Talk:Israel Shamir/Archive 5

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

Untitled[edit]

create

Category[edit]

I accepted a few revisions since they did not seem "obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits". It doesn't mean I agree or that further use of the talk page would not be helpful. One in particular that jumped out was the cat saying where he was from. It is not obviously malicious and it may not meet the standards for being such a problem that it is exempt from reverting per BRD. Not sure but it won't hurt my feelings if someone reverts them. Please just make sure the overuse of "claim" is not reintroduced per WP:WORDS.Cptnono (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these claims (about him being an Israeli, as opposed to a Swedish writer with the pen-name "Jöran Jermas") derive from his own website and self-promotional materials. The important point here is that the only reason he is a notable figure, and therefore has a wikipedia page, is because he occasionally features in articles in mainstream papers, whose purpose is usually to question his own claims about his identity. It's not wikipedia's function to simply rehash the promotional material that he writes on his website, especially since those claims are typically questioned in the only reliable sources that mention him. Avaya1 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reasonable doubt that Shamir grew up as a Jew in Novosibirsk and subsequently emigrated to Israel, where he acquired the name "Israel Shamir", and where he converted to Greek Orthodox Christianity. I know several people who have been in contact with him in Jaffa, and he has been mentioned in mainstream Israeli newspapers and other reliable sources as resident in Jaffa. He has since apparently acquired citizenship of Sweden in addition, under the name "Jöran Jermas", later changed to "Adam Ermash". We do not rely solely on his own testimony for this basic information, and I see no reason to disbelieve it. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments move from /comments[edit]

I spotted these over at Talk:Israel_Shamir/Comments where they won't be seen so decided to copy them here. SmartSE (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this about "who he really is" is nonsense and waste of space. All that is easily verifiable, the man is certainly controversial, at times self-contradicting, arguably even a crackpot, but he has never plummeted to such depths of unfounded personal smear as in this Wikipedia entry. He is who he says he is, and if you have any doubt, ask for documentation from the man himself. Someone neutral needs to re-edit the whole thing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus Sonderriis (talk • contribs) (left in 2006 SmartSE (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I concur. Having reviewed edits over the past two and a half months, I note that there is a concerted effort on the part of a number of editors, to repeatedly insert inflamatory and out of context material which appears suspiciously pertinent to current political and judicial campaigns, smearing of Assange / Wikileaks. Repeated references to indirect quotations are not appropriate. Give actual quotes, and stop removing context to make quotes seem more inflamatory. The quote regarding duty of Christians and Muslims, while insensitively worded, reads differently when the previous sentence is included deploring that extermination of non-jews is forgotten. As someone mentioned above, the whole thing needs to be re-edited by someone neutral, or to be mediated with the subject person informed of the process. Without this, the document could easily be used for slander. I have inserted no edits, as there is clearly an on-going and concerted effort to negate moderating edits. I appologise, for being wordy, but am a novice at editing and was searching for some mechanism for inserting a caution regarding biased editing. StevePAbbott (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather clear that this man is a provocateur (agent provocateur? double agent provocateur?) rather than an actual anti-semite or Holocaust denier. Witness his statement in the last paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir#Holocaust_denial, where he acknowledges historical facts in a way that automatically (a) makes him not a holocaust denier (b) makes sense of his other statements as a provocation, rather than a denial.

