Talk:Gilad Atzmon

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)

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 [1]; 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. [2] 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)

I see Dissident Voice has been deleted again, despite the fact it is used in a number of biographies as a place people are published. Yet another POV move. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 25 July 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. [3][4] 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)

Nope, Carol, you don't get to dismiss a site as "extremist" just because you disagree with its politics. I've reverted your POV edit. RT-LAMP (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

SocialistWorker.org is hardly the home of centrist, liberal thought is it? I rather suspect that they would quite like the idea of being thought of as "extremist". Of course, whether to include the material and in what detail is a matter of consensus; nobody gets to include or exclude anything just because they want to. My opinion is that, while I have no particular objection to it being mentioned that the SocialistWorker.org site withdrew an article of Atzmon's after it "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,"[5] the current length of the section dealing with the issue is far too long and disproportionate.     ←   ZScarpia   14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (redacted 21:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

International Socialist Organization's Socialist Worker-USA publication is not used as a reliable source in any other wikipedia article, so I consider it just an advocacy group outlet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

socialistworker.org is not a suitable source for a BLP, please do not use it again mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this before in this article. There is no blanket ban on self-published sources in BLP. Self-published sources -- and it's far from clear that this is what "SocialistWorker.org" is, by the way -- can be used to support their own quotes. That is, if X says Y, X's own self-published sources -- and again, it's far from clear that that's even the same category as "SocialistWorker.org" -- can be used to support the fact that X said Y. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Local consensus does not override wp:blp Two things here. This is a BLP, and the site you are using is down. It is not possible to verify the information and as such must be removed immediately mark nutley (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Check the site again; it came right up for me. [6] verifies the information quite handily. And while such links cannot be used to assert the validity of claims against third parties, they cannot simply be blanket-banned because they discuss third parties. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can, should you insert this again i`ll take it to ANI. You can ask at the RSN noticeboard for clarification if you want mark nutley (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been noted in this discussion [7] your position on the WP:RS use of Socialist Worker to verify the editorial statements of Socialist Worker, even in BLP, is mistaken. As I noted earlier, this sort of thing has come up before, and your position was shown to be unsustainable. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, and i point out the .org site is not working. I have tried firefox and chrome but their server is down. Until such a time as it is up and i can verify the information i request you do not reinsert the content, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had no problems loading the page. As noted, the Google cache is [8]. RT-LAMP (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Two posts up, is RTLamp referring to his own opinions at another page as if that is evidence? Anyway, to repeat Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29...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. If socialist worker was widely used at wikipedia for any purpose, say like Dissident Voice is (which I believe you reject as non-notable), you might have the beginning of an argument for one sentence saying they pulled the interview. But it is not. The publication is not WP:RS and the incident is non-notable and WP:Undue. When neutral editors who have not edited here before voice such an opinion it's called cooperative editing to heed it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist Worker is in no way shape or form a self published source. You must substantiate a claim before you make it, and you can in no way substantiate your claim that it is self published, as that is clearly false. It has also been used several times on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=socialistworker.org

As compared with Dissidentvoice.org, which is cited 71 times on Wikipedia, The Socialist Worker (in all its forms).org is cited 211 times, while Socialistworker.org specifically is cited 66 times. Drsmoo (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It should only be cited for information about itself, it is a partisan magazine. It is certainly not a good enough source for a blp mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an advocacy group. How many times it's been already been used on WP is neither here nor there. I wouldn't call this source self-published, and I don't think that it should in this case be ruled out as extremist, but it is borderline to say the least for a BLP. The point The point it's being used for is in line with other things known about the article subject, but if it is used it should only be for the briefest of statements. I think this should go to BLPN for more comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is already at the BLPn board [9] mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol: Two posts up, is RTLamp referring to his own opinions at another page as if that is evidence? No, Carol, I am not. Sort of like how Socialist Worker turns out not to be self-published after all, despite your using that description in the section title of what, in retrospect, may perhaps possibly not be the most NPOV post ever made to BLP/N. RT-LAMP (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who support inclusion, how about the following condensed version of the previous text?

On July 14, 2010, the Socialist Worker (USA) web site retracted an interview with Atzmon it had published the previous day, explaining that there was "damning" and "sufficiently substantiated" evidence that Atzmon had made anti-Semitic statements and associated with Holocaust deniers. 213.48.107.4 (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I did goof and got confused between searching WP:RSN for past discussions of socialistworker.org and just searching all wikipedia for references to socialistworker.org. I certainly would not have claimed it was not used otherwise.
• However, if one were to look at all those mentions, how many are personal attacks by the editors? And those only evidently based on letters to the editors and not any Journalistic research (except maybe wikipedia, which we know does NOT count). It still fails on those grounds. People from Wp:BLP Noticeboard have agreed. Do we have to go to WP:RSN to confirm??
• And the case has been made that even if that sort of (shoddy IMHO) opinion-ating is allowed, it is WP:UNDUE to include more than one sentence saying they withdrew it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd accept the one-sentence version suggested above, as long as the words "and 'sufficiently substantiated' are removed, or at least the quote marks around "sufficiently substantiated," since the article does not use those words. I'd also substitute "arguing" for "explaining." So the text would be:

On July 14, 2010, the Socialist Worker (USA) web site retracted an interview with Atzmon it had published the previous day, arguing that there was "damning" evidence that Atzmon had made anti-Semitic statements and associated with Holocaust deniers.

