Talk:Gilad Atzmon

Allegations of anti-semitism and responses

The section "anti-semitism and responses" has prompted a complaint to OTRS, ticket number 2009041510025323. Issues identified by the complainant and in the commentary above are:

• Excessive reliance on primary sources
• Uncritical acceptance of the merit of a fallacious claim that criticism of the state of Israel is de-facto anti-semitism
• Blow-by-blow treatment, resulting in a laundry list of numerous repetitions and rebuttals of the same or similar points

There are other issues. More input is unquestionably needed. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

REQUEST: If any non-involved editors happen along, could you identify yourself as such, perhaps even creating your own section? That would be great! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• A few questions

1. I can not find the complaint mentioned by JzG (above). Could JzG, or someone else, supply a link?
2. The article has been locked, on the grounds of BLP violations, but no such violations are specified. The edit summery when the article was locked says: "19:29, 15 April 2009 Bjweeks (talk | contribs) m (24,406 bytes) (Protected Gilad Atzmon: Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: otrs:2009041510025323 ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))" Could JzG, Bjweeks, or someone else, specify the BLP violations that are in the article?
3. The same user who initiated this RfC seems to have two different signatures appearing below, JzG and Guy. Could I get an explanation?
4. User:JzG, who initiated this RfC, and who yesterday was a party in a brief edit war, also seems now to be acting as an administrator, and yesterday made a change to the article (at the request of Malik Shabazz) after the article was locked. Could JzG explain why he thinks it proper to act as an administrator and active editor at the same time?

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My general perspective:

The main reason this article has so much material, about both views and criticism, is certain editors keep cherry picking (especially primarysource) quotes that make Atzmon look bad, and putting them back in when deleted repeatedly per WP:BLP, making it necessary to put them in an NPOV context, which they usually don't contest. Information about both subjects could be much shorter if these editors would stop doing that. (I complained about "coatrack" because I believe the real point is to show that anyone criticising Israel will get smashed on wikipedia.)

I think a slightly shorter version of views best (without misused primary context material mentioned below). I certainly think his views are sufficiently notable for a couple short paragraphs using secondary sources and even the mention there are criticisms which he disputes, with various links. And a fair sampling of external links.

Since his criticisms of Judaism are intertwined with his criticism of Zionism, which I'm sure more than one WP:RS can be found to say, you can't mention criticism of Judaism without criticism of Zionism.. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This is what the article looked like before the current editing dispute [1]. It will be noted that the article was a larger scale quotefarm then than it is now, but without any excuse of balancing views. The article then, and now, has a higher quote:total-content ratio than the Winston Churchill article. That is absurd. All the quotes were then, apparently, being used the make the article into a soapbox for Arzmon's negative views on Jews and Judaism; and now (with many deletions and additions) the quotes are being used to both promote his ideas and to demote his ideas. All that is really necessary is a summery of his views, based on a few of the most reliable sources. There is no need for all those quotes at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism and responses

Section moved here for line-by-line discussion:

• In May 2005 the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticized Atzmon for this quote from a talk: "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." Protesters tried to get one venue to cancel his sold out shows. Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer that he meant "since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people’" that "any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation" for Israel's actions.

Source is a newspaper, are there any other papers which covered this? A controversy which never makes it outside the pages of a single paper is of questionable significance. The Board f Deputies are not rabid Zionists, though, they are a pretty moderate bunch for the most part. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The subject is not the presidential inauguration. Atzmon is at the low end of the notable scale, and often there is not that much coverage. Considering that, one article can have plenty of meaning. Moreover the source is WP:reliable. I think the one article argument, used several times, is problematic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The important thing is that he should be allowed to explain his comment, because they are jumping all over him for a comment publicized out of context. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliability is not in question, significance is (WP:UNDUE). Simply having a source is not a magic talisman which guarantees inclusion for any particular fact or interpretation. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Soon after Jews Against Zionism asked Bookmarks, the bookshop of the Socialist Workers Party to withdraw an invitation to Atzmon to speak at a book launch because he had distributed to his email list a paper called "The Holocaust Wars" written by Paul Eisen. David Aaronovitch in a The Times opinion piece also criticized Atzmon for various statements that "crossed the line," as well as the party for inviting him. In defense the party argued: "The SWP does not believe that Gilad Atzmon is a Holocaust denier or racist." (The Socialist Workers Party has since distanced itself from Atzmon.)

What is the significance of this? All the sources seem to be activists using Atzmon as a pawn in long-standing battles with each other. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That those who don't like Atzmon feel every single criticism ever made has to be included. It is however an example of how people have tried to silence him, which is why others being more NPOV have allowed it to stand. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Atzmon replied that "my take on the subject is slightly different" than Eisen's. Atzmon 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." At a 2005 German book reading Atzmon commented on the falsified historiography of the Holocaust and questioned the "forensic proof" of the figure of 6 million Jews killed.

More primary sources, and a suspicion of novel synthesis. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Again people insisted that accusations of "holocaust denial" be in the article, even though the "evidence" is mostly trumped up by highly partisan sources. So it seems that there has to be some explanation of his actual views which most would think fall far short of it. Remove all mention of holocaust denial and their is no need to try to explain his side of story. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Atzmon has written that Zionists have "managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force" and that disputes about the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are moot, because "American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy." This also has drawn charges of antisemitism.

What is the significance of this? Kamm is a polemicist, I think. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is insisted every criticism of him, no matter how out of context, must be included, and therefore there has been an attempt to at least present his views in context. Delete the polemical criticism and you don't have to do that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• In November 2006, academic David Hirsh, in an op-ed on The Guardian's Comment is Free website, accused Atzmon of "trying to lead an anti-semitic purge of the anti-Zionist movement." Atzmon responded on the website that Hirsh's accusations were unproven and that "Hirsh needs antisemitism" because Zionist ideology can’t be defended but "anti-semitism is a racial crime and therefore easy to attack."

Op-ed, and in the "comment is free" section, not in print. I do not think this is significant. Guy (Help!) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

David Hirsh is very notable as an expert on the subject of antisemitism. This belongs in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, they have to list every criticism ever written to "coatrack" this into an article to show that anyone criticising Israel will get smashed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• In 2007 the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism complained when the Swedish Social Democratic Party invited Atzmon to speak at a seminar saying Atzmon had worked to "legitimize the hatred of Jews." The party responded saying "when the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism starts calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite and do the fight against anti-Semitism a disservice."

Again sourced from a single newspaper. Any evidence it is of real significance? Guy (Help!) 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Jazz critic David R. Adler wrote on an American Jewish Committee website that Atzmon "hides behind the cause of Palestinian human rights, not to mention the verbiage of High Theory, as he promotes open antisemitism." He also takes to task music writers who have interviewed Atzmon too uncritically.

I actually put it in only to put in a small neutral paragraph before someone came along with another POV big one we'd have to fight over. Defensive editing, I'm afraid. :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Atzmon denies he is an antisemite. Atzmon characterizes charges of antisemitism as an attempt to silence his criticism of Israel and Zionism. Atzmon states that the "anti-Semitic slur is a common Zionist silencing apparatus." He told an interviewer "every time somebody tries to silence me, I know it must be because I'm saying the right thing, pointing on evil..." "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews. I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."

• Noting that he is a secular Jew married to a Jewish woman and in a band with three Jews, he says: "I never attack Jews, I hardly criticise Judaism – I never criticise people for their beliefs. But I can criticise conduct." In response to criticisms he is "self-hating" he has said "I'm not only a self-hating Jew, I'm a proud self-hating Jew! When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza, Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also."

• Atzmon appeared on a panel with Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch, moderated by Martin Bell, on the topic of antisemitism at the 2009 Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival. A recording of the event is available.

As for three above, first two because people insisted certain quotes be included, and also tobe NPOV and provide defense against charges of antisemitism. Last one part of defense to show that if he was a real antisemite would he get this big invite. None of it would be necessary if people didn't keep insisting that negative material be in there, making it necessary to balance the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions / proposals

Comment in view of the amply demonstrated inability of the editors of this article to do anything but go around in endless WP:COATRACKish / WP:SYNTHish circles, fighting proxy political battles which on Usenet etc would be a harmless waste of time but here disrupt the attempt to build an encyclopedia, I suggest deleting all reference to his political views and criticism thereof except for material which relates directly to his novels or to his music. That a dispute over a fairly minor musician's very minor political views should spread so far and wide across Wikipedia is a thing of wonder; but really, enough is enough. Rd232 ^talk 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While he is not a well known musician, his writings regarding Judaism and Israel are well read, he was cited by the Prime Minister of Turkey. He is far more well known for his views on Judaism and Israel than he is for his music and the vast majority of people who visit this page will be seeking to know about his views more than his music. Even his music is based on these views. Drsmoo (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly have some sympathy with that, it does not appear to relate to the subject's notability, but on the other hand he does seem to be consciously outspoken on the issue of Zionism, and there is no doubt tat some sections of the more militant Zionist community have a serious problem with any Jew who dares to speak out against the actions of the state of Israel. I'd go back to sources; in neutral biographical coverage of Atzmon, what weight is typically given to his political views, and how are they represented? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be serious for a moment, Guy, Atzmon being accused of antisemitism has absolutely nothing to do with his claims about Israel, it is for lines such as ""I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." Or ""In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." Etc etc, in fact, Atzmon defines himself as a critic of Judaism, not Zionism, but Judaism. Let's face it, users here are saying he is anti zionist accused of anti semitism, this is a red herring. This is not how Atzmon defines himself, this is not how Atzmon's followers define him, this is not how Atzmon's critics define him. So why are you attempting to define him as such when it not only is against Atzmon's own self definition but against how he is perceived. Secondly your description of "rabid zionists" is unhelpful. Drsmoo (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• There don't seem to be enough neutral sources for a reasonable sampling. In fact, arguably, virtually none of the sources are "neutral", being either fairly clearly attack pieces, or interviews with / written by Atzmon; or dubious sources (WP:RS) or saying little in detail about his political views. A conclusion, as I've argued before, which should support my Removal suggestion I made again just now. Rd232 ^talk 22:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I do not agree with the reasons, I agree with Rd232 conclusions, and would back a drastic reduction of that content involving nothing but Atzmon's views on Zionism and Judaism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, I tried to get agreement on reducing the amount content on the antisemitism sections, but it got no traction with other editors (aside from one who gave up in disgust). In fact, I did delete some of it, more than once, on quotefarm grounds. Personally, I think very little of it is needed. However, because this article is so disputed, it is important to discuss major changes before, not after they are made. As regards the BLP claims, I did remove some content I thought problematic in the context of the lead; but I have requested specifics many times about BLP violations, without ever getting anything more than vague accusations. It is hard to fix problems, if those who claim the problems do not communicate them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, the default is for disputed content to be removed until there is consensus for its inclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Default"? Could you put that into a form I can understand? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a slightly shorter version of views best (without misused primary context material mentioned below.) I certainly think his views are sufficiently notable for a couple short paragraphs using secondary sources and even the mention there are criticisms which he disputes, with various links. And a fair sampling of external links. Since his criticisms of Judaism are intertwined with his criticism of Zionism, which I'm sure more than one WP:RS can be found to say, you can't mention criticism of Judaism without criticism of Zionism. And I agree the default is leave out controversial negative material until editors agree it is noteworthy/WP:RS. However, the practice here seems to be more the opposite! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On this I do agree, those who are anti Jewish, as Atzmon proudly and repeatedly states himself to be, are invariably anti-zionist as well. The unfortunate issue is that so often many see the anti zionism and ignore the anti semitism. This article should be makingsure that it's subject is accurately represented. Drsmoo (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion by an uninvolved editor: Malcolm Schosha asked me to take a look at this, so, my 2 cents: This guy seems to be mainly notable as a musician, so that's what the article should be principally about. Covering this antisemitism issue at length, in addition to an already very unwieldy "Politics" section (itself mainly about his anti-whatever-views), would give these matters undue weight, in addition to being redundant and inelegant. I submit that it suffices to mention somewhere in the "Politics" section that he has been accused by such-and-such notable figures of being an antisemite for saying this and that, evidently with good sources. We should also use the occasion to give proper structure to the "Politics" section and maybe cut some of the many quotes - I think half as much would convey his views quite as well, and we are not his soapbox. As regards procedure, I don't see all that much of a BLP problem here, because the contested section appears reasonably well sourced, but of course I can't see the OTRS ticket. The editwarring by Malcolm Schosha certainly doesn't help.  Sandstein  19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps the article should be unblocked so changes can be made. Unfortunately the user who blocked it did not specify any violations. Regarding notability, Atzmon is more well known for his politics than he is for his music. For example, his music only has a few thousand listens on Myspace, yet his politics were cited by the prime minster of a major country. Drsmoo (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is unlikely to be unprotected so long as you and Carol continue to bicker. Please read my suggestion below for how to move beyond this impasse.

