Talk:Joel Beinin

Notability

He is quoted in several other wikipedia articles. --Aminz 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a good argument in favor of notability. At the very least, he must be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. Beit Or 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, an AfD is the way to go, not this tag. --Aminz 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Both are possible. If some editors believe that the subject of this article is nonnotable, this concern must be recorded. Please do not give instructions to other editors. Beit Or 10:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But the tag is a waste of time if you don't follow it up. It is supposed to indicate that there is an issue to resolve, not sit there permanently. Alex Middleton 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue of notability is a two edged sword. Either Beinin is notable or he is not. If heis not notable, the entire section on him should be removed. If he is notable, then there should be room for an unsanitized version of his importance, not just containing his golly gee view of his own life, but also others' views of his life. The fact is, Beinin, invites controversy by attacking people and then tries to pretend that never happened. Whether the subject is Pipes, or someone else, he attacks and then claims victimhood and actually deletes all elements of his biography that are not personally approved. If wikipedia is a public place, then he should not have that right, that is , we should be able to print a nonapproved biography on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigleaguer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

One has to ask the obvious question. Why are Professor Beinin's high school activities notable? Why should anyone care that he spent time in Israel as a high school Zionist, or that he witnessed Israeli racism? The ONLY and obvious answer is that Beinin has to set context for ideas later promulgated that are one sided and biased, against his origin, which he justifies by this boring travelogue of his life. I will not try to change the article because the professors and his minions seem to patrol it like their personal property, and revert any changes that improve the article. This talk page is extremely interesting, and much more informative than the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern fellow (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

missing articles

Why has somebody removed the links to lots of his articles on the web? :-( Regards, Huldra 11:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit section

An anonymous IP which resolves to Cairo removed the entire section on the Horowitz lawsuit, could someone address that edit, which I have reverted? Corvus cornix 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the issues, my horned friend, is that the issues causing the lawsuit in the first place, namely the accusation that Beinin was the face of terror, were censored out. No context whatsoever was given for the lawsuit although the author deems fit to show Horowitz lost, and had to pay. However, he did not lose for the accusation, just for copyright infringement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.197.205 (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed the section concerning his controversies at Stanford including former students alleging he taught nonfacts repeatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.201.49 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

I only noted this was a protected site after editing the page. If I have acted improperly, whoever is protecting the site can, unless they intervene directly, drop me a note and I will revert the edit (innocuous enough, perhaps, but one never knows). ApologiesNishidani 07:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On encountering attitudes that struck him as being contemptuous of Palestinians ("I tended livestock on Kibbutz Lahav, which was established on the ruins of three Palestinian villages. The Palestinian inhabitants had been expelled and, because they are not Jewish, were unable to return. One day, we needed extra workers to help clean manure from the turkey cages. The head of the turkey branch said we should not ask for kibbutz members to do the work because, 'This isn't work for Jews. This is work for Arabushim'. Arabushim is an extremely derogatory racial term.' Joel Beinin, '['Silencing Critics Not Way to Middle East Peace.'], in San Francisco Chronicle, February 4, 2007")

The above paragraph was deleted due to its implication that Israel is racist. While that may indeed have prompted Beinin to renounce the ideals of the youth and go over to the "other" side, that constitutes hurtful and hateful speech and was deleted. There are 7 million Israelis, Beinin encountered one, and drew a conclusion that changed his life. I know many Israelis who are not racist. It shows the mundane side of Israel, but not the accurate presentation historically. If Beinin truly believes this to be true, I suggest we go back to "notability" and consider whether his life and ideas are elevated enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia at all. Bigleaguer 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Bigleaguer did above, and whether the deletion of the quote was deliberate or inadvertent. In either case, his/her subsequent comment makes no sense in the absence of the quote, so I have restored it. The comment still does not make much sense, but at least now we can see what wqas intended. RolandR 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to explain a second time. The quote by Beinin, restored, attempts to "make history" through personal experience. Of course, Beinin as professor knows the methodology falls far short of making history, so he cleverly couches it in unassailable "personal experience" so he can disseminate it widely. However, the quote, which condemns Israel as a racist country, and justifies decades of Beinin's life dedicated to putting Israel down, is completely anhistorical and ridiculous. It is purely Beinin's prejudice or perhaps limited experience of the country. Were he not to try to abuse the experience by touting his professorship, it would be laughed off the page entirely. While I know very little about Egyptian peasants and concede he could be brilliant in that area, I also know he knows very little about Israel in spite of being pompous with his judgments. Thus, I questioned his notability based on his historical backdoor methodology of including unwarranted evidence that would and should not be allowed in court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigleaguer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted Talk's additions to the previous text. These passages were removed:-

(1)'Beinin's work has been criticized by Egyptian Jews, who contend he deliberately ignored persecutions of Jews by Egyptians.'

