Talk:Israel Shamir

message: Should we include claims by Shamir that he was a paratrooper and worked for the BBC and Haaretz, which originate from his personal website? Avaya1 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill also add, in addition to the Times of Israel and Tablet the Jerusalem Post as a source for Shamir claiming this. When sources discuss Shamir they include that he says this about himself and that there is no independent verification of it. That is exactly what is done here. nableezy - 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  JPOST prefaced with Icewhiz (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Please dont be dishonest here, it is not sourced to Shamir's website. The only sources used for this are Tablet Magazine and Times of Israel. Shamir's website is not cited and claims that it is are dishonest. Beyond that, you are fully aware that a source that  you say is reliable says flat out as a fact that Shamir was in fact a paratrooper in Israel. The article doesnt even go that far, it only reports what ToI and Tablet report, and it does not use Shamir's website for those claims in any way. nableezy - 14:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please strike your personal attack. RolandR raised serious doubts in regards to the rather dated Maariv piece. ToI is reporting on what the website says. Tablet is reporting on what Shamir says about himself prefacing it with . As such ToI and Tablet are merely reporting on what Shamir said - and cast doubt on what he says. UNDUE and WP:FRIND concerns as well (as this is merely attributed reporting on what Shamir says if himself).Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerns you never addressed and until now you were on record saying that was a reliable source. So its only a reliable source when its used for saying negative things about Shamir? Okay ... What personal attack? Saying that the claim that this is sourced to Shamir's website is dishonest? It is dishonest, as the claims are not sourced to Shamir's website and claiming that they are is designed to distort the record for other commenters. WP:FRIND???? Have you even read that section? Here, Ill helpThe best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.Hello? Times of Israel and Tablet are independent reliable sources. Those are the sources here, not Shamir's website as you continue to portray. Whats it called when somebody says something that is flat out not true? Yeah, not a personal attack. nableezy - 15:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  ToI and Tablet quote Shamir for this. Tablet prefaces this with . Tablet is an independent reliable secondary source - however quotes of Shamir within the Tablet interview - are not independent of Shamir. Given that Tablet chose to preface those claims with  should give us pause - and affect our presentation of this (if we are to present this at all - Shamir is notable for his writings - not his early life).Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and so what they quote Shamir for this? That establishes weight. And notability, once again, has literally zero to do with the content of articles. Our article does not say anything those sources do not directly support, namely that Shamir says this about himself. Please stop making up policy, Tablet and ToI are in fact independent of Shamir and by their giving weight to Shamir's claims, as Shamir's claims, necessitates our giving weight to those claims, as claims, here. nableezy - 16:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interviews and/or website quotes are not independent. It is quite curious that while introducing these sources to replace the website you did not introduce what is independent of Shamir in them - e.g.  - which prefaces the claim.Icewhiz (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

text: WP:WEIGHT says exactly the opposite. The sources consider Shamir's claims about his own life relevant to discussing him. It would be helpful if people stopped asserting policy and started quoting it. Here's a quote for youThus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked.We discuss views that are not widely held when they are discussed in reliable sources and we clarify that they are not confirmed. That is exactly what is happening here. People making vague waves to policies that explicitly contradict their arguments would do well to read the policies they claim to understand. nableezy - 20:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

text: If people are going to make bald assertions about our policies or the sources that are flatly contradicted by what the policies or the sources say then that should be pointed out. You still have not retracted the claim that Shamir's personal website is a source used for this. That straightforward factually untrue claim is still being used to influence people commenting on the topic. nableezy - 21:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read what I wrote again - . Our article was indeed using the website directly - and these citations have been replaced by secondary sourcing reporting on the website - attributing these bio details to Shamir, and not in their own voice. Sources preface this attribited reporting with doubt on details (e.g. JPost . Icewhiz (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: is sourced to Shamir's website remains a straightforward untruth. nableezy - 09:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: should we include claims by Shamir that he was a paratrooper and worked for the BBC and Haaretz which originate from his personal website 

