world Watan, which means homeland, and defines a kind of sub-nationality, depending from which home land the Arabic person comes, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc. Now this division of the Arabic world into the current Arabic states, was created after world war one, by the Colonial powers, mainly Britain and France, and did not exist before that. E.g. the area encompassing modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine/Israel was called Al-sham. I think that if one accepts the existence of a Kuwaiti, Jordanian and Lebanese nationalities among others, then he must accept the existence of a Palestinian nationality, though since no Palestinian state has been created yet, the Palestinian identity may have been created more through a process of exclusion, Palestine is the land that has been excluded from being part of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, and the Palestrina people are the Arabic inhabitants of that land.

Now there is seems to be a consensus that Said was born in Jerusalem, and that he lived part of his life in Cairo and part in Jerusalem, and that he attended school in Jerusalem and that his family owned property and had residences both in Jerusalem and Cairo, something that was very common for middle class Arabic families in that period, also his extended family may be best described as an Egyptian-Palestinian family, and that at least part of this family had a permanent residence in Jerusalem. Now I think that if Said was born in Jerusalem and spend part of his life there, that he well with in his own right to call himself Palestinian, especially if he feels like one, which he does. I don't if it is the claim that Said had lived more in Cairo than in Jerusalem is true, but I don't think it matters, and lets for a second consider that things where the other way around, that he was born in Cairo, but lived most of his life in Jerusalem, I am sure that his detractors are going to claim that he was not Palestinian, because he was born in Cairo.

A lot of Said's detractors are Jewish or at least pro Israels, and for me that begs the following questions, why are we expected to accepts a persons Jewish identity with no questions asked and just because he claims he is Jewish ? and more importantly we why are we expected to accept that all Jewish immigrants to Israel are descendants of people who lived in the land of Palestine/Israel more than 2000 years ago ? How many Israeli Jews can present proof of an ancestral relationship to the land of Israel/Palestine, and I think it is Hippocratic of them to ask for such evidence of Palestinians, when they are unable to present equivalent evidence with regard to themselves.

As for the rock throwing incident, I find it quite amazing that people are focusing on the fact that some one throw stones at occupation solders, rather than discussing the presence of the foreign solders, and it amuses me more that some one would talk about indictments and criminal charges for throwing stones on occupation soldiers, does anyone really think that Israel solders who are illegally present in Lib anon are going to file charges when someone throw stones at them, there more likely response would be to shoot the stone throwers, and sense no shooting happened during the mentioned incident, I am inclined to believe that the stone throwing incident was no more than a symbolic act, as stone throwing is a symbol of the first Palestinian Intifada.

In general I feel that the Wikipedia article fails to show sufficient intellectual respect to a person who was described by some as "one of the most influential scholars in the world.", all I ask of whom will hopefully rewrite this entry is to give him the same respect that he would have been given to a Jewish intellectual.

I sympathise a good deal with what is written above, but in case the anonymous author returns, for the record, it's 'hypocritical' not 'Hippocratic'. However, that particular usage is a gem which I will cherish and remember.....Sikandarji 12:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Orientalism

There is virtually nothing in this article about Said's literary theories, and in particular no detailed explanation of the arguments he made about Western knowledge of the Orient in Orientalism. I happen to think they are nonsense (at least when applied to academic historical, philological and religious studies of the East rather than lit. crit. and popular culture, as they all too frequently are) so somebody who takes his work seriously ought to put something up first. At present there is nothing here except a discussion of his biography and his politics, neither of which are really as important as his academic reputation. Sikandarji 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason why as someone critical of his views, you shouldn't try to summarise and analyse them anyway, and present the critical reaction both positive and negative. Should you feel so inclined, of course! Palmiro | Talk 22:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K., have expanded that section. Those who wish to add to the bit on his supporters feel free to do so. Sikandarji 12:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for good work. I do, however, feel uneasy with one paragraph: "Finally, by making ethnicity and cultural background the sole test of authority and objectivity in studying the Orient, Said regrettably turned the question of his own identity as a Palestinian into an important issue for scholars, and for his less scrupulous enemies. Given his prominent, not to say privileged position in the heart of the powerful American Academy (he was at one time President of the Modern Languages Association, his largely Anglophone upbringing and education at an elite school in Cairo, and the fact that he spent his entire adult life in the United States, Said arguably disenfranchised himself from writing about the Orient, if one accepts his own arguments that..." No source for it is provided, so I wonder who says so. In addition, adjectives, like "regrettably" or "less scrupulous" are POV and not necessary. If the source for this paragraph is provided, I'd rather merge the entire "Conceptual problems" section into "Criticism". Pecher ^Talk 12:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

altered as per your suggestion. Someone who works in cultural studies or lit. crit. should expand the section on his influence and supporters, as I have neither the desire nor the ability. Sikandarji 15:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Is an extensive section really appropriate here in the main Said article? Most biography articles of authors on Wiki have merely a summary of the relevant works, and a link to a more extensive discussion of the merits and criticisms of the work itself. Bibigon 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

well, this book is the only reason there is an article on Said at all. I take your point though - perhaps it could be shifted to the Orientalism (book) page, which currently consists solely of a rather uninformative summary of the work. Sikandarji 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I suspect this must be the best-referenced article on wikipedia by now. Could I request Said admirers to read the works by his critics, whose titles are now so copiously available to them, before they bother me again with requests for further references? I can assure them that they will find all the criticisms and arguments in the article (plus many others) there in abundance - but sometimes you have to look outside the internet to assess scholarly opinion. Sikandarji 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My request for references had nothing to do with admiration for Said, but rather a desire to avoid the use of weasel words, which were somewhat prevalent throughout your additions. In general, rather than saying "Critics say...", it is better to write exactly who those critics are. My request for citations was not out of doubt for the validity of the claims, but rather to make the article conform more closely to Wiki policy for how good articles should be written. Bibigon 22:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, even the previous version had references to at least ten different critics of Said's work - and these arguments are very commonly rehearsed in academic circles, hence my tetchiness. I apologise though. Wikipedia itself would be nothing without criticism and response. Sikandarji 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we need a section on Culture and Imperialism (1993) as well (Foucault has a section devoted to each of his major works on his page). My own view is that Said was a bit of a one-book wonder (not that I think much of Orientalism either, but its impact was undeniable). Someone with a bit more enthusiasm for his work could perhaps wade through and summarise the other stuff and the critical response to it (although in most cases I think this was just a continuation of the "Orientalism" controversy). Sikandarji 12:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Foucault was a philosopher who wrote about sexuality, psychiatry, power relations, politics and the state, epistemology, and a whole bunch of other things. While I'm no fan of his often slipshod research, subjectivism, and relativism, the man was a legitimate, and at times, powerful thinker with varied interests that had a tremendous impact on a half-dozen fields including sociology, literature, psychiatry and psychology, and philosophy. History of Sexuality, Discipline & Punish, Archaeology of Knowledge, Madness and Civilization, etc. All major works.

Said was a lit crit guy who only had one major work and all his books were variations on that theme. Love it or hate it, Orientalism had a tremendous impact, but only in lit crit and related X studies subfields. His other books? No one reads those. He was the academic equivalent of a one-hit wonder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"...but the arguments of which were rejected by most academic scholars." WOAH WOAH WOAH what??? Did the person who read this actually attend college? Said's work is fundamental for nearly all academic discourse that came after it from literary theory to postcolonial and postmodern theory. I don't know a single Academian who has ever not given merit to Said's contribution to modern academia. I know there are critics but not many touch on the fundamental issues of Orientalism and rather provide the same critiques that were lobbed against old subalternists. I'm removing this sentence, even though it's cited, because it's just not true. arobotar

The man's a laughingstock in political and philosophy circles. If it's cited, you should leave it in. He's popular with the lit crit crowd. Honestly, I don't think he belongs in philosophy. That's not to say he wasn't popular, it's just Orientalism and most of his subsequent books were firmly enmeshed in lit crit circles. Cultural studies to an extent, too, but not philosophy. Pray tell, though, who are the "old subalternists" you speak of? Gramsci? I honestly have no clue who you're talking about.Guinness4life (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia on E. Said

On the genius of Edward Said.

I am dismayed by the racist and fanatical attacks on one of the great Intellectuals of the 20th Century, Edward W. Said, in the Wikipedia.

As a Sociologist I am indebted to his rigorous and invaluable input to the discipline.

Any discussion of Said that even uses the terms 'Nazi' or 'anti-Semitic' is indubitably inane.

Please accurately reflect the work of this great scholar whose multi-disciplinary insights continue to enrich and inform 21st Century thought.

With Consideration,

Bruce W. Hubbard. Auckland, New Zealand.

Is that how you spell indubibatabbly? Sorry for the inane comment but as I find some of Said's writngs anti-semitic I am an inane personBadtypist 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be so.

NPOV and the problem of excessive relevance

IMO contrasting Edward Said with orientalists like Albert Hourani or even Bernard Lewis is within the NPOV. But the Weiner incident should be summarized, it takes an excessively large part of the article, considering its scarce relevance. Weiner might be a scholar, but quite an obscure one. His work is unknown apart from his attacks against Said or Palestinians in general. Weiner doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry, which would be unlikely in a world famous and respected scholar (English Wikipedia has 1,115,343 articles so far). We can fairly say that he only could grab some fame by parasiting others' fame. It's quite likely that, e.g. Hannah Arendt has been criticised by some obscure Holocaust negationist, but her Wikipedia entry shouldn't suggest a comparable level of relevance. --Filius Rosadis 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I think the Weiner affair is something readers will want to know about, but it's relatively insignificant. --Ian Pitchford 15:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The controversy is extremely important, especially in the light of the fact that Said effectively confirmed everything written by Weiner. It may loom large in the article only because the details of Said's early life are extremely few and obscure, as well as because the article sheds no light on Said's self-portrayal as a Palestinain refugee, the thesis that Weiner's paper aimed at debunking. The correct solution would be to expand the biographical portion of the article, not to remove sourced information. To be fair, the sole paragraph devoted to Weiner contains only a small portion of his findings, so there is still much room for expansion. Pecher ^Talk 17:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply suspicious of Weiner's motives, and suspect that they were both politically-motivated and malicious. I am broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and have a lot more time for Said's politics than his academic theories. However, Said brought this on himself in many ways: he made his background an issue because he exploited it to disenfranchise his many critics, simply because they were 'Western' (and therefore consciously or unconsciously Imperialist and Orientalist) whilst he, the suffering middle-eastern refugee, was not. People got so fed up with him claiming this moral high ground rather than actually responding to their detailed criticisms of his work, it's scarcely surprising that someone decided to play this game by Said's rules, and see if his claims to 'authenticity' and 'rootedness' in the Middle East were really all they cracked up to be. If they weren't, even if you accepted his absurd premise that only non-westerners can escape being 'Orientalist' in their attitudes, Said himself would end up on the wrong side of the dividing line. That was why Bernard Lewis called him a 'Manhattan dandy'. In this debate though, whether Said lived in Egypt or Palestine is of no relevance: what matters is whether or not he grew up speaking English or Arabic, and was primarily a deraciné member of the American academic establishment. Weiner's allegations have nothing to do with this argument, and are aimed at invalidating his claims to speak for the Palestinian nation. Said could have championed the Palestinians wherever he was born. He felt that he was Palestinian, and that's good enough for me.Sikandarji 17:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what material by Weiner was both newly discovered by him and true such that he can be considered to have made a contribution to knowledge about Said. Surely his importance is just as a propagandist popular with the far right? --Ian Pitchford 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, pretty much everything that Weiner discovered was new at that time, before the publication of Out of place. What was most important was that Weiner trashed Said's claims that he was a depraved Palestinian refugee, while in fact being a son of a wealthy Egyptian businessman, who grew up and went to a posh school in Cairo, not Jerusalem. Weiner's political motives, if any, are not important here, these are his findings that matter. Pecher ^Talk 18:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's right. Weiner detailed various claims that Said didn't make in order to give the impression that Said had actually made them. His other tactic was to say nothing at all, but to give the impression of making a statement, e.g., Said didn't attend St George's Academy, except when he did attend! Said was born in Jerusalem of Palestinian descent, grew up partly in Palestine, his family had property there, he attended School there just before the formation of Israel, and some of his family became refugees. What really annoyed Weiner was that Said had a greater connection to Palestine than 99.9% of the Jewish population and was an effective and articulate spokesman for Palestinian rights. --Ian Pitchford 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Weiner found nothing. Before I even heard Weiner's name, and much before "Out of Place" was published, I already knew, as any other reader of Said's work, that he'd been born to a wealthy family and received a privileged education at Jerusalem, Cairo and later USA. Weiner basically invented the controversy. Said was "out of place" in the same sense Joseph Conrad was: an outstanding English speaker and writer whose mother tongue and motherland were completely alien. @Sikandarji, Did Said really state that only non-westerners can escape being 'Orientalist' in their attitudes? That'd be a fertile academic controversy, but such a subject is definitely too much for Weiner like propagandists. Wikipedia readers shouldn't be driven to mix think tank material up with real (even if controversial) scholars like B. Lewis. --Filius Rosadis 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. "I was born in Jerusalem and had spent most of my formative years there and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt."[2], "Jerusalem is overwhelming in its continuing, unrelenting Judaization. The small, compact city in which I grew up over fifty years ago"[3] are Said's words, not Weiner's. Weiner did not "invent" the controversy; he started it. These are the falsehoods on Said's growing up in jerusalem that Weiner debunked; the falsehoods that Said himself, to a significant extent, acknowledged in Out of Place. Had Weiner written nothing special, Said and his supporters wouldn't have noticed the article at all: famous people get much slanderous comments that usually pass unnoticed. Anyway, I don't see any point in this discussion; the controversy was real and notable, and the material is sourced. Pecher ^Talk 20:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of sense. Said did spend most of his formative years in Jerusalem (where he was born), until 1948, when his family couldn't return from one of their frequent travels to Cairo. His family did become refugees, although they suffered much less than most Palestinians, since they had where to go and were quite wealthy. He never acknowledged any falsehood in "Out of Place", an autobiography he started writing after knowing he suffered leukaemia. I agree that Weiner's libels got much more attention than deserved; Said's feelings at that time caused him to overreact. Either way, nowadays Weiner remains unknown except because of those libels, as Wikipedia shows. And this fact should be presented to readers. That's the point of this discussion.--Filius Rosadis 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're dead right Filius - it is a 'fertile academic controversy' and one that has blighted my subject (History) pretty much since Orientalism was published. That is Said's central premise: that the "gross political fact" of western hegemony over the Orient taints all academic writing on the subject from western authors (Foucault's idea of the nexus between knowledge and power). He certainly didn't state that all Orientals escape being "Orientalist" in their attitudes (an equally fertile source of ill-tempered exchanges with Arab scholars); but they are the only ones who potentially can. Weiner isn't really interested in this though, (as even if Said did grow up in Egypt, that still makes him an Asian, or 'Oriental'), which, as I said before, makes me suspect his motives were political rather than academic. I don't accept Said's premises, but if I did, I'd have to ask some awkward questions about his privileged upbringing and his immensely powerful position in American academia (despite his constant, self-pitying characterisation of himself as an 'outsider'). He himself is hopelessly compromised in these power structures he purports to condemn. Sikandarji 23:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a bit of Lewis' comments in the part about Said's and Lewis' disagreements. Shouldn't those be at Lewis' page and save Said's page for Said's views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.93.63.133 (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

Is the convention in Wikipedia to have the list in chronological, rather than alphabetical, order? 142.157.168.166 17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a "bibliography," it's a list of the author's publication so, yes, by convention it should be chronological, not alphabetical. Whoever re-sorted the titles alphabetically really screwed this article up. George Kaplan 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kramer's article, biasedly and unfairly presented

Pecher has made some reversions to keep the following lines about Orientalism:

...the arguments of which were rejected by most academic scholars...

But Kramer's article doesn't say that most academic scholars rejected those arguments. He makes some interesting points about Said, and concludes, among other things, that: the "standards, conventions, and expectations" have been transformed over the last two decades. In Oxford and Boston and across Middle Eastern studies, they largely conform to those established by Edward Said himself. These scholars, armed with their well-thumbed copies of Orientalism, promised to provide real answers to real questions about the real Middle East.

We can say that Kramer basically complains about Said's excessive influence among most academic scholars. That's the opposite of most academic scholars rejected his arguments.