(2) 'However, Beinin also was, during his tenure at Stanford, a magnet for criticism by students who charged that he ignored or even made up facts to support his a priori political agenda which was against Israel. These critiques were published in the Stanford Review, Camera, Campus-Watch and the Stanford Daily.'

(1)The first quote is unsourced, inaccurate, and grossly misleading. Which specific book is alluded to? Which former Egyptian Jews made the criticism? Who of them used the adjective 'deliberately'? If the editor is familiar with Beinin's work, he will know that Beinin devoted pages in his 1998 book on the diaspora to a deconstruction of both an official Egyptian government view that 'Egypt has been a shelter for persecuted Jews', and of a Zionist construction comparing the treatment of Jews in Egypt to Jews under Nazism. He writes a nuanced history of the modern period, wary of both Egyptian and Israeli nationalist reconstructions that give either a rosy or a black portrait of the condition of Egypt's Jews.

Actually, Joel, the first quote is from a book review on Amazon.com. It disputes that your review is nuanced and claims that you ignored persecutions. The full review(s) describe some of the feelings your review caused among Jews who lived through and suffered those persecutions. The comparison is not to Nazism, but to other Arab dhimmi states. Of course, that line of thinking does not lead to criticism of Israel, so the narrative of those Jews is totally discounted.  :—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.143.106 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2007

(2)The second is a ragbag of assorted criticisms from some students (not as written 'students', generically) and David Horowitz's various polemical sites. They are a synthesis bundling together a variety of sources written by people who themselves have an 'a priori political agenda', but who insinuate their agenda is 'fact-based' unlike Beinin's. I suggest that if they are to be considered for inclusion they be broken down into their respective elements. Horowitz apparently is involved in a civil suit with Beinin, so any material from sources he controls, sponsors or promotes must be subject to the severest standards of 'Reliable Source' and 'Living Persons' criteria.

Joel, "some" "Shmum" of course its some students, only someone who is thin skinned would assume I am saying all students, of course it means some students. You claim your critics have an a priori political agenda. How do you know that? Have you ever had a discussion with the author of the article (I happen to know you have not). The course was an online course taught at Stanford and and nothing whatever to do with Horowitz, the lawsuit, or previous criticisms of you in the Stanford Review. It was a sincere critique by someone who took your class and felt it had dozens of errors, only some of which were catalogued in that article. Italic text :—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.143.106 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2007

Principles. This is about a living person, and the kind of travesty of the facts which was posted in here and sustained until recently must not be tolerated. A section on his politics, and controversies is to be welcomed, but, as with other controversial living persons, editors contributing to such a page should strive to get quality material, not gossip from partisan tabloid screeds, to document the controversies surrounding Beinin's politics and teaching.

So, the Stanford Review is a "tabloid screed?" I don't think that the students who work on the newspaper would agree. Some might even think of it as a respite for the Stanford Daily, which is also a model of bias, just like your classes. Italic text:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.143.106 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2007

In the meantime, it would be most welcome for editors familiar with his work to provide a NPOV synthesis of his various books, something which requires patient reading, not facile scanning of the net for scandalous hearsay Nishidani 10:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, only noncritical POV are tolerated, is that it, Joel? Are you that thin-skinned that you cannot tolerate this? When did you start to use the name "Nishidani?"Italic text

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.213.143.106 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2007

Fascinating. I'm being accused of some version of sockpuppetry!! Take your complaints to the appropriation noticeboard. Nishidani 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed, for reconsideration

His class has been described as a "model of bias" by Dr. Martin Kramer of Tel Aviv University,and students of his class have complained that he manufactures facts to support his virulent political opinions against Israel. One student took an online class of Beinin's and described a series of errors, omissions, mischaracterizations, and mistakes in an editorial in the student newspaper (see external link). Beinin himself has carried placards in White Plaza at Stanford on "Nakba Day" (known elsewhere as Israel Independence Day) and has stated he sees no contradiction between the political and academic hats. Some students, such as the one above, evidently disagree, citing the factual mistakes in his teachings.