If we base this article on uncritical quotations from people who have not understood this troll's game, then we are clearly playing into his game. Feketekave (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia isn't a place for spinning ad hoc theories about who may or may not be a "double agent provocateur." It doesn't matter whether or not the editor's personal point of view is that Shamir is or isn't a Holocaust denier, what matters is what the reliable sources say. Many reliable sources have classified Shamir as a Holocaust denier and this is what the entry reflects.
Let me note also that it might be helpful to read the article on Holocaust denial. Do not presume that Holocaust deniers say "the Nazis killed zero Jews"; they say "sure the Nazis killed some Jews, mostly by accident of course, but then the Jews started making things up about gas chambers and a 'Final Solution' and six million dead." It's a common rhetorical dodge of Holocaust deniers to say, "Sure, the Nazis killed some Jews, and therefore you can't call me a Holocaust denier, I am only trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened when you clear away all the Jewish lies about Hitler trying to wipe out the Jews." This is the point of view Shamir is happy to spread, and yes, it is rightly called Holocaust denial by the reliable sources cited. It's a bit like saying, "Sure, the US bombed Hiroshima, but it's a Japanese lie that it was an atomic bomb. But don't call me a Hiroshima denier!" Goodwinsands (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We go by sources on matters of fact. Going by sources on matters of opinion (verging of name-calling) just amounts to delegating to others what we should not engage in either.
It is clear from the sources that, while many people who are nearly universally called Holocaust deniers do engage in the tactics you describe, Shamir seems to be doing something different. On the one hand, he seems to be waving towards some fairly sophisticated arguments of the form "I accept all the basic facts commonly referred to as "Shoah" or "Holocaust", but..." (Follow this by "I reject the religious connotations of the terms", "I reject the political positions some people see as consequences", "I reject the way this is seen as one discrete entity set apart from history" - all of these are easily documentable positions that have been taken openly by far less controversial people than Shamir, with better or worse arguments.) On the other hand, he engages in open provocation (such as taking up hated banners apparently incompatible with his own opinions) and arguments that are completely marginal and irrational.
What exactly is his intention? I agree with the poster above that the text of the article is not the place to try to figure this out. At the same time, it would be more useful to assemble the sources in a way that makes this individual's rhetorical game clearer, rather than hurry to put him in one generic category. Feketekave (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "but I'm not a Holocaust denier, I just have some questions about..." game is standard issue for Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers will call themselves anything but Holocaust deniers, just as paedophiles will call themselves anything but paedophiles. That Shamir occasionally diverts his argument to wrap it in political considerations doesn't in any way negate the fact that his website is piled deep and thick with all the standard arguments for Holocaust denial.
I remind you again that this matter is settled as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. It is not up to us to personally decide whether or not Shamir is a Holocaust denier. It is up to us to report what the reliable sources have to say. And they're quite united on the topic. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I must say that you seem to be missing my point in two ways. First, I would agree that claiming not be a racist (say) is a standard tactic of racists; my statement was that, in this particular case, something more complicated is clearly going on at least part of the time. (Note that Shamir has actually claimed at least once to have "a duty to deny the Holocaust" (see the page); this is the exact opposite of the tactic you are describing, and falls much more easily under the label of provocation.) Second, sources are there for facts, not for opinions. I will leave up to others whether the sources are unanimous; I am not actually particularly interested in getting Mr. Shamir off any sort of hook. Feketekave (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jöran Jermas?[edit]

The source sited does not seem to refer to Jöran Jermas. Also is that a pen name or what is it? I think that needs explanation. As he seems to have formally changed his name to Israel Adam Shamir the article should reflect that. Geo8rge (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have changed his name first to Israel Shamir, then to Joran Jermas, and finally to Adam Ermash. Because of various concerns, many references have been removed from this article; I will try to find the relevant sources. RolandR (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP disaster[edit]