message: * On a procedural note, please Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process - there is no need to respond to each !vote here with walls of text.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If people are going to make bald assertions about our policies or the sources that are flatly contradicted by what the policies or the sources say then that should be pointed out. You still have not retracted the claim that Shamir's personal website is a source used for this. That straightforward factually untrue claim is still being used to influence people commenting on the topic. nableezy - 21:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read what I wrote again - . Our article was indeed using the website directly - and these citations have been replaced by secondary sourcing reporting on the website - attributing these bio details to Shamir, and not in their own voice. Sources preface this attribited reporting with doubt on details (e.g. JPost . Icewhiz (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: is sourced to Shamir's website remains a straightforward untruth. nableezy - 09:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended discussion 

message: We can leave this open longer. So far it seems 5 editors including myself are against inclusion of the claims of Shamir's personal/website (or at least Aquillion says claims need adequate skepticism to be included), and 2 editors including Nabeezy are in favour of inclusion so long as it is not written in the editorial voice.Avaya1 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  September comments

message: I dont really have a problem with most of what has been removed, but some of it is a problem, but Ill keep that discussion up a section. But beyond that, there are a number of substandard sources being used here to make fairly serious charges against Shamir. Regardless of what you think about Shamir, WP:BLP still applies to this and every other biography of a living person we have. I plan on removing the following, and what is cited to it:
*Manfred Ropschitz in IndyMedia - open publishing site, not a reliable source
*Ben Dror-Yemini in Makor Rishon - opinion piece
*Mikhail Agursky in Jerusalem Post - opinion piece
*James Ball in The Guardian - comment is free section
*Andrew Brown in The Guardian - comment is free section
*Socialist Viewpoint - editorial
nableezy - 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben Dror 2003 is not an opinion piece AFAICT (reads as a full length feature, includes response by Shamir), and it is in Maariv - at the time a major newspaper (a decade+ later bought by Makor Rishon - which has the archive). Ball is in the Daily Beast, not the Guardian. Brown, Guardian staff, would seem to be a WP:NEWSBLOG.Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yemini piece is written in the first person. Sorry for mixing up the publication on that. Im not removing Ball in the Daily Beast, I am removing this Comment is Free piece. Brown is writing in the comment is free section, and WP:BLPSPS requires News Blogs that are subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. nableezy - 21:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Socialist Viewpoint piece is quite definitely not an editorial. I can tell you, with absolute authority, that it was written as a letter from a reader who disagreed with the magazine's publication of articles by Shamir (subsequently removed), and was not originally intended for publication. RolandR (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, opinion from a non-reliable source then. nableezy - 18:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  problematic sources 

message: That seems like something that should be more easily documented in Hebrew. Same for any actual employment by Haaretz. Is there any actual confirmation or denial of either of those facts that anybody can find? nableezy - 03:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's little coverage in Hebrew (though the name makes this difficult). The only source (well - aside from a 1994 piece on Shamir's website in Hebrew) I see that treats this as factual (searching in Hebrew for "Israel Shamir"+Mapam (in two spelling variants))  - Ben-Dror Yemini - that you seem to think is an op-ed (I strongly disagree) which has  and  (op-eds don't generally interview former politicians and the subject's mother (+ the subject himself at the bottom, and a bunch of other stuff) - do they?). Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its an opinion piece because it opens with a personal anecdote. News articles dont generally talk about conversations the author had with a Palestinian friend of theirs. nableezy - 06:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not an op-ed - it looks like it is in a weekend supplement/magazine section - a multi-page feature (as opposed to dry reporting in the main section - which are are short and terse) - these sections often have first person reporting and anecdotes (and not all the piece in first person) - but are generally treated as secondary sources. While I strongly disagree with you this is an op-ed - I'm not particularly inclined to discuss this further (as I think there are sufficient sources without this). Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I note that Yemini also claims that Shamir was a candidate for the Knesset for the Moked party in 1974 (). This is quite simply untrue, as can be easily found by looking at the list of candidates published by the Israel Democracy Institute. I don't know whether the error was Yemini's own, or whether he was misinformed by Shamir; but this does raise serious question marks about the reliability of the article as a source for factual statements about Shamir's activity. RolandR (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mapam spokesman 

message: I realize that nobody wants to be seen as "defending" an antisemite or Holocaust denier, but we still have to follow some basic standards here. The line from Dershowitz is accurate, but the context it is used for here is SYNTH, and the op-ed is about an entirely different subject (two academics endorsing a book by Gilad Atzmon), and it doesnt really accurately portray what Shamir wrote. Theres plenty of accurate criticisms to include here, you dont need to include the edge out-of-context things to get the point across. nableezy - 22:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Dershowitz