Sorry to say this, but Kramer's article has been biasedly and unfairly presented. I've deleted relevant lines. --Filius Rosadis 14:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Bernard Lewis, Maxime Rodinson, Jacques Berque, Malcolm Kerr, Aijaz Ahmad, William Montgomery Watt don't count? The sentence you deleted in the intro just repeats the content below, in removing it, you've also removed another reference to the same article. I've restored this sourced material. Pecher ^Talk 14:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Material is sourced but dishonestly presented, as I've explained. --Filius Rosadis 14:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The material is presented honestly and correctly. There is no contradiction between the book being influential and the leading orientalists finding it to be poppycock. Pecher ^Talk 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim that leading orientalists find it to be poppycock is not the same as the claim that its arguments "were rejected by most academic scholars". If you want to include this claim you need a source that makes it explicitly. However, even if someone does make this claim, other sources mention that Orientalism is a key work in post-colonial theory and so the situation is not as you portray it. --Ian Pitchford 15:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with the wording, you should have replaced "most" with "leading" or edit it otherwise. The blatant removal of well-sourced material just because you dislike it is unacceptable. What is both original research and weasel wording is you addition of the word "perhaps"[4]. Pecher ^Talk 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, the article in question is written by a man and includes sources that are decidedly vested against proving Said wrong. The book is biased, as is your placement of that line in the introductory paragraph. Moreover, reagardless of whether or not "Orientalists" disagree with the sentiments, Orientalism is still an influential work. Any brief survey of modern American humanities and social sciences classes will provide you with that much information. Your source is unreliable and shouldn't be included in the topic paragraph. If you want to include it in the body I think that's appropriate. Tagging this with NPOV is petty.User:Arobotar

The source is obviously reliable even if you personally disagree with it. In case you didn't read the intro, that's what the it said: that the book was influential even though leading orientalists found it below criticism. The censorship of the source that talks about orientalists disagreeing with Orientalism is unacceptable. Pecher ^Talk 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not with orientalists finding Orientalism unacceptable. I'm sure they do -- it basically accuses them of cultural imperialism. The problem with your statement is that Orientalism has been applied successfully across many other disciplines -- ethnic studies, Asian American studies, postcolonial studies, postmodern studies, Third World studies, Comparative American Studies, English, History, Sociology, Cross-cultural studies... Do you want me to keep going? A majority of academics have NOT rejected Said's work, and even if they had it's STILL influential. Perhaps if the sentence read "most Orientalists have rejected Orientalism," that's one thing. But for you to proclaim that all of Western academia has rejected this book and this biased article proves it is both inaccurate and misleading. What you don't seem to understand is that Orientalism has applied across various academic disciplines, and not just "Oriental" studies. I mean, if you want to get really practical about this, there is a reason that we use the term "Asian" as opposed to "Oriental" for a person of Asian descent nowadays. It's because of this book, and for you to use the words of Orientalists who have a vested interest in disproving Orientalism as some kind of legitimate proof of the work's complete failure is inaccurate. Arobotar

I don't see here any sourced arguments, just original research and personal attacks. We have a reliable source (actually several sources in the body of the article) saying that the leading orientalists rejected the book as misleading and ridden with errors. What's your objection to it? You keep pressing the issue of the influence of Orientalism even though nobody denies that the book was influential. Pecher ^Talk 17:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the statement "Orientalism has been rejected by most academic scholars" is misleading and nonfactual. It implies that the project of Orientalism was a failure, which it obviously wasn't. It just doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph, but since you seem to think it's so important it could probably be modified to say "rejected by many Orientalists." arobotar

Having compared this article with that on Bernard Lewis, I do find a great contrast in how these two authors are treated. I don't see why the criticism of Said's work by orientalists should be in the introductory paragraph. How many other articles about university professors have a sharp criticism of their work in the introduction? There is, quite rightly, a section on criticisms later. What should definitely be in the introductory paragraph is a statement about his work as a foundation of post-colonial theory with the appropriate link.Itsmejudith 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur! This is the only one! --Aminz 00:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the section on "Orientalism" and its reception, including all the references to Said's many critics (I do not admire his work) but nevertheless I feel that Arobotar is entirely correct: it is not true to say that "most scholars" have rejected Said's work - it's enormously important, especially in the fields of literary theory and cultural studies. Said's critics are almost all academic Orientalists or historians (like myself), and personally I feel that their criticisms are more than justified. Nevertheless, "Orientalism" is still a set text for a history paper which I teach at Oxford, because its impact was such that it can't be ignored. I am still waiting for someone who admires Said and works in post-colonial studies to expand the "Supporters and Influence" section, as at the moment the article looks unbalanced. Sikandarji 09:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

David Frum's "Remembrance"

The link to Frum's hatchet piece (does the man write anything but?) is misrepresented. This isn't a "Remembrance," but a highly critical (and poorly written) anti-Said screed. Please change the link to reflect this.

Good article nomination

I came here seeking background for a discussion at Talk:Jane Austen and was impressed enough to nominate Edward Said for good article status. This is not too far from featured article quality: good work!

Would someone whose scholarship is more current than my own add a summary (and perhaps a quote) about his analysis of Mansfield Park to Austen's biography? Wikipedia's core biographies project lists hers as a top priority, yet the only twentieth century critic it quotes is Trilling. Best wishes, Durova 08:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Orientalism section

This seems overwhelmed by criticism of the book. Any book of this great importance will have many critics, but it seems off to give them so much weight and so little weight to the influence the book has had. Phil Sandifer 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of that section - if you can point to any criticisms that weren't actually made then I will gladly remove them, but I doubt if you'll find any. Said's book was particularly controversial - and it is important for people to understand just what this argument was about. I have made repeated requests for someone who admires his writings and works in a field where his influence was more positive than mine (I'm a historian) to expand the "supporters and influence" section. So far no-one has done so. I object strongly to the POV tag you have added. The section is extensively referenced, and a gives a necessarily detailed account of the reception of "Orientalism", which within the discipline Said was criticising was largely hostile. It does not represent a single, editorial point of view. Sikandarji 07:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying cut the criticisms - I'm saying it's biased to include almost entirely criticism of a tremendously important and influential book. The section is thus POV until that information is added. The solution to that POV is not to delete the very well-referenced criticisms - it's to add more, and until someone comes along and does that, the POV tag should remain. Phil Sandifer 03:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the responses to criticisms quoted directly from lit crit/post-colonial academics is that they often don't make sense to a layperson . Also, honestly I have no desire to re-read any of them to post good summaries. Most post-colonial theorists are maddeningly abstruse. Seriously, read Spivak. She supports him. What I can say in 5 words, she can't say in 500. You will really not find many people outside the Post-colonial studies field that buys into this stuff. On the level of historiographical truism, I suppose Said has a point. His argument is really quite simple, but he tarts it up with obscure writing. In lit crit, books are often purposefully obscure to mask the inherent poverty of the ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinness4life (talk • contribs) 00:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did put in the original "supporters and influence" section using what I know about his impact in the field of post-colonial studies, but I don't really think much of his work (or indeed that of those who claim to be inspired by him - Spivak in particular writes complete gibberish) so I'm still waiting for one of the army of Said-worshippers to explain why he's been so influential, especially in the USA. So far nobody has.Sikandarji 08:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sikandarji, I agree with everything you've said. I'm not a huge fan of post-colonial theory either so won't be able to complete the section in the way you would wish. What I originally objected to was Said's work being unfairly rubbished and its academic importance downplayed. I added the Robert Young book as a source for Said's founding status in post-colonial theory because User:Pecher was demanding such a source and I had the Young book to hand, but it is not ideal and if anyone has a better one (e.g. an explanation of the field for undergraduates) it should be added. Itsmejudith 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 10, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass Lots of citations and growing possibly.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Very detailed

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail Neutrality dispute in "Orientalism" section

5. Article stability? Pass Except for disputed section

6. Images?: Neutral Are there anymore pictues that could be uesd?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Tarret 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hermann

In his introduction to Erich Auerbach's Mimesis he refers to Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher as Hermann. To know the man's fourth forename! RuthieK 20:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or

I'm not sure this quotation adds anything to the article - we already have plenty of reasoned criticism from distinguished Orientalists. This lady seems to be an extremely partisan and controversial figure whom Bernard Lewis regards with suspicion. Certainly none of her books is published by a reputable academic press. Sikandarji 19:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is just an intemperate insult from a known fanatic. --Zero^talk 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're corrcet about the reputable academic press part. See [5] and [6], from Fairleigh Dickinson press. IronDuke 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this place actually exists, but I suppose America is full of unlikely-sounding universities. Nevertheless, it sounds pretty ropey to me - I mean "Fairleigh Dickinson University Press" is hardly Oxford, Harvard, Yale or Cornell is it? When we have well-referenced criticism of Said from acknowledged experts on the Middle East such as Bernard Lewis it hardly seems necessary to include this quote from a controversial polemicist whose reputation is, to say the least, dubious (I've been reading a few reviews of her work). It will only cause unnecessary resentment and accusations of bias. Sikandarji 23:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikandraji, you are right. See [7] . The view of Lewis and other academics are there. --Aminz 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairleigh Dickinson is well known among people who familiar with institutions of higher learning. We need not limit ourselves to the four universities you mention. As for controversial polemicist, well, maybe, but still a scholar, just as Said may himself be a controversial polemicist, but still a scholar. IronDuke 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty familiar with "institutions of higher learning", otherwise known as "Universities" (I work in one after all, and in a related field) - but I've never heard of "Fairleigh Dickinson University" or its press. As I say, sounds ropey to me. In any case it's entirely superfluous as the point is made better and in less heated language elsewhere, plus the article is already too long. Sikandarji 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Bat Ye'or has some merit. We had a long discussion over her way back. The result was that if Bat Ye'or presents a document or evidence, that should be accepted but her conclusions and interpretations should be rejected. --Aminz 00:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anybody who claims to have even a grain of knowledge of Edward Said would know outright that he was no "great admirer of Arafat" and was actually feuding with him until his death. Moreover, Said was never a member of the PLO's "Top Committee", but he was a member of the Palestine National Council until he resigned in protest against - you guessed it - Arafat. So the obscene lack of knowledge of Bat Yaor given her first statement clearly makes her citation here unreliable for an encyclopedia. On another note, why is a hate-mongering blog like 'jihadwatch' a reliable source anyway? -Eric

Jihadwatch is NOT a reliable source whatsoever. It is directed by Robert Spencer, whom is no better than Bat Ye'or. --Aminz 00:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairleigh Dickinson may be OK as a teaching institution but the press that bears its name is not one of the mainstream academic publishers. I also noticed that the resume for Gary Null is referenced to its website - hardly an indication of academic rigour. Aminz's suggestion should be followed. In this case Bat Ye'or presents no evidence from her own research, only an opinion. Although she has every right to hold her opinion and broadcast it, it has no weight in the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That ought to clinch it then - out it comes. Sikandarji 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Gary Null - you'd have thought that if you were unfortunate enough to be lumbered with a name like that you'd change it before trying to become a lifestyle guru. Sikandarji 00:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Out it comes?" Jauntily expressed, if not perhaps the final word on the subject. FD is a perfectly respectable house (even though there are people who exist -- people who work at a university, no less -- who have not heard of it). I've no idea what "mainstream" means in this context. Academic houses, in fact, are precisely not mainstream. And she's quoted in jihadwatch, so... we're assuming jihadwatch is misrepresenting her? She's quite, quite notable on this subject. No serious person would dispute this. IronDuke 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bat Yeor is quite notable as a hysterical Muslim-basher. As someone above pointed out, Said was famous for not being a great admirer of Arafat so what Yeor says in the quote is a lie. We don't need lies from fanatics in our article. --Zero^talk 04:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Very notable indeed , thus I have restored her quote.--CltFn 05:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And I will remove it. The quote is patently false--the article later on directly contradicts what she says by noting the rather intense feud between Said and the PLO. If someone wants to find a quote of hers criticizing him that isn't a lie, we can post it, but this one should not stay. Spectheintro 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Notable, but so is Kim Jong-Il and I don't think anyone is going to argue for him as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Just seen that I didn't reply to the point above about her publishing house, sorry, will comment now. The only reason that I brought up the status of Fairleigh Dickinson University Press is that the fact that Bat Ye'or publishes with "a university press" has been used to argue that she is a historian and thus a reliable source in WP terms. But this is not a valid argument because this press is not one of the known academic publishing houses (e.g Harvard University Press, Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Sage) and therefore any claim that Bat Ye'or is to be counted as an academic researcher falls. Itsmejudith 11:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with specthe intro and have supported your edits accordingly. Tiamut 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Section about Reception on Orientalism

That part of the article seems to be a summary of criticism of his work by many authors. I think it should discuss how his work was used in academia and what the initial and later reactions to the book were. Nokhodi 04:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Orientalism- The argument

"Taking his cue from the work of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault (acknowledging the influence of the latter, but not the former), and from earlier critics of western Orientalism such as A. L. Tibawi, Anouar Malek-Abdel, Maxime Rodinson, and Richard William Southern (whose influence also went unacknowledged)"

Is there a source for this who statement? It's one thing listing all critics of Western Orientalism, but to explicitly say that Edward Said was influenced by them is original research (especially with the bolded bracketed comments above). If he doesn't acknowledge the work of certain authors who supposedly influenced him in his work, a verifiable academic source is needed to make such an assertion. In the case of Michel Foucault Said himself "acknowledges" his influence, so there's no problem.

I don't have access to a library right now so I can't do it myself- but I really can't see how such a statement can stay unsourced otherwise. --khello 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on this myself, thanks for saving me the trouble. This section looks like original reasearch, unless it comes from some reviewer, in which case it needs a citation. --Zero^talk 10:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Is he a Muslim? I would appreciate an answer on my talk page since i am not in the habit of visiting this page. --Striver 03:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Justeus Weir

From his Amazon bio:[8] About the Author Justus Reid Weiner received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall) School of Law and his BA from Colgate University. He is currently a Scholar-in-Residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The author�' professional publications have appeared in leading law journals and intellectual magazines. He teaches courses on international law and international business at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, lectures widely abroad, and was a visiting Assistant Professor at Boston University School of Law. Previously Weiner practiced law as an associate in the litigation department of the international law firm White & Case. Weiner also served as a senior attorney at the Israel Ministry of Justice specializing in human rights and other facets of public international law.

Please stop you rpersonal campaign to discredit pro-Israeli scholars whose opinions you do not like. Isarig 16:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, calling Mr. Weiner a lawyer, which he seems to be, doesn't discredit him in any way. But I chose instead researcher. Anyway he has already hijacked a too long part of this article, which deals with a much more important thinker. Weiner could have an article for himself (he still lacks one, which doesn't match a well known scholar, since English Wikipedia has 1,541,763 articles so far). To be frank, Weiner's work is unknown apart from his attacks against Said or Palestinians in general. We can fairly say that he only could grab some fame by parasiting Said's fame. As I stated before, it's quite likely that, e.g. Hannah Arendt has been criticised by some obscure Holocaust negationist, but her Wikipedia entry shouldn't suggest a comparable level of relevance. --Filius Rosadis 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the compromise. The problem with "scholar" is that it is a term denoting a great deal of respect. Even professors are generally called "professors," not scholars. Scholar is a term of considerable honor. Researcher seems neutral, though, and doesn't draw attention to itself, which I think is good. Mackan79 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Beginnings?