By the way, Myspace hits aren't an indicator of one's fame in the jazz world. I would say that Atzmon is a very well-known musician, and that he is probably as well-known for his music as he is for his politics. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Myspace hits aren't an indicator of one's fame in the jazz world". Understatement of the year? To the jazz world, Atzmon is clearly far better known as a jazz musician. To a small but merry band of anti-anti-Zionists, and perhaps to a lesser extent anti-Zionists, he's known for his political views. I'd hazard a guess, given the relative media coverage of his music and his views, that (Prime Ministers of Turkey notwithstanding) those who fall into neither camp know him for his music, if at all. Rd232 ^talk 00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple, do a google search and look at the results, compare how many there are for politics and how many for Jazz. On Last FM(a site that calculates MP3 listens, Atzmon has about 1,000 listeners. In contrast, Peter King another English Saxophonist has 11,825. On allaboutjazz.com, Atzmon has a popularity rank of 2,756th. His political views are not well known either on the other hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Different suggestions

Suggestion from an uninvolved editor The section on Atzmon's politics is extremely poorly written. I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough. The narrative bounces from subject to subject, often returning to make a point several paragraphs after it's already been made. Regardless of what stays in the article and what goes, the section has got to be written in a coherent fashion.

I think Atzmon's anti-Zionism and antisemitism are notable. I think there are way too many quotes, and quotes from secondary sources should be favored over quotes from primary sources. I think it'll become apparent that there are too many quotes when an editor tries to make a coherent narrative out of the section.

Having said that, most of Atzmon's political views aren't notable. He's not a political figure, so who cares that he supports the Palestinian right of return and a one-state solution? (The presumption that those views are symptomatic of his anti-Zionism is WP:OR.) Who cares what he thinks about the financial crisis, unless it's notable with respect to his anti-Zionism and antisemitism?

Anyway, you asked for comments and those are mine. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your claiming he IS an antisemite, based on reading a lot of out of context statements, is exactly the effect that some editors have been working to create in this article for months. We let the WP:RS share that opinion, we don't opine that way ourselves. I've complained about POV for those editors who constantly have made that claim, which is what Drsmoo is mad about.

And the reason it is so poorly written is certain editors insist the most negative sounding comments be included, and then to be NPOV the actual context must be included. There is no doubt he goes out of his way to be controversial and get people's attention, but that's not an excuse to twist this ex-Israeli Jew's words, even if one thinks he's making Jews, Palestinian activists, Jazz musicians, etc. look bad. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're 100% right: referring to Atzmon as an anti-Zionist or an antisemite must be cited to a WP:RS. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I can simplify this whole discussion. Anyone who goes through great lengths to defame their own country of origin, not to mention their own people, is notably a traitor, racist and in this case, a self-hating Jew. I'll read the article, but being familiar with the subject I can assure each and every editor here that more than plenty reliable sources can be found to back up this statement. Drone2Gather (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussing Atzmon. Please limit your comments to constructive suggestions for improving the article. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for an edit

{{editprotected}}

In the last paragraph of Gilad Atzmon#Politics, please make the following changes:

Atzmon has had conflicts with some Jewish anti-Zionists whom who he claims says fail to listen to Palestinian activists...

Per WP:WTA, we shouldn't use the word "claim". Also, the use of the word "whom" in this sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Done, looks uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Primary Source BLP violations reverted just before lock

I have removed these two out of context primary source additions repeatedly as being violations of BLP. They were readded yet again just before you locked the article. Any chance to remove them now??

• He later expounded "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory."REF:http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/07/hatred-has-turned-him-into-a-jew-deconstructing-nick-cohen/
  • See my earlier comments above at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Use_of_Nick_Cohen-related_quote_BLP_violation_of_Self-Pub_source_attacking_others
• In his article "War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History" Atzmon writes:"The most interesting aspect of the Holocaust religion is its God-figure, namely 'the Jew'." He follows "[The Jew] will have to accept that his newly formed father-figure was formed in his own shape. More concerning is the devastating fact that the new father is proved to be a call to kill. Seemingly, the new father is the ultimate evil God of them all. I wonder how many Jews will be courageous enough to shun their esoteric newly formed father-figure. Will they be courageous enough to join the rest of humanity adopting a universal ethical discourse? Whether the Jew drops “The Jew”, only time will tell. Just to remove any doubt, I did drop my “Jew” a long time ago and I am doing fine."NO REF CURRENT: ref is: http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/18/gilad-atzmon-%E2%80%93-war-on-terror-within-the-end-of-jewish-history/
  • See my earlier comments above at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Newest_Wp:Coatrack.23Fact_picking.

Signing: CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see it as a problem with over reliance on a primary source, but I do not see why you think a quote that describes his POV toward Jews and Judaism is a BLP violation. Are you contending that the quote was fabricated by palestinethinktank.com? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for edit . The "Politics" section of the article seems to be at least as problematic as the section already removed because, as it now is, it is a WP:SOAP violation, being nothing better than a soapbox for Atzmon's political ideas, instead of describing his ideas as would be proper for a WP article. Additionally it has even more serious quotefarm problems than the section already moved to this talk page. Considering that, I request that the "Politics" section also me moved to the talk page for discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point I only am asking for the deletion of the clearest BLP violations per my comments at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Use_of_Nick_Cohen-related_quote_BLP_violation_of_Self-Pub_source_attacking_others and Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Newest_Wp:Coatrack.23Fact_picking. Most of the QUOTES (from WP:RS sources) were included because one or more editors kept putting them in there. There are two primary source quotes explaining his view on the nature of antisemitism, made necessary by the statement some have called him antisemitic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So far we're all waiting to find out just what the supposed BLP violations are. While I would not be surprised if that quote is presently removed given this sudden strange state of the article, it is in no way a violation. Drsmoo (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, why are they BLP violations? Just above you requested that material be taken out of the article as BLP violations, but when I asked why they are BLP violations, instead of answering, you changed the subject. Why do you think direct quotes of Atzmon are BLP violations? Those quotes express views that he has repeated frequently. Moreover, his views were not expressed privately, but in the most public forums he could find for them. I certainly have no objections to removing material in this, or any article, that violates WP rules. There have many times been claims about BLP violations but without anything I see as rational explanations with specifics. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

well, this is why I think the nick cohen article shouldn't be included. the subject of the article is a third party, and the statement quoted in the article is used by atzmon to describe cohen's getting away with racism. per BLP: Using the subject as a self-published source

Main article: WP:SELFPUB

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

the other quote seems, if not self-serving, then non-notable. have any secondary sources remarked on that statement? untwirl(talk) 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the Nick Cohen article, and there may well be, it seems to be a normal editing problem, and not BLP. But what I was asking about particularly is this edit [2] (above) where Carolmooredc does claim a BLP violation. Why is it a BLP violation? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cohen further BLP problem because it does not allow the full context of Atzmon charging racism against specific people to be used. The "War On Terror Within" quote Malcolm refers too is primary source with no 3rd party mention in overly long, redundant to points made elsewhere and I believe inserted as pure POV/SoapBox/Coatrack to make Atzmon look bad. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. Why do you think that a quote such as that, which is a typical Atzmon quote on Jews and Judaism, makes him look bad? It seems to me that, since he wrote and published it, that he probably thought it was good. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Nick Cohen" quote in mention "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." This is not a quote about Nick Cohen, this is not a quote about Zionism, this is not a quote that needs deducing, it means exactly what it says and should be taken to mean exactly what it says. E To provide an example for those who may be unable to see things in context, if the subjects were switched, and the writer had criticized Jesse Jackson saying ""In the US bigotry and racism is becoming a Blacks-only territory." I doubt there would be any confusion or controversy over its meaning. It is clear what Atzmon meant by his quote, those saying it should be removed after attributing a meaning to it which does not fit with the words presented are not editing correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

i think you are the one who is missing the context. are you saying we should assume that his statement is not about cohen when it is included in a paragraph dedicated to calling cohen a racist, and is preceded by the statement, "In contemporary Britain a Dutch right-wing racist MP is deported for making a film, yet a racist can be a prominent columnist for the Observer."? in your analogy, would the context of the writer saying that include the fact that it was made about jackson's statements? untwirl(talk) 20:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying, Untwirl, if I understand you correctly, is that the BLP violation involves Cohen (because of Atzmon's insult of Cohen), not Atzmon. Any BLP violations against Atzmon? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read all the responses. I answered that question clearly above: Nick Cohen further BLP problem because it does not allow the full context of Atzmon charging racism against specific people to be used. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is not simply about calling Cohen a racist, it is about calling Jews inherantly racist, which is a piece of nonsense Atzmon writes in almost every article of his. However he rarely puts it in such blindingly obvious wording as he does in this example, which is likely the reason so many would like the quote removed. The article is not about Cohen, it is about Jews, using Nick Cohen(and other Jews such as Melanie Phillips)

Some quotes from the article, it is about Jews, and the quote is word for word about Jews, don't use the title of the article in order to twist the blatant meaning of what has been written.

