Talk:Gilad Atzmon

"Holocaust Denial" in lead WP:undue/libelous?

Assuming you don't change this while I'm writing, the "Holocaust denial" in the lead section uses vague throw away accusation from secondary sources (including Mary Rizzo's defense of Atzmon!). At the very least WP:UNDUE. The new paragraph doesn't support such an accusation sufficiently to be in the lead - or to even exist at all?

Perhaps even more controversially, particular in anti-Zionist UK circles, was his distribution of a Holocaust revisionist/denialist paper by Paul Eisen,[7] leading to accusations of Holocaust denial.[5][7][8][9] Atzmon strongly rejects the accusation, noting, for example, the stigma attached to discussing any details of the Holocaust, not least the usual "6 million Jews killed" figure, even though the Holocaust museum Yad Vashem mentions several figures between 5 and 5.5m; in public debate the 6m figure has become an "abstract fetish", as if a somewhat smaller number could make the Holocaust harmless.[37]

The #37 source you use is a hodgepodge of an interpretation of the German translation, Atzmon's reply and someone else's interpretation of the Atzmon reply, and copied to Uruknet from a blog!! Not very WP:RS even if it is trying to defend him. Frankly I think the whole topic should be deleted as WP:libel unless better sourcing and accurate description of the real incidents/comments under discussion can be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Promoting Eisen's Holocaust denial paper is a form of Holocaust denial, and the allegations are well-sourced. THF (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In the context of Atzmon's well-documented view that it is the fetishism especially of the numbers involved, it is simply wrong (if not actively malicious) to insist that his distribution of a paper (the exact contents of which we do not know) proves he is a denialist, even when he says otherwise. Rd232 ^talk

I just noticed that the Mary Rizzo article gives the fullest details, which I missed before, but in the context of why it is absurd. Surely should be mentioned? And another reference is the story about Mr. Greenstein getting Atzmon canceled, certainly something that probably belongs in the bio in its own right. I'll have a lot of work to do fixing it up when get started in a day or two. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it really discomfiting when you use a smiley-face to describe glorifying a bigot. THF (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you need a WP:wikibreak: she's clearly describing the "lot of work". WP:AGF and also WP:SOAPBOX. Rd232 ^talk 19:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:THF interpreting and falsely characterizing my smiley face into a WP:attack does indicate you've lost editorial perspective on this bio. Perhaps you could delete that attack? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I find it offensive. I'm merely noting that I do. THF (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps CarolMooreDC's wikilawering is verging on being disruptive. At minimum she needs to learn to distinguish between a criticism and an "attack". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? What? And THF was clearly accusing Carol of intending to "glorify a bigot". This is not criticism, it's an attack. Rd232 ^talk 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense. She, and apparently you also, are making a threat of sanctions against a user for a minor criticism by attempting to label it an "attack". Try to remember that at least some editors here do not find antisemitism and holocaust denial amusing. It is a difficult subject, and if you are going to edit this article you need to at least try to be sensitive to that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the attack does not lessen it. There was no talk of sanctions. Rd232 ^talk 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is always a threat of sanctions behind accusations of personal attacks. If you had said, instead of accusing of an attack, please review WP:NPA, it would have been much better....but there was no attack at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

<back dent
Again people are allowing their personal POV's to interfere in this process but attacking and justifying attacks and then blaming the victim(s) of the attacks for considering at some points asking for these attacks to be looked at. Just keep to WP:RS and WP:NPOV and there won't be a problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD and unbalanced tag

The lead should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. It is inappropriate to delete the major reason why Atzmon is notable -- the controversy over his antisemitism -- from the lead. THF (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be "a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic". Not a charge sheet. How's the current short sumary for you? Rd232 ^talk 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I view it as a whitewash that gives far too much WP:WEIGHT to Atzmon's fringe opinion. Mainstream sources recognize Atzmon as an anti-Semite, and only the far left and other anti-Semites feel otherwise. The article as a whole suffers from too much weight given to quote-mining Atzmon for defenses of his inexcusable statements at the expense of what reliable secondary sources say about his anti-Semitism. THF (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And what are your "proofs" that controversies over his antisemitism - as opposed to controversies over his various view points - make him notable? In fact google his name and you have to go down 70 odd entries to find one that calls him an antisemite. YOu can list list those WP:RS here explicitly stating that that's what makes him most notable. Please do so below. And others can look at some of those top 70 sources and see what they say is. Then we can compare and contrast. In the interim, it is WP:OR to stick it in there and vs. WP:BLP and certainly against what a couple editors think. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already cited multiple sources that say that his music is overshadowed by his political views. Every lengthy profile of his music mentions his politics; most of the political articles about him restrict mentions of his music to two words. Atzmon himself says he "doesn't make jazz records" and that politics is more important. THF (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF creaks under the strain when you're asked to demonstrate anti-semitism and merely mention "politics". Perhaps you misunderstood, -read Carol's first sentence more carefully. Rd232 ^talk 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two choices we can use for this article to keep it NPOV:

• We can restrict ourselves to what secondary sources say about Atzmon.
• Everybody gets to pick their favorite primary-source Atzmon quotes and add them to the article.

Right now we do neither: secondary sources are limited on phony grounds of WP:WEIGHT to the point of minimizing the most notable issues regarding Atzmon, and primary sources are mined to find quotes rationalizing his anti-Semitic statements, while other anti-Semitic statements are left out. This is both an NPOV and a NOR problem: after all, why are we choosing to quote Atzmon on one issue, rather than, say, his strange views on Borat, where he condemns Sacha Baron Cohen for "giving a bad name to anti-Semitism"? I left that out because it isn't in a secondary source other than a blog, but if everyone else gets to add their favorite Atzmon quote from his websites and nowhere else, why shouldn't that be in the article? THF (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You have quote one source saying his music is overshadowed and that's in the lead; you have quoted NO sources saying "the major reason why Atzmon is notable -- the controversy over his antisemitism." So what's your complaint?

Per your second comment, again, you show your bias that he's a total antisemite and therefore nothing he says should be given any credibility at all. Other biases have been complained about above repeatedly.

I've been editing in very contentious Israel-Palestine articles and bios for almost 2 years and this is the first time I've felt I could prove an editor was so biased and disruptive he should not be allowed to edit an article for some period of time. I will consider figuring out the process by which one accomplishes this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct use of primary sources in views, etc.

One of the issues (apart fom the cherrypicking - cf latest with Borat) is that THF seems to have his own definition of a primary source. It would help if he made this definition explicit instead of merely wielding it rhetorically whenever it suits. (NB we've already read the policy so don't merely point to it - if necessary, quote.) Rd232 ^talk 00:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The best way to structure the Political views is to have under "Views" section paragraphs describing each of his most important 6 - 9 frequently repeated views by topic (instead of merely chronologically as previously), combining WP:RS and quotes or at least references to relevant articles so people don't have to take our word for it. In the past editors thought just describing/quoting his statements would give readers certain opinions about his alleged bigotry and it was NPOV to just present them as they were. That was first screwed up by POV pushing descriptions; now those are introduced by recent primary source quotes on various topics with lots of tags. Neither works too well.

Then the "Criticism and Response" section should mention general and specific accusations of antisemitism (including the fact of the one actual and other threatened protests), and his and other responses. This would be place for accurately describing the more controversial and usually more offhand statements (Holocaust, Protocols), including his responses for BLP reasons.

At least User:THF came up with some more resources on the above and doing some searching today I found a lot more interesting info that I would not have found with out User:THF forcing me to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

don't you start about "primary sources" (or accept THF's framing, which I think is wrong). I'm hoping someone at WP:NORN can clarify the issue. Rd232 ^talk 04:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Per below I've already said that both Wikipedia:Or#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source allow them - but should be used carefully.

Therefore if any WP:RS has raised what he has to say as an issue, it then is identified as a notable enough to be described in detail - and all his major issues have been mentioned, including as answers to questions. Filling in the blanks of missing info, or quoting him when he corrects wrong or distorted info, is proper.

However, per THF's comment about Atzmon's views being too fringy to detail, if a subject is notable for a bio, and his opinions are discussed or criticized by many WP:RS, they do have to be portrayed accurately, with the relevant details, even if it means using mostly primary sources. In fact, searching "section political views" I find that all sorts of fringy people have their political views detailed, and even have whole articles on them, with lots of primary sources, because they are so widely discussed. Another indication that THF is wrong. But bring the issue to the relevant noticeboard if that response is not good enough. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

THF has already shopped the issue all over the place (not in a notably neutral way, I can't help remarking):

• Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Gilad Atzmon
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gilad Atzmon
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#Gilad Atzmon (but not the equally relevant Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine...)

Including your post on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gilad Atzmon we're getting WP well covered. Perhaps an RFC and a watchlist notice as well ;) ?

Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What goes around comes around; guess I should have mentioned BLP listing here :-) Feel free to do what you feel is necessary. I'll always stick in my two cents. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR/Edit warring warning

Some of us have overdone it in the last 36 hours. I recommend people read WP:3rr cause from now on I'm going to be counting those that are not corrections of big BLP violations, like libel, etc. :-) Though we always should be on best behavior anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like at least three editors have hit their limits for today, FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More problems with recent edits

• Slights Rizzo: The Gag Artists, Who's Afraid of Gilad Atzmon? or deletes Ben-Dor:The Silencing of Gilad Atzmon from this version third party opinions which deal with constant attacks on him, including attempts to shut down his events through threatened and actual protests - which new WP:RS sources document.
• Deleting even a link to Atzmon's response to the Board of Deputies in Counterpunch.
• False charges of misuse of primary sources when both Wikipedia:Or#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source allow them.
• Failure to recognize that uncooperative whole sale rewrites ignoring other editors complaints may result in other editors doing the same.
• Constant insults against both the subject of the article and other editors working for a nonlibelous and fair article. That alone should be basis of a block for a few weeks working on this article.

Hopefully the editor involved will cool down over next few days and not gut the good faith attempts to make the article more fair that other editors may engage in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the ben-dor para (maybe THF did as well) as it didn't seem to add much; a link somewhere would be OK but it is basically a general essay, not about Atzmon. The Pizza in the Park saga ([1]) I wasn't aware till your post; it should be mentioned briefly. Agree that THF needs to (a) cool down and (b) read policy more carefully. In general, let's all make an extra effort to resolve the issues without escalation. Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

original research?

why are there OR tags all over direct quotes published in a newspaper? the quotes seem to be pulled directly from the source. how does OR apply here? untwirl(talk) 15:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be the wrong tag. WP:synthesis of primary sources is probably the actual problem. In any case it would have been better to tag the section instead of using so many inline tags. It might be better to remove the tags for now, and discuss the problem...if there actually is one. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One tag and one ref sufficient. As I outlined above, having several paragraphs introduced by WP:RS to say he has a position on various issues and adding and descriptions/quotes from his material that details, corrects, etc. as necessary by consensus of editors is way to go. Currently his views on a bunch of issues are jumbled together, with some left out. It was meant to correct the POV paragraphs that immediately follow so is understandable.CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Political Views subsections

Looking through the mostly longstanding WP:RS material that User:THF deleted on 3/22 because it didn't all prove his POV point, suggests some categories for the views section. Note that even articles about people like Noam_Chomsky#Political_views and Israel_Shamir#Views list their views so this is hardly a novel suggestion. They can be listed by either bullet points or subsection headings, the two different formats offered in those examples.

