Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

NPOV tag

By ignoring the controversy over Gilad Atzmon's antisemitism--the single most notable thing about this person--the lead paragraph violates WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. The politics section (which is already tagged) is slanted to include non-notable defenses of Atzmon from non-RS and includes a ridiculous amount of synthesis to defend the indefensible. The music section is full of WP:PUFF, effectively burying the most notable facts about Atzmon. As even the sympathetic Guardian article acknowledges, Atzmon is famous because of his activism rather than his music, yet the politics section is buried at the bottom of the article and largely absent from the lead. THF (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Among the problems:

  • No mention of Atzmon calling himself a self-hating Jew.
  • No mention of Atzmon's support of the antisemitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion
  • No mention of Atzmon calling Israel worse than Hitler
  • No mention of Atzmon claiming that the reason the accusations against him are false is that there is no such thing as an antisemite.
  • No mention that Atzmon is criticized for antisemitism in jazz magazines by fellow jazz musicians.[1]
  • No mention that Atzmon is criticized for antisemitism and Holocaust denial by fellow anti-Zionists.
  • Indeed, no mention of the Holocaust denial controversy at all.

All of these are thoroughly documented in sources far more reliable and notable than those included in the article (which largely relies on the left-wing and antisemitic blog Counterpunch), yet have been sanitized from inclusion.

Since that version of the article, Atzmon has reaffirmed his antisemitism, saying in a 2009 op-ed that "the Jewish lobby is far more worrying than a criminal gang." Needless to say, this quote is also absent from the discussion of Atzmon's antisemitism. THF (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of these issues have been in and out of the article a number of times. One admin deleted all of them at one point. See spring 2009 archives. What is needed is to mention the four or five most WP:RS articles covering most of the accusations. Instead we have a WP:OR synthesis section where one editor deletes all refs to critics of his politics by anti-Zionists and a focus on what he allegedly is saying just about Jews and Judaism. It's apparent to anyone that it's a smear, so none of it can be taken seriously by anyone not already a convicted Zionist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Header tags

I understand the changes which Carolmooredc made to this talk page. However I don't understand the reinsertion of the tag which I had removed from being the article's header. The tag in question is the blp-dispute tag which states that the article "may violate WP policy as it contains unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims". This by itself seems strong for the article which cites 51 different sources, and which already has two "Neutrality disputed" tags. Carolmooredc's edit summary stated that the reason for reverting my edit was that the article is "frequently vandalized" and that it needs a "strong" header. I think it already had a strong header, considering that the article hasn't been vandalized since I removed the tag. Besides, I think the article would be better served if the unsourced or poorly sourced parts were discussed, rather than to give the article a blanket dismissal. Thoughts?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read back through archives you'll see a list of the reasons (most still valid) I still think the article has BLP problems. However, wikipedians seem unable to deal with this article and its issues in a knowledgeable and fair fashion (as my talk-page documented attempts to try to deal with them show), so I'm temporarily taking a break on content to see if any one will come along to deal with my complaints sensibly. Feel free to do so - though it does involve a lot of nit picking on policy issues, where I obviously believe I am mostly right, but most people don't want to spend the time to research/think about it when its in such a controversial area. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
What you identify are not BLP problems, but NPOV allegations, and the article already contains two NPOV dispute tags. The tag you placed is for unsourced material, and you've identified none now that I've removed the only unsourced material left in the article. THF (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious what you found lacking with the Counterpunch reference, THF?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
WEIGHT problems: Oren Ben-Dor, a fellow Jewish anti-Semitic crank, isn't notable, yet his POV is being pushed while mainstream POVs are ignored. Counterpunch is not a neutral RS, and is only reliable for Counterpunch's far-left POV, and should be characterized as such on the rare occasions when it's cited. THF (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand now. Nice catch.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Continued WP:SYNTH of Atzmon primary source quotes

I know from trying to get help on this issue of DRSMOO's synthesis of Atzmon primary source quotes that nobody on wikipedia is willing to do anything about it. So I'm not going to do anything more except demand that the two tags I just put on stay there until a truly NPOV editor looks at it. The Holocaust tag is self explanatory. The tag on the preceding paragraph is explained repeatedly in Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#Problems_with_DrSmoo.27s_edits, not to mention Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#Cherry_picked.2C_out_of_context_primary_source_quotes_POV, Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#Sources_NOT_WP:RS_or_Out_of_Context.2C_violating_WP:BLP, Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#More_NPOV.2C_non-WP:OR_version_of_politics_section. Should I even bother to bring this to WP:BLPN, since most people are terrified of being called antisemites (including in the past on this talk page) if they try to honestly deal with this issue?? 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The moderators and admins did do something about it, they threatened to ban you for abusing multiple pages and wikipedia services. This has been gone over multiple times, and has been agreed upon many times as well.
I'm also reminding you to edit in good faith, rather than accusing everyone of being dishonest. Drsmoo (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Holocaust denial"

I deleted the section in question. First, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Gilad Atzmon, not a collection of every silly or stupid thing he ever wrote. Second, it was clear from reading the section that Drsmoo is able to grasp subtleties with all the nuance of a Mack truck. Finally, if secondary sources start writing about Atzmon as a Holocaust denier, it might be appropriate for the article to mention it. We're here to report what reliable sources say, not conduct our own research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of secondary sources that talk about Atzmon's Holocaust denial. They've been sanitized from the article. Meanwhile, all the original research contorting Atzmon's anti-Semitism into something else remains in the article. Funny how those NOR rules are applied. THF (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of Holocaust denial, bring some of those secondary sources and let's talk about how to include it in the article. A long paragraph of quotes pulled from a recent essay, as Drsmoo did, is not the right approach.
With respect to allegations of Atzmon's antisemitism, what do you think is the problem? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I detailed the problem at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#NPOV_tag. THF (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Malik, I do not appreciate personal attacks. There is nothing obscure or complicated about Atzmon's Holocaust denial. The only complexities are the mental gymnastics some will go through to twist every cruel word Atzmon makes into something they claim as benign.
Atzmon has been referred to as a Holocaust denier many times:
http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0506/..%5C..%5Cevents%5C0506%5Cbookmarks1.html — Drsmoo , — (continues after insertion below.)
As the author of the text cited here, I urge you to (re)read it. At no time did I describe Atzmon himself as a "holocaust denier"; I wrote that he was "defending holocaust deniers". RolandR (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case, in the future, I would recommend not titling articles about wanting to block Atzmon speeches as "No to Holocaust Denial" and then filling them with statements regarding Atzmon's relationship to Holocaust denial.
Needless to say at this point, Atzmon's relationship to Holocaust denial unfortunately goes far beyond supporting Paul Eisen. Drsmoo (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article538076.ece
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3764482
A German article from 2005 is unfortunately no longer online, though it was featured in this article recently. The link was here 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 an english translation of the article http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/03/19/atzmon-in-germany/
Quotes from Atzmon's German tirade reported by Iranian Press TV http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38848&sectionid=351020604 (it relates to when Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel's lawyer read a newspaper report of Atzmon's speech, for which she was banned from practicing in court for five years) Drsmoo (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
In his article in the Timesonline Blog titled "An antisemite's progress" Oliver Kamm criticizes Atzmon's Holocaust denial http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2010/03/an-antisemites-progress.html Drsmoo (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Separating Atzmon's views on Jewish Culture, "Jewishness" and the Holocaust from his political views

I know that it would have been more convenient for me to bring this up earlier while we were in the midst of revising this article. But it really doesn't make sense to have Atzmon's views on "Jewishness" and his statements about Jews in a section titled "Politics." There should be another section for his notable views on "Jewishness" the Holocaust etc, as they are not political in nature. Drsmoo (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia WP:BLP is Broken on this article

Atzmon's views you have been allowed to misquote for more than a years are always in the context of alleged Israeli bigoted or criminal actions. I know no one will fix this horrible POV distortion of a WP:BLP because I tried and no one would deal with it. But just want to register a complaint that a DRSMOO - whose edits have focused predominantly on Atzmon, and who has declared repeatedly his personal opinions about Atzmon - is again getting away with violations of WP:BLP. I know it will just lead to an edit war that I will be blamed for if I try to fix it. Wikipedia WP:BLP is broken when it comes to this article.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm, why do you keep putting my username in all caps? Not that I'm not flattered or grateful, I just don't understand. Btw, per your edit summary, can you explain to everyone how Atzmon's statement that there was no Nazi genocide of Jews is really/subtly (or something) about Israel? Here's the article http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html ThanksDrsmoo (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, DrSmoo.
It is not up to wikipedia editors to interpret what people say, but reliable sources. And you have consistently twisted what those sources say so they agree with your strong POV against Atzmon, the main article you edit on Wikipedia.
But wikipedia is too broken to do anything about it. Unless it's like the lottery and if I complain to the right forum on the right day and the right admin(s) see and recognize the perniciousness of your editing history, they will ban you permanently from this article. As I've said, I refuse to edit war with you any more on this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
So that is your "strategy" (or something)? Have every admin editor and user tell you you're wrong, but repeat the same false points over and over and over in the hopes that 1 out of 100 people will agree with you and then use that to change the article suit your recently stated POV? Once again you refuse to back up your POV as well. You said every antisemitic statement Atzmon makes is really somehow a criticism of Israel. (And yet you attack others for stating their opinion, as that would make them too biased in your view) Clearly you can not defend your position. The reason you were threatened to be banned is that despite having moderators and editors tell you you're wrong for the past two years, you keep on harassing everyone and raising the same false points. Drsmoo (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP Dispute tag

Ok, I'll give it a couple days for others to weigh in and then will relist the issues with the current politics section and new "judaism" section and complain to WP:BLPN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia policy allow an editor to take the same point to noticeboards over and over and over again? If you do it i'll just relink to the last time(s) you posted the same thing there so they can see that the issue was already settled.Drsmoo (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
First, certain issues listed above and the latest issues have not been brought to BLPN; ones formerly brought I believe are no longer relevant. As for removal of the tag by THC, THC and DrSmoo, two editors with strong POV's - against BLP policy - agreeing a tag should be removed does not make it right. I'm busy with personal matters which currently come first in my life, but will relist/list current violations here and give you a chance to correct before bringing to WP:BLPN. Meanwhile I will not be engaging in edit wars by editing the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