I realize most of the controversy surrounding Said has to do with Orientalism and his political activism, but he was well known in the literary criticism world long before Orientalism thanks to Beginnings. Someone more familiar with this work than me should at least summarize a bit of it here. csloat 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Weiner's Reserach

Please read the following [9] It is lat enow, bit tommorow I shall rewrite the controversy seciton to reflact what this relaible source says. Isarig 05:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that an anonymous writer for a newspaper used the word "research" when describing Weiner's claims does not make them into a "three year study." If Weiner really did a three year study, he surely would have gotten Said's own claims right, which he does not appear to have done. That's neither here nor there, however; another user has cleaned up the section reasonably; I'm not sure what is gained by it, but I suppose I wouldn't oppose you adding that an apparently anonymous writer for the Telegraph used the word "research" when describing the claims. csloat 06:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I don't see the point in saying it's a 3 year study and that it "showed" that Said's family did not live in Jerusalem, other than to improperly bolster the credibility of the allegation. If someone spent 3 years researching an article, is that generally relevant to report in an encyclopedia? I would say not. This issue is already given an excessive section in his bio, which I think is only justified by the fact that it's of gossipy interest. Expanding it in that way, though, seems to me clearly POV and inappropriate.Mackan79 04:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Some editors here took issue first with Weiner's credentials as a scholar, and then with the research he conducted, trying to minimize both by referring to him as "a lawyer" and to his research first as merely an assertion , and then as "an article". The length of time he spent researching this was specifically questioned by csloat, so it is important to list it, with references. You continue this trend, by referring to a 3 year study published in a respectable magazine as "gossip". You are welcome to your opinion, but as the Telegraph article I referenced shows, it is pretty conclusive that Said lied (or "exaggerated", if you prefer) the details related to his early life. It is not allegation at this point, it is accepted fact (admitted by even Said). the only controversy is as to the significance of these lies or exaggerations. Isarig 04:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's true, you don't use a word like "showed" unless everybody agrees that this is uncontroversial. I'd use the word "alleged," if you don't like "asserted." Also, whether or not csloat took issue with the length of his research, the bio does not make an issue of it, making the information clearly extraneous. Calling it a 3-year study is simply, and clearly, POV. I was actually complimenting it by calling it gossip, incidentally. If it didn't have that value, I think it would be a somewhat ridiculous thing to put in the article at all. Just my opinion :) Clearly different from yours. Mackan79 05:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've sourced this to a secondary source that syas it is accepted truth. that's enough as far as WP:V goes to include it in the article, alongside Said's protestations. Isarig 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think somebody should start an article about Weiner, so we can move the whole section about his anti Said libel there. Otherwise, an obscure propagandist gets an excessive rating by spamming a much more important thinker's room. As said before, Weiner found nothing, he invented a controversy and grabbed a bit of fame. Wikipedia shouldn't cooperate with such a project. --Filius Rosadis 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to start an articl eabout Weiner, but this information is about Said, and belongs in the article about Said. It is not libel - as has been demonstarted by the fact that it was published by numerous releiable sources with no claim of libel by Said. weiner not only showed numerous things, it is accepted fact, by Said himself. Isarig 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Showing" instead of "alleging" is your POV. You state that in your opinion one Justus Weiner is right about Said. One of the problems is that the standard Wikipedia format is "X says Y", not "X is right". OTOH Said did said that Weiner's garbage was a libel and explained why he didn't file a legal claim. Finally, there's a clear excess of Weiner here; the accumulation of allegations by a single propagandist is also a violation of NPOV. --Filius Rosadis 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not my POV, it's sourced to the Daily Telgraph, a WP:RS. They are the ones sayin gthat Wiener's conclusions are correct. We can (and do) include Said's excuses for why he did not a legal claim, but I suggest you read WP:BLP before claiming that inconvenient claims, published by WP:RS are libel. You are welcome to you rpersonal opinion that there's an "excess" of Weiner here, but I disagree. Isarig 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to read BLP, specifically this: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."-csloat 20:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read it, and my edits confirm to this policy. The were published in a WP:RS, they are relevant to Said's notability, and are written in a NPOV way. Isarig 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is it doesn't belong. It's like putting in every degree he's received or every A he ever got on a paper. It may be published, and it's relevant in the sense that it's used to bolster Weiner's credibility, but it's extraneous and POV, particularly in a section that is already far greater in size than importance. POV is more than a matter of tone. Mackan79 19:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of Justus Weiner's researchers, I am puzzled by all this controversy. Weiner certainly quoted Said's claims accurately, citing published sources. Which of Said's claims did he misquote? He then cited evidence to the contrary. Which piece of evidence to the contrary does anyone care to dispute dispute? Weiner specifically said that Said and his family regularly visited Jerusalem and stayed at the house, but pointed out (and cited many well-documented sources) to prove that he lived in Cairo. He certainly attended the school in question on his temporary stay. But that doesn't gainsay the fact that it was a temporary stay and was always intended as such.

Weiner also quoted Said to the effect that he was expelled in a sound truck incident in December 1947. Here I speak from direct experience, because I investigated this claim at the Public Records Office in Kew and whilst finding detailed reports of "outrages" in the British governor's regular dispatches, found no record of this alleged incident (although incidents of that type, even small ones, were routinely documented in the dispatches both in that period and later). I DID find a record of a remarkable similar incident in March 1948, but by this time Said had left. What is probable (though I admit this part is speculation) is that Said's aunt or cousins told him about the incident and that he incorporated it into his life story. Before anyone suggests that it is possible that Said's aunt and cousins may have been "expelled" in that incident, let me point out that the aftermath of the incident was that a few Arabs left Talbieh that day and then return a few days later. The people who staged the sound truck incident were arrested within an hour of starting. This is recorded in the dispatches.

Weiner also took Said to task for falsely claiming that Martin Buber lived in the house after Said and his family were "evicted." Weiner established that it was in fact Buber who was evicted (while suffering from rheumetoid arthritis) when Said's aunt cited the provision allowing for eviction of the tenant (Buber) if the owner "needed" the house. A dispute arose over whether they "needed" it or merely "wanted" it (something very different) and it came before a local Arab judge who ruled in favour of the said family. When Weiner revealed this, Said changed his story and claimed that Buber refused to leave after his lease expired. This was also a lie, but was closer to the truth than Said's earlier lie.

Whilst one might be tempted to dismiss Weiner on the grounds that he is not renowned in academia, the fact is that his research was thorough and detailed, citing chapter and verse to prove his case. Furthermore, one cannot dismiss Martin Buber as a lightweight or minor scholar - and the fact that Edward Said libeled a great scholar like Martin Buber with the most brazen falsehood, should not be swept under the carpet.

Finally, whilst I cannot vouch for the three-year time scale, I can attest to the fact that Weiner had me working on this for at least a year before the article was published. And he kept sending me back both to the Public Records Office and the british Library for more details, to check and double-check sources, etc. He was extremely finicky about covering every angle and filling in any gaps with precise records all of which i had to photocopy and send to him. Dpakessler 12:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment. Wikipedia policy, however, is Wikipedia:No_original_research Skywriter (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the news

This article was quoted in the Globe and Mail newspaper, Jan. 6th, 2007. Bobanny 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling Said Controversial in Lead

I agree that Said is controversial, I simply don't think it belongs in the lead. As used here, the word provides no substantive information other than as a sort of epithet: "beware, this guy is controversial." It doesn't say how or what or why or anything else. I don't see how that helps the article. Ultimately, it sets a precedent for adding the adjective "controversial" into the lead of every controversial person, a very bad idea. "Bill Clinton, the controversial president," etc. If we want to discuss his controversy, we should say what about him is controversial; at the same time, I think the reference to his political activism, etc., already gets this across. For a comparison, see Clinton, or Alan Dershowitz, or Rush Limbaugh. Mackan79 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Added, we could just as well say "Well known and respected...". We shouldn't say either. Mackan79 16:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears somebody deleted both adjectives. I support that decision. --GHcool 19:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that was a good choice too. Mackan79 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is alot of criticism here of Said's ideas. If you guys are okay with it I would like to possibly add some responses of his to those.

Sure, the more you can source, the better. Best, Mackan79 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur; the article is dominated by criticism of his work. Contrast this to Bernard Lewis, whose page is rather evenly balanced. Is all of his criticism from reputable sources? The article seems lopsided.Spectheintro 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Video

I was going to publish this as an external link, but thought I'd best leave it here for someone better qualified in wiki editing to decide whether it is permissible to do so copyright-wise. it's a good lecture! :) High Heels on Wet Pavement 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVQdU6moaFY Video of 1998 lecture "The Myth of the Clash of Civilizations"

Copyvio

I have removed an image for copyright violation. The use of this image is problematic for other reasons as well (esp. WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE), but the copyright issue is a primary one. Should the image survive the copyright issues, we can discuss the substantive issues before restoring the image. But until it is made clear that we have permission to use this image, it must not be displayed on Wikipedia. The image page suggests that the reason it is being used in spite of copyright restrictions is that "I couldn't find copyright-free depictions on flickr or similar sources to illustrate Said's Pro-Palestinian activism section." However, not being able to find copyright-free images does not grant one a license to take an image that is not copyright-free. Either secure the copyright to this image or do not use it. Wikipedia cannot take the risk of using images without an adequate (and "detailed") fair use rationale. Please note also that removing copyright violations is an exemption to the WP:3RR, and that continually inserting copyright violations into Wikipedia articles is problematic behavior that may constitute grounds for blocking. csloat 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave aside the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE rationale (which I suspect are the real motivation here) aside for a moment. The image's claim of fair use is based on the following: [10]

"it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Edward Said": To illustrate the object in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Wikipedia ([1]), hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation ([2]), qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. " This is the EXACT fair use rationale used for the other image in this article, namely Said's PR photo which appears prominently in the info box: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of promotional material to illustrate the work or product being discussed; where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it; on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. " I'm at a loss as to why one image would be removed, but the other retained, using the excuse of "copyvio", unless there is an agenda here to remove less-than-flattering photos of Said, while retaining his polished PR ones. Isarig 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-read what you're quoting; that is the generic fair use template, and it says at the bottom it is not enough and that a detailed fair use rationale must be included: "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale." And click the links I provided above. These are Wikipedia copyright policies, not my invention. I haven't looked at other images and I don't plan to; this discussion concerns this particular image. If we can get permission to use the image, then we can discuss the WP:UNDUE issue. Until copyright issues are settled do not restore the image to the page. csloat 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me make the point agian: there are 2 images on this page, with identical fair use claims. You removed one, but left the other. If you are truly concerned with copyvio (vs. NPOV or undue weight) , why did you leave the other one in? Isarig 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look at the other. This is not about the other. If you would like to start a discussion on the other image, feel free to. csloat 04:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just have. Please take a look at this image, and remove it, as it violates WP policy just as the image you have removed. Isarig 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It annoys me when you try to order me around Isarig; this is far from the first time. Please stop. Thanks. csloat 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not ordering you around. You claim to be very concerned about WP being sued over copyvios - I'm alerting you to the fact that on a page you have edited to remove alleged copyvios, there is another image that is a copyvio. I'm at a loss as to why you do not care about it. Isarig 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Isarig, Csloat: I did not want to intervene with your discussion, however, I believe that what started as a constructive conversation here to reach a consensus on the image use is getting out of hand. Firstly, IMHO, I think this issue is indeed related to the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE rationale as the primarily problem, which has been quickly avoided here. I strongly believe that the sooner we tackle this main issue, the sooner we would have this image problem solved. On the other hand, IMO, a challenging action such as deleting another non-disputable image, which had no controversy whatsoever around it, just to prove the invalidity of the rationale made by one of us, even if we feel that it may be wrong, is defiantly not going to solve this problem any sooner, and I think the common goal for all of us (wikipedians) is to get this article to a "Good" quality, may that be neutrality or presentation-wise. Finally, the copyright information in the original infobox image was indeed erroneous. This image is by far the most publicly available image for Edward Said, used by multiple sources, and thus I have updated the image's licensing accordingly. Now that the license information is validly updated, I see no reason not to include it. Again, this is not an attempt to polish the article, but IMHO a legitimate attempt to provide a Wikipedia article with the best available presentation, which is part of our responsibility as wikipedians. I hope this can be a start-over for our discussion, and a step towards channeling our efforts to focus on the main unsaid issues we had around the image under dispute. Regards--NomadOfArabia 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the image in question is widely used, but it is unclear to me if it is indeed in the public domain. I see you changed the copyright notice, but it is unclear to me on what grounds you did so. The source is listed as 'Sussex U', which is unlikely to be the copyright owner. Could ypu provide more details? Isarig 02:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about fair use guidelines except that they're complicated and not always clear. On that front, I wish you all the best of luck. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I don't see a problem. Said is controversial for two things: 1) his critique of how the West "constructed" the Orient as an object of study; and 2) his solidarity with the Palestinian cause, and with Arab resistance to Israeli occupation, domination, etc. more generally. This photo is an iconic image of the latter. I think we should use it if we can, and I don't think doing so accords it undue weight. Csloat is absolutely right, however, that there are NPOV issues. The caption is the problem: "Edward Said throwing a stone at Israeli soldiers from the Lebanese border." Look at the difference between that and Said's action as described by the main text of our article: "lobbing a rock towards an Israeli watchtower on the Israeli-Lebanese border." And then look at Said's own description: "One stone tossed into an empty space." The disparities will be understood by anyone familiar with the festive atmosphere of the Lebanese-Israeli border after Hizbollah "liberated" it. Families strolled up and down the sidewalk flanking the border fence, buying ice-cream and zater bread from concession stands (selling such treats along with Hezbollah memorabilia, tapes of martial music, etc.) and occasionally throwing a stone over the border in the direction of relatively distant, bullet-proof and heavily fortified Israeli watchtowers. According to Said, he and his son had a little contest who could throw their stone the furthest.

Some of Said's ideological opponents have had a field day describing what was captured by this photo as an act of violence rather than a symbolic gesture. Others honest enough to acknowledge that Said's stone was not thrown in the hopes of hurting Israeli soldiers and could not conceivably have done so, nevertheless expressed misgivings about the symbolic act, suggesting as it did not only solidarity with Palestinians but also solidarity with Hizbollah. We need to be careful about our choice of words, and not passively repeat what are tendentious formulations. I suggest that if the photo stays, our caption should take its lead from the article's phrasing, and it should probably also add some information about the photo itself – that it was published in the New York Times, stirring considerable controversy, and so on.--G-Dett 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The image's FU rationale seems to be in order, and no specific challenge has been made. I'm sure that we can work out some caption as well. Tewfik^Talk 04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That rationale is not "in order." It says the user couldn't find other images on flickr to demonstrate some point. Wikipedia's purpose is not to demonstrate a user's point, and the lack of a free image on flickr does not make it ok to use a non-free image. WP policy does require a specific fair use rationale, and "I couldn't find another image to make the point I want to make" really isn't one. There may be a reasonable fair use rationale to take this proprietary image, but I don't think this is one. Permission to use the image may also be a phone call away. csloat 07:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood slightly. He was only restating that no free equivalent was available, but that was only part of the rationale. Regardless, I've expanded the detail to remove any uncertainty you may have harboured, and I'm restoring the image to the entry. Wikipedia is grateful for your vigilance. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; that is better. Now there is WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to contend with. I've changed the caption per G-Dett's comments above. csloat 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested this was "posed". He actually threw the stone, and admits it, and a photographer caught the action on film. Isarig 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It sure looks posed to me, but I'm ok with the change. I do agree with g-dett though that there should be some information about this photo included, since it is used as propaganda. csloat 22:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have TimesSelect, but here would be the article to look into.[11] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Original Research

Is there a source for the following analysis?

Ironically, given Said's largely Anglophone upbringing and education at an elite school in Cairo, the fact that he spent most of his adult life in the United States, and his prominent position in American academia, his own arguments that "any and all representations … are embedded first in the language and then in the culture, institutions and political ambience of the representer … [and are] interwoven with a great many other things besides the 'truth', which is itself a representation" (Orientalism 272) could be said to disenfranchise him from writing about the Orient himself. Hence these critics claim that the excessive relativism of Said and his followers trap them in a "web of solipsism",[30] unable to talk of anything but "representations", and denying the existence of any objective truth.

The "web of solipsism" phrase is accurately cited to Washbrook, but the context is very different. Washbrook is critiquing post-modern relativism; he's not making an argument about how Said "ironically" disenfranchises himself. Nor does Washbrook even allude to the flap about Said's early years, which broke after the publication of Washbrook's book. There's nothing in there about the supposed ironies of being a wealthy mandarin speaking for the dispossessed, etc. In short, the entire biographical dimension to this appears to have been added by a Wikipedian in a rather blatant instance of original research.