RT-LAMP (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd dispute the use of the quote "damning" evidence - there is no discussion, from SW, what the sources of this evidence is (is it the letters, WP, other places?). By reporting it as damning (even as their opinion) we risk giving the allegations credence. What we need is independent sourcing OR more clarification on what they found damning. Even then I am unconvinced --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Given what is being said at the BLPN board this edit shall not be going in as it is neither a good source for such contentious material and is most certainly undue. mark nutley (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite the views from editors at WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:BLPN#Advocacy_group.E2.80.99s_opinion_used_in_BLP) and brought here from that complaint, Drsmoo has re-added the questionable material. Note that the Socialist worker that has the Atzmon interview is NOT the same as the one that cut his other interview. And even if it was the same, an interview is different from a non-notable report of a minor incident. So they will be reverted per WP:BLP. Please read WP:BLP policy since repeatedly reverting such dubious material is very much against policy. Especially in WP:ARBPIA related articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Source

I've added an earlier article about Atzmon in the British Socialist Worker (Gilad Atzmon: 'Zionism is my enemy') as an external link. It might be useful as a source for his views on Zionism as well. --JN466 04:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no shortage of articles about Atzmon. Any reason why you picked that one over another? I'd say that it's not really that insightful. As far as supplying a source for his views on Zionism is concerned, perhaps it would be better to use one of Atzmon's own articles?     ←   ZScarpia   11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't that many interviews or long articles with a lot of details - as opposed to many mentions in passing of various of his hundreds of performances. And most the former already are used in the article. Maybe something from the three I put up also could be used as references and appear only as such at a later point. As we know, external links to interviews don't necessarily have to be as strict in their sourcing as controversial allegations about an individual in the text of the article. I'm taking a wikipedia day to work on this and another article, and may finally add more info under writing after devote some time to the other article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Where to put info on Atzmon's activism?

It is mentioned in the lead, and side box, but no where else. I have maybe two sentences (about music tours and benefits mostly) supported by several WP:RS. Should this be in the lead, music or writings section? Writing it may make that clear, but thought I'd ask for suggestions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The guys a musician so that stuff should be in the lede mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got it in my "add" file and now that I know that "adds" are different from reverts maybe can take a half hour to get a few more sources and stick it in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

July 20th edits to writing section

As I have been long promising, I finally added info on his writings and a few tweaks to the new criticism subsection, after "Allegations" was removed by another editor. I agree a whole separate Allegations section was WP:UNDUE but a subsection more generally called criticism seems ok to me. I originally put the POV tag on the old allegations section and put it now on the criticism section. I still think the Cohen and Kamm comments are vitriolic opinion rants and that text from the defense of Atzmon by the Swedish Social Democratic Party should be included.

Unless something I put in clearly violates policy, don't edit war and revert it with screams of "whitewashing," as has happened so often before. Please make specific criticisms here first. That's what I usually do, even often when there are clear violations of policy! Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to lead

And while I was at it, I made a more NPOV, accurate and logical lead, internally consistent with itself, as well as the rest of the article. Before it fudged facts (author or novelist) (writer and activist? - the latter yet to be ref'd) and left out details while charging ahead with mention of the (highly partisan and vitriolic) allegations right in the first paragraph. At least wait til the Hirsh paragraph. Note that Hirsch condemns him first and foremost as an anti-Zionist, so putting that first in the list of three certainly would make sense, would it not?? It gives your argument more credibility and doesn't look like you are just trying to scare people off - or damn him to hell in a POV way - in the first paragraph. Of course, my one sentence first paragraph could be broken into two - and without rushing ahead to smear him. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

2005 SWP incident

I have made a vague reference to that, with Rizzo and Aaronovitch ref'd. Does it need more detail, especially since its the basis of Aaronvitch talking about Eisen? I'm not opposed but erred on putting less rather than more. Assuming one uses these good wp:rs and not advocacy group rants which have been deleted repeatedly before. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

POV on top of article?

Could someone explain why it is there and not on a subsection where there is a problem? At least identify the most problematic section(s) so we'll know what the problem is?? Otherwise it should be removed. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The POV marker apparently comes from the first section on this talk page, in which an editor was complaining about the spic-'n'-span sanitized state of the biography at that point. Although two of his specific points remain undressed -- Atzmon's praise for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that gold standard of antisemitism, as "prophetic"; the Adler article calling Atzmon out for his antisemitism in a major jazz magazine after the Eisen essay business [10]-- on the whole the article is much more realistic in its approach to Atzmon now than it was in January and I don't object to the tag's removal. RT-LAMP (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"criticism" section

I merged what was the "allegations" section into Political writings, on the basis that what the allegations or criticisms (aside from music criticism, of course), are part of the topic of his political writings. To me that makes sense in view of NPOV policy and deprecation of criticism sections. I am not suggesting that anything about antisemitism should be taken out of there. It is well sourced and should remain. If you have any argument to the contrary, then please present it. It might be helpful to look at other articles on individuals who have provoked controversy. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw Carol's comment above. Carol, please have another think - others too. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion, just it seemed neater that way. If you want to take it out, go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as the content doesn't start evaporating. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Inserted "allegations of antisemitism and responses" section title

Renamed it to allegations of antisemitism and responses. They are not political statements, holocaust denial is not politics, neither is saying its rational to burn down synagogues, or that Jews killed Jesus, or that Jews are trying to control the world, or are set aside from humanity etc. These are not political statements, and attempting to portray them as political is profoundly offensive. Drsmoo (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As usual you are inserting your WP:Soapbox opinion and distorting what he says even more than the critics do. As usual you are inserting your WP:Soapbox opinion and distorting what he says even more than the critics do in order to intimidate editors into doing it your way. I guess the article needs more sources characterizing all his writings as political - including doubtless some of the critics. Meanwhile have put on new header since original discussion was whether their even should be a subsection. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough with the constant personal attacks, seriously.Drsmoo (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Ok, I toned it down. I do think it is fair to say you are inserting WP:SOAPBOX opinion and distorting (i.e., cherry picked out of context) what he says. But maybe you do not realize that this has an intimidating effect on other editors who might be afraid of being called antisemites for trying to comply with wikipolicies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That "intimidation" charge works both ways, of course, given your propensity to presume that it is simply not possible for a Jewish person to be genuinely shocked by Atmon's, say, well-documented friendship with Holocaust deniers -- only to have you dismiss their quite legitimate disgust as mere political calculation. Again, you would do yourself a big favor by learning more about both Holocaust denial and the history of antisemitism in general, because I think it's not impossible that, like many of even the most ardent anti-Zionists, the scales might fall from your eyes regarding Atzmon, and you would come to that there's more to his pariah status than "politics."

