Talk:Adam Keller

Rewrite and blind reverting

I rewrote the article yesterday starting from this version and ending up with this version. I believe it is mostly improvements. I did remove the claim of anti-Zionist as there was no citation, although if you find a RS to this effect please add it back to the article as also add the category Category:Anti-Zionists. All my changes were blindly reverted earlier today, I have undone that revision. If you have specific issues, please address them in isolation and lets move towards model of collaboration instead of antagonism. Thank you. --70.48.70.210 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I did remove this sentence << He has been described as part of the "lunatic fringe leftists" by Nachum Barnea, a senior correspondand for Yedioth Ahronoth >> because the citation given did not have Nachum Barnea mentioning Adam Keller in the article, thus I felt it was a stretch to make that claim. Additionally, one has to remain cognizant of the requirements of WP:BLP which applies because calling someone part of the "lunatic fringe" can be considered defamation. --70.48.70.210 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller is a "supporter" of Hezbollah?

i'll adress each point and the answer is yes in regards to the israeli-palestinian conflict.

I just remove a sentence that claims Adam Keller is a "supporter" of Hezbollah. Three reasons:

• First, the sentence reads like it is an attempt to discredit Adam Keller.

it is hardly an attempt to discredit him, it is your POV that feels he's being discredited by his own ideaology which is you own problem. your lack of knowledge with the person and claims of "discredit" shows how little you know of him... and just to keep on the safe side, i went and asked him how he feels about the way the article was written and he expressed this: thanks for the attention so i believe i did a fair job and "weasel words" were not part of it.

Adam Keller is active in the peace movement and thus it doesn't make sense that he would be a supporter of such an armed groups.

best i'm aware from the research, he's in support of any resistance against what he describes as israeli occupation... if it doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense to him and to others also.

I suspect it is more that he supports making peace with Hezbollah, as signified by his membership in Gush Shalom, rather than further military confrontation.

suspiscions are great for POV abuse... can you even read hebrew? have you done any research?

• Second, the references provided are in Hebrew and in Dutch thus it is difficult to validate. The Hebrew reference is on the Gush Shalom site and thus it is unlikely that it is offering blind support to Hezbollah military actions.

if you can't read hebrew in regards to an israeli activist... than why are you butting in?

• Third, if Adam does have a position vis-a-vis Hezbollah it would be more useful to readers to explain exactly what it is rather than just declare he is a "supporter" since that isn't descriptive and it isn't raising the level of discourse but rather encouraging a bunker mentality.

perhaps more information can be inserted about the several rallies he participated etc. but it has no room in the intro to the article and also there is a lack in varifiable quotations.. even from the verifiable quotation, keller noted to me that his own words were inaccurate and that abu tir marched next to a friend rather than next to him as he was quoted saying... btw, i'm surprized there's no picture of abu tir... i may add one in the near future.

I hope that I am explaining myself adequately. --70.48.70.210 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

you most certainly have explained well how you don't know the subject matter and are in a protective stance for a person you don't know anything about... my article was not about villification but about general stances and conceptions that are pretty much concensus in the public - to make sure it was fairly accurate despite the heated topic i approached keller for his opinion... last note to you (anonymous editor): you should really avoid israeli people related matters if you can't read hebrew... but if you do wish to improve the article, you can do it but without deleteing content and inserting weasel word replacements. Jaakobou 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch article makes doesn't even mention Hezbollah and Adam Keller is only in a section of the article saying (babelfish translation) "we reject with abomination the gekunselde excuses of the government and the army," thus the Gush Shalom representative Adam Keller. "this hecatomb onafwentbaar the consequence of the irresponsable blood thirst of the army, entirely had been supported by the government including already its members.". // Liftarn

great, so now you interfere in this article also... if you read the text and links, you'll understand that the article was approved by mr. keller and that you are once again pushing POV by attmpting to force "better citations" in a situation they are not nessecary in... did you read the discussion or did you jump streight to the end to add your immediate conclusions? Jaakobou 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, this article is not yours. Wikipedia is available to be edited by anyone. If you want to create articles that are not edited by anyone else, I recommend that you create a blog. --70.48.242.49 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

