Talk:Gilad Atzmon

Antisemitism

Please look this: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/10/gilad-atzmon-the-credit-crunch-is-a-zio-punch/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.61.51 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An overly long quote was just added. My question. Just delete after the first couple sentence - or delete and note what his "evidence" was - i.e., Rothschild manipulating the English stock market during the Battle of Waterloo, which seems pretty silly. Either way, of course, we're using primary sources (can't remember if that's per se BLP violation - but I believe it also was done to let him defend himself...) and frankly someone must have criticized his "argument" by now. Carol Moore 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Article in total close to violating BLP?

I really think the whole article is getting there, so adding gratuitious insults from opinion pieces doesn't help. Once I get over my head cold will decide if it should be taken to WP:BLP noticeboard as being overly POV negative or whatever... Carol Moore 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Obviously it's an extremely difficult biog to get right. I'll have another look over it now, but it's probably a good idea to take it to BLPN again to get further opinions. No negative reflections on those who edit the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and good edits! I'll do it. Carol Moore 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

In asking for opinion a couple of issues that should be brought here also came up besides generally WP:UNDUE:

• There are a lot of Atzmon articles about Palestine and other topics that could be mentioned which would make the whole article unduly long. So is it acceptable to replace a couple of the allegations with descriptions of other of his "political views"?
• Whether to have a separate shorter section on "Allegations of antisemitism" separate from "political views."
• Something I didn't put in but mention above: Editor RolandR is a political opponent of Atzmon's and they do write nasty things about each other in other forums. He has been pretty good about allowing me to revert what I consider his POV edits, including using his own article as a reference. But that WP:Conflict of interest has to be known by new editors when looking at his edits.Carol Moore 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Bad Recent Edits (cooperative editing)

User:Drsmoo and User:Antifacist have chosen to edit this article with POV edits and even insulting edit summaries. After I reverted their changes a few times User:Avraham (Avi) has threatened to get me in trouble under the WP:3RR (3 revert rule], even though policy clearly says Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." Therefore I have invited all three to participate in cooperative editing on this article. Below are specific problems with these edits that I consider violations of BLP - some very serious. Please do not intersperse your replies in my original message which I will keep intact. Copy whatever you are going to reply to to your response.

• • This Diff:
• Removal of from "He studied philosophy in Germany." This never has been sourced and I looked and could not find such a source and believe I removed it before. It plainly does not belong here.
• Removing ref and replacing questionable fact on Orient House Ensemble'
• Removing description of his 2003 CounterPunch piece "Collective Self-Deception: The Most Common Mistakes of Israelis" which actually is a piece about his political views
• Atzmon was quoted by Iranian Press TV as having called the Holocaust a "complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists". REF:http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38848&sectionid=351020604 I put this here on Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Note the woman was sentenced to 3 years in prison in part just for reading what he said in court! So that belongs as part of the story, if the source is reliable.
• Use of this Dutch language source is clearly against Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources - esp. for BLP http://www.westline.de/nachrichten/archiv/index_mono.php?file_name=20051128231021_630_001_2315688&jahrgang=2005&stichwort=atzmon&&start=0&order=datum&ort=bo
• Hirsch does not outright charge Atzmon with antisemitism, but quotes a woman who does and puts his comments in that kind of context. So let's be accurate. I try to be. Do we need a separate section to break down point by point what he says?
• Deleting more info about http://palestinethinktank.com (I don't have a problem with moving stuff back up to a section called "writing")
• Reverting Reviews of Atzmon's music when those are reviews of his books; pure vandalism
  • This diff:
• This probably could find another appropriate spot since we do need balance for all these POV charges from advocacy groups and individuals: He also has written: "I write about things that I find while looking into myself. This is indeed very dangerous for people who try to promote some collective dogmatic and ethnic tribalism."REF:"(DV) Atzmon: Think Tribal, Speak Universal". www.dissidentvoice.org. December 12, 2006. Retrieved 2008-05-23.

