Jump to content

Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Recent addition

Is Goodwinsands' recent edit supported by its source? I tend to question additions to quoted, sourced information, and I'm not able to access The Times website to verify that the source supports the addition. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The text is from Atzmon's essay. Although Kamm did not quote the sentence I just added, you can see that it is part of the essay Kamm is critiquing by following the link to Atzmon's essay. Goodwinsands (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed it up, thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Goodwinsands (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Kamm per WP:BLP

I was going to immediately post this but got distracted by the ANI on the personal attack and a canvassing issue on this article. As I stated in my edit summary when I removed Kamm: (corrected) per blp you can [NOT] use negative material from deadlink with thereby cherry picked primary source - that's duplicative of other negative material anyway. It's only a blog rant opinion piece, there's no independent verification, it's duplicative of other material there, the quote is cherry picked, especially because of the [...] which removes who knows what.

Goodwinsand has opened up a whole can of worms by removing neutral info, which can't help make one remove dubious negative info. BobFromBrockley has added links long ago deemed in visits to WP:RS as NOT WP:RS (and I'll correct my comments on that above next when I find them). Because this article tends to attract people who despise Atzmon, it's often necessary to go BLP noticeboard where neutral editors reside to get this kind of editing reverted. Unless people will just police their own editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See below (here) for further discussion on this material. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I presume the Kamm piece to which you're referring is the one I edited last night. Is there discussion in this pages archives or at a noticeboard which I can read to verify that it ought not be included? When I looked at the BLP page it looked as though there is wiggle-room for opinion pieces in journalism, as long as it is written as "N said that..." and not as fact. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
"Goodwinsand has opened up a whole can of worms by removing neutral info, which can't help make one remove dubious negative info." Thank you, Carolmooredc, for explicitly documenting that the motivation of your proposed edits is retaliatory. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Reposting this, you can not simply make an issue, have it be debated, and then try to bring up the same exact issue a year later, ignoring consensus again and again. This was already discussed previously by you, and brought to resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_6#Cohen_attack_piece_.22criticism.22_against_BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_5#Sentence_by_sentence_analysis_showing_these_are_political_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_6#WP:RS_for_Cohen_allegations_of_what_Atzmon_said Drsmoo (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To formalize discussion on keeping Kamm

I have just again restored the material Carolmooredc keeps blanking ([diff]). What is the editorial consensus on this material? Please respond with Accept or Reject, and state your reasons.

Dubious WP:RS of Added Criticisms

While I don't have a problem with listing a few more critics -if they are WP:RS, I did fail to note who was listed. I'm sure at least two of these have been deemed NOT WP:RS at WP:RSN for BLP already. Will have to check them all. (see refs section of article for links).

  • Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance Reply to Gilad Atzmon’s ‘What is to be Done?’ What Next? journal
  • Tony Greenstein "'Anti-Zionist' holocaust denier" March 10 2011
  • George Russell "Why have the SWP invited an anti-semite?" 27 June, 2005
  • "No place for Atzmon at SW.org" socialistworker.org July 15, 2010

We can bring them all to the WP:RS noticeboard - or you can read the policy and decide to remove them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

These citations are WP:RS under WP:SPS. I encourage you to learn the policy on WP:SPS to avoid further confusion on this issue. If you are looking to balance these criticisms of Atzmon with praise, however, here is a very recent example of a noted figure who's an established Atzmon fan, calling him "courageous" and telling Atzmon "you write such fine articles exposing the evil of Zionism and Jewish supremacism." Goodwinsands (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing insignificant sources

I've removed some minor organizations' comments on Atzmon, as determined by a discussion at the BLP noticeboard.

I've also, in the same spirit, removed insignificant sites on which Atzmon's writings have appeared. If there are sources too insignificant for their praise or damnation to be cited in Atzmon's entry, then surely there are sources too insignificant for the appearance of Atzmon's writings there to be noteworthy. Unfortunately, those changes have been reverted.