"As we noticed many times before, it is always someone or something else that transforms the ‘innocent’, ‘atheist’, ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘secularist’, ‘egalitarian’ person into a ‘Jew’. "

"One again I find myself admitting that the more I elaborate on issues concerning contemporary Jewish Identity, the more I realise that it is actually the so-called ‘secular’, ‘enlightened’, ‘emancipated’, ‘assimilated’, ‘cosmopolitan’ Jew who provides us with a real meaningful insight into the subject of Zionism, Israeli genocidal policies, Jewish lobbying and Jewish institutional support of the Zionist crime."

"the transition of Jewish identity into a hawkish carrier of brutal, expansionist, murderous ideologies. "

"Jewishness is not a belief system at all. While Muslims believe in Allah and Christians believe that Jesus is God, the Jew can believe in almost everything without ceasing to be a Jew."

"what makes a Jew into a Jew is the belief in ‘the Jew’, in Jewish suffering and in Jewish uniqueness"

"Not only did they flee, they even became communists. Indeed a common Jewish political choice at the turn of the 20th Century."

"the left was serving the Jewish tribal interests."

"he runs straight into the cage, he rushes to the shtetl as if he tries to seek shelter in a synagogue. This is indeed a very Jewish thing to do. Yet, this very behaviour deserves some intellectual attention because this exact pattern can be seen as essential to the understanding of Jewish suicidal collectivism detected in Israel and its supportive lobbies and agents."

The main point of Atzmon's article: "Cohen will get away with it because he is ‘Kosher'"

Main point restated: "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory. You might want to ask yourself why we stop a Dutch MP yet we let Melanie Philips and Nick Cohen(both Jewish) celebrate their symptoms on paper. One possible answer is that we expect a Dutch Christian to be a Humanist, yet we allow the racially orientated tribal campaigner to be a racist bigot. We expect them to advocate wars, we expect them to refer to people’s skin and colour."

"While a Rabbi may be inclined to take advantage of this revelation and rush to Cohen’s dwelling, equipped with the necessary gear to kosherly modify the tip of his manhood"

"no one can really be more Jewish than Cohen. He possesses all the elementary ideological ingredients, he differentiates the value of people’s ideas based on the colour of their skin. He promotes war as a valid resolution to international problems."

"Without justifying any violent act whatsoever, the reasoning behind resentment towards Israel and Jews is rational."

"he runs back to the Ghetto and succumbs to the most radical form of Jewish tribal ideology."

"reverted to Judaism"

Atzmon reiterates the central theme to his article "It must be that British freedom of speech again that is apparently reserved for self-loving Jews, and to them alone."

Claiming that the quote "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." is "out of context" is ridiculous. It is factually wrong, this is a standard Atzmon hate piece and that line is the central point. And for anyone thinking that article was "cherry picked" all of his articles are like this. There are two sides in this editing dispute, those trying to accurately reflect Atzmon's statements. And those trying to cover them up because they care more about making him "look good" than they do about the integrity of Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you of WP:ARBPIA#Editors reminded. Comment on content, not on editors. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This entire talk page is a blatant attack on editors who are trying to make the article accurate, and now you say comment on content? Look at the rest of the talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Everybody else is doing it" wasn't a good excuse in kindergarten, and it's not an acceptable excuse at Wikipedia. Stop making personal attacks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Malik, but what he is really saying is that you may not know know what has eventuated during the editing of this article. In any case, you wording, "good excuse in kindergarten," is itself rather WP:NPA, because you seem to be drawing a very negative conclusion about him personally, and impuning his maturity. Accusations of childishness are insulting. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong: that was neither a personal attack nor an accusation of childishness. It was a simple statement that Drsmoo needs to take responsibility for her/his own actions. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As do you, the first step is to comment on content, and if you're going to comment on editors for "commenting on editors" be sure you're evenhanded. It doesn't help your case to criticize one editor for making an offhand remark and ignore the editor who has posted almost nothing but attacks against other editors for weeks. Drsmoo (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

drsmoo: first, i believe the statement, "he rarely puts it in such blindingly obvious wording as he does in this example" proves the point that this quote is being cherrypicked in a pov way. just because certain editors found it notably and "blindingly obvious" does not mean it belongs in the article. even if it weren't for the fact that it is being used to attack third parties, the context would have to be included. actually, i think the context you put it in above would be fine. however, since no secondary sources have found that statement notable, it mentions thirds parties, and it is being used out of context, i agree with carol that it should go. untwirl(talk) 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not intentionally misinterpret what I say. Every quote of Atzmon's that is not putting him in the most positive light has been cited as "cherry picking" Not just this one. My point is only that the statement that he is talking only about Nick Cohen when he blatantly says Jews(referencing another Jew) is what is disingenuous. Regard third party sources, there is no shortage of source which have identified him as an antisemite, and no shortage of institutions that refuse to work with him. He was even recently invited to participate in a debate on antisemism, being on the side defending antisemites. Unfortunately that whole section was removed before the article was locked. However there is no cherry picking going on, every single article he writes is an attack solely on Jews and Judaism. Every one is completely full of attacks on Jews. this isn't something I should even need to say, just read them. I provided examples from one of his less vitriolic ones even. The one that was (somehow) claimed to not be about Jews despite the actual content of the article.

Here are a few examples of institutions and notable individuals calling Atzmon antisemitic

Engage Online- http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=258

Oliver Kamm- http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/09/jazz_and_the_an.html

Tony Grenstein - http://www.marxists.de/racism/antisemitism/counterpunch.htm

Jews against Zionism -http://www.labournet.net/antiracism/0506/bookmarks1.html

Worker's Liberty - http://www.workersliberty.org/node/4325/print Drsmoo (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that when you put Atzmon's statements in context they don't appear antisemitic, but harshly critical of Zionism and whatever aspects of Judaism support what Atzmon describes as ethnic cleansing, land grabbing, apartheid, locking up hundreds of thousand of people in defacto concentration camps, mass murder of civilians with illegal weapons of war, threats to use nuclear weapons and bring on world nuclear war, etc. etc. etc.

And note that in your list of "notable individuals" there isn't one real WP:RS for BLP up there, just a lot of partisan complaining, including by one editor on this page and one of his cronies. I personally don't mind having a paragraph saying these partisans have written opinion pieces - and another with Atzmon's responses. The problem of course is the accusations are so twisted and inaccurate they require a response from Atzmon to be NPOV and then you end up with 6 paragraphs all over again!

As for accusations on the page, it is clear wikipedia considers constant attacks on the subject of the article and other editors as antisemites (as was going down here before one of the editors got blocked for doing it on another page) is a lot worse than constantly complaining others are violating BLP policy. Do I have to list those examples again?

I personally think all of those who accused other editors of antisemitism have shown a conflict of interest so deep - especially when combined with their constant violations of BLP and edit warring -- they should be blocked from editing this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

how were you "intentionally misinterpreted"? which quotes put him in a positive light? you have found this single line to be "such blindingly obvious wording" that proves he is an antisemite, and you want to include it in the article completely out of context. that is the simple definition of cherrypicking, right? pulling quotes that support what you want to be said about the subject? if you refer back to the section "edit warring again?" on this page, you will note that it isn't the first time that has happened with this article. you seem to describe any attempt to include atzmons context or explanations as 'trying to make him look good,' when that is actually what is required for a blp.untwirl(talk) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, you continue to misinterpret me. I made the point that it is "blindingly obvious" what his statement meant, even more so than his usual impossible to misinterpret attacks on Judaism. He says JEWS are fundamentally racist(as in plural, as in all) and he has made this claim repeatedly. And given the context of the article, in which the whole thing is an attack piece on Judaism and Jews, I can't see how someone could come to another interpretation. Carolmooredc, aside from your list of allegations against Israel which have no truth to them whatsoever(as well as no relavence to this article) your point that Atzmon's works don't appear antisemitic when viwed "in context" is simply wrong. They do, and they are. And there is really no other way to interpret them. This is also the interpretation of most, including anti-zionists, both Jewish and non-Jewish. It seems to me that you view anyone(and there are MANY) who calls Atzmon an antisemite to be therefore unreliable as a result. It's circular reasoning. Every article Atzmon writes is an attack on JEWS, and JUDAISM, not Zionism, Judaism, therfore for the article to paint him as an "anti-zionist" is disingenuous and wrong. Drsmoo (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? CarolMooreDC, Do you remember writing this: "Sarah Palin - just another Xian Zionist nut job"? It sounds, based on your blog, that you may be exceedingly biased against Zionists, while you are free with accusations against other editors who disagree with your own POV. But, although I disagree with your POV, I am not trying to get you blocked from editing Israel/Palestine conflict articles. There are, in fact no grounds, because WP:NPOV assumes that "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed." What I do find disgusting are editors who use wikilawering to get users, with opposing ideas about the article, banned from editing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to be discussing the article and not the editors(ie: trying to get all opposing viewpoints banned, or having every one of a user's edits in the talk within the past week being an attack on other users) but since we're in kindergarten....Drsmoo (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

the fact that you both continuously attack and out carol for her website (which is not linked on her userpage and you searched out on the internet) is both irritating and not relevant. is she editing in a way that isnt npov? discuss that.

drsmoo - i think you made a good decision deleting that last edit re:carol.