This a WP:BLP disaster, amounting to little more than OMG! He's a Holocaust denier!!! over and over. Except that the only actual quote from Shamir clearly contradicts that. The reader is entitled to an honest and reasonably complete biography, not a glorified blog seemingly written by a virulent opponent of the subject. I'll do what I can to add some nonOMG content and clean it up a bit. Rd232 talk 22:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before here, not too long ago. Please do not make the mistake of saying that only those who say "there was no Holocaust" are Holocaust deniers. That's not just a mistake, it's a newbie mistake. Please inform yourself about the Holocaust denial movement first before you make that same mistake. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read the article you link to (Holocaust denial), and reacquaint yourself with the word "denial". Redefining words like the Cheshire Cat is just going to produce a meaningless Newspeak.
Anyway, I came back to the talk page to post this link [1], which includes a quote from Norman Finkelstein, "He has invented his entire personal history. Nothing he says about himself is true." Not sure what, if anything, to do with that. Rd232 talk 23:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS this seems quite a good summary of who Shamir is and what he's about; unfortunately it's just a blog. But the points made are a hell of lot more illuminating than arraying a bunch of sources saying "he's an anti-semite/holocaust denier". Rd232 talk 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've rather missed the point. I didn't redefine what "Holocaust denier" means, or what the Holocaust denial movement stands for. That's a part of the historical record already, and has been for a long time. You just naïvely assumed you knew what "Holocaust denial" meant based on taking the words at face value. It's a bit like assuming that crabapple means a kind of apple crabs eat, and condemning those who don't agree for "redefining words." Goodwinsands (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should go rewrite the Holocaust denial article then. Rd232 talk 23:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked, it was a pretty good entry. One of the better entries in WP, in fact. And it pointed out that "Holocaust denial" was not a matter of saying "the Holocaust didn't happen." Ultimately, of course, it's not up to either your nor I to decide whether Shamir is a Holocaust denier (although he is). Instead, it's up to us to note that there are a significant number of WP:RS calling him that, and then make sure the entry reflects that. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know about the past, but right now the Holocaust denial article describes exactly the phenomenon you would expect: denial of the historicity of the Holocaust (that is, denial of the agreed key facts of the events of the Holocaust). And whilst you may be happy with various sources describing Shamir as subscribing to that, and leave it at that, I can't help finding it disconcerting that no direct quote supporting that is available, whilst the only relevant quote given directly contradicts it. Rejecting the use to which the Holocaust has been put (according to some) is very different from rejecting the historicity of the Holocaust. We might distinguish, if you will, between Holocaust denial and Holocaust "rejection". Now I don't want to pursue this much further (I certainly don't want to remove the claims from the article - although they really could be reduced and contextualised within Shamir's wider views, as per the blog lnk I gave here), and it would help me with that if you'd acknowledge the problem. Rd232 talk 01:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a source ([2]) which is an opinion column clearly basing its view ([3]) in substantial part on a misquotation of Shamir ("The camp was an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo).), as easily verifiable from the original. Rd232 talk 01:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Category:Holocaust deniers. I've looked in the sources here, and on the internet, and found no evidence to support its accuracy, and only vague accusations or demonstrable misquotations. Shamir, like Gilad Atzmon and Norman Finkelstein, is concerned with the role of The Holocaust as narrative and political tool, and seems to not care about the history either way. The recent description by the (Jewish magazine) Tablet Magazine following extended interview (added to the article), together with Shamir's own rejection and zero direct evidence, amount to a WP:BLP requirement to remove this category, even in the face of some sources in the article making this (unevidenced) accusation. The accusations are reliably sourced, yes; the fact of denial is not, and the most recent good source (the Tablet) seems bang on the nose. PS I don't really care whether he is or isn't; but key Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP have a tendency to go out of the window where those of extreme political opinions are concerned, the more so where those opinions touch on the Israel/Palestine topic area. Having blundered into this article and found this situation, I've felt tunable to ignore it. Rd232 talk 01:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moved from article:

Writing in The Moscow Times in late 2010, investigative journalist Yulia Latynina said that Shamir is "infamous for denying the Holocaust and writing about the conditions under which Jews are willing to sacrifice children"[1]

Reason: per Shamir's response to her here, her central claim is false. (The article is about Shamir allegedly inventing a WikiLeaks cable, which had not yet been published, and Latynina concluded it did not exist.) That rather fatally undermines the credibility of the source - especially as the quoted description of Shamir is unlikely to be more than an aside in what Shamir calls "a short piece" (I don't have access to confirm). Rd232 talk 23:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the whole business about the French publication of Flowers of Galilee (withdrawn by one co-publisher, several court cases) really should be covered. See eg [4] and the French Wikipedia page for Israel Shamir. Rd232 talk 23:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done. Rd232 talk 15:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

