Talk:Gilad Atzmon

NPOV tag

By ignoring the controversy over Gilad Atzmon's antisemitism--the single most notable thing about this person--the lead paragraph violates WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. The politics section (which is already tagged) is slanted to include non-notable defenses of Atzmon from non-RS and includes a ridiculous amount of synthesis to defend the indefensible. The music section is full of WP:PUFF, effectively burying the most notable facts about Atzmon. As even the sympathetic Guardian article acknowledges, Atzmon is famous because of his activism rather than his music, yet the politics section is buried at the bottom of the article and largely absent from the lead. THF (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Among the problems:

• No mention of Atzmon calling himself a self-hating Jew.
• No mention of Atzmon's support of the antisemitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion
• No mention of Atzmon calling Israel worse than Hitler
• No mention of Atzmon claiming that the reason the accusations against him are false is that there is no such thing as an antisemite.
• No mention that Atzmon is criticized for antisemitism in jazz magazines by fellow jazz musicians.[1]
• No mention that Atzmon is criticized for antisemitism and Holocaust denial by fellow anti-Zionists.
• Indeed, no mention of the Holocaust denial controversy at all.

All of these are thoroughly documented in sources far more reliable and notable than those included in the article (which largely relies on the left-wing and antisemitic blog Counterpunch), yet have been sanitized from inclusion.

Since that version of the article, Atzmon has reaffirmed his antisemitism, saying in a 2009 op-ed that "the Jewish lobby is far more worrying than a criminal gang." Needless to say, this quote is also absent from the discussion of Atzmon's antisemitism. THF (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of these issues have been in and out of the article a number of times. One admin deleted all of them at one point. See spring 2009 archives. What is needed is to mention the four or five most WP:RS articles covering most of the accusations. Instead we have a WP:OR synthesis section where one editor deletes all refs to critics of his politics by anti-Zionists and a focus on what he allegedly is saying just about Jews and Judaism. It's apparent to anyone that it's a smear, so none of it can be taken seriously by anyone not already a convicted Zionist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Header tags

I understand the changes which Carolmooredc made to this talk page. However I don't understand the reinsertion of the tag which I had removed from being the article's header. The tag in question is the blp-dispute tag which states that the article "may violate WP policy as it contains unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims". This by itself seems strong for the article which cites 51 different sources, and which already has two "Neutrality disputed" tags. Carolmooredc's edit summary stated that the reason for reverting my edit was that the article is "frequently vandalized" and that it needs a "strong" header. I think it already had a strong header, considering that the article hasn't been vandalized since I removed the tag. Besides, I think the article would be better served if the unsourced or poorly sourced parts were discussed, rather than to give the article a blanket dismissal. Thoughts?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read back through archives you'll see a list of the reasons (most still valid) I still think the article has BLP problems. However, wikipedians seem unable to deal with this article and its issues in a knowledgeable and fair fashion (as my talk-page documented attempts to try to deal with them show), so I'm temporarily taking a break on content to see if any one will come along to deal with my complaints sensibly. Feel free to do so - though it does involve a lot of nit picking on policy issues, where I obviously believe I am mostly right, but most people don't want to spend the time to research/think about it when its in such a controversial area. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What you identify are not BLP problems, but NPOV allegations, and the article already contains two NPOV dispute tags. The tag you placed is for unsourced material, and you've identified none now that I've removed the only unsourced material left in the article. THF (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious what you found lacking with the Counterpunch reference, THF?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WEIGHT problems: Oren Ben-Dor, a fellow Jewish anti-Semitic crank, isn't notable, yet his POV is being pushed while mainstream POVs are ignored. Counterpunch is not a neutral RS, and is only reliable for Counterpunch's far-left POV, and should be characterized as such on the rare occasions when it's cited. THF (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand now. Nice catch.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Continued WP:SYNTH of Atzmon primary source quotes

I know from trying to get help on this issue of DRSMOO's synthesis of Atzmon primary source quotes that nobody on wikipedia is willing to do anything about it. So I'm not going to do anything more except demand that the two tags I just put on stay there until a truly NPOV editor looks at it. The Holocaust tag is self explanatory. The tag on the preceding paragraph is explained repeatedly in Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#Problems_with_DrSmoo.27s_edits, not to mention Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#Cherry_picked.2C_out_of_context_primary_source_quotes_POV, Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#Sources_NOT_WP:RS_or_Out_of_Context.2C_violating_WP:BLP, Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#More_NPOV.2C_non-WP:OR_version_of_politics_section. Should I even bother to bring this to WP:BLPN, since most people are terrified of being called antisemites (including in the past on this talk page) if they try to honestly deal with this issue?? 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The moderators and admins did do something about it, they threatened to ban you for abusing multiple pages and wikipedia services. This has been gone over multiple times, and has been agreed upon many times as well.

I'm also reminding you to edit in good faith, rather than accusing everyone of being dishonest. Drsmoo (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Holocaust denial"

I deleted the section in question. First, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Gilad Atzmon, not a collection of every silly or stupid thing he ever wrote. Second, it was clear from reading the section that Drsmoo is able to grasp subtleties with all the nuance of a Mack truck. Finally, if secondary sources start writing about Atzmon as a Holocaust denier, it might be appropriate for the article to mention it. We're here to report what reliable sources say, not conduct our own research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of secondary sources that talk about Atzmon's Holocaust denial. They've been sanitized from the article. Meanwhile, all the original research contorting Atzmon's anti-Semitism into something else remains in the article. Funny how those NOR rules are applied. THF (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Holocaust denial, bring some of those secondary sources and let's talk about how to include it in the article. A long paragraph of quotes pulled from a recent essay, as Drsmoo did, is not the right approach.

With respect to allegations of Atzmon's antisemitism, what do you think is the problem? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I detailed the problem at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#NPOV_tag. THF (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik, I do not appreciate personal attacks. There is nothing obscure or complicated about Atzmon's Holocaust denial. The only complexities are the mental gymnastics some will go through to twist every cruel word Atzmon makes into something they claim as benign.

Atzmon has been referred to as a Holocaust denier many times:

http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0506/..%5C..%5Cevents%5C0506%5Cbookmarks1.html — Drsmoo , — (continues after insertion below.)

As the author of the text cited here, I urge you to (re)read it. At no time did I describe Atzmon himself as a "holocaust denier"; I wrote that he was "defending holocaust deniers". RolandR (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, in the future, I would recommend not titling articles about wanting to block Atzmon speeches as "No to Holocaust Denial" and then filling them with statements regarding Atzmon's relationship to Holocaust denial.

Needless to say at this point, Atzmon's relationship to Holocaust denial unfortunately goes far beyond supporting Paul Eisen. Drsmoo (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article538076.ece

http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3764482

A German article from 2005 is unfortunately no longer online, though it was featured in this article recently. The link was here http://www.westline.de/nachrichten/archiv/index_mono.php?file_name=20051128231021_630_001_2315688&jahrgang=2005&stichwort=atzmon&&start=0&order=datum&ort=bo an english translation of the article http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/03/19/atzmon-in-germany/

Quotes from Atzmon's German tirade reported by Iranian Press TV http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38848&sectionid=351020604 (it relates to when Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel's lawyer read a newspaper report of Atzmon's speech, for which she was banned from practicing in court for five years) Drsmoo (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In his article in the Timesonline Blog titled "An antisemite's progress" Oliver Kamm criticizes Atzmon's Holocaust denial http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2010/03/an-antisemites-progress.html Drsmoo (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Separating Atzmon's views on Jewish Culture, "Jewishness" and the Holocaust from his political views

I know that it would have been more convenient for me to bring this up earlier while we were in the midst of revising this article. But it really doesn't make sense to have Atzmon's views on "Jewishness" and his statements about Jews in a section titled "Politics." There should be another section for his notable views on "Jewishness" the Holocaust etc, as they are not political in nature. Drsmoo (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia WP:BLP is Broken on this article

Atzmon's views you have been allowed to misquote for more than a years are always in the context of alleged Israeli bigoted or criminal actions. I know no one will fix this horrible POV distortion of a WP:BLP because I tried and no one would deal with it. But just want to register a complaint that a DRSMOO - whose edits have focused predominantly on Atzmon, and who has declared repeatedly his personal opinions about Atzmon - is again getting away with violations of WP:BLP. I know it will just lead to an edit war that I will be blamed for if I try to fix it. Wikipedia WP:BLP is broken when it comes to this article.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm, why do you keep putting my username in all caps? Not that I'm not flattered or grateful, I just don't understand. Btw, per your edit summary, can you explain to everyone how Atzmon's statement that there was no Nazi genocide of Jews is really/subtly (or something) about Israel? Here's the article http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html ThanksDrsmoo (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, DrSmoo.

It is not up to wikipedia editors to interpret what people say, but reliable sources. And you have consistently twisted what those sources say so they agree with your strong POV against Atzmon, the main article you edit on Wikipedia.

But wikipedia is too broken to do anything about it. Unless it's like the lottery and if I complain to the right forum on the right day and the right admin(s) see and recognize the perniciousness of your editing history, they will ban you permanently from this article. As I've said, I refuse to edit war with you any more on this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

So that is your "strategy" (or something)? Have every admin editor and user tell you you're wrong, but repeat the same false points over and over and over in the hopes that 1 out of 100 people will agree with you and then use that to change the article suit your recently stated POV? Once again you refuse to back up your POV as well. You said every antisemitic statement Atzmon makes is really somehow a criticism of Israel. (And yet you attack others for stating their opinion, as that would make them too biased in your view) Clearly you can not defend your position. The reason you were threatened to be banned is that despite having moderators and editors tell you you're wrong for the past two years, you keep on harassing everyone and raising the same false points. Drsmoo (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP Dispute tag

Ok, I'll give it a couple days for others to weigh in and then will relist the issues with the current politics section and new "judaism" section and complain to WP:BLPN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia policy allow an editor to take the same point to noticeboards over and over and over again? If you do it i'll just relink to the last time(s) you posted the same thing there so they can see that the issue was already settled.Drsmoo (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