• On music and politics
• On Zionism
• On Jewish Identity
• On Israeli war crimes (Lebanon '82, West Ban '02, Lebanon '06, Gaza 08-09)
• On The Holocaust
• On Jewish Power and Protocols of Zion

Miss anything? Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well here I actually agree with the removal. Some of it could maybe come back, especially the music-related stuff, but Atzmon isn't notable enough to expound all of his political views in detail. A summary of his views is enough. Also the German thing has genuine WP:RS and WP:OR issues (unlike THF's tag extravaganza); this may apply to the current content on the issue as well, but THF's blanket complaint has drowned that out a bit. Furthermore, I think even for someone of Chomsky's prominence, this kind of Views section is appallingly badly done. It may be the only way WP can do it, but I don't think it's something to aim for. Prose summary is much better than listing, especially in that awful WP recentist style of In Month Year X said Y, then Z said blabla... Rd232 ^talk 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary rather than listing is ok with me. The question is should partisan WP:RS opinion piece detractors and those couple news articles that parrot them be given as much weight as they are? Atzmon is becoming increasingly notable with his latest album.

Also, Atzmon's article may attract people who want to trash him and help destroy his career and NPOV editors must guard against this. Reminder to all editors:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV) - Verifiability - No original research

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

Also, I finally figured out that http://www.uruknet.de/?p=40226 is both Atzmon and his quoting a letter to the editor by the organizer of the German event, who he doesn't name. I don't know if it was published, but the confusion makes it a questionable source. I will make a bunch of edits in next couple days to correct all the problems I have been complaining about this weekend, either generally or specifically. Meanwhile it's time to delete or tag the worst material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC on 2 developing versions

Two versions of developed. Here is a diff between the two versions, and links to version A (focussing on describing the subject as anti-Zionist, describing anti-Zionist views, and the anti-semitism controversy); and version B (focussing on describing the subject as anti-semitic and anti-Jewish). Not entirely incidental to this discussion is a previous version from several days ago, before I joined the discussion following a WP:BLPN posting, which IMO verges on the libellous. NB be warned that this generates all the heat and emotion of an Israel-related topic you might expect (which is why I normally stay clear of these topics, but I've got involved because of the BLP issues and can't just walk away now). Rd232 ^talk 12:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• An RfC seems a little pointless since my edit was intended only as a stepping stone toward a more NPOV article, and consensus could make changes at any point. My edit made two changes:

1. move almost all of the political criticism that was in the lead down to a section that discussed his political views, and
2. changed a tag I regarded as too large and too wordy to another (smaller) BLP tag. I think that no harm, and with three tags on the article, justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Discouraging discussion - nice. Summarising these changes like that - nice. Rd232 ^talk 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you made a reply without content. Just accusing me of "discouraging discussion." How do you figure my reply discourages discussion? I stated the way I see this dispute, and accused you of doing that. But, since you are accusing me, I will mention that you have violated 3RR with an excuse of BLP violation. What BLP violation? If you show me anything in the article that violates BLP, I will happily remove it myself. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The content of my reply, if you want me to spell it out, was that describing an RFC as pointless (before any external inut, which the topic badly needs) is discouraging discussion; and your summary of your edits left out the key changes. And if you don't see how simplistically describing someone as an anti-semite (plus removal of more accurate description of the subject's views) is a WP:BLP issue, I can't help you. You may disagree as to what should go in the article, fine; but how you can fail to see the nature of the dispute is beyond me and stretches my ability to WP:AGF quite a lot. Rd232 ^talk

• Also this RFC is not about you - the diff of your changes given above reflects similar changes being disputed with other editors (and not just by me). This clearly suggests an RFC is necessary "as a stepping stone toward a more NPOV article". Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There are very reliable sources to support his antisemitism. That content is based on good sources, such as The Guardian. Moreover, his replies to the accusations (and no one -- including Arzmon -- denies the accusations are common) are included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there aren't "very reliable sources to support his antisemitism" as a statement of fact. The "good sources" you mention reveal a position which it is misleading to characterise as anti-semitism. The accusations are discussed in my version too. I'm not saying it's perfect, it could have more detail on the Jewish identity issue, but when the starting point is labelling him an anti-semite in the lead, that is insupportable. My version is a far better basis for ongoing editing. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything ambiguous in this discussion of Atzmon's antisemitism [2]. It is discussed in a very matter-of-fact way, and presents it as something well known. Atzmon seems to have actually cultivated that as part of his public image. Antisemitism is as much a part of his public image as Groucho's mustache was part of his public image. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

One person's opinion, in a blog (albeit a newspaper blog). Atzmon responded at length in a response blog on the Guardian website (a link I did add to the article, I don't know if it's still there). Under what WP policy is David Hirsh's opinion taken as fact regarding Gilad Atzmon's views whilst Gilad Atzmon's own views are disregarded? Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't previously edited this page (other than a format fix today), but I am aware of the controversy around Atzmon's views on Zionism. The page seems to quite well reflect what I know of the subject, although there is some repetition in the accusations of anti-semitism (e.g. the "rational to burn down a synagogue" alleged quote is repeated). Re:Malcolm Schosha's comment above, we cannot and must not assert in the article that Atzmon is an anti-semite, only that he has (notably) been accused of anti-semitism. Atzmon has denied anti-semitism and certainly hasn't cultivated it as part of his image; you risk conflating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism.

Regarding the POV of the references, Carol Moore's note that David Hirsh is not a NPOV commentator is quite correct, he is well-known for making ready accusations of anti-semitism. Any mention of Holocaust denial in the lead would be wrong, as it would give this minority POV undue weight.

Is it worth noting that he opposes an academic boycott of Israel? [3]

Would a clarification of his position to the effect that he does not consider himself a Jew, and doesn't believe that there is a "Jewish race" enlighten his unique position? (sorry if I've missed its inclusion). "I do not consider myself a Jew... I am sympathetic towards religious Jews as much as I am sympathetic towards religious groups or religious belief in general, and yet, I am far less sympathetic towards the secular Jewish identity. I argue that once you strip Jewishness of its spiritual content you are left with mere racism"... "Sephardic Jews... are associated with what is labelled as oriental origin (Middle East, Mediterranean, Balkan, Arabia, etc.). The term Ashkenazi refers largely to Jews of European descent. But it is slightly more complicated again, as many of us know, the Ashkenazi Jews are in fact Khazarians. Their ancestors converted to Judaism around the 9th century. That fact is pretty embarrassing for the Zionists because if this is the case, then for most Ashkenazi Jews “home” means the land of the old Khazar kingdom (somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea). Their geographical origins have nothing to do with Palestine whatsoever".[4]

Would including a voice siding with Atzmon's right to speak add some balance, so it is not just him and some lukewarm support from the SWP? e.g. "One can read Atzmon and not agree with him, dislike his ideas or style, and especially when he critiques the mindset of Zionism and Jewish Identification as well as the mechanisms that protect Israel from having to act decently as is expected of any other nation in the world,, but no one should be permitted to deny him the possibility to exercise his right of free speech. One might not like what he says, whether the critic be Zionist or anti-Zionist, but shutting him up seems to be very old school left, right out of Stalinism".Counterpunch Fences and windows (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

<--backdent
Just a note that the author of the piece above is David Hirsh who stakes his reputation assailing antisemitism. Not an NPOV source, as are many of the others - and more mainstream sources that copy what they say.
More importantly, there obviously is a double standard in the real world about exploring and criticizing the psycho-dynamics and politics of Islam/Catholicism/etc. and their adherents and doing so to Judaism/Zionism and its adherents. Even the calmest, most intellectually factual and precise professors who dare to approach the latter subject are trashed.
The question is: Should this double standard be allowed to be propagated on wikipedia?? This is the larger issue those editing the Atzmon article have to deal with. It's certainly the reason I have put Israel Palestine Collaboration banner on this talk page since the article obviously is within the parameters of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration which came out of the 2008 Request for arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles. I think it is time for Wikipedia to discuss this issue on the Meta-level. Ideas on how to do that? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is The Guardian, not exactly famous as a defender of Zionism. David Hirsh is notable exactly on the subject of antisemitism. What is the complaint? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"The source is The Guardian" implies it was in the news section; but it wasn't even printed as an opinion piece. It was just a blog, same as Atzmon's response. Rd232 ^talk 20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Views and Allegations of antisemitism and responses

I think that the two subsections, Views and Allegations of antisemitism and responses could be removed. That would do a lot to remove balance problems, and a detailed discussion of his political ideas in those sections seems unnecessary. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they should be removed at all. Atzmon is more well known for his criticisms of Judaism than for his music. I don't see how it's a balance problem to label a "proud self-hating Jew" as such. Only in the sense of marketing, not in the sense of honest.y In addition, someone who states that Judaism is destroying the world is not merely an "anti-zionist." unless it's wikipedia's assertion that anti-zionism contains antisemitism. His positions are against Judaism, not Zionism. The page should reflect what he has actually said, not what it's editors consider convenient to frame him as. Drsmoo (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 has requested page protection for this article, and your two most recent edits to the article make it more likely that will happen. The issue, at this point, is not antisemitism. The issue is getting the article right according to WP rules. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The article certanily wasn't right when i said that Atzmon denied being an anti-semite. He doesn't, in no way shape or form. Nor is he an "anti-zionist" activist, as most anti-zionist organizations want nothing to do with him. He defines himself as a proud self-hating Jew. The issue with this article is that some editors believe it is NPOV to publish quotes froma well known person that appear anti Jewish. It is not out of context, it is perfectly in context, and it is accurate. Drsmoo (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In Atzmon's own words: "Following the growing outrage of some Zionists as well as crypto Zionists at my critical writings, I find it important to mention that in none of my political texts or interviews have I ever used any kind of racially orientated arguments. My criticism of Zionism and Jewish identity is merely ideological and philosophical. ...For me racism is categorically wrong and it is that very realisation that made me into a devoted opponent of Israel and of Zionism."[5] Rd232 ^talk 18:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is ok to use denials of Atzmon's antisemitism, as long as you use a reliable secondary source, and do not delete the other sources that say he is antisemitic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources are permissible as appropriate (WP:SELFPUB part of WP:V), and WP:NPOV quoting of Atzmon's views from interviews and his Guardian blog makes his views perfectly clear anyway. I have not deleted any sources (not that criticised Atzmon anyway), only summarised them. Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

re: original suggestion, are you saying nothing should be said about his political views in the whole article? Unclear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

False statements about other editors views: Drsmoo's comment "some editors believe it is NPOV to publish quotes froma well known person that appear anti Jewish." is absolutely false. The word 'context" is used more than three dozen times on this page because keeping his comments in context has been the main point of a couple of editors who have a problem with your promoting your POV that he IS an antisemite and everything he says must be in that light. You should retract your false, uncivil statement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Following Rd232's comments above, it is relevant to note that Atzmon's reference to "crypto Zionists" is a specific attack on me and other anti-Zionist Jews; see his essay 1001 Lies abour Gilad Atzmon "my latest book... is in fact all about Roland Rance and his crypto Zionist brothers". For Atzmon, to denounce Zionism as a Jew is in fact to endorse and embrace Zionism: "I do believe that Jews Against Zionism are genuine. They simply fight Zionism without realising that they themselves are Zionists" (The 3rd Category and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement), "‘anti-Zionist Jews’ are basically a bunch of ‘Just Peace UK’ (a left Zionist group). If this is the case we should never take JAZ seriously again. If this is the case, Jews Against Zionism are operating as undercover Zionist agents" (The Protocols of the Elders Of London). This is why many anti-Zionists atgue that Atzmon is an antisemite, not an anti-Zionist, since he explicitly denounces any expression of identity as a Jew.