I've just noticed that threads since July 2010 have been archived to Archive 1 rather than the sequentially appropriate Archive 3 and on. I've attempted to correct this by moving all the affected posts to Archive 4, and have tried to tell the bot to now begin archiving to Archive 5, but others might want to check out what I've done, since this is a new thing for me. --Slp1 (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and lead description[edit]

This article now is sourced mainly to Shamir's own writings, often stating his claims in the encyclopedia's neutral voice.

"Shamir is best known for a range of political writing about Israel, Palestine, and the Jewish people"? No, he's best known for being a Holocaust denying Antisemite. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"sourced mainly to Shamir's own writings" - not true. And his website is used for biographical information which is not disputed, or for quotes or responses. (See WP:SPS.) As to your other remark, well it beings to mind a remark I made at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Israel_Shamir: "the primary concern with these sort of people seems to be in justifying a label, not explaining what they believe and why. It may be very satisfying for editors, but it's not much use to readers." Basically, WP:NPOV given the available sources requires particular care in the lead of a WP:BLP. I asked at BLPN about the lack of reliably sourced evidence that Shamir actually qualifies as a Holocaust denialist. Feel free to provide that, and/or clarify the nature of his views and/or why people think they're antisemitic. Labelling is not helpful for readers, and we're not writing an encyclopedia for the satisfaction of editors. PS I've changed the section title to a neutral description, because your original was dangerously close to a personal attack, since the recent changes were done by one person (me) and you were effectively questioning the motivation for the changes (WP:AGF). [It may be worth pointing out here that section titles are not owned by the creator of a section - please do not revert in the belief that this is so.] Rd232 talk 19:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have at least three high quality reliable sources that say he's a Holocaust denying antisemite, or is widely considered as such. It's not up to us to determine if he "qualifies" or not. We report what reliable sources say.
The whole "Career" section, written in the encyclopedia's neutral voice is sourced to Shamir. So is most of the lead. And most of the "Background and personal life". Basically a good chunk of this article is the encyclopedia parroting what Shamir says about himself. In other words, a whitewash. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SPS, a BLP subject is a reliable source for biographical material unless shown otherwise; if you have sources that contradict him, provide them. Before adding these sections, the article was at or near meeting the criteria for WP:CSD#G10. As to the claims: the only one that's really quality is the Guardian, and they (specifically, Leigh, a co-author of that story) have an axe to grind with their ex-partners Wikileaks, and the story is clearly attacking Wikileaks with claims for which (on this issue) they provide no evidence. It remains true that the accusation is an extremely contentious one, one the subject rejects, and which ought not to be difficult to prove. We're not in the realm of thought crime here; he can be considered a denier only if he said something to that effect. When, where? For such a contentious claim, rejected by the subject, it is not too much to ask. Rd232 talk 22:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I ask editors to become familiar with what Holocaust denial actually is before making ill-informed decisions about who is or isn't one. To demand that someone must say "No, there was no Holocaust at all" before being considered a Holocaust denier is to give a free pass to David Irving, Ernst Zündel, Paul Rassinier, Robert Faurisson, and every other key leader of the Holocaust denial movement who says, "Yes, the Nazis killed some Jews here and there but then the Jews made up all this stuff about Hitler's big genocidal plan, and gas chambers, and such." When I have a little time I will reinstate material that has been removed erroneously. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, the Nazis killed some Jews here and there but then the Jews made up all this stuff about Hitler's big genocidal plan, and gas chambers, and such." - you keep making the same point over and over, but you have to face the fact that Shamir has not been cited saying anything like that. He appears to sympathise with that view (hosting related material) and associate with people who express it, but unless you can show that he's expressed that view, you can't legitimately claim it is a fact that he holds it. And I must emphasise the role of the recent Tablet Magazine (a Jewish magazine, not to be confused with The Tablet) sources (see article) in making me decide to remove the category. Rd232 talk 01:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if something is a reliable source for BLPs, that doesn't mean we should repeat it in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. Shamir claims all sorts of things about himself which the article should note are his claims unless other corroboration is found. This should include all the media outlets he claims to have worked in, his service in the IDF, and his academic career. All are self-serving statements which should not be repeated in the neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, per WP:SPS, autobiographical material is normally accepted as verification of standard bio material. Show why this is an exception. Remember too that it's all appropriately footnoted; people can see on what sources the claims rest. Rd232 talk 01:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, it's not supposed to be in the encyclopedia's neutral voice.
SPS says the article should not be primarily based on such sources. Currently over half the footnotes in this article refer to Shamir's writings.
SPS also says that claims that are "unduly" self-serving or involve third parties should not be included. The list of well known and respected media outlets he allegedly worked for fit both those criteria, considering they're sourced only to Shamir. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this source, via Google Translate confirms most of the details (plus providing others), but it's in Hebrew, using an automated translation is clearly bad. Rd232 talk 00:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also from Shamir's site, which is also clearly bad.
Can I assume you're not going to fix the fact that claims Shamir makes are stated in the encyclopedia's neutral voice? I didn't want to get in the middle of your multiple edits, but if you're done or are not going to fix it, I'll fix it myself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's from Maariv - the copy linked to is merely posted on his website. (He also has an angry response to the article on his website.) I see no reason to change the text in the way you suggest; try WP:NPOVN (constantly saying "according to Shamir" when it's explicitly footnoted anyway evinces scepticism as to reliability) or WP:RSN. Rd232 talk 15:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words[edit]