Incidentally, above you say, "I guess the article needs more sources characterizing all his writings as political" -- which seems virtually a promise that you're going to do some POV editing. Given the number of things you've had to strike out in the past few days, maybe it's time for you to step away from the Atzmon article for a while. RT-LAMP (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Political writings can be characterized as antisemitic. No one denies that. However, people here do seem to deny that religious groups can act with political motivation and people can write about those motivations. Yet there is an article called Islam and Politics. And, yes, when I make two errors, I correct them. It's called cooperative editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Political writings can be characterized as antisemitic." But not all antisemitism is political in nature, and an attempt to disguise some expressions of antisemitism as "politics" does not instantly transform them into politics, any more than my wearing an Obama mask transforms me into Obama. It does however create an excuse for those who cannot engage the antisemitism issue honestly. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That section title is a gross violation of wp:npov It should be renamed to Controversy or similer mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, he has been called an antisemite by the most reputable newspapers in England. The only consistent way to have it under a controvery section title would be with the same template as used by other notable racists such as David Duke. In which there is a controversy section, and then subsections dealing with the various issues. I think having an "allegations of antisemitism" section is more neutral than what is featured on similar pages. Especially considering how flagrantly antisemitic Atzmon's statements are. Three hours ago he posted an article that opens with "Jewish racism knows no boundaries" He has been noted as an antisemite by sources that are as reliable as possible, and refers to himself as a proud self hating Jew who believes its rational to burn down synagogues. Putting this under an overarching controversy section, with no clear topic title would be misleading at best. Drsmoo (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He's been called antisemite in opinion pieces, a couple just vitriolic rants that don't belong in the article. Neutral news articles only call him controversial or sometimes mention that there allegations by unnamed others. Therefore the more neutral title is more in line with Wikipedia policies, which is what this discussion is above - NOT proving the POV of some editors. Also note that you are misquoting and libeling him on burning down synagogues since he says that because it is rational does not make it right. Many rational self-serving acts (like stealing occupied land and killing people who resist) are nevertheless immoral. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is right. He has not been called anti-semitic by newspapers, only by columnists. The "facts" upon which they have formed this opinion cannot be confirmed by reliable sources. The article should not use columns to introduce facts. The facts should be reliably sourced and columns used to show how some writers have reacted to the facts. TFD (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, we've already been through this. Are you forgetting? You have no trouble at all introducing opinion pieces when they say Atzmon isn't an antisemite (even when the commentator is an utter nobody like Ben-Dor, whom I'm going to remove again for his utter-nobody-ness). You only oppose including the ones that do say he's an antisemite. I strongly recommend that you stop trying to play the issue both ways so transparently. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As TFD points out, the issue is not does someone have an opinion, but can it be presented as fact. The issue is does their having that opinion make it so important it deserves to be a section header? ItsMeJudith brought this issue up, holding it should not be separate section. MarkNutley said such a section should have a more NPOV title. I prefer the latter. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, really, we're not fools, and we've been through this one before in excruciating detail. It is a fact that there are significant allegations of antisemitism against Atzmon.

TFD, note that the Hirsh piece is not an opinion column in a newspaper, but a working paper published by Yale. It is a WP:RS statement not only that Atzmon has been called an antisemite, but that he is one. Anthony Julius also calls Atzmon an antisemite (and takes a swing at his "incontinent, malicious verbalizing") in his recent Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, an 810-page tome just published this year by Oxford University Press. Another WP:RS, just one which hasn't made its way into the article yet. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to use real WP:RS, that's a different matter. So let's get rid of some of the crappier opinion pieces, like Kamm and Cohen. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, try to restrain your POV. We've gone through the "oh they're only opinion pieces" thing before. Remember? The opinion pieces are there to substantiate the crappy antisemitic things Atzmon says. They're quite embarrassing to Atzmon and I can understand why you'd prefer them gone. But they're not going. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted (another) discussion thread at WP:BLPN. BTW, I cannot find any mention of Atzmon at the ADL, SPLC or Searchlight websites. TFD (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Try David Duke's site; Duke has posted half a dozen of Atzmon's essays, sometimes contributing new introductions praising Atzmon's "insight" on Jewish identity. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As you know, unless you can prove Atzmon has some agreement to have Duke publish this stuff, or refuses to ask him to take it down cause he wants it there, it's pretty much irrelevant. Just another attempt to foul the waters of discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointless argument which has been gone over on this page in the past. The opinions calling Atzmon an antisemite are all from notable writers in notable publications, hence their inclusion. Drsmoo (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You need a secondary source for this, otherwise it is original research. We do not know if Atzmon authorized this (the articles do not appear to be copyrighted) or if he did what his explanation was. I notice that Patrick Buchanan not only has articles on the site, but was interviewed by Duke. TFD (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This has already been gone over on noticeboard after noticeboard and and talk page after talk page. The commentators in the section are confirmed notable, the publications are notable publications. There is no argument that they are non notable articles. This is the conclusion that was reached previously as well, how often must we go through the same arguments? The answer was already decided by consensus. Originally, the section included statements taken from his interviews, in the same method as are used in the "Political writings and statements" section, than those were removed, claiming that they were "out of context" and "cherry picked" and that editor's can't choose which of his interview answers to include (despite the fact that that is precisely the format in the Political section) As a result, only statements quoted by notable sources that ALSO were includes in notable publications were included. Now, months later, some editors are saying that that too is not proper for the article, which is, quite frankly, false. it seems in their view, only a front page headline in the Guardian "Atzmon is an antisemite" is allowed to be published in the article (as opposed to one of their notable journalists in one of their newspaper columns) Or the other charge, which is "since they quotes from from commentator's articles, it must be a controversy/criticism section" which is also wrong, as that is not the character of the section, and such sections and section titles are poor form.