There may be another source for that material, but unless a reliable source has linked the argument about postmodern solipsism to the argument about Said's class background, this will still be a textbook example of WP:SYN.--G-Dett 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right; as it is, this paragraph doesn't belong in the article at all. csloat 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted before reading this, but you will find in Robert Young's work a critique on the lines of "he challenged the right of the privileged to monopolise discourse but ironically then found himself speaking from a relatively privileged position". (You won't find a critique of post-modern relativism, though, but an endorsement of it a la Spivak.) I'd rather see the article attempt to reflect the academic responses to his work, however sketchily, than some of the silly ad-hominem stuff of the popular media. Itsmejudith 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Itsmejudith. Let's get the Young position in there, as well as the critique of postmodern solipsism, etc. Just not the clumsy and tendentious synthesis of the two :). --G-Dett 02:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you're right, and your approach much appreciated. I'll add some stuff when I can but it won't be soon as will be off again on wikibreak imminently.Itsmejudith 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, a sociologist remarked to me recently that the concept of "othering" (categorising people and treating them as if they are irreconcilably different from oneself) is increasingly used in all sorts of fields, and would seem to have originated from Said. I tried to check this out and found a few journal articles that have the word in their title but not yet seen a direct attribution to Said. If anyone has seen any relevant material, it would be good to add. Itsmejudith 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Other" as used by Said is basically the same as when Hegel used the term "Other" in the Phenomenology of Spirit. This is a term that's been floating around the academy for a while. It's recently turned into a buzzword in its varying Lacanian and Fanon-ian (which is absolutely identical to Said's) iterations.

Said did not invent this usage of "otherness". After Hegel, it was developed further by Lacan and Sartre in the contexts of psychoanalysis and existentialism. The standard French academic usage (which Said, Spivak, Fanon etc draws from) derives primarily from Lacan and may have filtered into the sociological discipline from Bordieu though I honestly can't remember if reflexive sociology uses that term (but he is influenced by French post-structuralism, if only as a reaction so it's likely).

Said's contribution to this concept is minimal at best as his concept of otherness derives primarily from Fanon through either Lacan's version of the concept or Kojeve's lectures on Hegel. If Said is an influence, it probably hasn't filtered into the discipline of sociology through him, but more likely, through either Bordieu (with the now fashionable Said-ian label appended to it), Kojeve or Lacan. Guinness4life (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

This section needs work. I've replaced the opening sentence about "adulation and criticism" with the better phrasing Tiamut used earlier: "Said’s work has sparked notable controversy in the academic community." Depicting Said's critics as critics and his supporters as groupies obviously deviates from NPOV.

I really don't think that a section on significant criticism of a seminal book from 1978 should open with passing comments about Said taken from an unpublished transcript of a 2006 speech at a Christian Solidarity International meeting on the subject of "Europe and the Ambiguities of Multiculturalism." The two sentences we've quoted in full from Bat Ye'Or was all she said about Said in her speech – naturally enough, given that the topic of her speech was very different from Said's topic in Orientalism. The quote seems to have been selected and frontloaded because its characterization of Said is so categorically damning and incendiary, not because it's relevant, influential, or representative of the kind of scholarly controversies that his landmark book ignited. If her passing remarks belong in the article at all, they belong way, way down in this section and probably in a footnote.

I would suggest we instead begin with Bernard Lewis' cogent and influential critique of Orientalism (and the vigorous exchange of letters with Said that followed) published in the New York Review of Books. Another significant critique of Said is to be found in Martin Kramer's Ivory Towers on Sand. --G-Dett 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree about Ye'Or; there is no way that quote belongs in this article. The Lewis/Said exchange is certainly far more worthy of inclusion. In general we should stick to concrete analysis of his academic or political writings and steer away from ad hominems, I think. csloat 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I second your framing of the "Criticism" section, G-Dett. Also, aspects of Bernard Lewis' criticism of Orientalism are discussed in Orientalism (book). - Fils du Soleil 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• This uncanny self-assurance in both base political and elite intellectual spheres helped raise his status in the intelligent public’s eye. - The phrasing of this sentence seems exagerately eulogistic. Shouldn't it be modified for something more "neutral" ? - Fils du Soleil 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree; that comment is just weird. csloat 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I removed the links and quote due to notability concerns. The links to an essay by a nonnotable blogger just because their bibliography lists Said is unprecedented. The question of the quote is only slightly more nuanced; the entry already includes two quotes that outline his position on the subject. Including such a lengthy excerpt of one of his speeches, not any more notable than any other, verges on providing a soapbox rather than discussion of his views. Tewfik^Talk 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of peace of Arabs and Israel is important. Maybe it would better if we summerize and include this in the text. --Aminz 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't object in principle, but I don't see restating his opposition to Zionism as adding anything unique, but rather lengthening an already unwieldy section [and further unbalancing the article?]. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 07:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Death

Why did Said die so early? Any information on that? Gautam ^Discuss 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

He contracted leukemia in the early 1990s but survived a long time considering the fatality rate for leukemia sufferers. He was especially grateful to his doctors and gave them well-attended talks on his current work. He worked bravely until his death and will be missed in an increasingly barbaric world.

Ref to Eagleton review of Spivak

An anon removed this para that I added on the grounds that it was a paraphrase and not a quotation. Yes, I summarised Eagleton's point. I think that's OK for the encyclopedia. If anyone can word it better please go ahead. Naturally Eagleton counts as a good source for scholarly critique of Said. Itsmejudith 21:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

re:Ernest Renan

To categorize him as "discredited maverick" is non sense and display a particular point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 June 2007.

I've changed the wording to 'generally discredited writers'. The point of view here is that of ES's critics. — Gareth Hughes 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Discredited maverick" is a odious peyorarive term. No any academic or critician from Said uses this phrase. It`s original from wikipedian author from this section and because it is a partialized point of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 June 2007.

I believe the suggestion was that Renan's views on Muslims (that they are incapable of comprehending or pursuing science owing to religious fanaticism) are discredited. This seems not only to be a valid assertion, but so uncontroversial as to not even warrant citation.DBaba 22:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

stand as a great expert on religions. His comments on christianity are accepted as facts today even by religious people. His comments on fanaticism destroying science in muslim peoples are corroborated by: 1-contemporary facts. 2-scientists in muslim lands are from ethnical religious minorities.

3-muslims themselves categorize science as a western/jewish imperialist activity. But even more important, no Said no any academic mentioned in the article said Renan was a maverick. It`s blatant propaganda and point of view, without any place in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 June 2007.

I have edited the section again this time to note the racial superiority present in Ernest Renan's work. Such a comment is necessary to make the paragraph make sense. It does make more sense if the problem with Renan is made more specific. Also, Tioeliecer seems to misunderstand what the article is saying. It is saying that some of Edward Said's critics point out that his proposition against orientalism makes no distinction between different types of writers, whose views, like the racial understanding demonstrated by Renan, are not accepted by the mainstream of Western scholarship. — Gareth Hughes 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Him criticized ethno-nationalist movements in Greece and France, something surprising because him was a positivist/modernist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 June 2007.

You really seem not to understand what the text of the article is saying. It is not directly about Renan, but about Said's critics comments on Said's comments on Renan. You may find it easier to edit a version of Wikipedia in your own language. — Gareth Hughes 18:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Said never said renan was a maverick!

the fact here is: Said never said so. The phrase comes from original author from this wikipedian piece from propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 June 2007.

It is not propaganda. Your repeated edit makes the sentence incomprehensible. The text has been there for a long time in the edit history. If anything, it seems that you are a supporter of Renan. Please present your evidence here. Please start signing your posts. — Gareth Hughes 00:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The passage in question says the following: Said's critics point out that, when he criticises Western orientalism, he makes no distinction between writers like Goethe (who didn't travel in the East), Flaubert (who briefly went to Egypt) and Renan (who utilises an understanding of race that is roundly rejected by modern Western writers) on the one hand, and EW Lane who travelled widely in the Middle East and was a very capable Arabic scholar. Tioeliecer keeps removing the information about Renan, which breaks down the division of the list into two groups as well as providing the information for the reader as to why Renan has been discredited to some extent by modern scholarship. To support the view that Renan wrote of race in such a way that is roundly abandoned by modern scholarship, read his own words:

"Nature has made a race of workers, the Chinese race, who have wonderful manual dexterity and almost no sense of honor...A race of tillers of the soil, the Negro; treat him with kindness and humanity, and all will be as it should; a race of masters and soldiers, the European race. Reduce this noble race to working in the ergastulum like Negros and Chinese, and they rebel... But the life at which our workers rebel would make a Chinese or a fellah happy, as they are not military creatures in the least. Let each one do what he is made for, and all will be well" (From Ernest Renan, "La Reforme intellectuelle et morale" (Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1929)

I think this is quite clear. Tioeliecer, please respond with an argument relevant to this issue as outlined. If you are unable to debate this properly, I would suggest that continuing to delete the text is tantamount to vandalism. — Gareth Hughes 23:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking Renan out of context no proves nothing!

In his this same phrases was used by many authors, including Karl Marx and by many arab authors . The particular quote never mentions to arabs. Muslims are no a race, but a religion. And even Renan was using declarations by middle eastern authors themselves, when him said that now famous words on Islam. You can´t accuse to Renan to be a racist, because him criticized to a religion. And last but no least, the academic writers referenced in the section from this article(or more exactly cheap piece from propaganda )never said Renan was a discredited maverick. Although it`s obvious discredited maverick is an apropiated term for describing liars as Edward Said himself, this is important to remember, that phrase comes only from original propagandist and partidist author from this particular section from article. If you consider vandalism this edit, I can consider to edit the entire article, in order no to let the political propaganda take over the wikipedia. Or I can register an infinite quantity from identities, in order to impedes to propagandists to impose his wicked ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 June 2007.

Once again, you fail to understand what the text is about, and meet my question with a rant. Please note that 'partidist' is not an English word and that using sockpuppets will lead to all of your accounts being blocked. This page is for reaching consensus among users about the article. If you use the discussion system appropriately, you might be able to achieve something here. — Gareth Hughes 21:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is pure propaganda

wikipedia must to change their name to propagandapedia and muslimsareperfectpedia. Even muslim sites themselves admitt Renan was right on his critiques. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 June 2007.

I am sorry that Wikipedia cannot always reflect your own personal views, but that is the problem with the policy of neutral point of view. Your suggested change of name doesn't sound all the catchy to me, but you may want to suggest it at Wikipedia:Reform. As for this page, it is for discussion related to this article. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes!, wikipedia is intended only for catamites with leftist views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 June 2007.

Please read WP:NPOV. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian Palestinian-American literary theorist

Who keeps adding "Christian" to the first line? Because I keep deleting it. His religion has no place in that sentence. If you want to, you can feature his religion more prominently elsewhere, but a subject's religion is not as important as their nationality. We don't have "George W. Bush is the Christian President of the United States." Doesn't work that way.

Length of the intro

Why is the intro so long now??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.211.232 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

fluent in Arabic

Ed. Said was not fluent in Arabic.

a) I heard him once giving a speech in Bir Zeit -- his Arabic was horrible.

b) I heard him speak Palestinian dialect in a BBC documentary -- he was clearly not fluent in it. Maybe he once was fluent in the Egyptian dialect.

c) I have it from himself, that he "recently started to take Arabic lessons".

If you find a sound document which him speaking in Arabic, not just reading a prepared text, I will keep quite in spite of a,b,c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Support/Criticisms

It appears POV because the criticisms section is more than twice the length as the support, which is very bizarre considering most academics favor Edward Said's thesis over Bernard Lewis's counterposition. Ibn Warraq and others that are mentioned in the Criticisms sections are polemicists trying to make money off of the recent interest in Islam, not scholars. None of their work is peer reviewed or published by any serious academic publisher, they are simply trying to rant about how "evil" Islam is. The support section should make it more clear that people like Baat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq are nonscholars (and illiterates, for that matter) that refuse to put their works under the unforgiving knife of scholarly peer review (like both Said and Lewis have done). - 68.43.58.42 (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the Criticism section is idiotic for other reasons too. Consider this: "Irwin (among others) points out that Said entirely ignored the fact that Oriental studies in the 19th century were dominated by Germans and Hungarians, from countries that, inconveniently for Said's purposes, did not possess an Eastern empire." First of all, it's not a "fact" that "Oriental studies" were "dominated" by Germans and Hungarians. Someone could argue that, but to treat such a vast claim-- which basically refers to the entire sphere of scholarship on the planet-- as an indisputable fact is ridiculous. Second of all, even if the claim was true, it doesn't affect Said's thesis. "Germans" and "Hungarians" and anybody else would have been privvy to representations from the colonial powers; besides, 'orientalism' goes beyond the attitudes and foibles of academics, it manifests in cultural productions like books and movies; the allegation that a group of Oriental scholars existed who were from empire-less countries has no bearing on anything. Whoever posted that criticism has obviously misconstrued "Said's purposes."

The same mistake is made in the "critical" passage in the wiki that says that Said didn't 'distinguish' between Goethe, Flaubert, and so on. However that is Said's point: despite whatever differences distinguish various Western figures throughout history, he can present evidence of a pervasive kind of customary MYTH about 'Eastern' culture. The fact that Goethe, Flaubert, [etc] had different travel experiences and different degrees/types of exposure to the East is in fact the basis of Said's point.

However, I won't edit or delete those foolish passages because I assume whoever wrote them will doggedly change them back. 69.86.245.147 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sourced information that most scholars support Said's thesis, or that Ibn Warraq's criticism's are not valid, or that Ibn Warraq is publishing work simply to cash in on fleeting public interest? (If I'm not mistaken Ibn Warraq has recieved death threats for his troubles.) --Ebudswenson (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New Video/Question

Wanted to ask if it would be possible to link one lecture by Edward Said at Berkeley. It is a part of a series of lectures offered on youtube from ucberkely events? The link is available here: http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb2pYStv8x8&feature=related. Please note I have broken the link. I do not think there should be an issue with copyright as it is directly provided by the university sponsoring the event.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.35.35 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

IPA

It would be nice to have the IPA pronunciation of his name. I'm going to insert the IPA template. Let me know if there are any objections, but I think this should be fairly non-controversial. --N-k 03:27, 9 Sept. 2008 (UTC)

Entre guerre at paix

I couldn't find any information on this 1997 work, so I left it out. —Morning star (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of early life section

This section has to go. It's just silly. One guy wrote an article making rather absurd claims that Said made everything up about his early life. The article was roundly disputed by everyone with a clue including Said himself. A sentence or two indicating that this guy tried to raise a dispute and it was quickly revealed as baseless is really all we need to say; otherwise I think there are grave WP:UNDUE problems with giving such immense visibility and importance to a fringe theory that has been widely disproven. Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Weiner has been disproved or that his article is not worthy of mentioning. The only significant criticism I saw was that he omitted facts he didn't like (this is hard to judge). He give many reasons to assume that Said did not present his childhood faithfully. i have seen any defense of Said of similar detail. Mashkin (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that Weiner has been disproved whether you agree or not -- in fact, the "debate" as such seems pretty immensely one-sided. It really looks like some guy on a crusade to try to find something wrong with Said went nitpicking through details of his life to paint a distorted picture of a minor triviality -- really why does it matter whether he attended school in Jerusalem for 2 months or 2 years? This is not a notable dispute and Weiner is a fringe author who seems to have an unhealthy personal investment in this matter. I'm ok with a couple sentences on this but a separate section entirely like this makes the criticism seem FAR more significant than it is, and it gives the aura of mainstream credibility to a single voice at the very fringe. Moreover, it does so on a topic that is beyond trivial; it isn't like most commentators on Said have been talking about this; from what I can tell, this was at best an issue for a very small circle of people for a few days in September 1999. csloat (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here's a nice summary of the Weiner issue around pp 189-91 in this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/israel_studies/v005/5.2confino.html csloat (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I Haven't been able to access it yet. Apart from that source I have not seen anything that can be called a refutation of Weiner's claims. Let me be more specific" one issue is how Said represented his past and the second is what really happened. As far as I can tell Weiner raised significant contradictions between the two. All the opinion pieces hardly touched on the facts Weiner revealed. Mashkin (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There were multiple refutations of Weiner's claims in the period after Commentary published his hit piece, including by Said himself. If you haven't seen these, you haven't really researched the issue. Nobody takes Weiner's claims seriously that I can tell outside of the echo chamber of CampusWatch, Frontpage, etc. csloat (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless third-party non-partisan researchers have taken up and supported Weiner's research I would be wary of taking on face value the claims of someone working for an organisation as partisan as the JCPA which, in its own words, "focuses on the main issues affecting Israel's security and international standing in order to wage the war of ideas in global opinion".--Peter cohen (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any, other than repetitions of Weiner's claims in right-wing outlets such as Campus Watch and Frontpage Magazine. There's no independent scholar looking into the claims at all as far as I can tell. I do find it strange that in supposedly three years of research Weiner never once considered actually interviewing Said himself. I also find it amusing that the leading benefactor to the JCPA is none other than junk bond king Michael Milken. This "controversy" is an interesting footnote to Said's biography at best; certainly not deserving its own section. In addition, Weiner is ONLY notable for his attack on Said 10 years ago - I'm not sure that merits a wikipedia article at all. csloat (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a piece that takes both sides of the "dispute" to task on this issue. csloat (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pity it's not a reliable source. Of course on Wikipedia we've got plenty of experience of partisan writers in that particular area of dispute. If I had realised what the JCPA was a propaganda organisation when one of their "researchers" was contributing more actively tp Wikipedia, I would have been a lot more suspicious of him from the start.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the section a bit; further shortening might be useful. There's certainly no reason for this section to be longer than the section on Said's criticism of foreign policy, a far more notable and well-known topic than this scurrilous attack from a fringe source. csloat (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An addition - I mentioned above an article in Israel Studies on this topic but Mashkin couldn't download it. Here are some relevant quotes; the citation is historian and Professor at UVa Alon Confino (who, I might mention, since we're talking about early life stories, grew up in Israel and has degrees from Tel Aviv U and UC Berkeley), "Remembering Talbiyah: On Edward Said's Out Of Place," Israel Studies 5.2 (2000) 182-198:

But this essay [Weiner's in Commentary] tells us more about Weiner and his like than about Said. Why, one should ask, would a Jewish researcher spend three years of his life, as Weiner proudly states, conducting research in archives in five countries on four continent, and tracking down and interviewing dozens of relatives, school classmates, and neighbors to prove that one single person (however important he may be), who claims he has emotional links to Jerusalem and Palestine, is a fake?