please reread the nick cohen article. every paragraph mentions him and his article by name and in quotes. just because you cherrypick quotes that talk about jews or judaism doesn't make that the main idea of the article. in fact, the main point is "Cohen’s JC article is an exemplary case study of the Zionisation of world Jewry and the transition of Jewish identity into a hawkish carrier of brutal, expansionist, murderous ideologies." does that make atzmon "look good"? no, i dont think so. but it accurately represents what he is saying. untwirl(talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You too should reread the article, and pay attention to the context by which Cohen is criticized and what Atzmon's actual point is. The point Atzmon attempts to make is his claim that Jews can be racists in Britain. He goes on to say repeatedly that he feels all Jews are racists. Though I do applaud you in respect to taking the step of accepting his quotes about Jews and Judaism, you should read the article for what it is not what some wish it to be. More so, his points about JEWS are about JEWS, his rants about JUDAISM are not about Nick Cohen, they are about Judaism. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that because the article refers to Nick Cohen, that repeated statements about Jews(plural) are in fact about a single Jew. If Atzmon had wanted to say that "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Nick Coehn-only territory." I'm sure he would have. Unfortunately that is not how he feels, and not what he said. He said it is a "Jews(as in all) only territory." Along with the other quotes throughout the article which make it clear he is generalizing Jews. Once again, it is a logical fallacy to state that because some parts of the article deals with Nick Cohen, that all parts must, particualrly when they are so clearly worded. Drsmoo (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To go out of chrono order as DrSmoo does above, once again, it is NOT our job as editors to PROVE Atzmon is an antisemite in long WP:SOAPBOX talk page (out of context) edits from the subject. It is our job to reflect reliable and notable sources opinions. I've come to the conclusion that until wikipedia figures out how to deal with people who just don't understand basic policies for whatever reason, it inevitably will go down the tubes, probably in a few big lawsuits because it can't keep it's BLPs under control. (And that is just a sad observation.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Actually this article is filled with attacks on Atzmon and on other editors which several editors have never bothered to strike or removed, including despite requests. What Wikipedia needs is someone to contribute a few million dollars dedicated to hiring several hundred part-time admins to smack down the worst offenders (but only in areas they do not regularly edit on themselves). Hmmm, if they only were hired to do $595 of work in the US they might not even have to bother with taxes, just 1099s. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol, prior to the past few days, almost the entire talk apge of this article as well as the talk pages of several boards was one giant attack piece from you against other editors. You are continuing to attack right now, to the point of wishing to have all dissenting(even majority) viewpoints banned. This is unconscionable editing behavior. That last piece was editied so as not to follow said user in carrying out violations by attacking others.Drsmoo (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just an attempt to find some NOT burned out admin who wants to deal with nonsense like constant soapboxing that Atzmon is an antisemite, editors who want to follow policy probably are too, and this article must prove it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the consistant attacks by you these past weks or so have nothing to do with finding anyone. And by finding(i presume you searched long and hard) for a "NOT burned out admin" you mean finding an admin who will agree with you(ie rants about rabid Zionists), whereas none of the other admins have agreed with you, repeatedly. Drsmoo (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP?

This article was locked with a claim of BLP violations. I see plenty of editing problems, but am still waiting for someone to specify the BLP violations so that they can be removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No one? One would have expected this to be explained before the article was locked and content removed. There remains no explanation. Drsmoo (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it is considered acceptable on Wikipedia for an editor to block a page without citing any reasons while simultaneously expressing extreme bias (calling individuals "rabid" for example)?

Is it stated anywhere that a page can be locked with no reason given?Drsmoo (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a reason given: [3] Protected Gilad Atzmon: Excessive violations of the biographies of living persons policy: otrs:2009041510025323. The OTRS complaint is summarized above.

Also, User:bjweeks protected the article. She/He has not made any other edits to the article or this Talk page, so I don't understand your allegations of bias. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The administrator JZG removed the section minutes before the article was locked, and preceded to make inflammatory posts in the talk page. No examples of BLP violations were found, and Sandstein has agreed that there are no BLP violations. Drsmoo (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)as i understand it, the otrs ticket indicates that someone contacted the foundation by email and made certain complaints, possibly the subject of the article? it isnt up to guy to defend it, just to handle it, which he has done as gracefully as possible given the atmosphere here. and before you run to other admins who you think will support your pov around accusing him of calling people "rabid" again, please re-read what he actually said. (hint: he said they weren't rabid) untwirl(talk) 21:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read what i said, rather than again coming up with completely off the mark "interpretations" he said zionists were rabid, which is an incredibly incendiary and POV thing to say and has no place here. Drsmoo (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a simple response to Carol Moore stating she did just that "just an attempt to find some NOT burned out admin"-Carol Moore (as well as sending messages to Admins trying to get users banned, things deleted etc etc.) In other words, because no administrators agreed with her(including Sandstein) she went to find one who would(the same one who rants about "rabid zionists") That is a pure example of trying to push your POV. Drsmoo (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, what Sandstein wrote was "I don't see all that much of a BLP problem here, because the contested section appears reasonably well sourced, but of course I can't see the OTRS ticket." (emphasis added) Since none of us has access to the OTRS ticket, we're going to have to assume that the article was protected in good faith because of BLP problems that were identified in the OTRS ticket.

If you'd like more details about what's in the OTRS ticket, maybe one of the people in Category:Wikipedia OTRS volunteers can tell you more. Or maybe not. In any event, please note that User:JzG is an OTRS volunteer as well as an administrator, so he probably knows what he's talking about when he summarized the issues above.

Sandstein and I made similar suggestions about how to fix the politics section. Instead of asking for the article to be unprotected—an unlikely outcome so long as you and Carol continue to bicker—I recommend that you create a subpage, either to this article or in your userspace, and start drafting a revised "Politics" section. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree.  Sandstein  05:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty fine with the article as is, it still shows Atzmon for who he is. The fact remains that no admins have provided any examples of anything wrong with the article. Drsmoo (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that, although I'm not an administrator, I've shown you a summary of the problem at least twice. The article isn't going to stay as it is. The OTRS ticket guarantees that. Your best bet is to rewrite the section as others have suggested. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be separate problems, and (although your re-write suggestions seem to be pretty close to my own suggestions) there is no way to know if such a re-write will satisfy the very unclearly stated BLP objections. I do not think it unreasonable to ask to be told what the specific objections are. Without that, it is told to reach a destination without being told the direction in which destination will be found. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I might add that Guy, in his comments on the deleted material, has found something wrong with every single critical source used, including the David Aaronovitch (from the Time), and David Hirsh (in the Guardian). With that in mind, it is a little difficult to see how any re-write would satisfy his apparent rejection of every critical source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In case you don't know, a WP:OTRS indicates that someone, perhaps the subject of the article, has expressed a problem with the section making possibly libelous statements. User:JZG/Guy has asked us to explain in these cases why these are WP:RS sources for possibly libelous opinions in WP:BLP and explained problems with the nature and number of them. These are legitimate questions given a WP:OTRS. And I certainly have seen even better sourced opinions removed from some biographies. These are a jumping off point for consideration, preferably by Non-involved truly neutral editors looking at it for the first time. As we known, hustling up such editors on wikipedia can be difficult. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the complaint could have come from anyone. We don't know. It could even be a disgruntled editor. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is allowed, remind me to do it next time I'm having some big BLP problem :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The "next time"? I am still waiting to hear what the BLP problem is this time. (As for OTRS complaints, I suppose that any editor with a G-mail account under an alias name could file such a complaint without the possibility of being caught.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with how it all works so why not bring questions to the relevant talk page :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed on bottom of this page that this article is in the category Biography articles of living people who have requested removal So I guess that answers the question. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the top of this page, at the "WikiProject Biography" banner, it says that Atzmon has asked not to be included in Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia doesn't honor such requests. It also says the article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 04:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise on Text to end these problems

As I have said many times, the main problem with the article is editors adding a) every negative thing written about him, even dubiously WP:RS for BLP, and b) out of context primary source statements that sound much worse than they do in context. This leads to necessity to establish context or make sure his replies included. If we could get a consensus to a) just delete non-WP:RS criticism and out of context statements every time they are entered and b) work on getting edit warring sanctions on anyone who keeps adding/reverting to them, we could be done with this article, absent some big developments.

I have cut the whole section back to just enough of his views, and a couple quotes, so we know what they are and how he presents them, and the two most credible criticisms, with relevant responses and a short section on his statements on antisemitism. Thoughts??

[4/22/09 NOTE: See this diff since admin noted drafts are not supposed to be in name space and I've been working on draft over there.]

ALSO WOULD ADD:

• One or two links to articles next to publications that published him that don't have them
• External links: replace Lexicon of Resistance link with Gilad Atzmon archive at Palestine Think Tank

Proposed by: CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol, you may not realize it, but your proposal sounds like an anti-Israel diatribe masquerading as an article about Gilad Atzmon. It's a perfect example of a WP:COATRACK. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

First, note that I didn't notice the comment about creating a subpage above before I created this section and can always move this proposal to a subpage if necessary.

Also, I just noticed this comment. I just cut down what has been there for a long time, so please don't imply that I am creating some coatrack from scratch. The question is how much to cut back without misrepresenting his views or more importantly taking quotes out of context, thereby twisting what he really means.

I also left a couple in to make Drsmoo and others who might come along and want to see some outrageous stuff happy. Shame on me!! (Let's face it, this article probably will need to be protected until the end of wikipedia time.)

And if his main point is that the Israelis are out of control and are leading us to nuclear war, shouldn't that be in there?

How notable his views are that should be quoted also an issue. Probably what he said that Erdogan quoted should be quoted. And the fact that someone went to jail in Germany in part based on something he allegedly said (though there are questions about the translation) might be notable. As are the comments from official organizations - and the replies to them.

Your version linked below guts all such notable content. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just cut more from my above proposal (See strikes) and added one quote DrSmoo likes which was in response to people accusing him of antisemitism both in original interview and in context of both paragraph I put it and rest of politics section, of his primary concern of Israel/Judaism driving world to catastrophe. I think it answers most of the other concerns, both about cutting quotes and providing good context, esp for the two accusations against him that came from organizations. (As opposed to the vague and poorly contexted one's in Malik's version.)CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I've been drafting a proposal at Gilad Atzmon/Subpage. Other editors can feel free to edit it, but try to keep the basic structure. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes, but that suffers from being overly short and throwing out charged statements out of context or accusations without a chance for his many published replies. Just shorter versions of the longer problems we've been having. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Carol, but his statements are taken right out of his interviews, in context. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 01:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how the last sentence is synthesis? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 01:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

malik, i appreciate the work you've done to cut down the section and make it more readable. however, i think the problem here is that atzmon contradicts himself a bit and you're only including the sensational statements without the contradicting ones. for instance, he does say that he is "anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews", but he also says, "At the end of the day my argument is simply that Israel defines itself with the Jewish faith. If this is the case, considering the crimes committed in the name of this faith. It is our duty to ask who are the Jews, what is Judaism and what is Jewishness? Let's get some things very clear. I never attack Jews, I hardly criticise Judaism – I never criticise people for their beliefs. But I can criticise conduct." if we only include the "anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews" part that leaves the reader confused as to what he means by that. untwirl(talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Atzmon speaks (and writes) in riddles. It's our job to summarize, as best we can, what he has said. Maintaining a quote farm isn't the way to go. If we include the whole ramble that you quote, the reader will be even more confused. I'll try to incorporate a little more of it in the draft. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 04:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

agreed. i definitely don't want to include the whole quote, but maybe the parts immediately after he says "at the end of the day my argument is," and "lets get some things very clear." those statements sound like they introduce major points that he wants to espouse. i dont pretend to understand what he means by jews, jewishness, etc, but i do think we should include what he says his main points are. untwirl(talk) 04:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Malik's proposal is good. I think it could be shortened to just the first two paragraphs, but can live with all three paragraphs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is an issue to call him an anti-zionist and not note that many anti-zionists do not see him as such. It is also an issue to not make any mention of his statements about Judaism and Jews. Almost every article he writes is about Judaism, and then by extension Zionism or Israel, not the other way around. Drsmoo (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo, I do not see that as a problem because it is only anti-Zionists who think there is much difference between anti-Zionism and Antisemitism. In other words it is unlikely that anyone will ever read this article and have it change their mind. Given the limitations of Wikipedia BLP restrictions, and the general prevalence of PC thinking on Wikipedia (where many administrators treat anti-Zionists as though they are a marginalized minority group), I think Malik's version is as good as it is possible to get. If you join with CarolMooreDC to vote against this version, the end result is likely to be worse, not better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I disagree with that philosophy. My version includes notable coments which have been quoted in many different articles as well as by notable people and were used in debates and are therefore notable. They are certainly worthy of inclusion at the very least. In addition, no administrators have cited any issues with the previous article, in other words there are no grounds by which these quotes should not be part of the article. Drsmoo (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please list which quotes are used more than once by who. But even so, context is everything. And then there are legitimate WP:Coatrack concerns, as Malik mentioned above, when I did in fact include a number of the quotes that you so dearly love - in context of course. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Malik's version