don't you think you should know a little hebrew before becoming so presumptious about biographies of israelis? as for the rest of your reply, i choose to ignore this silly accusation. Jaakobou 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Jaakobou edits to my last version. Please Jaakobou, instead of mass reverting my attempts to edit the article, can you modify it in an incremental fashion. I would much prefer not to be bullied by you away from this article. Jaakobou, you need to work from sources, it doesn't matter what Adam Keller says to you personally nor what you understand about him that is separate from the sources. This is a biography of a living person and thus you need to fully support all the claims you are inserting, and right now this bar is not being met. It is clearly within my right and my duty as a Wikipedian to remove uncited attacks on living people in their biographies. I will report your behavior as vandalism if this continues. I recommend that you find solid sources that make clear connections, the sources you are using are low quality in that make only indirect connections and from my standpoint you are the one using weasel words and misportraying them. --70.48.242.49 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start by making an actual user account (and maybe learn a little hebrew) and then we'll discuss "mass reverting" Jaakobou 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for me to make an account, like just deal with Wikipedia policy as it is. --70.48.242.49 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You should try to find a source in English as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. // Liftarn

I should of course not take a direct part in the editing of the article about myself (I am a bit flattered that so many others involve themselves in it). But I think it is acceptable for me to offer some English-languge sources about where myself and Gush Shalom stood about the Second Lebanon War, and which should give a sound basis for judging whether or not it consituted "support for Hizbullah". [1]

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

Most of these texts were written by me personally, and those which were written by my fellow activists I have helped to spread and I fully and unrservedly endorse every word in them. Adam Keller 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam, there are off-course different ways and differnt levels of support and it's really not my place as a wikipedia editor to judge you, in fact i sort of symapthyze with your point of view even if i don't agree with your general political moves (the one which bothers me most is your use of terminology). however, the general israeli public (and arab public also) has made it's descisions about your position in this dispute and i think it was well illustrated with the nachum barneah quote who's probably one of the more respected journalists here in israel treating subjects without political bias (as much as possible) despite his son being killed by a hamas terror attack (a.k.a. resistance jihad). that's not to judge your position but i think that the article i originally made (which involved fairly deep reaserch over israeli materials and quotes and quotes made on both you and your group) was fairly balanced with the general public perception (including palestinian perception) - and i believe that is also the reason you showed no special objection to the way the article was after i gave you the link... i'm really dumbfound by the insistance of people who don't know hebrew (or arabic) to try and make "editorial edits" on Israelis they know nothing about... maybe that's why this person calls hizbulla7 "terror orgenization" ^{exact argument: "...supporter of such an armed groups."} which i'm sure is not a description you'll agree with off the bat if asked by the media. Jaakobou 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do not consider myself a "Supporter of Hizbullah" or "A supporter of Yasser Arafat" but a supporter of Israel's long-term existence, to which an indispensable preconidtion is that Israel come to terms with its neightbors. But since the rules in Wikipedia is that I should not testify about myself but let others come to conslusions about me from objectively verifyable sources, I provided a few such sources. Adam Keller 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

you totally avoided the question. it is not about how you percieve yourself and what your personal article ssay. but how the public percieves your statements - both israelis and palestinains consider you supporter of hizbullah... all the hebrew material i covered while making the article testified on this. i can talk to you for hours on why both sides percieve you as supporter of both arafat and hizbullah (maybe a hug and a kiss in support of him makes you an arafat hater?)... but i don't think this is the proper stage. what's important here is that people who don't know either the mindframe of the palestinians or the mindframe of the israelis should not presumpteouosly decide on removing statements and validated input just because they can't read hebrew... just for your notice the question was about your willingness to call hizbullah terror orgenization if asked by international media. Jaakobou 12:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When there is a discrpency between what a person considers him/herself to be and what political opponents think of him/her, both are notworthy facts which Wikipedia should mention. For exmaple, if I was writing a Wikipedia page about Avigdor Lieberman (is there a page about him? I never looked) I would not write "Lieberman is a notorious fascist and racist minister in the government of Israel" but "Liberman is a minister in the government of Israel considered by opponents to be a racist and fascist" and bring references to who calls him that and on what grounds. Adam Keller 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