Finally I think that Politics and Allegations of antisemitism should be separate sections, so I no longer object to using that in a section title. Carol Moore 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A good article on Atzmon http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1559.

For starters, Israel Shamir is not an "Activist writer" he is an anti-semite plain and simple. And Gilad Atzmon is a holocaust denier as well, to the extent that he even denies that the concept of Holocaust denial and anti-semitism exist. There's no compromise or middle ground here. The facts of the matter are he's a delusional bigot. Drsmoo (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I am going to attempt to stay out of the content issues for now, focusing on policy adherence, and I would like to remind Carol that while true BLP issues are not subject to 3RR, POV-edits that are being misrepresented (through accident or otherwise) as BLP reversions are subject to 3RR. BLP allows for negative information about people, when properly sourced. And in this case, where Atzmon's notability seems to mainly arise from his political stances and the accusatins against him, such information is appropriate, if WP:BLP's sourcing requirements are properly followed. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Drsmoo:Links to articles not WP:RS on wikipedia, pushing your personal POV opinion without adequate references, or deleting WP:RS info because it bothers your personal POV opinion, is plainly against Wikipedia policies. Please read the template at the top of the article's page about repeated violations of WP:BLP.

Avi: I have listed my reverts. Please tell me which one you feel violates policies since I don't know what you are talking about. These threats without backup of charges don't seem to me to be something admins should be engaging in. Thanks! Carol Moore 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Carol, I am not accusing you of anything. I have Gilad Atzmon watchlisted, and when checking the history, you had a sequence of many reverts, so I informed you of the 3RR rules, no more no less. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And I explained the BLP exceptions, including on this talk page, but you keep pushing it, without really clarifying (here) what it is you think I am doing wrong, so it feels like a threat :-). Also feel free to see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles which encourages civil and cooperative editing. It also creates a working group that intends to much more quickly and effectively deal with dispute resolution on problems that arise in editing articles related to these topics.

Carol Moore 17:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC

I'd like to know why Drsmoo undid all my edits, including the minor ones that were only style and wikification. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. I have restored Judith's last version, which seems the most neutral and objective recent edit. We should discuss any further proposed changes here. Where editors disagree but are acting in good faith (and I would include myself and Carol in this category), this should be productive. It will not be possible if editors are not acting in good faith; I name no names, and let's see if anyone decides to fit that category. RolandR (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I was just looking through the list of places where Atzmon has been published and I have a query about Uruknet, which does not have a WP article. The article on the "Bagdad Blogger" Salam Pax describes it in passing as the Iraqi government ISP under Saddam Hussein. This raises a number of issues, not least how someone can be "published" by an ISP. Any views about whether it should be included here? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean we agree to take turns reverting questionable changes made by parties who don't bother to give good reasons for them here? I'll list definitively the ones I want to make in the near future, most discussed in some way or another above. Carol Moore 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

<---Avi, I hope you noticed that we discussed above letting each other know what edits were were going to make before hand, as I did below. But if I have any problems with them I'll let you know. Remember some WP:RS info and references were removed by vandals and others and I'm still trying to get back them back in there. But if you make some changes I suggested, Yeah! Carol Moore 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV summary of German article

For one thing, Israel Shamir is not an "activist" he is a lying Neo Nazi. And any article calling him an activist is insane. Secondly, saying that a source is invalid because it's in German is not very logical. It is a fact, not an opinion, that Atzmon is considered an anti semite by many Jewish as well as anti zionist groups. If the only claim that a source is invalid is that some users disagree with it, it should not be deleted. Drsmoo (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Use of this Dutch (or German, who knows) language source is clearly against Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources - esp. for WP:BLP The source of this article does call him an activist; it also uses another smear against him and smears in opinion pieces are against WP:BLP. What matters is not the unsourced opinions of editors but the sources we are using and what they say. The other option is to not mention Shamir at all. Carol Moore 17:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Carol, I believe you have misread the pertinent policy. Let me quote it in full (emphasis added is my own):