Is there really any reason for this article to note that Atzmon's writings appear, for example, on such obscure sites as this one [[1]]? Goodwinsands (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to this sentence:
Atzmon's political writings have been published in CounterPunch, Al-Arab online, Uruknet, Middle East Online, The Palestine Telegraph, Aljazeera Magazine and Aljazeerah.info.
I don't object to removing the non-notable (i.e., redlink) sites, but your edit removed several sites that are notable, and it did it with a deceptive edit summary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
So you equate redlink with non-notable? Where is that equation spelled out in policy? If I look at the link for, e.g., Aljazeera Magazine - described a dead site unrelated to the al-Jazeera network, and mentioned in the press only for having had a domain name dispute with the network - it doesn't exactly scream notability, does it? However, I will remove the references to redlinks. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
A WP:red link signifies a page that does not exist. Editors should create red links only for subjects that are likely to have encyclopedia articles, that is, notable topics. Unfortunately, sometimes editors get carried away and create links for everything in sight. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
They also create red wikilinks to try to say - see what crap this person/organization is, they don't even have a wiki article! CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone say with a straight face that http://salem-news.com/ is a WP:RS? Goodwinsands (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone trying to use it as one? If not, why bring it up? Unless you are referring to Youtube link to something on Aspen GrassRoots TV - though I had to search around article to be able to speculate out why you asked the question. Please be clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The Salem-News link serves no purpose, does it? It doesn't confer notability onto Atzmon's speech on Aspen public-access television, does it? Goodwinsands (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been away for a while. Can anyone provide a link to the discussion at BLP noticeboard of the removed sources? ThanksBobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. The discussion was actually at WP:RS/N; the link is here. Let me also mention that Gilad Atzmon has in the last few days published yet another one of his Holocaust denial articles, if you haven't seen it yet. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I am totally new to discussion boards like that one. What is the status of that decision? As far as I can tell, two additional editors agreed with Carole in a a discussion involving the two main editors here and those two additional editors. Does that make a definitive WP policy statement that means that we can never use the What Next etc articles?BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
When in doubt read the relevant policy pages WP:V and WP:RS (which expands on V). In short, you can use them for info about their own activities or if some notable person, academic, etc. writes something in it you usually can quote it. Unless of course it's an absurd opinion rant and then it might be questionable. In any case, I don't think that article qualified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not RS and V I don't understand; it's the status of the noticeboard response. The noticeboard page says "While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy." Seems to me the noticeboard generated a very weak consensus against the use of these sources; that is, approximately 3 editors seem to be opposed to their inclusion, and approximately 2 seem to be for. I may be wrong about that, but it seems to me that this is far from definitive and the question remains open to further discussion in the future.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, the redlinks of publications that publish Atzmon were removed as non-notable. Someone else (not me) removed the "_minor_left-wing_publications_used_in_BLP " per noticeboard discussion here. (You can check who; I never tried to figure it out.) Then per Goodwinsands criticism of public acess tv as non-notable I removed it. So I think all three are within what is generally considered Wikipedia policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Bobfrombrockey that it would be overreaching to claim that the discussion was strongly determinative on the minor sources. That is, leaving the links would also have been within what is generally considered Wikipedia policy: it was a leaning decision rather than a slamdunk. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of equally questionable sources that publish or say nice things about Atzmon, so it's up to you if you want to open up that door. I'd prefer not to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I will let other editors decide whether this is an attempt to prevent an editorial decision you don't want with a threat to edit in a retaliatory way. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not retaliation to merely start using references that previously were considered not usable on the page. There are a bunch. But I know you wouldn't like them. So I'm just pointing out it's easier to go with the somewhat stricter interpretation of policy as in the three cases above, than to start loosening them. Comprendo? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not I "like them," but whether they accurately reflect what is being said about Atzmon. It doesn't bother me that this article includes praise of Atzmon, because there are indeed notable people who do praise Atzmon. But there there are also notable people, more than a few, who find him an odious anti-Semite and at best a fellow traveller of the Holocaust denial movement. Quoting these attacks on Atzmon doesn't make this an "attack page" any more than quoting those who praise him makes it a "praise page." Goodwinsands (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Television appearances

The claim that Atzmon makes television appearances hangs on a single appearance on Russian state television ("Russia Today") and another single appearance on Aspen, Colorado public access television. Does anyone believe appearing once on a public access channel is really something worth mentioning here, or is it just more padding? Goodwinsands (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, give me a couple days and I'll add some recent ones I read about from my google alerts. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you think the reference to one hour-long appearance on Aspen public access television should stay? Goodwinsands (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to answer before completing research, I found a couple minor new tv appearances. Obviously, even the most politically correct anti-Zionists find it nearly impossible to get on TV much, besides Russia Today. So since that's notable I just described that appearance and took out Aspen. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the great media conspiracy against anti-Zionists. On taking another look, I think I will likely return the Aspen appearance, as in the video he gives a quite direct demonstration of his increasing embrace of Holocaust denial. Goodwinsands (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
So first you deny notability and then when someone agrees with you you say, "Oh, it IS notable because it agrees with my POV." How about letting others who might have a more neutral opinion - like at WP:RSN - opine before you are so capricious? It sounds like you are engaging in WP:Game |playing gotcha games]] or something. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Carolmooredc would do herself a favor by familiarizing herself with WP:AGF. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Given your dubious reason for changing your mind on a policy, WP:RSN remains best place to get advice. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my response, as you seem to have missed its import. CarolmooreDC, please retract that accusation of "gotcha games" immediately. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Made concern a straight wikilink. You haven't bothered to explain what your change of mind is about. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh good heavens, do you honestly think that your edit somehow fully effaces the accusation you make? Goodwinsands (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Why would there be a page called Wikipedia:Gaming the system except to educate editors about it and encourage them to educate others by posting links to it? If my first attempt to link was a bit clumbsy, I cleaned it up.
And why can't you answer the simple question: Why if something is NOT WP:RS/notable one day, does it suddenly become WP:RS/notable because you decide it makes Atzmon look bad? If I'm misinterpreting what you said above, please explain. You wrote in this section above: 1. Does anyone believe appearing once on a public access channel is really something worth mentioning here, or is it just more padding? 2. Do you think the reference to one hour-long appearance on Aspen public access television should stay? 3. On taking another look, I think I will likely return the Aspen appearance, as in the video he gives a quite direct demonstration of his increasing embrace of Holocaust denial.
Making that explanation will make further discussion possible. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
More than clear, Carolmooredc, on the nature of the accusation you're making. Have been since the moment you violated WP:AGF by making it. Thank you for this documentation of what WP:AGF means to you. And, rather obviously, until you withdraw the accusation you are now apparently pretending you haven't made, I don't feel much need to respond to you. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