...

By arguing that the Palestinian representation of the past is false, he tries to set the rule as to who is permitted to talk about Palestine, what is permitted to be said, and who is allowed to feel connected to it. But taking away one's history and memory is the worse dispossession. Weiner is not out to seek the truth, his repeated claims notwithstanding. Had he been, he would have recognized Said's subjective feeling of exile and dispossession. It is totally irrelevant how rich his family was for his subsequent identity as an exile. Is it at all relevant how rich Jewish Holocaust survivors were to recognizing their postwar sense of dispossession? Even if Said did not spend time in Jerusalem and had no connection to the city (which is, however, untrue) his exilic identity cannot be "found out" as "deception and deceit" for the simple reason that it exists as a subjective sentiment. Jews during the centuries of Diaspora did not spend any time in Jerusalem at all, and yet their sense of exile is fundamental to Jewish identity. Weiner seems to be motivated by a narrow, all too transparent, political motivation. He does not appear to be interested in understanding and explaining, but rather in invalidating Said's identity. And that is why he is unable to capture the complexity of Said's representation of Jerusalem. csloat (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Have reedited early life section section keeping it about the same short length but including both Weiner's claims and those attacking him. Agree with Mashkin, Weiner is hardly a fringe source and it is not at all obvious that he has been disproved . --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Weiner's Wiki bio suggests he is a fringe source, and more importantly, the fact that he failed to interview Said is damning evidence of his bias.

That he attacks a man for not having a childhood memory (without interviewing him) that the Yugoslavian embassy was nearby or who his aunt rented to is beyond the pale. Those are not facts. They are prejudice.Skywriter (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Weiner is very definitely a fringe source; he has no credentials other than his association with the scandal-ridden JCPA, whose stated purpose is to "wage the war of ideas in global opinion." Every third party researcher who has looked into this seems to agree that Weiner is out to lunch, and his smear campaign is more than a little creepy. Overall, this is entirely trivia, and it doesn't deserve this much attention in the article. Does anyone really care whether Said's house was near an embassy? csloat (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another relevant quote on Weiner. If you guys insist on expanding this section beyond what is appropriate, I'm going to have to insist such comments as these from another third party be included. This is Ramzy Baroud, "Edward Said was not 'out of place'," Jordan Times, Monday, September 29, 2003:

Many tried to exploit the man's unscarred reputation, dishonestly building a name for themselves. An unknown Israeli writer rose to become a celebrated “intellectual” when he broke the news that Said was not a refugee. Justus Reid Weiner's “revelations” made him a hero in the eyes of those who never cease to demand Professor Said's expulsion from his position at Columbia University, where thousands of Americans were privileged to learn a side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that was hardly conveyed anywhere. “I have been moved to defend the refugees' plight precisely because I did not suffer, therefore feel obliged to relieve the suffering of my people,” Said responded so graciously to his accuser. Weiner and his supporters were quickly discarded and the giant intellectual carried on with his mission, swimming against the current of the mainstream.

csloat (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here also is Amos Elon's response to Weiner in a letter to the editor of the New York Review of Books. Elon calls Weiner's article a "personal smear campaign." He continues:

Weiner, who claims to have read everything Said wrote over the years, still insists that Said has tried to conceal the details of his childhood. This is simply false. Said has written extensively about this experience, in House and Garden, April 1987, and in The London Review of Books, May 7, 1998, both cited by Weiner in his article. Edward Said could certainly have been more precise in some of his statements about himself. But the political cause he has advocated over the years on behalf of the stateless, dispossessed, and dispersed Palestinians is a just one. And not even Weiner in his diligent searches has managed to disprove Said's claim that in the winter of 1947-1948 he and his family sought refuge from the war outside Palestine, as did hundreds of thousands of other Palestinians at the time. The fact remains that shortly afterward the family's property in Jerusalem was confiscated. Said and his family became political refugees as the result of the Israeli government's refusal to allow them to return to the country of their birth. The fact that the family was rich and lived, while in Egypt, in comfortable apartments is irrelevant.

csloat (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that both Said and Weiner have been economical with the truth on this matter. Said by focusing on Jerusalem rather than Cairo and Weiner by ignoring the evidence of inconvenient witnesses. As far as what we need say in the article all that is relevant is that Said was born in Jerusalem to a wealthy Palestinian Christian family, that during his early childhood he spent time in both Cairo and Jerusalem and that his family did not return to Palestine after 1947? We don't need to go into the fables being constructed by either side for political reasons.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The additional material belongs in the article on Weiner not Said. Weiner's fame and reputation is apparently dependent upon a sloppy, POV-laden article he penned long ago about the infancy of a famous man in a minor journal.Skywriter (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the article should be deleted, not expanded, don't you think? I posted a note about it yesterday or the day before suggesting there wasn't enough for an article and nobody responded so I don't think an AfD will be that controversial, but who knows.csloat (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other whether an article continues on Weiner. As stated on that talk page, it doesn't hurt to have the record of his moment of fame. As to Peter Cohen's comment-- I see no evidence that Said constructed any fables concerning his background. It is Weiner who committed the serious journalistic crime of twisting facts to suit his viewpoint. Said's accounting of his birthplace was straightforward and honorable. Skywriter (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added an RS that claims that Weiner's claims have not been refuted. Weiner is not fringe (or at least was not shown to be one). Mashkin (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted; this is a WP:FRINGE theory that is not accepted by most writers and that is associated with a fringe think-tank funded by a junk bond scheme. This is completely undue emphasis to place on such a fringe theory (by an apparent fanatic -- who spends three years trying to poke holes in someone's childhood memories, and never even bothers to ask that person for their point of view?) In any case, this is too much emphasis. csloat (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you quote a footnote to a piece about something completely different - it is true Gelber, like Weiner, seems to disagree with Said's memory of his own childhood, but this is footnote #37 to an article about the Israeli educational system; there is no way you can establish this as notable commentary on Said -- far less notable than the sources I quoted above, or the ones we are already quoting in the article who refute Weiner. csloat (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have shown an RS that rejects the refutations. The fact that he works at the "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs" does make his fringe. This is your run of the mill think tank. Your accusations are that he worked too hard on the piece? Come on, you can do better than that. The fact that this is in the footnote does not matter. i can quote the main body if you prefer, which is a nice summary of Said. Mashkin (talk) 03

28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You have not. An obscure footnote in an obscure article on something entirely different from the topic at hand is not a reliable source for this purpose. The JCPA is an openly propagandistic organization, but it is Weiner, not the organization, that I consider fringe. He's a lawyer with no expertise on the topic who wasted three years of his life basically stalking Said looking to poke holes in the most trivial of his childhood memories. I never said he "worked too hard" on the piece -- had he actually wanted to do any real work he would have picked up the damn phone and talked to Said directly. It does matter that this is a footnote when we have actually notable articles on this topic that are far more insightful that you eschew because they don't match up with your POV; instead you quote a tangential comment in a footnote (an assertion with no explanation, at that) in an article that is not about Said at all. No, quoting the text of the article will not help either as the article is not about Said. Why reach for this obscure footnote when there is so much prominent material available, other than because it happens to agree with you? csloat (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Gelbar article is exactly about such cases and it is by a historian of the relevant period. Mashkin (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read it? It's not even remotely about this. The Said controversy is a tangential footnote, as you ought to be aware. csloat (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put a disputed tag up until we resolve this. Shall we see what the consensus is via some kind of vote, or do people think an RfC is the best way to proceed? csloat (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer an RfC. Mashkin (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am offended that Mashkin reverted my judicious edits to this section of the article and reinstated irrelevancies that are unencyclopedic, unscholarly and flat out falsehoods. This is quite obviously POVpushing.

I am therefore moving that entire section to this page with commentary on why it was edited in the way it was.Skywriter (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the section with limited commentary. It does not belong in a factual article. In 1999, Justus Weiner, a researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, published an article in Commentary, arguing that Said's family did not permanently reside in Talbiya or live there during the final months of the British mandate, and therefore that they could not be considered refugees. According to Weiner, it was ((I removed the word only Mashkin reverted this edit. Why is the word "only" reinstated. Does this woman not have value? only Said's aunt who owned a house in Talbiya, while Said's family visited Jerusalem \i also removed this only and Mashkin re-inserted it. Why? only<//b> occasionally. "On [Said's] birth certificate, prepared by the ministry of health of the British Mandate," Weiner states, "his parents specified their permanent address as Cairo," leaving blank the space for a local address. Weiner suggests Said grew up in Cairo, ((suggests is neither scholarly nor encyclopedic nor good enough at the (what does affluent have to do with Weiner's point? this was removed and Mashkin reinserted it affluent Zamalek neighborhood, and probably never attended PROBABLY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH AND IS NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC AND IS NOT SCHOLARLY St. George's Academy in Jerusalem except during brief stays in that city. Weiner argues that Said's name is not on the school registry and that David Eben-Ezra, whom Said mentioned as a classmate, has no recollections of him. [[\I further edited this to remove irrelevancies and Weiner points out that Said has no recollection of basic facts regarding the house, such as the presence of the Consulate of Yugoslavia or that the philosopher Martin Buber rented his aunt's apartment and was evicted by her.

Following Weiner's widely publicized article, several respondents disputed Weiner's claims. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair chastised Weiner for his "deliberately falsified" report, noting that a classmate of Edward Said's during his childhood had been interviewed by Weiner, but that Weiner had omitted any mention of the interview in order to maintain his implication that there was no evidence of Edward Said having attended school in Jerusalem. In The Nation, Christopher Hitchens writes that schoolmates and teachers confirmed Said's stay at St. George's, and quotes Said stating as early as 1992 that he had spent much of his youth in Cairo.

In an article entitled "Defamation, Zionist-style," Said responded that "the family house was in fact a family house in the Arab sense, which meant that our families were one in ownership," and that his name could not be on the school's registry, which was terminated a year before his attendance. Said charged that the "Zionist movement has resorted to shabbier and shabbier techniques", criticizing the Jerusalem Center for having "hired an obscure Israeli-American lawyer to 'research' the first ten years of my life and 'prove' that even though I was born in Jerusalem I was never really there". Said later added, "I was born in Jerusalem, my family is a Jerusalem family. We left Palestine in 1947. We left before most others. It was a fortuitous thing... I never said I was a refugee, but the rest of my family was. My entire extended family was driven out."

The following adds no facts to Edward Said's biography and therefore does not belong in this article.Historian Yoav Gelbar wrote that ``the reaction of Said and his admirers to this article (Weiner's) were furious and aggressive, but did not contradict convincingly any of the points made by the author. Alon Confino's review is indeed more polite and sophisticated, but he too does not refute any of the authors facts and focuses mainly on the psychological insight and literary merit if Said's personal narrative".

commentary by Skywriter (talk) 13:49, 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 and it specifically addresses the points in the article for 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 in his claims about Said. Failure to address the factual points in this article would prove that inclusion of the Weiner article in Said's bio here on Wikipedia is nothing but POV-pushing.

The author, Weiner, is known for nothing else. He lacks credibility.

It is disturbing that Weiner and Mashkin insist that it is important to include what Said might not have recalled, to wit, that the Yugoslavian embassy was nearby the house where he lived when he was a small child, or that he might not recall a tenant. The inclusion of the words "probably" suggest that even Weiner knew he had not nailed down the facts he desperately sought for three long years, and that he was pushing his opinion beyond where the facts led him. This is shameful, and the attempts to shovel this disgraceful "reporting" into this Wikipedia article is even more shameful.Skywriter (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edward Said wrote 1711 words in direct rebuttal to Weiner's dishonest claims giving the specifics of his early life and showing where Weiner's claims and 'conclusions' were either wrong or deliberately false. While Weiner claimed three years of research on this one article concerning Said's biography, Said states that Weiner never once contacted him directly. Again, I ask, why are we to believe one word of Weiner's claims? Where is corroboration? He is not an honest researcher. Inclusion of his falsehoods harms the credibility of Wikipedia. Said's list of Weiner's falsehoods is here Skywriter (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delection of section on Wiener article

I think this deletion is going too far. Whatever you think about the Weiner being an impertinent upstart attacking the just Palestinian cause, the issue of the geography of Said's childhood has been talked about in many venues besides the "scandal ridden" journal [12] [13] [14] including: "Israeli Says Palestinian Thinker Has Falsified His Early Life" By JANNY SCOTT. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Aug 26, 1999. p. A4 (1 page)
It should have some mention in the article (including, of course, the rebuttals). So please let's calm down and deal with this in a NPOV way. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I had previously edited it judiciously taking out the irrelevancies. The judicious edits were reverted and more irrelevancies added, lengthening the section about Said's childhood that appears weirdly at the end of the article. The reverts, in my opinion, went too far in that they were evidence of POV pushing.

The fact that the article was discussed here and there does not change the biographical facts of Said's life. This article is about the life of an individual, not lies told about his childhood. The underlying point is that Weiner did not interview Said, and that fact is not the ordinary practice of an unbiased biographer. It is more than slumming to attack a person's childhood. It is seedy and disreputable. Why should it have any mention in an encyclopedia? Skywriter (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In "The Nation" magazine, September 27, 1999, ["Israel's Torture Ban"] Alexander Cockburn wrote: "At the Israeli Justice Department the official in charge of matters affecting Palestinians, and thus a man well trained as an apologist for Israeli security forces, was an American emigre called Justus Reid Weiner. Weiner, now a "scholar in residence" at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, financed by Michael Milken and his family, is the author of a grotesque attack on Edward Said in the latest issue of Commentary. Boyle remembers telling Weiner that Jewish-American professors such as John Fried and Richard Falk were among those raising this question of Nuremberg accountability. "I shall never forget Weiner's response,' Boil recalls. "He said, 'There are large numbers of self-hating Jews living in America. That's why I moved to Israel.' At that point I realized I was wasting my time talking to a fanatical anti-Arab racist, so I terminated the conversation." Skywriter (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't time to get into this issue in detail but it certainly seems to merit at least a paragraph in a long article like this. Certainly all Wiener errors should be noted, but we shouldn't take this personally. Weiner is not accusing Said of stealing candy or copying others homeowork as a child, he's accusing him (as I understand the issue) of misrepresenting as an adult where he lived as a child ... .

