Talk:Israel Shahak

POV of Duke et al paragraph

Jayjg's wrote in his revert here as "restore WP:NPOV in this section." It seems to me the current version is POV because it says in effect: THESE BIG ANTISEMITES LIKE HIM!!!!! [3 sentences; 3 long quotes in references] (Mezvinsky says they misuse his work.) [1 sentence, no long quote in refs]. That seems to be a pretty obvious guilt by association POV right there. (I did just add to counter the strong negative POV Mezvinsky writing in same source: "It should be obvious that Israel Shahak and I abhor what these anti-Semites do but that we are not responsible for them or for what they do."

Looking at the refs I find that:

• "Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions" is actually a very sympathetic article that needs to be quoted elsewhere in this article. Will put on my do list.
• and that just a few words were edited out of the Bogdnar quote which were seems pretty pov; so I put them in.

My reverted version emphasized that some people criticized him because he was found on antisemitic sites which said nice things about him. My question is, why would it be more POV to lead with the Mezvinsky sentence than to lead with assertions Shahak (and Mezvinsky for that matter) are published on a bunch of bad web sites (or that he was criticized for that)? Or does it just depend on one's POV?? CarolMooreDC 16:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before (please review the archives). Reliable secondary sources regularly commented on Shahak's value to and use by antisemites; Shahak's own co-author responded to this issue. How can one "lead" with a response to an issue one has not yet raised? In any event, it would seem impossibly POV to just include the response/defense of Shahak without actually listing the issue itself, as brought by multiple sources. Next, you complain about "3 long quotes in references", but then complain that other quotes in the references aren't long enough! And finally, the "very sympathetic article" is already "quoted elsewhere in this article". It would be helpful to read the article before commenting on its contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I did review the archive and saw different discussions, not the one I brought up. Actually what you write about order does make sense, though I still think all the "reliable sources" are trying to promote guilt by association. Just annoying IMHO.

If you don't think it's likely others will take out quotes one thinks are too long, one can add quotes that balance them, which I did.

I see I did miss the other use of Ari Alexander because the same reference was used in two separate and separated footnotes. Stuff happens. CarolMooreDC 02:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Shahak wouldn't have given David Duke the time of day, but he got three whole sentences in the article as if he is somehow a great and worthy commentator. Now he has a brief mention (which is a compromise since he deserves nothing) and two sentences which are about Duke and not really about Shahak are gone. Zero^talk 10:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad that someone else also saw that point and did something about it. CarolMooreDC 18:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple secondary sources have commented on this, so it can't simply be suppressed. That said, I've shortened the material to one sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering Duke is mentioned in the first sentence, whose foot note is used as an excuse to attack Shahak, that is hardly suppression of the fact that his work is used by such people. And your "one sentence" on Duke is just a run on sentence of the previous three. So looks more like a plain old revert without sufficient discussion to me. CarolMooreDC 22:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He's no longer "mentioned in the first sentence", since the source itself didn't mention his work being on websites, which is what the first sentence was about. He's mentioned in exactly one sentence of 32 words; perhaps a bit longer than average, but hardly "run-on". The rest doesn't merit a response. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. Duke is now in 7 (that's SEVEN) sentences in the article, despite being entirely irrelevant to the subject of the article. Some of those sentences don't even mention Shahak. This blatant stacking of the article has to stop. Zero^talk 01:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Duke was mentioned in exactly one sentence of 32 words in the article, which you removed. Were you reading a different article, perhaps? Also, why are you calling people like Ari Alexander an "opponent of Shahak's writings"? Is there some source for this? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can count perfectly well. The footnotes are part of the article, in fact they are the most blatant pov pushing in the article. I didn't delete Ari Alexander so I don't know why you asked about him. Also, why is Bogdanor treated as a reliable source when everyone knows he's only an activist? Zero^talk 15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So what do you think of my proposed paragraph below? Frankly, I'm about ready to do an RfC on the whole issue (or NPOVN??). It is absurd that there is all this detail in this article, and not even a reference to the one mention in Duke article. Obviously a guilt by association implication. Why not just have one of his critics say it in the article, as I do in my proposal. CarolMooreDC 04:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice this thread before I made my edit because it wasn't at the bottom of the talk page, so apologies for that. However, I don't understand why Duke was removed from the first sentence when the source does state that Shahak appears on his website. "Jewish History, Jewish Religion (1994) is... more likely to be cited on a neo-Nazi website, than your local synagogue's... (Radio Islam contains the full text of Shahak's work) as well as groups that are often openly anti-Semitic (David Duke and Bradley Smith include Shahak's book on their websites)." Alexander, Ari. "Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions", MyJewishLearning.com. Accessed June 13, 2010." 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