• Malik complained about too many quotes in his this early comment on this talk page, but then he creates a short section with a lot of largely out of context quotes.
• Malik clearly expressed in that comment that Atzmon is a notable antisemite which makes one have to question how quotes are put together.
• The question is how much to cut back without misrepresenting Atzmon's views or more importantly taking quotes out of context, thereby twisting what he really means, as Untwirl points out.
• Drsmoo has a point that Atzmon's views on why some aspects of Judaism have led to the abuses of Zionism, the problem being when he sees such a description made in an NPOV way reflecting something he says he says it's written to make him look good. (I complain out of context ones make him look bad/worse depending on quote.)
• If Atzmon's biggest concern is that the Israelis are out of control and are leading us to nuclear war, shouldn't that be in there?
• How notable his views are that should be quoted also an issue. Probably what he said that Erdogan quoted should be quoted. And the fact that someone went to jail in Germany in part based on something he allegedly said (though there are questions about the translation) might be notable. As are the comments from official organizations - and the replies to them.
• Malik's version linked above guts any real content and just invites a lot of additions once the article is unprotected, though frankly I think the article should be protected to the end of wikipedia time, a phrase I may just have coined. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Atzmon's biggest concern is his "unique" view of Judaism, that's what he writes primarily about. Drsmoo (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And what WP:RS do you have that says that? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What wiki source says that his quotes on Israel are permitted to be in the article(in your view) but none of his many quotes on Judaism? Drsmoo (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with including those quotes if they are in context of a WP:RS article saying Atzmon says so and so and then quoting him. Pulling out quotes you think are bad from primary sources and sticking them in is not the way it works. You still haven't explained what WP:RS says his biggest concern is his unique view of Judaism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol, the question I have is whether you think Atzmon's politics are so significant that they need so much verbiage. Do we need to know that he calls himself a "Hebrew-speaking Palestinian"? The names of the various online venues that publish his writings?

The section as you wrote it needs some work to make it clear that the lines about white phosphorus and nuclear weapons come from Atzmon and not Wikipedia's editorial voice, because the way the section is written now it seems to be stated as fact.

Finally, I think you and Drsmoo should try to come to some agreement on which of Atzmon's political views are notable enough to mention in a short section. It would help if each of you could bring more than your opinion as to which of his views are significant (i.e., reliable sources). It seems to me that you are each cherry-picking quotes that support your own POV, and without some compromise we're still looking at a quote-farm. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Namespace problem/Links to new draft material

No opinion on the merits, but drafts must not be kept in main space. The draft is now at Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Politics draft, while its former talk page remains at Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Subpage.  Sandstein  20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So I guess I should removed mine from this page and integrate it into that one. The draft doesn't solve the main problem: editors who want use out of context or stitched together quotes to push their POV on Atzmon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing Carol Moore's opinions stated as facts and adding relevant quotes from secondary sources. Drsmoo (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You've gotten to the point of dropping references, using the wrong references, taking statements that were in proper context and moving them out (and confusing the references), using raw audio as references, etc. etc. [Removed specific language objected to.] Out of control. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm following proper Wiki procedure, you are attempting to censor out everything you don't like. You apparently think it's ok to use quotes, as long as they're the quotes you like, but other quotes are automatically out of context? You should stop personally attacking other editors who are simply following procedure and using quotes from secondary sources and notable people. This is not your article(despite your claiming that you ran it on a talk page) Also, you are the only one who thinks they're out of context. You should stop trying to get editors banned, and start editing reasonably. Drsmoo (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is Drsmoo. Please give a diff where I said I ran the article or remove the comment. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carolmooredc#Gilad_Atzmon Drsmoo (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, you put insulting comments, about the editors opposing you here, on noticeboards and administrator talk pages around WP, and never supplied a single diff to back up your claims. My collecting the diffs of those comments, and attempts to get opposing editors topic panned through innuendo, might make an interesting case for violation of WP:civility and WP:no personal attacks. It is amusing that you are accusing others of what you have done so freely. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't know what specific issue of running the page you refer to in link above. Giving one's opinion is allowed.
• Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable:
  • No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. (Or an antisemite, which is one of the things I complained about here, though not fast enough to get a sanction evidently.) Doesn't say you can't comment on other editor's editing behaviors on talk pages, just that you should insult them.
  • Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. I have seen people asked to stop editing here and mention of sanctions as warnings because of really bad editing behavior, especially as detailed here. Wikipedia:Civil#Engaging_in_incivility Once again this is a place where wikipolicy needs to be more clear; when does warning over legitimate issues become threats over mere disagreements? If some neutral party after reading this whole post says I've done the latter, I'll be glad to remove the offending material.
  • Both Wikipedia:Civil#Engaging_in_incivility and Wikipedia:Talk#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable say misrepresentation is unacceptable, but both sides evidently claim that so that could be difficult to tease out.
• I think the bottom line remains that Drsmoo for a year has insisted on putting the most negative material on here in the most negative light, despite the protestations of a number of editors, some of whom just throw up their hands and walk away.
• Finally, my warning about a complaint was in relation to Arbitration enforcement complaint I made vs. Drsmoo which resulted in this message from an administrator on Drsmoo's talk page:

This diff shows the relevant warning:

Editing Advice: This recent talk page comment is problematic. In my honest opinion, you are being unnecessarily confrontational. Have a look at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles, you should be engaging in a calm, reasonable and courteous discussion in an effort to resolve the disagreement in a dignified fashion, with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Also, note that revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. If these problems persist then an topic ban could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating trying to figure out how to deal with these issues, who to contact next, etc. It's easier to just remind Drsmoo about the potential to do it. Advice from neutral parties welcome welcome. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, thanks for that fine bullshit. NB: The warning is about Drsmoo comments on non-content issues. Please to not try to take advantage the warning, which is a WP:BAIT problem. I would never accuse you of the calculated baiting of other editors, even if it often seems that way. But your smug comment on PhilKnight's warning, in fact, might be construed as just such a calculated act of baiting Drsmoo....heaven forbid. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm: The issue Knight refers to is constant reverting. For example, repeatedly replacing sourced 2nd party info with primary source info, not to mention confusing footnotes, taking out important sourced info (including regarding denials of antisemitism per blp), etc. as Drsmoo did on his series 3 edits on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft&action=history April 21st). CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow Carol, are you still repeating this? Even after you were proved wrong? The message I got was the DEFAULT MESSAGE FOR 3RR, that is all. NOTHING about arbitration despite you claiming otherwise. You are again factually wrong, this had been said before, you have been corrected before. I assume you have seen the corrections before. One only has to look at my page and look at the default messages for 3rr to see it. Stop repeating blatant nonsense repeatedly. Drsmoo (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>I was not referring to your 3rr/edit warring block, I was referring to a series of three edits on another talk page. However, FYI, just in case -- Did I forget to mention: Wikipedia:3rr

What part of edit warring is harmful don't do 3rr don't you understand?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, the part where you constantly lie by shouting to the high heavens that I was reprimanded for something else. Or that I was warned that I'd be blocked. It was a generic warning that he conscientiously removed only seconds later because he knew people like you would either misinterpret it or use it for the decitful ends you're using it for now. Removing the part which you are so desperate to have others see. (He also just told you to stop bothering him. It's because of things like this. Trying to mislead people to get your way( you way being censoring Wikipedia articles)

Now I'm trying to edit this article constructively. You are trying to remove all "dissenting"(the majority) voices. You say a quote should be removed because it's first person, than use a first person source to prove what you want. Please edit honestly and sincerely. And stop attacking other editors. If I was as concerned with you are about getting other users banned this page would look quite different. As it is you have been unsuccesful. You trolled to Philknight(because you mistakenly think he threatened me) and he told you to leave him alone and go to A/E You ignored his advice and went somewhere else. You should follow the rules of wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[Later additional response: Note that evidently one doesn't go back to the original admin who dealt with an issue but brings it back to Arbitration Enforcement (A/E). Making an error is not trolling. I characterized Knight's advice to you as a "warning" not a threat. I don't think that is stretching someone advising you you can be banned if you continue certain behaviors. As to why I did not immediately go to A/E as two editors said was the appropriate thing to do,] Maybe I'm giving you a break in hopes you'll improve your behavior :-) It won't take much to rewrite that complaint to the appropriate forum. Though I'm tempted to add constant misrepresentation. oi! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to report you for harassment. Drsmoo (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I complain on a talk page instead of an A/E? No good deed goes unpunished. So we can have another battle of the diffs - like people following me around and commenting on everything I say, no matter how general or only tangentially relevant? Why not just work on collaborative editing which has worked well for last 36 hours... sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing good whatsoever about attempting to ban and defame those trying to edit responsibly, while you go on a mad censorship crusade. You've turned almost the entire talk page(and several other talk pages) into attacks on editors including threats. Your behavior is a textbook example of WP:Harrasment [[4]] Drsmoo (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to save you having to put together those 15 diffs to "prove your point": Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats reads It does not constitute a threat to make a statement of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes properly, such as dispute resolution. Note that dispute resolution includes Arbitration and assumedly arbitration enforcement, which is where I have complained and am considering complaining again.

