Talk:Israel Shahak/Archive 4

message: Please don't keep re-inserting titles like "Professor" into the article. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Academic_titles. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of the guideline. Thanks for bringing my attention to it. Tiamut 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Professor" so-and-so

message: I consider the article, in its present state, to be not compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia. To be compliant, it must be written from a neutral point of view, must be attributable to reliable sources, free of original research, and must be encyclopedic. In my opinion, many statements in this article violate one or more of these stipulations. I will focus on the "Praise" section, but it's just a representative example.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Shahak, like many people, was known by many individuals: his family, his coworkers, his neighbors, his grocery store vendor, etc. Some of those who knew him were famous, and some were relatively unknown. Each of them had some opinion about him. It would be irrelevant to list what a random group of them thought about him.
But this is exactly what's going on in the Praise section. The people quoted are people, who happen to be relatively well-known, and, moreover, whose opinions of him happen to be documented. But there is no a-priori reason to favor the opinion of a famous individual over the opinion of a relatively unknown one. Gore Vidal, a famous American novelist and essayist, is quoted as saying, Shahak was "the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets". Would the article be any worse or better, if, instead, Shahak's help would have been quoted as saying "he was the kindest person who ever walked the face of the earth"? Norton Mezvinsky, a history professor, is quoted as saying Shahak was "a rare intellectual giant and a superior humanist"? Would the article be any worse or better, if we replaced the name "Norton Mezvinsky" by the name of one of Shahak's relatives?
The section seems to me to repeatedly evoke an appeal to authority to advance the opinion, that Shahak was a person of high intellectual and moral merit. It is therefore in violation of the NPOV policy. It is also in violation of the no original research policy, since it uses the quotations not for their direct informative value - i assume Vidal's quote is not used as a reliable secondary source to support the claim that Shahak had prophetic capabilities and that, moreover, there will never be another with these capabilities - but as primary sources serving to imply the above mentioned opinion.
The same goes to all that's attributed to David Duke. Duke's book dedication, as i've already explained above, has no informative value, and only serves to advance the point of view, that Shahak's writings were anti-Semitic. As for Duke's quote, since its content is purely informative, it should be regarded as a secondary source stating, that Shahak exposed many Judaic laws permitting Jews to cheat, steal, kill, etc. However, it may be regarded by some as controversial to regard David Duke as a reliable source of information on Jewish law.
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advertising. The only encyclopedic value that can be extracted from this section - and it's an important value, but it can and should be presented quite differently than presently - is its contribution to establishing Shahak's notability. Itayb 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information in the Praise and Criticism sections comes from reliable third party sources and fully complies with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Most biographical articles have similar information. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your changes were completely unrelated to Itayb's suggestions; they didn't remove any of the material he found objectionable, they merely re-organized it to make it more POV and less readable, and introduced original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You claims are false. Please see my comments in the RfC below. Tiamut 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Itayb removed the stuff you added as well, and continue to try to add; see, for example, this: . So please don't pretend that you and Itayb agree on this, or that you are addressing his issues. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I haven't made an addition to the article since this at 18:20pm, before I asked for the RfC, so I don't know what you're talking about. As for Itayb's removal of the material, he is as at least being consistent which makes it much easier to respect his edits. From what I understand, where we differ primarily is in approach in bringing WP:NPOV balance to the article. He wants to do it by removing the slanderous sources that don't meet WP:RS and WP:ATT, whereas I have chosen to do it via rebuttal and contextualization via the use of reliable sources until agreement can be met on whether to keep them or not. Tiamut 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You re-added the stuff Itayb deleted, so you couldn't possibly be agreeing with him on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is superfluous arugmentation and beating of a long dead horse. 'If you read my comment, you would have seen that the apparent contradiction you have raised is explained therein. Tiamut 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  an analysis of the "Praise" section in light of Wikipedia's policies as a representative of the whole article 

