Talk:Israel Shahak

See also: talk:Israel Shahak/archive 1, talk:Israel Shahak/archive 2

Cohn link

Please stop deleting the critical Cohn link. If we were to delete everything that "misquoted", we'd have to delete all of Shahak's work as well. Cohn is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of British Columbia and a published author, and the criticism was published in a periodical which has been publishing since 1952. There is no policy reason for removing it; on the contrary, policy is quite clear that we simply quote what reliable sources say, we don't attempt to evaluate if they are correct. All the moreso for an external link, which is not even quoted. As for your false Talmud quotes "analogy", there are no reliable sources which carry them. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cohn's edited quote is deliberately misleading as anyone who looks at the full quote can see. This makes it unreliable. I have nothing against honest criticism of Shahak. What's your reason for adding Cohn's link? Apart from the misquote it doesn't contain anything arguements that aren't put better in the other links. Conch Shell 08:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:RS: "However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion or in any other way attempt to investigate or evaluate whether they are right or wrong." Just because you think Cohn is in error, or misquoting, or whatever, that's no reason not to include the include the link; on the contrary, you are doing the very thing you should not be doing, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In addition, WP:RS applies to actual citations in an article, where the standards for inclusions are even higher than for external links. As for Cohn, he provides interesting and cogent criticism of Shahak; there aren't all that many links provided doing so, so there's no reason for removing it. Please do not remove it again unless you have a policy-based reason for doing so. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There you go, removing the Luke Ford link was much more sensible. As long as you work within policy we should have few, if any, edit conflicts. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cohn's paper turns out to be a book-review in Israel Horizons, the mouthpiece of Meretz USA. It's no more a reliable source than any other political pamphlet. Conch Shell 07:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a book review in a published magazine; if you have any sources indicating that Israel Horizons is unreliable, let me know. As for Werner Cohn, he's a published professor, and the requirements for external links are looser than for article sources. Please don't remove it again unless you have a policy based reason to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to me to show that Israel Horizons isn't a reliable source. You might as well allow links to articles in neo-nazi magazines on the Holocaust page. Conch Shell 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Meretz-Yachad is an Israeli dovish social democratic left wing party." Are you seriously comparing them to neo-Nazis? It's reliable enough for criticism; we don't state his criticisms as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

removing indentation

I've removed this link because it's deliberately misleading and is not from a reliable source. Neither are the other comments. Ariel Sharon made an off the cuff remark about the 'Jewish lobby running Washington' but I wouldn't take a report about it in the liberal Jewish press as a statement of fact.

Incidentally Jayjg, you state on your user page that you are on the Wikipedia arbitration committee and that Jimbo Wales personally made you an administrator. Do you realize that by canvassing political opinion (for the Israeli right) you are endangering Wikipedia's status as a charitable foundation? Conch Shell 13:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring them all, because there's no evidence any of them are unreliable. The only thing that seems to make them "unreliable" is that you don't like them. Ariel Sharon never made an off-the-cuff statement about the "Jewish lobby running Washington", that was something his enemies made up to vilify him. Finally, I haven't "canvassed political opinion for the Israeli right)"; are you threatening some sort of legal action against Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The links look perfectly appropriate for a criticism section, and the sources may not be reliable as source for facts, but they are certainly reliable (and notable) as source for opinions. I too am curious just what Conch Shell's last paragraph could conceivably mean. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

i) Political pamphlets are not reliable sources of information. That's all there is to it.

ii) I don't need to threaten to take legal action against Wikipedia, I'm not the only one whose noticed a deliberate political bias threatening Wikipedia's charity tax breaks. Please don't give its enemies any more ammunition. Conch Shell 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (PS Sharon's remarks were broadcast on the BBC)

I'm not sure what your criteria for acceptable sources are but it clearly isn't wikipedia's, it is obvious that they are perfectly acceptable and reliable sources. Furthermore I really hate it when people try to bring macro-political rants into a content dispute, I don't think it helps your argument in the least.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Political pamphlets are not reliable sources of information. That's all there is to it. That's correct in that they are not reliable sources of factual information; they are, however, obviously reliable sources of opinion -- and that's what's being reported. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A magazine published by a Zionist organization is not a "political pamphlet", and you have deleted other properly sourced criticisms. Your claims of "deliberate political bias threatening Wikipedia's charity tax breaks" need further explanation and documentation, particularly in light of the fact that you seem to equate dovish left-wing social-democratic Israeli political movements with the "right-wing" and "neo-Nazis". And finally, Sharon never said that on the BBC or anywhere else, it's a fabricated quote. Your assessment of sources is completely unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

removing indentation

i) RE: Sharon - I actually saw the clip on the news (along with several million other people), but this is another matter.