I have just noticed that there is no mention in the article of Atzmon's attack on the Bund. In his charmingly named essay Swindler's List, he writes "Bundists believe that instead of robbing Palestinians we should all get together and rob who is considered to be the rich, the wealthy and the strong in the name of working class revolution... The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution". Could there be a clearer exposition of the view that all Jews are involved in a conscious conspiracy to defraud and oppress non-Jews? For this reason, and in contrast to such people as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, Atzmon is characterised both by Zionists and by anti-Zionists — who agree on little else — as an antisemite. This is much more than the regular name-calling and defamation thrown up at critics of Israel. In fact, the charge of antisemitism has been so discredited by constant misuse, that many people are understandably sceptical when confronted by a genuine example. RolandR (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

At least you have an obvious conflict of interest. Still doesn't justify such selective quotation. Atzmon says "Robbery cannot be the way forwards. Whether it is Palestinians, Iraqis, world banking or even the Tsar himself. Robbing involves a categorical dismissal of the other. Hence, it must be premised on some inherent self-righteousness. Robbery and plunder doesn’t live in peace with a deep understanding of the notion of human equality. Sadly we have to admit that hate-ridden plunder of other people’s possessions made it into the Jewish political discourse both on the left and right. The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution. I better stay out of it." Rd232 ^talk 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. Could you please remove your edit, which is a WP:SOAP violation? In addition, your attitude toward Jews indicates that you have a WP:COI problem of your own in editing this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[redacted to avoid indefinite universe-wide block for violation of WP:CIVIL]. "my attitude towards Jews." splutter. Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems my previous edit was too subtle, and Rd232 did not get the point. When Rd232 wrote: Sadly we have to admit that hate-ridden plunder of other people’s possessions made it into the Jewish political discourse both on the left and right, that statement is antisemitic. Is that clear? It is an antisemitic statement. The reason is that there are crooks and cheaters in every religion, and anyone who says that the the problem is particularly Jewish, as Rd232 does say, has made an antisemitic statement. As a result, if Rd232 does not promise to stop editing this article, because of an obvious conflict of interest, this discussion is going to continue on AN/I. Have I been clear? The problem is that Rd232 has gone from discussing antisemitic statements to making an antisemitic statement. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you have not read Rd232's edit carefully, and not read the sources at all. The phrase you object to was a quote from Atzmon, and Rd232 was criticising me for quoting it partially rather than in full. So Rd232 does not say what you accuse him of saying, and I think you should strike out that part of your remarks. RolandR (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the mistake. But there is nothing really to apologize for, or need to strike anything, because I criticized the quote, not Rd232 who I know nothing about as a person. As for knowing the sources, it seems that I can count on you to memorize Atzmon's essays and interviews. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at least that second para from Malcolm clarifies the misunderstanding, and I can understand the reaction now. Though again, Malcolm's claim that that sentence is "anti-semitic" isn't one I can support. Example: I'm British. Is the following statement "anti-British"? Sadly we have to admit that hate-ridden plunder of other people’s possessions made it into the British political discourse both on the left and right. Only if you read into it a claim which isn't there, which is that all British support "plunder". In conclusion, you're expecting to find anti-semitism and this is clouding your judgement. Rd232 ^talk 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly be anti British. Perticularly if it wasn't true. Drsmoo (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you're entitled to your opinion. But in respect of the above textual analysis it places a greater weight of interpretation on the English language than it may reasonably bear. Rd232 ^talk 03:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your example (would it be anti British?) omits the most bigoted part of the statement "The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution" The statement that Jews on either end of the spectrum from nationalist to progressive are intrinsically robbers is an antisemitic statement. Drsmoo (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"intrinsically" is complete interpolation on your part. And he simply isn't saying that all Jewish nationalists believe X; he's saying that where nationalists are affected by the robbery discourse, this is the reasoning. And for progessives, the reasoning is Y. But X and Y are suffering from the same fallacy, which is "Robbery and plunder doesn’t live in peace with a deep understanding of the notion of human equality." The paragraph is actually anti-racist (!), it's talking at heart about equality. This is one of Atzmon's most misunderstood and misrepresented points: he argues Zionism is a form of Jewish racism, and we'd all be better off without racism, without exception, even if that has certain consequences for the Jewish state of Israel (getting rid of it qua Jewish state) and for Jewish identity. Rd232 ^talk 05:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be a possible interpretation if he were writing about nationalists. But this is an essay about the Bund, an explicitly anti-Zionist, internationalist revolutionary socialist group. The fact that he has explicitly attacked anti-Zionist Jews as "undercover Zionists" and "ethno-tribalist activists", and sometimes in far more obscene terms, is surely evidence that his attack is not on Zionism and Zionists, but on anyone who has thhe temerity to identify as a Jew. RolandR (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope people are finished trying to decide for themselves if a particular statement is antisemitic. Our job is to reflect WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Choices: Links only or full explication

The problem with Atzmon of course is he isn't a professor trying to construct a coherent world view but an artist and provocateur who tries to make people think, so he may too often react or skiff or provoke in an ideologically inconsistent fashion. (For example, how can you be an ex-Jew and a "self-hating jew? And I'm sure somewhere he denies he's an anti semite, even as in other quotes he says he thinks the word is a misnomer.) Therefore there really are two options:

• 1) Say something to that effect (which some WP:RS surely will generally support) and link to several of his pages of articles, interviews, and to the four or five most credible critiques of him (Perhapswhat User talk:Malcolm Schosha was suggesting?
• 2) Introduce his views with that fact and then use WP:RS and his quotes to try to tease out what the heck he's saying. We were trying to do that (without such an intro) in earlier version which with various small changes stuck for almost a year until March 21 when User:THF effectively gutted it. Which allows Mr. Rance to introduce his issues as part of Atzmon's political conflicts (though perhaps that general topic needs to be another section! ;-)CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do something in this direction (if I understand you correctly) and Drsmoo immediately reverted (see section below). He didn't even seem to notice that I removed some things he'd consider POV (because in those cases they actually were). So his reversion put those back... Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Trying to make people think"? Or, perhaps, he has just discovered that the noterity his antisemitic remarks bring is good for his business? We do see this man very differently. It is beyond my understanding how anyone can excuse the kind of disgusting stuff he says, as 'thought provoking'. The only thinking he is provoking is skinhead thinking. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost giving up

If nobody has any opinion on Drsmoo's reversion of my 2 hours' work NPOVing the article (diff, new version) then I wash my hands of this article, I'm not prepared to battle with POV warriors on my own; I've deliberately stayed awayed from such politically controversial topics because this sort of thing just pisses me off far too much. I came to this article because of the BLP issues (following the initial WP:BLPN posting), but if I'm not going to get enough support from the politically neutral (despite RFC and postings at BLP and elsewhere), then I give up. I've managed to remove the more libellous mischaracterisations but somehow I doubt that will last if I unwatch the article. Que sera sera. One more point, to those who insist on seeing him as a bigot: do not forget that (a) he is not a native speaker and (b) most of his remarks are oral ones and (c) that none of his remarks, taken in context by those seeking to understand his argument rather than see him as an "anti-semite", contradict Atzmon's repeated claim that he is not. He is against a Jewish ideology he sees as racist, which is not the same thing at all. Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone call Atzmon a "racist"? I know I did not, because there is no Jewish race. Judaism is a religion, having many diverse cultural aspects which serve to link Jews to Judaism, even when they have little (or no) interest in practicing the religion.

It is very difficult to edit articles like this, and I would not wish it on anyone. I am sorry about any occasion that I trampled on your feelings with my hobnail work boots. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But Malcolm, there is no such thing as a black race either, but this does not mean that black people do not experience racism. In fact, I do not accept the whole concept of race (which I believe was invented by racists), but this does not mean that racism is non-existent. Jews can experience racism whether or not they are a race, whether or not "race" really exists. So, in my usage at least, to call Atzmon an antisemite is indeed to call him a racist. I appreciate that we may use terms differently, and talk pages can help to clarify this. If some editors here consider antisemitism to be equivalent to, or a sub-category of, racism, while others think that these are entirely separate categories, then we are unlikely to reach any agreement on use of the term in the article. RolandR (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No. There is bigotry in abundance against Jews, but it can not logically be allowed as racism. In Israel I saw Jews from Poland who looked Polish, from Italy that looked Italian, from Ethiopia who looked Ethiopian, from India who looked Indian. Moreover, any person who wants can convert, and after conversion they are as Jewish as a Jew directly descended from David haMelech. It is not racism. (If you are inclined to argue the point, it might be better to move the discussion to my talk page.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course its racism. How can hostility/discrimination etc against members of a group of people (by virtue of membership of that group), when that group is self-defined largely by descent (albeit with confusing exceptions due to the Ashkenazi element) not be racist? You seem to imply that racism requires discriminating based on appearance; this may be the most common way to create the category of race (a completely artificial concept, as Roland notes), but it's not the only way. Antisemitism cannot be other than a category of racism. Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no Jewish race. How can there be racism without a race? Nazis thought there was a Jewish race. Why should Jews agree with Nazi mistakes? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an extremely tendentious and unhelpful thing to say. And the view behind it does not appear to be common. WP article "Jew": "the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group that traces its ancestry to the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East." cf Who is a Jew?. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

rd232- pls dont give up. the biggest problem with this type of article is that editors like yourself without an ideological stake end up being chased away by zealous edit warriors. maybe this needs to be taken to the next step in dispute resolution? untwirl(talk) 14:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is amusing to hear an edit warrior, and single purpose account, accuse others of edit warring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

recognize yourself in that comment, malcolm? count my reverts and compare to yours and then tell me who is the edit warrior. you might want to compare our block logs while youre at it . . . untwirl(talk) 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone who undoes major revisions without even the courtesy of an edit summary Malcolm diff should be rather careful about accusing others of edit warring.Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Untwirl a single purpose account [6], who is usually found trying to enforce anti-Zionist and antisemitic POVs in some of the most disputed articles in the Israel/Palestine disputes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that you're accusing a fellow editor of being a sockpuppet? cf Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. As to POV warriorness, you should look in the mirror: your block log v Untwirl's block log). And assuming that you meant Untwirl is very focussed on Israel as a topic, well your interest in pottery apart, your recent contributions are pretty similar, topic-wise Malcolm contribs and Untirl contribs. Show some respect to your fellow editors, even (or especially) if they disagree with you: per WP:ATTACK, remember WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

lol - ec - i am not surprised by this attack, coming as it does from an editor as well known as yourself for disruptive editing (block log) and incivility (helpful comments like calling editors "schmucks, creeps, and liars" and block extended for saying an article was "gang raped"). untwirl(talk) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I said that Untwirl a single purpose account [7], which is true. I have no idea if he/she is a sock, and have given up worrying about that problem.