Nishidani 13:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There are about a dozen mistakes of method and of POV language here, which are banned by a variety of rules. 'Virulent' ,'Nakba Day' is not known 'elsewhere' where elsewhere means 'Israel', confounding Israel with the world, as'Israel Independence Day'. It is the Palestinian term for what in Israel is celebrated as Independence Day. His 'class has been described as' Which class? when? The editor assumes that Beinin teaches only one class? There is nothing noteworthy about a professor joined a public parade in favour of Palestinians. Most professors who divide their time between teaching and making public policy statements on Israel, from Plaut to Dershowitz, find no 'contradiction' between their expressing their political positions and being academics. As for the naive student, tell me one example of a professor who has not been caught out making a slip, or an error, in the classroom.(The standard reviewe article can stand in the notes, but it is a sloppy piece of work , showing that the writer has little grasp of historical methods, and a very wobbly knowledge of what constitutes a 'fact' (the figure for US aid is underestimate, for example). The list is endless. It's a smearjob, hasbara pastiche, poorly cobbled together.Nishidani 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So Nishidani, your point is well taken. You are now compared to Pipes and Plaut. Feel better? I know that your objections to the edits were based on solid grounds, so I saw that someone went back and removed words such as "controversial" and "right wing" and other items that could appear judgemental from the board of Pipes, just as you removed such words from your bio. Maybe you agree with that for Pipes in the interest of fair play? As far as going to the rally in White Plaza, it is potentially intimidating to students in your classes to see you there. I would agree it also would be intimidating for Dershowitz' students, if he were teaching history rather than law, to hear him speak. But, you are teaching history, not law. Regarding your slip up, of course any one can make one, although you have to admit yours was a whopper. At least you admitted and even apologized in the Stanford Daily even though you had been called on the same mistake the year before (privately by another student) and not changed the tapes. Maybe the error was the course administrator's. Anyway, you did not even acknowledge, let alone apologize for the other mistakes in your online course. Many of those,cited, were not overt mistakes of commission like the error about US aid to Israel. Rather they were clever obfuscations the form of which was intricate enough to essentially prove they were deliberate. That is they were implications, innuendos rather than overt falsehoods. Some of them, such as the Wailing Wall innuendo, require a person with a tremendous background to understand what you did and how to refute them. And, for the unitiated, the "Haram above" as you put it in your course, is also the site of the Jewish Temple Mount for two temples and is a holy Jewish site.

Actually, Joel, the piece was meticulously researched and detailed, and that is why it was printed. Hasbara it was, which means explanation or enlightening for those who took your class blindly, without hasbara. I would add that your assessment of the work is biased, and not to be taken seriously, because you have an axe to grind, Joel. So whether you think it is sloppy or not, is of no consequence, since in the real world, you are not giving out the grades. Oh, and I assume you mean "Stanford Review" not standard reviewe (sloppy?). The charge made in that article was that you quoted the total US aid to Israel in your lecture since 1948 as one trillion dollars and the true number was closer to 80 billion, or one tenth your "slip" and moreover, you had been called on that in a previous version of the class and yet not changed the videotape. That is not a slip, that is outright dishonesty. That begs the question of your other errors, such as your implication that there were two millenia without Jewish life in Palestine for example (don't deny it, the transcripts are available) Italic text

Well, thank you then. Feel free to use this talk page as a blog. Keep your sophomoronic chat, and citations of Amazon reviews from Cairo and Alexandria Egypt complaining about Beinin's anti-Zionism (good for a laugh, but really you guys on the hasbara teams should get your acts together to get just a minimum of credibility), off the actual Wiki page. Ps. the 'meticulous research' underestimated the amount of US money given to Israel (from 1967 to 1991) by about 13 billion, small change compared to Dr Beinin's slip, but proof enough the author not only learnt little from Beinin's class, but from any other historical class he may have attended.Nishidani 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