At some point the editor who did it may explain; I can't quite remember who and don't feel like checking. You can if you like. It might have been a sloppy oversight; not sure. CarolMooreDC 04:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV paragraph

• RE: Duke, if Shahak is such a big influence, move all that material to the David Duke article where right now there's just one unreferenced sentence; here it's just POV guilt by association editing;
• It's just piling on to fully quote refs that merely assert he's on nasty sites and then fully quote the whole reference; therefore the first sentence should be ref'd only by the four names and years of publication;
• The most cogent criticism is from Moaz, so just quote it in the text, with the short ref. and thus there is sufficient context for Mezvinksy's reply.

Shahak's works are found on neo-Nazi and antisemitic websites such as Radio Islam and those of David Duke and Bradley Smith. Jason Moaz wrote in The Jewish Press: "It's a truism that you can tell a man by the company he keeps, and if you go to just about any neo-Nazi or fundamentalist Islamic website you'll see the company that keeps Shahak: His articles and commentaries are lovingly preserved under such titles as 'The Jewish Hatred Towards Christianity'; 'The Jewish Laundry of Drug Money'; and Israel's Discriminatory Practices Are Rooted in Jewish Law." In a new introduction to his re-edition of their Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Norton Mezvinsky wrote that antisemites and antisemitic groups "utilize unduly Shahak's criticisms in trying to justify their hatred of Jews. They have continued to do this either by citing and/or using out-of-context some of Shahak's points" and that "It should be obvious that Israel Shahak and I abhor what these anti-Semites do but that we are not responsible for them or for what they do."

References
^ Moaz, Jason (2001); Alexander, Ari (2010); Posner, Laurence (1999); Institute for Jewish Policy Research (1996).
^ Maoz, Jason (2001)
^ Shahak, Mezvinsky (2004), p. xiii-xiv.

Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Everyone likes it? Meanwhile, I do agree that the current references and all those long quotes support noting that that these people are critics of him to some extent (least true of MyJewishLearning.com). However, if they weren't quoted, per my proposal above, I don't think it would be necessary to describe them at all. CarolMooreDC 04:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's an absurdly inappropriate edit. Reliable secondary sources discuss Duke's use of Shahak, so it's not "POV guilt by association", it's just following WP:NPOV. In addition, citation templates all provide parameters for quoting text precisely because quotations assist with verification and with understanding exactly what sources have said. Why have these footnote quotations been removed, while lengthy footnote quotations repeating Shahak's religious claims have been retained? What part of policy suggests removing quotations in footnotes because "it's just piling on to fully quote refs"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, nothing appropriate to future edits.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in saying ‘If someone would say we won't save a non-Jewish life on the Sabbath, he is a liar,’would appear to take a dim view of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas.

Asher Zeiger 'Don’t violate Shabbat to save non-Jewish life, top Shas rabbi says,' at The Times of Israel, 17 May 2012 Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt he would, as do most Jews. Obadia Yosef is in his 90's and for some time now is more known among Jews and Israelis for his outrageous statements than anything else.

Saving the life of a Non-Jew on the Sabbath is not controversial but accepted: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1358/are-you-allowed-to-save-a-non-jews-life-on-shabbos

To quote R' Moshe Feinsten, "A refusal to treat a non-Jew on the Sabbath would be totally unacceptable... (Igrot Moshe, Orah Hayyim 4:79; Additional sources below for this ruling can be found below.)

