Talk:Israel Shahak/Archive 3

message: Conch, can you explain what you're trying to add with this phrase? Do you imagine that saying someone is an "anti-Semite" is anything but an opinion? Or do you imagine there are scientific tests for these things, with some objective scorecard at the end, which are somehow more reliable than "editorials"? Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-Semitism is a fuzzy concept.  If it is merely opinion then it has no place in a Wikipedia article.    I added the phrase "editorials have described him as" to give information about the source of the descriptions.  I have also replaced the anti-semitic people category with the anti-semitism one to maintain a NPOV. Conch Shell 09:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite the "editorials". --Dannyno 07:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Editorials have described him as"

message: Could someone please explain the justification for including IS in the "anti-Semitic persons" category, when the point is clearly disputed?  CJCurrie 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: According to the Guardian October 30, 1988:
He lived in the Warswa ghetto from 1940 until the Jewish uprising in the spring of 1943 when he was deported with his parents to Poniatowo concentration camp.
Shahak and his mother escaped and were hidden by the Polish resistance in Warsaw. Discovered by the Gestapo, his mother bribed their way on to a register of Jewish citizens of foreign countries, sparing them the "selection" system which led directly to the gas chambers.
Shahak spent two years in a foreign nationals' compound in Bergen-Belsen extermination camp.
According to the Guardian July 6, 2001:
during the wartime Nazi occupation of Poland, the family was forced into the Warsaw ghetto, his father even sought out a chess tutor for his son. But soon the family was torn apart. Shahak's older brother escaped and joined the Royal Air Force, only to be shot down; Shahak's father disappeared and the hiding of fair-haired Israel with a poor Catholic family ended when his mother could no longer pay for his keep.
In 1943 both were deported to the Bergen Belsen concentration camp.
Warsaw and Bergen-Belsen 1943 same in both versions. The second version fails to mention Poniatowo. Perhaps a simple omission, since it appears to have been a very short time. But in the first version they were "hidden by the Polish resistence", and then his mother had enough money to bribe German officials. In the second version he was hidden by "a poor Catholic family" who betrayed them when his mother ran out of money. Strange. Perhaps Conch Shell can explain? --Denis Diderot 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also a bit confusing, from Shahak's statement to the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs Apr 4, 1974:  "My high school was in Tel Aviv, the first high school ever established in Tel Aviv. My university study was in Jerusalem. I spent my life before 1945 in Germany."  Perhaps he meant to say that before 1945 he was in Bergen-Belsen for 2 years? --Denis Diderot 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should just include information that is common to both? Conch Shell 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea. I had hoped you knew more about Shahak or how the two versions came about. The third version (where he lived in Germany) should probably just be ignored.--Denis Diderot 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shahak bio odd inconsistency 