I does seem the Harassment article does need to clarify that warning people about possible A/E actions is not harassment. Please do not harass me by arguing about this specific article or your specific claims in that general topic section after I post a question or comment. :-) FYI, I've been on both sides of this issue myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that despite your consistent harassment, no administrators have sanctioned me for anything. Despite your claims, there has been no issue found with my editing aside from an accidental 3rr. Despite your claims I was not threatened with a ban(one would think if the administrator you are begging to ban me had thought my response deserved one he would not have deleted the message only seconds later. He obviously realized he did not want to send the wrong signals. Drsmoo (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo, some editors are very good at baiting. Do not take the bait by getting angry and reacting, because that is giving the desired result. See WP:BAIT. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

recent secondary source

[5]

maybe this article from aljazeera will help us decide which quotes are notable. specifically this paragraph: "So why did the Oxford Literary Festival invite Atzmon? After all, he's the "proud self-hating Jew" who wonders how America has allowed its foreign policies to be shaped by "ruthless Zionists". He's the one who insists that the burning of synagogues is illegitimate, yet he believes the motivations behind such actions are political rather than religious or racial." untwirl(talk) 03:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are other much better quotes, though none that answer the question too well. But of course the article did originate on Palestine think tank, of which Atzmon is an editor. But I guess it becomes WP:RS if a bigger publication adopts, but it's still more an opinion piece. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The al-Jazeera piece is an opinion column, not a news article. Here's the original. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ok, i didn't realize it came from him. i just thought that since the writer used "proud self hating jew" and "ruthless zionists", along with the synagogue quote, then we could possibly consider those to be the most notable of his inflammatory statements, instead of us trying to decide which are most notorious. but i'm fine with it if it doesn't work. untwirl(talk) 06:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote(which began this edit war after it was included) was also from an interview with a secondary source.

""They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews."I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." Drsmoo (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How to handle antisemitism allegations, continued

Thinking more about this, I really would like a neutral 3rd party opinion; unfortunately most people who deal with articles like Atzmon will have a strong opinion one way or the other. If people could try to put aside any biases and just deal with this as a general BLP principle that would help a lot. (reminder draft editing here and draft talk here)

1. Use WP:RS article(s) which don't have specific accusations just generally say "some accuse Atzmon of "antisemitism" and "holocaust denial". Mr X denies "antisemitism" and "holocaust denial" explaining (a few sentences).
2. Use only the two or three most WP:RS news story accusations with relevant specific and general responses from Atzmon (Current version)
   

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive?

Probably best to archive up to section where OTRS/Lock was announced. Objections?
Also there is a draft of a new section at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft but no consensus on how to proceed per The Draft's talk page. I think we're all a bit burnt out on article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection

In reviewing current articles that are under indefinite protection, I see that this one has been full protected since April 2009. Is there a reason that indefinite protection is still required, or might it be time to allow editing again? --Elonka 17:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 DoneI have unprotected the page, but it will be quickly reprotected if excessive edit warring occurs. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be needed again because once against Drsmoo insists on taking out of context sentences from Atzmon's writings and sticking them in there. I removed one and after missing second one just gave it proper context. But both should be out. I will continue removing them daily since this is extreme deja vu of the WP:Attack page type editing that got this article protected in the first place. If someone wants to re-protect the page, feel free. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you say "once again." Both of the lines you are referring to were in the article at the time it was protected. You are removing lines that have been in the article for over 6 months and are inaccurately claiming that "once again" I am adding them. Perhaps you misinterpreted why the article was protected in the first place. Again, regarding the lines you are attempting to change, you are altering the article from how it was at the time it was protected by the moderators. Your accusations, against me as usual, are as usual, factually wrong. Drsmoo (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Those lines were greatly contested and just had not been removed at the time the article was protected. See items 6-13 in Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_3. If you don't bother to read why POV controversial use of primary sources which makes the subject look bad is again WP:BLP policy. I won't waste time explaining this to you a hundred times anymore.

Also in the Politics section the only primary sources are proving that Atzmon wrote in various places. Which is different than cherry picking quotes to prove your personal point (often repeated in archives) that he is an anti-semite and anti-Jew. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the issue is that lines were in the article when it was protected by moderators, you removed them after the article became unprotected, and then you stated that new lines were being introduced, which was of course a blatant lie.

Regarding "cherry picked quotes" Atzmon proudly states that he is a "self-hating Jew".

Here is a list of his last 6 article titles.

"Organ Donation and Theft in Contemporary Jewish Folklore"

"The Hostage Dream, Loving Oneself at the Expense of Another"

"The IDF: Israel's Organ Grinder"

"Fake Jewish Tolerance vs Vile Israeli Aggression"

"Bruno: A Glimpse into Zionism?"

"Time to Talk about the Rise of Jewish Crime?"

Or his latest article "Who is a Jew" where he writes "digging into people’s ethnic past and family bloodline is not a common practice you expect from the Western press. It is something you tend to leave for racists, Nazis and rabbis. For one reason or another, no one in the so called free press tried to dwell on the close ties between multi billion swindler Bernie Maddof and his tribe."

This is the typical tone of his writing. Drsmoo (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that, including a tiny sample of his multitudes of anti Jewish comments is "cherry picking" is nothing less than a lie. He begins his introduction to 'The erasure of Islam' by stating

"After a decade of elaboration on Jewish ideology and identity I came to a conclusion that Jewish identity, politics and ideology can be grasped as different manifestations of ‘self love’." - Gilad Atzmon

The attempt on this page to turn Atzmon into something he is not, is wrong. Drsmoo (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to draw the conclusions you do can do so from properly sourced info already in the article. On the other hand you are arguing that it's ok to violate policy though WP:OR POV misuse of primary sources as long as it is proving something you believe is true. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is OK to cherry pick primary quotes, then I've got a dozen good one's he's come up with about Israel and/or its most vehement supporters clear criminal violations of international and other laws. Then the edit wars would really begin. Please re-read WP:BLP and go by those policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Already plenty of quotes in the article from Atzmon about Israel and it's supporters. No one is trying to change Wikipedia rules to have them removed. Drsmoo (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's unclear what you mean by "let's not start" these quotes have been in the article for a long time. Drsmoo (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cherry picked, out of context primary source quotes POV

One editor keeps adding the following two cherry picked and more importantly out of context quotes (diff for context; note secondary source quote inadvertently removed):

• 1) In his article "War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History" Atzmon writes: "The most interesting aspect of the Holocaust religion is its God-figure, namely 'the Jew'." Which he refers to as "the ultimate evil God of them all."Ref
  • He fails to note the complete quote is: “I believe that the most interesting Jewish belief system of them all is the Holocaust Religion, which the Israeli Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz rightly defined as the “new Jewish religion”. The most interesting aspect of the Holocaust religion is its God-figure, namely “the Jew”. (And it would take a couple more wp:undue sentences to explain what Atzmon means by ‘ultimate evil God.”)
• 2) He later expounded "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory."Ref
  • Here he deletes the contextual fact that Atzmon is criticizing a Jewish author’s generalization about “ideologues with dark” skin.

The editor claims as his rationale: a) that the one of the quotes happened to be still in there when the article was protected six months ago, which it was only because article was protected before the issue settled; b) he claims other primary sources are used in the Gilad_Atzmon#Politics section, although those are merely references showing he was published in named publications; and c) that these and other quotes which a reasonable person could argue are open to interpretation in fact prove the editor’s WP:OR negative contentions about Atzmon.

Considering that Atzmon evidently complained about this article being defamatory in the past, these contentious, questionably sourced quotes should be left out until a number of neutral editors familiar with WP:BLP have had a chance to opine. 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is factually wrong, and a lie, which is easy enough to see just by looking at the article history. All of the quotes that Carol Moore continues to attempt to remove from the article were in the article at the time it was locked as a result of her attempts to make it into an advertisement for the subject. It should be noted that Gilad Atzmon is censured as an anti-semite by, among others, Engage Online (the anti-racist campaign against antisemitism) [6], The Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism [7], by Tony Greenstein of Socialist Unity [8] and by David Aaronovitch of the London Times [9] and compared to a Neo Nazi in the Guardian [10] by Nick Cohen.

The idea that it is "defamatory" or "out of context" to include samples from Atzmon's writing...or more to the point, the argument that it is great to include Atzmon's anti-Israel statements but "defamatory" to include a sample of his anti Jewish statements, is nonsensical, given the content of his writings. Which have titles like "Who is a Jew? "Organ Donation and Theft in Contemporary Jewish Folklore" and "Time to Talk about the Rise of Jewish Crime?" Drsmoo (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, we should not be using primary sources to support the claim either he is anti-Israel or anti-semitic. If there is an inappropriate use of primary sources at the current time, my suggestion would be to remove them rather then trying to add more contentious material. It's true it's a not uncommon problem that articles on people become a quote farm of quotes editors feel are notable but this is something to be avoided not encouraged. Generally speaking, the best thing to do is to restrict the use of primary sources to back up secondary sources discussing what someone has said rather then for editors to pick what they feel are notable quotes which have not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Notable accusations of anti-semitism (i.e. those covered in reliable secondary sources) should of course be mentioned in the article Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As I've said, anyone who wants to think he is an antisemite surely will think so from the in context, secondary source quotes already in the article. I don't know why anyone feels it is necessary to take out of context primary quotes to layer it on any thicker. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Fairness is much more powerful than unfairness, and shows that we respect the intelligence and judgement of our readers. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources NOT WP:RS or Out of Context, violating WP:BLP

This is all discussed above by the admin who deleted these sources in the spring - here above. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material: Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Please remove these lines and sources or I'll have to go back to WP:BLPN again to have someone remove them. Or perhaps take action that might be more effective. In short, some of these are Polemical Opinion Pieces and vs. BLP and others are used out of context to make Atzmon look bad.

• Roland Rance's opinion piece published at Labournet.net , an advocacy group that can't comment on outside parties, esp. BLP.
• David Aaronovitch polemical opinion piece. He's obviously biased, being the author of Paddling to Jerusalem: An Aquatic Tour of Our Small Country.

These two quotes are cheerry picked out of context. "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" [11] and "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" [12].

The article in the past had good context for both quotes, i.e. both here: In May 2005 the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticized Atzmon for this quote from a talk: "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."[38] Protesters tried to get one venue to cancel his sold out shows.[39] Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer that he meant “since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people’” that "any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation" for Israel's actions.[40] and "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews. I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."[6] (More of that context is in the previous paragraphs.)

The last admin(s) got disgusted with the constant attempts to smear Atzmon - especially given his complaint about wikipedia being used to smear him - and locked the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not defending Dr Smoo's tendentious edits; but the problem with the latest changes is that they remove any reference to the fact that Atzmon is indeed often described as an antisemite not only by "the usual sources" (eg Engage, Board of Deputies, FrontPage), but also by numerous anti-Zionist individuals and organisations, including Moshé Machover, Lenni Brenner, Jews Against Zionism, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and many others. In this respect, at least, the criticism of Atzmon is significantly different than that faced by other non- or anti-Zionist critics of Israel. Most editors here will be aware of the constant battles on Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Neve Gordon, Ilan Pappé, Joel Beinin, Israel Shahak and countless other pages. Interestingly, this article rarely attracts the attention of the hasbara warriors who vandalise these other pages with their smears and defamation.