question

Re: this in the lead: "He is an extremely controversial figure within the Pro-Palestinian movement because of his relentless attacks on all forms of Jewish identity and belief." Is this true? Wouldn't that make him controversial among Jews, not "Pro-Palestinians" [sic]? Stellarkid (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that he is indeed controversial among pro-Palestine activists. I am constrained from adding too much on this to the article, as I am an involved party; but he has been attacked by leading figures (Jewish and non-Jewish) in the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, by solidarity activists on the Socialist Unity blog, by Assad Abu-Khalil on the Angry Arab blog and by many more progressive and pro-Palestinian activists and bloggers. Some of this material may not be acceptable as reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes; but it is definitely wrong to present this as an issue of "Jews" versus "pro-Palestinians", since members of each category are to be found on each side of this controversy. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There is in fact no source in the article for that statement so it should be sourced per the above or removed. The source mentioned for the next sentence does not mention the topic at all. The link to that source no longer works: Gibson, Martin (23 January 2009). "No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’". Gisborne Herald The Truth Seeker carries a copy. (I saved the original as well.) As I will detail soon, info from that article has been widely misused in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict}Couple of points in relation to that. 1) It doesn't seem appropriate in the lead, for starters, but rather in the "politics" section, and 2)do you have any RS that say what you claim? It seems he would tend to be considerably more controversial among Jews (within and without the pro-Palestinian movement) for his "relentless attacks on all forms of Jewish identity and belief." We would need some RS to demonstrate that this is not WP:OR and I will reiterate that it is not appropriate for the lead to specifically single out "pro-Palestinians" as finding his "attacks" offensive. Stellarkid (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just add that the fact that while there are some in the "pro-Palestinian" camp that find his attacks offensive, is not appropriate in the lead. I am confident that there are plenty more in the pro-Israeli camp and the Jewish camp that find him offensive and it should be much easier to document with RS. In fact that statement in the lead would be highly WP:UNDUEand thus WP:POV even with a source, imho. Stellarkid (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you miss the point here. While many (probably most) pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activists are considered controversial or offensive in the "pro-Israeli camp", what distinguishes Atzmon (and one or two others, such as Israel Shamir) is that their views and writings are condemned also by other anti-Zionists. This, I believe, is significant, and deserves mention in the lead.
I agree that it is not appropriate simply to insert large chunks of Atzmon's own writings in the article, and to invite readers to provide their own interpretation. Unfortunately, most of the relevant discussion has taken place in blogs and otherr "unreliable" sources. Thus, for indstance, As'ad AbuKhalil's description of Atzmon as a "classical antisemite" [2] was repeatedly deleted from the article. But to ignore this criticism, and pretend that it is only Israel's supporters who condemn his views, seriously distorts this article, and misleads Wikipedia readers. RolandR (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
hmmm...maybe'. However if this is a distinguishing characteristic as you say, it should be easy to find references that support this. See WP:Lead#Relative emphasis. As the article stood before I made the correction, it seemed as if it was only a matter of controversy in the pro-Palestinian camp. Clearly this is not so. Perhaps we can simply say that he is controversial for his attacks on Jews and Judaism and his "anti-Zionist" and other views, and leave the rest for the followup. I think that makes sense and is fair. Stellarkid (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me there was one WP:RS that addressed the issue, though I don't think it belongs in the lead. But it doesn't belong in article at all if it is not sourced from a reliable source. See WP:BLP. A personal blog entry that is just a throw away comment and not detailed analysis [like this also isn't terribly WP:RS. Glad to see someone finally noting that "not appropriate simply to insert large chunks of Atzmon's own writings in the article, and to invite readers to provide their own interpretation," my main complaint for months. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He has called himself a "Hebrew-speaking Palestinian".

What's the significance of this statement, and why is it in the first paragraph of the article? Does it really contribute anything of value? If so, it probably belongs in the article itself, not in the lede. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. He defines himself that way. As one of the articles says, his notability on an international level (apart from being one of the best saxophonists in London) stems from his political views. His political identification is therefore highly relevant and belongs in the lead every bit as much as does his musicality. Stellarkid (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Only just noticed your comment, Stellarkid. Hope I haven't been too hasty in effecting Malik's suggested shift. I agree with you that the quote is significant, and that his 'political identification' is highly relevant. I feel this is now very well-established in the lede in its current form. Does the quote not read better where it now is? See what you think. Wingspeed (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS also show Atzmon has called himself a "self-hating Jew" and a Jew and I'm sure a few other things. He's obviously playing with the concept of identity and either all of these should be in one paragraph under politics, or none anywhere. Whether that paragraph should be referred to in the lead can then be discussed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Carol. Atzmon has called himself many things in various interviews. Unless Atzmon or some other RS says he "defines himself" this way, that way, or some other way, I think it's a matter of cherry-picking and WP:UNDUE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Atzmon consistently calls himself an "ex-Jew". Eg: "Despite the fact that I am an ex Jew", A New Jewish Goal, 16 February 2010[3]; "I regard myself as an ex Jew and ex Israeli", Interview in Eleftherotypia, 4 October 2009[4]; "I am an ex Jew", Just can't get enough? Atzmon answers Rosen, 10 January 2007[5]; "Being myself an ex Jew", Tony Blair: The Orator is Naked, 9 August 2006[6]; "I am an ex-Jew", Beauty as a political weapon, 14 January 2006[7]; "I am an ex-Jew. I was born a Jew but I left it behind", Gilad Atzmon on the Jewish mindset and Zionists against Zionism, 31 January 2006[8]. There are plenty more examples; and these are only direct quotes, there are atr least as many examples of interviewers and reviewers paraphrasing or quoting him as saying this. So I think that the article can reliably state that he considers himself "an ex-Jew". RolandR (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I only checked one source, but if all accurate, good research. Of course, some of the sources don't pass the WP:RS test.But they certainly do show a pattern that outweighs the two or three times I've heard him call himself a Jew, which I don't care to drudge up among my saved files, since anything I recommend or put in this article will be edit warred out by DrSmoo.
Also, if the article was truly NPOV it would mention (as it did in a past version) that Atzmon says in source I checked: "However, a lot of my criticism of Jewish identity, Israel and Zionism is based on self reflection. It is the Israeli in me that I criticize and deconstruct." CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag should remain until Anti-Zionist point referenced or removed

Once again DrSmoo removed a tag before an issue was settled. This time Citation needed from sentence Atzmon is a controversial figure within the anti-Zionist movement because of his attacks on all forms of Jewish identity and belief. At this point the tag is there because there is no WP:RS about anti-Zionists saying anything about his statements on "Jewish identity and belief." Other issues remain but that is the one this tag refers to so do NOT remove it until the point is referenced or the sentence removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding these three sources not acceptable, which is why they were deleted in the past. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Three_questionable_sources_in_a_WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems with "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism" Section

Here's first of several sections to be added explaining the [POV and OR tags. (IS there a multiple problems for section template? Couldn't find it.)

Outline of what Gibson article really says

Below is from this archive posting re: Martin Gibson interview. The problem being DrSmoo three times uses (and often misrepresents) what serves his purposes from Gibson while in the past claiming Gibson was NOT WP:RS when something he disagreed with was used. At Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_4#Do_sources_say_criticism_of_Zionism_led_to_charges_of_antisemitism.3F DrSmoo writes: The Gibson article is not notable enough for Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." The Gilchrist article is from a semi high quality news organization, and as a result makes no connection between Atzmon's Anti Zionist Statements, and the accusations of Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial as a result of his Anti Jewish statements. Drsmoo (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So just to be clear on what is in Gibson before discussing in a new subsection what is misused, here are Gibson's summary quotes, usually followed by supporting quotes from Atzmon: 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."

Just for starters. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about Gilad Atzmon,not about the Gisborne Herald or Israel or Jews. I don't see the relevance of you posting that at all. Drsmoo (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Though that source should have been removed before, I'm removing it now. Drsmoo (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The Gibson article was about an interview with Atzmon and all of it is relevant. The point was to show how you abused the message of the article.
  • You think Gibson is not WP:RS. I don't agree. But obviously since you revert/edit war out everything I do, I can't add anything from it, can I? CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, your analysis above is simply WP:OR. The RS say anti-semitic. He says "Jews." The fact that he was born Jewish does not mean he cannot be antisemitic. A lapsed Catholic can become a rabid anti-Catholic. A 'lapsed' Jew, an antisemite. Stellarkid (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your response is related to the specific WP:RS under discussion or any other one, so it is basically soapbox. Is it soapbox to note that criticizing Israel, Zionism, Judaism or Jews who support them are not necessarily bigoted, depending on a number of factors? . I haven't been a Catholic since 1964 but I still get a little suspicious of those who vehemently criticize Catholicism, so I'm not unsympathetic to the paranoia of those who yell antisemite at the slightest hint of criticism. Just a general comment also unrelated to any specific wp:rs CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to demonstrate that Atzmon is an "anti-Zionist" and not an "antisemite." Please correct me if I am wrong. The only sentence in your outline that you can point to to support your contention is "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." However, it is clear that the majority of this article is simply a string of quotes, and that statement is not a 3rd party statement, but a paraphrase of Atzmon, a literary device meant to connect the sections. Drawing conclusions from Atzmon's own words constitutes WP:OR. Further, that source is not RS (Truthseeker) and the original link to the source is broken so it cannot be verified. Stellarkid (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an editor's job to prove he is or isn't an antisemite. It is an editor's job to fairly represent opinion on that topic, including rebuttals of various charges made. I protest that those have been removed, among other things. But I've given time for issues to be corrected, they haven't been, and I'll have to bring current ones to appropriate forum.
The whole point of secondary sources is that they do summarize or characterize comments in an interview. The Lewis and Gilchrist articles described in this talk archive do the same thing. However, I don't know if there's necessarily anything in Gibson that isn't in the Gilchrist or Lewis articles that needs to be in the article. Will cross that bridge when and if I come to it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, this article isn't about proving anything, it's about providing the notable sources that comment on the subject and writing a good, readable article. Drsmoo (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
If that is true, why have you responded directly to only one (Aaranovitch) of my specific criticisms of your section presented directly below? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see your point, we've already debated all of these sources over and over again, including on multiple noticeboards. Drsmoo (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentence by sentence analysis showing these are political accusations

And that it is WP:OR and WP:Synthesis to label this section "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism." Article quotes in italics, my responses underlined.

  • Several of Atzmon's statements regarding Jews and Judaism have led to allegations of antisemitism.[1][2] First Ref: Aaronovitch quotes two sources who say he's an anti-semite, one gives no reason, the other charges "blurring the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism." Clearly political. Second Ref: Curtis lists the statement below among other political statements, and as Atzmon replies below, it was a political statement.
  • The Board of Deputies of British Jews, criticized Atzmon for saying, "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act."[2] Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer that "since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people’ ... any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right."[3] Even Atzmon's truncated statement makes clear it was a political statement.
  • In 2005 David Aaronovitch criticized Atzmon for writing in his essay "On Anti-Semitism" that "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously."[4][5] However if you fully quote what Atzmon actually says in that second reference, it is clearly political: Since America currently enjoys the status of the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force.
  • Journalist Nick Cohen compared Atzmon to members of the far-right with a paranoid mentality,[6] for his statements that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity."[6] Of course there is NO context for this so who knows what Atzmon really said and in what context.
  • In 2007 the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism criticized the Swedish Social Democratic Party for inviting Atzmon to speak, saying he had worked to "legitimize the hatred of Jews.”[7] And of course the Social Democrat's political defense of Atzmon has been deleted from the article which is: "Atzmon is critical of the state of Israel's politics and of Jewish organizations that support the state of Israel's politics in the name of all Jews. Atzmon belongs to that group of Jews that refuses to be associated with the Israeli occupation and the state of Israel's breaches of international law. See WP:POV.
  • In his blog for The Times, Oliver Kamm charges Atzmon with antisemitism for his article "Truth, History and Integrity: Questioning the Holocaust Religion" [8] in which Atzmon writes "It took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative."[9] The purpose of the article is to debunk John Pilger's quoting an Atzmon political statement by painting him as merely anti-Jewish, just as Drsmoo tries to do in creating this separate section. But that kind of POV not allowed on wikipedia. And of course Drsmoo quotes selectively from what Kamm quoted selectively. The article is not loading on Al Jazeerah so right now I don't know what his full context was, but assuredly
Having found the article now, it is his response to the ADL backsliding on its recognition of the massacre of Armenians as genocide. It is clear Atzmon talks about the crimes of Israel/Zionism and the misuse of facts and myths about the Holocaust for political reasons when he writes: The ADL’s behaviour is a glimpse into the notion of Jewish history and the Jewish understanding of the past. For the nationalist and political Jew, history is a pragmatic tale, it is an elastic account...This is also where Judaism was transformed from a world religion into a ‘land registry’ with some clearly devastating racially orientated and expansionist implications. In any case, one such questionable example would not excuse creating a whole section.
  • The rest of the section is Atzmon defending his Political views: Atzmon denies he is an antisemite, stating that "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" [10] Atzmon defines himself as an "ex-Jew" [11] and a "proud self-hating Jew" [12] and questions "the ties between a Jewish world view and Zionism." [13] He states that he does not attack Jews or Judaism but Zionism and what he calls “Jewishness,” which he describes as "very much a supremacist, racist tendency."[14] He told one interviewer “The anti-Semitic slur is a common Zionist silencing apparatus,”[15] and told another about a “crude and banal attempt to silence me by spreading lies, slander and defamation.”[16]