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources

If the source would pass WP:V and WP:RS in its own language, it is acceptable for EnWiki, if there is no appropriate English language source that has the same information, so I believe you are mistaken regarding the policy, Carol. I am not making any qualitative or quantitative statement about the source in and of itself, other than WP:V#English does not necessarily forbid its use. We use Arabic citations on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for example (BBC Persian), but require the English version of Al Jazeera articles where they exist. -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew about that, as would anyone who read the link I provided Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. But until someone got around to doing it, I don't think that the quote should be there. Do you agree it should be removed until that time? Carol Moore 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on both Google's translation and AltaVista's Babelfish, the quote seems accurate <http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westline.de%2Fnachrichten%2Farchiv%2Findex_mono.php%3Ffile_name%3D20051128231021_630_001_2315688%26jahrgang%3D2005%26stichwort%3Datzmon%26%26start%3D0%26order%3Ddatum%26ort%3Dbo&sl=de&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>, so I do not think there is justification for removing it at this point. Rather, in my opinion, we should request a German-speaker to confirm the machine translation. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, anyone who reads the whole article sees that this statement now in the article is false: "Many attendants of a German book reading Atzmon was hosting left in protest after he called the Holocaust a "complete forgery initiated by Americans and Zionists." Only several people left and there is no such quote. See my end statement about why I am putting POV on this whole article because of distortions like this throughout the article.

Evening full of dissonance

Langendreer: "If we are not courageous enough to give us the past, such as adult people to make, then we are not mature enough to us to make what I regard as the true evil of our time consider." Actually, it was followed by a reading concert planned, but the presence of the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon on Sunday in the station Langendreer developed differently than expected. Instead of his new novel "My One and Only Love" (My one and only love) to read Atzmon wanted rather than the book and its emergence backgrounds tell. "In Israel," said the London since 1994 in exile Atzmon, "will be locked up if you do not believe the official matches." In his books he tried to re-arrange the past. Heated debate What followed was a heated debate between the writers and the audience, during which several spectators at protest left the hall. Atzmon described the famous Historiography us about the Second World War and the Holocaust as a complete, by Americans and Zionists initiated counterfeiting. The Germans should finally recognize this and are no longer guilty and do not feel responsible."You are the victims," Atzmon said. Massive criticism The bombing raids on German cities had taken place because the Americans and these bombs had wanted to use. And just as it was in Vietnam and today in Afghanistan and Iraq have been. The true evil of our time are George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon. Especially the discussion flared up violently, as Atzmon, the number of killed during the Holocaust Jews questioned and argued that there was "no forensic evidence" that this amount had actually 6000000. A thesis to him massive criticism from the public revenue. Finally broke Schorneck Frank, organizer of the festival, the dispute to the musical portion of the evening case. But the remaining audience in the hall was the desire to be impressive jazz improvisations of Atzmon and "The Orient House Ensemble" visibly lost. Dienstag, 29. Tuesday, 29 November 2005 | Quelle: Ruhr Nachrichten (Bochum) November 2005 | Source: Ruhr Nachrichten (Bochum)