First, certain issues listed above and the latest issues have not been brought to BLPN; ones formerly brought I believe are no longer relevant. As for removal of the tag by THC, THC and DrSmoo, two editors with strong POV's - against BLP policy - agreeing a tag should be removed does not make it right. I'm busy with personal matters which currently come first in my life, but will relist/list current violations here and give you a chance to correct before bringing to WP:BLPN. Meanwhile I will not be engaging in edit wars by editing the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

question

Re: this in the lead: "He is an extremely controversial figure within the Pro-Palestinian movement because of his relentless attacks on all forms of Jewish identity and belief." Is this true? Wouldn't that make him controversial among Jews, not "Pro-Palestinians" [sic]? Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that he is indeed controversial among pro-Palestine activists. I am constrained from adding too much on this to the article, as I am an involved party; but he has been attacked by leading figures (Jewish and non-Jewish) in the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, by solidarity activists on the Socialist Unity blog, by Assad Abu-Khalil on the Angry Arab blog and by many more progressive and pro-Palestinian activists and bloggers. Some of this material may not be acceptable as reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes; but it is definitely wrong to present this as an issue of "Jews" versus "pro-Palestinians", since members of each category are to be found on each side of this controversy. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is in fact no source in the article for that statement so it should be sourced per the above or removed. The source mentioned for the next sentence does not mention the topic at all. The link to that source no longer works: Gibson, Martin (23 January 2009). "No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’". Gisborne Herald The Truth Seeker carries a copy. (I saved the original as well.) As I will detail soon, info from that article has been widely misused in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict}Couple of points in relation to that. 1) It doesn't seem appropriate in the lead, for starters, but rather in the "politics" section, and 2)do you have any RS that say what you claim? It seems he would tend to be considerably more controversial among Jews (within and without the pro-Palestinian movement) for his "relentless attacks on all forms of Jewish identity and belief." We would need some RS to demonstrate that this is not WP:OR and I will reiterate that it is not appropriate for the lead to specifically single out "pro-Palestinians" as finding his "attacks" offensive. Stellarkid (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just add that the fact that while there are some in the "pro-Palestinian" camp that find his attacks offensive, is not appropriate in the lead. I am confident that there are plenty more in the pro-Israeli camp and the Jewish camp that find him offensive and it should be much easier to document with RS. In fact that statement in the lead would be highly WP:UNDUEand thus WP:POV even with a source, imho. Stellarkid (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you miss the point here. While many (probably most) pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activists are considered controversial or offensive in the "pro-Israeli camp", what distinguishes Atzmon (and one or two others, such as Israel Shamir) is that their views and writings are condemned also by other anti-Zionists. This, I believe, is significant, and deserves mention in the lead.

I agree that it is not appropriate simply to insert large chunks of Atzmon's own writings in the article, and to invite readers to provide their own interpretation. Unfortunately, most of the relevant discussion has taken place in blogs and otherr "unreliable" sources. Thus, for indstance, As'ad AbuKhalil's description of Atzmon as a "classical antisemite" [2] was repeatedly deleted from the article. But to ignore this criticism, and pretend that it is only Israel's supporters who condemn his views, seriously distorts this article, and misleads Wikipedia readers. RolandR (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

hmmm...maybe'. However if this is a distinguishing characteristic as you say, it should be easy to find references that support this. See WP:Lead#Relative emphasis. As the article stood before I made the correction, it seemed as if it was only a matter of controversy in the pro-Palestinian camp. Clearly this is not so. Perhaps we can simply say that he is controversial for his attacks on Jews and Judaism and his "anti-Zionist" and other views, and leave the rest for the followup. I think that makes sense and is fair. Stellarkid (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me there was one WP:RS that addressed the issue, though I don't think it belongs in the lead. But it doesn't belong in article at all if it is not sourced from a reliable source. See WP:BLP. A personal blog entry that is just a throw away comment and not detailed analysis [like this also isn't terribly WP:RS. Glad to see someone finally noting that "not appropriate simply to insert large chunks of Atzmon's own writings in the article, and to invite readers to provide their own interpretation," my main complaint for months. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He has called himself a "Hebrew-speaking Palestinian".

What's the significance of this statement, and why is it in the first paragraph of the article? Does it really contribute anything of value? If so, it probably belongs in the article itself, not in the lede. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. He defines himself that way. As one of the articles says, his notability on an international level (apart from being one of the best saxophonists in London) stems from his political views. His political identification is therefore highly relevant and belongs in the lead every bit as much as does his musicality. Stellarkid (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Only just noticed your comment, Stellarkid. Hope I haven't been too hasty in effecting Malik's suggested shift. I agree with you that the quote is significant, and that his 'political identification' is highly relevant. I feel this is now very well-established in the lede in its current form. Does the quote not read better where it now is? See what you think. Wingspeed (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS also show Atzmon has called himself a "self-hating Jew" and a Jew and I'm sure a few other things. He's obviously playing with the concept of identity and either all of these should be in one paragraph under politics, or none anywhere. Whether that paragraph should be referred to in the lead can then be discussed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Carol. Atzmon has called himself many things in various interviews. Unless Atzmon or some other RS says he "defines himself" this way, that way, or some other way, I think it's a matter of cherry-picking and WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Atzmon consistently calls himself an "ex-Jew". Eg: "Despite the fact that I am an ex Jew", A New Jewish Goal, 16 February 2010[3]; "I regard myself as an ex Jew and ex Israeli", Interview in Eleftherotypia, 4 October 2009[4]; "I am an ex Jew", Just can't get enough? Atzmon answers Rosen, 10 January 2007[5]; "Being myself an ex Jew", Tony Blair: The Orator is Naked, 9 August 2006[6]; "I am an ex-Jew", Beauty as a political weapon, 14 January 2006[7]; "I am an ex-Jew. I was born a Jew but I left it behind", Gilad Atzmon on the Jewish mindset and Zionists against Zionism, 31 January 2006[8]. There are plenty more examples; and these are only direct quotes, there are atr least as many examples of interviewers and reviewers paraphrasing or quoting him as saying this. So I think that the article can reliably state that he considers himself "an ex-Jew". RolandR (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I only checked one source, but if all accurate, good research. Of course, some of the sources don't pass the WP:RS test.But they certainly do show a pattern that outweighs the two or three times I've heard him call himself a Jew, which I don't care to drudge up among my saved files, since anything I recommend or put in this article will be edit warred out by DrSmoo.

Also, if the article was truly NPOV it would mention (as it did in a past version) that Atzmon says in source I checked: "However, a lot of my criticism of Jewish identity, Israel and Zionism is based on self reflection. It is the Israeli in me that I criticize and deconstruct." CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag should remain until Anti-Zionist point referenced or removed

Once again DrSmoo removed a tag before an issue was settled. This time Citation needed from sentence Atzmon is a controversial figure within the anti-Zionist movement because of his attacks on all forms of Jewish identity and belief. At this point the tag is there because there is no WP:RS about anti-Zionists saying anything about his statements on "Jewish identity and belief." Other issues remain but that is the one this tag refers to so do NOT remove it until the point is referenced or the sentence removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding these three sources not acceptable, which is why they were deleted in the past. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Three_questionable_sources_in_a_WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems with "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism" Section

Here's first of several sections to be added explaining the [POV and OR tags. (IS there a multiple problems for section template? Couldn't find it.)

Outline of what Gibson article really says

Below is from this archive posting re: Martin Gibson interview. The problem being DrSmoo three times uses (and often misrepresents) what serves his purposes from Gibson while in the past claiming Gibson was NOT WP:RS when something he disagreed with was used. At Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#Do_sources_say_criticism_of_Zionism_led_to_charges_of_antisemitism.3F DrSmoo writes: The Gibson article is not notable enough for Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." The Gilchrist article is from a semi high quality news organization, and as a result makes no connection between Atzmon's Anti Zionist Statements, and the accusations of Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial as a result of his Anti Jewish statements. Drsmoo (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So just to be clear on what is in Gibson before discussing in a new subsection what is misused, here are Gibson's summary quotes, usually followed by supporting quotes from Atzmon: No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’, Gisborne Herald, 23 January 2009.

• "He left Israel in 1994 after service in the Israeli military convinced him Israel had become a racist, militarised state that was a danger to world peace."
• "While he believes people run a risk speaking out against Israel, Gilad Atzmon says he has no choice."
• "There have been numerous attempts to silence Mr Atzmon, including inevitable charges that he is anti-Semitic, although he is Jewish himself."
• "Mr Atzmon says the brutality we see in Israel, that is reminiscent of the Nazis, has arisen through a simple failure of logic."
• "There is less excuse for our sitting idly by while the mess in the Middle East grows progressively more brutal than for Germans in World War 2, he says."
• "Growing up, Mr Atzmon could never work out the anger of people towards Israel, but now he can - the actions of Israel are sowing seeds of hatred throughout the world, he says."
• "Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew", but this does not bother Gilad Atzmon."
• "The word Judeo-Christian is an artificial construct, he says."
• "The rockets launched into Israel do not justify the killing of 1000 Palestinians in Gaza over the past few weeks, he says."
• "Although newly-elected American President Barack Obama has had to proclaim his Zionist credentials, and his vice-president Joe Biden proclaimed "I am a Zionist", there is some cause for hope, he says."
• "The financial meltdown is all just part of the programme, he says."

Just for starters. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about Gilad Atzmon,not about the Gisborne Herald or Israel or Jews. I don't see the relevance of you posting that at all. Drsmoo (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Though that source should have been removed before, I'm removing it now. Drsmoo (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Gibson article was about an interview with Atzmon and all of it is relevant. The point was to show how you abused the message of the article.
• You think Gibson is not WP:RS. I don't agree. But obviously since you revert/edit war out everything I do, I can't add anything from it, can I? CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, your analysis above is simply WP:OR. The RS say anti-semitic. He says "Jews." The fact that he was born Jewish does not mean he cannot be antisemitic. A lapsed Catholic can become a rabid anti-Catholic. A 'lapsed' Jew, an antisemite. Stellarkid (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your response is related to the specific WP:RS under discussion or any other one, so it is basically soapbox. Is it soapbox to note that criticizing Israel, Zionism, Judaism or Jews who support them are not necessarily bigoted, depending on a number of factors? . I haven't been a Catholic since 1964 but I still get a little suspicious of those who vehemently criticize Catholicism, so I'm not unsympathetic to the paranoia of those who yell antisemite at the slightest hint of criticism. Just a general comment also unrelated to any specific wp:rs CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to demonstrate that Atzmon is an "anti-Zionist" and not an "antisemite." Please correct me if I am wrong. The only sentence in your outline that you can point to to support your contention is "Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew", but this does not bother Gilad Atzmon." However, it is clear that the majority of this article is simply a string of quotes, and that statement is not a 3rd party statement, but a paraphrase of Atzmon, a literary device meant to connect the sections. Drawing conclusions from Atzmon's own words constitutes WP:OR. Further, that source is not RS (Truthseeker) and the original link to the source is broken so it cannot be verified. Stellarkid (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an editor's job to prove he is or isn't an antisemite. It is an editor's job to fairly represent opinion on that topic, including rebuttals of various charges made. I protest that those have been removed, among other things. But I've given time for issues to be corrected, they haven't been, and I'll have to bring current ones to appropriate forum.