ii) Political pamphlets are not reliable sources of information, no matter what their perspective.

iii) A link to Cohn's article appears on the Jewish History, Jewish Religion page were the controversial quote appears in full. By including a link to a deliberately misleading article (without any counterbalance) you are violating Wikipedia's rules on canvassing opinion. Please obey them. Conch Shell 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

i) No, it's fabricated, and has never been on the news.

ii) Magazines are not political pamphlets, and published magazines are certainly good enough for presenting opinion.

iii) The link is not "deliberately misleading", and including it as an external link does not violate any Wikipedia rules, including "canvassing opinion", whatever you imagine that to be. There is no policy reason for removing this, and no-one agrees with your doing so. Please stop doing it.

iv) You have violated the WP:3RR rule on this article; please do not do so again, it is a blockable offense. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It was broadcast by the BBC - this is a separate matter.

The link contains a deliberate misquote, as you know. Adding deliberately misleading information is considered vandalism.

I made three reverts in 24 hours, like Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. Neither of us have broke any Wikipedia rules. Conch Shell 08:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't broadcast by the BBC. This is a complete fabrication, and please stop repeating it. The "quote" is a hoax (see here), and your inability to recognize or admit this undermines your whole claim to be able to evaluate sources. As well, the Cohn link does not contain any deliberate misquote that I am aware of, and it is not up to you to make these assessments anyway, as has been repeatedly explained to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The actual clip was broadcast nationaly on British TV, I saw it along with several million other people. No doubt it will apeear on youtube.com in the near future. Conch Shell 08:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, maybe in your dreams. Let me know when it shows up. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the book found, and how much of it is found there?

The entire book (not "extracts") is found on Radio Islam.[1] The entire book is also found on Biblebelievers,[2] Historical Review Press,[3] , and CODOH.[4] These are obvious, easily verified facts, and each time you try to suppress the straightforward facts you force me to do even more research, which inevitably ends up making Shahak and his book look worse, because Shahak is basically only supported by extremists, anti-Semites, and neo-Nazis. Your attempts at whitewashing are only making things worse for you; you should quit while you're ahead. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no link to "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" anywhere on the Bible Believers pages. Perviously only selected chapters appeared on Radio Islam. If Shahak's work was anti-semitic then there would be no need for people like Cohn to fabricate quotes. Conch Shell

Did you not read what I wrote above? The entire book is also found on Biblebelievers. Click on this link!---> [5] <---Click on this link! As for Radio Islam, the entire book was always there, they haven't changed anything. Please do proper research in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the book had been removed from Bible Believers and most of it from Radio Islam, they've reinstated it since I last checked. Conch Shell 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's always been on both. When did you check to see if it was gone? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Towards the beginning of this year. Conch Shell 09:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It ought to be possible to check this using the internet archive at www.archive.org/ --Dannyno 08:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • "Shahak is basically only supported by extremists, anti-Semites, and neo-Nazis." - Jay, kindly explain into which of these brackets do you fit 1. Gore Vidal, 2. Noam Chomsky, 3. Edward Said (who wrote the foreward to Jewish History...), 4. Christopher Hitchens, 5. Prof. Norton Mezvinsky, etc?

"Editorials have described him as"

Conch, can you explain what you're trying to add with this phrase? Do you imagine that saying someone is an "anti-Semite" is anything but an opinion? Or do you imagine there are scientific tests for these things, with some objective scorecard at the end, which are somehow more reliable than "editorials"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is a fuzzy concept. If it is merely opinion then it has no place in a Wikipedia article. I added the phrase "editorials have described him as" to give information about the source of the descriptions. I have also replaced the anti-semitic people category with the anti-semitism one to maintain a NPOV. Conch Shell 09:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite the "editorials". --Dannyno 07:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Shahak - a righteous Jew ( by some defintions ) - I will have to read his work. Below it is claimed he said Judaism is racist. If he was alive he probably would agree - though I doubt he ever said it, but of course someone seems to want to say he did. Isn't it us Jews vs them goyim - if that aint racist what is. I hope you don't think I am not better than a goy.