The fact that Atzmons political views, when they are not just deleted, are interspersed with accusations of antisemitism make this article particularly POV and I'm going to put that tag in. Again I am proposing we separate political views from actual accusations into two different sections and put back some his views I put in last week so people do get a good overview and not just a POV summary. Then readers can decide for themselves, instead of having some editors' POV imposed on them. Carol Moore 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Carol, it is true that Google translates the word "mehrere" as "several". In Yiddish, "mehr" however can mean "many" or "more" so that is why we need to ask a German speaker whether in context the word means "many" or "several". An acceptable solution would be to remove the word "Many" from the sentence pending confirmation from German speakers. Removing the quote in and of itself may be construed as a POV whitewashing attempt. Also, I do not believe that the use of the term "many" qualifies the entire article for a POV tag. The sources brought, so far, seem to be reliable, and the accusations of anti-semitism exist and are sourced. While discussion should be had on how to best represent the accusations and the responses to said accusations, I remain uncertain that the tagging is appropriate in this case. -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More importantly he does not say anything like the Holocaust is "a complete forgery initiated by Americans and Zionists." You did notice that, didn't you?? I hope you will read the other sources as carefully or you are making a lot of work for me pointing out things you misunderstood. sigh. Carol Moore 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What he does appear to say (given the vagaries of poor computer translations) is that "the historiography of the Holocaust is a complete forgery initiated by Americans and Zionists" [1]. RolandR (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Carol, assuming the word "Historiography" is an accurate translation and not a poor choice by the machine, he has said that written records of the Holocaust are a complete and total fraud, which is comparable to saying that the Holocaust, as described, never happened. That woul dmean the forgery of tens of tousands of US, British, and german military records, countelss images, thousands of books, etc. This is why we need confirmation from a German speaker, but the machine translation is strongly supporting the text as written. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First I am embarassed to say that I didn't notice that he allegedly said it in this article because I was focused on fact he allegedly said it in other article too. Let's straighten that out soon! Carol Moore 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Four Hopefully Noncontroversial changes

Ie those that follow wiki policies closely but have been reverted against wiki policy. Please comment with reference to wiki policy if you disagree, not personal opinion. But remember things clearly vs. BLP can be removed immediately and repeatedly...

• Immediate removal of "He studied philosophy in Germany." This never has been sourced and I looked and could not find such a source and believe I removed it before. I have a feeling it was just made up to make him look like a German "nazi."

• I have checked the article history, and this claim seems to have been inserted originally by User:Ednas.[2] Ednas, as is apparent from her edits, is sympathetic to Atzmon, and seems to be a personal friend. So Carol's suspicion of the motive behind thius edit is almost certainly mistaken. However, I have been unable to find any reliable source for the claim. Although I find it in several websites, it looks as though they all quote or copy our article. I think this may be an innocent mistake, based on Atzmon's own statemment that he came to England "to study German philosophy", and also confusing him with Gunther Wunker, the protagonist of his novel A Guide to the Perplexed , who moved from Israel to Germany. So I agree that, unless we find an independent and reliable source, we should remove this statement. RolandR (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Put back the removed reference; remove dubious "currently touring" info (originally in that reference) from paragraph on Orient House Ensemble'
• Use of this Dutch (German?) language source is clearly against Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources - esp. for BLP
• Remove categories under "External Linksk", esp. Reviews of Atzmon's music when those are reviews of his books! Carol Moore 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Carol, the source is in German, not Dutch. and in turn comes from an RS, namely 'Ruhr Nachrichten (Bochum)'. Actually, as reported this ref does not make Atzmon out to be a Holocaust denier of the Irving type. He is cited as questioned the figure of 6 million, and argued that there was no forensic proof/evidence for that 6,000,000. I don't see why this cannot be reported here. Readers can draw their own conclusions, as to whether he is equivocating or whether he blew his top at the 'round', 'upper limit' figure of 6 million, when even serious scholars have calculated nearly a million less (Raul Hilberg thought 5,100,000, Yehuda Bauer is for the figure Atzmon contested), and what he understood by a phrase like 'forensic proof/evidence'. I find these ambiguities deeply distasteful. But the source is reliable, the language source not really problematical as long as one gets a bilingual German/English native speaker to construe it with great precision (it has some grammatical niceties). If anything it is far too succinct, and vague to be definitive one way or another on Atzmon's views, in that a bitter altercation betwen him and listeners gets just two or three lines. I side in any case with Avi here, even though I'ìve only edited this page once or twice, and could be viewed as an intruder.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Adjustment. I have had guests all afternoon and checked too quickly, while engaged in a conversation, looking only at the last paragraph. The first part clearly says he regards the the Holocaust as it has been described in historiography as a forgery started by Zionists and Americans. What caught my eye was his blaming Stalin, which looks like a reference to Ernst Nolte's work and the historians' notorious controversy of the 1980s that spurred. I apologize for this unprofessional intrusion. Doesn't change my judgement though. The source looks RS to me.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that there should not be much problem with using a German-language source if it provides info that is not available elsewhere. We can very easily find a fluent German speaker to comment on its interpretation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to article