The section contains a selection of Atzmon's notable views on Jews and Judaism, notable for their discussion by notable writers in notable sources, this was done due to the (seemingly hypocritical) complaints about the section. It is not a controversy section, or a criticism section, it is a section dealing with Atzmon's views on Jews and Judaism. Drsmoo (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Seek consensus on name of subsection?

Rather than edit warring away on the name of this subsection, why not find something we can consense on? Some people have problem with "allegations of antisemitism" for reasons mentioned above. Others don't like controversy/criticism. I don't like "Statements_on_Jews_and_Judaism" because section is about criticism of him for cherry picked statements and not an NPOV review of what he has said - and there are several NPOV articles that do just that. It is therefore misleading as well as a POV description. But if you want sections on Atzmon's Statements on Israel; Statements on Jews, Jewishness and Judaism; Statements on (Other Topics he's written on), we can do that. Any other suggestions for a subsection title? Meanwhile who wants to revert Drsmoo's latest revert? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, Drsmoo. Do you want to discuss this? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How about Personal Views. Seems NPOV to me mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The most NPOV (and in line with the standard wiki template) way of doing it is having a "Views" section, and then "Views on Israel/Zionism" and "Views on Jews/Judaism" Drsmoo (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Personal views" doesn't work, as they are his professional views, he makes money off his statements on Israel and his statements on Judaism. If we're going to do that, we should also remove every quote from the Israel section that was "cherry picked" by an editor from one of his interviews, as that practice has been hypocritically attacked (and not done) in the far more neutral antisemitism section. You can see a more elaborate case for my position in the talk section above. As it is now, labeling the section as "Criticism" or "Controversy" is blatantly inaccurate, deceptive and unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

3 problems with recent edits

• Removal of "what Aaronvitch describes as" in what Aaronvitch describes as a Holocaust-denying essay by Paul Eisen. This is an opinion piece by Aaronovitch, but he writes as if this is a known fact. Per Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion it has to be made clear this is his opinion - unless perhaps some more WP:RS has declared this essay Holocaust denying and that ref is included? (I haven’t read it myself, but my opinion would be WP:OR anyway, as would other editors'.)
• Addition of words in italics "Atzmon also has said he does not deny the Holocaust or the “Nazi Judeocide” but insists “that both the Holocaust and World War II should be treated as historical events rather than as religious myth. . . . But then, even if we accept the Holocaust as the new Anglo-American liberal-democratic religion, we must allow people to be atheists." (From Manuel Talens, Beauty as a political weapon; Three in one: jazzman, writer and activist - A conversation with Gilad Atzmon.)

This is cherry picked/selectively quoted to make him look like he is contradicting himself. It leaves out his long explanation of all the bad things the US and Soviets did and his saying the Holocaust is used almost religiously to cover these up. If we want a whole section on his various views, we could have a paragraph on his views on this topic that would make this quote more clear, but otherwise this selective quote put in for POV reasons to make him look bad should be removed.

• Removal of Panayides. I see it has been put back but since it probably will be taken out again in the future, want to say: a) the Publication Cyprus Mail is a regular newspaper with editors and perfectly WP:RS, especially for an interview. b) The quotes are important because a WP:RS finds it of interest to show Atzmon’s psychology of pushing people to react. Others who just want to prove he’s an ideological antisemite don’t want to see that.

Something similar that used to be in and that I think should be in is his comment in Gilchrist: "When I criticise the Jews, in many cases I'm criticising myself.” It does explain some of his psychology and certainly doesn't make him necessarily "look good." (A comparison of these two articles might also provoke insights, though trying to connect them doubtless would be synthesis: [11], [12].) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, if you read the essay -- it's called "The Holocaust Wars" by Paul Eisen, Google it -- you'll have no doubt that it is both pro-Holocaust denial and pro-antisemitism. It's a love letter to Ernst Zundel, not only on the free-speech issue but the golly-guess-there-were-no-gas-chambers issue too. Google the web looking for reactions to the piece, and you'll find it's pretty much unanimous outside the jackboot set. Find me a single source other than Atzmon himself who does not call the essay Holocaust denial propaganda and then you can assert that there's a difference of opinion. As I said before, the last time you tried to pretend this wasn't really a Holocaust denial essay, there's a reason why Atzmon raised such a stink among both Zionists and anti-Zionists with this one, and there's a reason that the Socialist Workers Party UK felt they had to defend Atzmon against the charge of Holocaust denial after he sent this essay to his mailing list. Find one non-Atzmon source who isn't himself a jackbooter who says this essay isn't Holocaust denial, and you'll have a point. Sample sentence:

Palestinians must know that they are not just facing the might of the Israeli state but also the power of organized world Jewry and its primary arm, the Holocaust.

Ah, that rascally "world Jewry" is acting up again. Or do you find nothing antisemitic in that?