I realize that other editors also are constantly reverted by Drsmoo and may not want to get into this. I certainly have Stopped editing his work - except for tags - because of constant reverts. (And half the tags are reverted without changes anyway.) It is against NPOV to take statements out of context to make a case he is talking about Jews and Judaism when he is criticizing political activities of Jews and Judaism when it becomes a front for Zionist war crimes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

While it is nice that you have your own strong POV, your opinions regarding Atzmon's intentions are irrelevant as the section is based around the observations of notable commentators and organizations. With that said, your "explanations" do not in any way change Atzmon's statements from being directed at Jews as a whole. Simply expanding a quote, whilst the subject remains, in the opinions of notable sources, fixated on Jews, Judaism or Jewishness, does not magically change its subject. Also, while you certainly have the right to your opinion I personally find the statement regarding "facts and myths about the Holocaust" disturbing. Drsmoo (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
As usual you ignore the main point, that his comments are in a political context and belong under politics section. I'll give others a chance to opine.
But let me clarify that in writing "facts and myths about the Holocaust" I am characterizing Atzmon's view in the article under discussion and elsewhere, not engaging in WP:SOAPBOX. (He uses myth in title of two other articles linked on that page which is probably why I connected the word with that article.) He writes there that the Holocaust "must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail. During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations." So there he is writing about a minor myth that was not factual. That certainly is different than someone saying that the whole story of Nazi persecution and genocide vs. Jews is mythical, which neither he nor I do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
As usual you ignore the main point, that his comments are in a political context and belong under politics section. I'll give others a chance to opine.
This is your opinion but it is not correct, and it's falseness is not simply because I say so but because reliable sources and notable commentators say that Atzmon is attacking Jews, not simply engaging in political discussions. You seem to contend that a statement can not be antisemitic if it has any political element. Seeing as how nearly all anti-semites are both anti-zionist and anti-Israel, this conception is ridiculous. Your personal opinion is irrelevant, and your "clarification" does not strengthen your argument in any way. Stating that something is "clearly political" while providing a weak explanation or no explanation at all does not make it so. This debate however is meaningless as the fact remains that a multitude of reliable sources criticize Atzmon for his statements regarding Jews, Judaism and Jewishness independently from his political statements, hence a separate section in the article.Drsmoo (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
But let me clarify that in writing "facts and myths about the Holocaust" I am characterizing Atzmon's view in the article under discussion and elsewhere, not engaging in WP:SOAPBOX. (He uses myth in title of two other articles linked on that page which is probably why I connected the word with that article.) He writes there that the Holocaust "must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail. During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations." So there he is writing about a minor myth that was not factual. That certainly is different than someone saying that the whole story of Nazi persecution and genocide vs. Jews is mythical, which neither he nor I do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
No, in the article Atzmon attempts to use what he perceives to be logic to claim that the Holocaust "narrative" "doesn't make sense" and therefore couldn't have happened because as he claims earlier in the article "any Jewish collective vision of the past is inherently Judeo-centric and oblivious to any academic or scientific procedure.". However the only impression made is of profound ignorance. He also claims that the reality of the Holocaust as it is understood by scholars the world over is a "Zionist narrative" which is false. These quotes aren't in the article though because as Malik Shabazz pointed out, no notable source has commented on those quotes yet. I think it's important though that, rather than you and I "debating" what Atzmon said, we continue to stick to notable sources, many of whom condemn Atzmon as an anti-semite independently of his political views Drsmoo (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Drsmoo wrote: You seem to contend that a statement can not be antisemitic if it has any political element.
Reply: You obviously still do not understand. The point is that his statements are criticism of religion based on the politics of Israel, Zionists and their supporters - therefore they belong in the politics section where they were for a few years in their various forms. If Atzmon thought Israel's political actions were righteous, he wouldn't even bother with these elaborate psycho-cultural-religious analysis. Obviously some of his comments are criticized by a few individuals and groups as antisemitic. But by creating a section called "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism" you are trying to make it look like his motivation for writing is anti-Jews/Judaism when his motivation is to look for the reasons Israel and its supporters engage in political behavior he criticizes. This is your way of dismissing his political views and it is a POV against WP:BLP. See particularly Wikipedia:BLP#Writing_style
Tone: BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement...
Criticism and praise: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.
Please try to understand my points. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand your points. However the fact is that your argument that he is "anti-jewish because he's anti-Israel" is both incorrect and irrelavent. He is cited for his anti semitic statements by a multitude of reliable commentators and organizations. In citing him for these anti-semitic statements, it has nothing to do with his positions on Israel, which are criticized separately.
For example, when Aaranovitch criticized Atzmon, it was solely for his Anti-semitic statements, the same for the multitudes of anti-zionists who have criticized him for his anti-Jewish statements. His statements regarding Jews and Judaism are independently noteworthy from his political statements. Drsmoo (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
What reliable source says he is "anti-Jewish?" Aren't you engaging in WP:OR??
Anyway, as I show, Aaronovitch misrepresents what Atzmon says. After all he has his own very strong POV, all his works defending Israel in some way and/or attacking those who merely criticize it, as well as real antisemites. So do all the other sources attacking him. Yet he is not allowed to defend himself against specific accusations. Using sources that misrepresent what subjects of biographies say surely is against WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't just remove things from the article because you claim that every notable source is "biased." It doesn't work that way. Drsmoo (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
An admin did something like that a year ago. If we did not have an editor allowed to engage in constant edit warring against attempts to balance the article, maybe we could rationally discuss which sources are and are not biased. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent relevant Atzmon comment

In Cyprus Mail "Wandering jazz player" article, Feb. 2010, Atzmon says: “I don’t write about politics, I write about ethics,” he replies. “I write about Identity. I write a lot about the Jewish Question – because I was born in the Jew-land, and my whole process in maturing into an adult was involved with the realisation that my people are living on stolen land.”

While most of his comments analyzed above are more political than religious, some, and others not even mentioned, clearly are ethical criticisms of the religion as practiced. The bias is making the whole section a listing of those highly partisan groups which have chosen to lambast him, while ignoring the several long interviews done with him from WP:RS. I am glad some people are taking on the guilty-by-association David Duke entries some editors are putting in, the larger POV still has to be dealt with. I guess the best thing I can do is rewrite the sections in an NPOV manner and as soon as they are reverted report it to WP:BLPN and see if any truly NPOV editors pop up willing to deal with this highly partisan lead and attack section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New biased edits

Geez, now we've got another series of questionable edits by a brand new editor User:RTLamp. Most especially his removing two sites that publish Atzmon as "minor sites" and then adding the minor David Duke site because it publishes him. Unless he can show there is some special arrangement with Atzmon to publish the material, this is just prejudicial guilt by association. And of course creating a whole section on Holocaust Denial based on a couple of comments taken, as usual, out of context is WP:Undue. Also, RTLamp removing Atzmon's defense of himself twice. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section on Holocaust denial. It said that Atzmon circulated an essay by a non-notable person that supported a Holocaust denier. So he supported Holocaust denial in two degrees of separation? Come on, that's mud-slinging, not encyclopedia-writing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That the essay is by "a non-notable person" is not the significant point; the significant point is that Atzmon chose to sink to distributing a pro-Holocaust-denial essay of any sort, no matter the author; the press found this noteworthy enough to mention in print (I have other citations as well, but did not introduce them to avoid citation overkill), and the SWP found it noteworthy enough for Atzmon to need defending under the official banner of the SWP itself. Therefore its significance is established.
The WP page for "Dissident Voice" was deleted for WP:N. The WP page for "David Duke" is still there, because Duke's a notable guy (for all the wrong reasons). As a noteworthy person who lauds Atzmon, Duke certainly can be mentioned.
A compromise position would be to continue to state that Duke posts Atzmon's material but to delete the fact that Grand Wizard Duke personally finds Atzmon so praiseworthy. That is a compromise I could endorse. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, the fact that the strongest link you can find between Atzmon and Holocaust denial is a relatively insignificant paper is significant. It shows how tenuous the connection is. Atzmon's statements about Jews and Judaism are pretty strong stuff. Why waste your time with this silliness? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Atzmon's unfortunate pattern of going back, again and again, to the rhetoric of Holocaust denial means that no, the Eisen paper isn't "the strongest link"; however I have not present it as such, but rather as the instance which brought the topic to the attention of the press and, in reaction, to his protectors at the SWP. That makes it the most important one chronologically. It would be unencyclopedic merely to pile all the information about Atzmon's ties to the Holocaust denial movement into a paragraph edited by backhoe; instead I chose the incident with the widest historic ramifications in terms of response. I have also explicitly quoted Atzmon's direct 2005 renunciation of Holocaust denial.
Am I reading you correctly, that you think distributing a deeply antisemitic essay under your own imprimatur is mere minor "silliness" -- on par with a hangover after a rough night out, maybe? If so, it may behoove you to look a little deeper into the phenomenon of Holocaust denial. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
A more specific question, of course, would be this: is it your position that David Duke is not a notable figure? RT-LAMP (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I think what you're fighting to defend is silly. You gave the section a title ("Allegations of Holocaust Denial") that wasn't supported by the text. You presented a defense against allegations that haven't been made (in the encyclopedia article). You added your own interpretation ("Later statements from Atzmon on the topic are more ambiguous."), which violates our policy against original research. Then you say that so-and-so called Atzmon an antisemite.
So what exactly is the "value" of the section you're fighting to defend? What does it tell the reader that Atzmon's other statements about Jews and Judaism, and the other accusations of antisemitism, don't? That's what I don't get.
And what does David Duke have to do with this? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not all forms of antisemitism are the same. It comes in different flavors. Because of Atzmon's association with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir, his distribution of Paul Eisen's essay, and many additional comments -- and again, you can't pretend there aren't many more where that came from, because you've swept them under the rug personally in the past -- it is completely justified to include, as a subsection of the "Statement of Jews and Judaism" section, a short examination of Atzmon's stance toward Holocaust denial as a distinct form of antisemitism, one with its own characteristics, history, and rhetoric, one that Atzmon was distinctly attacked for in print in a national newspaper and distinctly defended from in an official statement promulgated by a national political party in the UK. Whether or not you think it's a big deal, they certainly did, and I cannot understand why you find it so important to block the appearance of these quite obviously significant events from Atzmon's entry. RT-LAMP (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Even before RTLamp's biased edits (and sophisticated rationales) these sections on Atzmon already violated Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise which reads: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.
Even the biography of Adolph Hitler only mentions he was an actual antisemite in the second paragraph. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, let Atzmon rise to the head of a dictatorship and start a genocidal world war, and maybe it'll push antisemitism into his second paragraph as well. Shall we give it a try? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The David Duke wikipedia article doesn't even mention allegations of antisemitism against him until half way down the article, while the Atzmon article has them in the lead and as a whole section. The former brief description of his views has been repeatedly gutted. Why does Duke get more respect than Atzmon on Wikipedia, I wonder? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's because Duke is an equal-opportunity hater, while Atzmon only hates Jews? If David Duke focused all his ethnic hatred into just one ethnicity the way Atzmon does, I'm sure it would get pushed back into his lead paragraph. Incidentally, to set the record straight, Duke's racism is mentioned in the very first sentence of his entry. Atzmon gets off comparatively easy, I'd say. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Your various comments betray a great deal of bias against the subject of the bio. Perhaps you are too biased to edit here? This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog or political pamphlet, after all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