The one that is most cited is "to prevent the Gentiles from hating and persecuting us (מישום איבה)," for if it happened that a Gentile died and it became known that a Jew refused to save him, they would not be too happy (for obvious reasons). Another reason is based on Nachmanides (Ramban), who rules based on Leviticus 25:35 that a Jew is obligated to save a Righteous Gentile (גר תושב), even on Shabbat. (Additions to Sefer Hamitzvot, "Positive Commandments that the Rambam Neglected," 16. Cf. R. Shimon ben Zemah Duran, Zohar HaRakia, 81 n. 39. Cf. also Meiri Yoma 84b.) This is ruling is then extended to include all Gentiles. (See "Laws of Medical Treatment on Shabbat" by R' Dov Karrol for more details about this approach.) In addition, many Rabbis nowadays feel that we have an extremely strong moral and ethical obligation as well, based on the overarching principles of "all people are created in the Image of God" and Tikkun Olam, "Sanctifying God's name," and "Do not stand idly by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.”

When choosing whose life to try to save when one cannot try to save everyone, the Talmudic answer is NOT to select on who is Jewish but rather who has the greater likelihood of survival. f two patients come before a doctor with the same life threatening problem simultaneously, he or she should first treat the one most likely to survive (NA YD 152:2). When all other factors are equal, the Talmud (SA YD 151:9) gave a hierarchy to follow which, however, is difficult to follow in practice in our day (NA v5 p. 112). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• What the 'correct' answer is is irrelevant - Wikipedia is not the place to debate proper religious doctrine. Those who criticize Shahak by saying that, according to their own interpretation, of course you would save the gentile, would similarly be missing the point. What matters is are there any people out there who, claiming to be Jews and acting on the basis of that, would refuse to save a non-Jews life on the Sabbath. The answer to that is probably yes - there are all sorts of religious people out there with all sorts of practices. This line of argument is like saying that an abortion clinic could not possibly have been blown up, and as proof quoting the Pope and various Christian theologians arguing that Christianity forbids things like blowing people up. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree as have stated before and deleted last two paragraphs of telephone incident as irrelevant. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I re-added the content because it belongs in the article. The source article directly addresses Shahak's claims so it's very relevant here. It's not some kind of general religious debate (as CarolMooreDC, who made the edit I reverted stated), but debate precisely about Shahak's claims. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

As discussed in archive 7, Boteach's comment makes no sense, unless he had the impression that the person asking for the phone was not Jewish (something not in his article or any other source we know of). Although I agree with you that it directly addresses the incident, I don't think it is helpful to have nonsense in the article. Zero^talk 03:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Zero, there are two issues here. One is persistent attempts (for over three years now) by CarolMooreDC to remove this material on entirely spurious grounds; archive 7 is filled with examples of and discussion on this. The latest example is the recent removal of the material on the grounds that CarolMooreDC "agrees" with an IP editor that the material is "irrelevant". The IP editor, in fact, makes no such statement or claim, but merely disagrees with an earlier IP editor who supported Boteach, on the grounds that there are "probably" people who would do what Shahak's claims because "there are all sorts of religious people out there with all sorts of practices". I hope (but am not optimistic) that these kinds of policy violating justifications and edits have finally come to an end.

The second is your statement that "Boteach's comment makes no sense, unless he had the impression that the person asking for the phone was not Jewish". It's unclear to me why Boteach's statement would make no sense, and I see no reliable sources in archive 7 supporting this view. Boteach is a fairly famous Orthodox rabbi, who has stated (in the context of Shahak's claims) that he finds Shahak's story to be "curious" because he can find no religious prohibition on allowing any individual to use one's phone on the Sabbath. Editors on this talk page have stated that there is a difference if the person asking to use the phone was Jewish or non-Jewish, but that is pure original research; there are no reliable sources supporting this argument, and Boteach, the Orthodox rabbi, states the opposite. Moreover, even if such a source could be found, stating "Boteach is wrong regarding Shahak, because Jewish law actually states XYZ", then WP:NPOV would demand that we include both views, not simply excise Boteach's.

The bottom line here is this; if editors have issues with the content here, then the solution is to find more reliable sources that discuss Shahak and/or the phone incident. What Wikipedia does not allow is deleting reliably sourced material simply because one disagrees with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I was responding to AnonIP 124.191.144.183's first sentences: "What the 'correct' answer is is irrelevant - Wikipedia is not the place to debate proper religious doctrine. Those who criticize Shahak by saying that, according to their own interpretation, of course you would save the gentile, would similarly be missing the point." The rest of it frankly didn't make sense to me so maybe I totally misread the meaning. Reading too fast I did miss that Boteach's opinions has some relation to what Shahak alleged.