You would do yourself a tremendous favor by reading the Wikipedia entry on Holocaust denial. Atzmon uses some very simple semantic traps in hopes of tricking the naive, and never more so than when he gets onto the topic he euphemizes as "Holocaust revisionism". One of the things you'll learn is that nobody in the Holocaust denial movement says "there was no Holocaust"; instead they try to redefine "Holocaust" into a historical parody, something unsupportable by the evidence, with central historical facts -- i.e. the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, an organized program of genocide created on an order from Hitler -- excised, substituting instead a giant Jewish conspiracy theory to defraud the rest of the world. David Irving doesn't say there was no Holocaust. Ernst Zundel doesn't say there was no Holocaust. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't say there was no Holocaust. Instead they say, "Oh, yes, the Nazis were bad, and they killed some Jews, and there were camps. Sure. But gas chambers? Puhleeze! An order to kill the Jews? Puhleeze! Six million dead? Puhleeze!" It's a bit like saying, "Oh, I'm not saying there was no Apollo 11; but we must refuse to bow to the Zionist thought police who tell us it landed on the moon and not Pittsburgh."

As far as the extended quote from Talens, let the reader decide whether Atzmon is contraditing himself. Read through the dog whistles and you'll see he's being consistent. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here, incidentally, is anti-Zionist activist Sue Blackwell -- a leader of the academic boycott movement in the UK -- in Al-Ahram: "Worryingly, some of my correspondents don't see anything wrong with promoting the writings and websites of people like Zündel or fellow Holocaust deniers David Irving or Paul Eisen."[13] That's an anti-Zionist activist in an anti-Zionist paper in an anti-Zionist country. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• First, I have left you a "Edit warring" warning on your four edits within 24 hours, against 3RR, and especially serious since some involved WP:BLP problems that two other editors reverted. See User_talk:RTLamp#Edit_warring_on_Gilad_Atzmon. This remains especially serious since you are basically a WP:Single Purpose Account editing this article. See Special:Contributions/RTLamp.
• Second, I clearly stated above that my opinion and yours would WP:OR and yet you engage in a long WP:Soapbox on the topic of what Eisen says in his article. I find it troubling you refuse to read and comply with Wikipolicies despite repeated reminders about them. Please read Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines. CarolMooreDC (talk)

The Blackwell piece is also an opinion piece, so it would just be Blackwell's opinion backing up Aaronvitch. You need a researched news article or a scholarly piece. What is the problem with just saying it's Aaronvitch's opinion? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I unfortunately have read Eisen's essay, and have no doubt that it is a classic of holocaust denial. That however is my own, unencyclopaedic, opinion. It is, however, an objective fsct that the essay is a defence of Ernst Zundel, whose Wikipedia entry opens by describing him as a "neo-Nazi, holocaust denier". Eisen gushingly describes Zundel as "a gentle, good-humored man, kind and honest and with those qualities often found in the strangest places: a fine mind and a good heart". I have edited the article to note the content of the essay, rather than Aaronovitch's view of it. RolandR (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Roland has the right approach. I do think it's important to note that the Eisen essay goes far beyond supporting Zündel's freedom of speech -- that is, he doesn't say that Zündel has the right to say there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz; he goes on to conclude that Zündel is probably correct. You could claim that Deborah Lipstadt "supports Ernst Zundel" because she -- like me -- believes he shouldn't have been jailed. But Eisen goes far, far, beyond that line, and Atzmon did not balk. Because it's a standard dodge of Holocaust deniers to pretend they're really only free-speech activists, I think it's important to note that Eisen went considerably beyond the free speech argument and really did "go there" and really did conclude with an exhortation to combat "world Jewry."