Each point in the "Background and personal life" section seems to be prefaced with weasel words. I can't see that an unsubstantiated quote from a single source is sufficient cause to do this. Reading over the Tablet article, other than quoting it, it doesn't appear to attempt to address Finkelstein's claim that Shamir's background is a fiction. Perhaps other better sources exist that explicitly cast doubt on his background? --92.2.82.159 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

corrected attribution[edit]

"He says he was born Izrail Schmerler" - It is wrongly attributed to Shamir. It was written by Lundgren, so it should refer to him. I could not find Shamir saying that he had this name.

Kingfisher12 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Israel Shamir/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
All this about "who he really is" is nonsense and waste of space. All that is easily verifiable, the man is certainly controversial, at times self-contradicting, arguably even a crackpot, but he has never plummeted to such depths of unfounded personal smear as in this Wikipedia entry. He is who he says he is, and if you have any doubt, ask for documentation from the man himself. Someone neutral needs to re-edit the whole thing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus Sonderriis (talk • contribs) (left in 2006 SmartSE (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)) I concur. Having reviewed edits over the past two and a half months, I note that there is a concerted effort on the part of a number of editors, to repeatedly insert inflamatory and out of context material which appears suspiciously pertinent to current political and judicial campaigns, smearing of Assange / Wikileaks. Repeated references to indirect quotations are not appropriate. Give actual quotes, and stop removing context to make quotes seem more inflamatory. The quote regarding duty of Christians and Muslims, while insensitively worded, reads differently when the previous sentence is included deploring that extermination of non-jews is forgotten. As someone mentioned above, the whole thing needs to be re-edited by someone neutral, or to be mediated with the subject person informed of the process. Without this, the document could easily be used for slander. I have inserted no edits, as there is clearly an on-going and concerted effort to negate moderating edits. I appologise, for being wordy, but am a novice at editing and was searching for some mechanism for inserting a caution regarding biased editing. StevePAbbott (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Shamir on the Putin and the Olympics[edit]

I was going to write a paragraph on Shamir's undying support of Putin and his unironic:

"But only someone who has lost all touch with reality could brand the lenient rule of liberal-conservative Putin as the “murderous and corrupt regime” of a gangster, when he has never executed anyone, holds an electoral mandate, and has yet to break up a single legal demonstration."