David Duke

I am reinstating the citation from David Duke, who is a notable figure -- arguably the US's most famous professional racist and antisemite. When you've been praised by one of the most famous antisemites in the world, that's certainly worth at least a sentence. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:RS: David Dukes opinion is not notable for anything, except on David Duke. (On another note; how would you feel if someone introduced David Dukes opinion on, say, Ehud Olmert, or Sharon, into their articles?) Huldra (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Section is about claims that Gilad Atzmon is an antisemite. I added a single sentence -- including citation -- showing that David Duke praises Atzmon.
High praise from David Duke -- arguably America's highest profile professional antisemite -- is self-evidently relevant in a discussion of Atzmon's antisemitism. It is the expert judgment of a professional antisemite.
If there are alternative forms in which this information can be presented in the Atzmon entry without dispute, I am quite willing to do that. If there are, however, no alternative forms that you find acceptable, I can only conclude that your goal is not the betterment of WP but simply to bury significant but embarrassing information about Atzmon. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Huldra has now deleted the sentence twice, and I'm not going to get into a revert war. What alternative forms for that information -- which is significant and relevant, and should not be excluded -- would you prefer, Huldra? I'd be happy to work on a compromise, as long as that compromise doesn't mean simply burying information that's significant, relevant, and verifiable. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Huldra, I think you're mistaken about WP:RS. I think it says that Duke is only a reliable source concerning his own opinion. See WP:RS#Statements of opinion.
However, the question of whether Duke's opinion belongs in the article is a different matter. RT-LAMP, the fact that Duke likes Atzmon means what exactly? Why are you putting it between two paragraphs about antisemitism? I think you're trying to make Duke's statement mean something other than what it says; that's synthesis, a form of original research, and it's not allowed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
You would accept it as a separate subsection then, outside of the antisemitism section? RT-LAMP (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Duke is certainly a reliable source concerning his own opinion; the question is whether his opinion is notable on other subjects. If no "mainstream", RS-source have thought so: then no, they are not notable. In other words; if you find BBC, or whatever, *noting* that David Duke thinks such and such about this or that person, you might add it (as long as it does not violate WP:UNDUE). But if, say, a *noted* antisemite voiced a very strong opinion about, say, "money-grabbing Jewish leader mr.X"..you certainly would not insert that into the article about mr.X, would you? But is the same person express (unwanted) praise mr.Y, *then* his opinions are suddenly notable, and it should go into the mr.Y-article? If so: the bias is mind-boggeling. Huldra (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Your analogy rather dramatically misses the point. When an antisemite insults a Jew, that's "dog bites man"; when an antisemite -- especially literally America's most famous one -- ringingly and effusively praises a Jew, that's not just "man bites dog" but "famous man bites dog, and quite many times too." RT-LAMP (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This "famous man" has bitten quite a few dogs, then; it is not the first time I have had this argument about DD. It boils down to this: if no-one else has noted his view, then certainly we shouldn´t either. Huldra (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

David Duke's opinions have some significance under certain circumstances. He has his own WP page, ran for President quite often, and wrote a book about the "Jewish question". Considering that Atzmon is also political and also concerned with the "Jewish question," I think this is note of interest for readers and will provide a bit more information on the issue to them. The quote is quite moderate and perfectly appropriate. Stellarkid (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Huldra, you are in violation of WP:3RR, having reverted the same change three times in a 24-hr period. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor violates 3RR when she/he makes more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. Huldra has made exactly 3 reverts. Her next revert, should she make another revert, will put her over the 3RR "bright line". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
All right, then I apologize for my misunderstanding of it. RT-LAMP (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)a

I still don't see what is wrong with putting up David Duke's opinion. Latest revert was Shabazz saying that it was WP:SYNTH. If I find an opinion of Chomsky on Norman Finkelstein's site, I can't use it because ....why again??? Stellarkid (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above concerning WP:SYNTH? It doesn't sound like it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, but I didn't find it particularly helpful. Stellarkid (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Ho
How do you get WP:SYNTH out of a comment made by David Duke about this person? Stellarkid (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody know why Duke praised Atzmon? Why are you putting the sentence under the title "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism", sandwiched between two sentences about antisemitism? That is WP:SYNTH. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was going to move it to the bottom but it got reverted out so quickly I didn't have the opportunity. It could go into a "criticism" section as criticism can be both positive and negative. Stellarkid (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
All right, then the solution is to create a separate "Reaction to statements" subsection under "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism" to remove it from the context you object to. And if you feel that "Statements regarding Jews and Judaism" does not accurately reflect the content of the section, I would agree to a change to "Antisemitism Controversy". RT-LAMP (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"Antisemitism controversy" isn't a bad compromise. Stellarkid (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
As to why Duke praised Atzmon, most likely because he agrees with his views. Stellarkid (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with the current title ("Statements regarding Jews and Judaism") except that it's clunky. You can change it if you'd like. My concern is the WP:SYNTH of putting the Duke statement in that section. None of us know why Duke likes Atzmon, so why should we speculate that it's his views concerning Judaism that Duke likes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"Most likely" doesn't cut it. On Wikipedia, especially in a WP:BLP, we don't engage in original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Lol read the source. "The fact that he would expose the Jewish world declaration of war against Germany, even before any German actions against Jews, is something that hardly any Gentile public figure would dare do. " and of course he likes the way that Atzmon writes about "Jewish extremism." Stellarkid (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Malik's point is that, no matter what the His Royal Klanness Duke has to say about Atzmon -- though it's pretty clearly love at first site -- that doesn't directly tell us anything about what Atzmon thinks of Duke, or anything else for that matter, and should not be presented with that implication. And I agree with that, which is why I'd be willing to have the Duke information moved to its own section. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What's clear? Which of Atzmon's views does Duke like? He admires Atzmon's courage and honesty. Where does it say he agrees with Atzmon? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Gilad Atzmon's article frequently appear on David Duke's site. A google search reveals how often http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?s=atzmon Whether Atzmon contributes the stories or they are picked up isn't clear, but it's certainly clear that he's somewhat prominent on an unfortunately well known racist/anti-semitic site run by a quite notable racist. Drsmoo (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And, I might add, that if he is putting them on without the permission of Atzmon he is violating copyright and Atzmon could tell him to desist. Apparently Atzmon does not mind the exposure on his site. Stellarkid (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Huldra has violated the three RR rule. Though to comment on the edit, every site Atzmon writes for is a fringe site, so to remove the fringe for only that reason is of course massively hypocritical. Drsmoo (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
People often do not choose to contest questionable sites quoting their material because they prefer not to establish a relationship with them. In any case, it is clear that Atzmon's effectiveness in bringing his critical views to millions of people worldwide has attracted extreme partisans to trash his wikipedia biography. The only question is, is there any Wikipedia mechanism left to deal with it?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This article would be a lot better if you would actually edit in good faith. Drsmoo (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of Atzmon's most vocal opponents are well-established and leading anti-Zionists in the UK -- such as no less than the co-founder of the Palestine Solidarity Committee -- who have reluctantly learned that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not mutually exclusive after all, and that more than anyone else it's Atzmon who emblemizes the common ground between the two, something increasingly widely recognized among anti-Zionists once Atzmon's antisemitic rhetoric began drifting into Holocaust denial circa 2005 (google "Atzmon SWP"). I think the best mechanism for dealing with this would be for Atzmon to stop playing his double game of trying to wrap the ideology of the antisemitic fascist right -- up to and including Holocaust denial -- in the language of the progressive left. <personal attack redacted> RT-LAMP (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Curious readers may of course check the page history and see what that egregious and scabrous "personal attack" was. But you better hide the kiddies' eyes first! It must be mighty bad! Maybe you could tell him. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And those readers are referred to your talk page where Malik explained why the comment was a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
All right then, let me apologize. Carol, I'm sorry if I implied you were associated in any way with Gilad Atzmon, had corresponded with him, or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTLamp (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That works for me. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I had to look through history to find the deleted comment: "Maybe you could suggest that to him." Certainly ambiguous enough of a statement since his email is public and anyone can email him. The less subtle and far more deleterious ongoing problem is constant attacks on Atzmon himself on this talk page and now on the WP:BLP Notice board (WP:BLPN) as an incredibly evil person. These show an extremely negative POV by various editors which goes against wikipedia policy. This negativity can be used to intimidate editors merely trying to comply with WP:BLP by tarring them with guilt-by-association.
Also, I don't think there is any WP:RS saying Atzmon considers himself a leftist, a rightest, a socialist, a libertarian, or anything else (or even a "political activist" per the lead?), so I don't think leftists should get their panties in a knot in fear of becoming victims of guilt by association by the few highly partisan individuals and organizations who attack him. And Jazz is hardly "left wing." CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Atzmon himself has stated in an interview: "I argue that left and right are dated concepts. I am interested in an authentic moral thinking, something that is not found amongst our contemporary politicians."[9]RolandR (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Good quote for the politics section - except of course POV editors will revert, as I know from past experience. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

David Duke -- consensus?

The information on David Duke in the Atzmon entry is now a single citation; the praise of Atzmon has been removed. The version in the entry now is less than some want and more than others want; one of the signs of a good compromise is that even if all parties aren't happy, at least all parties are equally unhappy. It doesn't read the way I personally want it to, but I'm willing to live with it in its current state. Do we have consensus that the treatment of the Duke information is satisfactory as it stands? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't override policy. DavidDuke.com is a self-published personal site. As I wrote above, if people can removed Media with a Conscience and Dissident Voice, which at least have some editorial oversight, they can't then claim Duke's site is WP:RS. If a WP:RS commented on Duke publishing his material, that might be relevant. Unfortunately, the person who brought this issue to WP:BLP should have brought it to WP:RSN where it would have been quickly and thoroughly trounced because board members don't want to see this kind of precedent. An editor's error in posting to a notice board does not equal consensus. (My issues of POV Bias which originally was its own section are more appropriate.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not suggest that consensus overrides policy; I was asking whether there was consensus that the entry as it stands follows WP policy; I and others think it does and I wanted to see whether there's agreement. I note again that Dissident Voice had its WP page deleted for WP:N; Media with a Conscience has apparently never had a WP page at all. I would also note that if you actually explore the sites, you'll see as much raw Holocaust denial in the comments on "Dissident Voice" as you will on Duke's site. But what else would you expect from a site that publishes Gilad Atzmon? RT-LAMP (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering all the disagreement on this and the BLP page, it sounded like you thought 5 to 3 (or whatever) was consensus.
Anyway, the important argument is that DavidDuke.com is a self-published personal site and such sites publishing or linking to anyone is not notable unless some WP:RS says it is or the person is of very high credibility and notability. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Article lead and "Allegations" section remain WP:Coatrack

Per the tag I just put on it:

