Talk:Deborah Lipstadt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deborah Lipstadt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating commentary[edit]

The text now under § Commentary contains multiple statements that appear to be users' own interpretation or evaluation of Lipstadt's remarks, such as ...Lipstadt warned...Along the same lines...Lipstadt attacked...She rebuked...rejected the view...returned to the theme... Which independent, published sources directly support these characterizations? Note also that interviews and contemporary or breaking-news reports are normally considered primary sources, whereas Wikipedia articles, and especially BLPs, should be based largely on reliable, secondary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the cited pieces are secondary. Which stmts specifically are you challenging as unsupported by sources?Icewhiz (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the above terms are paraphrased from sources; I've struck those. However, I'm not seeing any independent, published sources directly stating that Lipstadt's remarks on Ernst Nolte were "along the same lines" as anything, or that her remarks on Trump constituted "returning" to any "theme", or evaluating her commentary on the Gaza/genocide issue at all. Furthermore, I've already provided a link to the Wiki project page that describes contemporary news reports as primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree some of those look out of place. When we are close to events, contemporary news reporting is not primary - it becomes primary as we become more distant. Some of the items in the current commentary section do have secondary coverage extending well past initial coverage - e.g. her comments on soft core denial (both in relation to Trump and in relation left wing UK politics) have been covered extensively (and in the case of the UK - for well over a decade). That being said - the connecting phrase of "returned to the theme" - seems like possible OR.Icewhiz (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[C]ontemporary news reporting is not primary - it becomes primary as we become more distant – please cite any published expert or piece of Wikipedia guidance suggesting that sources somehow magically go from being secondary to primary ones. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. It's a blurry line - but generally - almost any news reporting from 1901 would be PRIMARY (for views in the period) now, whereas back in 1902 some 1901 news reporting may be SECONDARY (depending if it is a factual account of events - or an analysis of events). Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews, which are the source of the entire "Commentary" section, are always primary, by policy. Do Control+F primary on WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Not only are they always primary, they are non-independent. That's why BLPs should avoid interviews and stick to independent reporting/analysis/perspective. Softlavender (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we're nixing the cherry-picked quotes, most if not all from interviews, I don't think this section can be salvaged. Probably best to delete the section entirely. If coverage warrants it, neutral independent third-party reviews of her or her work can be summarized or quoted, in a newly created section titled something like "Influence", or in a "Career" section. Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I think the key is to focus on high-level sources and to avoid obsessively documenting every newsworthy sound bite. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sound bites, in addition to violating WP:NOTNEWS, are also inherently misleading, as they are very short or shortish snippets of longer thoughts, statements, and interviews. Plus they are randomly cherry-picked out of who knows how many statements, either public or to the press, and interviews, she has made and done. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Career section needs expansion[edit]

The Career section is currently one sentence and needs expansion. Here are some basic sources: [1], [2], [3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of works[edit]