<-So I assume you're leaving the edit as is, since your proposal to change it back to allegedly "non-notable" status is what this discussion is about. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Haven't decided. Still gathering the related material on Atzmon's Holocaust denial. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Undue on same accusations

The article is again suffering from Attack-Atzmon creep. The first paragraph is properly formatted per WP:BLP with the accusation and Atzmon's response. The next two allegations about the same topic, 4 and 5 paragraphs down, are just attacks on what these people think he meant. This is even more of problem in repeats of the Holocaust denial allegations over and over without really explaining in detail what his views are (the excuse being "we editors think they are so horrible they should not be explained only excoriated.") I'm not sure how to deal with these problems, besides deletion, and doubt I'll get much guidance here and probably will have to go to WP:BLPN under Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and perhaps WP:Attack page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is on the whole pretty well balanced for such a controversial figure, actually, neither an attack nor a whitewash. If there is a considerable mainstream view that Atzmon is at best controversial on the anti-Semitism issue, then of course it's not WP:Undue to document it.
And again I am forced to remind Carolmooredc about WP:AGF, which I think most people would quickly agree precludes comments like (the excuse being "we editors think they are so horrible they should not be explained only excoriated.") Goodwinsands (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually something like that was said a couple years back, maybe more than once, but was too lazy too look for that. Except "criticized" was probably used instead of excoriated. Perhaps today's editors are less opposed to explaining his views in sections, with criticism, which would help solve the disjointed and repetitive criticisms problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Atzmon's comments, as quoted in this article, speak for themselves and don't need to be spun with tendentious "explanations." Goodwinsands (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree and many of the quoted comments are out of context. So it might be appropriate and in line with WP:BLP to make sections on his views on Jews and on the Holocaust (through his quotes and others NPOV explanations) and the criticism of them and any replies. (And if lefty radical sources are allowed there will probably be a lot.) Even Israel Shamir has this section Israel_Shamir#Views and he probably isn't as notable as Atzmon. However, I'm not dealing with this right now since still haven't even gotten around to updating the article with various WP:RS info that's come along in last year re new albums, books, etc. Just something to think about. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is, are they just seemingly random attacks using cherry picked quotes or an explanation of his views with the same material coming off as actual criticisms. Anyway, like I said, not a focus for this week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Missed RolandR's correcting diff

Thought I was undoing this one which had taken out the Wikilink. But see you had already corrected it yourself in next diff. Sorry! Recently revisted this COI discussion on you and this article and it was on my mind. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Take 3rd paragraph from lead too?

First, this revert is an example of WP:edit warring because you didn't bring the issue here for discussion in terms of wikipedia policy as opposed to your own preferences. See WP:BRD for proper editing.

If one sentence that explains Atzmon's views on Israel-Palestine is irrelevant, then why is one sentence about "criticisms of Zionism, Jewish identity, and Judaism" relevant? Deleting the former is called POV editing. Don't make me have to bring this minor issue to WP:BLPN as one more example of the absurd editorial bias vs. Atzmon here. Of course, in your case there may be sufficient evidence of such a negative bias a whole list of such edits should be brought to WP:ANI as a violation of WP:BLP. So please self-revert.

