Talk:Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism

Lerman's criticism

Yesterday, I included a reference to a recent self-published article by the British scholar of antisemitism Antony Lerman on Yale's decision to close the YIISA. Someone has now removed this, for reasons that I do not believe are appropriate.

Let's address the possible concerns about using Lerman's piece:

(i) It's a self-published source.

WP:RS gives fairly clear guidance on this point: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Antony Lerman is a noted scholar in the field of antisemitism and his material has been published in many third-party publications. His piece clearly meets the minimum standard for inclusion on this regard.

(ii) It's a "POV hit piece."

This was a reason cited by User:Plot Spoiler in reverting the edit here.

The assertion that Lerman's article is a "POV hit piece" is an opinion, not a verifiable fact. Lerman is a longtime opponent of the YIISA, and his article takes a strong position against the organization. This gives his article a POV, but it does not make it a "hit piece." As long as we indicate that these are Lerman's opinions rather than uncontested facts, there is no problem on this regard either.

(iii) It "has serious BLP issues."

This was another reason cited by User:Plot Spoiler in reverting the edit. I am not aware of any BLP issues in Lerman's article; he makes critical statements toward other public figures, but I do not believe any of his comments constitute BLP concerns. Specific examples would need to be provided if we are to reject the piece for this reason. In any event, my edit did not only referenced Lerman's views on the YIISA, not his criticisms of any other public figure.

I should clarify that I am not accusing User:Plot Spoiler of acting in bad faith; I simply do not believe the reasons given for the reversion were appropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to defend the inclusion of material that policy only states "may be acceptable"? I think you're on pretty shaky ground when policy only grudgingly admits a possibility of including the kind of source you're using; we're a very long way from wholehearted endorsement here. In addition, the piece in question has quite a few negative things to say about quite a few individuals—as a simple example, it states the director of the initiative had "little experience of antisemitism research"—so it seems obvious to me that one must take WP:BLP concerns seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I interpret "may" to be synonymous with "can" in this context, and I don't agree with your reading of the policy as "only grudgingly admit[ting] a possibility." Rather, I regard it as indicating that self-published material by experts meets the minimum standard for inclusion. Whether any particular self-published essay should be included on any particular Wikipedia article is of course dependent on a whole range of considerations that the policy cannot and should not address -- it merely allows for the possibility. I fully accept that a self-published source may not be a preferred source even if it meets the minimal definition of acceptability; these things need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Concerning WP:BLP, I fail to see how writing that a public figure "[has] little experience of antisemitism research" could be regarded as an unwarranted attack. The fact that Lerman has written negative (i.e., critical) things about certain public figures seems neither here nor there on this regard.

I should add that noting Lerman's support for the Yale decision would be entirely consistent with WP:NPOV, particularly given that the article is currently a bit one-sided in its orientation.

On another matter, are you certain that your intervention in this dispute is consistent with past arbitration rulings, given the YIISA's engagement with the Israel-Palestine conflict? CJCurrie (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I interpret "may" as "this is a source of last resort", for obvious reasons: The best kinds of sources are obviously respected academics, publishing in their fields, in peer-reviewed journals or by academic presses. We then move on down the line to e.g. publications in non peer-reviewed sources, then op-eds in respected newspapers, then op-eds in tabloids, until we finally scrape the bottom of the barrel - something one had to publish on one's blog, because no-one was willing to provide the space or money to actually print your opinion. Policy doesn't forbid it, but it's obvious we should be looking for better. As for BLP, it is not concerned only with "unwarranted attacks", but with any negative material about living people; I recommend you re-review the policy carefully, as its scope is far broader than you indicate here. And finally, I am under no personal editing restrictions, and my actions are entirely consistent with past arbitration rulings, unless you believe reasoned and fairly mild comments on a topic have been forbidden by some arbcom case. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think that a self-published scholarly editorial by a noted expert on antisemitism could be construed as "scraping the bottom of the barrel." Concerning BLP, I think we may be getting off-topic. My original edit read, "Antony Lerman, a British scholar of antisemitism, has supported Yale's decision to close the YIISA, which he has described as a politicized group that was devoted to the promotion of Israel rather than to serious research on antisemitism." There are no BLP issues in this statement, and the fact that Lerman made critical remarks about public figures in the source article strikes me as irrelevant to this discussion. If others are aware of a policy decision that states or implies otherwise, please let me know. Concerning editing restrictions, I'll need to review the matter a bit further before responding. CJCurrie (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lerman's blog post is not the worst possible source one could imagine, but, as explained, it's at the low end of what could be considered reliable, and should only be used in extremis. Concerning BLP, if you read the policy, you'll see it's quite concerned with what's in external links, regardless of how they are used in an article. One shouldn't be linking to articles which go against the spirit of BLP, even if the article itself doesn't happen to quote or paraphrase the specific material that was BLP-problematic. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that self-published sources normally fall on the low end of the reliability spectrum, but I also think we need to evaluate each source on a case-by-case basis. Lerman is a scholar of antisemitism and his essay is written as academic commentary. It's a credible work by any reasonable standard and particularly by the standards of self-published sources. In any event, this may be a moot point: I see that Daniel Treiman has written about both Lerman and Lipstadt's reactions to the YIISA closure on the JTA site. Would you agree this is an acceptable source? CJCurrie (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's acceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)