message: CJCurrie, can you explain why you continue to whitewash the article? The Praise section is now twice as long as the Criticism section, and even includes some original research defending Shahak against the fact that he's the darling of anti-semites and Holocaust deniers.  What more can you ask, at this point? Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My last change was a minor adjustment in the wording.  It wasn't "whitewashing".  CJCurrie 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is important, thats why it was added, and thats why it was re-added. but, it seems, it was you who removed it ? --Irishpunktom\talk 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove it, but is it accurate? Did Shahak actually respond to Jackobovits? Was Shahak even aware of what Jackabovits published? Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that Jackabovits claimed that Shahak had withdrawn the claim, but shahak continued to make the claim, publishing it in his 1994 book, and giving his opinion of the general (not specific) reaction to the article published in Haaretz. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't remove it either -- I believe Conch Shell did, though it may have been accidental.  CJCurrie 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shahak dismissed the rabbis' reasoning for saving non-Jewish life as 'sanctimonious twaddle'.  I've added a direct quote to make this clear.  Should this paragraph even be in his biography? Conch Shell 13:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason I added the paragraph about phone incident, is because shahak stated this as his reason to begin study of the Talmudic laws regarding the Jewish interaction with Gentiles, which is a prominant feature of a lot of his work. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You keep misunderstanding policy; it's not up to you to decide that a source is "wrong", and therefore exclude it.  We simply quote what the sources say.  You did it for months with Cohn, and more recently with any other source critical of Shahak, and now you're starting again with Student.  Stop please, and instead edit in accord with policy. Jayjg (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Student's article is not a reliable source of information, Shahak never equated Judaism with racism as any peer review would have shown.  Consequently I'm removing the erroneous material (without breaking the 3RR). Conch Shell 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure where you got the idea that you are the authority on what constitutes an unacceptble source, but the source in question clearly qualifies as reputable and reliable enough for a wikipedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can an article that contains a glaring error be reliable?  Student is making a statement of alleged fact, not expressing an opinion. Conch Shell 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your incorrect opinion that it contains a "glaring error" is irrelevant, and in any event, as WP:V points out, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact that you continue to defend Shahak even though his own works contain "glaring errors", yet nitpick about anyone who criticizes Shahak for this, is telling. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shahak never stated that Judaism was racist, that's all there is to it.  Conch Shell 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion; it certainly was his thesis. Anyway, what does that have to do with policy? Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jay, Shahak argued that organized Orthodox religious Judaism, as practiced in Israel during the 1960s, was guilty of condoning discriminatory practices.  This argument may be disagreeable on its own terms, but it is not the same as the accusation that "Judaism is racist".  The latter is your extrapolation of Shahak's beliefs, not an NPOV assessment of the same.  CJCurrie 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Tom, you reverted in original research, even though it had been explained that it was original research, and then when that didn't work, you reverted in a poorly written modification of another section that had already been reverted by other editors. Given my intimate familiarity with your editing, it looked deliberately disruptive to me; do you have another explanation? Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I "reverted in" a poorly written whatsit? What are you talking about.  Why do you feel to the need to constantly attack other people? --Irishpunktom\talk 08:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you feel the need to show up on every single article that is even touched by certain editors and revert to a previous version? Though I suppose I should at least thank you for even touching the talk page this time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me give you an example; you've now written "Reviewing Shahak's account days after his death, Rabbi Gil Student... ". That's a pretty neat trick; after Student died, he still managed to review Shahak's work. I disapprove of bad writing and bad behavior, because neither belong here. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please quote people accurately, rather than using original research to make up fake quotations for them. And please keep in mind that Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first, and that it does not deal with content issues. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, here's a quote from Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion: "in our struggle against the racism and fanaticism of the Jewish religion, our greatest enemies will be not only the Jewish racists (and users of racism)...". Need anything more be said about this? Feel free to move on to some other bogus issue. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think quite a lot more could be said about that. To refer to "the racism and fanaticism of the Jewish religion" and "Jewish racists" no more necessarily condemns all of Judaism as racist and fanatical than to say "Islamic fundamentalists" necessarily condemns all Muslims. This ought to be clear from, for example, Shahak's words on p12 of JHJR, where he refers to the "struggle against" chauvinism and fanaticism.  What Shahak is arguing for in JHJR is the *reform* of Judaism. Therefore he doesn't think it inescapably chauvinist or fanatical. --Dannyno 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash redux 

message: that there should be a "self hating Jews" category. Amoruso 05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  it is exactly for these kind of weirdos 

message: Someone seems to have forgotten to take his medicine this morning. Or else, there is no limit to the lengths that a propagandist is willing to go. I hope you get better one day, Jayjg. -- DLH 69.19.14.32 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ???? 