Bringing up Atzmon's one comment about Islamicists is appropriate for the body where his views are discussed in detail, but not the lead. Plus of course other things he's said on the topic also should be included in that section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding policy, I think most editors would agree that your definition of "edit warring" is a remarkably fluid thing, reminiscient of your attempted and ad hoc redefinition of "revert." A quick look at your recent history shows that I am not alone in having learned to take your interpretations of Wikipedia policies as less than perfectly accurate and automatically binding.
Regarding Atzmon's opinions in the lede, there is almost nothing in the article about his stance on the one-state so-called "solution." There is, however, quite a bit on his controversies related to his anti-Zionism spilling over into the use, which many WP:RS regard as intentional, of anti-Semitic rhetoric. (Just a few days ago, as a matter of fact, one of his Holocaust denial articles was linked to approvingly on the site of the Holocaust denial Chairman of the Board, David Irving. This follows not long after that love letter from David Duke earlier this month.) As such, the lede overstated the importance of Atzmon's opinion on the one-state "solution" but does not overstate the importance of his continued dalliance with e.g. the rhetoric of the Holocaust denial movement. Hence I removed the former but not the latter.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify these matters for you. Let me know if you remain confused or have any more questions. Goodwinsands (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation, which does at least make some sense. Per the above, remember the conversation in an earlier post? People in the past would not ALLOW details about his views on subjects like the right of return or the one state solution - or his views which are criticized without being really explained. So of course there isn't as much. But you evidently aren't opposed to adding more material that would make such a summary more relevant. When I get a chance :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I am again very hesitant to get this entry into the business of "explaining" his views rather than letting his own words speak for him. I have been careful not to "explain" for example Atzmon's use of exactly the same rhetorical tricks used by Holocaust deniers to make their lies seem more innocuous; I've let Atzmon's words stand for themselves, and encourage other editors in this article to do the same, lest it become a battle over "he said 'cat' but he really means 'dog'... no, he said 'cat' but he really means 'horse,' not 'dog'..." Let's just leave the article with "Atzmon said: 'cat'" and not try to spin the reader. Goodwinsands (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Goodwinsands about not "explaining" anything. If you want to include praise of his political views for NPOV that's one thing (although it has to be given due weight), but why should we be explaining anything? Let the man speak for himself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that in the past when his views - as shared in interviews with WP:RS - were described in any coherent fashion, editors would remove material, saying his views were so horrible they should not be described. I should look back at one of the good versions that got reverted into oblivion - or rather into a version that makes it easy to have paragraphs of criticism of cherry picked quotes but barely a free standing quote that a WP:RS thought accurately portrayed his views. Goodwinsands lately has just been continuing that tradition. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that is in fact a direct accusation of cherry-picking leveled against me, is it not, Carol? Goodwinsands (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not discussing anything specific you have added right now, am I? Mostly discussing ancient history. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Carol, but that is a very difficult conclusion indeed to draw from your comment above. Please explain what you meant when you write Goodwinsands lately has just been continuing that tradition. Goodwinsands (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Better later than never. See Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Reverted_POV_removal_of_material. CarolMooreDC 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Newman/other issues

Philip Cross putting the Newman quote back after RolandR removed it without discussion here was technically edit warring. Don't forget WP:BRD. I did at least properly identify Newmanm per a source. But it is just one more throw away insult without substantive criticism. I'd support it being removed again as not sufficiently WP:RS for WP:BLP, as well as WP:Undue. CarolMooreDC 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not put the Newman quote back in as you claim, it was returned in this edit, although I did subsequently move the passage to a later point in the article. The anonymous editor's IP address, 24.193.226.5, traces to Astoria in New York whereas I am in the UK.
Newman is a fairly well-known figure in the UK left blogosphere, and The Guardian newspaper is certainly a reliable source. While the quote currently used might not be a sufficient variation from all the other critics of Atzmon referred to in the article, Newman's argument that the saxophonist damages the Palestinian cause is not otherwise made here. Philip Cross (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, missed who replaced it. I redirect that comment to the Anon IP!! And agree with placement. And it is true this is first quasi-WP:RS that makes that point directly, though this sentence also makes it and is misplace: "Atzmon has had conflicts with some anti-Zionists who have attempted to stop his performances.[5][57][75]"
Anyway, I just want to give person who deleted a chance to argue. There are other throw away lines I think would be better deleted under NPOV. CarolMooreDC 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Not to start another section, this sentence "His anti-Jewish rhetoric has made Atzmon many enemies, even among former allies." Is it supported? Or does he just have critics. Enemies should be eliminated immediately per WP:BLP if no ref defines it thusly. I CarolMooreDC 19:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing relevant research and making relevant changes. Trying to clear my wiki schedule to include some relevant updates from WP:RS that aren't screaming antisemitism :-) . CarolMooreDC 22:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It's interesting to see Carolmooredc acknowledge that her intent is to choose only those WP:RS who don't call out Atzmon's now famous antisemitism. As such, I join those who have suggested that she step away from the article. Goodwinsands (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism?