message: WP:NPOV states that it is a simple formulation: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves.  The challenged sentence meets that formulation; Itayb even quotes that simple formulation above, so it's not that he's not aware of it.  But nothing in Itayb's talk-page explanation makes any reference to the WP:NPOV policy in explaining why he feels this statement violates NPOV.  That explanation needs to be given, complete with quotes to the portion of WP:NPOV ostensibly being violated.  So far, Itayb has falsely claimed WP:RS, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Disputed statement, and has not been willing to defend any of these once it's pointed out that the statement complies with each of these rules.  One expects WP:KITCHEN SINK next.  These persistently false claims of Wikipedia policy violations are bordering on disruptive editing.  -- TedFrank 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Itayb has responded on the talk page, but has not justified his use of the NPOV tag with reference to specific language in the NPOV policy.  I thus remove the tag. -- TedFrank 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 1: POV-statement tag inappropriate also

message: * Am trying to introduce changes to the Israel Shahak article  to address comments on the talk page by other editors indicating deep concerns with the anti-Shahak bias throughout the article that stands in possible violation of WP:BIO. The edits do not delete any of the most contentious information, but rather reframe to be more in line with WP:NPOV while the issue of whether some of the information should be included at all can be dealt with. Would appreciate the comments of others. Thank you. 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What is a violation of WP:BP? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant WP:BIO. I fixed it above and will do that at the RfC page. Thanks for pointing it out. Tiamut 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BIO? Are you saying Shahak is not notable enough to have an article about him? That's what WP:BIO deals with. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant this part of WP:BIO: "a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." But you are right int hat the thrust of WP:BIO deals with notability. Tiamut 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your issues are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, then you should specify which parts of the article violate it. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: These sources praise him and his work, and the many, many footnotes provided on the subject indicate that the inclusion meets WP:ATT. On the other hand, your insertion of "On the subject of anti-Zionism and its relationship to anti-Semitism, Shahak argued in a 1989 essay in the book Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections etc." to counter accusations of antisemitism is pure original research; it has nothing to do with accusations that Shahak was antisemitic, it's just quoting some stuff he said about anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Taking out-of-context quotations from material Shahak wrote in 1989 to attempt to address accusations made about him decades later is the very definition of WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not out-of context. You separated it from the other comment by reviewer Sheldon Richman that gave it its context. Further, it's an article about Shahak. Most things from books of his pass the bar for reliable source. Now, if you prefer that it be juxtaposed without commentary, I am fine with that. Tiamut 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's out of context. In 1989 Shahak stated that anti-Zionism was a mirror image of antisemitism. Then in the late 1990s and early 2000s various authors accused Shahak of antisemitism. You then brought a third author who in the 2000s claimed that Shahak was called an anti-Zionist because of his antisemitic views. You then brought in that ancient quote from Shahak, and tried to tie it in as well, arguing that his critics called him an antisemite because of his anti-Zionist views, and that therefore his ancient claim was a relevant rebuttal. In other words, your insertion "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who says that statement by Shahak is a rebuttal to claims he was an antisemite? Only User:Tiamut. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm neither mocking nor ranting, and the latter is definitely a violations of WP:CIVIL, which certainly don't help. In addition, you keep claiming the article fails WP:ATT, for example, but fail to state how. What is not properly attributed? Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in your own edit!  And it's part of why I conceded the point to Itayb on anti-Zionist quote, Because his arugment was strongly based in a consistent application of the policy? If David Duke is not a reliable source to summarize Shahak's work, then why is his opinion on Shahak even relevant to this article at all? Why are we giving David Duke undue notability? Just so we can allege Israel Shahak is an anti-Semite based on guilt-by-association? Tiamut 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we aren't quoting Duke, were quoting a third-party who quotes Duke in the context of Shahak. I've already removed all the direct quotations of Duke. The quote is attributed to Bogdanor, not Duke. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Israel Shahak#Request for Comment]]