message: Zero, could you say what the issue is with that material, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest reverts

message: This is really quite facinating: on the Sabeel-article I learned that mentioning that the NGO Monitor was published by Dore Gold was Poisoning the well (!) ...therefore it had to be removed.  (What this makes Dore Gould...well, I´m still laughing!)
Anyway, mentioning Neo-nazis in connection with Shahak (a  connection, btw, he never supported in  any way, quite the opposite;) is that Poisoning the well? OH no! not to mention that, that is censorship! 
May I suggest that people actually read the Poisoning the well and the  Censorship articles .....before they start throwing the words around? Thanks!   I must just confess though,  that I am stunned at the different "standards" set here, and I am really struggelig to take this seriously. Regards, Huldra 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments have nothing to do with this article. The fact that Israel Shahak is used by Nazis is notable, and there are a half-dozen sources listed which note it. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely disagree. If nobody who is RS has found it notable, then it simply is not for me or you to say that it is noteable. If we cannot back it up, then it is just our  WP:OR. Therefore, the following sentence must be removed  Ernst Zündel praised him as "a voice of reason and decency in a country where 'the people of the lie' live and hold sway - and, sadly, also govern," [13] and David Duke described Shahak as "one of the Jews I have most respected" and dedicated his book Jewish Supremacism to him. [14] ....(unless you want to include Zündel and Dukes opinion about, say, Sharon or Ben-Gurion or Begin... in the articles about Sharon or Ben-Gurion or Begin.. ? You simply cannot  say that "some" of  Zündel and Dukes opinions are noteable, and others are not.)
Because, lets take a look the next sentence:
 Shahak's books can be found on Holocaust denial websites widely considered anti-Semitic, [15] such as Radio Islam, "Bible Believers", Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press".   and at the sources listed, which is supposed to "back it up", let us just analyse this one footnote (which looks very impressive with references); footnote no. 15,
*The E.U. Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, 
**2006 annual report: nothing about Shahak, no Radio Islam, no Zundel, no Duke, 
**total site: not mentioned: Shahak, Radio Islam, Zundel, Duke
***What is mentioned in the 2006 report is this: ""Jews continue to experience antisemitic incidents, which tend to be well documented by both official and unofficial sources. And, although their experiences remain under-documented, Muslims are increasingly coming to NGOs´attention as victims of racist violence and crime." (most discrimination (by far): was registred against Roma)
*Anti-Defamation League: Whaw! this is the only place here that mentions Shahak at all! However, they do not mention that he is used by  Holocaust denial websites or neo-Nazi people; instead they do something much, much more useful (IMO), namely, they argue against Shahaks writings/opinions, like in: "The Talmud in  Anti-Semitic Polemics  February 2003:  Probably the most far-reaching claim made by anti-Talmud polemicists is that Judaism  views non-Jews as a subhuman species deserving only hatred and contempt from its  Jewish superiors. 1Shahak (1994) p. 94;   Shahak, Israel.  Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years  (Boulder, Colorado: Pluto Press, 1994)  In its long history, Judaism has had its share of bigots, racists and xenophobes, some of  whom expressed their prejudices in religious terms.  In certain historical periods there  have even been Jewish sects whose worldview placed Jews higher than non-Jews in  inherent value.  But normative Judaism has never diminished the essential humanity— and the concomitant holiness, derived from the doctrine of creation in imago Dei—shared  by Jews and non-Jews alike. 
*Stephen Roth Institute, [1]=: dead link, [2]=: nothing about Shahak, (nothing about David Duke, but include Zündelsite (Canada),  Radio Islam (Sweden)),
*American Jewish Committee, [3]=     wrong link, no Shahak on the official website, no Radio Islam, no Ernst Zundel,  But many David Duke,
*the Southern Poverty Law Center, [4]= : no Shahak (plenty on David Duke, Radio Islam, Ernst Zundel),
*Political Research Associates, [5]= the link :  no Shahak, no Radio islam,  yes on david duke, yes ernst zundel. The home page: same,
*and various academics (e.g. [6]=  Holocaust Denial Literature: A Bibliography, but no  Shahak),
Conclusion: the above two sentences (in purple) are pure Poisoning the well. They must be removed; if they are not removed, well, then we can expect to see sentences on the Wikipedia pages of, say, Menachem Begin/David Ben-Gurion/Ariel Sharon/or whoever/ like this:
 Ernst Zündel/David Duke/Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard/Adelaide Institute critizized Menachem Begin/David Ben-Gurion/Ariel Sharon/or whoever/ and called him  "the worst murderer in modern times/lier and a thief, or bla-bla-bla," and dedicated his book "Jewish Thiefs" (Or whatever) to him. .   Menachem Begin/David Ben-Gurion/Ariel Sharon/'s books and quotes can be found on Holocaust denial websites widely considered anti-Semitic, [15] such as Radio Islam, "Bible Believers", Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press".
I have absolutely no wish to see such a developement, or to give  Ernst Zündel/David Duke/Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard/Adelaide Institute and other loonies more place than they deserve.
Finally, I must note that I´m apparently aiming at moving targets here. I repeat some of my edit  16 February 2007, as it was never answered: here: you wrote that "David Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source".......But now you insist on quoting the same David Duke directly with the rational that it "speaks to the heart of the criticism that others have made of him"?!  And I just do not understand that an editor can lambast another editor for (inadvertedly) linking to a extremist site, declaring that  "Frankly, you have lost all credibility with these edits"....and then calmy linking directly, on purpose, to the same "extremist site". Honestly, how do you think this looks for an "outsider"? Regards, Huldra 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wrong footnote. Try 12. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've shortened the text even more, so it's extremely clear which footnotes apply to which claims. It's still footnote 12. Jayjg (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Poisoning the well]] vs [[Censorship]] 