The third paragraph includes:

"His criticisms of Zionism, Jewish identity, and Judaism, as well as his controversial views on The Holocaust and Jewish history have led to allegations of antisemitism from both Zionists and anti-Zionists. A profile in The Guardian in 2009 which described Atzmon as "one of London's finest saxophonists" stated: "It is Atzmon's blunt anti-Zionism rather than his music that has given him an international profile, particularly in the Arab world, where his essays are widely read."

The article says that his views have led to allegations of anti-Semitism, but then gives an example which accuses him of anti-Zionism, which is not the same thing at all.

If there is a quote accusing him of anti-Semitism, then that would surely be preferable. If not, then maybe the "allegations of antisemitism" part should be changed to "allegations of anti-Zionism"? --Theresonator (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when the "blunt anti-Zionism" was in a proper context but at some time it was rewritten in a less NPOV way. Most of the editors who edit frequently here devote themselves to quotations about what a big anti-Semite Atzmon is (and some to removing any NPOV info they can that might make him look good). After a while one gets tired of fighting them. (Though I may be revving up for another round, now that there's some new WP:RS info of interest.) Anyway, feel free to suggest changes -- even to go back a year or two and see if you can find a better , more NPOV context. I've kept a few of the better versions on record and later might suggest something. Too busy today. CarolMooreDC 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The 'accusations of anti-Semitism' is not supported in the lede because there is an editor here who has guaranteed, via edit-warring, that it not be supported in the lede, because it would make Atzmon look bad. She has promised more WP:POV editing in the future in support of Atzmon.
However, the accusation is roundly and soundly supported in the article itself, as it is in real life. The 'accusations of anti-Semitism' includes a number of things which are clearly not 'anti-Zionist' but anti-Semitic. The accusation of Jewish deicide Atzmon makes has nothing to do with Zionism, for example; Atzmon's quote that Jewish people are trying to control the world is not 'anti-Zionist' but anti-Semitic, the flirting with Holocaust denial is not 'anti-Zionist' but anti-Semitic. So the opening paragraph is not wrong. If it needs to be corrected, it should be corrected by the inclusion of an accusation of anti-Semitism, as it should have been all along.
I will likely include a paragraph on the new Mearsheimer scandal when it has calmed down. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
In response to Theresonator's request, I have changed a quote i the lede addressing anti-Zionism to one addressing anti-Semitism. Goodwinsands (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
First, Goodwinsands, you do not even understand the original point of the thread. Please reread it more carefully.
Second, do not mis-state other's positons. Obviously he is accused of antisemitism. My complaint is the unnecessary and gratuitous repeat of previously described or discussed comments or the throw away insult lines with no intelligent analysis.
Third, putting the barely WP:RS Newman quote in the lead - as well as later - and replacing a mainstream journalists NPOV quote is POV editing vs. WP:BLP I put it back. Please discuss and do not WP:editing war and revert it automatically. A real WP:BLPN issue.
Also, I'm in the middle of dealing with a crashing computer and getting a new one, so I may have time to update article the way I wanted but I can still deal with the escalating POV vs. BLP editing. CarolMooreDC 10:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Egregious bias in coverage of new book

I've removed the paragraph from the lede about Atzmon's new book, which (a) didn't belong in the lede and (b) was presented in an egregiously biased way, citing only those who praised it despite many — a large majority in fact — of WP:RS who condemn the book for its anti-Semitism.

I've just looked at the Google News collection of articles related to the book's release; they show 17 articles, nearly all of which call out Atzmon's anti-Semitism. Of those that praise the book, the majority are on tiny little site-lets like "Salem-News.com" and "Palestinian Telegraph" where that praise sits side by side with interviews with Holocaust deniers.