The whole point of secondary sources is that they do summarize or characterize comments in an interview. The Lewis and Gilchrist articles described in this talk archive do the same thing. However, I don't know if there's necessarily anything in Gibson that isn't in the Gilchrist or Lewis articles that needs to be in the article. Will cross that bridge when and if I come to it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this article isn't about proving anything, it's about providing the notable sources that comment on the subject and writing a good, readable article. Drsmoo (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, why have you responded directly to only one (Aaranovitch) of my specific criticisms of your section presented directly below? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see your point, we've already debated all of these sources over and over again, including on multiple noticeboards. Drsmoo (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentence by sentence analysis showing these are political accusations

And that it is WP:OR and WP:Synthesis to label this section "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism." Article quotes in italics, my responses underlined.

• Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Jews and Judaism have led to allegations of antisemitism. First Ref: Aaronovitch quotes two sources who say he's an anti-semite, one gives no reason, the other charges "blurring the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism." Clearly political. Second Ref: Curtis lists the statement below among other political statements, and as Atzmon replies below, it was a political statement.
• The Board of Deputies of British Jews, criticized Atzmon for saying, "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act." Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer that "since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people’ ... any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right." Even Atzmon's truncated statement makes clear it was a political statement.
• In 2005 David Aaronovitch criticized Atzmon for writing in his essay "On Anti-Semitism" that "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously." However if you fully quote what Atzmon actually says in that second reference, it is clearly political: Since America currently enjoys the status of the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force.
• Journalist Nick Cohen compared Atzmon to members of the far-right with a paranoid mentality, for his statements that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity." Of course there is NO context for this so who knows what Atzmon really said and in what context.
• In 2007 the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism criticized the Swedish Social Democratic Party for inviting Atzmon to speak, saying he had worked to "legitimize the hatred of Jews.” And of course the Social Democrat's political defense of Atzmon has been deleted from the article which is: "Atzmon is critical of the state of Israel's politics and of Jewish organizations that support the state of Israel's politics in the name of all Jews. Atzmon belongs to that group of Jews that refuses to be associated with the Israeli occupation and the state of Israel's breaches of international law. See WP:POV.
• In his blog for The Times, Oliver Kamm charges Atzmon with antisemitism for his article "Truth, History and Integrity: Questioning the Holocaust Religion" in which Atzmon writes "It took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative." The purpose of the article is to debunk John Pilger's quoting an Atzmon political statement by painting him as merely anti-Jewish, just as Drsmoo tries to do in creating this separate section. But that kind of POV not allowed on wikipedia. And of course Drsmoo quotes selectively from what Kamm quoted selectively. The article is not loading on Al Jazeerah so right now I don't know what his full context was, but assuredly

Having found the article now, it is his response to the ADL backsliding on its recognition of the massacre of Armenians as genocide. It is clear Atzmon talks about the crimes of Israel/Zionism and the misuse of facts and myths about the Holocaust for political reasons when he writes: The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past. For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account...This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. In any case, one such questionable example would not excuse creating a whole section.

• The rest of the section is Atzmon defending his Political views: Atzmon denies he is an antisemite, stating that "Anti-Semite is an empty signifier, no one actually can be an Anti-Semite and this includes me of course. In short, you are either a racist which I am not or have an ideological disagreement with Zionism, which I have" Atzmon defines himself as an "ex-Jew" and a "proud self-hating Jew" and questions "the ties between a Jewish world view and Zionism." He states that he does not attack Jews or Judaism but Zionism and what he calls “Jewishness,” which he describes as "very much a supremacist, racist tendency." He told one interviewer “The anti-Semitic slur is a common Zionist silencing apparatus,” and told another about a “crude and banal attempt to silence me by spreading lies, slander and defamation.”

I realize that other editors also are constantly reverted by Drsmoo and may not want to get into this. I certainly have Stopped editing his work - except for tags - because of constant reverts. (And half the tags are reverted without changes anyway.) It is against NPOV to take statements out of context to make a case he is talking about Jews and Judaism when he is criticizing political activities of Jews and Judaism when it becomes a front for Zionist war crimes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

While it is nice that you have your own strong POV, your opinions regarding Atzmon's intentions are irrelevant as the section is based around the observations of notable commentators and organizations. With that said, your "explanations" do not in any way change Atzmon's statements from being directed at Jews as a whole. Simply expanding a quote, whilst the subject remains, in the opinions of notable sources, fixated on Jews, Judaism or Jewishness, does not magically change its subject. Also, while you certainly have the right to your opinion I personally find the statement regarding "facts and myths about the Holocaust" disturbing. Drsmoo (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual you ignore the main point, that his comments are in a political context and belong under politics section. I'll give others a chance to opine.

But let me clarify that in writing "facts and myths about the Holocaust" I am characterizing Atzmon's view in the article under discussion and elsewhere, not engaging in WP:SOAPBOX. (He uses myth in title of two other articles linked on that page which is probably why I connected the word with that article.) He writes there that the Holocaust "must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail. During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations." So there he is writing about a minor myth that was not factual. That certainly is different than someone saying that the whole story of Nazi persecution and genocide vs. Jews is mythical, which neither he nor I do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As usual you ignore the main point, that his comments are in a political context and belong under politics section. I'll give others a chance to opine.

This is your opinion but it is not correct, and it's falseness is not simply because I say so but because reliable sources and notable commentators say that Atzmon is attacking Jews, not simply engaging in political discussions. You seem to contend that a statement can not be antisemitic if it has any political element. Seeing as how nearly all anti-semites are both anti-zionist and anti-Israel, this conception is ridiculous. Your personal opinion is irrelevant, and your "clarification" does not strengthen your argument in any way. Stating that something is "clearly political" while providing a weak explanation or no explanation at all does not make it so. This debate however is meaningless as the fact remains that a multitude of reliable sources criticize Atzmon for his statements regarding Jews, Judaism and Jewishness independently from his political statements, hence a separate section in the article.Drsmoo (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But let me clarify that in writing "facts and myths about the Holocaust" I am characterizing Atzmon's view in the article under discussion and elsewhere, not engaging in WP:SOAPBOX. (He uses myth in title of two other articles linked on that page which is probably why I connected the word with that article.) He writes there that the Holocaust "must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail. During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations." So there he is writing about a minor myth that was not factual. That certainly is different than someone saying that the whole story of Nazi persecution and genocide vs. Jews is mythical, which neither he nor I do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, in the article Atzmon attempts to use what he perceives to be logic to claim that the Holocaust "narrative" "doesn't make sense" and therefore couldn't have happened because as he claims earlier in the article "any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.". However the only impression made is of profound ignorance. He also claims that the reality of the Holocaust as it is understood by scholars the world over is a "Zionist narrative" which is false. These quotes aren't in the article though because as Malik Shabazz pointed out, no notable source has commented on those quotes yet. I think it's important though that, rather than you and I "debating" what Atzmon said, we continue to stick to notable sources, many of whom condemn Atzmon as an anti-semite independently of his political views Drsmoo (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Drsmoo wrote: You seem to contend that a statement can not be antisemitic if it has any political element.

Reply: You obviously still do not understand. The point is that his statements are criticism of religion based on the politics of Israel, Zionists and their supporters - therefore they belong in the politics section where they were for a few years in their various forms. If Atzmon thought Israel's political actions were righteous, he wouldn't even bother with these elaborate psycho-cultural-religious analysis. Obviously some of his comments are criticized by a few individuals and groups as antisemitic. But by creating a section called "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism" you are trying to make it look like his motivation for writing is anti-Jews/Judaism when his motivation is to look for the reasons Israel and its supporters engage in political behavior he criticizes. This is your way of dismissing his political views and it is a POV against WP:BLP. See particularly Wikipedia:BLP#Writing_style

Tone: BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement...

Criticism and praise: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.

Please try to understand my points. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your points. However the fact is that your argument that he is "anti-jewish because he's anti-Israel" is both incorrect and irrelavent. He is cited for his anti semitic statements by a multitude of reliable commentators and organizations. In citing him for these anti-semitic statements, it has nothing to do with his positions on Israel, which are criticized separately.

For example, when Aaranovitch criticized Atzmon, it was solely for his Anti-semitic statements, the same for the multitudes of anti-zionists who have criticized him for his anti-Jewish statements. His statements regarding Jews and Judaism are independently noteworthy from his political statements. Drsmoo (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source says he is "anti-Jewish?" Aren't you engaging in WP:OR??

Anyway, as I show, Aaronovitch misrepresents what Atzmon says. After all he has his own very strong POV, all his works defending Israel in some way and/or attacking those who merely criticize it, as well as real antisemites. So do all the other sources attacking him. Yet he is not allowed to defend himself against specific accusations. Using sources that misrepresent what subjects of biographies say surely is against WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't just remove things from the article because you claim that every notable source is "biased." It doesn't work that way. Drsmoo (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An admin did something like that a year ago. If we did not have an editor allowed to engage in constant edit warring against attempts to balance the article, maybe we could rationally discuss which sources are and are not biased. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent relevant Atzmon comment

In Cyprus Mail "Wandering jazz player" article, Feb. 2010, Atzmon says: “I don’t write about politics, I write about ethics,” he replies. “I write about Identity. I write a lot about the Jewish Question – because I was born in the Jew-land, and my whole process in maturing into an adult was involved with the realisation that my people are living on stolen land.”

While most of his comments analyzed above are more political than religious, some, and others not even mentioned, clearly are ethical criticisms of the religion as practiced. The bias is making the whole section a listing of those highly partisan groups which have chosen to lambast him, while ignoring the several long interviews done with him from WP:RS. I am glad some people are taking on the guilty-by-association David Duke entries some editors are putting in, the larger POV still has to be dealt with. I guess the best thing I can do is rewrite the sections in an NPOV manner and as soon as they are reverted report it to WP:BLPN and see if any truly NPOV editors pop up willing to deal with this highly partisan lead and attack section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New biased edits

Geez, now we've got another series of questionable edits by a brand new editor User:RTLamp. Most especially his removing two sites that publish Atzmon as "minor sites" and then adding the minor David Duke site because it publishes him. Unless he can show there is some special arrangement with Atzmon to publish the material, this is just prejudicial guilt by association. And of course creating a whole section on Holocaust Denial based on a couple of comments taken, as usual, out of context is WP:Undue. Also, RTLamp removing Atzmon's defense of himself twice. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section on Holocaust denial. It said that Atzmon circulated an essay by a non-notable person that supported a Holocaust denier. So he supported Holocaust denial in two degrees of separation? Come on, that's mud-slinging, not encyclopedia-writing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That the essay is by "a non-notable person" is not the significant point; the significant point is that Atzmon chose to sink to distributing a pro-Holocaust-denial essay of any sort, no matter the author; the press found this noteworthy enough to mention in print (I have other citations as well, but did not introduce them to avoid citation overkill), and the SWP found it noteworthy enough for Atzmon to need defending under the official banner of the SWP itself. Therefore its significance is established.