message: :::::::There was absolutely nothing in Huldra's edit which can in any way be considered a personal attack. Your censorship of her words [] really just shows your own inability to answer her arguments. Your characterisation of Shahak as "this notable anti-semite" says it all. This is an encyclopeadia, not a neo conservative blog. And what we are writing here is supposed to be a balanced biography, not an excercise in mud slinging and villification of an individual who you dont like. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to respond to Huldra's personal attacks because this is the Israel Shahak page, not the "TedFrank page."  Please address my statements on Shahak's well-documented anti-semitism, rather than continuing to personally attack me.  -- TedFrank 12:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Chomsky isn't unrelated, since, along with Hitchens and Said, he was the prime promoter of Shahak to the mainstream left.  If that taints Chomsky, well, it should. -- TedFrank 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, in response to Zleitzen's comment I've shaved down the quote to contain only the parts relevant to Shahak. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm troubled by the proportion of the article devoted to attacks on Shahak.  The article as currently written has a POV problem because it whitewashes Shahak's record--one doesn't even have a hint that he is a controversial, marginalized, and discredited figure until Section 4 of the article, and the most notable thing about him, the fact that he is the (witting or unwitting) tool of anti-Semites, isn't mentioned until Section 6.  These facts should be in the introductory paragraph. -- TedFrank 01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ted, Shahak is certainly contraversial. His views may be marginalized in that they are only held by a small proportion of Jewish Israelis. But to say that he is a discredited figure is your point of view. There is too little in the article about his writings, eg. nothing about his harsh criticisms of the PLO leadership, (criticisms made at a time when they still enjoyed overwhelming Palestinian support). ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the article is ok in its current form  (which includes a minor edit by me to put the Hebrew name and dates in the same brackets as standard). I believe it presents both points of view in a balanced manner (for instance, the L'Affaire Shahak section deals with his claim, then the response, then his retort to the response, then a final response, i.e. two points made by each side). The Praise and Criticism sections are of approximately equal size, whilst the Use by neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers bit appears uncontroversial. I would also have no problems with a bit about his criticism of the PLO leadership being added. Number 57 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (convenience break #1)