  • WP:Coatrack intro reads: Coatrack articles run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed.
  • Wikipedia:Coatrack#Fact_picking reads: A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants. Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.
  • Wikipedia:Coatrack#.22But_it.27s_true.21.22 reads:
An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.
The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack—the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.
Carol, please provide some support for your theory that allegations of Atzmon's antisemitism are "merely selected opinions" "from a small fraction of people", and that they are getting "a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants". Also, please identify "more balanced content cited from reliable sources" that might help resolve your concerns about this article being a coat rack. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Carol, the first sentence as a coatrack page plainly reads as follows: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." The Gilad Atzmon article is completely about Gilad Atzmon. Thus no coatrack. The article as a whole (not counting references) clocks in at about 2400 words, with the "Allegations" section a bit over 500 words; unless the article is intended as hagiography, that's not "disproportionately large" when seen in the light of Atzmon's reputation e.g. http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0506/bookmarks1.html; note SWP has now dissociated itself from Atzmon. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The BLP part I quoted reads differently than the general description, doesn't it.
  • Non-WP:RS sources like labournet.net not relevant here. What SWP does is relevant if good WP:RS found and not somone's allegation.
  • It's really annoying to have to reassemble again all the neutral info on him which has been repeatedly deleted by those who want a biased article whose relevant coatrack is smearing someone who rejects being cramped inside the Leftist Anti-Zionist box and might even be a ACK! Capitalist! I believe the coatrack is that he has tantrums like a loud mouthed macho Israeli Artiste and does not engage in the clipped rhetoric of a proper and politically correct leftist English gentleman. But wikipedia is not the place for British lefties to smear someone they deem politically incorrect. So anyway, that's what I mean by the Coatrack in Question, just to define my terms more clearly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem quite obviously, startlingly obviously, isn't merely that he has tantrums. The problem is that there is a widely held and well-documented opinion -- held by leftists and rightists, by Zionists and anti-Zionists -- that he has antisemitic tantrums. That is a very different can of beans, and a very significant can of beans judging from all the people, WP:RS and not, who've confirmed: "oh, yeah, Atzmon's an antisemite." RT-LAMP (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The several highly partisan people and groups ref'd may be noisy but not representative of mainstream media which only note their opinions but do not themselves label him thusly. But material to that effect consistently has been deleted from this article. Which is part of the coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Carol, the text of "coatrack" you posted above says nothing about "mainstream sources," only "reliable sources." And the sources in the "Allegations" section are all WP:RS, as you know. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Correction, More Neutral WP:RS such as Gibson, Gilchrist and Lewis articles outlined in his archive and Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Recent_WP:RS_on_Atzmon above. Mostly biased quotes are used from first three and nothing from the latter. But I will endeavor soon to put together yet another more NPOV version which complies with the above policy that Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.
In the "Politics section" the NPOV WP:RS should briefly summarize his views/approach (200 odd words) and then the fact that there are critics and links to their articles should be mentioned (80 odd words) or something like this: The Board of Deputies of British Jews[2] and the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism have criticized some of Atzmon's statements as being antisemitic or anti-Jewish.[7] So have David Aaronovitch[17][18], Nick Cohen[6], Oliver Kamm[19][20] and David Hirsh [21][22][23]
Or we could increas the number of words to something like 800 NPOV and 300 criticism. Or 1200 NPOV and 400 criticism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it is important that the article also notes that Atzmon is accused of antisemitism by many anti-Zionists. To restrict the list of critics to thoose mentioned by Carol above runs the risk of implying that it is only Zionists who make this allegation, and by inference that it is motivated by bad faith. All critics of Israel face this charge; only a handful (Atzmon, Israel Shamir and very few others) are accused by pro-Palestine and anti-Zionist activists. This is notable, in a way that similar charges against, for example, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, are not.RolandR (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>I just used what is in the article now, assuming you've pulled out all the big guns whose sources are WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the source of your proposed and ad hoc 800/300 hagiography ratio? Please be specific. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, I remember when I first started editing this article, you excoriated me(and have others as well) for voicing our personal opinions (or biases as you called them) in the talk page. Now you are going off listing your own personal opinions as a basis for editing. That you happen to think Atzmon is being persecuted as a capitalist or whatever is beyond irrelavent. The sources cited are all reliable and notable. Atzmon saying that "the Holocaust is not a historical narrative" (and it then being criticized by a notable commentator), has absolutely nothing to do with being "loud mouthed and macho" "capitalist" or whatever you "believe." In addition, commentators from both The Times and the Guardian have called Atzmon antisemitic, that is as mainstream as it gets. Drsmoo (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Drsmoo (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was challenged as to what article might be a coatrack of - a WP:Coatrack being something that "discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." I was speculating on some reasons that there is too much on the topic in the article relative to WP:RS NPOV sources on his views. I didn't even mention the possiblity of pro-Zionists who want to attack anyone who criticizes Israel even once as an antisemite and obviously would want to make antsemitism the main thrust of any mention of Atzmon's political opinions here, for the good of Israel, of course. And antiZionists might not want the "guilt by association" tarnish if they do not roundly attack Atzmon's politically incorrect statements.
Or do you think I should just charge ahead and remove coatrack material as is advised in the article; but without explaining what possible coatracks I see?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Coatrack as a pretext to sanitize

If you haven't established WP:Coatrack -- which you quite plainly haven't -- then others are likely to take quite a dim view of your using it as a pretext to sanitize away or minimize the very real, very public, very well-documented controversy over Atzmon's antisemitism. RT-LAMP (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than talk in generalities, I made four changes which make the article more in tune with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Not to mention removing the redundant sentence used twice in article. If "Allegations of Antisemtisim" isn't coatrack, why does it have a huge section when politics is three sentences, one of them gratuitous.
Of course politics and writing could be merged, with allegations as a short subsection. That would be far less coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:NPOV changes

To be specific, please comment in separate sections and don't interrupt my posting. THanks.

Fixed the mischaracterization of Aaronovich's article; he provides examples of Atzmon's antisemitism considerably beyond the "anti-Zionist tirades" - the stuff about Jews trying to rule the world is an example - and to imply it's only anti-Zionism that riles people up against Atzmon is to mischaracterize both Aaronovich and many other WP:RS. In fact, it is to misunderstand the entire central point of the controversy. Restored "Allegations" to its own section, in order to remove POV implication that the allegations of antisemitism are politically motivated rather than legitimately derived from Atzmon's own statements and writings, something WP should neither say nor imply. Removed WP:OR tag pending substantiation; what specifically is being claimed is OR?
Your argument that "Allegations" is WP:Coatrack because it's larger than the rest of the "Politics" section is another reason that the "Allegations" should not be taken as part of "Politics." Some people use antisemitism for political purposes (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, David Duke, Gilad Atzmon), but that does not make antisemitism a division of politics, any more than using a tune in a campaign ad makes music a division of politics. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
People summarize in different ways. Mine was a short summary, generally accurate. Yours was less accurate and redundant.
  • I wrote: In an opinion piece for The Times, David Aaronvitch wrote that Atzmon has been criticized by the Jewish community and anti-Zionists because of his "tirades against Zionism."
  • You wrote: In an opinion piece for The Times, David Aaronvitch wrote that Atzmon has been criticized by the Jewish community and anti-Zionists because of his embrace of "the idea of a global Jewish plot" and "tirades against Zionism" which "have got him into trouble with more than just the Jewish community."
Here's what's relevant that Aaronvitch wrote. How to summarize in one sentence?
And that’s where the trouble starts. Atzmon is a well-known jazz-musician, an Israeli-born Jew and — as the SWP has previously described him — also a deliverer of “fearless tirades against Zionism”. But the tirades have got him into trouble with more than just the Jewish community. A Palestinian musician told me a couple of years ago that she would no longer work with Atzmon because, in her opinion, he was “an anti-Semite”.
It is Aaronovitch, not the Jewish community and others who criticize Atzmon when Aaronovitch writes: In 2003, for instance, Atzmon, who makes many speeches and runs a very substantial website, said this about the idea of a global Jewish plot: “We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.” (and more in this vein)
After Aaronovitch's long description of the Eisen incident he writes: Not a few left-wing Jews who style themselves “anti-Zionist” have been horrified by the Atzmon-Eisen-Shamir business. And a couple of weeks ago they began to exert pressure on the SWP to disinvite the over-fearless tirader.
So let's have a truly accurate and NPOV one sentence description of all this.
Also, as I wrote above, since it is Atzmon's writings which are characterized as antisemitic, it would seem to make sense as a subsection of Writings if that was expanded, i.e., with subsections on Novels, Commentary, and Allegations. His activism actually seems more tied to his music than his writings, in any case I still think a WP:RS reference should be in the lead on that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You both seem to be mistaken about what Aaronovitch can be used for. His opinion column is not a WP:RS for anything but his opinion. You can't cite Aaronovitch as a "source" for the fact that people call Atzmon antisemitic, anti-Zionist, or anything else. You can only write that Aaronovitch calls Atzmon this or that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for making that point. I've been told the wrong things in this article's talk page so many times I'm starting to believe them!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)""
As Malik presumably knows, the passage in question does not rely on Aaronovitch to support any stated claim that Atzmon is antisemitic, but as an example supporting the claim that some critics have found Atzmon to be antisemitic. Playing fast and loose with the distinction does not help anything. RT-LAMP (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion full text 100% supports Malik's statement and suggests that all "facts" from opinion pieces have to be deleted unless backed up by a WP:RS:

  • Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.
  • Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.
  • There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or 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#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.

Aaronvitch's opinions don't even belong in the lead, not to mention his allegations of fact. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing bio info while increasing opinion criticisms

It seems absurd in a biography of an individual to remove biographical material - like the specific things Atzmon learned that turned him against Israel {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=364433039&oldid=364420378 this diff] - while piling on people's opinions about him. That is the real Coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Swapping Hirsh for Aaronovitch in the lead

Because another editor has problems with the Aaronovitch quote -- an example substantiating the claim that Atzmon's antisemitism has been pointed out by WP:RS sources -- in the lead, I have substituted a quote from David Hirsh's Yale working paper. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Source

I've added an earlier article about Atzmon in the British Socialist Worker (Gilad Atzmon: 'Zionism is my enemy') as an external link. It might be useful as a source for his views on Zionism as well. --JN466 04:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no shortage of articles about Atzmon. Any reason why you picked that one over another? I'd say that it's not really that insightful. As far as supplying a source for his views on Zionism is concerned, perhaps it would be better to use one of Atzmon's own articles?     ←   ZScarpia   11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there aren't that many interviews or long articles with a lot of details - as opposed to many mentions in passing of various of his hundreds of performances. And most the former already are used in the article. Maybe something from the three I put up also could be used as references and appear only as such at a later point. As we know, external links to interviews don't necessarily have to be as strict in their sourcing as controversial allegations about an individual in the text of the article. I'm taking a wikipedia day to work on this and another article, and may finally add more info under writing after devote some time to the other article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 20th edits to writing section

As I have been long promising, I finally added info on his writings and a few tweaks to the new criticism subsection, after "Allegations" was removed by another editor. I agree a whole separate Allegations section was WP:UNDUE but a subsection more generally called criticism seems ok to me. I originally put the POV tag on the old allegations section and put it now on the criticism section. I still think the Cohen and Kamm comments are vitriolic opinion rants and that text from the defense of Atzmon by the Swedish Social Democratic Party should be included.