But I couldn't fit it in the article, because really, once he lauds Pol Pot, what more can I say about his perspective on autocrats. Perhaps someone else can decide if his Olympic Coverage is worthy of inclusion. 96.251.85.48 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

″Swedish″ in the lede[edit]

I see some kind of hair-splitting nonsense being pushed here. The guy is a Russian Jew, who has Russian, Israeli and Swedish citizenship. He has lived in Russia for decades, some years in Israel, in Britain, some suggest he has lived in Sweden, too, but what we know is that he now resides in Israel.
Now you tell me, according to what logic do you want to designate him in the lede as a Swede? --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His being a Swedish citizen (and not sourceably a Russian or Israeli citizen, apparently), the way we do for everyone else. I find this insistence that he can't be a real Swede because he's Jewish disgusting, and you need to stop now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making personal assaults like me claiming ″Jews are not real Swedes″. I have nothing against Jews, many of those are more sane than the 'original' Swedes in the sense of this article. Having Swedish ancestry myself I must admit some aspects of the life in the country brings tears to my eyes and this is only the fault of the ethnic Swedes themselves who let all of this shit accumulate while constantly voting for the landsförrädarpartierna.
Shamir is a citizen of Israel [5] (claims to be one himself: [6]). He writes on topics related to Israel and Russia. How is his Swedish citizenship the most important thing? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's nationality is rarely the most important thing about their work in this global day and age, but it's a common convention of Wikipedia to identify nationality in the first line. If other nationalities are also sourced, we might say "Swedish and Israeli" perhaps. Nothing you've posted supports identifying his nationality as "Jewish," however, and Wikipedia does not follow the racist belief that someone's Jewish ethnicity supersedes any national ties they have. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think policies are quite clear on this matter. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Opening_paragraph, point 3: Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity). While ethnicity is usually not to be emphasized unless directly relevant, choosing the most irrelevant formal nationality (as: citizenship) out of at least 2 (or likely 3) possible ones and writing in the lede is a Swedish[4][5][6] writer and journalist. is against the policy and nonsensical. He possesses Swedish citizenship only due to his marriage to a Swedish woman, having lived in many countries, his period of Swedish residence (apparently ended 20 years ago) is very limited in relative terms and his 'line of business' has nothing to do with Sweden. It is outright misleading to remove more important aspects and write ″is a Swedish[4][5][6] writer and journalist″ in the lede. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that this doesn't support identifying him as Jewish as though he does not have a nationality. As well, the same policies would apply if he were an "ethnic Swede" living in Jaffa, but you removed "Swedish" because he's not an "ethnic Swede." You're clearly trying to justify a bad edit ex post facto and it's not really working. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shamir is not Swedish. He is a Russian Jew who obtained a Swedish passport for purposes of political expediency, and who resided in Sweden for a very limited time. His particpation in Swedish society was non-existent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.111.158 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks[edit]

According to a 2011 press release (http://wlcentral.org/node/1412) Wikileaks rejects the idea that there is or was any relationship, other than a journalistic one, between Wikileaks and Shamir: "Israel Shamir has never worked or volunteered for WikiLeaks, in any manner, whatsoever. He has never written for WikiLeaks or any associated organization, under any name and we have no plan that he do so. He is not an 'agent' of WikiLeaks. He has never been an employee of WikiLeaks and has never received monies from WikiLeaks or given monies to WikiLeaks or any related organization or individual." It does say that he interviewed Assange and had access to some of the cables because of his role as a Russian language journalist.

Shouldn't this be cited in the Wikileaks section? 190.203.168.127 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Israel Shamir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israel Shamir. 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) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel Shamir. 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) 16:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel Shamir. 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) 01:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel Shamir. 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) 07:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Latynina, Yulia (8 December 2010). "KremlinLeaks". The Moscow Times. Retrieved 15 December 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel_Shamir/Archive_5&oldid=1088833758"