message: I'm not sure why Itayb is edit-warring after his earlier lectures, but let me add my voice in support of Jayjg's compromise edits and his deletion of material violating WP:OR, though I still believe that the first paragraph needs to include a reference to the antisemitism controversy. -- TedFrank 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TedFrank, you described this edit you just made here  as a revert to a "consensus jayjg edit"? What consensus? Do you mean Jayjg's opinion and your own? There is no consensus even on the relevancy of Duke's opinion having any value at all to this article. How is this consensus? Tiamut 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiamut, any look at the edit history and this page will find six different editors, not just me and Jayjg: SlimVirgin, Urthogie, Humus sapiens, and Mike Rosoft.  These are also the only editors who are applying the NPOV policy properly.  The editors who oppose the quote about Duke (which you misdescribe as the "Duke quote") oppose any mention of the antisemitism controversy at all, which is plainly inappropriate POV-pushing whitewashing; such disruptive editing practices don't get counted towards consensus, because collaborative editing doesn't include the opinions of editors who are not applying Wikipedia policies, otherwise, Wikipdia policies would not get applied. -- TedFrank 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited to add: Itayb does support the removal of the quote about Duke but does believe the antisemitism controversy should be mentioned.  If Itayb would reference a specific WP policy being violated, it would be helpful. -- TedFrank 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of the specific accusations are actually important, and if you shorten too much, you run the risk of filling the article with weasel words. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So keep those and delete the rest. I think the praise and criticism sections dont have anything useful to say other than some people love him and some hate him, most of the antisemitism part should stay though. --Calibas 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Calibas, specifically with their offered summary. Itayb 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break

message: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."
It's plain that the accusations of Shahak's antisemitism are a notable controversy that belong in the introductory sentence pursuant to WP:NPOV and WP:Lead section.  To date, the only argument against doing so is a claim that the accusations aren't true, though  making that claim in the article would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV: whether the accusations are true is irrelevant to whether they are notable and reliably sourced.  I propose: Critics have argued that Shahak's controversial writings on Judaism are inaccurate and anti-Semitic. but am open to a different formulation.  -- TedFrank 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion has not changed about this point. The leade should represent the article in its current state, whatever it be. The controversy surrounding Shahak's writings is notable and well-documented. That's why it deserves adequate mention in the article, and this should be reflected in the lead. Itayb 07:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've been discussing this for weeks days without any input from Abu Ali, and he simply reverts the edit without participating in the discussion or explaining why WP:Lead section does not apply.  Why is this violation of WP:DE permitted? -- TedFrank 09:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been fairly busy over the last week and haven't been able to contribute here as much as I wanted. But regarding your accusations against me: How many weeks has this been discussed here? Is it really true that I have not had any input in the talk page for weeks? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abu ali, having no defense for his improper edit and violation of WP:NPOV, instead tries to change the subject with a personal attack, which I have deleted pursuant to WP:NPA.  This is a page for discussion of the Israel Shahak article, not for discussion of me.  Please stop these disruptive edits. -- TedFrank 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making opening paragraph comply with NPOV

message: There is an extensive section in the Richard Wagner article on "Racism and Nazi appropriation"--and this notable fact about Richard Wagner's life is, in the scheme of things, much less notable vis-a-vis Wagner than the similar point is for Shahak, for whom the most notable thing about him is that his writings have provided cover for neo-Nazis. -- TedFrank 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me his controversial writings are the most noteable thing about him, NOT that his writings may have been misused by neo-Nazis Nil Einne 13:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed so.--NSH001 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A datapoint

message: I've removed this obvious original research from the article:
Shahak himself expressed a strong opposition to racism and anti-Semitism. For example, he writes in Jewish History: "Modern racism (of which antisemitism is part) although caused by specific social conditions, becomes, when it gains strength, a force that in my opinion can only be described as demonic."
Quoting the primary source's claimed opposition to racism and antisemitism (without even a page number) to somehow "deflect" his approval by antisemites is the rankest sort of Original Research. The following statement by his co-author is also original research intended for the same purpose, but at least it's on topic (his approval by antisemites), so I've left it there for now. Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NOR|original research removed]]