Perhaps we should do a WP:RfC or something like that.--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please start an RfC. A few sentences is not a problem but what we have is a huge section, longer than the section on Said's criticism of US foreign policy (something he is actually known for!) Going through the trivia of his boyhood just to give credibility to a fringe voice (not to mention highlighting an obscure footnote in an obscure article about a different topic entirely) is absolutely beyond the pale. This is particularly execrable given BLP concerns -- I realize Said is dead but that does not mean we should now use the article to insult him at will. Even if he misremembered how long he lived in a particular house, is that really the kind of trivia we need to promote in this article? And if we are going to use Wikipedia to promote this fringe lawyer's "research," why are we censoring the fact that Weiner never once bothered to contact Said for his hit piece? csloat (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have a million things to do but I'll start a RfC. Personally I think the section should be trimmed down with the main story being in My Beautiful Old House and Other Fabrications by Edward Said section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's noting that "My Beautiful Old House..." link goes to Justus Weiner's page and, except for the argument, is unconnected to this bio article on Edward Said. Here's my suggestion-- someone who thinks it should be included--write something brief on this talk page and interested editors can sign off on it. That's why I took down the disputed material. There is no sense in a revert war. Skywriter (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Skywriter. The entire section should be deleted while we work out an appropriate sentence or two about this controversy as an event in Said's biography. Brief and simple, explain that Weiner made claims about Said's childhood without ever consulting Said, that his article was roundly disputed by a host of sources, and then Weiner faded back into well-deserved obscurity. Those who support Weiner can suggest alternate wording; as long as we stick to well-known sources (and avoid obscure footnotes in articles on other topics) and report what they say without trying to paint Said as some kind of fraud, I think we can come to a short paragraph that accurately conveys the necessary information. csloat (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Dispute over the content and length of a section in this article on "Palestinian American literary theorist, cultural critic and political activist", Edward Said. The section concerns a Commentary magazine article (and the ensuing arguement over it) on where Edward Said, spent his childhood. Its author, Israeli-American lawyer Justus Weiner, argued that "Said's family did not permanently reside in Talbiya or live there during the final months of the British mandate, and therefore ... could not be considered refugees," and that this meant Said had fabricated his life story. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is properly in the biographical article about Justus Weiner and not Edward Said because the article, Weiner's sole claim to fame, is peppered with error and documented falsehoods. It has been established that his 10-year-old article was a hatchet job and that, in it, he did not provide factual, unbiased information that can be reliably quoted in an encyclopedia. Skywriter (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter, can you remove your comment, please? The section is meant to contain a neutral statement of the issue for new editors to come and comment.

I should like to add a couple of questions which have come up which I invite commentators to consider.

1. How important are Weiner's claims about Said to the article? Do they merit their own section? A couple of sentences? A footnote? No mention at all?
2. Some editors have claimed above that Weiner does not count as a reliable source. What are your views on this?
3. Are there any issues about the reliability of any of the critics of him who have been cited?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter should not have to censor his opinion. This is a RfC - that stands for "request for comment," and Skywriter was offering his comment. If you'd like a separate section for questions framed "neutrally" and for comments that may fall to one side or another of the debate, that seems reasonable, but it is not reasonable to ask someone to remove their comment because it expresses an opinion, especially when you go on to ask for opinions on several questions.

My response to your questions: (1) I think a footnote or a short paragraph would be fine here. I think having this section take up more space than, say, Said's criticism of foreign policy is just undue weight; Said is known primarily for his intellectual work in such areas, and not for doubts about what house he lived in raised a decade ago by someone who never talked to him. We should note that this was a controversy and move on -- there is no need to go into the details and trivia about which school he went to, or whether he remembered what building was near his house. (2) I don't know who has expressed this -- certainly Weiner is not a reliable source, but of course if we're going to treat his attack on Said as noteworthy, we're going to cite his article. What we cannot do, however, is presume that what he says is accurate or that every nitpick he had with Said's childhood memories is notable, especially when there is clearly debate on some of these points. (3) The issue that I raised is about the notability of particular quotations. An article in a well circulated magazine like Salon (and I would include Commentary as well) that focuses on Said is notable enough to quote here. A footnote to an obscure academic article on a totally different topic in a published anthology that an editor dug up on google books specifically to make Weiner sound more credible (and I am speaking specifically here about the Gelber citation that Mashkin wants to keep reverting to) is simply not an encyclopedic contribution, especially when that is used in place of the many well-known sources that are available. csloat (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Weiner made several claims about Said's early life and they way he described them. These claims have not, to a large extent, been refuted by Said or his supporters (for instance, it is one thing to say "extended family" house and another to point out where Said's immediate family stayed in the house - hard to imagine a wealthy family squeezing into the single apartment that was available). The article must reflect the claims and counter claims, as much as they exist.

Gelber is an excellent source. A respected historian who published it in an academic book is precisely the sources that Wikipedia needs. The mentioning of Said and the Weiner article is exactly the topic of the Gelber article who deals with 'new historians" and their inspirational leader Said. Stop measuring journals by circulation - this is really not encyclopedic. I am restoring the Weiner section so that people will be able to comment. Mashkin (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am confused by Peter cohen's request to remove my comments. What is the precedent for this request? BoogaLouie presented the controversy in a non-neutral matter saying Weiner said "...Said had fabricated his life story." Yes, Weiner did say that, and more, all personal attacks, yet his claims were roundly rejected as false, deeply prejudiced (the term racist was used), and nonfactual by four well-known journalists and a professor at the University of Illinois. For this RFC to have been neutral, the initial RFC ought to have reflected contrary views and not treated as fact Weiner's disputed claim that "Said had fabricated his life story." That is the central issue, isn't it --whether Weiner's claims are true, whether he reported his findings fairly and honestly, and whether his research was corroborated anywhere else by anyone?Skywriter (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the section should have been left as one neutral statement of the issue and that none of us already in the discussion should have joined in until a new person gave feedback. As it is, everyone who has posted here (with the possible exception of the IP) is already involved in the argument. I can see new people looking here and assumign that tehre is already plrnty of feedback.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that is not the central issue, and that's the problem with this whole section. It is simply not that important whether Said misremembered a particular detail or not of his childhood. Weiner pretends its a big deal, and when he is refuted, even resoundingly so, people who want to discredit Said cling to the uncertainty as if it means anything important. But it doesn't; even if Weiner were right about everything, he has proved nothing. Said never denied that his family was wealthy or that he lived in Egypt. Weiner makes it seem like Said's fortunate upbringing makes him some kind of fraud, as if he has not suffered so therefore he shouldn't really care about Palestinians who do suffer. Yet, Said explicitly responded, "I have been moved to defend the refugees’ plight precisely because I did not suffer therefore feel obliged to relieve the suffering of my people." The "facts" under dispute are minor bits of trivia; this was an attempt to discredit Said that failed, at least as far as the mainstream public media is concerned. That is the real point here, not whether Weiner got something right or not.

Mashkin's representation of the Gelber article is completely distorted. The article is about Zionist education in Israel; it is not about Said as an inspirational leader of anything. This dispute is mentioned in a single footnote and that's it. There are far more prominent comments on the dispute but he cherry picks only this one. 75.33.2.13 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is about the new historians. Please do not distort! Mashkin (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks to google you found the one page of that article that discusses Said, and there is one paragraph that discusses Arab historiography, but this article and this entire book are about Israeli Zionist historiography, and Said is mentioned practically in passing in that section. Furthermore, Gelber gets Said's theory completely wrong, in a simplistic summary without ever quoting Said. I don't fault Gelber too much for this - after all, this article is not about Said. By the way, so others can understand what we're talking about, here is the google books link, and you find Said mentioned on p. 140 and then in footnote 37 on p. 153. csloat (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If Weiner's claim are true, then it is a big deal. Not because the subject of the article turned out to be lying, but given Said's theory regarding who can write about the "Orient". I can given another quote from Gelber on the subject. Mashkin (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

How does Said misremembering where an embassy was located have anything to do with his theories of orientalism? Saying he has a theory "regarding who can write about the 'Orient'" indicates a basic misunderstanding of the theory. csloat (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this profound theory, but i am relying on an RS, Yoav Gelber: Arab histiography, as well as some Israeli revisionist historians and sociologist, draw largely on Edward Said's theory that denies the possibility that a person born in one culture will be able to understand intimately and profoundly "the other" culture. Coming from Said - claiming to be a Palestinian refugee teaching English at an American University and who built his career on a Polish sailor by the name of Joseph Conrad who became a British writer - this argument appears peculiar, to say the least. Mashkin (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course that argument appears peculiar; that's because it's nothing Said wrote. Said is well aware of the multiple layers of identity that people inhabit; Gelber is there simply setting up a straw man in order to discuss another topic entirely. You know, it would really be terrific if you'd take some time to actually read Orientalism rather than simply digging through the footnotes of articles on other topics in order to find anything you can that would discredit the author. csloat (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Another worthy source (not one we should take as the literal trush, but one whose opinion should be reflected in the article is Did Edward Said Really Speak Truth to Power? by Karsh and Miller [15]. They say Indeed, Said's description of his childhood years in Mandatory Palestine, on which he staked personal, and by extension, national claim to victimhood and dispossession, was more imaginary than real.[15] Said, a U.S. citizen by birth, grew up in Egypt and made only periodic visits to family in Jerusalem (or for that matter in other Arab countries). Mona Anis, an Egyptian journalist and admirer of Said, recalled her shock and surprise when, in her first personal encounter with Said at a conference at Essex University in 1984, she heard him speak Arabic in "perfect Egyptian dialect." She recalled, "I remember being so taken aback by his unexpected Egyptiannness that I hardly spoke. When Said left I burst out with the question that had been perplexing me: 'How come he sounds as Egyptian as you and me?'"[16]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashkin (talk • contribs)

Oh wow! Said lived in Egypt! What exactly does this prove about anything? This is all such nonsense blown out of proportion. Can you believe Weiner actually contacted Columbia University and expected Said to lose his job or the president of the university to make some kind of grand statement about this incredible news that Said had (like many Arab families) moved around the middle east a bit in his childhood. Unless you believe in some kind of "racial purity" nonsense, this argument makes no sense. And, again, Said never makes a personal claim to victimhood and dispossession -- quite the opposite in fact! His response to this argument has been quoted and you keep ignoring it: "I have been moved to defend the refugees’ plight precisely because I did not suffer therefore feel obliged to relieve the suffering of my people." csloat (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Weiner's claims are (i) that Said hardly lived in Palestine (ii) That he mislead the public about this. These basic claims have not been refuted. What you did up here is a nice example of a strawman argument. Mashkin (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin, Weiner's claims are absolutely not that Said hardly lived in Palestine and that he misled the public about this. They are that Said is "a liar" and "a fraud", and that his celebrity is based not on his writing or activism but rather on the "moral authority" he derives from his exilic identity. But Weiner "deliberately falsified" his research in order to create this conceptual lattice, and he did it for such obvious reasons that it's disgusting just to have to have a conversation about it. A land without a people, indeed. The worst part of this overlong dialogue you're involved in here, Mashkin, is that the substance is so thin in Weiner's thesis that clearly it is only intended for a certain audience, which is either youthful, stupid, or sinister. If Said is not really Palestinian, then perhaps the Holocaust happened to Europeans and the Israelis are only appropriating it for moral authority? But doesn't the fact that it hurts them make it their own? DBaba (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've drawn attention to this RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the section, as it appaeared here is pretty well-written. The gigantic bulk quotes in the article as of this post have to go, though. Someone tell me if I'm missing something. IronDuke 21:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I don't think the dispute is about whether things are well written but about the space given to the issue and the reliability of the claims and of the authors concerned as unbiased sources. There's an issue as to whether WP:Coatrack applies in that a relative minor point is being given huge coverage. There is obvious disagreement both between sources and between the editors here on the validity and significance of Weiner's claim. My opinion is that the whole thing is of minor importance and that therefore WP:Undue weight is being given to the whole issue by giving it its own section. A footnote stating that there was a vigorous debate in print regarding how much of his childhood Said spent in Jerusalem is all the space I think this merits.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I think that's even worded quite well -- "there was a vigorous debate in print regarding how much of his childhood Said spent in Jerusalem" -- clear and accurate without leaning to one side or the other of the debate, and, more importantly in my opinion, without giving these questions much more significance than they merit. csloat (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't quite make sense to me, unless we wrote "there was a vigorous debate -- which we decline to share with you -- etc." You see what I'm saying? It was a big enough deal that Said and others felt the need to mount a vigorous defense. It's an important point about Said's life/credibility, and I think it would amount to sweeping it under the rug to do what you suggest, Peter. IronDuke 19:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with IronDuke. Mashkin (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweeping what under the rug exactly? The fact that there was a debate? Or the fact that Said lived in Egypt? Having once lived in Egypt isn't something notable enough to require a five paragraph essay. If it upsets you that Said once lived in Egypt, you may be very disturbed to learn that some 70 million Egyptians continue to live there to this day! csloat (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweeping both that there was a debate and where Said is/was/isn't/wasn't from. I can't think why you would think Said's living in Egpyt, or anywhere else for that matter, would upset me, but I assure you it is, emotionally, a matter of supreme indifference to me. IronDuke 18:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet you seem to think it is vitally important that he lived there, that it somehow undermines his credibility, or otherwise presents an uncomfortable fact that must be "swept under the rug." If you think this is a matter for indifference, would you be ok with removing the section entirely? I agree that it's inconsequential. csloat (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Vitally important? Yes. To me? No. To whom then? To Said, among others. If he had felt it hadn’t mattered at all, I’m sure he (and his defenders) would not have addressed it. My opinion about what it means in terms of Said’s credibility is of no moment whatever, it is that others seem to have found it important – again, including Said, that mandates a treatment of the issue in his article. “Removing the section entirely” isn’t even on the table or, at least, I hope it isn’t. IronDuke 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think reducing it to a footnote is the only concrete suggestion we had before today. And I don't see why removing the section entirely wouldn't be on the table though I'm not sure I would support it. In any case, the issue is not Said's credibility; it is the malicious (and at the time libelous) attack on that credibility by a third party who failed to do even the most basic fact-checking. csloat (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the nature of the commentary on Said (and surely it wouldn't be for us to say?), it is significant, thus it merits significant coverage here. IronDuke 05:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can state that it is significant over and over if you want but that doesn't make your argument more convincing. This simply isn't that significant at all -- it's at best a minor footnote in Said's life and work. csloat (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a helpful comment. I suggest you remove it and make sure you debate to the point and not ad hominem. Mashkin (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't use any ad hominem. Sorry you misunderstood. csloat (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with csloat's assertion that it's best not to give the section undue weight. I recommend noting that there was a controversy and covering the details in a succinct, even-handed way. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Majoreditor. It's useful to have the views of someone who isn't a regular in I-P disputes.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

He may not be a regular, but I think his views could reasonably be construed as pro-Palestinian, if not anti-Israel, which he has made clear in edits and in talk. That is not to denigrate his contributions here -- they are of course welcome. IronDuke 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-Israel" is hardly the case, and I'd thank IronDuke to reframe from ad hominem slurs against editors such as myself who comes here in good faith in responce to a Request for Comment. Let's stick to discussing how to improve the article rather than comments on editors.