The WP page for "Dissident Voice" was deleted for WP:N. The WP page for "David Duke" is still there, because Duke's a notable guy (for all the wrong reasons). As a noteworthy person who lauds Atzmon, Duke certainly can be mentioned.

A compromise position would be to continue to state that Duke posts Atzmon's material but to delete the fact that Grand Wizard Duke personally finds Atzmon so praiseworthy. That is a compromise I could endorse. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the fact that the strongest link you can find between Atzmon and Holocaust denial is a relatively insignificant paper is significant. It shows how tenuous the connection is. Atzmon's statements about Jews and Judaism are pretty strong stuff. Why waste your time with this silliness? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Atzmon's unfortunate pattern of going back, again and again, to the rhetoric of Holocaust denial means that no, the Eisen paper isn't "the strongest link"; however I have not present it as such, but rather as the instance which brought the topic to the attention of the press and, in reaction, to his protectors at the SWP. That makes it the most important one chronologically. It would be unencyclopedic merely to pile all the information about Atzmon's ties to the Holocaust denial movement into a paragraph edited by backhoe; instead I chose the incident with the widest historic ramifications in terms of response. I have also explicitly quoted Atzmon's direct 2005 renunciation of Holocaust denial.

Am I reading you correctly, that you think distributing a deeply antisemitic essay under your own imprimatur is mere minor "silliness" -- on par with a hangover after a rough night out, maybe? If so, it may behoove you to look a little deeper into the phenomenon of Holocaust denial. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A more specific question, of course, would be this: is it your position that David Duke is not a notable figure? RT-LAMP (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I think what you're fighting to defend is silly. You gave the section a title ("Allegations of Holocaust Denial") that wasn't supported by the text. You presented a defense against allegations that haven't been made (in the encyclopedia article). You added your own interpretation ("Later statements from Atzmon on the topic are more ambiguous."), which violates our policy against original research. Then you say that so-and-so called Atzmon an antisemite.

So what exactly is the "value" of the section you're fighting to defend? What does it tell the reader that Atzmon's other statements about Jews and Judaism, and the other accusations of antisemitism, don't? That's what I don't get.

And what does David Duke have to do with this? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not all forms of antisemitism are the same. It comes in different flavors. Because of Atzmon's association with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir, his distribution of Paul Eisen's essay, and many additional comments -- and again, you can't pretend there aren't many more where that came from, because you've swept them under the rug personally in the past -- it is completely justified to include, as a subsection of the "Statement of Jews and Judaism" section, a short examination of Atzmon's stance toward Holocaust denial as a distinct form of antisemitism, one with its own characteristics, history, and rhetoric, one that Atzmon was distinctly attacked for in print in a national newspaper and distinctly defended from in an official statement promulgated by a national political party in the UK. Whether or not you think it's a big deal, they certainly did, and I cannot understand why you find it so important to block the appearance of these quite obviously significant events from Atzmon's entry. RT-LAMP (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Even before RTLamp's biased edits (and sophisticated rationales) these sections on Atzmon already violated Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise which reads: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.

Even the biography of Adolph Hitler only mentions he was an actual antisemite in the second paragraph. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let Atzmon rise to the head of a dictatorship and start a genocidal world war, and maybe it'll push antisemitism into his second paragraph as well. Shall we give it a try? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The David Duke wikipedia article doesn't even mention allegations of antisemitism against him until half way down the article, while the Atzmon article has them in the lead and as a whole section. The former brief description of his views has been repeatedly gutted. Why does Duke get more respect than Atzmon on Wikipedia, I wonder? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's because Duke is an equal-opportunity hater, while Atzmon only hates Jews? If David Duke focused all his ethnic hatred into just one ethnicity the way Atzmon does, I'm sure it would get pushed back into his lead paragraph. Incidentally, to set the record straight, Duke's racism is mentioned in the very first sentence of his entry. Atzmon gets off comparatively easy, I'd say. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your various comments betray a great deal of bias against the subject of the bio. Perhaps you are too biased to edit here? This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog or political pamphlet, after all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

David Duke

I am reinstating the citation from David Duke, who is a notable figure -- arguably the US's most famous professional racist and antisemite. When you've been praised by one of the most famous antisemites in the world, that's certainly worth at least a sentence. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:RS: David Dukes opinion is not notable for anything, except on David Duke. (On another note; how would you feel if someone introduced David Dukes opinion on, say, Ehud Olmert, or Sharon, into their articles?) Huldra (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Section is about claims that Gilad Atzmon is an antisemite. I added a single sentence -- including citation -- showing that David Duke praises Atzmon.

High praise from David Duke -- arguably America's highest profile professional antisemite -- is self-evidently relevant in a discussion of Atzmon's antisemitism. It is the expert judgment of a professional antisemite.

If there are alternative forms in which this information can be presented in the Atzmon entry without dispute, I am quite willing to do that. If there are, however, no alternative forms that you find acceptable, I can only conclude that your goal is not the betterment of WP but simply to bury significant but embarrassing information about Atzmon. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Huldra has now deleted the sentence twice, and I'm not going to get into a revert war. What alternative forms for that information -- which is significant and relevant, and should not be excluded -- would you prefer, Huldra? I'd be happy to work on a compromise, as long as that compromise doesn't mean simply burying information that's significant, relevant, and verifiable. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huldra, I think you're mistaken about WP:RS. I think it says that Duke is only a reliable source concerning his own opinion. See WP:RS#Statements of opinion.

However, the question of whether Duke's opinion belongs in the article is a different matter. RT-LAMP, the fact that Duke likes Atzmon means what exactly? Why are you putting it between two paragraphs about antisemitism? I think you're trying to make Duke's statement mean something other than what it says; that's synthesis, a form of original research, and it's not allowed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You would accept it as a separate subsection then, outside of the antisemitism section? RT-LAMP (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Duke is certainly a reliable source concerning his own opinion; the question is whether his opinion is notable on other subjects. If no "mainstream", RS-source have thought so: then no, they are not notable. In other words; if you find BBC, or whatever, *noting* that David Duke thinks such and such about this or that person, you might add it (as long as it does not violate WP:UNDUE). But if, say, a *noted* antisemite voiced a very strong opinion about, say, "money-grabbing Jewish leader mr.X"..you certainly would not insert that into the article about mr.X, would you? But is the same person express (unwanted) praise mr.Y, *then* his opinions are suddenly notable, and it should go into the mr.Y-article? If so: the bias is mind-boggeling. Huldra (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy rather dramatically misses the point. When an antisemite insults a Jew, that's "dog bites man"; when an antisemite -- especially literally America's most famous one -- ringingly and effusively praises a Jew, that's not just "man bites dog" but "famous man bites dog, and quite many times too." RT-LAMP (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This "famous man" has bitten quite a few dogs, then; it is not the first time I have had this argument about DD. It boils down to this: if no-one else has noted his view, then certainly we shouldn´t either. Huldra (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

David Duke's opinions have some significance under certain circumstances. He has his own WP page, ran for President quite often, and wrote a book about the "Jewish question". Considering that Atzmon is also political and also concerned with the "Jewish question," I think this is note of interest for readers and will provide a bit more information on the issue to them. The quote is quite moderate and perfectly appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Huldra, you are in violation of WP:3RR, having reverted the same change three times in a 24-hr period. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor violates 3RR when she/he makes more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. Huldra has made exactly 3 reverts. Her next revert, should she make another revert, will put her over the 3RR "bright line". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, then I apologize for my misunderstanding of it. RT-LAMP (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)a

I still don't see what is wrong with putting up David Duke's opinion. Latest revert was Shabazz saying that it was WP:SYNTH. If I find an opinion of Chomsky on Norman Finkelstein's site, I can't use it because ....why again??? Stellarkid (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above concerning WP:SYNTH? It doesn't sound like it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but I didn't find it particularly helpful. Stellarkid (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Ho

How do you get WP:SYNTH out of a comment made by David Duke about this person? Stellarkid (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know why Duke praised Atzmon? Why are you putting the sentence under the title "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism", sandwiched between two sentences about antisemitism? That is WP:SYNTH. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was going to move it to the bottom but it got reverted out so quickly I didn't have the opportunity. It could go into a "criticism" section as criticism can be both positive and negative. Stellarkid (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, then the solution is to create a separate "Reaction to statements" subsection under "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism" to remove it from the context you object to. And if you feel that "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism" does not accurately reflect the content of the section, I would agree to a change to "Antisemitism Controversy". RT-LAMP (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Antisemitism controversy" isn't a bad compromise. Stellarkid (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As to why Duke praised Atzmon, most likely because he agrees with his views. Stellarkid (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the current title ("Statements regarding Jews and Judaism") except that it's clunky. You can change it if you'd like. My concern is the WP:SYNTH of putting the Duke statement in that section. None of us know why Duke likes Atzmon, so why should we speculate that it's his views concerning Judaism that Duke likes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Most likely" doesn't cut it. On Wikipedia, especially in a WP:BLP, we don't engage in original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol read the source. "The fact that he would expose the Jewish world declaration of war against Germany, even before any German actions against Jews, is something that hardly any Gentile public figure would dare do. " and of course he likes the way that Atzmon writes about "Jewish extremism." Stellarkid (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Malik's point is that, no matter what the His Royal Klanness Duke has to say about Atzmon -- though it's pretty clearly love at first site -- that doesn't directly tell us anything about what Atzmon thinks of Duke, or anything else for that matter, and should not be presented with that implication. And I agree with that, which is why I'd be willing to have the Duke information moved to its own section. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What's clear? Which of Atzmon's views does Duke like? He admires Atzmon's courage and honesty. Where does it say he agrees with Atzmon? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon's article frequently appear on David Duke's site. A google search reveals how often http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?s=atzmon Whether Atzmon contributes the stories or they are picked up isn't clear, but it's certainly clear that he's somewhat prominent on an unfortunately well known racist/anti-semitic site run by a quite notable racist. Drsmoo (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And, I might add, that if he is putting them on without the permission of Atzmon he is violating copyright and Atzmon could tell him to desist. Apparently Atzmon does not mind the exposure on his site. Stellarkid (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Huldra has violated the three RR rule. Though to comment on the edit, every site Atzmon writes for is a fringe site, so to remove the fringe for only that reason is of course massively hypocritical. Drsmoo (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