But rereading the section again more carefully after a year or so, I think really the biggest problem is that it is NOT under criticism since obviously it is heavily weighted towards criticism. There should be a brief mention of the incident in his politics section since it is the incident that first brought him to public attention (as somebody or other said, though would have to research that ref in old edits). That would solve my nagging WP:Undue/POV issues and save a trip to WP:NPOVN. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the "biggest problems" here is that there is a "Criticism" heading to begin with, one that was inappropriately added despite the fact that a) the material in the "Criticism" sub-section does not all consist of criticism, but rather a mix of support and criticism, and b) WP:CSECTION clearly explains why Criticism sections should be avoided regardless. Carol, please remove it. As for putting the discussion of the telephone incident in the "Criticism" section, the description of the telephone incident is just that, a description of the incident and its fallout and analysis, not "criticism". This suggestion has been made before and rejected, for obvious reasons. Please review the archives. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually last year I came to understand that about "criticism" sections, but didn't even know I'd put it in. :-)

Not putting the incident in historical context still does not make sense to me but if neutral editors gave better reasons, maybe it would.

My question: why does the opinion of a noted historian (Tom Segev on the facts of the what happened during the incident get one sentence and religious writers opinions about what happened get seven or eight?

Plus a few other issues, some of which could be fixed with a bit of reorganizing and more referenced info. Fixing it all not my highest priority, but just a nagging annoyance. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In the current version Boteach's writings actually get about the same amount of coverage in the article as Tom Segev's (about 2 lines on my monitor, not including quote), but even if there was a difference, Boteach is an authority on the subject, while Segev is not. I have no problem with expanding the part about Warhaftig's opinion, but only if the source addresses the issue with the same depth as Boteach does, i.e. we should not artificially inflate the paragraph just to make it longer. I also don't see a way to shorten the part with Boteach without losing any of the content. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Expertise may be one part of what makes a Source Reliable, but bias is another part. When bias is too strong, one must wonder about expertise. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how either of them are experts - experts on whether or not one particular individual refused to allow the use of his phone one time? Experts on what Shahak genuinely believes regarding a claim he made about seeing something? - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg, you know as well as anyone that a Jew is forbidden to assist another Jew in violating a prohibition. But I'm not editing. That part of the article pales into insignificance compared the malicious attempt to paint Shahak as a Nazi. Zero^talk 02:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

To say that a Jew is forbidden, or not forbidden, is to make a religious judgement. Forbidden by whom ? God ? There is only a correct answer to this if we assume a particular religion is correct and that a particular interpretation of that religion is the correct interpretation - assumptions obviously made by people such as Boteach. It's like saying "real Muslims are prohibited from killing innocent civilians". Who determines who is or is not a 'real Muslim' and what 'correct Islamic teaching' is? Even if you wish to claim that their is a correct interpretation, and we can determine who the true Jews, Muslims, Christians etc. are, that would still only apply to one narrow set of beliefs. If Mormons are 'true Christians', in the sense that they have the right religion, it would make no sense to then talk about who the true Jews are and who has the 'correct' interpretation of Jewish scripture, as all Judaism would in fact be false.- 124.191.144.183 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is WP:Undue opinionating on what a big anti-semite he was as well. (I did at least move the Nazi web pages down to the end where there is the preceding context as opposed to it's just popping up out of the blue; not a 1rr issue since I reverted self per Jayjg's request which I agreed with. If that's a problem I'll revert the section header removal for 24 hours.)

The antisemitism allegations are just more typical/less interesting a thicket than the telephone incident WP:undue debate and unproven allegation he admitted he lied. Rereading it again this time around I see all sorts of aspects I missed last time. CarolMooreDC🗽 06:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust survivor

Lead is starting that way :

Israel Shahak was a Polish-born Holocaust survivor and Israeli professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, known especially as a liberal[1] secular political thinker, author, and civil rights activist

May I suggest we remove the fact he was a Holocaust survivor and keep this for the end of the lead in sorting information per relevancy. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead is only four sentences so not clear where there would be a better place in the lead. What the article might need more of is his comments on his experiences and the whole Nazi genocide. Searching books google for "Israel Shahak Holocaust Nazis genocide" I see he had a lot to say but, oops, it's controversial again. Obviously the most NPOV sources. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Context vs. guilt by association