you would need to do that to call him fascist but you would not need refrences to call him right winged... get my point? both israeli mainstreem opinion and arab mainstreem opinion is that you're a resistance (and hizbullah and arafat) supporter..... and you're still ducking the question. Jaakobou 18:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you can call me "left wing" without needing reference. That nmuch is common sense. And if Israeli mainstream opinion and Arab mainstream opinion think of me in a certain way that is a noteworthy fact which should certainly be mentioned in an acticle about me (with references) but not as an objective fact. The fact of mainstream opnion thinking something does NOT make it an objcetive fact. British mainstream opinion in the late 1940s certainly considered Mencahm Begin and Yitchak Shamir terrorists, did that make their being terrorists an objective fact? Should Wikipedia write "Menachem Begin was a terrorist" as an unqualified objective fact? Which brings me to your question: I would not call anybody at all "a terrorist", neither Begin nor Nasrallah. As a matter of principle, I just don't use the term. "Terrorist" in our time is mainly a propaganda term which means "an armed group of people who are not a government and to whose aims I am strongly opposed". (Historiaclly, before the term "Terrorist" was invented, governments and the supporeters of governments usually used the term "robber" - for example, the Spanish Government in the 16th Century called the Dutch who were fighting against its rule "pirates".) The term has no objective content (when Netanyahu was Prime Minster, he once convened in jerusalem a conference of "experts on terrorism", who sat for three dsays and cound not agree on a defintion for "terrorism", becuase they tried to include the Palestinian armed groups and exclude the pre-1948 armed Jewish groups. There just was no definition which would fit this bill. I prefer to define all the armed and fignting groups in the world - whether or not they are the official armed forces of a government - under two criteria: 1) Are the aims they try to achieve justified or not justified, and 2) Do they or do they not harm innocents in attempting to achieve these aims.Adam Keller 20:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I called you part of the fringe left based on a much respected news person. however, with the lack of 2nd party publications about you - being that they are all in hebrew or in refrance to gush shalom, i will promote this article for deletion for lack of notability. you cannot have an article about you and claim you are a regular peace-activist since you've made a step or two beind enemy lines and the public called you on it - just look at the last article about your organization on ynet and the general responses by the public. Jaakobou 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. In general, people who are accused by others in their country of "going behind enemy lines" might not be liked, but are certainly notable. So, your accusing me of that would in itself constitute a good a piece of evidence of notability and against deleting the article. .Adam Keller08:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

RolandR, here's your chance to make a case/reasoning for removal of criticism by nachum barneah about gush shalom and adam keller.

removed segment:

He and his group have been described as part of the "lunatic fringe leftists" by Nachum Barnea, a senior correspondand for Yedioth Ahronoth who stated: "Except for the lunatic fringe leftists, no one disputes that Israel had to react to the killing and kidnapping perpetrated by Hizbullah in our territory" and he has marched alongside Hamas' Sheick Abu Tir and other Hamas and Fatah leadship denouncing what they describe as the apartheid wall.

Refrences:

if you insepct the refrences, you might notice that your claim that the statement is not in there^[7] is false, by the way, the article was written by adam keller *shrug*. Jaakobou 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1) I have read the original Yediot article by Barnea, Inquiry commission that wasn't. The actual phrase in the article is "Aside from the fringe left, there is almost no debate that Israel had to respond militarily to Hizbullah's attack inside Israeli territory" (Ynet, 31 July 2006). I don't know how the term "lunatic" crept in, but it's not what Yediot quotes Barnea as saying. I am always in favour of tracking down the original version of a quote; it's surprising how often people who should be reliable misquote, or uncritically recycle someone else's misquote. In any case, there is no indication in the article that this is intended to refer to Gush Shalom or Adam Keller; the suggestion that it does is an unverified extrapolation of a misquoted source, and has no place in Wikipedia.