It is wildly WP:UNDUE to focus solely on praise for the book when the book is in fact encountering far more condemnation for its anti-Jewish racism than it is triggering praise. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if editors employed the same approach to policy compliance at John_Mearsheimer#Defense_of_Gilad_Atzmon. That seems like a fairly egregious WP:BLPSTYLE violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I read the removed text as a thinly-veiled attempt at character assassination by associattion of Mearsheimer, Falk and Wyatt. I'll look in a bit at the page Sean cites; I expect that this will bear out my suspicions. RolandR (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I read it as a neutral statement showing his political notability that needed a ref, which then would have made clear the source and any underlying bias. (Just like if the three of them suddenly decided he was an antisemite and denounced him it would be notable for the lead.) In any case, Goodwinsands removal of it was a 1rr violation - two controversial reverts within 24 hours and typical of his POV editing on the article. CarolMooreDC 17:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "enthusiastically promoted and endorsed" doesn't ring true for a neutral statement. And judging by previous edits by the editor, I am certain that this was intended as an attack on Mearsheimer et al. RolandR (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
You are correct about the wording and doubtless the editor. (A little frazzled because my back went out on top of hard drive failing.) But don't you think the new book and the endorsements are relevant for an NPOV mention in the lead? CarolMooreDC 03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The book certainly. But, given the controversy about the endorsements, and the number of harsh critiques, I'm not convinced that these should be in the lead. It would be preferable to give a balanced, NPOV summary in the body of the article. RolandR (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Good. First have to do that and then decide what needs to go in lead. At somebody's leisure. The new computer sitting in the box in the living room, taunting me... sigh... CarolMooreDC 22:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Strongly agree that in the short term the body of the aricle should mention the new book, the endorsements and the ensuing controversy. I suggest that we hold off on the lede until some consensus on wording in body, but think ultimately ought to go into lede as the fairly extensive coverage has brought Atzmon's politics into prominence in mainstream media for first time.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The rewrite on The Wandering Who is very poorly done and is an egregious misrepresentation of Mearsheimer's position. To begin with, there is no substantive discussion of the book itself; rather the focus is entirely on what others have said about it. Second, looking back on Mearsheimer’s initial blurb of the book and his response to the fallacious claims by Goldberg in Foreign Policy, it is obvious that Mearsheimer has a neutral position toward the book and does not “praise” or “defend” it like the section currently states. This is clearly a subtle (albeit poorly done) attack against Mearsheimer and needs to be removed. I will remove the paragraph and would strongly suggest someone rewrite the entire section to concentrate on the book itself and reduce the attention to the response to it.--Jhoman (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Mearsheimer position is hardly neutral on the book (i.e. "Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world") but more to the point, Mearsheimer's statements on Atzmon are clearly articulated - he argues that Atzmon is not anti-semitic (which, considering Atzmon's critics, is certainly a defense in and off itself), that Atzmon's "target is the tribalism that he believes is common to most Jews" and that Atzmon's "main target...is not with Judaism per se or with people who "happen to be of Jewish origin." Rather, his problem is with "those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits." Please explain how these views have been misrepresented. In the meantime, I will make some slight adjustments to this paragraph.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

The bottom line is there needs to be a paragraph with an NPOV description of the book, before there are praise or criticism sections. At some point I'll do some editing but right now it's one dang thing after another in my real life. CarolMooreDC 00:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point, the section on Mearsheimer takes up a considerable portion of the section and I strongly feel that it should be removed. On the issue of support, Hyperionsteel seems unable to separate support/praise from a neutral comment. A person can describe something as fascinating and provocative even if he or she disagrees with it. Coloring Mearsheimer's comment as praise is inaccurate. The section in general reads as an attack on Mearsheimer et all and praise for those who criticized The Wandering Who with absolutely no substantive discussion of the book. To be quite honest, the section would be better off removed completely until someone (who has actually read the book) can provide a neutral description. At this point it is doing harm to those who are depicted unfavorably. --Jhoman (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please explain how this is an "attack on Mearsheimer"? Its derived from an article that Mearsheimer wrote in response to criticism of Atzmon's book, directed specifically at Mearshemier, because he wrote a blurb for it in which he describes Atzmon's book as "fascinating and provocative." According to Mr. Merriam-Webster, the word fascinating means "extremely interesting or charming" while the word [provocative means "serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate." This may not be a ringing endorsement, but these words are hardly "neutral" (i.e. a position of disengagement).
His other statements that he wrote in response to criticism for writing the blurb include, but are not limited to:
  • "I do not believe that Atzmon is an anti-Semite"
  • "has no animus toward Judaism as a religion or with individuals who are Jewish by birth. Rather, his target is the tribalism that he believes is common to most Jews, and I might add, to most other peoples as well."
  • "Atzmon focuses on Jews for the obvious reason that he is Jewish and is trying to make sense of his own identity."
  • "The key to understanding Atzmon is that he rejects the claim that Jews are the "Chosen People." His main target, as he makes clear at the start of the book, is not with Judaism per se or with people who "happen to be of Jewish origin."
  • [the book] it is also filled with interesting insights that make the reader think long and hard about an important subject.
How is citing these statements an attack? Or how does it misrepresent his views? He does say "I do not agree with everything that he says in the book" but his above statements certainly read like a defense of Atzmon's book, which he encourages people to read (i.e. "there is no question in my mind that he has written a fascinating book that, as I said in my blurb, 'should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.'"). In conclusion, including this paragraph in the praise section is not "problematic" and your claim that "Hyperionsteel seems unable to separate support/praise from a neutral comment" is disingenuous. Mearsheimer is responding to criticism of the book (and himself for writing a blurb for it) by trying to explain why the Atzmon (and the book itself) are not anti-semitic.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC))
Isn't it WP:OR for us to label sections praise or criticism anyway? Why not just state what people said without sections and let people draw their own conclusions. CarolMooreDC 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1RR Rule