On the 16th of november I added the innocent word „a selection" to the then called section works, knowing that Lipstadt wrote many more books than the mentioned four. She also wrote many articles in journals. The user softlavender reverted my edit at once and made an editwar in this cause.[4], [5], [6]. He claimed that Lipstadt did not write more than four books. I gave up my attempt to improve the biography of in this minor matter. Today I found the replacement of bibliography with the word books through another author, which I appreciate in principle, because a deficient list of books is no bibliography.[7] Today I added my words „a selection". But we have the problem, that all journal articles are missing. Could we get back to to the designation „works (a selection)" It is quite difficult to add only two simple words to your wikipedia for a foreigner and - in the field of history - quite expierienced user. --Orik (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses should not be used in headings. There is no evidence or indication she wrote more than five books. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I asked you, Softlavender, in November 2018, which regulation you would cite for your thesis. You did not answer. That „parentheses should not be used in headers" seems to be an invention of you. I found, that parentheses in headers in lists of literature are quite often used in Wikipedia.
  2. Today you stated that Lipstadt wrote not more than 5 books. I found on world cat, that Lipstadt wrote at least 15 books and many essays in journals, she has about 229 entries. You reverted my edit about 4 times.
  3. You reverted also edits from another person, which supported my opinion.[8]
  4. Why do you not wait until you read the answer of the begun talk today.
  5. Your edit behavior seems to me not suit to the regulations of wikipedia.
  6. I would appreciate opinions of other users to this matter. Additionally I request you to undo immediately your edit from today, until the matter is solved. If not, I will go to 3O. Orik (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Softlavender. There, now you can't go to 3O.
    Look, (1) you have less than 500 edits on en.wiki, Saoftlavender has oodles and oodles of them - who do you think might be better conversant with the way things are done here? (2) you're being unnecessarily combatative about a very minor issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there arguments regarding to content? (1) My request to cite the regulation that headings should not wear parentheses was not answered - also from you. If you are not able to answer them , you should not edit here. I found the expression in many biographies. Here only a selection: [9], [10], [11], [12]. One can also write selection without parentheses [13], [14] (2)In „world cat" I find many more books than the claimed five. It is a bit difficult to enumerate them because there are also editions in other languages. But I would size up them to 15-20. (3) You seem to have no personal arguments using the Metadata of wiki against me. Clearly a writer who has tenthousands of edits, must be always right. (4) I am not a wikipediawriter with 500 edits. I edited a lot since eleven years in the german wikipedia. You are right in one point, that this is a minor issue. But not very. It is misleading, if Softlavender writes bibliography and cites there only 4 books of really 400 books and articles in journals. I had stopped discussing the thing in November, until I realized that one author, who supported my view, was also reverted from Softlavender. Substantial arguments, please. --Orik (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Lipstadt has only written five books. If you believe she has written more than five, please list additional titles here in this talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That would appear to be a false assertion - please do not make such assertions on WP:BLPs without sources. A trivial Amazon search comes up with:
    1. [15] Antisemitism: Here and Now Hardcover – January 29, 2019
    2. [16] History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier Paperback – April 4, 2006
    3. [17] The Eichmann Trial (Jewish Encounters Series) Hardcover – March 15, 2011
    4. [18] Holocaust: An American Understanding (Key Words in Jewish Studies) Paperback – July 21, 2016
    5. [19] Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory Paperback – July 1, 1994
    6. [20] Denial [Movie Tie-in]: Holocaust History on Trial Kindle Edition
    7. [21] Beyond Belief: The American Press And The Coming Of The Holocaust, 1933- 1945 Paperback – February 8, 1993
    8. [22] Der neue Antisemitismus (German Edition) Kindle Edition
    More than 5. Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    #1 hasn't been published yet, which is why I neither counted it nor added it to the article. #6 is a merely a reprint of History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (with a new title to match the title of the movie based on it, and cover featuring the movie's stars, and a different introduction -- by the movie screenwriter instead of by Anthony Lewis); so that's not an additional book. #8 is a translation of Antisemitism Here and Now, translated by Stephan Pauli; so that's not an additional book. Also, The Zionist Career of Louis Lipsky, 1900-1921, which you just added to the article, is her doctoral dissertation at Brandeis, written in 1976 and later published in 1982; it's held in very few libraries and for most of those it's held offsite rather than in the stacks. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Deborah Lipstadt has much more publications than the now cited books in the article. There are many articles in magazines and handbooks. You, @ softlavender, seem to see your main objektive in prohibiting and antagonize new edits, which do not suit to your personal opinion. An example is the way of your questioning the edit of user:Icewhiz, claiming that the 1982 printed book of Lipstadt is not a book. I do not see any improvement of the the article D. Lipstadt through you. In November 2018 you argued in the edit-comment, that a bibliography of Lipstadt would contain not more than four books.[23]. But you seem not to know what a list of publications of a scientist means. A bibliography of an historian contains his lonely written books, his books edited with others, books in which he is the editor, the contributions to handbooks, the contributions to other books, and the contributions to magazines. If we don't cite all, we have to indicate the choice with a word. I chose selection, which you multiply deleted. In my opinion you are you one of the authors on wikipedia, who prohibit improvements of articles citing no existing rules, in hiding personal points of view - aka wikipedia:POV. Sorry for my bad english. Orik (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Orik - if you could point out significant journal articles and book chapters, etc - we could add them.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Orik, you understand what the word "book" means, right? We've listed all of her books, so there is no reason to add any words to the section title. Softlavender (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of Interest[edit]

I don't get how and why she is treated as some authority on "the Holocaust" given her multiple conflicts of interest in the matter. Could somebody explain why this isn't thoroughly reflected in the article? --105.8.6.224 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which conflicts of interest are those? Being Jewish? Being the daughter of a German immigrant? Being a historian? Being human? Not liking mass murderers in general? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has inserted the phrase "an lying Jew" in the opening of the article on Ms. Lipstadt. This has to be removed. 2603:6011:A046:9600:980C:71C7:59E3:6A4C (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It takes some pretzel logic to turn her expertise in a subject into a conflict of interest in that same subject. I think IP 105.8.6.224 has managed to destroy the very concept of expertise and specialized knowledge. I supposed we should close the universities now. Or, maybe IP 105.8.6.224 could expand on their comment, perhaps explaining how anyone could have a conflict of interest in Holocaust scholarship. freshacconci (✉) 14:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)c[reply]

Source: recent JewishCurrents article.[edit]

A recent (April 2022) article containing much material not already in the current WP article, including detail on Lipstadt beliefs about antisemitism and how they evolved: JewishCurrents - Mari Cohen - Deborah Lipstadt vs. “The Oldest Hatred”, 28 April 2022: In her new role as antisemitism envoy, Deborah Lipstadt will attempt to fight a scourge of antisemitism that she seems to regard as incurable.     ←   ZScarpia   11:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of her last name[edit]

Anyone able to tell me clearly how her last name is pronounced? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo[edit]

The current infobox photo (c:File:Deborah Lipstadt, U.S. Special Envoy.jpg) is extremely hard on the eyes due to her outfit clashing with this background; it's basically creating an optical illusion, and it is quite straining to look at. Perhaps an image like c:File:S20230130CS-0246 (52865348805) (cropped).jpg or c:File:File:U.S. Embassy Jerusalem celebrates the 246th U.S. Independence Day. July 5, 2022 09 (cropped).jpg would be preferable? Curbon7 (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deborah_Lipstadt&oldid=1179809663"