Talk:Israel Shahak/Archive 2

message: Regarding the second sentence, the only purposes I believe the reference to the ADL serves is to discuss whether  he's anti-Semitic and what his motivations for writing were.  If we are to include that, I think we must include some of Shahak's own writing about his purpose, of which there's plenty.  I am not decided right now about whether the article is stronger with both or neither, but I'm leaning toward both.  (Example motivation included below, though for symmetry we should include something from the preface to JH.) DanKeshet 19:33, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
:"...we want Jews, together with other people, to recognize and strive for the highest ideals, even as we fall short of them...[A] perversion of these valus in the name of Jewish fundamentalism stands as an impediment to peace, to the development of Israeli democracy, and even to civilized discourse...[P]eace in the Middle East cannot be achieved until the currents and cross-currents of contemporary life are understood."  Shahak and Mezvinsky in preface to Jewish fundamentalism in Israel.
::The ADL is a high profile organization which has at least critiqued Shahak's work, if only as an example of a genre of writing; that is why it is included.  Shahak's description of his own motivation can certainly be included, though I think it is better to summarize long quotes such as the one you have listed above. Jayjg 02:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation

message: Who is disputing what, and why? Thomas Jefferson for President 01:13, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is a dispute; why do you think there is one? Jayjg 02:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: mmmaybe the  header? I removed it, since I didn't find your reply particularly convincing as to the need for it ;) Thomas Jefferson for President 02:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't notice that.  There was a dispute on this page a couple of months ago between RK, Zero, and DanKeshet.  RK is now banned, Zero is semi-retired, and DanKeshet is busy in real life.  I guess there's no-one left to fight. :-) Jayjg 02:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks NPOV to me too, so I suppose thats the important thing. Anybody creative enough to come up w something for us to argue about, maybe my formatting changes? ;) Thomas Jefferson for President 16:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: "particularly in what he perceived as institutionalized racism and human rights abuses against Palestinians"; do we have any sources for that being what was particularly controversial? Jayjg 21:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said anything about it being particularly controversial. The quote from the article describes the book as one "in which he argued that traditional Orthodox Judaism was a chauvinistic religion, and that this chauvinism had been carried over into many aspects of contemporary Israeli society," I added "particularly in what he perceived as institutionalized racism and human rights abuses against Palestinians" because that is the main subject of the book. The chauvinism Shahak describes is his explanation for the cause. The sources are the book itself. Gore Vidal in teh Foreward writes, "Unfortunately, the hurried recognition of Israel as a state has resulted in forty-five years of murderous confusion, and the destruction of what Zionist fellow travellers thought would be a pluralistic state - home to its native population of Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as a future home to peaceful European and American Jewish immigrants, even the ones who affected to believe that the great realtor in the sky had given them, in perpetuity, the lands of Judea and Samaria. Since many of the immigrants were good socialists in Europe, we assumed that they would not allow the new state to become a theocracy, and that the native Palestinians could live with them as equals. This was not meant to be. I shall not rehearse the wars and alarms of that unhappy region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel has poisoned the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel's unlikely patron.". In Chapter 1 paragraph 2, Shahak writes, "It became apparent to me, as drawing on Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of those laws, and the worldview which they both create and express is taken into account. The actual policies Israel pursued after the Six Day War, and in particular the apartheid character of the Israeli regime in the Occupied Territories and the attitude of the majority of Jews to the issue of the rights of the Palestinians, even in the abstract, have merely strengthened this conviction." By the way, the book was published in late 1994, not 1993 as the Wikipedia article incorrectly states. You know what's funny? On your User page, you complain about editors who demand references for every edit you make (and you make many without citation), yet you do the same thing to harass editors you don't like. But enough commenting on your well-established hypocrisy. It's endless. No personal attacks. Just another observation. --Alberuni 22:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  particularly in what he perceived as institutionalized racism and human rights abuses against Palestinians. 