message: Jayjg and TedFrank have criticized me, that i misinterpret the Attribution policy regarding the use of primary and secondary sources. I have carefully reread the relevant segments of the policy, and i have come to the conclusion that they make a good point. I now believe that the policy is phrased unsatisfactorily. But until the policy is changed to correspond to my perspective, i am not justified in citing the policy, to support my attempts to apply this perspective.
As it stands, the policy categorizes documents as primary and secondary sources: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about", "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material", "Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up secondary sources"
* I, in contrast, categorize statements as primary and secondary sources. Thus, a single document can contain statements that are primary sources and others that are secondary sources.
* Moreover, in my opinion, the "primary-ness" and "secondary-ness" of a statement depend on the way it is used; these traits are not intrinsic to a statement. The same statement can be a primary source in one context, and a secondary source in another one.
Consider the following as an illustration of the first point. I've been recently involved in editing the Pearse Jordan article. Jordan was an IRA man shot dead by British police officers, while unarmed. His case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which made a landmark judgment, ruling the inquest of Jordan's death had been flawed. I cited the raw judgment transcript as a secondary source for describing the circumstances of Jordan's death, but i refrained from citing it as a source for describing the actual conclusion of the judges and their ruling in the case, because i considered the transcript a primary source with respect to these facts. Instead, i cited the court's press release of the judgment summary. In this case, i considered a single document to contain some statements that are secondary sources, and some that are primary sources.
As an illustration of the second point, consider my analysis of Duke's "mourning" of Shahak. I considered the very same statement to be either a primary or a secondary source, depending on the way it was used, i.e. the way it was meant to be interpreted. If the statement was to be taken for its direct informative value, then i considered it a secondary source. However, if this was not the intended interpretation, i considered it a primary source, since it was, in this case, equivalent to saying "Shahak's writings are antisemitic", citing Duke's words in support. That would be a logical argument of the following form: A is so-and-so, because B is so-and-so and B approves of A. Regardless of the validity of this argument, Duke's words are used as the "B approves of A" part, but they demonstrate the point, rather than by cite a reliable source to make this point. From this i concluded that, in this case, Duke's words were used as a primary source. So to me, a single statement is neither a primary source nor a secondary source on its own; its "primary-ness"/"secondary-ness" is determined by its usage.
As i said, the current phrasing of the Attribution policy does not unambiguously support my views. It certainly does not preclude them either. On the contrary: as i noted in my response of March 21 to Jayjg in the analysis of a non-compliant statement: Duke's "mourning" of Shahak section, an eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper is considered by the policy a primary source, even though journalists and the papers they produce are generally considered by the policy secondary sources. And there are other similar examples. The point is, the policy is currently, evidently, not sufficiently clear in defining primary and secondary sources, and therefore Jayjg's and TedFrank's view, that "primary-ness"/"secondary-ness" are inherent properties of documents - a view which seems to be implicitly shared by Abu Ali, RolandR and Tiamut as well (also suggested by TedFrank's 00:14 comment in the analysis of a non-compliant statement: Duke's dedication section) - cannot be currently effectively challenged, at least not by me.
I will try to present my arguments in the Attribution page. Itayb 12:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not getting your point. When a secondary source quotes someone, it's a secondary source. And when a secondary source notes something that a primary source did, it's obviously a secondary source. Please explain clearly why you think it is not "neutral" to list the secondary sources which say that Duke praised him and dedicated his book to him. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: primary and secondary sources

message: This link  contains pointers to some of his work and a chronological treatment of his bio. This includes a link an important article Oslo Agreement Makes PLO Israel's Enforcer which is notable not only for its scathing criticism of the PLO leadership but also for the clear analysis of the Oslo Agreement. Some of this material should be referred to in the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: index of Shahak writings