People often do not choose to contest questionable sites quoting their material because they prefer not to establish a relationship with them. In any case, it is clear that Atzmon's effectiveness in bringing his critical views to millions of people worldwide has attracted extreme partisans to trash his wikipedia biography. The only question is, is there any Wikipedia mechanism left to deal with it?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This article would be a lot better if you would actually edit in good faith. Drsmoo (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of Atzmon's most vocal opponents are well-established and leading anti-Zionists in the UK -- such as no less than the co-founder of the Palestine Solidarity Committee -- who have reluctantly learned that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not mutually exclusive after all, and that more than anyone else it's Atzmon who emblemizes the common ground between the two, something increasingly widely recognized among anti-Zionists once Atzmon's antisemitic rhetoric began drifting into Holocaust denial circa 2005 (google "Atzmon SWP"). I think the best mechanism for dealing with this would be for Atzmon to stop playing his double game of trying to wrap the ideology of the antisemitic fascist right -- up to and including Holocaust denial -- in the language of the progressive left. <personal attack redacted> RT-LAMP (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Curious readers may of course check the page history and see what that egregious and scabrous "personal attack" was. But you better hide the kiddies' eyes first! It must be mighty bad! Maybe you could tell him. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And those readers are referred to your talk page where Malik explained why the comment was a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

All right then, let me apologize. Carol, I'm sorry if I implied you were associated in any way with Gilad Atzmon, had corresponded with him, or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTLamp (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to look through history to find the deleted comment: "Maybe you could suggest that to him." Certainly ambiguous enough of a statement since his email is public and anyone can email him. The less subtle and far more deleterious ongoing problem is constant attacks on Atzmon himself on this talk page and now on the WP:BLP Notice board (WP:BLPN) as an incredibly evil person. These show an extremely negative POV by various editors which goes against wikipedia policy. This negativity can be used to intimidate editors merely trying to comply with WP:BLP by tarring them with guilt-by-association.

Also, I don't think there is any WP:RS saying Atzmon considers himself a leftist, a rightest, a socialist, a libertarian, or anything else (or even a "political activist" per the lead?), so I don't think leftists should get their panties in a knot in fear of becoming victims of guilt by association by the few highly partisan individuals and organizations who attack him. And Jazz is hardly "left wing." CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Atzmon himself has stated in an interview: "I argue that left and right are dated concepts. I am interested in an authentic moral thinking, something that is not found amongst our contemporary politicians."[9]RolandR (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Good quote for the politics section - except of course POV editors will revert, as I know from past experience. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent WP:RS on Atzmon

Articles mentioning his politics as well as his music. (There also are a few quoting him, dozens mentioning just music, plus all of the reprints of his frequent articles.) Not that they probably will be used properly in the highly biased lead and attack sections of this POV article (see tag top of page).

• Wandering jazz player, Feb. 2010, full interview with some good insights on his views.
• Interview: Gilad Atzmon by Rob Garratt, Nov 2009
• Irish Times article which states: Israeli reedman Gilad Atzmon, these days more widely known for his anti-Zionism than his music... (Perhaps most relevant comment that belongs here.
• Listen to the heroes of Israel by John Pilger, February 2010 which quotes Atzmon in a positive fashion. (Of course there are some highly partisan articles which probably will be quoted here denouncing Pilger for daring to say something nice about Atzmon; one cherry picked quote is from such an article but my attempt to present that context was of course deleted.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fyi I've found a bunch more and putting together various additions from WP:RS, especially in the writing section, to make article more NPOV. Just keep getting sidetracked. Maybe by end of the weekend. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

David Duke -- consensus?

The information on David Duke in the Atzmon entry is now a single citation; the praise of Atzmon has been removed. The version in the entry now is less than some want and more than others want; one of the signs of a good compromise is that even if all parties aren't happy, at least all parties are equally unhappy. It doesn't read the way I personally want it to, but I'm willing to live with it in its current state. Do we have consensus that the treatment of the Duke information is satisfactory as it stands? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't override policy. DavidDuke.com is a self-published personal site. As I wrote above, if people can removed Media with a Conscience and Dissident Voice, which at least have some editorial oversight, they can't then claim Duke's site is WP:RS. If a WP:RS commented on Duke publishing his material, that might be relevant. Unfortunately, the person who brought this issue to WP:BLP should have brought it to WP:RSN where it would have been quickly and thoroughly trounced because board members don't want to see this kind of precedent. An editor's error in posting to a notice board does not equal consensus. (My issues of POV Bias which originally was its own section are more appropriate.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not suggest that consensus overrides policy; I was asking whether there was consensus that the entry as it stands follows WP policy; I and others think it does and I wanted to see whether there's agreement. I note again that Dissident Voice had its WP page deleted for WP:N; Media with a Conscience has apparently never had a WP page at all. I would also note that if you actually explore the sites, you'll see as much raw Holocaust denial in the comments on "Dissident Voice" as you will on Duke's site. But what else would you expect from a site that publishes Gilad Atzmon? RT-LAMP (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering all the disagreement on this and the BLP page, it sounded like you thought 5 to 3 (or whatever) was consensus.

Anyway, the important argument is that DavidDuke.com is a self-published personal site and such sites publishing or linking to anyone is not notable unless some WP:RS says it is or the person is of very high credibility and notability. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Article lead and "Allegations" section remain WP:Coatrack

Per the tag I just put on it:

• WP:Coatrack intro reads: Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed.
• Wikipedia:Coatrack#Fact_picking reads: A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.
• Wikipedia:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22 reads:

An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.

The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack—the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.

• Wikipedia:Coatrack#What_to_do_about_coatracks reads: An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, please provide some support for your theory that allegations of Atzmon's antisemitism are "merely selected opinions" "from a small fraction of people", and that they are getting "a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants". Also, please identify "more balanced content cited from reliable sources" that might help resolve your concerns about this article being a coat rack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, the first sentence as a coatrack page plainly reads as follows: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." The Gilad Atzmon article is completely about Gilad Atzmon. Thus no coatrack. The article as a whole (not counting references) clocks in at about 2400 words, with the "Allegations" section a bit over 500 words; unless the article is intended as hagiography, that's not "disproportionately large" when seen in the light of Atzmon's reputation e.g. http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0506/bookmarks1.html; note SWP has now dissociated itself from Atzmon. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• The BLP part I quoted reads differently than the general description, doesn't it.
• Non-WP:RS sources like labournet.net not relevant here. What SWP does is relevant if good WP:RS found and not somone's allegation.
• It's really annoying to have to reassemble again all the neutral info on him which has been repeatedly deleted by those who want a biased article whose relevant coatrack is smearing someone who rejects being cramped inside the Leftist Anti-Zionist box and might even be a ACK! Capitalist! I believe the coatrack is that he has tantrums like a loud mouthed macho Israeli Artiste and does not engage in the clipped rhetoric of a proper and politically correct leftist English gentleman. But wikipedia is not the place for British lefties to smear someone they deem politically incorrect. So anyway, that's what I mean by the Coatrack in Question, just to define my terms more clearly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem quite obviously, startlingly obviously, isn't merely that he has tantrums. The problem is that there is a widely held and well-documented opinion -- held by leftists and rightists, by Zionists and anti-Zionists -- that he has antisemitic tantrums. That is a very different can of beans, and a very significant can of beans judging from all the people, WP:RS and not, who've confirmed: "oh, yeah, Atzmon's an antisemite." RT-LAMP (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The several highly partisan people and groups ref'd may be noisy but not representative of mainstream media which only note their opinions but do not themselves label him thusly. But material to that effect consistently has been deleted from this article. Which is part of the coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, the text of "coatrack" you posted above says nothing about "mainstream sources," only "reliable sources." And the sources in the "Allegations" section are all WP:RS, as you know. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction, More Neutral WP:RS such as Gibson, Gilchrist and Lewis articles outlined in his archive and Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Recent_WP:RS_on_Atzmon above. Mostly biased quotes are used from first three and nothing from the latter. But I will endeavor soon to put together yet another more NPOV version which complies with the above policy that Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.

In the "Politics section" the NPOV WP:RS should briefly summarize his views/approach (200 odd words) and then the fact that there are critics and links to their articles should be mentioned (80 odd words) or something like this: The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism have criticized some of Atzmon's statements as being antisemitic or anti-Jewish. So have David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Oliver Kamm and David Hirsh

Or we could increas the number of words to something like 800 NPOV and 300 criticism. Or 1200 NPOV and 400 criticism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important that the article also notes that Atzmon is accused of antisemitism by many anti-Zionists. To restrict the list of critics to thoose mentioned by Carol above runs the risk of implying that it is only Zionists who make this allegation, and by inference that it is motivated by bad faith. All critics of Israel face this charge; only a handful (Atzmon, Israel Shamir and very few others) are accused by pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist activists. This is notable, in a way that similar charges against, for example, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, are not.RolandR (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>I just used what is in the article now, assuming you've pulled out all the big guns whose sources are WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the source of your proposed and ad hoc 800/300 hagiography ratio? Please be specific. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I remember when I first started editing this article, you excoriated me(and have others as well) for voicing our personal opinions (or biases as you called them) in the talk page. Now you are going off listing your own personal opinions as a basis for editing. That you happen to think Atzmon is being persecuted as a capitalist or whatever is beyond irrelavent. The sources cited are all reliable and notable. Atzmon saying that "the Holocaust is not a historical narrative" (and it then being criticized by a notable commentator), has absolutely nothing to do with being "loud mouthed and macho" "capitalist" or whatever you "believe." In addition, commentators from both The Times and the Guardian have called Atzmon antisemitic, that is as mainstream as it gets. Drsmoo (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Drsmoo (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was challenged as to what article might be a coatrack of - a WP:Coatrack being something that "discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." I was speculating on some reasons that there is too much on the topic in the article relative to WP:RS NPOV sources on his views. I didn't even mention the possiblity of pro-Zionists who want to attack anyone who criticizes Israel even once as an antisemite and obviously would want to make antsemitism the main thrust of any mention of Atzmon's political opinions here, for the good of Israel, of course. And antiZionists might not want the "guilt by association" tarnish if they do not roundly attack Atzmon's politically incorrect statements.