The whitewashing must stop

Conch shell, the glowing Guardian obit specifically described him as being rejected from the kibbutz as "too weedy". Paul Bogdanor is a published author, and the CAMERA criticism is properly cited, and stated in a neutral tone. Claims of anti-semitism are always "empirical", there's no scientific measurement of anti-Semitism. Your constant removal of properly cited, neutrally stated information from this article, simply because it is critical of Shahak, is, at this point, vandalism. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA are claiming that Shahak is one of the world's leading anti-Semites without producing any evidence. This claim is not authorative and has been removed.

Edward Alexander is a retired English professor, his claims regarding social history are not authorative and have been removed.

Paul Bogdanor is a business man, his comments on political science are not authorative and have been removed. David Irving's drivel is removed from other pages for this reason, he too is a published author. The same standards should be applied here.

Removing unauthorative material is not vandalism. If you wish to dispute my edits then please take this matter to arbitration. Conch Shell 13:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's not how it works. You need to attempt to gain consensus for your position here on the talk page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms are not presented as facts, but as opinions, and cited to the sources. Alexander and Bodganor are both published authors who have written about this and related topics. Exactly who, in your view, is qualified to "authoritatively" describe someone as an anti-Semite? As I asked before, is there some institute which scientifically measures these things? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Exactly who, in your view, is qualified to "authoritatively" describe someone as an anti-Semite?"

My opinion is irrelevant - you're not trying to get me to say that I'm making a POV edit are you, Jayjg?

Perhaps you'd care to explain what make's Alexander and Bodganor's opinions more notable than David Irving's? Conch Shell 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

David Irving does not qualify as a reliable source so it is obvious why is opinion is less acceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As Jayjg pointed out we are not talking about statements of fact but mere opinion. Alexander and Bodganor are not a reliable source of information in this instance, what make's their opinions more notable than David Irving's? Conch Shell 13:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If nobody can give a reason why Alexander and Bodganor's opinions are notable then does anyone have any objections if I remove them? Conch Shell 08:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Irving is not a reliable source of anything -- even his own opinion! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Comparing a convicted Holocaust denier with published and respectable authors is specious. Please explain what you mean by "notable", and provide the policy or guideline which discusses what "notable" means in this context. Until then, you need to stop trying to completely whitewash this article, which is already highly favorable to Shahak. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

removing indentation

It's not a case of whitewashing but preventing a smear-campaign. When I added a definition of anti-Semitism by Shahak on that page it was removed because he was not an academic in a relevant discipline whose work had been subjected to peer review, therefore his opinions were not notable. Alexander and Bognor are not academics in relevant disciplines whose work has been subjected to peer review, therefore their opinions are not notable. Conch Shell 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the policy or guideline which confirms your application of "notability" in this context. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could quote the policy or guideline you used to remove a quote from Israel Shahak on the anti-Semitism page? Conch Shell 08:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If nobody can give a reason why Bognor's opinions are notable then I propose removing them. Conch Shell 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can quote the policy or guideline which confirms your application of "notability" in this context, I propose you stop trying to whitewash this page, and move on to some less disruptive activity. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a case of me whitewashing but you conducting a smear-campaign. Also, your cronies now won't be able to use the excuse of "notability" to remove material that they object to in the future. Conch Shell 08:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Notability" depends on context and usage. Your editing has now passed from the disruptive stage into the vandalism stage, and will be dealt with as such. And please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I most humbly apologize for any offence that I have caused you by implying that you are on friendly terms with Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Guy Montag (etc). Conch Shell 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a "crony" is nothing like implying they are on friendly terms. Please use the Talk: page for honest dialogue, rather than dishonest sarcasm. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

YEA!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Notability depends on context and usage." Can you quote the policy or guideline which states this, please? Conch Shell 08:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've asked you to do the same, since you keep trying to remove Bogdanor (and just about everyone else critical of Shahak) on the grounds that they are not "notable" here, or in some other way disqualified from commenting on him. See my questions above from over a week ago, e.g. Please explain what you mean by "notable", and provide the policy or guideline which discusses what "notable" means in this context. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, all my edits are in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Conch Shell 08:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as has been explained many times. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Could someone please explain the justification for including IS in the "anti-Semitic persons" category, when the point is clearly disputed? CJCurrie 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Shahak bio odd inconsistency

According to the Guardian October 30, 1988:

He lived in the Warswa ghetto from 1940 until the Jewish uprising in the spring of 1943 when he was deported with his parents to Poniatowo concentration camp.