I have not even begun to vet the political sections; the musical section was a complete mess in itself. I don't think I will have time to do the politics, even just check the links for accuracy now, so I'll take off the {{inuse}} tag. -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Avi, perhaps we could prevail on User:Ravpapa to look at the music section as well? Perhaps he's our man. Delicate request, to ask such a deeply erudite mélomane to drop the I-pod Mahler and look at this, but, faute de mieux!Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Nishdani. My (limited) musical knowledge does not cover jazz at all (maybe a smattering of Dave Brubek). The structure was a mess though, collaborations and albums in paragraphs separated by style and political leanings. I hope that now, at least, there is a coherent skeleton which can be enfleshed by someone more knowledgeable. -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Remind me sometime in the future to send you a copy of my 85 cds on the history of jazz! Yes, it's now better for that work. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Allegations title

"Allegations..." is the most neutral way to say that Atzmon has been accused of holding anti-semitic views. Remember the months long discussions on the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" articles? The accusations of antiSemitic views make him especially notable, so to hide that is, in my opinion, artificially damping the very facts that give this person that extra boost of notability. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's in the intro that we say what the subject is notable for, in this case jazz music combined with some - let's diplomatically say "unusual" - political views. Thereafter we "let the facts speak for themselves". A neutral subheading will not hide the content of the section; the accusations of antisemitism will still leap out at any reader who has the slightest interest in Middle East politics. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed my repeated proposal that we have two separate sections, one for politics and one for accusations? (Some would have the same sources.) I think putting them together, especially with accusations is POV. Carol Moore 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice. "Views" followed by "Responses" would be in line with other articles on controversial subjects. "Views" will be hard to do, as we don't want to cherry-pick only the statements that his critics have highlighted but to give some kind of representative sample of what he has said. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My exact sentiments. Also, you can't compare allegations against a state, like Israel, with allegations against an individual who could sue wikipedia if he chose. And the sources make their view clear. I assume you mean a "Politics" section with "Views" and "Responses" sections. There is info that was deleted on his views, including where his political pieces have been published. I'll give it a shot. Carol Moore 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable; go for it. -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)An improvement, Carol. Even if it only makes things more structured, that is a definite plus . My sense of symmetry would like to see the Antisemitism section have the title "Antisemitism" and two subsections "Allegations" and "Responses". But I understand from a connotation perspective that it may be viewed as too negative, so your setup may be preferable. We have a ways to go, but nicely done. -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I tell people, if you start editing wikipedia be ready to make a commitment cause it can take a year or so to learn how to both recognize and be NPOV! Carol Moore 22:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Known anti-Semite"

In the section just added, the final sentence is "SCAA chairman Jesper Svartvik said Atzmon was a "known anti-Semite" and urged the party to distance itself from the decision.[31]" While the title of the referenced article contains the phrase "known Anti-Semite", Svartvik is not directly quoted in the article as saying that. I would have removed it, but the article is protected. Note also, from the article: "Ulf Carmesund, international secretary of the Christian Social Democrats, rejects the allegations made by SCAA. "Gilad Atzmon is himself a Jew, and when the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism starts calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite and do the fight against anti-Semitism a disservice," said Carmesund." Seems that should have been included for balance. Dynamite Dan (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The column's headline reads 'Social Democrats invited known anti-Semite to seminar'. It includes the quotation marks, so it appears that they are quoting someone. There's also this document on their website, but my Swedish is rusty. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps someone said it, but I don't think that's enough evidence to lay it at the feet of Svartvik without better attribution. Dynamite Dan (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noting what rest of paragraph says which I'll include. Meanwhile the article is an absurd attack piece. Getting rid of that one foreign language quote may have been enough. But frankly I think the whole issue of excessive claims of antisemitism vs. BLP needs to go to arbitration. Though I won't start there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Atzmon's continued controversial writings