Or do you think I should just charge ahead and remove coatrack material as is advised in the article; but without explaining what possible coatracks I see?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Coatrack as a pretext to sanitize

If you haven't established WP:Coatrack -- which you quite plainly haven't -- then others are likely to take quite a dim view of your using it as a pretext to sanitize away or minimize the very real, very public, very well-documented controversy over Atzmon's antisemitism. RT-LAMP (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than talk in generalities, I made four changes which make the article more in tune with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Not to mention removing the redundant sentence used twice in article. If "Allegations of Antisemtisim" isn't coatrack, why does it have a huge section when politics is three sentences, one of them gratuitous.

Of course politics and writing could be merged, with allegations as a short subsection. That would be far less coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:NPOV changes

To be specific, please comment in separate sections and don't interrupt my posting. THanks.

• Diff: Removed redundant material to sections above, one word for word redundant.
• Diff: added actual words Erdogan quoted since he wasn't quoting something about music.
• Diff: moved comment that belonged up in relevant section and not just A thought repeated in politics.
• Diff: removed WP:OR with NON-WP:RS refs and replaced with accurate summary of opinion piece from WP:RS
• Diff: Made "allegations of antisemitism" a subsection of (now tiny) "Politics" section per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. For starters. 16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the mischaracterization of Aaronovich's article; he provides examples of Atzmon's antisemitism considerably beyond the "anti-Zionist tirades" - the stuff about Jews trying to rule the world is an example - and to imply it's only anti-Zionism that riles people up against Atzmon is to mischaracterize both Aaronovich and many other WP:RS. In fact, it is to misunderstand the entire central point of the controversy. Restored "Allegations" to its own section, in order to remove POV implication that the allegations of antisemitism are politically motivated rather than legitimately derived from Atzmon's own statements and writings, something WP should neither say nor imply. Removed WP:OR tag pending substantiation; what specifically is being claimed is OR?

Your argument that "Allegations" is WP:Coatrack because it's larger than the rest of the "Politics" section is another reason that the "Allegations" should not be taken as part of "Politics." Some people use antisemitism for political purposes (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, David Duke, Gilad Atzmon), but that does not make antisemitism a division of politics, any more than using a tune in a campaign ad makes music a division of politics. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

People summarize in different ways. Mine was a short summary, generally accurate. Yours was less accurate and redundant.

• I wrote: In an opinion piece for The Times, David Aaronvitch wrote that Atzmon has been criticized by the Jewish community and anti-Zionists because of his "tirades against Zionism."
• You wrote: In an opinion piece for The Times, David Aaronvitch wrote that Atzmon has been criticized by the Jewish community and anti-Zionists because of his embrace of "the idea of a global Jewish plot" and "tirades against Zionism" which "have got him into trouble with more than just the Jewish community."

Here's what's relevant that Aaronvitch wrote. How to summarize in one sentence?

And that’s where the trouble starts. Atzmon is a well-known jazz-musician, an Israeli-born Jew and — as the SWP has previously described him — also a deliverer of “fearless tirades against Zionism”. But the tirades have got him into trouble with more than just the Jewish community. A Palestinian musician told me a couple of years ago that she would no longer work with Atzmon because, in her opinion, he was “an anti-Semite”.

It is Aaronovitch, not the Jewish community and others who criticize Atzmon when Aaronovitch writes: In 2003, for instance, Atzmon, who makes many speeches and runs a very substantial website, said this about the idea of a global Jewish plot: “We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.” (and more in this vein)

After Aaronovitch's long description of the Eisen incident he writes: Not a few left-wing Jews who style themselves “anti-Zionist” have been horrified by the Atzmon-Eisen-Shamir business. And a couple of weeks ago they began to exert pressure on the SWP to disinvite the over-fearless tirader.

So let's have a truly accurate and NPOV one sentence description of all this.

Also, as I wrote above, since it is Atzmon's writings which are characterized as antisemitic, it would seem to make sense as a subsection of Writings if that was expanded, i.e., with subsections on Novels, Commentary, and Allegations. His activism actually seems more tied to his music than his writings, in any case I still think a WP:RS reference should be in the lead on that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You both seem to be mistaken about what Aaronovitch can be used for. His opinion column is not a WP:RS for anything but his opinion. You can't cite Aaronovitch as a "source" for the fact that people call Atzmon antisemitic, anti-Zionist, or anything else. You can only write that Aaronovitch calls Atzmon this or that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making that point. I've been told the wrong things in this article's talk page so many times I'm starting to believe them!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)""

As Malik presumably knows, the passage in question does not rely on Aaronovitch to support any stated claim that Atzmon is antisemitic, but as an example supporting the claim that some critics have found Atzmon to be antisemitic. Playing fast and loose with the distinction does not help anything. RT-LAMP (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion full text 100% supports Malik's statement and suggests that all "facts" from opinion pieces have to be deleted unless backed up by a WP:RS:

• Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.
• Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.
• There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.

Aaronvitch's opinions don't even belong in the lead, not to mention his allegations of fact. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing bio info while increasing opinion criticisms

It seems absurd in a biography of an individual to remove biographical material - like the specific things Atzmon learned that turned him against Israel {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=364433039&oldid=364420378 this diff] - while piling on people's opinions about him. That is the real Coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Swapping Hirsh for Aaronovitch in the lead

Because another editor has problems with the Aaronovitch quote -- an example substantiating the claim that Atzmon's antisemitism has been pointed out by WP:RS sources -- in the lead, I have substituted a quote from David Hirsh's Yale working paper. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS for Cohen allegations of what Atzmon said

Glad you recognized and fixed that policy violation, i.e. of Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion where "facts" from an opinion piece cannot be used in a BLP. Here is another one that must be fixed immediately.

• In a 2009 The Guardian opinion piece Nick Cohen compared Atzmon to members of the far-right with a paranoid mentality, for his statements that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity."[47] There is no independent verification that Atzmon made those statements at that event, which Cohen does identify and should be identified. Using similar statements Atzmon made elsewhere does NOT verify he said these things at this event. So the statements should be removed.
• Also "paranoid mentality" should not be linked to a book on paranoia in American politics. Obviously some sort of POV/coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, the Aaronovitch was actually fine; I didn't say it had problems, I said another editor had problems with it. It was not a policy violation. Neither are the other ones you cite. But if you'd like me to track down the original source of the various quotes being reacted to, thereby increasing the documentation of Atzmon's sorry history of antisemitic outbursts, I could do that. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Two editors, Malik and I, reminded you that opinion pieces cannot be used for facts just the opinions of the authors. If you can find a transcript of the Oxford Literary Festival event mentioned in Cohen's article, great. Of course, the fact that it was a debate on antisemitism which Aaronovitch and Cohen were both invited to participate in also should be mentioned. I have several refs to the event and descriptions which need to go somewhere. Haven't decided where yet. But no transcript. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, to clear up your evident confusion, if you read a little more closely you'll see that Cohen does not claim that Atzmon made those statements at the Oxford debate. The first antisemitic passage, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe," comes from the justly lambasted Martin Gibson interview (since removed in embarrassment - either the paper's or Atzmon's - from the NZ paper's website but available elsewhere on the web), and the second antisemitic passage, "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity," comes from the Atzmon essay "Anatomy of an Unresolved Conflict" (since removed in embarrassment from Atzmon's own site but available elsewhere on the web). Sorry, Carol, but he really did say those wretchedly antisemitic things, just not at Oxford, and not without trying to cover his tracks later when word of them began to spread. Do you now propose to finesse them away? I don't think that'll work for you. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cohen clearly says that Atzmon said these things at the Oxford Literary Festival:

The nice, middle-class organisers of the Oxford Literary Festival had invited Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon who is - and you are going to have bear with me on this - a former winner of the BBC's jazz album of the year award. He declared that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity".

Even if he clearly did not, you can't just assume you know what the source is. That's called Original Research. This is a simple factual matter that Malik or Roland would be helpful in weighing in on so I am not once again forced to go to some noticeboard or other. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Atzmon may well have made these remarks at the Oxford Literary Festival. I haven't listened to his speech, which is available online at [10]; I haven't managed to find a transcript. If he did make these remarks on that occasion, he will have been quoting himself, since they appeared in print much earlier. The first appears in the Gibson interview, dated 23 January 2009, while the second is on the PeacePalestine website dated 8 May 2008. RolandR (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>*The archive doesn't really identify the event or have a timer so that the time at which comments were made can be identified. (And of course there is getting through the thick accent; I couldn't make out him saying them in a not very close listen.)

• And I am not denying that similar comments were made in other publications, the question is, were they made at the Oxford Literary Festival as Cohen claims, since such facts cannot be imported from an opinion piece per Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. In fact, that seems to be a problem with other assertions of what he said as well where source not identified. Will have to look more carefully. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, reread Cohen. The implication that Atzmon said these things at Oxford is your WP:SYNTH. It's not in Cohen. And I think people would probably take a dim view of any attempt to sanitize away the Cohen quote because it doesn't support your WP:SYNTH. RT-LAMP (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