message: There was no basis on the talk page for the tag.  The section belongs in Shahak, because it's a notable controversy regarding Shahak: either he witnessed an event by a single person that he falsely generalized to an entire religion, or he invented an event to smear an entire religion.  The telephone incident recounting is one of the main criticisms of Shahak.  It was Shahak who made generalizations of Jewish ethics, and his libel created the controversy.  The discussion is not a debate about Jewish ethics, it's a debate about Shahak's academic honesty.  Itayb's counterargument is like saying the CBS allegations against William Westmoreland should be discussed in the libel article instead of the General Westmoreland article.  -- THF 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The discussion listed there is not about Jewish ethics in general, but specifically about the alleged telephone incident, whether or not it actually happened, and whether or not Shahak's presentation of Jewish law was accurate. He did not "rouse ire of Jewish Orthodoxy"; rather, he made a claim which has been disputed on a number of grounds. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV-section tag

message: This is a controversial topic, and Itayb continues to make idiosyncratic edits that delete sourced information contrary to talk-page consensus without addressing the critiques.  This is disruptive editing. -- THF 13:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idiosyncratic editing

message: For some reason people here seem attached to having a unique "Obituaries" section in this article. I've never seen an Obituaries section in any other article. Moreover, the article listed in the "Obituaries" section are already listed in the Notes and References sections, so it's hard to see why they would need to be listed a third time. Can someone explain this strange editing? Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Obituaries" section

message: Itayb, please stop. Your edits are clearly against consensus on this page and you appear to have broken 3RR again. <<-armon->> 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Armon, please be careful with your accusations. The poll was around the question, whether the "Praise", "Criticism" and "Accusation of anti-Semitism" sections should be summarized in a few sentences. The consensus was against this proposal, and i've respected it in all my edits. Itayb 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like TedFrank, i have decided to take some time off this article to calm down. Itayb 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edit war

message: Twice in the past (, ) i have made attempts to change the "L'Affair Shahak" section's title (now titled "Alleged telephone incident") to reflect the view, that the details of the story, or whether it even happened, are not relevant; what is important is the idea that Shahak tried to demonstrate, namely the place of the gentile in the Jewish law.
Both these attempts were thwarted by Jayjg and TedFrank. These editors insisted, that the section was in fact about this specific incident, and not about Shahak's criticism of the Jewish law:
:* "Shahak vs. the Jewish law: criticism and counter-criticism" is an absurd section title. The section was about an incident he allegedly fabricated, not him vs. Jewish law (Jayjg)
:* The section belongs in Shahak, because it's a notable controversy regarding Shahak: either he witnessed an event by a single person that he falsely generalized to an entire religion, or he invented an event to smear an entire religion. [...] The discussion is not a debate about Jewish ethics (TedFrank)
Although i still hope that they will change their minds about it, Jayjg's and TedFrank's position has prevailed. While this is the case, Mr. Student's commentary is out of place in that section, since it does not directly concern itself with the incident: it deals with Jewish ethics per se. This is not merely my interpretation of Student's commentary; Student actually states so himself in the introduction of his article:
:The details of the story [i.e. the "telephone incident"], or whether it even happened, are not relevant right now. What is important is the idea that Shahak so maliciously tried to demonstrate. Let us, therefore, examine this issue. May we violate Shabbat in order to save someone's life and, if so, why and for whose life? (, end of section 1)
Itayb 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shahak tried to claim Jewish law in the alleged telephone case was X, several Rabbis said "no, in the alleged telephone case Jewish law is actually Y". It's not about Jewish law in general, it's about Jewish law as it applied specifically to the telephone incident/affaire Shahak. Please don't remove it again. Also, please read the WP:MOS before editing further; Wikipedia articles don't have a "Categories" header for the categories. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Student's commentary in the "Alleged telephone incident" section