As for "respect", I have no respect for the editors here who are trying to white-wash the obvious antisemitism of a man who revels on the notoriety it brings him. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I might add that yesterday you violated 3RR, using an unfounded claim of BLP as a lame excuse. I could have filed a 3RR complaint, but chose not to do so because I understood that you were frustrated and that you thought you were doing the right thing. Unfortunately, you are not willing to show much understanding or sympathy for those on the other side of the issue. The fact is that your whining about this article being difficult to edit is a little revolting, and I wish you would either suck it up, or find something else to edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha writes: "I have no respect for the editors here who are trying to white-wash the obvious antisemitism of a man who revels on the notoriety it brings him." That's your opinion but is it really necessary to WP:soapbox and WP:attack with it? Isn't that a bit WP:uncivil? Some of us will continue to try to make the article NPOV by at least giving proper context to his statements that, in context, usually - not always - sound more innocuous than portrayed.

Since you force people to express their POV's with your accusations, let me say that it seems to me Atzmon is just a very aggressive ex-Israel (Sabra) who is letting his anger/disgust with fellow Israelis and their supporters hang out in England where most people, including fellow Jews, are more used to polite discourse. (Not having visited London/England, please tell me if I'm wrong.) Having lived in New York City during my twenties and mostly hung out with very assertive and even aggressive Jews (who helped shape my own adult personality), it seems to me he's more artistically/politically fusing meshugenah with chutzpah to express himself, sometimes getting in over his head. An even more "out there" Abbie Hoffman. But even if I changed my mind tomorrow and agreed with you, I still think we must carefully look at the WP:RS who accuse him and identify their prejudices - or their sources if it's Reuters quoting a prejudice source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) malcolm, your strong desire to inpugn the subject of this article make it appear that you should refrain from editing, especially considering the importance for the project of the blp policy. untwirl(talk) 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He might consider taking a wikibreak from the topic, at least - it isn't going anywhere and editing those pottery articles is probably a whole lot better for his blood pressure! Seriously, there are a number of editors here whose commitment to WP:NPOV seems less than full, which they might consider thinking about (not to mention WP:BLP). And adding personal attacks on other editors isn't helping any. Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I spoke only of what he has said. For all I know the man himself is a saint. I think there is pretty wide agreement in the sources that what he says about Jews (and he says a lot on that subject) is, at best, deplorable. If you want to find someone who thinks that sort of talk is good, you will need to look at a source such as David Duke. What you, or I think about him is irrelevant. What counts is the sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done very little editing of pottery articles, although I know the subject well. Perhaps you should edit pottery articles also. It is not possible that you know less about pottery than about antisemitism. Might calm your nerves. By the way, my blood pressure is always normal, never high. And I do not get excited. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) i was about to congratulate you and agree with your admission that "What you, or I think about him is irrelevant" - and then you went and insulted rd again. for shame. untwirl(talk) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the insult? He does not know anything about pottery, or antisemitism. Is there something insulting about not knowing? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* untwirl(talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of confusing, POV, attack material till properly written/contexted

I removed one whole paragraph and a couple parts of paragraphs that were out of context and/or confusing (including in time order) and/or polemical rants obviously meant to support the view point of a couple people here that Atzmon is an antisemite and everything he says must be put in that light.

I am NOT opposed to all those topics and even most of those quotes being in the article, so please do not accuse me of sanitizing it. It just has to be done in a way that does not violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

Again, I think the best thing is to have several paragraphs that deal with his core beliefs, especially most up-to-date ones, and criticisms thereof. Each paragraph should be dominated by WP:RS but quoting Atzmon where he or others reply to any accusations or where it is necessary to be NPOV - If you truly believe he is an antisemite doing so should prove that to any reader. But cherry picking quotes from different eras to build a case in a dramatic polemical fashion - as material I deleted did - is just POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Major changes need to be discussed before, not after, the changes are made. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree; the result (re political views) is a bit of a mess, structurally. And I've already demonstrated that a major rewrite is just going to be stonewalled (and AFAIR I merely moved things about and made them fit better and expanded some quotes). Given the controversy, it would be a lot more constructive to discuss separate issues, starting maybe with changing one paragraph. Your work last night can be useful input for this, it needn't be wasted, but you've got to expect to defend each substantial change. Rd232 ^talk 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree political views was a mess and was dealing with poorly sourced and POV problems, including cherry picked polemics to make him look bad. Again, we need to divide into different paragraphs on different topics he addresses, with criticism of those specific view at end. That's the most NPOV way to do it. If we are going to revert, let's go back to [8] before USer:THF who admitted he was out to prove Atzmon an antisemite made his changes, despite many point by point protestations. Considering many paragraphs repeat material in others, slanting it, in a confusing jumble that is only NPOV thing to do. We can't just criticize ONE paragraph without dealing with same material in other paragraphs. But I'll have to deal with later today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One can criticise one issue at a time. And for instance in my version I've got 3 paras under Views: Israel, Jewish Lobby / anti-semitism, and Judaism/Jewish ideology. Could be improved of course but a start to organise the views. Then the criticism section doesn't repeat the issues, it merely describes who's criticised him, plus one para on Atzmon's general response. This seems to me well-organised and a good starting point for further editing, but it's been stonewalled without explanation. Rd232 ^talk 13:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much to absorb. Have to do it point by point per below, first eliminating the worst stuff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Biggest Source/POV problems fixed last night

These are the initial small changes I made to fix sourcing and obvious POV problems, some of which related to not showing context. Please explain whatever reason you have for NOT allowing them in. Please ignore any edits I made not in this list since they will be topics for another time. PS: If no one protests these changes I will make them soon.

Deleting his view that Zionism is racism

Since this in one of his major points, even if some editors would prefer his emphasis on it be left out as context:

diff POV to delete added information which gives actual context to what he says, ie my addition of bold:

• is known as an author and activist who is critical of both Zionism and Judaism for "supremacist, racist" tendencies.”

i don't think this quote belongs in the lead. untwirl(talk) 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

diff Putting back views of Editors of PTT in bold:

• He is a co-founder of and contributor to the web site Palestine Think Tank, established in May 2008 by individuals who believe "Zionism is racism." Its goal is "to educate those who don't know what Zionism is so that they are able to see how damaging it is and how it is a just cause to stop it".REF:About PalestineThinkTank.com page

Redundant statement

diff: Please let's delete this as Redundant to statement a couple paragraphs back

• Atzmon's harsh criticisms of Jewish identity have led to allegations that he is antisemitic.

POV "jews killed jesus" description

diff for more accurate NPOV statement in bold since BOTH sources use the longer quote and it's POV to shorten it to a defacto slur phrase].

• Changing “Atzmon has also been criticized for saying that the Jews killed Jesus” to (corrected later) Atzmon has been criticized for saying that the Jews of 2000 years ago "were responsible for the killing of Jesus"REF: "paul1112" and "onanti"

Context of why Lewis said what he said

diff NPOV, accuracy expansion of Lewis comment - new in bold:

• John Lewis, writing about an interview with Atzmon in The Guardian in March 2009 soon after the prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, cited Atzmon during a debate with Israeli president Shimon Peres, said Atzmon's attacks on Israel, philosophical texts on Jewish identity, comic novels have overshadowed his music. "It is Atzmon's blunt anti-Zionism rather than his music that has given him an international profile, particularly in the Arab world, where his essays are widely read."REF:Lewis

Historical context of statement

Diff in bold shows historical context of statement and all statements should have that where relevant:

• Atzmon also has been criticized for arguing during the 2006 Israeli bombing of Lebanon that Israel is more evil than Adolph Hitler's Germany because Hitler sought "rational objectives" (conquering other countries for Lebensraum), while Atzmon alleges that Israel seeks to destroy its neighbors.

That's a start. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting possibly libelous Holocaust denial paragraph

This is so poorly written it needs to be rewritten asap, which I'll do later. Last night first I dealt with one poor source then deleted it noting it needed rewrite per BLP:

Diff for inaccurate sourcing: It is not clear in source that the unnamed organizer of the event describes Atzmon’s view, NOT Atzmon; you have to go back to german version for him to say that.

• Atzmon strongly rejects the accusation, noting that he only disputes the "6 million Jews killed" figure.REF:Atzmon in Uruknet

Diff

• United Kingdom anti-Zionists were upset by his distribution of a Holocaust revisionist/denialist paper by Paul Eisen, leading to accusations of Holocaust denial. Atzmon strongly rejects the accusation, noting that he only disputes the "6 million Jews killed" figure.
  

CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

rewrote the POV and quasi-libelous paragraph so that it is about the facts, correctly sourced, with appropriate replies from Atzmon. I hope we don't have to hear any more of this business about trying to "sanitize" his views when people are just trying to be accurate, balanced and not allow the article to descend into a WP:attack page. Other paragraphs on his views also suffer from these kinds of problems and will be fixed as I establish WP:RS that actually describe his views as opposed to Opinion pieces in WP:RS that trash them. I hope we've give up this POV expressed above that everything must prove the point that he IS an antisemite and again will let the reader judge for themselves and looking at what WP:RS have to say.  ;-)

PS. I think i finally figured out right way to use German article and Uruknet, neither of which is perfect. Rather than issue my four paragraph analysis, I just put it in. But we can conduct a separate debate on that if you like. Thank you. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why was the new improved version reverted

Assuming you have not bothered to carefully read the sources, etc. let me make clear what is wrong with the version Malcolm reverted to:

• It alleges that Ms. Rizzo also calls the paper a Holocaust revisionist/denialist paper when she goes out of her way NOT to characterize it thusly. Instead Rizzo names Jews Against Zionism as saying so, and that should be mentioned to NOT misrepresent her. Similarly Aaronovitch should be identified. The other two sources merely cite other's allegations and clearly are POV piling on and actually should be deleted.

• You deleted Atzmon's specific responses on the Eisen paper, including from a secondary source, which is incredibly NPOV. And you don't explain why you delete both sources to his statement on 6 million. It's POV to put in a General statement that makes him look bad, and delete a more specific and explanative one.

Your actions suggest you are still pursuing making this article conform to your POV opinions expressed above including: "I don't see anything ambiguous in this discussion of Atzmon's antisemitism" and "The only thinking he is provoking is skinhead thinking." and "your attitude toward Jews indicates that you have a WP:COI problem of your own in editing this article." and "I have no respect for the editors here who are trying to white-wash the obvious antisemitism of a man who revels on the notoriety it brings him."

These are a serious BLP violation which must be addressed, here or elsewhere. Feel free to explain yourself or to revert back to my version asap. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no BLP violation. There is no doubt that the event occurred, Atzmon himself admits as much in his letter. The only issue in doubt is Atzmon's intent, and his own explanation of his intent is included. The article just reports that there are accusations that he is a holocaust denier (there can be no doubt that those accusations do exist), and reports his reply to those accusations. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Carol, if you would support my suggestion, that entire disputed section would be removed from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You misrepresent Rizzo, you pile on other accusations, you do not allow him reply re: Eisen and you delete relevant sources. These are serious. It's illogical to say there is "no doubt" accusations exist in a wiki article unless properly sourced NPOV accusations are presented.

Frankly, as I have referred to several times, and as the banner on top of page clearly states, your POV opinions on Atzmon and other editors and your related revert habits may be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles which would be addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement with possible sanctions like 1rr a day, etc. So please reconsider your actions and questionable defenses of them.

Also, I don't understand if you want to remove the "allegations" section title or all accusations of antisemitism, though it seems in either case Drsmoo and User:THC and others who might drop by would have a reason to complain about "sanitizing" the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When there is an editing dispute, which this is, a certain amount of compromise is necessary. I offered to resolve the dispute by removing two sub-sections, which contains some content that both sides in the dispute would rather keep. Most of the dispute is over the content of those two sections. Those sections do virtually nothing to improve the article, but do relate to the POVs of both sides. If there is no willingness to compromise, we will just have to argue on. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When there are two editors who have strongly called such moves sanitizing and neither has replied, I don't think we can proceed. (Plus the history of this article was just new addition of accusation upon new addition by various editors.)