Most of the criticisms of Atzmon by anti-Zionist activists are published on their own websites, in blogs, or in leaflets; none of which are regarded as reliable sources by Wikipedia. But to fail to mention these prominently serves to seriously distort this article, and creates the appearance that Atzmon faces merely the sort of unfounded attacks that are the lot of anti-Zionist activists. It is not necessary to repeat the accusarions againbst Atzmon, nor to suggest that these are true; but we must find some way to acknowledge that these exist, and that criticism of rzmon is significantly different from criticism of other anti-Zionists. RolandR 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument that Atzmon is defaming himself every time he speaks about Jews is interesting. I also find it curious how such a blatantly and obviously biased editor, can accuse anyone who disagrees with her as being "biased." Trying relentlessly to have them banned. It seems quite silly. Drsmoo (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This article on a relatively unknown figure has turned into a 10 page article of apologetics and defenses

As ItsMeJudith writes on the BLP page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilad_Atzmon

"I am concerned that as the article stands it could read as an apologetic for some of the subject's views. That's not desirable. Even though I appreciate that the main concern of this board is to avoid libel, we must also be sure not to allow BLPs to become coatracks for views that could be considered extremist."

Unfortunately that is exactly what this article has become. Simultaneously advertising Atzmon, while apologizing for him. It certainly needs to be cleaned up significantly, as well as substantially reduced. In line with his degree of notability. Drsmoo (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First, your own biases against Atzmon are showing again. I have never had a problem with NPOV WP:RS criticism of him. But you have no idea how to do that and often use the worst sources, and present most statements out of context to make him look bad.

The length conversation was had here six months ago. He's got a lot more Notable sources in there than many many individuals with equally long bios.

Also note you went over your 3RR yesterday while busily adding 2 bad sources: a) Engage_(organization) is a political organization and therefore can't go smearing people on wikipedia and b) Nick Cohen remains a smear artist, no matter who publishes him and therefore against BLP.

Remember it is because you and other editors have insisted on using various Atzmon quotes that the article has gotten so long - because the quote then has to be presented in proper context, and not as a throw a way to prove some WP:OR point of yours.

Please note per BLP tag on top of the article that such behavior can lead to permanent blocking from an article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The circular logic is humorous. Anyone who criticized Atzmon is "biased" against him. Therefore, every criticism must be removed! And moreso, his own words must be removed, as they are "defaming him" o_0

The BLP noticeboard agrees. This article is an unfortunate apology for Atzmon's extreme anti-semitism. Thankfully, it's not getting worse. Drsmoo (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

TLDR

Too much back and forth above, so I didn't read any of it. Could someone quickly summarize the dispute, using diffs and as little polemic as possible? It would be best if the summarizer were able to explain what the other party was doing without assuming malicious motive, but if they can't, please try to make it brief? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Atzmon to a Nazi absurd

Specifically, Drsmoo'sr edit here using this vitriolic opinion piece by Nick Cohen which just compares Atzmon to a Nazi. OI! CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So if that were contextualized correctly, you would be ok with the article as it stands? Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. If Atzmon actually WAS a member of the Nazi Party? I'm sure there would be lots of WP:RS that would say so. I think Cohen is just a polemicist and shouldn't be used for opinions on ANY biographies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem that I see with that section is not that Cohen says Atzmon is a nazi, but rather that both he and far-rights suffer from a paranoid mentality (see The Paranoid Style in American Politics). Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll need an article called The Paranoid Style in British Politics ;-) Anyway, the point is that such rediculous polemics are very POV, WP:UNDUE etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but we fixed that one. What other problems are in the article, right now? Hipocrite (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with new Slim Virgin edits

Whole section in green in this diff:

1. Listing bunch of things under work confusing - and there is no mention of his writings and where he is published. Two clear sections, one music, one writing, would making more sense.
2. The politics section has 110 words describing his views and 192 criticizing them. The original section cut by SlimVirgin had 6 WP:RS sources describing at length (including through interviews) his politics in an NPOV way. Only 2 of those remain. Yet all 5 of the negative criticism remain. To be truly NPOV and representative of the sources, it should be the other way around.
   
3. Also the quote "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" is something he discusses at length in one of the WP:RS articles and he has his own take on the Oxford Literary Festival. So both of those fact should be noted at least in footnotes to avoid the appearance of this being a mere attack paragraph.
   
4. Because this article is constantly vandalized and/or unsourced, poorly sourced info added, the BLPDispute tag must remain.

Please respond to these criticisms. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Huh?
2. WP:WEIGHT doesn't imply that we have to give both sides of dispute equal words. What notable information was removed, exactly?
3. Compose a 1 sentence response to the points and we'll talk about including it.
4. There's no current dispute, so there's no current tag. Hipocrite (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case the below isn't a clear response to Hipocrite's points:

1. Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise clearly says "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Read "praise" also to mean just an NPOV retelling of person's views. Rest of relevant section quoted below.
2. "Jewish ideology" quote will be clear soon.
3. There is a dispute until people stop contesting material as poorly sourced, contentious, POV etc. as I do here and below. And remember that editors - or a majority of them - can't "consense" to violate policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Huh? I don't understand your concern. Start over on this first point.
2. What's not represented that needs to be represented? What is represented that should not be represented? Propose specific, small changes and people will respond to them.
3. Compose a 1 sentence response to the points and we'll talk about including it.
4. I don't see a current dispute over the inclusion or not inclusion of any text. Do you have a specific short proposal to include or not include text that editors could review? Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've made myself perfect clear. The below makes my points clearer. And you can respond to my version when I put it up which clearly is a more NPOV version in tune with Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise - which I assume you have read by now? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

More problems

• The article version immediately before SlimVirgin and Hypocrite's edits reads: Atzmon has stated in the past that he has effectively "renounced his Jewish identity," but explains his being sometimes "loud and rude" by saying "You can take the Jew out of Israel but you cannot take Israel out of the Jew." He states his writings and music are "self-reflective" and that "When I criticise the Jews, in many cases I'm criticising myself."[ref name="gilchrist222"/]

Obviously removing the full context and saying only that he no longer identifies as a Jew is inaccurate and possibly POV. I'd just leave the whole issue out.

• Article currently reads: David Aaronovitch criticized Atzmon for writing, "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously,"REF:Aaronovitch, David. How did the far Left manage to slip into bed with the Jew-hating Right? The Times, June 28, 2005.

The problem is that the relevant article is no longer published by Atzmon and we can’t just take Aaronvitch’s word for it, given he’s written quite a polemical piece. No other WP:RS refer to it. Aaronovitch doubtless says other things about Atzmon that can be verified and could be used.

• Article currently reads: and Nick Cohen compared him to members of the far right with a paranoid mentality, after Atzmon told the Oxford Literary Festival that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity".REF:Cohen, Nick. The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer, The Observer, June 14, 2009.

The problems are:

• • To be NPOV it should be noted Atzmon debated Aaronovitch in front of an audience REF:April 2009 Oxford Literary Festival schedule. Dina Omar, a journalist and filmmaker, confirms this fact - and mentions that Nick Cohen himself was a last minute panelist. Omar also includes links to audios of the debate, another reason to include her as a ref. Dina Omar, So What Did We Learn about Anti-Semitism?, Palestine Think Tank, April 6, 2009.
  • Atzmon makes the same comment about Jewish ideology in a more reliable NPOV source than the obviously biased Cohen and if that is to be used it should be used there, as I will do in my version. So that quote should be dropped and perhaps more context given for the other one, though I think it's just a nasty highly personal polemic from a guy who was a panelist but evidently didn't debate, for what ever reason.

So feel free to think about how to correct these problems and drop them into the more NPOV balanced from sources version I’ll be putting up there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that his self identity is confusing. It's clear that he no longer considers himself Jewish, but that he believes he has character traits that he considers to be jewish (loud, rude at times). Hewing directly to the source, the only comments about his identity as jew or not-jew are the no longer identifies but still believes that some of his criticizms against jews still apply to himself. Hows that?

The Times Online is a reliable source. If there is a different reliable source that refutes what the Times Online columnist says, please provide it.

There is no obligation to note that person 1 debated person 3 when discussing what person 2 said about person 1, or that person 1 and person 2 served on a panel together. palestinethinktank.com is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion on how to word identity sounds like pure WP:OR to me. The issue is not as important as his opinions to the very great majority of people.

Yes, Times Online reliable for news, but in BLP opinion pieces have to come up to a higher standard if they same something controversial that is contested.

Conflicts of interests exist in the real world of WP:RS just like on Wikipedia. So we don't have to use Omar to say Cohen was a panelist, but can use her to point out amongst ourselves that if he was and he doesn't mention it, its another indication of his bias. Also, if there is a WP:RS source saying that Aaronovitch - who just criticized Atzmon - also debated him, it would seem terribly POV to omit that fact. As for Omar's links to the debate, such links are frequently shared on wikipedia. The links themselves could be presented if Omar on PTT has not yet reached WP:RS status.

I just don't think opinion hit pieces belong on wikipedia, even if they are "WP:RS." If they do I can think of dozens I'd like to put up in different places from Fox News and from MSNBC. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Aaronovitch made this criticism long before he debated Atzmon; so the debate itself is irrelevant to the contextualisation of the quote. As regards the quote Aaronovitch criticised, Atzmon did indeed make it, and a copy of the version on his website at the time Aaronovitch wrote his article is preserved in the Internet Archive. Interestingly, Atzmon subsequently amended his text, to read "we must begin to take the accusation that Zionists are trying to control the world very seriously." He goes on to say "American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world..", but this has not been included in the text quoted in our article. RolandR 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then the links should go in in whatever updated version so people can read the whole article. Of course, it would be nice if the article also mentioned his major contention is that "In its perpetuation of anti-Jewish feeling Zionism has two principal aims." But as long as there's a link people can find out for themselves. Also, it looks like he took out "by proxy" from control the world second time, so guess he was elinating weasel words.  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What are the thoughts on SlimVirgin/Hipocrite's edit of the Politics section.