Shahak and his mother escaped and were hidden by the Polish resistance in Warsaw. Discovered by the Gestapo, his mother bribed their way on to a register of Jewish citizens of foreign countries, sparing them the "selection" system which led directly to the gas chambers.

Shahak spent two years in a foreign nationals' compound in Bergen-Belsen extermination camp.

According to the Guardian July 6, 2001:

during the wartime Nazi occupation of Poland, the family was forced into the Warsaw ghetto, his father even sought out a chess tutor for his son. But soon the family was torn apart. Shahak's older brother escaped and joined the Royal Air Force, only to be shot down; Shahak's father disappeared and the hiding of fair-haired Israel with a poor Catholic family ended when his mother could no longer pay for his keep. In 1943 both were deported to the Bergen Belsen concentration camp.

Warsaw and Bergen-Belsen 1943 same in both versions. The second version fails to mention Poniatowo. Perhaps a simple omission, since it appears to have been a very short time. But in the first version they were "hidden by the Polish resistence", and then his mother had enough money to bribe German officials. In the second version he was hidden by "a poor Catholic family" who betrayed them when his mother ran out of money. Strange. Perhaps Conch Shell can explain? --Denis Diderot 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is also a bit confusing, from Shahak's statement to the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs Apr 4, 1974: "My high school was in Tel Aviv, the first high school ever established in Tel Aviv. My university study was in Jerusalem. I spent my life before 1945 in Germany." Perhaps he meant to say that before 1945 he was in Bergen-Belsen for 2 years? --Denis Diderot 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just include information that is common to both? Conch Shell 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I had hoped you knew more about Shahak or how the two versions came about. The third version (where he lived in Germany) should probably just be ignored.--Denis Diderot 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whitewash redux

CJCurrie, can you explain why you continue to whitewash the article? The Praise section is now twice as long as the Criticism section, and even includes some original research defending Shahak against the fact that he's the darling of anti-semites and Holocaust deniers. What more can you ask, at this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My last change was a minor adjustment in the wording. It wasn't "whitewashing". CJCurrie 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok, but my comment was made hours before that minor adjustment, and obviously referred to your previous deletions, which, among other things, left sections with headers but no content. In any event my latest edit seems to have met with your acceptance, so I'm glad we can move on from that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to explain the confusion -- I missed your comment the first time around, and read the date as "23:36, 25 July 2006" this time. CJCurrie 04:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this removed? If accurate, it's important for NPOV.