More importantly, where's you offer of compromise on your revert an accurately sourced, more NPOV version of the "Holocaust denial" issue to your inaccurately sourced, POV version? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The change I reverted was to restore sourced material, the facts of which are not in question. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

But the POV of the statements, of it's being placed in views when it belongs in allegations with other Jews v Zionism/Aaronovitch accusations, and the POV behavior of the person who is reverting are in question. Do you even realize that everything in "views" used to be in Allegations of antisemitism? See original version. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should I care about how the article used to be? I have been trying to make the article more balanced, not more the way it used to be (which was very POV). I wish you would stop complaining about me. If you think I have done something wrong, I am sorry, and I am doing my best. But if you really think I am doing something wrong, you can try complaining on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the issue is WP:RS opinion pieces previously used only for allegations now being used as sources of fact. I'm working on a listing of NON-opinion WP:RS usable for the views/politics section. At least you replied to this issue, even though you have ignored several specific issues with your repeated revert above, which, combined with your POV vs Atzmon/et al are problematic behaviors per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Both versions in/Both Related to Jews V Zionism/Aaronovich

I just noticed that both versions are now in the article. More importantly, the Holocaust Denial accusations arose out of same mid-2005 Jews V Zionism/Aaronovich accusations and they should be linked in same paragraph, in the allegations section. This is where commonsense and good BLP/RS meet ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite, another approach

What I suggest is that

1. The Section now called Politics be kept pretty much as is. I think it is fairly well balanced and sums up Atzmon's views and what the controversies about those views are.
2. The sections called Views and Allegations of antisemitism and responses should be removed from the article because trying to get them to the point where editors agree could take weeks, months, or forever; and those views are just are not that important. For instance, I do not see why anyone needs to know that Atzmon can cite Emmanuel Levinas in a way that totally misrepresents Levinas (who was an enthusiastic Zionist). There should be a link to Atzmon's site, but his views are not important enough to have attracted much serious attention from scholarly sources.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The views section is written as a jumbled polemic to make him look bad. Removing some mention/link to accusations of antisemitism would be challenged by lots of people as sanitizing. I don't necessarily defend everything in there, since the article has never been approached in a systematic fashion. Therefore I do not like your suggestions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. Are you saying it is ok to remove the "Views" subsection? Whatever the case, I want it to be clear that I oppose the changes you have suggested. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Levinas thing is another example of WP editors mangling Atzmon's words. As ever, in the context of the interview Atzmon isn't implying Levinas agrees with him: "It is perplexing - you would expect that after what the Jewish people had gone through, after it was very clear to them that the European nations, not just the Germans, but the French, the Ukrainians the Romanians and the Poles spat them out, you would expect they would start a new page where they would be very reflective and very, very careful. (new para) Some Jewish philosophers were completely sure this was what was going to happen; one philosopher, Emanuel Levinas, said: 'Now we must be at the forefront of the fight against racism. We must make sure this never happens again'. (new para) Not only was this not the case, but three years after the liberation of Auschwitz they were ethnically cleansing the population from Palestine and their brutality is now far more obvious, manifested, celebrated." Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be better? It still misrepresents Levinas. But my point had nothing to do Atzmon's reading comprehension problems. The point is that there is nothing notable about what he thinks about Levinas. I suppose if he had knitting as a hobby we should include some examples of that in the article too.

What I see going on here is some editors who seem to like Atzmon's personal POV about Zionism and Jews, and want to stuff as much of it into the article as possible, even if there is no reason to go on at length about what a jazz musician thinks about anything but jazz.

So far I have gotten no reply to my suggestion (above) from you or CarolMooreDC. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, I'd support your proposal if I thought it would stick. But it seems almost inevitable that the Politics section will then be expanded and the situation will be much the same. However I'd be willing to give it a go. At root it does remain true that his views are not all that notable (aside from talks he hasn't really done anything political, and it hasn't generated all that much WP:RS interest), and are given undue weight in the article at present. Rd232 ^talk 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

views section should be removed completely, but some of allegations and responses seems notable and should be retained. politics section needs fixing, too. esp - twice saying "accused of antisemitism." untwirl(talk) 00:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Views should not be removed if there are WP:RS saying they are notable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, thanks for your willingness to give it a try. But, without enough support from other editors, things will have to be worked out differently. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Carol, the WP:RS don't actually say his views are notable; it's important to be clear about that, we're judging notability from a handful of WP:RS mentioning his views, not WP:RS saying those views are notable. And notability of his views isn't particularly high by number of WP:RS (count them...), in which circumstance lots of detail isn't desperately appropriate (though WP:NPOV isn't particularly explicit for this situation, I think this is widely accepted), even if they weren't troublesomely controversial. A summary suffices (if there were no WP:RS obviously we wouldn't mention them at all). Given all the work put in it's not a nice outcome, but it may be the best one. Rd232 ^talk 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

TO reply, I agree with idea, as I also expressed, that others will not allow this section to be excised. Re: WP:RS about his views which has been brought up here. Note that interviews in WP:RS publications which obviously are edited by authors should be WP:RS for what he says. Given he has equal footing in a debate with Aaronovitch on the topic of antisemitism at the [Sunday Times]] Oxford Literary Festival this weekend, it is an indication that a jazz musicians views can be politically notable. After all Ronald Reagan was once just an actor and labor union president but his political views quickly became notable when he pushed them out there and others acknowledged them. :-)CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You've answered a slightly different question. If Atzmon becomes President of the US then his views will be a whole lot more notable; at present the notability of his views is not zero but not very high. A jazz musician giving the odd talk and some interviews and having a printed commentary and a newspaper blog about his views is hardly in the same ballpark as someone running for high public office. So a short summary is appropriate, more than a fisking (which is causing most of the heat here). Rd232 ^talk

Reagan's views became notable sometime before he was elected. But really let's not discuss comparisons and deal with sources and alternatives I offer when I come up with them. I'm just saying don't rule out before hand. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

letters to the editor

FYI, I took a question I had, concerning the use of this [9] as a source in the article, to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional current problems with article

Fixing some immediately, some soon unless good reason for not changing given; others not yet fixed above will be fixed after finish complete survey of most reliable sources to start using them more accurately in an NPOV way.

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/release/grp2/ is NOT a source for statement “Atzmon has fused his roles as a critic of Judaism” and is WP:OR

• Unnecessary repeats of same reference in paragraph in Novels section and a paragraph with Gilchrest as source

• Note that Wikipedia:Wikilink#Red_links can be improved by adding Wikipedia:Wikilink#External_links external links to sites that do NOT have articles - especially when, as in one case, an article was deleted.

• Will bring KAMM to WP:RSNoticeboard since he should not be use as a source for facts as he is here when he clearly is rabidly prejudiced against Atzmon as expressed here.

• I think we need an neutral opinion from WP:RSNoticeboard on reliability of the two German translations versus the not clearly sourced statements from the organizer of the event, before I try to use either to improve that section.

• Also, for WP:RSNoticeboard or WP:BLP - can sources that merely label a person with some negative term be quoted, if the don't cite evidence? Especially if a mere throw away comment in article on another topic?

• Ref problem: Ref 37: # ^ Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named paul1112

• Excess verbiage In italics Criticism has also come from further afield; for example the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism

Please reply below and not in between this list. Thanks CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ref problem: Ref 37: # ^ Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named paul1112"

• That is one I fixed a few days ago, but people will persist in removing references, without checking that this does not leave orphaned refname tags. Fixed again. RolandR (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my closing remark (I'm unwatching this article) is that we've dropped Malcolm's proposal above without sufficient discussion. In particular, Carol didn't respond to my last comment above on notability of his views. Good luck all. Rd232 ^talk 15:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, now she has and I've responded. Do consider the idea of radically trimming the amount of space given to his views and the criticism and discussion of them. Bye. Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrections to WP:OR/Coatrack problems in a paragraph

First everything in this first paragraph under views (like the second one) is from articles largely calling him antisemitic so they don't even belong under views, and I've moved them to allegations. (Plus deleted views section which had a short paragraph that was a duplication of a paragraph on antisemitism charges below.) Meanwhile this paragraph has a number of WP:OR problems and a coatrack problem which I fix. (Quote from paragraph in italics with my tags put in for your edification.)

1. Much of Atzmon's writings are directed more broadly to the role of Jews in the world and in supporting Israel. Thus he has said that disputes about the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are moot, because "American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least."[30][31][32]

• Not one of these sources say anything like “Much of atzmon’s writings are directed etc.” and it's WP:OR to say so. It's only legit to summarize what he said about Protocols.

2. As a result of these beliefs on Jewish power, he has said that "whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act,"[33][34]

• Doward, Jamie; Nico Hines source does NOT make this connection.
• I do not believe that that statement is in this Jerusalem Post, Paul, Jonny Paul (October 20, 2006) because #4 below, Source 37, From Atzmon's Letter to the Editor" explains that statement and should be here and NOT below.

3. and that "the reasoning behind resentment towards Israel and Jews is rational."[35][36] (disputed} This quote is taken from an Atzmon article about a right wing Jewish writer who had written that “Hatred turned him into a Jew.” If it was not WP:Coatrack it would have to be explained in fuller context, if someone wants to do that. Meanwhile it should therefore be removed.

4. Atzmon denied the comment about synagogues, saying he simply meant that "any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation" for Israel's actions.[37] Does not refer to line above as explained in number 2.

Keeping these under views and in their current state are clear violations of source, neutrality etc. Please explain why I am wrong before reverting these without investigating for yourself. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive

I propose archiving either to the end of 2008 or including the next section which is a settled issue. After that starts latest round of edits. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Need to archive more. Entries that are shown in diffs still are not showing on this page? How about down to Cherry-picking since issues above pretty much dealt with?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Using 3 recent WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR

These WP:RS interviews are among other WP:RS I have found that describe his political views that I will be adding soon. The proper way to deal with these three most recent and detailed interviews is to only make the points the authors make, and illustrate them with Atzmon quotes, not to use them to build a POV and Coatrack case. Here are the main points made by the three interviewers, without Atzmon quotes. Obviously some can be added, especially where repeated in 2 interviews.

Jim Gilchrist interview

Direct quotes from: I thought music could heal the wounds of the past. I may have got that wrong, The Scotsman, 22 February 2008

• musician so passionately, not to mention controversially, preoccupied with the plight of the Palestinian people.

• if his eclectically inclusive music prompts rave reports, his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier.

• Ask him about such claims and he sounds cheerfully, indeed pugilistically, unrepentant. He refutes accusations ETC Details

• His attitude stems from his period of national service with the Israeli army during the 1982 conflict in Lebanon:

• He agrees, however that he has, in effect renounced his Jewish identity,

• Is he disillusioned, then?

Martin Gibson interview

Direct quotes from: No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’, Gisborne Herald, 23 January 2009.

• He left Israel in 1994 after service in the Israeli military convinced him Israel had become a racist, militarised state that was a danger to world peace.

• While he believes people run a risk speaking out against Israel, Gilad Atzmon says he has no choice.

• There have been numerous attempts to silence Mr Atzmon, including inevitable charges that he is anti-Semitic, although he is Jewish himself.
• Mr Atzmon says the brutality we see in Israel, that is reminiscent of the Nazis, has arisen through a simple failure of logic.