Unless something I put in clearly violates policy, don't edit war and revert it with screams of "whitewashing," as has happened so often before. Please make specific criticisms here first. That's what I usually do, even often when there are clear violations of policy! Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits to lead

And while I was at it, I made a more NPOV, accurate and logical lead, internally consistent with itself, as well as the rest of the article. Before it fudged facts (author or novelist) (writer and activist? - the latter yet to be ref'd) and left out details while charging ahead with mention of the (highly partisan and vitriolic) allegations right in the first paragraph. At least wait til the Hirsh paragraph. Note that Hirsch condemns him first and foremost as an anti-Zionist, so putting that first in the list of three certainly would make sense, would it not?? It gives your argument more credibility and doesn't look like you are just trying to scare people off - or damn him to hell in a POV way - in the first paragraph. Of course, my one sentence first paragraph could be broken into two - and without rushing ahead to smear him. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

2005 SWP incident

I have made a vague reference to that, with Rizzo and Aaronovitch ref'd. Does it need more detail, especially since its the basis of Aaronvitch talking about Eisen? I'm not opposed but erred on putting less rather than more. Assuming one uses these good wp:rs and not advocacy group rants which have been deleted repeatedly before. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dissident Voice 60 plus wikipedia mentions

Atzmon has been published at Dissident Voice which is linked as a place authors are published and as an external link in at least 60 articles, far more than Middle East Online. Yet Dissident Voice has been removed from the article and Middle East Online is in. So do people agree that his being published in Dissident Voice should be mentioned, given its overwhelming presence elsewhere in Wikipedia?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Davidduke.com has is linked 16 times on WikipediaDrsmoo (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And I'm sure Drsmoo could help clean up wikipedia by going through and getting most of those DavidDuk.coms deleted as NON-WP:RS, esp. when used to support fact. However, I doubt that many neutral editors will think it necessary to delete listings of the fact that someone was published there. Only those who hate Dissident Voice for publishing material critical of Israel. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I see Dissident Voice has been deleted again, despite the fact it is used in a number of biographies as a place people are published. Yet another POV move. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

POV on top of article?

Could someone explain why it is there and not on a subsection where there is a problem? At least identify the most problematic section(s) so we'll know what the problem is?? Otherwise it should be removed. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The POV marker apparently comes from the first section on this talk page, in which an editor was complaining about the spic-'n'-span sanitized state of the biography at that point. Although two of his specific points remain undressed -- Atzmon's praise for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that gold standard of antisemitism, as "prophetic"; the Adler article calling Atzmon out for his antisemitism in a major jazz magazine after the Eisen essay business [10]-- on the whole the article is much more realistic in its approach to Atzmon now than it was in January and I don't object to the tag's removal. RT-LAMP (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Worker Interview retracted due to damning evidence of anti semitism, should this be included?

http://socialistworker.org/2010/07/14/an-article-retracted

"ON JULY 13, SocialistWorker.org published an interview with jazz musician and anti-Zionist writer Gilad Atzmon. The interview took up Atzmon's childhood in Israel and his growing awareness of the oppression of Palestinians, as well as his ideas on music and art.

Since the interview's publication, we have learned of many allegations that Atzmon has made not just highly inflammatory, but anti-Semitic statements about Jews, be they supporters or opponents of the state of Israel--and that he has associations with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. The evidence for these serious charges is damning."

Do you think this is notable and should be included in the article? Drsmoo (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have other personal projects as a higher priority than wikipedia right now, but one of these days will fill in some blanks with new WP:RS/NPOV material. Meanwhile, I find this entry problematic:
  • Is SocialistWork.Org - an advocacy group - a reliable source for accusations against an individual under WP:BLP? Shall we check with WP:BLPN and/or WP:RSN?
  • Has any WP:RS covered this story to make it WP:Notable incident?
  • Are they providing any new information about Atzmon or just freaking out because they read the wikipedia article?
  • Is this just piling on, WP:COATRACK against Wikipedia policies? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Today Socialist Worker published two letters presumably representative of the complaints they received. The accusations in the letters actually overlap very little with the Wikipedia material about Atzmon. [11][12] I find the first one, from a Muslim anti-Zionist in Boston who calls Atzmon's writings "poisonous, bigoted garbage" and ends with a searing condemnation of Atzmon from the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, particularly telling. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Any effect of wikipedia on the editors is probably unknowable. Please respond to the stronger arguments that these edits are against wiki policies or it will be assumed there is no defense of the edits and they will be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"Any effect of wikipedia on the editors is probably unknowable." The editorial statement didn't mention Wikipedia. It did mention the letters from anti-Zionists castigating Socialist Worker for publishing an interview with an antisemite. And then Socialist Worker published some of the letters. And the letters didn't mention Wikipedia either. There is simply no evidence that the Wikipedia article had anything to do with any part of the exchange, is there?
And I am smiling at the thought that you're complaining someone is ignoring the strong points of an argument, given that I am still waiting for you to, for the first time ever, finally address the central argument all along: that maybe people like the two letter writers and the editor of SocialistWorker call Atzmon an antisemite for no other reason than because they have sincerely gone through the evidence -- the evidence the editor called "damning," and which apparently had nothing to do with Wikipedia -- and sincerely concluded that he really is one. To you, the common thread for every critic of Atzmon is that you dismiss them as either insincere or ignorant or both. Is it somehow impossible for critics of Atzmon to be both informed and sincere in concluding, as so many from all over the political spectrum have, that he's an antisemite? RT-LAMP (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

<Backdent>Here is the relevant policy, which you obviously do not know or understand:

  • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Mainstream people obviously think Socialist Workers Party (which wants to abolish current govts for some other poorly outline structure) would certainly consider this source extremist, just like they would your average Secessionist site.
  • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29...Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable 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. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Per WP:RS and WP:BLP policy, will remove material now from this obviously self-published source. Putting it back would be a policy violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, Carol, you don't get to dismiss a site as "extremist" just because you disagree with its politics. I've reverted your POV edit. RT-LAMP (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
SocialistWorker.org is hardly the home of centrist, liberal thought is it? I rather suspect that they would quite like the idea of being thought of as "extremist". Of course, whether to include the material and in what detail is a matter of consensus; nobody gets to include or exclude anything just because they want to. My opinion is that, while I have no particular objection to it being mentioned that the SocialistWorker.org site withdrew an article of Atzmon's after it "learned of many allegations that Atzmon has made not just highly inflammatory, but anti-Semitic statements about Jews, be they supporters or opponents of the state of Israel--and that he has associations with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews,"[13] the current length of the section dealing with the issue is far too long and disproportionate.     ←   ZScarpia   14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (redacted 21:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC))
International Socialist Organization's Socialist Worker-USA publication is not used as a reliable source in any other wikipedia article, so I consider it just an advocacy group outlet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
socialistworker.org is not a suitable source for a BLP, please do not use it again mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
We've been through this before in this article. There is no blanket ban on self-published sources in BLP. Self-published sources -- and it's far from clear that this is what "SocialistWorker.org" is, by the way -- can be used to support their own quotes. That is, if X says Y, X's own self-published sources -- and again, it's far from clear that that's even the same category as "SocialistWorker.org" -- can be used to support the fact that X said Y. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Local consensus does not override wp:blp Two things here. This is a BLP, and the site you are using is down. It is not possible to verify the information and as such must be removed immediately mark nutley (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Check the site again; it came right up for me. [14] verifies the information quite handily. And while such links cannot be used to assert the validity of claims against third parties, they cannot simply be blanket-banned because they discuss third parties. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can, should you insert this again i`ll take it to ANI. You can ask at the RSN noticeboard for clarification if you want mark nutley (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As has been noted in this discussion [15] your position on the WP:RS use of Socialist Worker to verify the editorial statements of Socialist Worker, even in BLP, is mistaken. As I noted earlier, this sort of thing has come up before, and your position was shown to be unsustainable. RT-LAMP (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, and i point out the .org site is not working. I have tried firefox and chrome but their server is down. Until such a time as it is up and i can verify the information i request you do not reinsert the content, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have had no problems loading the page. As noted, the Google cache is [16]. RT-LAMP (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Two posts up, is RTLamp referring to his own opinions at another page as if that is evidence? Anyway, to repeat Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29...Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. If socialist worker was widely used at wikipedia for any purpose, say like Dissident Voice is (which I believe you reject as non-notable), you might have the beginning of an argument for one sentence saying they pulled the interview. But it is not. The publication is not WP:RS and the incident is non-notable and WP:Undue. When neutral editors who have not edited here before voice such an opinion it's called cooperative editing to heed it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist Worker is in no way shape or form a self published source. You must substantiate a claim before you make it, and you can in no way substantiate your claim that it is self published, as that is clearly false. It has also been used several times on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=socialistworker.org

As compared with Dissidentvoice.org, which is cited 71 times on Wikipedia, The Socialist Worker (in all its forms).org is cited 211 times, while Socialistworker.org specifically is cited 66 times. Drsmoo (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It should only be cited for information about itself, it is a partisan magazine. It is certainly not a good enough source for a blp mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's an advocacy group. How many times it's been already been used on WP is neither here nor there. I wouldn't call this source self-published, and I don't think that it should in this case be ruled out as extremist, but it is borderline to say the least for a BLP. The point The point it's being used for is in line with other things known about the article subject, but if it is used it should only be for the briefest of statements. I think this should go to BLPN for more comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It is already at the BLPn board [17] mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Carol: Two posts up, is RTLamp referring to his own opinions at another page as if that is evidence? No, Carol, I am not. Sort of like how Socialist Worker turns out not to be self-published after all, despite your using that description in the section title of what, in retrospect, may perhaps possibly not be the most NPOV post ever made to BLP/N. RT-LAMP (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who support inclusion, how about the following condensed version of the previous text?

On July 14, 2010, the Socialist Worker (USA) web site retracted an interview with Atzmon it had published the previous day, explaining that there was "damning" and "sufficiently substantiated" evidence that Atzmon had made anti-Semitic statements and associated with Holocaust deniers. 213.48.107.4 (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I did goof and got confused between searching WP:RSN for past discussions of socialistworker.org and just searching all wikipedia for references to socialistworker.org. I certainly would not have claimed it was not used otherwise.
  • However, if one were to look at all those mentions, how many are personal attacks by the editors? And those only evidently based on letters to the editors and not any Journalistic research (except maybe wikipedia, which we know does NOT count). It still fails on those grounds. People from Wp:BLP Noticeboard have agreed. Do we have to go to WP:RSN to confirm??
  • And the case has been made that even if that sort of (shoddy IMHO) opinion-ating is allowed, it is WP:UNDUE to include more than one sentence saying they withdrew it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd accept the one-sentence version suggested above, as long as the words "and 'sufficiently substantiated' are removed, or at least the quote marks around "sufficiently substantiated," since the article does not use those words. I'd also substitute "arguing" for "explaining." So the text would be:
On July 14, 2010, the Socialist Worker (USA) web site retracted an interview with Atzmon it had published the previous day, arguing that there was "damning" evidence that Atzmon had made anti-Semitic statements and associated with Holocaust deniers.
RT-LAMP (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd dispute the use of the quote "damning" evidence - there is no discussion, from SW, what the sources of this evidence is (is it the letters, WP, other places?). By reporting it as damning (even as their opinion) we risk giving the allegations credence. What we need is independent sourcing OR more clarification on what they found damning. Even then I am unconvinced --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Given what is being said at the BLPN board this edit shall not be going in as it is neither a good source for such contentious material and is most certainly undue. mark nutley (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Despite the views from editors at WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:BLPN#Advocacy_group.E2.80.99s_opinion_used_in_BLP) and brought here from that complaint, Drsmoo has re-added the questionable material. Note that the Socialist worker that has the Atzmon interview is NOT the same as the one that cut his other interview. And even if it was the same, an interview is different from a non-notable report of a minor incident. So they will be reverted per WP:BLP. Please read WP:BLP policy since repeatedly reverting such dubious material is very much against policy. Especially in WP:ARBPIA related articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Where to put info on Atzmon's activism?