Despite this claim, Shahak repeated the accusation in his 1994 book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, describing the reaction to the Haaretz article as "sanctimonious twaddle", adding that the rabbinical authorities did not reverse their decision. CJCurrie 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important, thats why it was added, and thats why it was re-added. but, it seems, it was you who removed it ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but is it accurate? Did Shahak actually respond to Jackobovits? Was Shahak even aware of what Jackabovits published? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Jackabovits claimed that Shahak had withdrawn the claim, but shahak continued to make the claim, publishing it in his 1994 book, and giving his opinion of the general (not specific) reaction to the article published in Haaretz. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it either -- I believe Conch Shell did, though it may have been accidental. CJCurrie 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Shahak dismissed the rabbis' reasoning for saving non-Jewish life as 'sanctimonious twaddle'. I've added a direct quote to make this clear. Should this paragraph even be in his biography? Conch Shell 13:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I added the paragraph about phone incident, is because shahak stated this as his reason to begin study of the Talmudic laws regarding the Jewish interaction with Gentiles, which is a prominant feature of a lot of his work. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"RE: He also disputes Shahak's conclusion that Judaism is "racist" because it has laws against denying medical treatment on the Sabbath" - did Shahak actually state this? I can't find the quote in 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion.' Conch Shell 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding policy; it's not up to you to decide that a source is "wrong", and therefore exclude it. We simply quote what the sources say. You did it for months with Cohn, and more recently with any other source critical of Shahak, and now you're starting again with Student. Stop please, and instead edit in accord with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Student's article is not a reliable source of information, Shahak never equated Judaism with racism as any peer review would have shown. Consequently I'm removing the erroneous material (without breaking the 3RR). Conch Shell 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where you got the idea that you are the authority on what constitutes an unacceptble source, but the source in question clearly qualifies as reputable and reliable enough for a wikipedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How can an article that contains a glaring error be reliable? Student is making a statement of alleged fact, not expressing an opinion. Conch Shell 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your incorrect opinion that it contains a "glaring error" is irrelevant, and in any event, as WP:V points out, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact that you continue to defend Shahak even though his own works contain "glaring errors", yet nitpick about anyone who criticizes Shahak for this, is telling. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak never stated that Judaism was racist, that's all there is to it. Conch Shell 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion; it certainly was his thesis. Anyway, what does that have to do with policy? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jay, Shahak argued that organized Orthodox religious Judaism, as practiced in Israel during the 1960s, was guilty of condoning discriminatory practices. This argument may be disagreeable on its own terms, but it is not the same as the accusation that "Judaism is racist". The latter is your extrapolation of Shahak's beliefs, not an NPOV assessment of the same. CJCurrie 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, kindly explain your statement where you accused me of editing "solely for the purpose of disruption". --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tom, you reverted in original research, even though it had been explained that it was original research, and then when that didn't work, you reverted in a poorly written modification of another section that had already been reverted by other editors. Given my intimate familiarity with your editing, it looked deliberately disruptive to me; do you have another explanation? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I "reverted in" a poorly written whatsit? What are you talking about. Why do you feel to the need to constantly attack other people? --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to show up on every single article that is even touched by certain editors and revert to a previous version? Though I suppose I should at least thank you for even touching the talk page this time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you an example; you've now written "Reviewing Shahak's account days after his death, Rabbi Gil Student... ". That's a pretty neat trick; after Student died, he still managed to review Shahak's work. I disapprove of bad writing and bad behavior, because neither belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Yentob's phrasing of Student's criticisms. The original was misleading, if we can't agree on this then I suggest we take the matter to arbitration. We can sort out whether Bodganor's opinions are notable at the same time. Conch Shell 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please quote people accurately, rather than using original research to make up fake quotations for them. And please keep in mind that Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first, and that it does not deal with content issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here's a quote from Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion: "in our struggle against the racism and fanaticism of the Jewish religion, our greatest enemies will be not only the Jewish racists (and users of racism)...". Need anything more be said about this? Feel free to move on to some other bogus issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"concerning medical treatment"?

Student's arguments aren't about medical treatment per se, but actually about Shahak's claim that Judaism is racist, based on things like this alleged law about medical treatment. Please re-read his arguments to see what their focus is. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, Shahak argued that traditional Orthodox Judaism was culturally chauvanist. As I've stated before, this argument may be objectionable on its own terms, but it is not the same as the assertion that "Judaism is racist". More to the point, Student's refutations (the three that we've cited, anyway) are connected with the specific controversy surrounding about medical treatment. CJCurrie 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Shahak specifically said that Judaism was racist; there are any number of quotes that show this, but the one I've listed above should do. Would you mind reverting to the accurate text? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide one of these quotes then, Jayjg? (and not a misquote from someone else). As you said with regard to Student "quote him accurately please, don't make up quotes for him." If not I propose restoring Yentob's edit. Conch Shell 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly quoted Shahak on the page, but that's not relevant for the article, since, unlike you, I don't plan to do any original research there. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The current text is accurate. CJCurrie 23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And how about your assertion that Shahak doesn't describe Judaism as racist; is that accurate? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to post this to the other section, but if you wish I'll do it here:

One can speak of the "racism and fanaticism of Christianity" (or any other religion) without accusing the entire religion of racism in blanket terms. "Of" can mean both "inherent in" or "emanating from" -- and it isn't clear which sense Shahak intended in the (half-)quote that you've provided. Does Shahak ever criticize Reform Judaism or Conservative Judaism? Does he never praise Jewish religious figures from the liberal side of the spectrum? My understanding is that he was a vocal secular critic of "traditional Orthodox Judaism"; this doesn't mean that he condemned the entire religion (and those who practiced it) outright.