• There is less excuse for our sitting idly by while the mess in the Middle East grows progressively more brutal than for Germans in World War 2, he says.

• Growing up, Mr Atzmon could never work out the anger of people towards Israel, but now he can - the actions of Israel are sowing seeds of hatred throughout the world, he says.

• Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew", but this does not bother Gilad Atzmon.

• The word Judeo-Christian is an artificial construct, he says.

• The rockets launched into Israel do not justify the killing of 1000 Palestinians in Gaza over the past few weeks, he says.

• Although newly-elected American President Barack Obama has had to proclaim his Zionist credentials, and his vice-president Joe Biden proclaimed "I am a Zionist", there is some cause for hope, he says.

• The financial meltdown is all just part of the programme, he says.

John Lewis interview

Direct quotes from: "Manic beat preacher" interview with, The Guardian, March 6, 2009.

• A few days before I meet Gilad Atzmon, he finds himself at the centre of an international storm. The prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoǧan, ETC

• It may come as a surprise to some that Atzmon is a saxophonist at all. His career as a musician has long been drowned out by the clatter of his extra-curricular activities: the furious attacks on Israel (he writes and edits for the website Palestine Think Tank); the philosophical texts on Jewish identity that get discussed by the likes of Noam Chomsky; the two comic novels that have been translated into 24 languages.

• However, since his arrival in London in 1994, Atzmon has also established himself as one of London's finest saxophonists.

• This month, Atzmon launches his latest project, the album In Loving Memory of America. It's what he calls "a very personal story, of how I fell in love with jazz and fell in love – and out of love – with America".

• Atzmon was born in Tel Aviv in 1963, into what he describes as "a conservative, secular Zionist family". ETC.

• It doesn't take long for Atzmon to ricochet from talking about music to talking about politics, and a lengthy, furious and often hilarious argument about Islamism ensues.
• It is Atzmon's blunt anti-Zionism rather than his music that has given him an international profile, particularly in the Arab world, where his essays are widely read. (He favours a one-state solution in Palestine; he concedes that it will probably be controlled by Islamists, but says, "That's their business.") It has also made him many enemies, even among some former allies.

Is this clear?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I made changes in politics to reflect what these and other WP:RS say, which quotes here and there to make it clear the sources weren't just making stuff up. Similarly for use in the allegations section; as well as correction of various problems mentioned in the section throughout talk here, which have been largely ignored, so you all must agree. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Despite these allegations"

Why is it "Despite these allegations"? He's likely being invited because of the allegations, and his claim that there is no such thing as antisemitism. THF (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not clear what you are talking about; but clearly your conjecture is WP:OR. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Should have looked at article first. That's a minor WP:OR you can delete and explain in the edit summary; see if anyone complains. (Of course everyone does when I do it so I have to write a book first.) Actually, that will get moved up to views section when that's put together. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Still ridiculously unbalanced

The major defense Atzmon gives against his antisemitism, noted by most of the secondary reliable sources to discuss the subject, is claiming that there is no such thing as antisemitism. Yet this has been whitewashed from the article.

Moreover, the lead, by omitting the issue entirely, violates WP:LEAD. Atzmon is most noted for his antisemitism, but it's been whitewashed from the lead. THF (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean because there is a big section "Allegations of antisemitism and responses" and hardly anything on his views?

Re: Atzmon's defenses he has both denied and in one source said there is not such t hing. As I have said numerous times before, I have been going through the WP:RS putting things together since people rejected anything he said that wasn't somehow introduced by a WP:RS. This topic also is covered.

Re: the lead, I haven't worked on it lately myself. Yes, there are lots of biased WP:RS that originate these, and a bunch of interviewers who ask him about it. (And a couple "neutral" sources that just throw out a generalization that could get them sued since it provides no evidence; and that source may have gotten the accusations from the wikipedia article in the first place.)

Do you still insist that the article has to prove he's an antisemite, as opposed that several people in opinion pieces in WP:RS say so? If so, this iis a major BLP and arbitration problem if you constantly act on it, as you'll see if you read carefully the sections since you've been gone. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article should reflect the mainstream view of multiple reliable sources that he is a vocal antisemite, yes, given that there are only WP:FRINGE views otherwise. It has cost him gigs, and brought protests against him. (Compare: Michael Jackson or O.J. Simpson, each of whose leads acknowledges the major controversies that have overshadowed their entertainment careers--and this guy's entertainment career isn't a tenth of those other two.) Given that his defense is that there is no such thing as antisemitism, he can hardly complain that he has been libeled with a nonexistent adjective. THF (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has been prominent in describing Atzmon as an antisemite, I disagree with the above comment. It is not the job of Wikipedia to decide whether or not he is an antisemite, but rather to report what reliable sources say. There are reliable sources to show that some people (both Zionists and anti-Zionists) do indeed describe him as an antisemite, and that other people -- and he himself -- deny or reject this claim. So this is all that Wikipedia should state. It would, in my view, be as wrong for the article to state as a fact that he is an antisemite as it would be to exclude mention of the range of opinion that does make this allegation. And (unfortunately) I don't agree that "only fringe views" disagree; but that is a matter for me to take up elsewhere, not in a Wikipedia article. RolandR (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your wikipedia-policy compliant comment :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

---

First, User:THF's complaints made me search older versions to find a couple WP:RS that I was missing.

Note there are WP:RS where Atzmon actually denies it and they will be in the article in the future.

Meanwhile let's not misuse sources like this source. Dr Clark-Lowes, who is chairman of the Brighton branch for Palestinian Solidarity, said: "It is clear in my own mind that Gilad has important things to say and is not a racist. But I know others took a different view. and "I couldn't reassure him that there wouldn't be further similar actions and I felt it wasn't fair to put the centre in this position." Just proves that Tony Greenstein and his friends can intimidate people.

Also that article says: "Mr Atzmon was born in Israel as a secular Jew and has in the past expressed the view that there is no such thing as anti-semitism, instead claiming that he has an "ideological disagreement with Zionism". Since Atzmon in the relevant statement used the word "Misnomer" i think he was a point too sophisticated for this writer to comprehend. I'm not sure where that reference disappeared to since it was in the article.

Constant misuse of sources to push a pov on Israel Palestine issues is against wikipedia policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Brighton branch for Palestinian Solidarity"?! Really. That is your idea of a source that is NPOV? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the reference that User:THF was complaining had been removed and I was explaining that it was not an accurate source and could not support the point he was trying to make. Below is what a slight rewrite of what I had wrote later that somehow got moved around and half eaten because the Talk Page was stuffed full and needed archiving...

relevant quote at this diff ("empty signifer") is Atzmon's quote I was looking for "Because Anti-Semite is an empty signifier, no one actually can be an Anti-Semite and this includes me of course. In short, you are either a racist which I am not or have an ideological disagreement with Zionism, which I have."REFS: Gilad Atzmon profile; Gilad Atzmon, gilad.co.uk, 1001 Lies

It is wrong to say this equates with "there is no such thing as antisemitism" because empty signifier means a word that loses meaning because it has so many meanings. To some people it means anyone who ever criticizes Israel or any Jew; to some it means only those who really do hate Jews and not a Jew like Atzmon who is trying to make a point, if in (as he does say in one recent interview) a loud crude Israeli way. And there are dozens of definitions in between. Tony Greenstein surely doesn't agree with Bibi Netanyahu. Now you can argue about whether or not it is in fact an "empty signifier" but you can't state that Atzmon means there is no such thing as antisemitism which is one of the main reasons User:THC is claiming this article is unbalanced. Pleas re-read his first sentence. Comprende? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

2 editor blocks relevant to this article

Per comment's above in this larger section about NPOV editing, I think it should be noted for future reference that two editors who have expressed the idea that this article pretty much should prove that Atzmon IS an antisemite have been blocked for related issues. User:Drsmoo for 3rr/editwarring (including complaint about his making antisemitism accusations) (at this diff March 24) and User:Malcolm Schosha (at this diff April 2) under Wikipedia:ARBPIA for stating elsewhere that most editors on a subject were antisemites, as he has done in this article. This obviously should be kept in mind if they continue to delete WP:RS information that does not support their contention that Atzmon IS an antisemite, as opposed to that he's been accused of it by various specific individuals and groups. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Angry Arab

Is As'ad AbuKhalil, writing on his own blog The Angry Arab News Service, an acceptable source for comment on Atzmon and his views? RolandR (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on who he is and how notable and if you want to use opinion or fact, the latter being questionable in BLP from such blogs. It helps to specific which entry you want to use. If there's any question on his notability, feel free to take it to WP:RS. I might want to use something from him myself someday, somewhere ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to discuss the validity of the source, rether than the merits of the comment, so at present I prefer not to specify the entry. It is an opinion, not a fact. As'ad AbhKhalil is a Lebanese-born peofessor of political science at California State University and a visiting professor at Berkeley. He is certainly notable; he has his own entry in Wikipedia, and there are more than 100,000 Google hits for his blog. RolandR (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are four uses, one about himself, two factual points on Arab BLPs and one footnote about an opinion in the article about movie Munich. Does this mean that in wikipedia he can be used as a source on Arabs/Muslims (or critics of Israel like Atzmon), but he is not WP:RS on other topics about which he writes frequently. Obviously one must look at things on case by case basis for actual conflicts of interest (as opposed to POVs which can be mentioned in any article), but I don't like the idea that he is being ghettoized into only being allowed to comment on certain topics. Thus it might be nice to bring it to WP:RSN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I take that as a qualified accepytance of his validity, and will therefore insert his comment in the article. Let's see if anyone then wants to take this to WP:RS/N. RolandR (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually this isn't the place I'd be likely to do it, and with that quote. More if Angry Arab's opinions or facts, as relevant and WP:RS, were rejected from an article criticizing Israel. Maybe I should just test it. Will put on my infinitely long do list. :-)

PS: However, it should be pointed out that he is just engaging in personal attacks without presenting any evidence. So if a couple of representatives of Arab/Muslim thought who did so were to evidence themselves, they might replace his quote.

Also this sentence is rather disengenous: Allegations of antisemitism due to Atzmon's views have come from a variety of quarters in the UK and elsewhere, ranging from commentators such as David Aaronovitch (in a June 2005 The Times opinion piece)[34] and David Hirsh (in a November 2006 blog on The Guardian's Comment is Free website,[29] which allowed Atzmon a response[35]) to Jews Against Zionism, which asked for the Socialist Workers Party to withdraw an invitation to Atzmon to speak at the Marxism 2005 conference.[33] After all it was Jews Against Zionism who started the brou ha ha that Hirsh and Aaronovitch comment on, at least in part. But that and the other relevant paragraph will be fixed at some point, more like the original [10] version here. Something I'm sure you are very much aware of :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When I cleaned up that section I realized it really is WP:UNDUE to quote him in the footnote since the article is in English. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Purpose to text in footnote?