IF that's the way you want it fine. But then according to Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. the fact that Cohen himself does not attribute the statements to any source, his own personal hearing of them, an Atzmon interview, an Atzmon writing, means we can't just do that. The fact that Cohen is obviously a very biased source, compared to others who have written about him, means that sourcing does have to be exact (according to my re-reading of relevant WP:BLP and WP:RS policies and discussions this morning.) And please stop personally insulting me by saying I want to sanitize the article when I just want a fair portrayal according to BLP standards not a listing of every biased opinion piece while factual information from more neutral sources is repeatedly deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again it would be helpful if Malik, who first brought up this issue, would opine. After all I have an opinion piece that states the fact that Cohen was a panelist in the debate, plus some opinions I want to quote, and I want to see if that fact can be mentioned. Do I have to go to WP:RS for more neutral or 3rd opinon? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the new way it is written infers Cohen says he got the statements from those sources which he does not. So that's synthesis too. If the actual sources are to be mentioned it must be done in a more compliant way, including links to the sources, as was done in the past. Do I have to tag it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, Carol. Cohen says that Atzmon said this, and draws his own conclusions. We have a separate reliable source that Atzmon did indeed say this, and Cohen is certainly a reliable source for his own opinions. Cohen's article is a bit ambiguous, and could be read to mean that he ascribed these comments to Atzmon's speech in Oxford; but this is not the only, or necesary, reading of his words. The fact that he does not himself state explicitly where and when Atzmon made his comments is neither here nor there; he is not bound in his Guardian piece by Wikipedia's rules on attribution. RolandR (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, if I recall correctly, my objection concerning the opinion column was using it as a RS for a statement that anti-Zionists criticize Atzmon. It can only be used to express the author's opinion. Now, if I understand your question, you're wondering whether an opinion column can be used as a RS concerning statements attributed to Atzmon. In the end, what difference does it make? You've been given other sources for Atzmon's statements, so cite his quotations to those sources if you want to be a stickler about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm starting to wonder whether the strict distinction between news and opinion articles really applies to the UK serious press in the way that it seems to apply in the US. It's clear that all the articles in the Observer, even those by star writers like Cohen who are given a lot of control over their content, are not so much "fact-checked" as picked over word-by-word by the libel lawyers. Obviously we can't an exception for this politically-charged bio, so I will consider raising it on the reliable sources policy talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think the issue of allegations (quotes or actions) from opinion pieces in general is important, but have gotten little response bringing up the inconsistencies or lack of clarity between WP:RS and WP:BLP on the topic at either talk page. I was thinking bringing it to WP:RSN is another option, and with Itsmejudith's above encouragement will do so. Also, even if this is true about the Brits and libel, I think it hurts the encyclopedia to use vitriolic articles like Kamm and Cohen's as sources of fact at all. Meanwhile I'll change the ref to what might actually be acceptable, i.e., including refs to the articles where Atzmon does say these things and quoting the sentence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BlueBoar commented on this issue at WP:RS talk page and I replied that they were somewhat but not entirely applicable. Thunderstorms coming but do intend to correct RTLamp’s Cohen edits soon, including in light of what he wrote. But WP:RSN probably still good. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor changes to Carol's latest edit.

Paul Eisen's essay is very plainly a Holocaust denial essay, and not merely because Aaronovitch said so. It's called "Holocaust Wars" - google for it, and you'll see there's just no uncertainty where Eisen is coming from. No reasonable person could read it as anything but a long, detailed love letter to the Holocaust denial movement, ending with an exhortation to fight "organized world Jewry and its primary arm, the Holocaust." There's a reason Atzmon's circulation of this essay caused such a big stink: it's an absolutely appalling work of antisemitism, really packed to the gills with antisemitism and Holocaust denial - to which Atzmon had only "a slightly different take," and refused to disassociate himself from Eisen, whom he continued to call "his good friend."

It's peculiar to efface von Brunn's crime, which is what triggered Cohen's article, following the Holocaust Memorial shooting by a matter of days.

Also, it's worth pointing out that "thetruthseeker.co.uk," the new source Carol added, is a really grotesquely antisemitic site. Here's a sentence from an essay posted there just this week: "The BP oil spill must be seen in the context of an ongoing covert war against America waged by the Illuminati, i.e. the Masonic Jewish central banking cartel led by the Rothschilds." (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=12740) As the left increasingly repudiates Atzmon, he's finding an increasingly appreciative audience on the David Duke/David Irving/Stormfront right. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of WP:Soapbox out side of the WP:RS, which there is no "duty" for me to investigate? To make others think I am an antisemite? I didn't research truthseeker since a quick look at list of "contributors" showed a bunch of notable writers -who may not have approved use of their articles. But if it is an objectionable site, I can removed that link and just quote more fully from the article I copied from the original source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I have not and do not call you an antisemite. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And I did not allege that you called me one. But constant WP:SOAPBOX breast beating about how he allegedly is one certainly has the effect on editors and others who might drop by of making them think the person you are complaining to about their edits is one. Meanwhile, you didn't answer my question about removing the link to TruthSeeker and just quoting more fully from the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your source, your call. If you want to say, "To find out more about Atzmon, here's where to swim in the TruthSeeker sewer," who am I to complain? Like water, Atzmon's essays seek their own level. I'm just happy to see you finally accept that Atzmon really said what Cohen credited him with saying. RT-LAMP (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to make me look bad by your comments re: source being a sewer. I'll look more carefully at the site and/or ask WP:RS and see, since sometimes such otherwise NON-WP:RS sites that include copies of others' articles published are allowed to be used. I don't know if that one quote you mention enough would be enough to disqualify it. (For example see these discussions of newspaper and other reprints of Reliable Source articles, documents, especially by less or even non-reliable sources: #1, #2, #3, #4.) Given the contrasting views there, I'd like to hear opinions from other editors here before having to go to WP:RSN. On the other hand I don't mind just putting in a fuller in context quote to show that it does in fact from that article (and I do have copy of the original) and dropping the link.

Meanwhile, your attacks on Atzmon just make it clear your POV makes neutral editing very difficult for you. I was not questioning whether he said these things but whether using these quotes without Cohen's attribution was allowed under wikipedia policies. If they were not clearly made in other sources they would not be allowed. I get the impression editors are more flexible - as I have been in the past - if there are independent sources of the statements. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone who looks into your history on this article is likely to smile at your saying "your POV makes neutral editing very difficult for you." RT-LAMP (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean stick with Wikipedia policies, esp. WP:NPOV on WP:BLP?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy should be followed in all BLPs and sometimes it isn't an enviable task policing that. However, ensuring that BLPs stick to policy should not involve us making our own constructions of the views of BLP subjects. Please do go to RSN. I'm pretty sure that Cohen is RS on this, but it may be best to attribute him so as to be on the safe side. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did already just attribute the quotes to Atzmon's specific articles since that seems like the likely outcome and was the accepted practice in this article on this exact issue in the past and is a practice I might want to use in the future elsewhere. I'll save such trips to RSN for issues where facts cannot be independently verified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New article by Atzmon

I am not going to put this in the article, but editors may be interested in Atzmon's article about the Gaza flotilla massacre, Jewish ideology and psychosis – a danger to world peace, in which he writes "Within the discourse of Jewish politics and history there is no room for causality... I have hardly seen any Israelis or Jews attempt to understand the circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." It might be considered original research to say so, but I have rarely seen a clearer statement that European Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust. RolandR (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't his first time on that turf; the article cited here for being attacked by Kamm plays on the same pitch - '65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbours?' - and also depicts a Holocaust-lite notably without gas chambers. It's reprehensible stuff and unmistakeable in its intent.

It's difficult not to conclude that Atzmon's few remaining defenders either simply can't detect any form of antisemitism short of shouting "Jews to the gas" or they've made a decision - conscious or unconscious - that they simply will no longer engage the antisemitism question in any form other than raw denial. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I note also that when, in the Google box of my browser, I type "atz" the first suggested completion from Google is "atzmon holocaust denier." Doesn't prove anything, of course. But it's still not hard to see in it a reflection of what Atzmon's reputation really is. 141.142.240.3 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just again to point out POV interpretations given to so many things he writes: "circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." He does not write: "Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust." He talks about European -not Nazi- and resentment - not genocide. In the next, again "Europeans" and "standing up" is ambiguous, especially since he then asks something which I think everyone, pro and con Israel can agree on "Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history?" Obviously it would be helpful if he did NOT write such ambiguous things!

But of course the context of the whole article is removed. (Though perhaps at least it should be mentioned in the footnote leading to the original article.)

Again we have the double standard in Wikipedia editing: one can criticize Catholic (pedophiles) or Muslim (terrorism) or Fundie Protestant (sex-capades) behavior and say it leads to anger against them, without being accused of planning genocide. (Even though some feel that is what is happening vs. Muslims.) But if you criticize even a small number of Jewish people - or Israel - for bad behavior and note the simple fact it leads to anger against even innocent Jews, you are allegedly justifying genocide.<s?d That is the POV from highly partisan sources I see in the lead and the allegations of antisemitism section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just again to point out POV interpretations given to so many things he writes: "circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." He does not write: "Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust." He talks about European -not Nazi- and resentment - not genocide. In the next, again "Europeans" and "standing up" is ambiguous, especially since he then asks something which I think everyone, pro and con Israel can agree on "Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history?" Obviously it would be helpful if he did NOT write such ambiguous things!

He writes with that level of ambiguity because the use of dog whistles requires it. It's a deliberate strategy, and a standard technique for racists and cut-rate demogogues. That way, the hate-the-Jews audience he's aiming for can get their chuckle, knowing full well what Atzmon's doing - trying to transfer blame for the Holocaust onto the Jews - while the Atzmon-sanitizers can say, "Well, he never really said the Jews were responsible for their own deaths, so it's all perfectly okay and wonderful." RT-LAMP (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, let me ask a specific question. We know what the Europeans (speaking generally) did to the Jews of Europe (speaking generally) in WWII. Atzmon calls that "standing up" to the Jews. Do you find his choice of words in any way defensible? And while I'm at it, his use of the egregious and literally medieval charge that the Jews killed Jesus - do you consider that more of his "anti-Zionism"? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But of course the context of the whole article is removed. (Though perhaps at least it should be mentioned in the footnote leading to the original article.)

Again we have the double standard in Wikipedia editing: one can criticize Catholic (pedophiles) or Muslim (terrorism) or Fundie Protestant (sex-capades) behavior and say it leads to anger against them, without being accused of planning genocide. (Even though some feel that is what is happening vs. Muslims.) But if you criticize even a small number of Jewish people - or Israel - for bad behavior and note the simple fact it leads to anger against even innocent Jews, you are allegedly justifying genocide. That is the POV from highly partisan sources I see in the lead and the allegations of antisemitism section.