It is mentioned in the lead, and side box, but no where else. I have maybe two sentences (about music tours and benefits mostly) supported by several WP:RS. Should this be in the lead, music or writings section? Writing it may make that clear, but thought I'd ask for suggestions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The guys a musician so that stuff should be in the lede mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've got it in my "add" file and now that I know that "adds" are different from reverts maybe can take a half hour to get a few more sources and stick it in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"criticism" section

I merged what was the "allegations" section into Political writings, on the basis that what the allegations or criticisms (aside from music criticism, of course), are part of the topic of his political writings. To me that makes sense in view of NPOV policy and deprecation of criticism sections. I am not suggesting that anything about antisemitism should be taken out of there. It is well sourced and should remain. If you have any argument to the contrary, then please present it. It might be helpful to look at other articles on individuals who have provoked controversy. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw Carol's comment above. Carol, please have another think - others too. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion, just it seemed neater that way. If you want to take it out, go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me, as long as the content doesn't start evaporating. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Inserted "allegations of antisemitism and responses" section title

Renamed it to allegations of antisemitism and responses. They are not political statements, holocaust denial is not politics, neither is saying its rational to burn down synagogues, or that Jews killed Jesus, or that Jews are trying to control the world, or are set aside from humanity etc. These are not political statements, and attempting to portray them as political is profoundly offensive. Drsmoo (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
As usual you are inserting your WP:Soapbox opinion and distorting what he says even more than the critics do. As usual you are inserting your WP:Soapbox opinion and distorting what he says even more than the critics do in order to intimidate editors into doing it your way. I guess the article needs more sources characterizing all his writings as political - including doubtless some of the critics. Meanwhile have put on new header since original discussion was whether their even should be a subsection. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Enough with the constant personal attacks, seriously.Drsmoo (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Ok, I toned it down. I do think it is fair to say you are inserting WP:SOAPBOX opinion and distorting (i.e., cherry picked out of context) what he says. But maybe you do not realize that this has an intimidating effect on other editors who might be afraid of being called antisemites for trying to comply with wikipolicies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That "intimidation" charge works both ways, of course, given your propensity to presume that it is simply not possible for a Jewish person to be genuinely shocked by Atmon's, say, well-documented friendship with Holocaust deniers -- only to have you dismiss their quite legitimate disgust as mere political calculation. Again, you would do yourself a big favor by learning more about both Holocaust denial and the history of antisemitism in general, because I think it's not impossible that, like many of even the most ardent anti-Zionists, the scales might fall from your eyes regarding Atzmon, and you would come to that there's more to his pariah status than "politics."
Incidentally, above you say, "I guess the article needs more sources characterizing all his writings as political" -- which seems virtually a promise that you're going to do some POV editing. Given the number of things you've had to strike out in the past few days, maybe it's time for you to step away from the Atzmon article for a while. RT-LAMP (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Political writings can be characterized as antisemitic. No one denies that. However, people here do seem to deny that religious groups can act with political motivation and people can write about those motivations. Yet there is an article called Islam and Politics. And, yes, when I make two errors, I correct them. It's called cooperative editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
"Political writings can be characterized as antisemitic." But not all antisemitism is political in nature, and an attempt to disguise some expressions of antisemitism as "politics" does not instantly transform them into politics, any more than my wearing an Obama mask transforms me into Obama. It does however create an excuse for those who cannot engage the antisemitism issue honestly. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That section title is a gross violation of wp:npov It should be renamed to Controversy or similer mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No it shouldn't, he has been called an antisemite by the most reputable newspapers in England. The only consistent way to have it under a controvery section title would be with the same template as used by other notable racists such as David Duke. In which there is a controversy section, and then subsections dealing with the various issues. I think having an "allegations of antisemitism" section is more neutral than what is featured on similar pages. Especially considering how flagrantly antisemitic Atzmon's statements are. Three hours ago he posted an article that opens with "Jewish racism knows no boundaries" He has been noted as an antisemite by sources that are as reliable as possible, and refers to himself as a proud self hating Jew who believes its rational to burn down synagogues. Putting this under an overarching controversy section, with no clear topic title would be misleading at best. Drsmoo (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
He's been called antisemite in opinion pieces, a couple just vitriolic rants that don't belong in the article. Neutral news articles only call him controversial or sometimes mention that there allegations by unnamed others. Therefore the more neutral title is more in line with Wikipedia policies, which is what this discussion is above - NOT proving the POV of some editors. Also note that you are misquoting and libeling him on burning down synagogues since he says that because it is rational does not make it right. Many rational self-serving acts (like stealing occupied land and killing people who resist) are nevertheless immoral. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That is right. He has not been called anti-semitic by newspapers, only by columnists. The "facts" upon which they have formed this opinion cannot be confirmed by reliable sources. The article should not use columns to introduce facts. The facts should be reliably sourced and columns used to show how some writers have reacted to the facts. TFD (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, we've already been through this. Are you forgetting? You have no trouble at all introducing opinion pieces when they say Atzmon isn't an antisemite (even when the commentator is an utter nobody like Ben-Dor, whom I'm going to remove again for his utter-nobody-ness). You only oppose including the ones that do say he's an antisemite. I strongly recommend that you stop trying to play the issue both ways so transparently. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As TFD points out, the issue is not does someone have an opinion, but can it be presented as fact. The issue is does their having that opinion make it so important it deserves to be a section header? ItsMeJudith brought this issue up, holding it should not be separate section. MarkNutley said such a section should have a more NPOV title. I prefer the latter. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Carol, really, we're not fools, and we've been through this one before in excruciating detail. It is a fact that there are significant allegations of antisemitism against Atzmon.
TFD, note that the Hirsh piece is not an opinion column in a newspaper, but a working paper published by Yale. It is a WP:RS statement not only that Atzmon has been called an antisemite, but that he is one. Anthony Julius also calls Atzmon an antisemite (and takes a swing at his "incontinent, malicious verbalizing") in his recent Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, an 810-page tome just published this year by Oxford University Press. Another WP:RS, just one which hasn't made its way into the article yet. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you are going to use real WP:RS, that's a different matter. So let's get rid of some of the crappier opinion pieces, like Kamm and Cohen. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Once again, try to restrain your POV. We've gone through the "oh they're only opinion pieces" thing before. Remember? The opinion pieces are there to substantiate the crappy antisemitic things Atzmon says. They're quite embarrassing to Atzmon and I can understand why you'd prefer them gone. But they're not going. RT-LAMP (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have posted (another) discussion thread at WP:BLPN. BTW, I cannot find any mention of Atzmon at the ADL, SPLC or Searchlight websites. TFD (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Try David Duke's site; Duke has posted half a dozen of Atzmon's essays, sometimes contributing new introductions praising Atzmon's "insight" on Jewish identity. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As you know, unless you can prove Atzmon has some agreement to have Duke publish this stuff, or refuses to ask him to take it down cause he wants it there, it's pretty much irrelevant. Just another attempt to foul the waters of discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointless argument which has been gone over on this page in the past. The opinions calling Atzmon an antisemite are all from notable writers in notable publications, hence their inclusion. Drsmoo (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You need a secondary source for this, otherwise it is original research. We do not know if Atzmon authorized this (the articles do not appear to be copyrighted) or if he did what his explanation was. I notice that Patrick Buchanan not only has articles on the site, but was interviewed by Duke. TFD (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This has already been gone over on noticeboard after noticeboard and and talk page after talk page. The commentators in the section are confirmed notable, the publications are notable publications. There is no argument that they are non notable articles. This is the conclusion that was reached previously as well, how often must we go through the same arguments? The answer was already decided by consensus. Originally, the section included statements taken from his interviews, in the same method as are used in the "Political writings and statements" section, than those were removed, claiming that they were "out of context" and "cherry picked" and that editor's can't choose which of his interview answers to include (despite the fact that that is precisely the format in the Political section) As a result, only statements quoted by notable sources that ALSO were includes in notable publications were included. Now, months later, some editors are saying that that too is not proper for the article, which is, quite frankly, false. it seems in their view, only a front page headline in the Guardian "Atzmon is an antisemite" is allowed to be published in the article (as opposed to one of their notable journalists in one of their newspaper columns) Or the other charge, which is "since they quotes from from commentator's articles, it must be a controversy/criticism section" which is also wrong, as that is not the character of the section, and such sections and section titles are poor form.
The section contains a selection of Atzmon's notable views on Jews and Judaism, notable for their discussion by notable writers in notable sources, this was done due to the (seemingly hypocritical) complaints about the section. It is not a controversy section, or a criticism section, it is a section dealing with Atzmon's views on Jews and Judaism. Drsmoo (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Seek consensus on name of subsection?

Rather than edit warring away on the name of this subsection, why not find something we can consense on? Some people have problem with "allegations of antisemitism" for reasons mentioned above. Others don't like controversy/criticism. I don't like "Statements_on_Jews_and_Judaism" because section is about criticism of him for cherry picked statements and not an NPOV review of what he has said - and there are several NPOV articles that do just that. It is therefore misleading as well as a POV description. But if you want sections on Atzmon's Statements on Israel; Statements on Jews, Jewishness and Judaism; Statements on (Other Topics he's written on), we can do that. Any other suggestions for a subsection title? Meanwhile who wants to revert Drsmoo's latest revert? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, Drsmoo. Do you want to discuss this? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
How about Personal Views. Seems NPOV to me mark nutley (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The most NPOV (and in line with the standard wiki template) way of doing it is having a "Views" section, and then "Views on Israel/Zionism" and "Views on Jews/Judaism" Drsmoo (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
"Personal views" doesn't work, as they are his professional views, he makes money off his statements on Israel and his statements on Judaism. If we're going to do that, we should also remove every quote from the Israel section that was "cherry picked" by an editor from one of his interviews, as that practice has been hypocritically attacked (and not done) in the far more neutral antisemitism section. You can see a more elaborate case for my position in the talk section above. As it is now, labeling the section as "Criticism" or "Controversy" is blatantly inaccurate, deceptive and unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