I won't pretend to be an expert on Shahak, but reducing his argument to "Judaism is racist" seems like a serious oversimplification. (I'll look up "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" when I get a chance ...) CJCurrie 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above discussion, the current text remains accurate. CJCurrie 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak simply refers to "the Jewish religion", he doesn't differentiate between Orthodox, Conservative, Reform. And he calls it racist. Here are some other quotes:

• "When racism, discrimination and xenophobia is prevalent among Jews, and directed against non-Jews, being fuelled by religious motivations, it is like its opposite case, that of antisemitism and its religious motivations."
• "Such discussion will, it is hoped, lead people take the same attitude towards Jewish chauvinism and the contempt displayed by so many Jews towards non-Jews (which will be documented below) as that commonly taken towards antisemitism and all other forms of xenophobia, chauvinism and racism. It is justly assumed that only the full exposition, not only of antisemitism, but also of its historical roots, can be the basis of struggle against it. Likewise I am assuming that only the full exposition of Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism can be the basis of struggle against those phenomena. This is especially true today when, contrary to the situation prevailing fifty or sixty years ago, the political influence of Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism is much greater than that of antisemitism."
• "And, for a Jew who truly seeks liberation from Jewish particularism and racism and from the dead hand of the Jewish religion, such an answer is not very difficult."

It's no "oversimplification" to state that Shahak considers Judaism to be racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes. I'm now certain that Shahak meant "emanating from" rather than "inherent in". CJCurrie 03:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're certain. In any event, the claim that Shahak saw Judaism as racist is hardly outrageous or unjustified, and the persistent attempts to remove Student's quotes and arguments based on this claim have no basis in policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Jay, I do not agree with that assessment. My reading of the quotes you've provided is that Shahak believed Jewish religion to be responsible for fomenting an exclusionary ethos within Jewish culture. Whatever one may think of this statement, it is still not the same as the belief that "Judaism is racist", and reducing Shahak's essentially secularist beliefs to such a statement is both unnecessarily and inflammatory. CJCurrie 03:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak's entire "analysis" is "both unecessary and inflammatory". In any event, your disagreement with Student's summary is interesting, but not particularly relevant to the article content. Given the above quotes, it's quite clear how Student could have come to that conclusion, regardless of your more sympathetic view of Shahak's statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually disagreeing with your assessment, not (in this instance) with Student's summary. I can fully grasp how Student could have arrived at his conclusions concerning Shahak, and I have no objection to conveying his conclusions in the article -- but I don't think we should elevate them to the level of uncontested truth.

In any event, I'm not sure that anything in this discussion is relevant to the article text. Even we are to assume the worst possible interpretation of Shahak's beliefs, the wording that sparked this discussion ("concerning medical treatment") is still accurate. CJCurrie 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Conch Shell still feels the need to whitewash even your wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with her/him. CJCurrie 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering that your wording is a compromise version, it might make sense for all of us to enforce that compromise, rather then me being forced to every time. If you think your wording is reasonable, then act on that; otherwise there's no point in just me doing so, I might as well just go back to my own wording, which I believe was better. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of difference between saying that some Jews are racist and that all practitioners of Judaism must be racists. Does anybody have any objection to the current version of the article and if so why? Conch Shell 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's quite a difference, but then again, nobody makes either argument. And I have no objection to the current version - if you do, please say why. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak never said that Judaism was racist for denying medical assistance to non-Jews on the Sabbath, the words "Shahak's accusation" are misleading. However the phrase "this accusation" is not. It doesn't make a false claim about what Student said, either. Conch Shell 08:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak did indeed use his dubious story as evidence of why, in his view, Judaism was racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at JHJR (to which Student refers) he didn't. Conch Shell

I've obviously looked at JHJR; I'm the one who had to finally bring all those quotes from it, to dispel yet another series of false claims you had made, specifically that Shahak didn't say Judaism was racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between refering to Jewish racism (the subject of your quotes) and saying Judaism is racist. 83.105.123.18 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I initially used the phrase "Shahak's views concerning medical treatment" to distinguish that particular controversy from Student's "racism" accusation. If Conch Shell thinks the current wording is still ambiguous or unfair to Shahak, I would be willing to consider another rewording. CJCurrie 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to the current edit. Conch Shell 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There will always something. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sure that this article is accurate, as you do on other pages. Conch Shell 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're just trying to whitewash Shahak, as you have continually done. If it weren't this issue, you'd just come back in a couple of weeks and yet again delete some other criticism of Shahak, hoping to slip it in under the radar. We'll stick with the compromise wording for now, which is fully accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Student's paper is based on a misunderstanding and shouldn't even be in the article. Keeping it in the article is the comprimise. Conch Shell 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)