As for Carol's latest tactic, I think she knows, as most readers will, the difference between three edits and three reverts. Nice try, though. And I've left a comment for you on my talk page. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Between 21:51, July 20, 2010 and 12:19, July 21, 2010 RTLamp has made five separate edits (each set not interrupted by other editors counting as one edit) against 3RR. And this despite reverts by other editors for policy issues. Since I’m getting personal attacks for bringing this up, perhaps someone else also could explain this to him and remind him this is against policy? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, Carol, edits ≠ reverts, and I don't appreciate your attempt to escalate your edit war. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering all the times I've seen people warn other people after only 3 edits a day, I was surprised to see that it turns out you are right. Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule: A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, However, most edits revert something, which is probably why people usually stop after 3 a day, just in case. So you are only up to 3 for today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. RT-LAMP (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Criticism section is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Facts are sourced to columns and not notable opinions are included. The statement, "in 2004 the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticized Atzmon" is a half-truth. They actually complained to the Minister of Education about SOAS, listing his comments among others as reasons. In fairness, the findings of the Minister should be included in the article. I have tried to find reliable sources referring to this dispute but all I can find are right-wing and left-wing op-eds. Here is one of the least biased that appears on LabourNet, which is part of the Association for Progressive Communications. The criticism appears to be that Atzmon has encouraged Palestinians to work with the far right, as fellow opponents of Zionism. If that is true it should be in the politics section, along with criticisms of his position. But criticism sections are bad style and the implication of the sources used is that Atzmon is unpopular with the radical right. TFD (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the criticism isn't that Atzmon wants the Palestinians to work with the far right, the criticism is that Atzmon wants the Palestinians to work with antisemites, wherever on the political scale they happen to fall. That is not a political position but an antisemitic one. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not understand your reply. Aren't they the same thing? TFD (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there's a huge difference. Antisemitism isn't a political theory, it's a racial theory. It is neither left nor right, and there are antisemites on the left as well as on the right. Atzmon's argument is that the racial theory should trump the political theory, and that the Palestinians should work with anybody who hates Israel, even if the only reason they hate Israel is because they hate all Jews. Left or right doesn't enter into it, just hating Jews. Most activists for Palestine have the good sense to reject such a stance, which is why Atzmon's been pretty much elbowed off the stage. But Atzmon rails against those who object to antisemitism among Palestinian activists as "crypto-Zionists" and "gatekeepers." RT-LAMP (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There are anti-Semites in the center as well. But the criticism is of working with the far right, e.g., Paul Eisen and his colleagues. They are as far as I know the only political group that is overtly anti-Semitic. There is no criticism of working with anti-Semites who are not far right. TFD (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "right" appears exactly zero times in the Dropkin article. "Holocaust denier/denial" appears three times. RT-LAMP (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He does not use the term far right, but instead names each group, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Front, the British National Party. In any case we would need a better source to document the controversy. TFD (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Religion and politics often are interconnected. Why else is there a Islam and Politics articles? Why do people write so much about the Christian right in politics? Why else does mainstream media constantly use the phrase "Jewish lobby" when they are actually describing pro-Israel lobbying groups? Any kind of bigotry can be political, racial and/or religious. (Though it's good to know I have a right to worry about racial antisemitism now, being 1/32 Sephardic Jew, or so family rumor has it. Which is enough for the average racist.) But the bottom line remains what the sources say, and in the end they are mostly hepped up opinion pieces. Good point on SOAS being the target, by the way; which should be corrected. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your statement that "Jewish Lobby" is used in the maintream media is factually wrong. It is used almost exclusively by antisemitic sites and kooky fringe sites. 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While further discussion is off topic to this article, factually speaking note that See News.Google search for “Jewish Lobby” shows that out of first 30 hts, 20 are just offhanded uses of the term by mainstream media to describe a variety of groupings and purposes. I’m sure a review of first 100 would find at least half are. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your link doesn't support your claim, you said "Jewish lobby" is used by the mainstream media to describe what is actually called the Israel lobby in the media. Your usage of Google Archive belies your assertion, as you're going back through 40 years of articles. A normal google news search comes up with only a few results for "Jewish Lobby" and almost entirely from blogs "Jewish lobby" is not much used in mainstream media, and is generally associated with fringe sources. Drsmoo (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Category

There have been several discussions about the inclusion of this article in the Antisemitism category: Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#Category:Antisemitism, Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#"Anti-semitism", Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#No_redundancy, Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#Bad_Recent_Edits_(cooperative_editing), Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#"Whitewash", and elsewhere. The consensus has been that the category should be added. At the top of the page, it states: "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic." This article does indeed discuss antisemitism, so the category is relevant.

It's worth noting that the category includes articles such as Itzik Feffer, Irène Némirovsky, The Fixer (Malamud novel), Joseph Seligman, The War on Britain's Jews?, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Rodrigo López (physician). There is, of course, no suggestion that any of these is/was antisemitic, rather that the topic of antisemitism is discussed in these articles. Since the topic is also discussed in this article, the category is clearly helpful and relevant, so I am restoring it. RolandR (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the detailed explanation. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Considering that Roland has written articles about Atzmon being antisemitic and, I believe, engaged in picketing against him, and admitted his conflict of interest here, I don't think he's the most NPOV commentator or this topic. [Later note, per below: This information and/or discussion was in the article for a while in articles written by Roland and used as references.]
• The description really is disengenuous because some of those individuals are antisemites and some have been accused of it, though there are varying opinions. Evidently it's against BLP to have a category called "People accused of antisemitism." CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which of the individuals I noted above is antisemitic? RolandR (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And you, Carol, have made comments elsewhere stating your belief that "mostly Jews" own and control the media. So I would suggest that you are not the most ideally ideal person to be judging whether or not Atzmon is an antisemite. RT-LAMP (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, why can't you just edit constructively, rather than constantly trying to have everyone you disagree with removed from the topic? Drsmoo (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Roland. I meant individuals in the category page, not that you named. I am criticizing the category itself which to me is the larger problem. I think it would be more honest to have one that says they are accused so that the surreptitious smearing of a lot of innocent critics of Israel at least would be brought out more openly. I'm not bothering to engage in discussion of applicability to Atzmon. Guess I should put a note on the category's talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anout that, Carol. I haven't studied all of the 437 articles in the category, let alone those in the 26 sub-categories. But on an initial look I can't see any who have been falsely or maliciously accused of antisemitism. There certainly seems to have been no attempt to stuff the category with articles about opponents of Israel, or biographies of those (like me) laughably described as "self-hating Jews". Which articles are you referring to? RolandR (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it. Just if there was such a category it would be easier to clean up articles that need it :-) (And two years ago I thought this would be such a quickie article, as others had been before.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Just looking now at the "A"s right now the following people obviously are accused of being antisemites. Your denying this is what got my backup in the first place: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel; Abu Hamza al-Masri; Alexander III of Russia, American Defense Society??; Anti-Jewish Action League of Sweden; Anti-Semite and Jew; Anti-Zionism; Argentine Patriotic League; Armenian Aryan Union; Aryan Brotherhood; Aryan paragraph; Gilad Atzmon, etc. I'd think you would be concerned with getting Anti-Zionism out of that list myself, in that antiZionists generally are against bigotry; of course some Zionists allege they're all antisemites by definition, so it might end up in both lists.CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point entirely. I did not state that none of the people on the list were antisemitic; I said that I could not see any who had been "falsely or maliciously accused of antisemitism". And, while I of course agree that anti-Zionism is not equivalent to antisemitism, that article also discusses -- at length -- the allegation and the purported relationship. So, in the same way as with this article, it is clearly appropriate for inclusion in the category. As has been discussed at length, here and elsewhere, this is not a "List of antisemites"; it is a navigation category for articles relating, in one way or another, to the topic of antisemitism. RolandR (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic of problems with the category itself are best discussed at the category’s talk page and would become relevant here if a new "allegations of antisemitism" category was created. (And then once that existed it would be more relevant to discuss if people falsely placed there.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough, please. Take it to your talk pages, WP:COIN or WP:ANI this thread is entirely offtopic