{Note Joel: I think you meant "math class" since Stanford historians aren't very good at numbers}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigleaguer (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 October 2007http://sandbox.blog-city.com/sandstorm_math_quiz_at_stanford.htm 65.244.131.148 22:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The author published the article in the Stanford Review, which was then picked up by over a dozen blogs on the internet, and I merely read and followed the story. I am not he. But I will give your ad hominem mature attacks on the author their due. But the Amazon reviews above are heart rendering accounts. An 82 year old man incarcerated, made to walk barefoot on glass, and recite insults against Jews? Why is that funny. Joel?Italic text Italic text

(2) Removed this:

'Beinin had had some personal setbacks at Stanford', as a student had run a critical opinion piece about him in the student newspaper at Stanford (see external links), and David Horowitz had identified Beinin as "The Face of Terror," prompting Beinin to sue, not for defamation, but for copyright violation (Horowitz had used a protected picture, allegedly).

Personal setbacks violate BLP, and the 'setbacks' rumour circulated here is not sourced. It appears from 'as' that the editor is referring to a horrendous setback suffered by Professor Beinin when a student newspaper published an undergraduate student's opinion about him as a teacher, a piece of 'meticulous' research than ran to a short page of generic innuendoes and a few stupid remarks of the kind that in his video Beinin did not mention every known fact about Israel's history (he didn't mention Hecht!), and which left the exposed Beinin reeling from the terrible impression these sophomoric notes made on his peers throughout the global academy.

The article in the Stanford Review cited a number of errors mmde by Beinin during his class. One was Beinin's statement that the "Wailing Wall" was the only remnant of the Herodian (Jewish) temple of 2000 years ago. Truly, the whole Western and Southern Walls were remnants of the temple. While this may seem trivial, in fact the difference is actually political and monumental. The Palestinians have a cottage industry denying that Jews have a history in Jerusalem or that they have a claim on the holy city. So they deny there was a Jewish temple before their mosque was built and deny the Western and Southern Wall excavations. Unfortunately, for Beinin, historically, there is NO DOUBT about the Western and Southern Walls. The debate was a major controversy between Barak and Arafat in 2000. However, an historian should be expected to take the true, or honorable road and state what happened and not what a politician (Arafat) said happened. Beinin knew about the debate as did every MidEast scholar in 2000. His statement above, was an innuendo based on a fundamental lie. It seems innocent but at its essence denies Jewish history and should not be acceptable from an historian.

Similarly, Beinin implies that there was not a Jewish history in Palestine until the Turks invited a few old scholars to be buried there several centuries ago. In fact Jews NEVER LEFT Palestine. The pesky Jews revolted for seven centuries after the Temple was destroyed, and again, Beinin as an historian knows that. For him to leave it out, is a calculated omission that denies what happened. But again, he will say he is telling a "narrative" that alas does not include Jews. Beinin states that Palestinian and Jewish nationalism began "about the same time" which is another calculated obfuscation. Beinin knows that Palestinian nationalism began after world war I, or certainly in the 20th century, whereas the Zionist Congress began in the nineteenth century. Therefore, at the time of Herzl, there was not Palestinian nationalism. Towns, cities, sanjaks, clans, yes. No nationalism though. So again, to make a POLITICAL point, Beinin changes history.

I don't care about Beinin's politics. I do care that he teaches accurate history, especially as an American Zionist, as he describes himself, in his youth, it is not conceivable that he does not know he is misrepresenting fact. Personal ad hominem attacks against the author of the critique against him "Sophomoric" does not change that the critique is not about Beinin's politics as it is about his professionalism Italic textPerhaps "professional mistake" would have been a better description of an incident that left the professor apologizing in the Stanford Daily for the acknowledged mistake .Italic text:::::The passage:Italic text::::::'David Horowitz had identified Beinin as "The Face of Terror," prompting Beinin to sue, not for defamation, but for copyright violation (Horowitz had used a protected picture, allegedly).'

Reads as innuendo: Horowitz called his number, identifying him as a terrorist mug, which was therefore ipso facto true, and could not be rebutted by Beinin, who had to resort to the technical device of sueing Horowitz for copyright violation.

Whatever, this and the previous editor are clearly identifying themselves as elements in a smear campaign.