message: :::I'm responding to Abu Ali's invitation to comment on this RfC. (User talk:Itayb#Prof Shahak). I will comment on the following points:
:::#TedFrank's statement, that Shahak's being frequently quoted by anti-Semites "belongs in the first paragraph of the article."
:::#Zero's statement, that "Vicious attacks on someone based on malicious association and innuendo might be good enough somewhere else but they aren't good enough here."
:::In short: i agree with both points. My opinions are based on the following excerpts from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
:::* "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." Wikipedia:Lead section
:::: "Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." Wikipedia:Lead section#Writing about concepts
:::* "Readers are left to form their own opinions." Wikipedia:NPOV#The neutral point of view
:::: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves" (original emphasis) Wikipedia:NPOV#A simple formulation
:::* "However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research." Wikipedia:Attribution#Unpublished synthesis of published material
:::In my opinion, the lead should mention that Shahak's writings are criticized for being endorsed by notable anti-Semite individuals and websites. In my opinion, based on footnote 12, this constitutes a significant criticism. The fact that Shahak is well-known in the anti-Semite circles also contributes to establishing his very notability.
:::However, this anti-Semite endorsement should not be used, in my opinion, to advance the position, that Shahak's writings are themselves anti-Semitic, or to belittle or dicredit them. That would be in violation of both the NPOV and the Original Research (Attribution) policies, as cited above. In fact, even as original research, such usage would run the risk of committing the "Guilt by Association" fallacy. Itayb 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it´s late, so here is last post here for the day: I would like you  to note that all of the "mainstream" sources, earlier quoted in footnote 15, (see above) found the issue non-notable. I also found e.g The Guardian obituary  which does not mention this. If we quote Zundel/Duke, etc anywhere in the article, then we would show that Wikipedia attach far more weight to these sources (CAMERA, Jewish press  etc) than mainstream newsmedia does. Then we should not be supprised when people call Wikipedia for Zionistpedia, or whatever. Good night, Huldra 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (convenience break #2)

message: ::::::It does not matter, for the purposes of Wikipedia, whether Shahak's writings are truely anti-Semitic or not.
::::::As far as i see, nobody contests that Shahak is sufficiently notable, for whatever reasons, to be deserving of a biographical article in Wikipedia.
::::::Wikipedia is quite clear about what should and should not be included in the article.
::::::Wikipedia is not censored, all content is acceptable, provided it meets the following criteria:
::::::# It should be concise: all statements should directly pertain to the subject matter of the article, and duplicity of information is to be avoided. (This is my personal opinion. I have not been able to find a policy or guideline that states this explicitly.)
::::::# It should be well-attributed: all statements must be directly and explicitly supported by reliable secondary sources.
::::::# It should be free: the presentation of the material must not violate copyright.
::::::Additionally, a good article should bear the following qualities:
::::::# It should be comprehensive: all that's pertinent is to be included.
::::::# It should be neutral: the article, on the whole, should not advance any particular assessment of the subject matter; readers are to be left to form their own opinions.
::::::# The lead should be short, and faithfully summarize the article in its current state.
::::::You think that some piece of information is missing from the article? Be bold and add it! No need to discuss your action. Make sure, though, that it clearly meets the above criteria.
::::::You think a particular statement in the article clearly violates one of the above criteria? Be bold and change or delete it, as appropriate! No need to discuss your action. Make sure, though, to clearly indicate the violated criterion.
::::::If an edit war ensues, or, in my opinion, if there's a good reason to fear a particular edit would bring about an edit war, the controversy should be discussed in the talk page. In my estimation, a more specific objection is more likely to generate a productive discussion, than a general one. Also, an accusation of an obvious violation of a particular policy is more likely to prevail than a general statement of discomfort, or a "grey-area" violation. Hence i would recommend all such discussions to concern themselves with a particular phrase or sentence. The arguments should center on whether or not this statement clearly violates one of the above criteria. Itayb 09:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (convenience break #5)