I will point out to Jhoman that this page has a 1RR rule, which you technically violated (probably unintentionally) with your last revert. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith, but you should respect this restriction (the penalty for violating the 1RR rule, even unintentionally, can be harsh).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

David Duke, again

Today Godwinsands added the following paragraph:

As noted by Alan Dershowitz in The New Republic, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke has posted more than a dozen of Atzmon’s articles on his website over the past five years, and recently praised Atzmon for "writ[ing] such fine articles exposing the evil of Zionism and Jewish supremacism."[2]

I thought we were past trying to smear Atzmon by association with David Duke, but I guess not. Please don't make me take this issue to WP:BLP/N. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, as I recall we agreed that notability hadn't been achieved, but might be at a later date. As I recall, your previous objection was that there weren't any WP:RS other than Duke himself, and therefore Duke's opinion wasn't notable. Notability is now established via WP:RS. The material is supported by WP:RS and belongs here, and I will return it. Goodwinsands (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Dershowitz is not a reliable source. Please see WP:BLP/N#Gilad Atzmon. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree - Dershowitz is a reliable source. But with regards to my recent additions, I have only included a single reference to Duke's praise for Atzmon that Dershowitz cited in his article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
Dershowitz comment on the book are now in two sections, so some of that should be merged. Also, out of context statements or ones that merely hint at the topic are questionable. And the length is WP:undue, especially since others also have critized the book. Also, Atzmon has replied to Dershowitz and doubtless other critics so something of his repl(ies) must be included.
Finally, I put back more info about his first Novel which was deleted at a time I didn't feel like fighting. It's absurd to not even have a sentence or two describing the topic of a novel. I'm sure I'd get a "hear hear" at WP:BLPN on that one. CarolMooreDC 05:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've trimmed back some of the Dershowitz material, some of which was repetitive, and added a major statement from ten different authors published by the same house, all of them anti-Zionist by the way, condemning Atzmon's anti-Semitism and calling the decision to publish such an anti-Semitic work 'grossly mistaken.' Goodwinsands (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
At the very least, Dershowitz is a notable commentator on Middle Ease issues, making his position inherently notable, and not even requiring a RS analysis. To explain by analogy, Obama's opinion on Occupy Wall Street is inclusion eligible before analyzing whether Obama is a RS.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Note that Dershowitz also is WP:RS supporting the notability of the Zero Authors statement, which should remain as part of the entry. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/09/zero-authors-statement-on-gilad-atzmon.html - This is a self published blogpost that is quoting peoples opinions other than the blogger and should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The Zero Authors statement is an open letter with ten signatories, which was posted on the web site of one of the signatories, Richard Seymour. Since Alan Dershowitz cites this statement in his New Republic article, we could rely on that article instead if there's an issue with using the open letter directly. Goodwinsands (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Atzmon in Lebanon?

Gilad Atzmon says in his biography that he has first encounter the israeli brutality during his service in Lebanon as a paramedic. But it is a lie. I was with him in High-School; he had an injury in the leg while practising climbing and was refused for service in a regular unit. He was sent to the Israeli Army Orchestra. Gilad Atzmon never set a foot in LebanonYairaharon (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting; but, unless you can provide a reliable source to confirm this, we cannot use it in the article. If true, it raises the question of the reliability of other biographical information sourced to Atzmon himself. RolandR (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't use any info sourced only to Atzmon anyway? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
But this contested assertion is not directly sourced to Atzmon, but to two independent journalists who interviewed him. They would normally qualify as reliable sources. How should we treat these, and other interviews, if Yairaharon can produce reliable evidence that the facts are not what Atzmon asserted them to be? RolandR (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the entry of his friend Israel Shamir might offer an example, in carefully tracing Shamir's unsupported autobiographical claims back to himself as the source. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, i didn't change the article itselef because i can't produce a written proof or something like this although any journalist can easily check the veracity of my story, a lot of people know him... The thing with Lebanon is that in Israel, lot of soldiers who where in the field during the war turned after that to the peace camp; it's kind of a strong moral caution in the Israeli society, so, of course Gilad went to this lie rather than saying he was dreaming to join a fighting unit and was stuck in a boring orchestra where he didn't meet any palestinian refugee... Yairaharon (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It would not surprise me to find Atzmon would lie outright about something so fundamental, being as he is, but unless another journalist has actually checked into those records somehow, it's not something that can be used in this entry. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Note that constant ad hominen attacks on the subject of a biography can tarnish one's editing credibility when issues are brought to more neutral noticeboards not largely populated with people who proclaim their dislike for the subject. CarolMooreDC 05:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Carolmooredc, I shall be certain to remember that the next time Be Kind to Anti-Semites Day comes around. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As long as one's edits follow the wikipedia guidelines I don't see any problem with having an opinion on the subject. Drsmoo (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Investigating further, Atzmon says in his new book he wasn in the IDF orchestra. His web site carries a review mentioning the orchestra here which quotes him, as does this source who says about Atzmon's writing that The breaking point of his attachment was his visit to Ansar prison camp in South Lebanon in 1994. His IDF orchestra team was invited to visit. Gilad describes how did this journey affected him and changed him forever: (author then quotes from Atzmon book). Besides the Lewis reference already in this article, Atzmon mentions being a paramedic on his website. Considering one is supposed to serve two years in Israeli military, it's certainly possible he did both, isn't it? Just because he may not have explained the timeline, or no one here has bothered to research it, does not mean it is not true. Assuming the subject of a bio is a liar certain makes one's edits a bit suspect, don't you think? And those who can't separate wiki policy from their own opinions certainly will find their credibility questioned. CarolMooreDC 04:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's 3 years of service and not 2. And again, despite his claims Atzmon was never a paramedic in Lebanon during the war. I know dozens of people who were with him at school or at the army, i know his family. It's not my opinion about Gilad, it's the simple truth. Yairaharon (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
So he was tracked for three years? Anyway, with all the partisan sources out to trash him, it wouldn't be hard to find a journalist to contact their friends in the IDF to expose such a "lie" if it in fact was one. CarolMooreDC 04:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove, reuse subpages?