3 problems with recent edits

  • Removal of "what Aaronvitch describes as" in what Aaronvitch describes as a Holocaust-denying essay by Paul Eisen. This is an opinion piece by Aaronovitch, but he writes as if this is a known fact. Per Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion it has to be made clear this is his opinion - unless perhaps some more WP:RS has declared this essay Holocaust denying and that ref is included? (I haven’t read it myself, but my opinion would be WP:OR anyway, as would other editors'.)
  • Addition of words in italics "Atzmon also has said he does not deny the Holocaust or the “Nazi Judeocide” but insists “that both the Holocaust and World War II should be treated as historical events rather than as religious myth. . . . But then, even if we accept the Holocaust as the new Anglo-American liberal-democratic religion, we must allow people to be atheists." (From Manuel Talens, Beauty as a political weapon; Three in one: jazzman, writer and activist - A conversation with Gilad Atzmon.)
This is cherry picked/selectively quoted to make him look like he is contradicting himself. It leaves out his long explanation of all the bad things the US and Soviets did and his saying the Holocaust is used almost religiously to cover these up. If we want a whole section on his various views, we could have a paragraph on his views on this topic that would make this quote more clear, but otherwise this selective quote put in for POV reasons to make him look bad should be removed.
  • Removal of Panayides. I see it has been put back but since it probably will be taken out again in the future, want to say: a) the Publication Cyprus Mail is a regular newspaper with editors and perfectly WP:RS, especially for an interview. b) The quotes are important because a WP:RS finds it of interest to show Atzmon’s psychology of pushing people to react. Others who just want to prove he’s an ideological antisemite don’t want to see that.
Something similar that used to be in and that I think should be in is his comment in Gilchrist: "When I criticise the Jews, in many cases I'm criticising myself.” It does explain some of his psychology and certainly doesn't make him necessarily "look good." (A comparison of these two articles might also provoke insights, though trying to connect them doubtless would be synthesis: [18], [19].) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Carol, if you read the essay -- it's called "The Holocaust Wars" by Paul Eisen, Google it -- you'll have no doubt that it is both pro-Holocaust denial and pro-antisemitism. It's a love letter to Ernst Zundel, not only on the free-speech issue but the golly-guess-there-were-no-gas-chambers issue too. Google the web looking for reactions to the piece, and you'll find it's pretty much unanimous outside the jackboot set. Find me a single source other than Atzmon himself who does not call the essay Holocaust denial propaganda and then you can assert that there's a difference of opinion. As I said before, the last time you tried to pretend this wasn't really a Holocaust denial essay, there's a reason why Atzmon raised such a stink among both Zionists and anti-Zionists with this one, and there's a reason that the Socialist Workers Party UK felt they had to defend Atzmon against the charge of Holocaust denial after he sent this essay to his mailing list. Find one non-Atzmon source who isn't himself a jackbooter who says this essay isn't Holocaust denial, and you'll have a point. Sample sentence:

Palestinians must know that they are not just facing the might of the Israeli state but also the power of organized world Jewry and its primary arm, the Holocaust.

Ah, that rascally "world Jewry" is acting up again. Or do you find nothing antisemitic in that?
You would do yourself a tremendous favor by reading the Wikipedia entry on Holocaust denial. Atzmon uses some very simple semantic traps in hopes of tricking the naive, and never more so than when he gets onto the topic he euphemizes as "Holocaust revisionism". One of the things you'll learn is that nobody in the Holocaust denial movement says "there was no Holocaust"; instead they try to redefine "Holocaust" into a historical parody, something unsupportable by the evidence, with central historical facts -- i.e. the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, an organized program of genocide created on an order from Hitler -- excised, substituting instead a giant Jewish conspiracy theory to defraud the rest of the world. David Irving doesn't say there was no Holocaust. Ernst Zundel doesn't say there was no Holocaust. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't say there was no Holocaust. Instead they say, "Oh, yes, the Nazis were bad, and they killed some Jews, and there were camps. Sure. But gas chambers? Puhleeze! An order to kill the Jews? Puhleeze! Six million dead? Puhleeze!" It's a bit like saying, "Oh, I'm not saying there was no Apollo 11; but we must refuse to bow to the Zionist thought police who tell us it landed on the moon and not Pittsburgh."
As far as the extended quote from Talens, let the reader decide whether Atzmon is contraditing himself. Read through the dog whistles and you'll see he's being consistent. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Here, incidentally, is anti-Zionist activist Sue Blackwell -- a leader of the academic boycott movement in the UK -- in Al-Ahram: "Worryingly, some of my correspondents don't see anything wrong with promoting the writings and websites of people like Zündel or fellow Holocaust deniers David Irving or Paul Eisen."[20] That's an anti-Zionist activist in an anti-Zionist paper in an anti-Zionist country. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The Blackwell piece is also an opinion piece, so it would just be Blackwell's opinion backing up Aaronvitch. You need a researched news article or a scholarly piece. What is the problem with just saying it's Aaronvitch's opinion? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I unfortunately have read Eisen's essay, and have no doubt that it is a classic of holocaust denial. That however is my own, unencyclopaedic, opinion. It is, however, an objective fsct that the essay is a defence of Ernst Zundel, whose Wikipedia entry opens by describing him as a "neo-Nazi, holocaust denier". Eisen gushingly describes Zundel as "a gentle, good-humored man, kind and honest and with those qualities often found in the strangest places: a fine mind and a good heart". I have edited the article to note the content of the essay, rather than Aaronovitch's view of it. RolandR (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Roland has the right approach. I do think it's important to note that the Eisen essay goes far beyond supporting Zündel's freedom of speech -- that is, he doesn't say that Zündel has the right to say there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz; he goes on to conclude that Zündel is probably correct. You could claim that Deborah Lipstadt "supports Ernst Zundel" because she -- like me -- believes he shouldn't have been jailed. But Eisen goes far, far, beyond that line, and Atzmon did not balk. Because it's a standard dodge of Holocaust deniers to pretend they're really only free-speech activists, I think it's important to note that Eisen went considerably beyond the free speech argument and really did "go there" and really did conclude with an exhortation to combat "world Jewry."
As for Carol's latest tactic, I think she knows, as most readers will, the difference between three edits and three reverts. Nice try, though. And I've left a comment for you on my talk page. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Between 21:51, July 20, 2010 and 12:19, July 21, 2010 RTLamp has made five separate edits (each set not interrupted by other editors counting as one edit) against 3RR. And this despite reverts by other editors for policy issues. Since I’m getting personal attacks for bringing this up, perhaps someone else also could explain this to him and remind him this is against policy? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, Carol, edits ≠ reverts, and I don't appreciate your attempt to escalate your edit war. RT-LAMP (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering all the times I've seen people warn other people after only 3 edits a day, I was surprised to see that it turns out you are right. Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule: A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, However, most edits revert something, which is probably why people usually stop after 3 a day, just in case. So you are only up to 3 for today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. RT-LAMP (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The Criticism section is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Facts are sourced to columns and not notable opinions are included. The statement, "in 2004 the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticized Atzmon" is a half-truth. They actually complained to the Minister of Education about SOAS, listing his comments among others as reasons. In fairness, the findings of the Minister should be included in the article. I have tried to find reliable sources referring to this dispute but all I can find are right-wing and left-wing op-eds. Here is one of the least biased that appears on LabourNet, which is part of the Association for Progressive Communications. The criticism appears to be that Atzmon has encouraged Palestinians to work with the far right, as fellow opponents of Zionism. If that is true it should be in the politics section, along with criticisms of his position. But criticism sections are bad style and the implication of the sources used is that Atzmon is unpopular with the radical right. TFD (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the criticism isn't that Atzmon wants the Palestinians to work with the far right, the criticism is that Atzmon wants the Palestinians to work with antisemites, wherever on the political scale they happen to fall. That is not a political position but an antisemitic one. RT-LAMP (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry but I do not understand your reply. Aren't they the same thing? TFD (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there's a huge difference. Antisemitism isn't a political theory, it's a racial theory. It is neither left nor right, and there are antisemites on the left as well as on the right. Atzmon's argument is that the racial theory should trump the political theory, and that the Palestinians should work with anybody who hates Israel, even if the only reason they hate Israel is because they hate all Jews. Left or right doesn't enter into it, just hating Jews. Most activists for Palestine have the good sense to reject such a stance, which is why Atzmon's been pretty much elbowed off the stage. But Atzmon rails against those who object to antisemitism among Palestinian activists as "crypto-Zionists" and "gatekeepers." RT-LAMP (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There are anti-Semites in the center as well. But the criticism is of working with the far right, e.g., Paul Eisen and his colleagues. They are as far as I know the only political group that is overtly anti-Semitic. There is no criticism of working with anti-Semites who are not far right. TFD (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The word "right" appears exactly zero times in the Dropkin article. "Holocaust denier/denial" appears three times. RT-LAMP (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
He does not use the term far right, but instead names each group, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Front, the British National Party. In any case we would need a better source to document the controversy. TFD (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Religion and politics often are interconnected. Why else is there a Islam and Politics articles? Why do people write so much about the Christian right in politics? Why else does mainstream media constantly use the phrase "Jewish lobby" when they are actually describing pro-Israel lobbying groups? Any kind of bigotry can be political, racial and/or religious. (Though it's good to know I have a right to worry about racial antisemitism now, being 1/32 Sephardic Jew, or so family rumor has it. Which is enough for the average racist.) But the bottom line remains what the sources say, and in the end they are mostly hepped up opinion pieces. Good point on SOAS being the target, by the way; which should be corrected. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Your statement that "Jewish Lobby" is used in the maintream media is factually wrong. It is used almost exclusively by antisemitic sites and kooky fringe sites. 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
While further discussion is off topic to this article, factually speaking note that See News.Google search for “Jewish Lobby” shows that out of first 30 hts, 20 are just offhanded uses of the term by mainstream media to describe a variety of groupings and purposes. I’m sure a review of first 100 would find at least half are. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Your link doesn't support your claim, you said "Jewish lobby" is used by the mainstream media to describe what is actually called the Israel lobby in the media. Your usage of Google Archive belies your assertion, as you're going back through 40 years of articles. A normal google news search comes up with only a few results for "Jewish Lobby" and almost entirely from blogs "Jewish lobby" is not much used in mainstream media, and is generally associated with fringe sources. Drsmoo (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Aaronovitch, David. How did the far Left manage to slip into bed with the Jew-hating Right? The Times, June 28, 2005.
  2. ^ a b c Curtis, Polly. Soas faces action over alleged anti-semitism, The Guardian, May 12, 2004.
  3. ^ Gilad Atzmon, Letters to the Editor, The Observer, 4 April 2005
  4. ^ David Aaronovitch "How did the far Left manage to slip into bed with the Jew-hating Right?" The Times, 28 June 2005
  5. ^ Gilad Atzmon, On Anti-Semitism, originally at his personal web site, 20 December 2003
  6. ^ a b c Nick Cohen "The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer", The Observer, 14 June 2009
  7. ^ a b Social Democrats invited known anti-Semite to seminar, The Local, March 23, 2007
  8. ^ http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2010/March/15%20o/Truth,%20History,%20and%20Integrity%20Questioning%20the%20Holocaust%20Religion%20By%20Gilad%20Atzmon.htm
  9. ^ http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2010/03/an-antisemites-progress.html
  10. ^ http://gilad.co.uk/html%20files/1001lies.html
  11. ^ http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/a-new-jewish-goal-by-gilad-atzmon.html
  12. ^ http://www.cyprus-mail.com/living/wandering-jazz-player/20100221
  13. ^ http://gilad.co.uk/html%20files/1001lies.html
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference gilchrist222 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Barnaby Smith, Sax With An Axe To Grind, Interview with Gilad Atzmon in London Tour Dates magazine, October 5, 2006
  16. ^ Gilad Atzmon interview, in "Eleftherotypia" (Greek Sunday Paper), 11 January 2009
  17. ^ David Aaronovitch "How did the far Left manage to slip into bed with the Jew-hating Right?" The Times, 28 June 2005
  18. ^ Gilad Atzmon, On Anti-Semitism, originally at his personal web site, 20 December 2003
  19. ^ http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html
  20. ^ http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2010/03/an-antisemites-progress.html
  21. ^ Hirsh, David. What charge?, "The Guardian", April 3, 2006.
  22. ^ Hirsh, David. Openly embracing prejudice, "The Guardian", November 30, 2006.
  23. ^ Hirsh, David (n.d.). "Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: Cosmopolitan Reflections" (pdf). Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism Working Paper Series. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_5&oldid=1040407511"