A reprehensible paragraph. Perhaps you could give us a percent figure. What percent of the Holocaust was the Jews' fault, in your analysis, Carol? How many of them deserved what they got? Nobody is accusing Atzmon of "planning genocide." Just in engaging in revisionist history which includes both demonstrable elements of Holocaust denial and an attempt to shift as much of the blame as possible onto the Jews. Maybe you can't hear the dog whistles, Carol - after all that's why they're dog-whistles - but Atzmon has been called out by the left, the right, the center, the Zionist, and the anti-Zionists for it, and maybe it's finally time to ask yourself what so many people all over the political spectrum see and you don't. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

<bacdent>It's silly for me to try to have a rational discussion of POVs in this article given the irrationality surrounding the subject, so I shall desist and strike comments above. I'll stick to specific edits that actually will be done. I would request that RTLamp remove his uncivil WP:SOAPBOX comments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote from "Jewish Ideology and World Peace"

There's nothing ambiguous about Atzmon's writings at all. I've included Atzmon's statement regarding "fanatical tribal Jewish ideology." into the article. Drsmoo (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain that the quote belongs in the article, but if it does, then it should be the paragraph and not just half a sentence taken from it. Unomi (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite an example of a wikipedia article that quotes whole paragraphs? There are many notable quotes in that paragraph, for example, Atzmon referencing the "Jewish Khazar" theory, which was invented by far right racial theorists. As well as the line about "psychotic merciless biblical poisonous"(he really loves to lay on the inane adjectives, it really would be quite unseemly to include the whole bilious paragraph in the article. Will you put forth an argument for why you feel, in this one instance on wikipedia, that an entire paragraph should be quoted? Drsmoo (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that not quoting only 1/2 sentence out of a paragraph on a subject should be limited to this article at all. Nor do I quite understand your rationale for not including the whole paragraph if it is meant to support the charges forwarded by that section of our article. Unomi (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because including the whole paragraph would mean that 1/3 of the section would be that one paragraph. It would turn the article into an unencylopedic mess and be ridiculous and hard to read. It is important to be concise, editing is key. Drsmoo (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with taking such a small fragment out of a larger whole, especially not on the grounds that it would be unencyclopedic to include more of the context - perhaps it would be best that we wait for more input from other editors before we proceed one way or another. Unomi (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait for more input, I think though if you have a problem with standard wikipedia practice, then that's a different issue. Also if you could explain how in your opinion the full paragraph changes the context of the quote, then that would be helpful. Drsmoo (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There are different threads of antisemitic discourse, and when Atzmon enters a new area, that justifies the inclusion of the relevant quote. In this case, as Drsmoo points out, a new element here is his promulgating the Khazar-replacement nonsense, a wacky pseudoscientific theory -- disproven by DNA analysis -- that says Ashkenazi Jews aren't really descended from the Israelites. That's a blanket smear against Ashkenazi Jews, calling them all impostors, and as such is antisemitic. It's just another place where Atzmon's rhetoric overlaps that of, say, David Duke, who is also big on the Khazar-replacement thing. Quoting the whole paragraph of Atzmon's antisemitic drivel is overkill, because most of it is not new; he's driveled it before. But the Khazar business is new, it's a new arrow in Atzmon's antisemitic quiver, where it joins more familiar standards like Holocaust denial, international Jewish conspiracy, embrace of "Protocols," and that golden oldie, Jewish deicide.

Unomi, part of Drsmoo's concern (as I read it) is a result of the history of this section of the article, which a certain editor at has continually edited with a view to dismiss, excuse away, or minimize Atzmon's antisemitism. That makes this section much more compact that it could otherwise be. If Atzmon's latest antisemitic outburst is quoted at paragraph length, then there are others, equally scabrous and hate-filled but quoted here in only single sentences, which would deserve the same treatment, and I think the inevitable ballooning of this section is what Drsmoo is trying to avoid. One of the purposes of citing the quotes is to allow the reader to easily find the original context and determine from there whether Atzmon's words have been misrepresented. Correct me if I'm wrong, Drsmoo. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I think there's an issue on notability grounds for even a one-sentence quote. I've had some foul WP:RS Atzmon quotes I've posted removed, not because they weren't WP:RS but because their notability hadn't been established by a secondary WP:RS source. That's why so many sentences in this section are of the form "Prominent person X called Atzmon 'Z' for saying 'Y'" rather than just, "Atzmon said 'Y'": that's the formulation that's evolved to show notability via secondary sources. (I would hope this is not a nonce rule evolved solely for the present article, incidentally.) The quote under consideration looks like it might be the same kind of thing no matter the length - Atzmon giving another antisemitic belch on his website and largely being ignored by secondary sources, leaving the inclusion on the wrong side of WP:UNDUE. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

True, when it is covered by a notable commentator it will be included. Drsmoo (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the scientific research that refutes Atzmon's "Khazar" delusion was done in part by a researcher named Dr. Gil Atzmon, a researcher at the Einstein College of Medicine. [11] RT-LAMP (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This article's consensus is "No Cherry Picking from Primary Sources" - which is what this quote from Atzmon is. I thought we had agreed repeatedly in this article to stop cherry picking various quotes from Atzmon articles to prove that he is an evil guy. If no WP:RS brings up what he says, it is not notable. This also goes for all the nice things he says about himself, which editors also have ruled cherry picking from primary sources. (The exception being very few and specific, for example, if it is the only place where he responds to specific or general negative accusations against him, per WP:BLP.) Do I have to quote all the places in WP:BLP and WP:RS that prove this point and every time various editors on this talk page have said this in the talk page archives of this article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Important Biographical info deleted against policy

At this diff, RTLamp reverted important information from an Atzmon interview about the reasons Atzmon turned against Israel, information straight from Atzmon in a WP:RS interview. (Deleted material in Italics.]

"He told an interviewer that it was there he first learned about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, legislation to prevent their return, and the wiping out of Palestinian villages. “We were indoctrinated into a denial of the Palestinian Cause. We were not aware of it.”"Theo Panayides, Wandering jazz player, Cyprus Mail, February 21, 2010.

Given there are nearly 500 words in the section of criticism of Atzmon's writings, one would think 24 words for the actual issues that brought him to his rather angry views would not be WP:UNDUE or POV. I know one neutral editor who looked at the article on my request at Editor's Assistance discussed this issue with you on your talk page, instead of here. He actually wrote to you here: From a biographical POV, I would like to know more about his experience as a paramedic during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as that seems to have contributed to his current state of mind.

You replied with a long WP:SOAPBOX on why the article must emphasize Atzmon's antisemitism to which the editor replied here" Keep in mind that a biographical approach is not only needed, it's essential to the structure and composition of an encyclopedia article about a musician and author like Atzmon. I encourage you to pursue an analysis and critique of Atzmon's writing within the paradigm of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's what I've been trying to tell you as well.

(Full discussion User_talk:RTLamp#SPA_concerns. SPA meaning WP:Single Purpose Account, which I had to look up myself.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the same neutral editor who Carol quotes above [also wrote:I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that Atzmon is antisemitic, anti-Zionist, and at the end of the day, anti-Jewish. RolandR (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what anyone who first learns about Atzmon by reading this article as it is now would think. Relevant comments appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article as it is now the body seems 'ok', I don't know much about Gilad so it can be hard to tell, but I am somewhat concerned that the lead seems to not adequately reflect the contents and relative weightings of the article body though. Unomi (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

First, a specific opinion the specific question answered in this thread would be great.

Today I'm ending procrastination and forcing myself to put together and enter important WP:RS info that will help figure out actual weighting. Obviously his importance as a musician is largely missing from lead. In fact I've found several WP:RS that call him a "jazz legend." CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it took most of weekend to organize all the WP:RS i"ve accumulated in last 6 months, so still working on that. Just put in the one most pressing edit in this period. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dissident Voice 60 plus wikipedia mentions

Atzmon has been published at Dissident Voice which is linked as a place authors are published and as an external link in at least 60 articles, far more than Middle East Online. Yet Dissident Voice has been removed from the article and Middle East Online is in. So do people agree that his being published in Dissident Voice should be mentioned, given its overwhelming presence elsewhere in Wikipedia?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Davidduke.com has is linked 16 times on WikipediaDrsmoo (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure Drsmoo could help clean up wikipedia by going through and getting most of those DavidDuk.coms deleted as NON-WP:RS, esp. when used to support fact. However, I doubt that many neutral editors will think it necessary to delete listings of the fact that someone was published there. Only those who hate Dissident Voice for publishing material critical of Israel. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Worker Interview retracted due to damning evidence of anti semitism, should this be included?

http://socialistworker.org/2010/07/14/an-article-retracted

"ON JULY 13, SocialistWorker.org published an interview with jazz musician and anti-Zionist writer Gilad Atzmon. The interview took up Atzmon's childhood in Israel and his growing awareness of the oppression of Palestinians, as well as his ideas on music and art.

Since the interview's publication, we have learned of many allegations that Atzmon has made not just highly inflammatory, but anti-Semitic statements about Jews, be they supporters or opponents of the state of Israel--and that he has associations with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. The evidence for these serious charges is damning."

Do you think this is notable and should be included in the article? Drsmoo (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have other personal projects as a higher priority than wikipedia right now, but one of these days will fill in some blanks with new WP:RS/NPOV material. Meanwhile, I find this entry problematic:

• Is SocialistWork.Org - an advocacy group - a reliable source for accusations against an individual under WP:BLP? Shall we check with WP:BLPN and/or WP:RSN?
• Has any WP:RS covered this story to make it WP:Notable incident?
• Are they providing any new information about Atzmon or just freaking out because they read the wikipedia article?
• Is this just piling on, WP:COATRACK against Wikipedia policies? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Today Socialist Worker published two letters presumably representative of the complaints they received. The accusations in the letters actually overlap very little with the Wikipedia material about Atzmon. [12][13] I find the first one, from a Muslim anti-Zionist in Boston who calls Atzmon's writings "poisonous, bigoted garbage" and ends with a searing condemnation of Atzmon from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, particularly telling. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Any effect of wikipedia on the editors is probably unknowable. Please respond to the stronger arguments that these edits are against wiki policies or it will be assumed there is no defense of the edits and they will be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Any effect of wikipedia on the editors is probably unknowable." The editorial statement didn't mention Wikipedia. It did mention the letters from anti-Zionists castigating Socialist Worker for publishing an interview with an antisemite. And then Socialist Worker published some of the letters. And the letters didn't mention Wikipedia either. There is simply no evidence that the Wikipedia article had anything to do with any part of the exchange, is there?

And I am smiling at the thought that you're complaining someone is ignoring the strong points of an argument, given that I am still waiting for you to, for the first time ever, finally address the central argument all along: that maybe people like the two letter writers and the editor of SocialistWorker call Atzmon an antisemite for no other reason than because they have sincerely gone through the evidence -- the evidence the editor called "damning," and which apparently had nothing to do with Wikipedia -- and sincerely concluded that he really is one. To you, the common thread for every critic of Atzmon is that you dismiss them as either insincere or ignorant or both. Is it somehow impossible for critics of Atzmon to be both informed and sincere in concluding, as so many from all over the political spectrum have, that he's an antisemite? RT-LAMP (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

<Backdent>Here is the relevant policy, which you obviously do not know or understand:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Mainstream people obviously think Socialist Workers Party (which wants to abolish current govts for some other poorly outline structure) would certainly consider this source extremist, just like they would your average Secessionist site.
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29...Self-published material may, in some circumstances, 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. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Per WP:RS and WP:BLP policy, will remove material now from this obviously self-published source. Putting it back would be a policy violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

References