Obviously Atzmon will continue to come out with ever new expressions and variations of basically the same opinions. (Not to mention every fight he has with every minor pro-Israel commentator.) Obviously brand new opinions relevant. However, just putting in out of context statements like two below is not the way to deal with it - i.e. WP:quotefarm. Otherwise, I guess studying the relation of both relevant quotes and context of the new article to other existing points in wiki article and seeing if those or other quotes in the article somehow fills them out is one way. Or just sticking in a full ref to a relevant article in a "for example" type sentence.

• On March 10, 2009, Atzmon wrote"Without justifying any violent act whatsoever, the reasoning behind resentment towards Israel and Jews is rational."REF:[3]
• On January 23, 2009, Atzmon wrote,""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 added "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."REF:[4]

CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The quotes were in context, your attempts at censorship to cover for this Antisemite are disgusting and pathetic. Drsmoo (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Carol here, and I think your personal attacks are unfounded and unhelpful.

The quotes are certainly accurate, and revealing. But it is not enough to simply add "Atzmon said this, Atzmon said that". I could list dozens of similar or even more egregious remarks. If you want them in the article, you have to show how they add to our understanding. Just adding them does not put them "in context"; that has to be established. It shouldn't be too difficult. RolandR (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand there is WP:Coatrack: Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". Which means in this case, for example, no using an article about Atzmon to show critics of Israel that they can be viciously attacked on wikipedia. If there's a brand new subject, the quote may be relevant. If it's a subject already covered but provides more info, then it might be relevant - but it probably would replace other comments. And context remains important for WP:BLP reasons. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of "show(ing) critics of Israel that they can be viciously attacked on wikipedia"; quite the reverse. My only purpose in editing this article is to present the views of Atzmon and his critics. As Carol knows, I have several times removed "vicious attacks" from this article, and I do not accept that my edits can be so characterised. RolandR (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Atzmon does not "deny" he is an anti-semite, quite the opposite, he says anti-Semitism does not exist. " "Because Anti-Semite is an empty signifier, no one actually can be an Anti-Semite and this includes me of course. " Which is of course moronic. It is plainly clear that Atzmon is an anti-semite more than he is an anti-zionist. He hates Israel because he believes they follow "Jewish ideology." I think the attempts to whitewash his blatant racism by calling them "attempts to silence him" as you have done in your edit Carol, is not only blatantly dishonest and morally repulsive, it is massively POV.Drsmoo (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And why on earth do you have this icon on your website http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/nuclearstar.gif Drsmoo (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Roland Rance' two quotes should be identified as his

In just rechecking these sources I realized that it probably would be necessary to point out that Roland Rance is the author of both quotes against Atzmon - even if he was NOT an editor working on that paragraph and this article. Obviously, this goes beyond mere POV to a pretty obvious WP:COI - so hopefully Mr. Rance will be on his best behavior "-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Problematic translation of controversial/libelous material

This poor Google translation of this article in German needs better translation of the following in bold for both BLP and WP:V reasons or the whole thing should be cut. (Note wiki editors are not supposed to do the translation themselves, per Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources.) If these ideas are central to his views, I'm sure clear and accurate English sources can be found.

• Statt aus seinem neuen Roman zu "My one and only Love" (Meine eine und einzige Liebe) zu lesen, wollte Atzmon lieber über das Buch und dessen Entstehungshintergründe erzählen. Instead, from his new novel to "My one and only Love" (My one and only love) to read Atzmon would prefer the book and its origins back to tell. "In Israel", so der seit 1994 im Londoner Exil lebende Atzmon , "wird man eingesperrt, wenn man nicht mit der offiziellen Meinung übereinstimmt". "In Israel," said the since 1994 in London exile Atzmon, "will be jailed if you do not believe the official match." Dies gelte insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Vergangenheit. This was particularly true in view of the past. In seinen Büchern versuche er, diese Vergangenheit neu zu arrangieren. In his books he tried to re-arrange past.
  • What is correct translation of what becomes "official match" since he obviously wants to talk about what gets you jailed in Israel. And not clear what rearranging past refers to; might be relevant to something or could be misconstrued as his fabricating facts.