Response to personal accusation after internet research on me Re: RTLamp's doing research on me on the internet and quoting something I wrote in 2003, I have nothing to hide which is why I edit under my own name. Do some research and you easily can find the harassment and defacto death threats that led to my losing my temper and engaging in ONE (count them one) minor rant in June 2003 against the neocons (and their hero Ariel Sharon) who were driving the US to war, which the harasser promptly advertised to the world. But then harassing people til they say stupid things is part of the strategy, isn't it? For the record, I don't believe in making accusations without statistical evidence. And Jeffrey Blankfort's 2003 list of "Jews in the Media" which was widely distributed on peace activist lists during the run up to the Iraq War when pro-Israel neocons dominated all the talk shows, really is a bit too anecdotal. But when one loses one temper after constant harassment, especially right after the US has launched a major war the harasser approves of, one occasionally says stupid things, doesn't one? Of course, if I was an ex-Israeli who felt betrayed by my country and then was attacked by a bunch of Brits for speaking my mind, I might be on a Ten Year Tear. Considering that Blankfort (another Jewish critic of Israel) won a major case against the ADL (which seems to have been expunged from the Anti-Defamation_League article, though he is mentioned), and that he is published in Counterpunch among other places frequently, maybe he deserves his own article. Now perhaps RTLamp will delete all his Personal Attack comments on his (single purpose account) personal/talk pages? There's no there there. Just constant violations by RTLamp of WP:ARBPIA in trying to harass and insult other editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Link to said pages please carol mark nutley (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure which ones you mean, but given that this response probably is not the way I should be Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment, I don't feel that exact details should be brought to wikipedia. But why don't I go check with some higher authority, when I figure out who that is :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Ask an admin to look at said attack page. Attack pages are a violation of policy and if as you say they are attack pages and contain personal information then they will be deleted mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC) OK, I thought you meant my personal page where I describe what happened in 2003. This is what RTLamp has done recently here and a series of edits here. How can one contact an admin without going to WP:ANI or WP:ARBPIA which I'm a little to busy to deal with this week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Carol, you can contact any admin on her/his Talk page. I've warned RTLamp about personal attacks in the past, but I feel I've been too involved with this page to block her/him. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC) What anyone writes outside WP or what their beliefs are is irrelevant. What is important is each editors attempts to follow policy correctly. TFD (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Hmm, if you need one who is totaly uninvolved User:NuclearWarfare or user:Lar or user:BozMo are all admins i have had dealings with, all are fair and honest mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Carol, you shouldn't be creating sections in the Gilad Atzmon talk page about yourself, this article doesn't belong to you and neither does this talk page. The only reason (to my knowledge) RTLamp brought up stuff outside of Wikipedia, is that you brought up stuff outside of Wikipedia to claim that RolandR shouldn't be editing here, which is of course against Wiki policy. Drsmoo (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC) <backdent>Someone actually writing against and organizing against the subject of the article is a WP:conflict of interest and RolandR had admitted it more than once and it was relevant information to someone who was new to article and might not know that when he responded to RolandR. Someone merely having spoken out on any aspect of some of the topics Atzmon writes about is merely a WP:POV and searching around the internet for others' POVs to throw them in their faces is a personal attack. Of course, that's why most people don't even use their real names, to either protect privacy or in some cases to hide a POV or even a conflict of interest. Of course, single purpose accounts that exist mostly to trash one individual certainly have their conflicts of interest written all over them, don't they? Or do they. Feel free to opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you simply don't see the irony of saying that someone shouldn't edit the article because of what they do outside of Wikipedia, and then when someone else brings up what you do outside of Wikipedia, you say they're attacking you for looking at stuff you do outside of wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC) <backdent>Let's not be obtuse about the difference between general opinions on a general topic and specific writing and organizing against the subject of the article. The former is POV, which everyone has, the latter is conflict of interest WP:COI, as RolandR himself has admitted. Please read the relevant articles and stop harassing me. See WP:Harassment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC) RolandR's opinions toward Atzmon outside of Wikipedia have no bearing on his editing, and he has not been found to have made any violations in his editing, there is no issue. Oh and this is in no way shape or form harassment or anything close to resembling it, so aside from this sentence, I shall disregard your comment. Drsmoo (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I have not "admitted I have a conflict of interest" on this article. I have recognised that my known public activities outside of Wikipedia could give rise to concerns about my objectivity in editing here, and consequently I have been, I believe, scrupulously careful to observe Wikipedia policies. It would be extremely difficult to point to any edit I have made here which another editor (though not, of course, every other editor) might have made, or one where my personal point of view has led me to make an unacceptable edit. If you examine my edit history here, you will actually find several instances in which I have removed material hostile to Atzmon, on the grounds that this was not in compliance with Wp policies. It is certainly valid to scrutinise my edits with particular attention; but I do not think that there is any grounds for rejecting outright my right to edit here, or to attempt to discredit my contributions. At least (like Carol) I edit under my own name, so that any prejudices are open and admitted; who knows how many personal friends of Atzmon lurk behind some of the other usernames on this article? RolandR (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I can't imagine friends of Atzmon trying to hide his antisemitic ideas. It's not as if Atzmon himself hides them, he has 94 articles on his website listed under "Jewish Power" and 125 under "Jewishness" and he proudly declares himself a self hating Jew. Anyone who was friends with him would likely have no qualms with antisemitism. Drsmoo (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC) And by the way (and Carol, you should be sympathetic to this) there have been countless attempts to bar me from editing at all in the area of Israel-Palestine topics, on the basis of my non-WP political activity. I don't see this article any different than for instance Allegations of Israeli apartheid or Steven Plaut, where there have also ben attempts to exclude my edits. RolandR (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Drsmoo gets it right; Carol's continual soapboxing about who should or shouldn't be editing the Atzmon article, her wildly inaccurate suppositions of motivations, and in particular her unsupportable attack on Roland for his non-WP activities, simply made me want to remind Carol that she's less that pure as the driven snow outside WP herself, and that maybe she doesn't want to be an absolute hypocrite about things. Note for the record that Carol, by linking in the Blankfort link, is apparently repeating here her charge that the media is "mostly Jews," so this is no longer only a matter of what happens outside of WP. RT-LAMP (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC) OK, I should have thought and written more carefully and specified at top of the "Category" thread and in subsequent discussions that RolandR’s conflict of interest was specifically in entering and/or defending the use of his own material which I believed discussed the picketing of Atzmon or was linked to another article that did. Relevant - though not exhaustive - archives are: #1 and #2. So I didn’t troll to find this stuff on Roland, it was already in the Atzmon article when I got here. Trolling the internet to get “dirt” on people remains obnoxious and against WP:Civility. And RTLamp already had trolled and attacked me before the above, so please don't argue cause and effect. Note that the attack on me has been quite effective on driving away more neutral editors who were becoming just too NPOV. Overall I've found Roland's opinions balanced, though I had some problem with his comments on "Category" I felt it necessary to bring up. Will look at that issue again. Of course, the fact both Drsmoo and RTLamp remain defacto single purpose accounts - as others brought up here and on their talk pages before I did - may be more relevant since that might be more evidence of COI than mere POV. As for the Blankfort link, RTLamp, it’s a link to mentions about him on wikipedia. And I only mentioned Blankfort to defend myself against RtLamp's trolling and personal attacks. Now Oliver Stone has jumped into the mix. Geez, someone do some actual statistical research and settle the issue of Irish control of the liquor industry - or whatever. (But why discuss how my relatives got rich in the 1920s.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC) At the risk of triggering another maudlin pile of self-declared martyrdom, I should note that I did not go searching for something to attack Carol with; I went searching for an article on the 2006 British MP study of antisemitism in the UK, found it on a blog, and lo, the very next entry in the blog contained that quite disturbing comment from Carol -- one I have seen no sign of a retraction about, only an attempt to shift the blame for it onto "the Zionists" or "the Neocons" or anybody, anybody, anybody but the person who actually wrote the words and now defends them. RT-LAMP (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC) If you two don't drop it, I will ask for an interaction ban and topic ban for the both of you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC) You know, to tell the truth, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea. You know as well as anyone that Carol's sorry saga of edit-warring on this article far predates my arrival, her frequent soapbox pronouncements that she is "protecting" Atzmon are a declaration of the NPOV approach she takes to this entry, and I am by no means the only editor she's edit-warred with here and forum-shopped in an attempt to silence. Ban me from this page and the conflict over this page goes on unabated. Ban Carol from this page and watch 90% of the controversy vanish in an instant. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Lets ban RTlamp and Carol from the page and get rid of 99 percent of the disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC) It is ONLY Carol Moore that should be banned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.72.162 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) We need carols intellectual viewpoint, either ban them both or neither. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Who is this IP account? Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Both or neither is probably the right idea. It's interesting to look at Carol in the light of WP:PUSH, which describes the problem of someone who pushes a quite blatant POV -- as in, for example, Carol's iron-clad and repeated POV assertion that Atzmon cannot possibly be an antisemite, and that anyone who says otherwise (and there are quite a few, from all over the spectrum) is part of a "campaign" against him -- while remaining civil. Here are some of the criteria for WP:PUSH: They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times. They hang around forever wearing down more serious editors and become expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors. For an example of a serious editor she's simply worn down with her WP:PUSH on this topic, and who gave up trying to improve the article, take a look at [14]. That is, people need to closely examine Carol's implicit assertion that she has not been damagingly POV simply because she's been civil. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Headings