Per this diff Plotspoiler claims Nazi types quoting Shahak should come first because it establishes "context" of criticism. But we know even if no neonazi ever quoted him, all those criticisms would be made. (As they are on so many people who are the tiniest bit critical even of the state of Israel.) So it seems to me that putting that information first is just a quilt by association tactic. One more diff to add to the list of POV edits in this article for review by others when energy permits. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that given no response I finally got around to bring this issue here Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Israel_Shahak_.22guilt_by_association.22. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

People have been doing this for year. Notice the difference between this article, and say, all the writers/speakers that influenced Anders Behring Breivik. Now, if you try to add to the bios of Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and others, the fact that Breivik was deeply influenced by them, (And with a lot more WP:RS than has ever reported the neo-nazi quotes about Shahak!) -then you will see it swept out in no time. But in Shakak-bio it stays, why is that? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's called systematic bias of editors and sources... CarolMooreDC🗽 06:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is one of the reasons why Anders Behring Breivik loves English Wikipedia (no kidding!) Nobody in Scandinavia has praised it as much as he has. I guess it fits his world-view perfectly. :( Cheers, Huldra (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

carol - do you really think there is a systematic bias of editors and sources? does it swing only one way or both (or even in other directions)? and huldra, just because 'other stuff exists' doesn't mean it applies here. Soosim (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is "other stuff does NOT exist". It applies only here. (Oh, and on the bios of some other critics of Israel) Then it must be legitimate to ask...why? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

sorry, huldra, i don't follow what you wrote. Soosim (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, very specifically: I can easily find dozens of WP:RS that mentions that Anders Behring Breivik was greatly influenced by, and praised people like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller or Daniel Pipes. Why cannot that be mentioned in the articles about Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller or Daniel Pipes? If David Duke does not go out -totally- of this article, why should I not insist that other writers are treated like Shahak? Very specifically: Do you have any argument against adding the info about Breivik to these bios? Or will you argue for ...another standard for those writers? Cheers Huldra (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Huldra obviously goes further than I in wanting to remove completely the material mentioning use of Shahak's material and pointing out it's not allowed on other articles. And I see User:IronDome has removed it entirely.

In any case, the first sentence detailing which groups use his material and making guilt by association claims is problematic because it's from one of those hundreds of advocacy groups, Institute for Jewish Policy Research, and should be removed as a self-published work about a 3rd party. However, because the info is out there I think it is appropriate to include this from his co-author, as previously in the article:

In a new introduction to his re-edition of their Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Norton Mezvinsky wrote that antisemites and antisemitic groups "utilize unduly Shahak's criticisms in trying to justify their hatred of Jews. They have continued to do this either by citing and/or using out-of-context some of Shahak's points" and that "It should be obvious that Israel Shahak and I abhor what these anti-Semites do but that we are not responsible for them or for what they do." CarolMooreDC🗽 17:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That already is in the article (last sentence. ) There is still a lot which should be removed, sentences like "Like the Nazis before him, Shahak ..". Now, "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is in (a) definition of what anti-semitism is[1], why is it more acceptable to use in discussion of an individual? "Arguments" like that is not an argument, is is just a defaming technique. It should go, together with the Jason Moaz -quote (same stuff) and note 37. That just for a start. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading the whole section more carefully, it is clear it Moaz (who I note actually is published by ADL, not Jewish Insitute, in one of their reports that walks that comes quite close to being just too biased to use here) is used a couple times as one of the ways of repeating variations on a theme over and over. The criticism paragraphs and quotes are just WP:Undue and should be cut 30%. Just because there are a thousand pro-Israeli "WP:RS" willing to yell antisemite at the drop of a hat doesn't mean we have to use them all and promote the propaganda frenzy. Only higher quality intelligent criticisms should be used. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I read his (long) Haaretz obituary once, and guess what: not a word about David Duke, etc. I believe it was the same for the other major Israeli newspapers; so why should it be mentioned here? This wikipedia -article has been used to defame him for years, in a manner which would never have been allowed for the writers I mentioned above. Again, why do we have different rules for different people? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)