To that end, I recommend trimming the section and providing details via a note and/or a related article. If it's helpful I can offer up specific suggestions, although it appears that several of you have floated some promising ideas. Majoreditor (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, it can only be an ad hominem if I were dismissing your point -- I'm not. As for commenting on editors, if you feel that strongly, you might want to have a word with Peter about that. IronDuke 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. As a conversation starter, I'd suggest that the first items which can be scaled back are the two body quotes in the article, particularly the lengthy one from Said. Surely there must be a better way to summarize them through a brief rendition. What are your thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are you are 100% right on that. The section is definitely too long, as it stands now. IronDuke 03:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well; it can and should be reduced to a few sentences, tops. Preferably as a footnote. Focus on prominent voices in the exchange and be clear what the consensus of scholars that have mentioned it concluded, if anything. csloat (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a footnote would be the wrong way to go. The charges merited a strong denial from Said and his supporters, with counter denials, etc. No need for the block quotes we have, certainly, but no reason to give the reader the info in a way that is -- quite literally - burying it. IronDuke 05:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the "strength" of the denial from Said means this information has suddenly become more important. Of course Said denied it strongly; how would you feel if someone stalked you for three years to "expose" you as a fraud because your grade school memories couldn't be perfectly documented a half century later? That just makes the claim more outrageous but not more notable. A footnote is exactly where this information belongs -- it's a tangential sideshow to Said's biography. csloat (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, I concur with comments by Peter cohen and Majoreditor though I would add that the controversy is not so much about Said as it is about Weiner and the disreputable manner in which he conducted his research. Weiner set out to prove a hypothesis and discarded facts that disproved his belief system, such as his interviews with people who knew Said during the time Weiner asserted Said was not in Jerusalem. Weiner allowed no room for nuance, no ambiguity and no one has corroborated his claims. Weiner's subject--Said plus three or four journalists vigorously took issue with Weiner on grounds that Weiner's research was false and dishonest. There's irony in this. Weiner accuses Said of dishonesty and three or four journalists accuse Weiner of lying about his claims about Said. Let me repeat this: No one has corroborated Weiner's claims. Gelber's weak hand-clap in a throw-away footnote is not corroboration. For three years, Weiner tried to discredit Said yet Weiner failed at doing so because his research was flawed. Instead of praising Weiner for brilliant research, well-known journalists, who are Weiner's critics, called Weiner out for dishonesty. Weiner's fatal flaw was that he stubbornly refused to interview Said saying it was not necessary. The result was that Weiner committed numerous errors of fact to print in the Commentary article. So this is a saga about bad research and what happens when one uses sloppy research to try to bludgeon an enemy for ideological motives. Mashkin has repeatedly reverted judicious edits to this and the Weiner article, insisting, for example, that hopelessly false statements such as that Weiner wrote for "prominent law journals" remain in the Weiner article. Weiner wrote for no "prominent law journals" and yet, this fact does not needle Mashkin's conscience because he wants to believe Weiner wrote for "prominent law journals." IronDuke links to a 510-word version of the controversy that he likes a lot. IronDuke sadly misses the point-- that section is tagged with POV and factual questions, which IronDuke chooses to ignore, and from which Mashkin blithely and repeatedly removed requests for citations, and then went on his merry way. IronDuke's promotional link to five hundred and ten words is way overkill for a minor episode that had little meaning in Said's life but is central to Weiner's life. (See Weiner's puffed up Wiki article that is on the block for deletion.) This article is about Said, not Weiner. A footnote is OK. Maybe. Five hundred plus words on this subject, as IronDuke and Mashkin insist is needed, is pure puffery. Review my history. I do not normally weigh in on I/P disputes. The egregiousness, the outrageousness of Weiner's cheap attack on Said drew me in. The overwriting in the Said article on this issue engaged me. I do not like misrepresentations or intentionally dishonest research, no matter the subject, and that is what underlies this dispute. I am a professional writer and editor. The most interesting tales take place in the gray areas. Weiner allows no gray areas, and that is why his effort has not been taken seriously by any but those Joseph Campbell would say gravitate there because it fits their belief system.Skywriter (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More Weiner research problems

I decided to do some googling for more information on Weiner and Said. The first hit I got was [16] in which the editor of The New Republic is quoted saying that he rejected the Weiner article when Weiner refused to look at the galley proofs of Said's memoir. How a hatchet job by someone who refuses even to look at what his subject says in an autobiographby that actually explains some issues claimed in the article can be remotely regarded as a reliabel source, I do not know.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And here's more material. Weiner claims that Said's memoir was reworded after he got word of Weiner's research. Said's publisher denies this. And Weiner admits that the details in the memoir are correct. So why do we need to reference his article for biographical details?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing Gelber's quote

It seems there is general consensus that the material in here needs to be drastically cut. I suggested a footnote, one editor agreed and one editor disagreed; other than that I'm not sure what concrete suggestions we have or where the consensus points. But I do think it's quite obvious that the really minor stuff like the Gelber footnote needs to be deleted forthwith. But what about the rest of it? Should we suggest stuff here, or can we remove protection without fear of edit wars yet? Will Mashkin edit war again if I remove the Gelber sentences? csloat (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said the Gelber's quote is of utmost importance. We can paraphrase it of course, as almost anyother quote in this Article. Mashkin (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Of utmost importance to what or to whom? This fn is vague in that it does not examine the truth or falsity of Weiner's claims. The substance of Weiner's claims are, however, examined in depth in several articles, including in Counterpunch and in the Village Voice. The consensus is that Weiner selected facts that helped his case and left out what he knew to be true but that did not support his claim that Edward Said had falsified his biography. Anyone not vested in Weiner's claims would call Weiner's behavior scurrilous. He accused a literary man of dishonesty and was himself dishonest in making those claims. No other writer corroborates Weiner and Weiner is himself accused of lying about Said. What else is there to discuss? Why are we still discussing this, Mashkin? What is, as you say, "of utmost importance"? And don't repeat that Gelber is important historian. You've already claimed that, and it has been noted that Gelber does not examine the truth or falsity of Weiner's effort. Quoting someone in full on a subject that he said little is questionable at best.Skywriter (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No one refuted the basic story that Weiner told. With all your yelling and screaming you have not pointed out any such work. Gelber says so explicitly and there is not reason to suppress it. Mashkin (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin has reverted this talk page several times in the last week either out of laziness, bullyishness, or in an effort to disrespect a fellow editor. He has been asked here and in private exchange not to interrupt fellow editor's comments with his opinion; it was pointed out that to do so is the same as interrupting while someone is talking. I asked Mashkin to write his own detailed response using evidence links. His answer has been to revert, revert and revert, to state his opinion repeatedly using no links. I am therefore duplicating my commentary. Mashkin's interlinear interruptions follow in the second iteration. Skywriter (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin, you choose to attack me personally, yet refuse to answer the substantive question. Why does one footnote trump five or more articles that point out Weiner lied when he accused Edward Said of lying?

Did you not read the asssessment of Weiner by Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois? Boyle, a lawyer and scholar in the areas of international law and human rights, described Weiner as a

"fanatical anti-Arab racist, so I terminated the conversation."

Did you also miss the article by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair "Scholar" Deliberately Falsified Record in Attack on Said

What about Christopher Hitchens in The Nation? Did you see his piece published in September 1999? :::It is titled, "The Commentary School of Falsification."

Most seriously, did you also not read Edward Said's eloquent response to Weine. Mashkin, I find this so sad. You have repeatedly reverted my edits to this article and insist on using the weakest quotes by Said. Defamation, Revisionist Style By Edward Said

Surely you did not skip the article by Norah Vincent? [17] The entire piece is worth reading. Here's her conclusion.

Weiner admits that Said's current memoir, Out of Place, hides nothing and gets all the missing details right, but he thinks Said may have revised the manuscript when he got wind of his investigations. Last week I spoke to Shelley Wanger, Said's editor at Knopf. She put that myth to rest: "Edward Said's manuscript for Out of Place was completed in 1998–most of it had been turned in at the end of 1997; it was then edited and copyedited for publication in the fall of 1999. No substantive or factual changes were made to the manuscript after 1998." OK, people? 'Nuff Said?"

Weiner has also received special notice in Dishonest Reporting dot com. [18] Mashkin, make a case for why one minor footnote trumps five or more articles that are specific to this topic? (Saying so does not necessarily make it so. In the real world, readers like to see evidence.) Skywriter (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin, you choose to attack me personally, yet refuse to answer the substantive question. Why does one footnote trump five or more articles that point out Weiner lied when he accused Edward Said of lying?

I have never attacked you personally, whereas you are doing exactly that and disrupting any chance for a discussion. Mashkin (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read the asssessment of Weiner by Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois? Boyle, a lawyer and scholar in the areas of international law and human rights, described Weiner as a

"fanatical anti-Arab racist, so I terminated the conversation."

Why are you even mentioning this? This not a proof of anything related to the debate. Please learn basic argument skills. Mashkin (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you also miss the article by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair "Scholar" Deliberately Falsified Record in Attack on Said

What about Christopher Hitchens in The Nation? Did you see his piece published in September 1999? :::It is titled, "The Commentary School of Falsification."

Most seriously, did you also not read Edward Said's eloquent response to Weine. Mashkin, I find this so sad. You have repeatedly reverted my edits to this article and insist on using the weakest quotes by Said. Defamation, Revisionist Style By Edward Said

None of these refutes the basic facts, they are just attacks on Weiner. There significance is showing that Said has a bunch of groupies. Mashkin (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely you did not skip the article by Norah Vincent? [19] The entire piece is worth reading. Here's her conclusion.

Weiner admits that Said's current memoir, Out of Place, hides nothing and gets all the missing details right, but he thinks Said may have revised the manuscript when he got wind of his investigations. Last week I spoke to Shelley Wanger, Said's editor at Knopf. She put that myth to rest: "Edward Said's manuscript for Out of Place was completed in 1998–most of it had been turned in at the end of 1997; it was then edited and copyedited for publication in the fall of 1999. No substantive or factual changes were made to the manuscript after 1998." OK, people? 'Nuff Said?"

This is probably the closest you got, but it simply not the case the Weiner agrees that Said's description in his memoir is full and he shows discrepencies between the memoir and previous writing. Mashkin (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Weiner has also received special notice in Dishonest Reporting dot com. [20] Mashkin, make a case for why one minor footnote trumps five or more articles that are specific to this topic? (Saying so does not necessarily make it so. In the real world, readers like to see evidence.) Skywriter (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, ad hominem attacks and the concentration of form ('footnote") over content. Mashkin (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As Skywriter asked, why is this "of utmost importance"? Gelber has made an assertion that Weiner has not been refuted, but he does so without evidence or analysis. What's more, he does so in an obscure footnote to an obscure article about something else entirely. There is only one paragraph in the article that even mentions Said, in passing, and then Weiner is mentioned in the footnote. Why go to such obscure sources when we have pages and pages of material from sources that were prominent and notable such as Cockburn, Hitchens, etc.? Especially when we are looking for ways to shorten this section I think it's pretty obvious that the Gelber quote is the first thing that has to go. I think at the very least we are able to establish a consensus on this point; is there anyone besides Mashkin who believes the Gelber quote is "of utmost importance"? csloat (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On another note, should we take a vote or something? Or do we think more people will respond to the RfC? csloat (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about how these things run their course, Commodore Sloat. As mentioned at the AfD [[21]] inclusion of Weiner's puffed up and falsified claims is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. There were so many errors of fact in Weiner's original article that appeared in Commentary, that magazine does not make that article available on line. And yet, it is referenced in both the disputed part of this article and in the embarrassingly long (puffery) section in Weiner's Wikipedia bio. In both cases, the references are to Weiner's critics and not to Weiner's original. Why is that? Oh, wait I know. It is because there were so many errors in the original, it embarrasses Commentary to put it online. The beauty of this is that ideologues get to attack Edward Said and not take responsibility for errors of fact or truth that appeared in the original attack. If I had spent three years researching and writing an article, as Weiner did, I would at least have gotten the facts right by checking my facts and interviewing the subject of my research. Weiner did neither, and here we are arguing whether his false claims --and the he said/she saids about that error-prone article should be included in an otherwise praiseworthy article about Said. This is sad and pathetic.Skywriter (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple challenge: bring an RS that says that Weiner was wrong with proper refutation. Mashkin (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You have flunked so far. Mashkin (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Attempted rewrite of Claims about Said's early life section

Since this issue seems to be getting bogged down in ah ... tangents, here is a follow up on Skywriter's : Here's my suggestion-- someone who thinks it should be included--write something brief on this talk page and interested editors can sign off on it....

In 1999, Justus Weiner wrote an article for Commentary, claiming that "core autobiographical assertions" of Said were contradicted by the facts. Weiner argued that Said's family did not permanently reside in Talbiya or live there during the final months of the British mandate, and therefore could not be considered refugees. Weiner suggests Said grew up in the affluent Zamalek neighborhood of Cairo, and probably only attended St. George's Academy in Jerusalem during brief stays in that city.

Weiner's article was attacked as "deliberately falsified." Said had never denied spending much of his youth in Cairo, and according to supporters of Said, schoolmates and teachers confirmed Said's stay at St. George's, including one former student who Wiener had interviewed but never mentioned in his story.

Edward Said himself replied to the article attacked Weiner for never "once" having "contacted or in any way spoke to me", for having "misappropriated and falsif[ying] a galley of my memoir, Out of Place," and for (allegedly) making "dozens of mistakes of fact" in his article. Said explained that "the family house was in fact a family house in the Arab sense, which meant that our families were one in ownership," and that his name was not on the school's registry because the registry was terminated a year before his attendance. He further attacked Weiner as an "obscure Israeli-American lawyer" taking funding from "Michael Milken (the junk bond felon and his foundation", and his article as an example of "the lengths to which the Israeli right-wing (Jabotinsky and Netanhayu's Revisionists) will go to further its claims on all of Palestine."

It's still perhaps a little long but I hope this will get the ball rolling. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)o

A good start though still quite long; I would at least get rid of the sentence with the redlinked name - there's no need to detail the trivia of Weiner's complaint. I also think the entire thing can be made into one paragraph and put in a footnote. csloat (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Shortened and clarified it up a bit more. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented out two parts -- one is a sentence that I believe is not necessary, and the other is a fragment that seems to have been misplaced in the references. I'd be more inclined to support it with these changes but it should also be all one paragraph and turned into a footnote. csloat (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add Confino and Gelber and perhaps Benvensiti [22]. Regarding Gelber I suggest adding the sentence

Haifa University Historian Yoav Gelber viewed that Weiner's points about Said early life were not refuted by Said or his supporters. Mashkin (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree for reasons noted above. There is no reason to include these obscure sources (particularly the footnote) while leaving out far more notable and well disseminated sources. csloat (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

These are scholarly sources, unlike the other ones. Mashkin (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way the only mention of Weiner in Benvenisti is to here: "Questions about his integrity, raised for political reasons by right-wing Jewish detractors (for instance, Justus Reid Weiner's sensational article...". That's it. csloat (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the end of the sentence have been angrily rejected as false by his Israeli left-wing supporters who--regardless of the truth--viewed them as a personal affront. There are other less explicit references to Weiner's article (e.g. "The gulf that separated us was not caused by the fact that Said's "real home" was in Cairo, as his recent detractors would have one think.") Benvenisti's review is worthy of mentioning in this article as another take, not directly related to Weiner, of Said's Memoir and the relationship to situation in Jerusalem (basically Said's presumed neighborhood was half Jewish and surrounded mainly by Jewish neighborhoods which is not reflected in the memoir.

"He clearly has no recollection of the one hundred thousand Jews who inhabited the area surrounding tiny Talbiyah (which was itself half Jewish). "Jerusalem...seemed to have a more homogeneous population [than Cairo], made up mainly of Palestinians," he recounts. Yet, two out of three people he passed on the street would have been Jews. Said suffered from selective blindness, a disease that we on the other side of the ethnic divide shared. " Mashkin (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented out two parts -- one is a sentence that I believe is not necessary, and the other is a fragment that seems to have been misplaced in the references. I'd be more inclined to support it with these changes but it should also be all one paragraph and turned into a footnote. csloat (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

concerning edits: a fragment that seems to have been misplaced in the references was my sloppiness, but a sentence that I believe is not necessary contains all mention of Wiener's case, which means all the anti-Wiener case is left but none of Wiener's. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - the entire first paragraph states Weiner's case. I just don't think we need to mire the case in trivial details. csloat (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the quote from Said's reaction is too long. It shows nicely his character (or lack of it). however, when he is quoted as "the family house was in fact a family house in the Arab sense, which meant that our families were one in ownership," then it is not clear to what he is responding - since Weiner's claims was briefly summarized. - [from Mashkin]

As the edits stand now, we know what Weiner claims but not why he claims it, while we have both the position and explanation for of Said & his supporters. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you BoogaLouie for writing a draft. I am not sure where to look at this draft.

Is what is at the top of this thread been re-drafted or does the new draft appear somewhere else?

Any draft should include the full weight of all of Edward Said's responses to Commentary Defamation, Revisionist Style . He is not around to defend himself but did leave a detailed legacy in response to Commentary's three attacks on him. Fair play requires that Said's list of errors in the Commentary article be aired if the demand that reference to that article be included in Said's biographical article here. Commentary's attacks on Said are quite specific. The Israeli writer and the magazine that published these errors are responsible for the errors. The writer/researcher was both defiant and boastful about not checking in with Said to verify facts about Said's biography. Said's responses are quite specific.