Nice try, but still on the dumb side of the IQ quotient for hasbara smears.Nishidani 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)\\

See above -- best you can do is a highly personal attack instead of defense of ideas. No insult need be taken if winged from your perch in Cairo-- whether the target is the Stanford Review or Hosni Mubarak.Italic text

"It's a smearjob, hasbara pastiche, poorly cobbled together.Nishidani 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC) N. criticizes the editor above (me) just as Beinin criticized Pipes and Campus watch (below):

>"Campus Watch [..] compiles dossiers on professors and universities that do not meet its standard of uncritical support for the policies of George Bush and Ariel Sharon. Among other things, this may be Pipes' way of taking revenge on the scholarly community after failing in his own pursuit of an academic career in Middle East studies.[....] The efforts to stifle public debate about U.S. Middle East policy and criticism of Israel are being promoted by a network of neo-conservative true believers with strong links to the Israeli far right. They are enthusiastic supporters of the Bush administration's hands off approach to Ariel Sharon's suppression of the Palestinian uprising. And they are aggressive proponents of a preemptive U.S. strike against Iraq." [1]

Beinin's quote above contains inaccurate statements (campus watch never had any "dossiers" (what were they, CIA?)and did not have a position in 2002 of unqualified support for Bush and/or Sharon, whatever their confusing positions on the Middle East were at the time. The CW website currently indicates only its desire to "note ahistorical, tendentious, and politicized scholarship and teaching" and as for the professors, "their own analytical and scholarly failures discredit them. CW analyzes and uncovers such failures, and then publicizes them to a broad audience, but we in no way cause them." However the statement of Beinin mixes factual error (again) with a low blow personal attack that speaks for itself, conspiracy paranoia (CW is "run"? it can't be a group of like minded individuals who think alike? And where is the proof the links to Israeli far right?). Its also coupled with poor analysis-- these same pro Israel writers are being blamed for the Iraq war! topped off with a claim of victimization and being silenced by Israel supporters. So based on the above, I would take with a chuckle any claim that there is a "hasbara smear" going on. Hasbara is NEEDED here to interpret Beinin for the unwashed masses. Since there is a 3 rv rule, it will be nearly impossible to use words like controversial or contentious in the article that describes Beinin. However, whatever Beinin is, there is another viewpoint out there that is intelligent and informed which Beinin tries to dismiss-- do so" at your own peril. Bigleaguer 16:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning

The Talk page of a Wikipedia article is to discuss how to improve and edit the article, not to make personal attacks. I am going to start pruning out the non-germane discussions here, if they don't desist. Corvus cornix 22:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

edits that don't fit golly gee view keep getting deleted. Why are you censoring ????

What would I be censoring, other than personal attacks and animosity? Corvus cornix 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Beinin's life includes controversy. It is not accurate to pretend that is not an important element in this article. If his life is worthy of discussion it is worthy of full discussion. There is not personal animosity in the article, just observation and fact. 65.244.131.148 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, as the boldfaced rants above attest. Corvus cornix 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Corvus I have absolutely nothing, whatsoever, personal with Beinin. As Michael Corleone said, its all business. I love Israel and believe that a historian should back up his point of view, and be held accountable when the facts he presents are not correct. His facts are made up. 65.244.131.148 00:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It was Vito Corleone who said its all business. Michael said it was all personal.209.248.222.110 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

MESA presidency

Something should be said about his public role as president of MESA. I'm sure the man knows quite a bit about working-class Marxists in Egypt in the first half of the 20th century, but as the president of MESA in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, he was utterly incapable of connecting with the broader American public or influential public figures to explain what the role or function of middle east studies within U.S. society should be, and this helped set the pattern whereby professional middle-east studies academics were pretty much sidelined and irrelevant in U.S. public policy debates, except for a few vocal polarizing figures such as Juan Cole, who attracted intensely bitterly partisan controversy. AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

More at Middle East Forum than this article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Removal of 'diatribe'

This writer detests David Horowitz. But I'd like his ideas to speak for themselves. To label his work a 'diatribe' is POV and propaganda, not information. It's the sort of thing I'd expect from......David Horowitz!

Tapered (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTRESUME

Removed a long list of published articles per WP:NOTRESUME. We do permit addition of impactful individual papers and articles to bio pages; they require secondary sources to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)