message: Jayjg insists on poisoning the well by trying to associate Shahak's publications with anti-semitic websites despite the rejection of this approach in the section above, "Where his works are found". Shahak did not publish his work on these websites and the fact that these webistes cite his work does not reflect on the merits of his writing. Anti-semitic websites also quote from the Torah. Should we mention on the Torah page that its words are published on anti-Semitic websites? --Alberuni 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What discussion?  Where did you state that the sentence shouldn't be included? Jayjg 16:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: As for your arguments, Shahak has become a mainstay of anti-Semitic groups, which is not a specific reflection on the merits of his writing (nor does the sentence present it as such), but rather an unavoidable fact about the way they are used by some groups. And please recall that this is not just individual quotes, but rather whole works reproduced verbatim, introductions and all. Jayjg 16:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I protested your hypocrisy above. It is incredible that you insist that adding Dore Gold's name as the publisher of NGO Monitor is poisoning the well on Medical Aid for Palestinians yet you defend smearing Israel Shahak's work by poisoning the well with mention of anti-semitic websites that reproduce his work without authorization. Your duplicity is astounding. --Alberuni 16:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Protesting what you view as "hypocrisy" is not the same thing as protesting article content.  And what is even more "incredible" is that you insisted that adding Gold's name was important information despite objections that it was obviously poisoning the well, proceeded to do so on half a dozen web pages, and then complained here about "poisoning the well" regarding Shahak and my "hypocrisy" and "duplicity". Jayjg 17:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least you admit it. The difference, of course, is that Dore Gold actually is the publisher of the POV material you were inserting onto Palestinian pages whereas the anti-Semitic websites publishing Shahak's material are not related to Shahak in any way. --Alberuni 02:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I "admit it"?  This doesn't really make sense, since I have done no such thing.  On the other hand, though you admitted that you were trying to poison the well regarding Gold (though not using those exact words), I certainly am not poisoning the well here. Jayjg 05:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are putting words in my mouth again, with your usual twisted and manipulative method. You are obviously trying to poison the well here and continue to push your despicable Zionist POV, smearing Israel Shahak with anti-semitism accusations because you disagree with the anti-Zionist political content of his publications. Should we also publish a list of all the Borders, Barnes and Nobles, and Amazon booksellers that carry Shahak's work? Should we point out that anti-semitic websites also quote the Talmud and Herzl's writings?  Let's take a vote and see if Israel Shahak page needs to be smeared with your reference to the allegedly anti-semitic websites that have published his work. --Alberuni 16:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When a book is carried by major American book retailers, it is not notable.  When a book is reprinted verbatim on a variety of anti-Semitic websites, it is notable.  Anti-Semitic websites rarely carry actual Talmud quotes, and in any event brief quotes of the Talmud or Herzl are not the same as re-printing the entire book.  If anti-Semitic websites carried Herzl's work verbatim, that would be notable as well. Jayjg 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The article is clear that he didn't promote these views, but it's also clear that they are used by these groups. Jayjg 05:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think thats whats important. Perhaps its just a matter of subtle refinement? Sam [Spade] 16:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been "subtly refined", I don't know what else would be required. Jayjg 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jayjg insists on poisoning the well despite Talk discussion 