While originally I didn't have a problem with it, it did occur to me considering that it is still a blog and a negative opinion - or rather ad hominem attack without any evidence - there might be some WP:RS in BLP problems with quoting him, even if I was going to let the general description in the main text slide for now. So I took the quote out of footnote. Now it is back, but under what possible rationale? Anyone who wants to see it can go to the Blog entry. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, not only here, I favour including more quoted material in footnotes, rather than the main body of the article. In that way, casual readers can see the essence of a statement, more interested people can check the footnote, and those keen to know more, or to confirm the validity of the quote, can follow it up themselves. I deliberately decided, when using this quote, not to include a large chunk in the article itself. There are other quotes in the article which I think should be treated the same way; but, given my own position, I am reluctant to be seen to remove comments favourable to Atzmon. The alternative, which in my view is less good, would be to include more of AbuKhalil's quote in the main text. RolandR (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RolandR on this. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:BLP policy on this issue

Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources (online and paper) reads: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, 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." If he had a longer paper in a real source on this topic, then that could be used; or a summary on the blog could be used. Short ad hominen attacks out of no where on a blog are just against policy. So I am coming to the point where I don't think he should be used at all in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

More importantly Reminder on policy - WP:BLP#Sources: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A longtime editor with BLP expertise clarified on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion that:

There is, however, an imporant exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

So I will be removing that quote at once and it is now clearly against policy to put it back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But what counts as "material about a living person"? The quote -- in a section headed Allegations of antisemitism and responses" -- was clearly presented as AbuKhalil's own opinion, not as a statement of fact about Atzmon. Are you really suggesting that wa have a section on allegations, in which it is illegitimate to quote such allegations? RolandR (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clear that blogs on WP:RS which are likely to be edited can be used. Self-published blogs opinions cannot unless he had written a long piece on a WP:RS - and then that long piece rather than the blog entry should be quoted. All the sources in this article now meet WP:RS/WP:BLP criteria - though the AJC site would be questionable except Jazz news also published the piece so that should be linked as well. And one WP:RS had a supporting link to a document discussed in it. Since Malcolm continues his edit warring by reverting it I'll bring to WP:BLPN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please revert redundant, WP:OR edits

Drsmoo should revert his recent edit whose summary is wrong. It also deletes important WP:RS info in a highly POV way, a POV he has expressed repeatedly on this talk page.

• The catastrophe comment is in the Gibson’s silencing section where he writes:

There have been numerous attempts to silence Mr Atzmon, including inevitable charges that he is anti-Semitic, although he is Jewish himself. "I wish I could shut myself up and not care, but every time somebody tries to silence me, I know it must be because I'm saying the right thing, pointing on evil, on the core of evil. "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews. "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."

• It is NPOV to remove WP:RS info that Atzmon and others have characterized these numerous charges of antisemitism as an attempt to silence his criticism of Israel and Zionism. You give no good reason for deleting it so I assume it’s POV at work.

• DrSmoo’s collection of quotes not only includes ones redundant to earlier material (either direct quotes or general descriptions), but uses them in his own jumbled WP:OR manner. Since Gibson doesn't say these things are antisemitic you can't use in that section; only Atzmon's defenses in GIbson of why what he say is not antisemitic can be used in that section.

These quotes are already used or summarized Atzmon referred to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" "Im anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." (Not quoted but summarized above) It's obviously a political campaign to try to unite the power of America to fight the Jewish enemies" "Bush behaved Jewishly (ideologically) - he is a supremacist, he was a tribalist, but he is not a Jew as far as I'm aware." Your use of catastrophe quote here was what was out of context!

• The other Gibson material might start turning into Coatrack, but if you feel it must be used it belongs in earlier section, not antisemitism, and in the proper context of Gibson's paragraph headings.

• This kind of obvious WP:edit warring on a BLP by someone with a strongly expressed POV is very much against wikipolicy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should be built on secondary sources. As I understand it, a direct quote from Atzmon is still a primary source even if it is taken out of a secondary source. There was a time when this article was built around one Atzmon quote after another. That is not encyclopedic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

if you truly believe these quotes shouldn't be in the article at all, why was your most recent revert to a version that contained many more of them out of context? untwirl(talk) 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipolicy on using quotations

Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves. However, there are certain guidelines an editor should remember about quotations within Wikipedia.
The first thing to remember when using quotations within Wikipedia is that they must be sourced. In general, using three or more consecutive words from a source is a quotation. We do not want to plagiarize, so be sure to attribute it to the source. Quotes, especially those from living people, must be attributed properly. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time. However, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated. As a courtesy to other contributors, if removing a quotation, please say so on the article's talk page. Second, editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote.
Similarly, quotations should always be presented with an introduction; a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation.
Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information.
So using quotations in context of what a sources says is fine and please point out if I have not done that and I'll correct it. Or contest specific places where too long of quotations are used. Replacing WP:RS info and properly conformed quotes with improperly jumbled ones to prove a WP:OR POV point - as both DrSmoo and MalcolmSchosha have done - is against policy. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Secondary sources

According to WP:No original research

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, malcolm. you seem to have neglected to read further down where it says, " Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." untwirl(talk) 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The intent is very clear, and restated in this official WP policy guideline many times, that articles should be built on reliable secondary sources. In the case of this article, it is particularly important to take this approach in order to avoid previous problems this article has had with WP:SOAP. It is important that Atzmon's views be described in a neutral way, but there is no reason to give him WP as a soap box to advocate his ideas.

WP:SOAP says

Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, if you feel there are too many Atzmon quotes explaining some point that the WP:RS has made, say so. However, considering that you have not responded to Untwirl's complete analysis in Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#edit_warring_again.3F of why your own quotes, which I consider WP:OR/POV and not according to the source's meaning. So that is why some may consider it questionable when you complain that quotes properly included according to the sources meaning are WP:SOAP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not read Untwirl's over long edit. As for the use in the article of the disputed Atzmon quote, I think it might be better to remove it until an agreement is reached on it. Clearly, what is there now does not have secondary sourcing either. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

so, are you saying you shouldn't have reverted, and you think it's better to remove it? does that mean your revert was just to make a point? seems disruptive to me, especially since you are now saying none of these quotes should be used according to your definition of OR, SOAP, NPOV, and whatever else you can come up with. my "over long" post does not need to be read in its entirety to get the point. i bolded the quotes you reverted back in out of context. all you need to do is read your version and look at the actual context to see the gross misrepresentation thats going on. let me repeat, you restored a version with more quotes out of context. now complaining that you think its a primary source and shouldn't be used at all is completely inconsistent with your actual editing. untwirl(talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the disputed quote? And from what version? The one in accordance with the source or your WP:OR POV assemblage which I and Untwirl have complained is clear edit warring. I have asked you to revert back to the original version and then we can discuss which quote. If you do not do so it is further evidence IMHO of edit warring. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

edit warring again?

this is going to be a long post, but it will highlight some problems with the cherry-picking of the gibson article that misrepresents atzmon's responses by placing them out of context. first, let's compare the 2 paragraphs that are being used to represent this article:

dr smoo's:

In 2009, Atzmon referred to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" and stated "Im anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." In the same article, he claimed that "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." He also asks "these were the people who were meant to be the guards of humanity? No. They definitely maintained evil." Atzmon says he considers the concept of Judeo-Christian values "A joke. It's obviously a political campaign to try to unite the power of America to fight the Jewish enemies" He adds that "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." And that "Bush behaved Jewishly (ideologically) - he is a supremacist, he was a tribalist, but he is not a Jew as far as I'm aware."

(same on both versions in italics)[2] Noting that he is a secular Jew married to a Jewish woman and in a band with three Jews, he says: "I never attack Jews, I hardly criticise Judaism – I never criticise people for their beliefs. But I can criticise conduct."[2] Atzmon also labels the term “antisemitism” an empty signifier, holding that “criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.”[51] In response to criticisms he is “self-hating” he has said “I'm not only a self-hating Jew, I'm a proud self-hating Jew! When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza, Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also.”[6]

note:dr smoo and malcolm cut out the citation that shows that the paragraph in question is from gibson's article.

and carol's:

Atzmon and others have characterized these numerous charges of antisemitism as an attempt to silence his criticism of Israel and Zionism.[51][32][6] Atzmon states that the “anti-Semitic slur is a common Zionist silencing apparatus.”[52] He told an interviewer “every time somebody tries to silence me, I know it must be because I'm saying the right thing, pointing on evil...” and that he continues to speak out because "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."[6]

Atzmon denies he is an antisemite.[6]

(same on both versions in italics)[2] Noting that he is a secular Jew married to a Jewish woman and in a band with three Jews, he says: "I never attack Jews, I hardly criticise Judaism – I never criticise people for their beliefs. But I can criticise conduct."[2] Atzmon also labels the term “antisemitism” an empty signifier, holding that “criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.”[53] In response to criticisms he is “self-hating” he has said “I'm not only a self-hating Jew, I'm a proud self-hating Jew! When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza, Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also.”[6]

Atzmon was invited to debate Denis MacShane and David Aaronovitch on the topic of antisemitism at 2009 Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival.[54][55]

now, let's put all of the quotes from the gibson article in context and in order; all of the quotes used in dr smoo's (and by proxy, malcolm's) version are bolded:

-world renowned saxophonist, author of 2 novels

-left israel after idf service convinced him that, "Israel had become a racist, militarised state that was a danger to world peace."

-he believes the Gaza war (and other "atrocities" committed by Israel) are supported by "Jewish people around the world."

-he believes that speaking out is risky - he could be targeted by Mossad

-People attempt to silence him with accusations of anti-semitism. "I wish I could shut myself up and not care, but every time somebody tries to silence me, I know it must be because I'm saying the right thing, pointing on evil, on the core of evil." "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." (and immediately after this statement) "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."

-"The difference between me and 99 percent of Jews on this planet is that I do not believe they have the right to a state," and "considering the crimes they committed since the state was born, along with the murderous extravaganza of the past weeks, not only do they not have the right to a state, the state should be dismantled immediately before they turn our planet into a fireball."

-he believes that, "stupidly we interpreted the Nazi defeat as a vindication of the Jewish ideology and the Jewish people." and in fact, ""The Nazis were indeed . . . evil. They did things that were disastrously inhuman and unacceptable. But this doesn't mean the Jewish ideology is correct, because in fact Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar."

-he believes that there is less justification for vilifying the german people for letting nazi atrocities happen than there is for "sitting idly by while the mess in the Middle East grows progressively more brutal," because the german people were themselves victims of tyranny and "democracies from America and Britain that launched an illegal invasion of Iraq which has killed two million Iraqis."

-he believes that "in Israel, 80 to 93 percent of people support this genocide of the Palestinian people, and by the way, the Israeli state is a theological state so it is in the name of the Jewish people."

-he believes that, after what jews went through with the holocaust that they should be "very reflective and very, very careful" in opposing racism. he says, ""Not only was this not the case, but three years after the liberation of Auschwitz they were ethnically cleansing the population from Palestine and their brutality is now far more obvious, manifested, celebrated. "They're living in a ghetto in the Middle East. They're threatening the entire region with their idiotic nuclear bombs. They're throwing their white phosphorus on civilians. "Gaza looks like a place that was nuked, and these are the people who are supposed to be the victim, and the bodyguard of humanity?"

-he says he can now understand "the anger of people towards Israel," in regards to actions like, "driv(ing) with tanks over innocent people, to see their houses demolished. To see babies cling for days to their dead mothers because Israeli armed forces don't allow the UN to come and rescue them, and these were the people who were meant to be the guards of humanity? No. They definitely maintained evil."

-"Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew" (this quote by the author, not atzmon)

-in context, the "i'm a proud self-hating jew" remark is followed by, ""When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also. "Why? Because of growing up in this kind of racist, nationalist, tribalist, chauvinist, supremacist society - and this is exactly what they stood up against."