I find it primarily to be concise and a good use of notable sources. What are other editors opinions on this version? Drsmoo (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Politics draft worked on in spring

Several people worked on this draft set up by an Admin after protection.(This version today's where I only added refs for the publications he wrote for. It has a good balance of politics and criticism and includes some important stuff, like about Atzmon's notability when mentioned by Egyptian president Erdogan. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Far too long. Hipocrite (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it can be cut. Again the problem is an individual insisting some quotes that sound negative out of context be in there, necessitating they be put in context. However let me remind everyone, including those who edited but did not both to reply to concerns expressed at Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

As I say in my criticisms above, I believe the current version leaves out NPOV WP:RS sources comments while including ones that are clearly biased and malicious. Will have my changes up to rectify those issues up soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note on versions

Just a note, the specific version that got protected does not necessarily have any special properties. It was likely the the version that happened to be in existence at the time the protection was applied. Please see the semi-humorous m:The Wrong Version. -- Avi (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to put that under the couple places that Drsmoo claims contested language that ended up protected has some special properties. I'm referring merely to the fact that there was work done on an alternate shorter version here set up by an Admin that has some good material in it relative to Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise which should be used. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not responding in specific to you or Drsmoo, Carol. I have this page watchlisted, and saw that this issue was raised more than once, so I dropped the note at the very bottom of the talk page. I'm actually glad to see that there is progress being made on this article without it having to be locked again; at least last time I dropped by. -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

10/23 changes to politics: Please share your criticisms too

Rather than just reverting away at this new material, how about sharing your criticisms first too? Note that my version relies almost entiredly on secondary sources and has a good balance of what those sources say pro/descriptive and con, according to the sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with DrSmoo's edits

Drsmoo continues his biased editing, without bothering to critique and discuss anything on the talk page first. Things which I shall correct:

• At this diff regarding statement: "“I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." You don't delete a statement made to a neutral journalist and presented in context and replace it with something an polemicist alleges he said, without giving any context. This is the definition of POV and an example of extreme edit warring.
• At the same diff you again violate POV by deleting the Socialist Party defense against the Committees attack on Atzmon and the party. You also removed the reference which contains the defense. Another NPOV/edit warring violation, as well as a WP:RS one.
• At this diff you make an inaccurate defense of your deletion, writing: Reading the link, it doesn't say that at all, he is responding to unspecified criticisms, and does not mention Israel or Zionism in his response.) First, there are 4 links, so which are you responding to? In any case, I'll double check all the quotes and include the actual relevant quotes in the footnotes which should clarify the issue.
• Finally all of Atzmon's criticized comments about Judaism - or as he would put it "Jewishness" - were made within the context of criticizing Zionism/Israel and its supporters, something conveniently left out. Technically you should have a secondary source saying specifically what he criticizes and even what they call him, or it's WP:OR. There have been several such in the past. [Deleted my own WP:OR ideas; too early in the A.M.! :-)] CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Cohen is a more notable commentator than Gibson, and the Guardian is a more notable paper than the Gisborne Herald. That you happen to not agree with Cohen's politics is irrelevant.

Statements such as "calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite." are too far reaching, and don't belong in an article about Gilad Atzmon. They are more a response to the concept of New Anti-semitism than they are a "defense" or Atzmon.

It is hard to agree with your statement about context, when so many of Atzmon's articles have titles such as " "Who is a Jew? "Organ Donation and Theft in Contemporary Jewish Folklore" and "Time to Talk about the Rise of Jewish Crime?" and are primarily about Judaism, and Jewish Identity.

Regardless, even if your statement had happened to be true, the context of commenting on Israel does not reduce the notability of his statements, or the responses to them, regarding Judaism and Jewishness specifically. Drsmoo (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to say that Atzmon attacks Judaism. I'll have to check, but I'm sure that he is on record as saying that he has no problem with orthodox Jews and Judaism; his criticism is of any expression of a secular Jewish identity. He regards this as "tribalism", and of necessity Zionist. Hence he denounces groups such as Jews Against Zionism ("undercover Zionist agents") and the Jewish Socialists Group ("an integral part of the Zionist network"), and individuals such as Moshé Machover ("an Elder Jew Marxist from London"), and Michael Rosen ("the Israeli embassy deliveryman"). This ideological position (to say nothing of the offensive and caustic style) is specific to Atzmon, and should in some way be reflected in the article.

There is a problem of sources here, since Atzmon appears frequently to amend his writings after critics have dissected and quoted them; and lately he seems to have removed some of them altogether from his sites. I discuss a specific case above, but there are many more. So it can sometimes mistakenly appear as though Atzmon's critics are misquoting him, or even putting words in his mouth. RolandR 16:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Drsmoo:

Cohen's out of context polemical opinion piece in a Sunday only British paper vs. Gibson's feature news story in context quote in a daily New Zealand paper. Hmmm.

Re: the Swedish Socialist Democrats quote, my problem was trying to shorten things. Evidently Drsmoo wants the whole quote in or nothing when he complains about irrelevance. The quote reads: ""Gilad Atzmon is himself a Jew, and when the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism starts calling Jews anti-Semites there is a risk that they undermine the term anti-Semite and do the fight against anti-Semitism a disservice." This clearly is a defense of Atzmon and it is POV and defamatory to cut it out.

The only context that matters is the two sources used, Gilchrest which mentions both Atzmon's anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel and Gibson which mentions specifically criticism of Israel and what happens to people who criticize of Zionism (i.e., clearly he means people like Atzmon). Using these sources but refusing to reflect what they actualy say is yet one more POV edit warring move on your part.

It really IS irrelevant to make a wikilink from paranoid mentality to The Paranoid Style in American Politics. For one thing we are talking largely about British politics. And Cohen is NOT talking about that concept, so it is pure WP:OR.

Regardless, Atzmon's reply to Board of Deputies clearly shows that he was talking about Israel (and the article shows that the Board did consider three other criticisms of Israel antisemitic); Aaronvitch clearly calls Atzmon an anti-Zionist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RolandR:

I interpret his use of tribal differently, but haven't really studied the matter. We have had longer discussions of issue in article in the past. I get the impression people don't want article long enough to delve into that more.

Likewise even more so tracking down what authors say and then take off of various sites. An authors prerogative, whether they are shy and embarrassed by any public appearance or hotheads who think better of it later :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Status of article

(Note: also relevant to POV tag on Politics section)

• Those who opined and even edited when I brought earlier issues here did not choose to continue the conversation on this talk page despite my request at BLPN.
• I brought a complaint about edit warring against DrSmoo (included 3rr) who kept reverting my corrections of what I consider policy violations to Wikipedia:Edit warring. Admin User:Master of Puppets agreed to mediate, could not get any other comments, but after two weeks he admitted he would not give an opinion on policy and of course BLP policy is the heart of the matter.
• And of course the "mediation" is filled with Drsmoo's constant false accusations (which he also brings to every notice board to queer the debate) even though he never has diffs to back up anything. This of course being very much against Wikipedia:Civil#Identifying_incivility #2C.
• Anyway, as I wrote on Master of Puppets talk page: "if Master of Puppets quickly can come up with a workable mediation strategy that also deals with Drsmoo's constant insulting accusations, perhaps we should start from scratch. However, on the Gilad Atzmon page where it will remain part of that record."
• If none results, I am going to put up what I consider an NPOV rendition of the 3 or 4 remaining BLP issues in the article. After Drsmoo reverts to his POV version of it, I'll bring to BLPN again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the third time's the charm :), or is this the fourth now? I do provide evidence for my responses, I have no idea what Carolmooredc is basing her other seemingly baseless allegation off of, anyone can see what i wrote. I'm not sure if "queering the debate" is a conspiracy theory, an anti-gay slur or just rambling, it certainly doesn't describe responding to repeated ridiculous criticisms that no one takes seriously. Drsmoo (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I provided lots of links to allow people to consider my comments for themselves. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: After two weeks of absolutely no progress, and a couple sharp warnings from the mediator (he now collapses all accusations and bickering :-), we finally have gotten to substantive issues which you can read if you choose at User_talk:Master_of_Puppets#Drsmoo.27s_issues_and_response. However, it seems we keep going round and round on at least one issue, probably more, without resolution. But at least I finally recognized the pure WP:OR in something I before had considered merely incomplete. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification on "Jewishness"

Drsmoo's remains unable to figure out the difference between WP:OR/synth using primary (or secondary) sources as "evidence" of your synth, and the use of secondary sources that explicitly make a point. He thinks because two sources criticizing Atzmon say something about Jews, it equates to their referencing Drsmoo's sentence that Atzmon is called an antisemite because of his criticism of "Jewishness." (FYI, Atzmon has a very specific definition of Jewishness - and one that is quite different from the "Who is a Jew" article which is what Drsmoo's "Jewishness" redirects to. And I think it's too complicated for this article to get into. Let readers go to the Lexicon where he explains all his ideosyncretic definitions!)

On the other hand it is quite clear that the two sources Drsmoo removed say Atamon is criticized as an antisemite for his criticism of Zionism:

• Gilchrest: His stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier.
• Gibson: 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.

Gilchrist DOES mention Jewishness in the following paragraph, but I'm frankly not sure if it's sufficient reference for the statement Drsmoo wants to make.

• "Watching my people destroying other people left a big scar. That was when I realised I was completely deluded about Zionism." Hence his condemnation of Jewishness as "very much a supremacist, racist tendency". But an anti-semite? "Considering the fact that I'm from Israel, my wife is Jewish and I have three Jews in my band, am I an anti-semite? Naaaw… that just doesn't work."

Unfortunately the young and relatively inexperienced mediator doesn't seem to understand the issue. I am trying to convince Drsmoo to go to formal mediation on this and other issues. FYI, controlling myself in not editing except to point out problems. Other opinions, according to policy and BLP, always welcome to end this impasse. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo's latest edit, is a tad better, but of course he ignores what Gilchrist and Gibson say about Zionism. While Drsmoo refuses to answer on formal mediation, and this issue is at impasse in mediation, I'm going to integrate that into the paragraph. I assume he'll revert it and hearing no relevant comments here will take it to appropriate notice board. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do sources say criticism of Zionism led to charges of antisemitism?

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)

For anyone giving a third opinon, a summary: Drsmoo reverted these three sources which clearly support the statement that several of Atzmon's statements regarding Zionism have triggered allegations of antisemitism. (Drsmoo's POV is that Atzmon is only criticized for comments about Jews and Judaism.)

• Aaronovitch wrote: 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.”
• Gilchrest writes: His stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier. This supports the statement that he has been called an antisemite for criticizing Zionism.
• Gibson writes: 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. This supports the statement that he has been called an antisemite for criticizing Zionism.

Drsmoo is also the first person working on this article in around 8 months who has said Gibson is not notable; and notability is not part of WP:V anyway. Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'd say it is a small local New Zealand paper as notable as the Swedish paper, written in English "The Local," which Drsmoo accepts as a source. And of course if we can't use Gibson, we cannot use several quotes that Drsmoo seems to approve of since he has not deleted them.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If one reads any of the articles, including the Gisborne Herald article which is not notable as per wiki policy, they provide only statements regarding Jews and Judaism as examples of what has been condemned as anti-semitism. There is also not a single commentator who can be provided who accuses Atzmon of Anti-semitism for hs statements on Zionism or Israel.

For example, as Aaranovitch puts it directly below the statement Carolmooredc quotes, "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.”

Why? Because “American Jewry makes any debate on whether the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least.”

When giving examples of statements that have lead to accusations of antisemitism, only statements regarding Jews and Judaism are used.

With the Scottsman article, at no point is it implied that his antisemitic reputation is a result of his anti-Zionist statements in addition to his Anti-Jewish ones. Instead the article says that "and he has been condemned as an antisemite and even a Holocaust denier." The argument that the article proves he's accused of Holocaust denial for his statements about Israel, is blatantly illogical.

Once again there is not a single source, example, or commentator that accuses Atzmon of antisemitism for his statements on Zionism. Drsmoo (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo, keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to Talk pages as well as articles. Please refactor your comment to comply with policy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)