message: Should the following Jayjg edit to this article be accepted? Yes or No.
*"Though a victim of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust himself, his writings and books can ironically be found verbatim (and in violation of his copyright) on websites such as "Radio Islam" and "Bible Believers", which have been described by a number of anti-Racism groups as anti-Semitic, Holocaust Denial, and neo-Nazi hate sites.     "
::NO --Alberuni 16:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have fundamentally misunderstood what consensus is, which is "General agreement or accord"  Voting does not produce consensus. Jayjg 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting reflects consensus, a concept you frequently ignore. You have failed to vote but I assume that you are voting "'YES,' Jayjg should be allowed to insert anti-semitic smears wherever he wishes."--Alberuni 17:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting reflects voting, not consensus.  And please avoid strawman arguments. Jayjg 17:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting reflects consensus, if one exists. Why are you afraid of an explicit expression of consensus? It makes it too difficult to ram your POV down everyone's throats? --Alberuni 22:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting reflects consensus only if everyone votes the same way.  If anyone disagrees, then there is no consensus.  Please restrict your comments to article content, not me. Jayjg 01:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: OK, I understand you are not here.  But if you were here, is there a way it could be presented so that it wouldn't be a smear by association?  I've tried, obviously not successfully.  Also, what do you think of Jrosenzwieg's comments below about Wagner's music being used by Nazis?  Oh, and while you are still not here, could you not mosey over to the Dore Gold article and take a look at a controversial quote by a JAO representative regarding Israel that certain individuals keep trying to place on the Gold page?  Jayjg 01:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't really want to be here either, for a number of reasons.  I didn't think of a good answer to your first question (but might yet).  However, your second question suggests a useful principle that could be applied in both instances.  The JAO quote should stop at the point where it stops discussing Gold directly and starts generalising about other things, such as about Israeli behavior.  (I gather that is your position too.)  Can we apply the same principle here?  Rather than posting links about some web sites over which Shahak had no control, find some cogent direct criticism of Shahak and post that.   There has to be something more useful than "neo-Nazis like to quote him".    Post some praise too.   Two or three good quotations in each direction would suffice to inform our readers what the gamut of opinion is (and we should be reporting, not judging).   --Zero 12:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My position on Gold is the same as yours.  The 5 links are about the nature of the websites themselves, not the Shahak material on them. And what I view as significant is not only that neo-Nazis quote Shahak, but that they reproduce his works verbatim on their websites; I'm not aware of any other mainstream authors (perhaps aside from Arthur Koestler) who have received this "honour".  I consider this more than just a random list of falsifed Talmud quotes, but rather an notable (and as I've also said, ironic) phenomenon in relation to Shahak. Jayjg 16:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it's important we stick to edits about Shahak.  I've moved the comments to the Critics section but I'm having serious doubts as to whether or not this passage should be included, even though Jayjg makes a good argument for inclusion.  I personally believe that it's best to stick to direct criticism, and not indirect criticism of some websites his material happens to appear.  I think we should temporarily remove the passage until we can agree. --Viriditas 11:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not criticism of Shahak at all, and doesn't belong in that section.  Rather, it is a notable and ironic use of his works. Jayjg 16:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on the latter half, however, it could be viewed as indirect criticism by the groups which describe the websites that quote his work as "racist".  It's almost an implicit criticism by those groups, and that doesn't belong in the biography.  Perhaps a section devoted to influence, or use of his work is more accurate. Also, even though I reworded the passage (your original wording was more elegant) to avoid the guilt by association, I feel that Alberuni's comment regarding the "smearing" of Shahak does have some validity, even if it is unintentional.  I wonder if there is a way we can all agree to keep your content but present it in a more neutral light.  What do you think?--Viriditas 23:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to find a wording that satisfies everyone.  Apparently some people view any reference to this phenomenon at all to be unacceptable, and yet I think it is a notable phenomenon. Jayjg 23:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. It is clearly poisoning the well to make unnecessary reference to neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic websites that Israel Shahak is NOT affiliated with in any way. If you go to the anti-Semitic Jew Watch homepage and click on Talmud Folder and then click on "Jewish Talmud" it will take you to this legitimate Talmud site. Using your logic for Israel Shahak, we should edit the Wikipedia Talmud page with a note about the ADL criticizing anti-Semitic Jew Watch where "ironically they host links to the full text of the Talmud"! --Alberuni 02:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alberuni, there is no need to post another tu quoque.  I think the current incarnation of the passage in question should be removed.  However, Jayjg makes a good point -- that the use of Shahak's work by extremists should be mentioned.  Now, how would you reword it, Alberuni? --Viriditas 03:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made clear my opinion that this section is an attempt to poison the well and should be deleted. It is the usual "anti-Semitism" smear used in a crude attempt to delegitimize valid anti-Zionist ctitique. --Alberuni 14:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Alberuni has made it clear that he feels the phenomenon can never be mentioned in any way.  However, I feel the reasoning used violates Wikipedia norms, as it is based on Alberuni's beliefs about the motives of the editors, rather than the factual nature and value of the content itself.  Wikipedia should be about the content of the articles, not about the editors. Jayjg 14:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. That is rich coming from you! See: Talk:Medical Aid for Palestinians --Alberuni 14:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to the specific item you have in mind, and please also review tu quoque. Jayjg 15:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You spent hours accusing me of poisoning the well for wanting to include Dore Gold's name, the publisher of NGO Monitor, on the page Medical Aid for Palestinians where you insisted on inserting NGO Monitor accusations against the Palestinian human rights group. Now, when I point out that you are very clearly poisoning the well on Israel Shahak by citing Radio Islam and Bible Believers anti-semitic websites  that are not affiliated with Israel Shahak in any way you accuse me of ad hominem attack. UNBELIEVABLE double standards!  It appears that you can make any accusation you want against me but if I make the same accusation against you, it's ad hominem. What a hypocrite! --Alberuni 15:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You made it clear you wanted to include Gold's name so that the reader could discount the information NGO Monitor provided; a clearer case of poisoning the well could not exist.  I, on the other hand, am attempting to include unique and relevant information about the use of Shahak's works, which does not reflect on Shahak himself, but rather on one of life's sad ironies.  Please review false analogy and tu quoque. Jayjg 17:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Jayjg 19:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you 2 please take this to Wikipedia:requests for mediation? Sam [Spade] 20:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think should be brought there?  The dispute about this one sentence? Jayjg 20:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about the personal antagonism, not anything to do w this article :) Sam [Spade] 21:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: An RfC was already attempted: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni.  Despite promises to the contrary, the violations of  Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith continue unabated, as you see. Jayjg 21:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not a personal matter and has nothing to do with Jayjg. Alberuni keeps attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedians for weeks now, full-time. In regards to that RfC opened weeks ago, no action has been taken yet and that seems to only encouraged him/her. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, he is clearly more angry w Jayjg than anybody else I have noticed (like say.. me for example) and attempting mediation is the best advice I can offer. That said, I think its clear to everyone that excess of anger and incivility have no productive place in article talk pages. I think we would do well to resolve such frustrations via the Wikipedia:Dispute resoloution process, rather than by overheating already controversial talk page discussions. Sam [Spade] 12:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Consensus Vote on Jayjg Edits 

message: The sources of Shahak's "Translations from the Hebrew Press", which was his main claim to fame for many years (he was a sort of one-man MEMRI in reverse), were mostly newpapers of which there was no English edition (and still isn't, in most cases).  The article has that incorrectly.
Shahak's professional work was as a chemist specializing in organic fluorine compounds.  He published quite a number of papers in that area (I'm guessing 100), so he wasn't just an "instructor".
--Zero 12:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  small comments; I don't want to edit the article so use these or ignore them as you like