-"While anxious to avoid comparing himself to these men, he thinks like them" he sees himself as, "a person who is indoctrinated into hatred and finds a way to start to love."

-speaking on the term judeo-christian he says, ""What is the difference between Jews and Christians theoretically? Christians are basically Jews who love their neighbour, so they are committed to the universal concept of humanity, whereas Judaism is tribalism." The word Judeo-Christian is an artificial construct, he says. "It's a joke. A joke. It's obviously a political campaign to try to unite the power of America to fight the Jewish enemies, because if the Americans are convinced that there is Judeo-Christian, so then the enemies are the Muslims."

-commenting on the gaza conflict, he says, "The rockets launched into Israel do not justify the killing of 1000 Palestinians in Gaza over the past few weeks, he says.

"My view on the rockets is very, very simple. The Palestinian people are ethnically cleansed. The majority of people living in Gaza were ethnically cleansed from Palestine, the place that is now momentarily called Israel.

"The rockets are hardly dangerous. I think in eight years they have managed to kill six people, yeah?

"The rockets are almost a peaceful message to the Israelis telling them: 'In case you don't realise it yet, you are living on my stolen land'.

"You can send a message in a bottle, and you can send a message in a rocket, but the Israelis are not yet ready to acknowledge there won't be peace in the region as long as they are sitting on Palestinian stolen land."

- he says that instead of making sure the west bank and gaza flourished, "They starved them! What do they expect anyone to do? And who is the one who comes to the aid of the oppressed? Not America, not Britain, not France - (Iranian leader)Ahmadinejad. There are plenty of Iranians who are not happy about this, but he is a humanist, and so is Hugo Chavez." and that the "Western world . . . is just obsessed with hegemony and control of energy resources."

-he says he is suspicious of obama (as having zionist leanings) but wants to give him a chancebecause he believes obama is "ethically concerned, and this is something that didn't happen in America for many years." "He wants to amend the damage caused by those Jewish political strategies such as Neoconservatism, such as the sub-prime mortgage crisis that was led by Alan Greenspan"

-and here is the "bush behaved jewishly quote in context: "Alan Greenspan's job was to create a financial boom so America's people were not concerned with the tactics used in the Middle East.

"It should have worked but it didn't work because the all-American boom was done at the expense of the most deprived Americans, and they just couldn't pay the mortgages so it all collapsed.

"It's not only Jews that have adopted this world view either. Bush behaved Jewishly (ideologically) - he is a supremacist, he was a tribalist, but he is not a Jew as far as I'm aware."

"Even in Christianity, this tendency to go Old Testament - into tribalism, into supremacy, into violence, into shock and awe . . . . This is something we have to fight against."

carol's version is definitely more representative of the sources. dr smoo's versions picks quotes completely out of context and strings them together. perhaps, the next step in dispute resolution is necessary since smoo and malcolm have come back here immediately to edit war as soon as their blocks expired. untwirl(talk) 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for that analysis. It's a shame it was necessary! CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a worthless post, we've all read the article, Carol's edit removes most of the antisemitic statements in order to make a point which jives with her theory that its impossible to be an antisemitie as long as you hate the Jewish state too. The only interesting thing in your post quite frankly is your conspiracy theory that Malcolm and I are working together, which is not only a ridiculous assertion, but particularly comical being that there is consensus in these discussions, and yet it is the two of you, along with RD232 previously, who continue to revert the article to your versions despite consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

huh? there is consensus to cherrypick quotes out of context (and remove sourcing) and list them as 'proof' that he's an antisemite? your imaginary consensus doesn't trump wp:blp. i didnt say you and malcolm were "working together." i said "by proxy," referring to the fact that malcolm reverted directly back to your version which was out of context and dropped the gibson cite completely. and i also remarked on the fact that you both were recently blocked (you for 3rr on this article and malcolm for calling people antisemites) and then returned here to edit war yet again. our job here is not to pick quotes that either prove or disprove that he is antisemitic. presenting his views in context along with criticisms and his rebuttals should be enough to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. you cannot disregard the conditions or explanations he puts with his statements without breaking blp policy. untwirl(talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not call anyone an antisemite, I just claimed that a high percentage editing in this area are. This is the edit from the arbcom case discussion that got me (unfairly) blocked:

Concerning antisemitism, from my point of view Nishidani's suggestion ("If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge...") is complete nonsense. It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.

I think what I wrote is accurate, and would not hesitate to repeat the same anyplace. I have never had any contact with the user who accused me of insulting him, and it is hard it see why it was thought I insulted a user I did not know existed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has become a massive apology for Gilad Atzmon as well as a blatant whitewash of his actual statements

Despite consensus being reached numerous times, the article continues to be whitewashed, with quotes being pulled out of context. Claims that Atzmon is being "silenced" are put into the article as if they were facts, his antisemitic rhetoric is put into a context of anti-zionism that exists in Atzmon's writings in the same way that anti-zionist rhetoric exists in the writings of the KKK grandwizard. His most blatant antisemitic statements are either removed entirely (Bush behaved Jewishly, Nazism a Jewish ideology etc) or placed into a a completely non existent context, such as how his statement that Judaism is leading the world into a catastrophe is conveniently hidden away under a section of rebuttals against antisemitic statements and accusations which have already been removed from the article, as opposed to being front and center in the antisemitism section. This article continues to be primarily edited by Atzmon's biggest supporters, (also coincidentally having imagery like this http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/nuclearstar.gif emblazoned on a website) who seek to defend Atzmon by turning his antisemitic statements (and they ARE undeniably antisemitic, it IS a fact, not an opinion) into some kind of pale boring political statement, either by removing the statements altogether or hiding them away under his rebuttals in completely nonsensical contexts. Let's be honest when editing this article, aside from his few radical supporters, there is a consensus in anti-zionist circles, pro zionist circles, socialist circles, and right wing circles that Atzmon's writings are antisemitic. He has been censured as much by anti-zionists as he has been censured by zionists. The only place in which there is not a clear consensus of opinion regarding Atzmon is on this article which has been dominated by his biggest supporters.Drsmoo (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The article should describe Atzmon's views, only up to the point they are notable. The article should not be used as a platform allowing him (through excessive direct quotes) to use WP as a platform to promote his anti-Zionist and antisemitic views. Doing that violates WP:SOAP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's appalling. Wikipedia would never allow white supremacists to turn a David Duke page into a platform, and it shouldn't happen here, either. The page has gotten progressively worse, with repeated violations of NOR and NPOV. THF (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. You insist certain quotes be in there. WP:BLP insists quotes be used in context as used by the source. This results in a long listing of his views which you then call a white wash." You can't accept that WP:RS don't see it the way you personally see it.#No consensus has ever been reached as anyone reading this talk page can read. Three editors who have constantly claimed the subject and/or other editors are antisemites keep working to make the article show Atzmon as an antisemite, even if it violates the accuracy of sources and context of quotes. This is easily proved and is against the Israel-Palestine arbitration.
2. It is harassment to search the internet for evidence that people have some view that is a bias. Only through harassment and baiting did I give one of many opinions I have on Atzmon here. My main goal is to NOT see Wikipedia abused by partisans.
3. If you want to have an argument about what the consensus in the world is, first please quote the appropriate wikipedia policy on determining that and applying it here. Then we debate what relevance it has to the article and whether sources use prove that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC

Drsmoo's personal attack above on Carolmooredc is unwarranted, and I urge him/her to remove it. Any comments or images Carol may have on her personal website are entirely beside the point here; and I have seen no evidence that she is one of "Atzmon's biggest supporters". Even if she were, this would no more, in itself, invalidate her edits here than does my entirely opposite view of Atzmon. Please discuss the issue, not the editor.

I disagree with Carol's interpretation of the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboatd, but in line with advice there, I will not at present reinsert the AbuKhalil quote. It would help if, rather than engaging in petty personal attacks here, other editors contribute to the discussion on the noticeboard, in order that a clear consensus can be identified. RolandR (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain why this paragraph is not WP:OR QuoteFarm Misuse Primary Source?

The issues of using primary and secondary sources properly and not in a WP:OR quotefarm edit warring way have been discussed in the sections: "Using 3 recent WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR"; "Please revert redundant, WP:OR edits" and "Wikipolicy on using quotations"; "Secondary sources"; and "edit warring again?" DrSmoo refuses to engage in discussion about these, insults editors, and just keeps reverting in the same POV WP:OR manner putting a bunch of Primary Source quotes in the "allegations of antisemtism" article that only are Your allegations. Can there be any justification for this, wikipedia policy wise??

In 2009, Atzmon referred to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" and stated "Im anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." In the same article, he claimed that "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." He also asks "these were the people who were meant to be the guards of humanity? No. They definitely maintained evil." Atzmon says he considers the concept of Judeo-Christian values "A joke. It's obviously a political campaign to try to unite the power of America to fight the Jewish enemies" He adds that "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." And that "Bush behaved Jewishly (ideologically) - he is a supremacist, he was a tribalist, but he is not a Jew as far as I'm aware." He stated that "the notions of: ”Jewish people”, ”Jewish history” and ”Jewish nationalism”' were invented "In the late 19th century" He added "I categorically refrain from dealing with ”the Jews” as a collective or an ethnic group. Instead I restrict myself to criticism of Jewish politics, Jewish ideology and Jewish identity." He stated that the "Jewish form of secularity" is "supremacist, it is extremely intolerant of others in general" He added "In an ideal (free) world, we may as well be allowed to wonder how come, time after time, Jews ended up despised and detested by their neighbours." Regarding Antisemitism, Atzmon stated "in the old days, antisemites were those who didn’t like Jews, nowadays, antisemites are those the Jews don’t like." Commenting on what he perceives as the essences of Jewish identity, Atzmon wrote, "Chicken Soup- is what is left once you strip Jewish identity of Judaism, racism, chauvinism, White Phosphorous, supremacy, cluster bombs, secularity, Zionism, Israel, intolerance, Nuclear reactor in Dimona, cosmopolitanism, genocidal tendency, etc." In his article "Hatred has turned him into a Jew - Deconstructing Nick Cohen" Atzmon writes "I at first tended to interpret Cohen’s declaration as an acknowledgment that it was the loathing towards others which he finds in himself that made him into a Jew. I was obviously wrong." Atzmon added "As we noticed many times before, it is always someone or something else that transforms the ‘innocent’, ‘atheist’, ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘secularist’, ‘egalitarian’ person into a ‘Jew’." Aztmon continues further "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." Regaring Cohen's Jewishness, Atzmon writes "He possesses all the elementary ideological ingredients, he differentiates the value of people’s ideas based on the colour of their skin. He promotes war as a valid resolution to international problems. Yes, he may not be religious at this stage of his article. But surely most of those who follow the Jewish ideology have nothing to do with Judaism either." Atzmon continues further "we are left with no other option but to expect some growing resentment towards Israel, the Jewish state and Jewish interests in general." Repeating a previous statement, Atzmon says "without justifying any violent act whatsoever, the reasoning behind resentment towards Israel and Jews is rational." Atzmon views Cohen's increasing self identification as jewish as having "reverted to judaism."

It's editwarring at its worst. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't personally attack you, I merely linked to your page and stated that you are a huge supporter of Gilad Atzmon. How is that an attack? ADditionally the argument presented on this article is that one cannot include a blatantly anti semitic quote by Atzmon, such as ""In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." This is a statement which belongs in the antisemitism section. For anyone to say it isn't is blatantly dishonest, and very calculated as well. Drsmoo (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)