message: If one Googles Israel Shahak, the #2 entry is a critique of his anti-Semitism, the #4 and #9 entries are anti-Semitic sites trumpeting Shahak's anti-Semitism, the #6 entry is the anti-Semite Jorn Barger's website (who Huldra says she never heard of), the #8 entry is the anti-Semitic Radio Islam website, and #10 is a Holocaust revisionist website.  #3, #5, and #7 are favorable eulogies that whitewash his anti-Semitism.  But six out of the top nine non-Wikipedia Google links for Shahak emphasize his anti-Semitism. The collective wisdom of the Internet, such as it is, believes the most notable thing about Shahak is his attacks on Judaism. -- TedFrank 12:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look in Google for "Israel" + "Racist" and "Israel" + "Genocide" you will find that according to "The collective wisdom of the Internet" Israel is a racist state which is actively perpetrating genocide. You can find ANYTHING at all on the internet, becuase EVERYBODY is putting up EVERYTHING on the internet all the time. It is the fate of controversial people like Israel Shahak that much of what is put up about them on the net is put up by their fiercest enemies. This is no criteria to judge a person, and you know it very well.Adam Keller17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, but eight of those nine links are put up by Shahak supporters.  The most prominent websites promoting Shahak are promoting his anti-Jewish work rather than his anti-Zionist work. -- TedFrank 18:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adam, Roland: denial is usual companion of hate speech. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, I don't understand your point. Please explain...ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not understanding any of the points made here any more. Is the current debate about whether the links to antisemites should also be in the lead? Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the most prominent webpages about Israel Shahak?

message: User:Tiamut was kind enough to do a bit of digging and has posted a list of useful sources on my talk page. As I probably won't be able to spend much time on-line this week, I have copied her post here as it is very relevant to the discussion above and also provides material which is worth adding to the article. Thanks to Tiamut for the hard work. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the content of the article? Jayjg (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's for the criticism section. It provides sorely lacking balance to the guilt-by association smears of the criticism section and the neo-Nazi section above. See my latest edit. And there's more to come. :) Tiamut 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see, for original research. Criticism should be criticism, really, you're changing the scope of the section. There is a Praise section that is equally unbalanced, because, of course, it's praise. We could, of course, add "counter-praise" to the Praise section, but that would just be a never-ending mess. I've moved one section that was merely about Shahak's views of Zionism and antisemitism to the proper section. Please don't try to synthesize arguments to defend Shahak from his detractors, that's not really within policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Irfan Khawaja lists 25 people, Shahak being only one of them. It seems quite iffy to have such a lengthy quote from her when it is only peripherally related to Shahak at all, and much more a critique of those she feels equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism. If you really want to "balance" the article in a way that actually conforms with policy, rather than turning the article into yet another partisan battleground, you'd be much better served by filling out the biography section, discussing his other works, etc. Jayjg (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase that Shahak is admired "in pro-Palestinian and left-wing circles" is a form of counter praise. Khawaja's quote is very relevant as it puts the attempts to smear Shahak and other critcis of Israel's government in context. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually there to separate them from the neo-Nazis and antisemites, who, quite frankly, also praise him, to the skies; so much for your theory. In reality, the neo-Nazis and antisemites should be in the "Praise" section, but Shahak supporters found that so offensive that they insisted they be put in quarantine. Anyway, it's not "counter praise", but feel free to take it out - you'd notice real counter-praise if it were there. "Attempting to put in context" = WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "counter-praise", and tried to re-organize the article to have a section dealing solely with accusations of antisemitism, so that it can contain views and counter-views. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've done a further re-organization incrporating praise and criticism into one section and subdividing it down into Praise from his peers, Criticisms from his community (incorporating a sub-section with L'Affair Shahak), and Accusations of anti-Semitism. I think that this formulation is fairer and better meets the requirements of NPOV. L'Affaire Shahak should be in a section on criticisms and it is directly related to the accusations that his work is not credible. The body of the article itself should be developed to represent some more of Shahak's views, perhaps those that are less disputed, so as to represent his notability as an academic and a scholar, for which he is much more well-known than for his allegedly "anti-Semitic" views. Tiamut 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insisting that the praise is from "his peers", criticism is from his "community" etc. is not "fairer and better", but rather rank POV. "Alexander Cockburn" is his peer? In what way? Did they teach chemistry together? In addition, L'Affaire Shahak is neither praise nor criticism, but an important incident in his life. Cohn's point was about the at the time, not about the publication of the book years later. Khawaja's point does not respond to Ottolenghi's; Khawaja's point is about anti-Zionists being accused of antisemitism, whereas Ottolenghi's is about Jews who abet antisemites, a different point. The re-organization seemed to pay attention to chronology only when it suited a specific agenda, and ignored it otherwise. Please don't re-organize the entire article in a way which is both non-standard and which POVs the subject. I see others objected as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Praise from antisemites and neo-Nazis is not an accusation of antisemitism. The heading was insisted on by supporters of Shahak; I've removed it for you. I didn't place it as a sub-category of praise, though that's what it was. L'Affaire Shahak, as it makes clear, was a big issue around the world; the article mentions the furor in The Jewish Chronicle, for example. I've already explained why "peers" and "community" is made-up POV and OR. The article has been organized this way for years, so please don't pretend that your radical re-organization is some re-organization of my own.  You're the one who insisted on including counter-arguments regarding antisemitism in the "Criticism" section, which forced some minor re-organization of that section only. The ArbCom does not deal with content issues. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you've basically just reverted. There are many issues with your reversion; for example, L'Affaire Shahak happened in the 60s, and it's not "criticism" of him, it's an incident that he claimed happened, and various responses to it, including his own. In addition, you've made false attributions; Ottolenghi didn't accuse him of antisemitism, nor did the ADL, etc. The "On the subject of anti-Zionism and its relationship to anti-Semitism" bit is pure original research; the accusations of antisemitism are mostly related to his fantastic tales regarding Jews worshiping Satan, not his views on Zionism - your arrangement falsely POVs these arguments too. You're attempting to make the "Criticism" section as large as possible, by inserting items that aren't criticism, and then also inserting various defenses against that criticism (including original research ones). You can't have it both ways; if it's criticism, then it's criticism, not criticism + praise + defense mixed together. Also, articles should be readable, not merely point form statements; please stop turning readable narrative into an excel spreadsheet. Massive re-writes and re-orgs, especially POV ones like this, need consensus first. Please try that. Jayjg (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: -- Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the "worldwide furor", I'm sure there are billions of people unaware of all sorts of things, and all the moreso in 1965, when modern means of rapid communication and dissemination of information were unavailable. Nevertheless, people all over the world got up in arms about it. Also, Jakobovits did indeed become Chief Rabbi, and he was a significant figure in Judaism and in British society. Ottolenghi's statements provided a counterpoint to the claim that Shahak was called an antisemite only because he was anti-Zionist. And Ottolenghi himself referred to blood libel, and the ADL referred to Shahak's fabrications about the Talmud, as did a number of other sources used in the article. That's not OR, and that's not about Zionism, that's about Shahak's fantastic tales about and misrepresentations of Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more sources 

message: We all want the same thing: to write a good article, that conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We all want to avoid edit war. The current state of the article is controversial. The current ongoing discussion is not orderly and unfocused. I would like to propose the following steps to try and work the differences of opinion out together, and achieve our mutual goals:
1. All active editors suspend their editing of this article - even edits done for the improvement of the aesthetical or structural characteristics of this article.
2. We archive the current talk page, and start a new, clean page of discussion.
3. We tag the article with the noncompliant template:  , and the ActiveDiscuss template:   .
4. We go over the article section after section and sentence after sentence, and attempt to reach an agreement about their compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We'll only deal with what is not with what should be.
5. At any time each of us can summon up third opinions from other Wikipedians, for instance those involved in working on the policy pages.
6. Those sentences, over which agreement cannot be reached, will be marked in the article with the Dubious tag:   .
7. When the review is over, we will turn to the ArbCom and let them decide about the controversial sentences. We will all be bound by their decisions for at least one month afterwards. Itayb 08:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no issues with the current content, this is not how articles are edited, and the Arbitration Committee does not make content decisions. Jayjg (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for a gradual, comprehensive, collective review of the article