I removed the "Writings" topic heading, because it was essentially empty and the one or two sentences there were redundant. I also renamed the "Politics" section to "Politics and Activism" and moved an out-of-place blurb detailing his various forms of activism out of the lede and into that section.

Let me explicitly note that I did not make "Criticisms" a subheading of "Politics and Activism" because the criticisms are largely charges of antisemitism. Antisemitism is not a kind of politics but rather a kind of bigotry, and therefore placing the antisemitism controversy under a "Politics and Activism" heading would be a category error. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Grassroots.tv

I've removed the reference to Atzmon's one-time appearance on a local-access cable program, which is pretty much the definition of non-notable. It's interesting to watch the program itself, though -- although the topic is supposed to be anti-Zionism, Atzmon immediately moves to a defense of Holocaust denial, and gets taken to pieces for it by one of the other panelists while the rest of the panel -- anti-Zionists all -- squirms uncomfortably with each new proclamation from Atzmon.

It's worth noting that one of the public appearances Carol cites was a fundraiser for "Deir Yassin Remembered," an organization whose UK director is the very same Holocaust denier, Paul Eisen, whose essay got Atzmon in such trouble. It does lead to a very troubling question: why is Atzmon raising funds for Holocaust deniers? Here [15] is an essay supporting Holocaust denial by the very same McGowan who wrote the very article Carol linked to; for more on the site on which it appears, see CODOH. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)