2) Adam Keller has himself commented on your own talk page that "I did not march beside Sheik Abu Tir, on that day Uri Avnery marched beside him while I informed the press about it." . It would appear to be a breach of BLP to insist on inserting a claim which has been explicitly denied by the subject of the article. RolandR 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

well responded (although, i'm not sure that's the quote adam keller reffers to). ok, here's the problem (please comment on the subject):

in adam keller's articles he claims he'd been called "lunatic fringe left" - in a hebrew article published by him he claims that he told them media "i've marched alongside abu-tir" - in his "anti-israel" website (a website that focuses on anti-israel materials) he calls himself a peace activist - his group that promotes terror-attacks on israeli civillians, calls itself "gush shalom" i.e. peace block.

how come he claims he's been called "lunatic fringe left"?? .. perhaps a need to be famous? if you look at keller's response right here on the article, he says "go right ahead" or something similar... how does wikipedia treat ("allegedly") lying publishers?.. what's the protocols on that one? same with the "marching alongside abu tir" - that quote was taken off hebrew text quoted and published by adam keller (extreme leftist website)... so which part do i consider honest, the 'media published' quote/the 'on my talk page' statement that he was only in the rally but uri avneri was the closest to abu tir? .. how do you treat an article about a self-published propagandist who endulges in exaggerations and lies... that is the very reason the words "peace-activist" are not a good descrpition... and pretty much anything stated about him becomes a problem.

most people these days - after the kidnappings of hizbollah and hamas, are no longer in support for gush shalom (not the same as peace, many people are still in support of peace), and they've even earned the unkind/slandereous nikname "gush khara" - i.e. "piece of shit", that off course is not wikipedia approved, but it shows you how deeply offended is the israeli public by people who slander on israel any chance they get...esp. during wartime.

these are probably the reasons keller started this article about himself in the first place... so he can put a quote about himself doing something 'peacefull and getting in jail - we actually need a good publication about that one right now - i think the quote should be eliminated due to the lack of honesty on the part of wikipedia abuse by 3rd rate propaganda publishers.

i put a lot of effort reading materials both in hebrew and english for this article, and it seems that all publications are either by keller or through keller and as such they should be eliminated as invalid or kept as if they are factual (even though they are not)... same with the quote on "the guardian", which is once again an anti-israel publication known for it's gross mistakes - and again just a quotation of keller who is known for misrepresenting the facts.

last note: you cannot use the term "apartheid wall" on wikipedia regardless of your stance on the political spectrum. Jaakobou 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

There was an issue for Wikipedia:Mediation which was refused by User:RolandR under the pretext of:

"I don't see why any mediation is necessary, and I disagree with Jaakobou's summary... I see no point in entering mediation with this highly POV editor, whose good faith in this case I strongly doubt."

Censoring of 'criticism on Adam Keller' issue still in dispute. Jaakobou 15:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit with reference to WP:MOS, WP:MSH

in the current format, the capitalisation of the headings is not in line with recommendations of WP:MSH. Specifically: Political Views -> Political views See Also -> See also External Links -> External links

If it wasn't protected I'd change it myself. These are minor issues which should be incorportated into the next modifications to the article.Garrie 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

conscience objector

I believe this to be OR and POV, a much better description would be unpatriotic but i'm sure you would revert on the basis of "OR and POV". Jaakobou 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Archie Doyle

Adam. Thank you for your reply. In the last sentence of the article you refer to 'Tall Tales'circulating on Irish websites. Can you give me a link to any of those sites? I hope you can find time to reply, you seem to lots of things to deal with. I am intrigued as to why an Israeli would have an interest in Kevin O'Higgins in the first place and Archie Doyle in the second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmcd (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)