Where is the full text of the Commentary article? Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How can any reasonable person weigh these arguments without access to the original article in Commentary? All references are to tertiary sources-- people talking about something where the original is not available. Commentary accuses Said of lying about his background yet does not make the original available and, we know that the original contained numerous errors of fact. How important is this article except as an example of really bad research? Weiner had a thesis he wanted to prove and a publisher that concurred. He hid facts and interviews that disproved his belief system. Stephen Glass and others were fired for pulling crap like this, and here we are reading arguments that an article filled with factual errors should help form the backbone of an article about a prominent person? This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Anyone arguing for inclusion must address Commentary's errors of fact and why those errors supersede all else. If Weiner misled readers about interviews he did, by leaving out those that did not prove his point, which Hitchens and others say he did, then exactly how much credibility does this article deserve in establishing a truthful story of a man's life? And what about the Village Voice article in which Weiner admits that Said was truthful about the story of his early life. This entire episode has been grossly blown out of proportion, and is being used a bludgeon to attempt to damage Said, as Said said in his response.Defamation, Revisionist Style Skywriter (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it they you have the original Commentary article and you have been basing your comments on it. For those who do not have it, there is an online version at freerepublic.com in focus/f-news/991691/posts. Mashkin (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the Gelber information since it is not notable as discussed above. We need to try to come to a consensus on the rest of it; currently that section is ridiculously long even without the Gelber stuff. We have a proposal above that we can change to and then tweak from there - does that work for others? csloat (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is probably best to avoid such asides even if they are in more recent academic articles. Ward Churchill has a similar aside in which he says that both the attacks on him and on Said were evidence of sytematic efforts by the right-wing to silence left-wing academics.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ward Churchill's experiences and standing were quite different from Edward Said. The attack by Weiner is by a little known person from outside academia.Skywriter (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Free Republic link to original article in Commentary

For those who do not have it, there is an online version at freerepublic.com in focus/f-news/991691/posts. Mashkin (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please post a linkable link? Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The spam filter did not allow posting the link, but just concatenate the two parts I posted. Mashkin (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not precisely. However, placing the name Edward Said in the search filter at that right wing Web site brings it up, revealing Free Republic dot com as a center of hatred for Edward Said. Skywriter (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Books

Do we really have to have Wikipedia pages for basically every thing that he wrote? He is notable, but it is a non sequitor to make all of those works notable. The Squicks (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable third pary sources about each book, why wouldnt we have have an article about them? We have a fricken million word unsourced article about imaginary castles that somehow was deemed worthy of a stand alone article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Weiner contentions

I've added some third-party summaries of the smear campaign at the end of the section but my preference is to delete most of this section and include it only in a footnote. Alternatively, we can link to the Justus Weiner page and include only a sentence here saying this guy tried to smear Said by attacking his childhood memories. The section as it is is still undue weight. csloat (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the substance of what csloat is saying. The Weiner section is unduly skewing this biographical article. Most of the controversy centers on Weiner's failure to contact the subject of his article to verify biographical details before publication and subsequent errors of fact that occurred as a result. This reflects on Weiner, not Said. I suggest there be one sentence or two in the Said article with a reference to an airing of the the various elements of the brouhaha in the article on Weiner and that most of what is present in this article be deleted. Can everyone live with that? Skywriter (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur partly with the above: I haven't looked at the section in a while, and marveled how it had turned into an hysterical diatribe against Weiner. I don't think that does the article any favors. Should it be trimmed? Absolutely. We can probably start with the massive text dump that someone dropped in from the Counterpunch article -- that was a very bad bit of editing. I'm also not quite sure what it is about Weiner that has led some editors to feel that BLP is suspended here. I can assure you it is not. Even if I were interested in the opinions of editors as to whether they did or did not like Weiner's work (and I'm not), they are not appropriate here, let alone outright insults. People really need to cool it. IronDuke 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not whether anyone likes Weiner's "work"; the problem is that its notability is minimal at best. There is nothing "hysterical" about calling Weiner out on his bizarre attack, as the reliable sources do; what is unacceptable is treating this as a serious dispute rather than a failed attempt at character assassination. csloat (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree: what is unacceptable is the non-stop WP:SOAPBOXing that is going on around this issue, occasionally metastisizing into full-on BLP vios. It is never necessary in this article, or any article, or any talk page, to "call out" a source in the manner you suggest; adjectives like "bizarre" are unhelpful, and skirt closer to a BLP violation than I'm sure you'd like. You may not regard this as a serious dispute, but Professor Said strongly disagreed with you. His opinion counts for far more than yours (or mine) in this instance. IronDuke 04:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the defamation lawsuit based on the word "bizarre." I'm really not interested in this silliness; I didn't say I wanted to "call out" Weiner; I said I was not surprised that reliable sources have done so and that there was nothing "hysterical" about it. This was a blip in Said's life at best, as reliable sources have acknowledged. For it to take up half this page is absurd. csloat (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke mischaracterizes the dispute with the claim that this is hysterical diatribe against Weiner. No, it is use of secondary sources to reflect accurate, contemporaneous criticism of sloppy and biased claims by a researcher who made serious errors in a published article rather than consult with the subject of his article about the subject's biography. The stink centers on Weiner's controversial research methods and the overstating of what he did find to the point where well-known journalists called out his controversial methods. The controversy over Weiner's research methods is nowhere near a BLP violation. Rather it accurately reflects a controversy based in faulty research methods coupled with the writer-- and his publisher's deliberate refusal to check facts. The proof is that Weiner made no lasting contribution to an understanding of Edward Said. Rather he contributed to an understanding of his own bias and research methods. So long as the reference to this mess stands at all in this article, the replies by contemporary journalists about Weiner's research methods-- and the fact that what Weiner says are distortions-- must be included. That solution is not optimal. What should happen is to leave a sentence in the Said article that there was some controversy about Weiner's article about Said's early life and to redirect and move the entire section to the article about Weiner. All the claims and counterclaims can be reflected in the Weiner article because that is all he is notable for. IronDuke says Edward Said viewed this is as a serious dispute. No, there was no dispute. Said did not appreciate being lied about and, before he died, took pains to correct the false record Weiner tried to create. There is no other reason for inclusion of an article on Weiner in this or any encyclopedia. He is notable for nothing but this, and that means the reference should be a a footnote and not an article. Or, we can leave the Edward Said article as is, testimony to the fact that, on Wikipedia, disputes such as this do not get resolved.Skywriter (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter, we can make no progress in this discussion if you are unable or unwilling to recognize the definition of a simple word like "dispute." This makes communication impossible. IronDuke 17:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironduke, here are definitions of the term dispute if you need to see them. http://onelook.com/?w=dispute&ls=a

Try as anyone wills to make this topic a dispute about Said, it is not. All but one of the secondary sources who wrote about Weiner and his article were deeply critical of Weiner's bias and research methods. What appears about Weiner is comparable to criticisms leveled at Stephen Glass. [23] So long as secondary sources are quoted accurately and there is no bias in excluding a POV there is no BLP violation in either the case of Weiner or Glass. Are you offering any secondary sources that dispute the conventional wisdom about the content of the article that brought Weiner attention? Skywriter (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started to trim down the section. I hope to get it down to a few sentences or a paragraph before adding a {{main}} link to Justus Weiner#Criticism of Edward Said. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly proving to be a challenge. Any thoughts on the state of the section at this point? Should I trim it even further? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're doing good though I wince at the removal of the link to historian & journalist Amos Elon in the NYRB. While the Wikipedia article on Elon does not come close to doing him justice,[24] [25] Weiner's skirmish with him is more significant than any of the others (all well-known pugilists). I might trim some Cockburn/Hitchens/Guardian et al. opinion in favor of including Elon. Or not. Maybe the section could be trimmed to a sentence by not repeating Weiner's known errors but instead mentioning there was a dust-up and linking to it for interested readers. An old newspaper practice comes in handy here. When making a correction, do not repeat known error. Instead, state only what is true. This article is about Edward Said, not about Weiner's known errors of fact or his known bias. A minor character, he's still getting too much attention. Skywriter (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Elon's still there. I just moved it up a bit. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes to biography

Recent changes to the Biography section subtly imply doubts about Said's upbringing ("Said claims...," "Said wrote...") heavily citing the Commentary article. This seems to me to be an addition of dubious value. Grunge6910 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Another user has fixed most of this but I am concerned that a couple of paragraphs got deleted in the process:

According to his autobiographical memoir, Out of Place, Said lived "between worlds" in both Cairo and Jerusalem until age 12. He attended the Anglican St. George's Academy in 1947 in Jerusalem. As the Arab League states declared war on Israel in 1947/1948, his family moved from the neighborhood of Talbiya in Jerusalem and returned to Cairo. In a London Review of Books article Said gave a more detailed account of his upbringing.

I was born in Jerusalem and had spent most of my formative years there and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt. All my early education had, however, been in élite colonial schools, English public schools designed by the British to bring up a generation of Arabs with natural ties to Britain. The last one I went to before I left the Middle East to go to the United States was Victoria College in Alexandria, a school in effect created to educate those ruling-class Arabs and Levantines who were going to take over after the British left. My contemporaries and classmates included King Hussein of Jordan, several Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian and Saudi boys who were to become ministers, prime ministers and leading businessmen, as well as such glamorous figures as Michel Shalhoub, head prefect of the school and chief tormentor when I was a relatively junior boy, whom everyone has seen on screen as Omar Sharif.

In 1951, Said was expelled from Victoria College for being a "troublemaker", and was consequently sent by his parents to Mount Hermon School, a private college preparatory school in Massachusetts, where he recalls a "miserable" year of feeling "out of place". Said later reflected that the decision to send him so far away was heavily influenced by 'the prospects of deracinated people like us being so uncertain that it would be best to send me as far away as possible'. Despite this dissonance, Said did well at the Massachusetts boarding school often 'achieving the rank of either first or second in a class of about a hundred and sixty'.

Should any of the above material be restored to the article? csloat (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Looks good! Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Said's contribution to literary theory

The intro describes Said as "literary theorist" and "critic", yet the article is nearly silent on his contributions into those fields, apart from a list of Said's bibliogrpahy. Is it a deficiency that needs correction or a reflection of the fact that his contributions were scant indeed?--Pecher 16:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the guy really contributed nothing of any value. He wrote Orientalism, which was an immensely popular book on how bad Western Scholars of the East were (that had some minor points, but was in general riddled with factual errors and poorly written), and then lived off that for the rest of his life. Oh and he blamed the Jews for lots of stuff. Apparently, that's good enough for tenure nowadays.

Cynicism aside, Culture and Imperialism is about literature, vaguely. He wrote a book or two on Conrad, too. Personally I think they're worthless and don't even show that he read any of the books he mentioned, but, in fairness, he did occassionally write about literature, rather than how racist the West was.

Another overrated figure in lit crit. The field's full of them. Theorist du jour. Probably the worst offendor besides Derrida and the unholy spawn of Said and Derrida -Spivak.

By all means, feel free to summarize Culture and Imperialism, though. I skimmed through it about a decade ago. No desire to re-read it. It would mark a useful contribution to the page, since that's his most popularly cited book after Orientalism (it's cited in virtually all post-colonial studies papers), but is generally not cited outside of post-colonial studies departments. It would explain to students the reasoning behind the love affair post-colonial types have with Conrad. Guinness4life (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

External links section

I notice this section is continuing to go. Today someone has even added two articles to it with out external linking. Given what is said in WP:EL this needs pruning, but given that this is a high tension article, I thought in better to discuss before being bold. BTW I notice we have not got a further reading.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I saw the changes from yesterday, but the section was so convoluted and repetitive that I figured this particular task was beyond me. Please feel free to clean up.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I shan't do it today but will bear it in mind as a possible task unless someoen else wants to ahve a go.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come across as lazy. I guess, I had been envisioning a complete overhaul of the section, but I guess I can start small. One link at a time.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly looking a lot better than yesterday.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

removing incomplete interviews

the last 2 interviews listed in the "lectures and interviews" section are excerpts from Google Books. I recommend deleting them. What does everybody else think?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The book itself is in the bibliography. I'm unsure whether it should be moved down or mentioned in the section. However, I agree that selcting two interviews from the book and listing themn separately is in appropriate especially as they will ineveitably be only partially displayed.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitchens vs Fisk

I placed the following sentence in the lede some time ago: "Robert Fisk described him as the Palestinians' 'most powerful political voice'" with the appropriate reference. I felt that Said's political influence bears mentioning in the lede, and Fisk, while controversial, is an acknowledged source on the region, and his claim comes with relative dispassion. On the other hand, that passage was replaced with the following sourced sentence: "Friend Christopher Hitchens described Said as a "polymath, academic powerhouse, consummate musician and the most passionate advocate of justice for Palestinians." I removed this and reinstated the Fisk quote. First, Hitchens's fawning ("polymath, academic powerhouse") really adds nothing, while the fact that he and Said were "friends" is wholly irrelevant. The one interesting claim in the sentence refers to his work for Palestinians, which I think the Fisk quote encapsulates more effectively, i.e., in a manner which is less obviously hero-worshipping. Any thoughts? Grunge6910 (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, very much. DBaba (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all! Yes, I agree with Grunge6910's assessment that:

'Hitchens's fawning ("polymath, academic powerhouse") really adds nothing, while the fact that he and Said were "friends" is wholly irrelevant.'

However, concerning Fisk's "most powerful" blurb versus Hitchens' "most passionate" blurb, the reason I prefer Hitchens' is the mere fact that I recognize Hitchens as a writer who is as recognizable if not more so than our subject, and I don't remember ever having heard of Fisk, a glance at his Wiki page failing to jog my memory. Personal testaments, I think we all agree, tend to be worthwhile only if they're given by someone who is relevant to the subject. Since Hitchens and Said seem to have affected each others' life and/or work, and have even collaborated on a project or two, I find multiple reasons for including his blurb. What do you think? Or, does Fisk continue to be relevant to the Said, in your estimation?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that. I think Fisk is well suited to make such a claim because he has spent a considerable amount of time reporting in the Middle East. (Acc. to his Wiki article, he actually lives in Beirut.) He's one of the most widely recognized English-language reporters on the region. His massive tome The War for Civilization was the culmination of that reporting, which included a series of interviews with bin Laden. This is extremely rare. He's done a lot of work on Palestine and Lebanon as well. He has written a fair amount about Said as well (hint: he likes Said's views a lot, hence the controversy). Hitchens has a personal connection to Said as well, but so does Fisk (which is why he gave that first Said Lecture, I believe), and Fisk's views on the region seem to me to be more reputable. Grunge6910 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'm with you on Fisk, now. Nice work. I think I just needed to release a little defensiveness, since it stung me to see that any corrections were being made to the article after my overhaul. But, I now realize the even-handed efficiency you've employed.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The only other changes I really made were moving the useful information you added to another section (Career) and reformatting the Death/Tributes section. Grunge6910 (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of place, Said's autobiography

Does anyone know why there isn't a article on Wikipedia on it? It seems significant enough to warrant an article on it. 64.229.9.195 (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's because no one has gotten to it yet. Personally, I don't feel qualified since I haven't yet read it.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

time for archiving old discussions?

Does anyone here know how to archive?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and did my best. I think the link to the archive, though, needs a box. I'm learning how to create one as you read this. Hopefully, you'll race me to it.  ;-) Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Phew! I hope I did it right.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Second link to Weiner's page

I deleted Evenfiel's line that said:

Main article: Weiner's claims about Said's early life

, which linked to the section of Justus Weiner's page that dealt with his claims about Said. The link seemed superfluous, and upon inspection of Weiner's talk page, I realized that it has recently been the site of edit warring, and discussions about deletion. Do you agree with my revertion?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the section should be moved to a footnote. It does not belong at the top of this page; it is a minor footnote in Said's life at best. This is a biography; Weiner's disgusting and pathetic attack on Said's childhood was little more than a blip on the radar and should not be highlighted and showcased in an encyclopedia article about his life. Few took Weiner seriously at all and his claims were roundly refuted. This used to be at the bottom of the article; why did it get moved to the top? Again, I think the best solution is make it a footnote of a paragraph or maybe two clearly indicatig there was a brief controversy surrounding Weiner's claims but they were quickly shown to be false and petty. csloat (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved it from being a subsection of "Pro-Palestinian Activism", just cuz it seemed more logical for it to follow "Early life". But I like your footnote idea.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have supported thisd beign a footnote in the past, but I can remember there being opponents of that suggestion. I'm a bit worried about the risks of an edit war breaking out and sabotaging the GA assessment. Therefore I suggest leaving things be for a little while to allow anyoen to object first.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to a more appropriate section (actually consistent with where it was before); I couldn't figure out the footnote thing anyway. I think it should be abridged further but I'm ok leaving it as is for a while. csloat (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Palestine importance rating

I think this article ought to be rated High-importance, not Mid-importance, on the Palestine project. He was the best known Palestinian intellectual of the past century. Any thoughts? Grunge6910 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

nomination for "Good article" status

Does anyone know how it's going with this article's nomination process? Or, how long this process usually takes?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know. The backlog seems to be a lot bigger than when I last looked--Peter cohen (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I finally found the Backlog list for literature articles. By the looks of it, I'd bet it was a week before there was any word on it. That's not bad in my opinion.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)