• Was folgte, war eine hitzige Debatte zwischen dem Literaten und dem Publikum, in deren Verlauf mehrere Zuschauer unter Protest den Saal verließen. Atzmon bezeichnete die uns bekannte Geschichtsschreibung über den Zweiten Weltkrieg und den Holocaust als eine komplette, von Amerikanern und Zionisten initiierte Fälschung. What followed was a heated debate between the writers and the audience, during which several spectators in protest left the hall. Atzmon described the known history of the Second World War and the Holocaust as a whole, by Americans and Zionists initiated counterfeiting. Der wahre Feind sei nicht Hitler, sondern Stalin gewesen. The real enemy was not Hitler, but Stalin was. Die Deutschen sollten dies endlich erkennen und sich nicht länger schuldig und auch nicht verantwortlich fühlen. The Germans should finally recognize this and are no longer guilty and do not feel responsible. "Ihr seid die Opfer", meinte Atzmon . "You are the victims," said Atzmon.
  • These bolds all need better translation since these are hot topics.

• Besonders heftig entbrannte die Diskussion, als Atzmon die Zahl der während des Holocausts umgekommenen Juden in Frage stellte und argumentierte, es gäbe "keinerlei forensischen Beweis" dafür, dass diese wirklich 6000000 betragen habe. Particularly fierce debate erupted as Atzmon, the number of perished during the Holocaust Jews questioned and argued there was "no forensic evidence" that this really amounted to 6000000. Eine These, die ihm massive Kritik seitens des Publikums einbrachte. A thesis to him massive criticism from the public revenue.
  • Precise wording here obviously necessary for WP:V and WP:BLP purposes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. The policy mentioned by Carol states: "Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." RolandR (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insert comments in the middle of other's comments, even when people mis-understand a policy. Anyway, I'll throw in most of the german translation; but I'll also go to WP:BLPN with the specific issues. Is there no record of his saying anything relevant in English? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My response was to one particular point you made, not to the whole passage. It was clearly indented to distinguish it from your original text, and I think it made more sense where I inserted it. But there's no point in edit-warring over this!

On your substantive question, I don't know of any similar statement in English, which is why this German source has been quoted by in various places. The problem here surely is the translation into English of this paper's translation into German of Atzmon's otherwise unrecorded comments (in English). I assume that you accept that the Ruhr Nachrichten is a reliable source, and that there is no question that he said something controversial on the occasion in question. Unfortunately, we do not yet have a reliable translation of what he is reported to have said. A German speaker has told me that the comment as reported refers to the historiography of the holocaust, rather than its history -- ie, not to what happened, but to how this has been described and analysed. It's an important distinction, and shows why we need an agreed and accurate translation.

The importance of article in question is that it was quoted in a German court by Sylvia Stolz, the lawyer for Ernst Zundel, as confirmation of her view that the holocaust is "the biggest lie in world history". [5] So this is certainly notable, even if Stolz misquoted Atzmon, or the Ruhr Nachrichten mistranslated him. RolandR (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the publication would be more credible if more of the translation made sense! They might have sent a cubb reporter who totally flubbed it in addition, but who can tell. I agree that he probably was talking about "histiography" and that's one more thing that gets lost in translation; as well as what gets you jailed in Israel. And certainly the fact that a woman was jailed for five years in part for quoting him is a story, and it probably was related to that event, but obviously it is WP:OR to state that so without a WP:RS saying it is. Bottom line is as long as there is a crappy translation it really is a violation of BLP which has bothered me for a while but I was too busy to parse it out. So people should hurry up and find a decent translation if they want to use it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)