Cleaning up bookmarks I noticed these two pages. Should they be deleted? Reused for future drafts? Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Subpage and Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft. CarolMooreDC 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise

In case you haven't read it lately it states:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

Thus I added Atzmon's reply to the MacDonald review. NPOV certainly requires that his responses to all of his detractors be noted and having just gone through all the Google alerts you can be assured he replies to most if not all of them. And he challenges Dershowitz to a debate.

By the way Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. could describe quite a bit of material in the "antisemitism" section, but such things will be dealt with in time. CarolMooreDC 06:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I see DrSmoo deleted my addition to MacDonald paragraph and I see that I did not properly context it. So this is the way it should be written and I'm sure NPOV editors can be brought here to agree.
Kevin B. MacDonald, a professor at California State University, Long Beach called Atzmon’s book “an invaluable account by someone who clearly understands the main symptoms of Jewish pathology."[1] Alan Dershowitz criticized the comments from someone "whose colleagues formally disassociated themselves from his “anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric views,” called Atzmon’s book 'an invaluable account by someone who clearly understands the main symptoms of Jewish pathology.'"Atzmon replied to MacDonald's review stating that MacDonald "is actually frustrated with the lack of any biological determinist or racist reference in my work," noting his book "is a study of Jewish identity politics and Jewish culture, it is not concerned with Jewish ethnicity or racial origins."[2]
Considering that this guilt by association comment is in the Dershowitz article, under NPOV/BLP Atzmon's counter is needed. And of course you all know that if you remove Dershowitz mention that a quote from a white nationalist publication is not allowed at all. So either it all goes or it all stays. CarolMooreDC 13:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I see an anonymous IP using the NYC public library has deleted information discussed above. I wonder if he'll bother to explain his erroneous comments. CarolMooreDC 23:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

New relevant edits

Finally got around to cleaning up the existing info about the Wandering Who per previous discussions of problems with it (see Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Egregious_bias_in_coverage_of_new_book), plus just cleaning up WP:OR/WP:Undue/WP:POV and cherry picked quotes. I left the main points/criticisms (or improved them, like with Dershowitz). I can't believe I left it such a mess for so long!

Plus I added Atzmon's reply to Newman and WP:RS info on "Raise Your Banners" festival, as opposed to merely promotional non-WP:RS material.

Please let's avoid edit warring in attempts to violate WP:BLP policies, especially by those who keep posting anti-Atzmon diatribes all over the internet, as I discovered researching these pieces. I assume [wonder if] the "Goodwin sands" who posted an anti-Atzmon note at Mearsheimer's reply to Goldberg, and who a search shows has posted anti-Atzmon diatribes at many different sites, is the same User:Goodwinsands from Wikipedia? Just so your strong anti-Atzmon POV can be established when/if issues are brought to notice boards with more neutral editors. Thanks.

Note that there is a lot of other WP:RS commentary of interest that also can be put in, so it was necessary to cut superfluous verbiage. CarolMooreDC 05:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I would like other editors to give their reflections on CarolMooreDC and WP:OUTING. In particularly in context of her ongoing campaign of WP:HA; see my talk page for documentation. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Carol, I would remind you that "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research." Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." RolandR (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I actually did get opinions on the outing topic on appropriate policy talk pages. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information. It's only outing if you identify a User with an anonymous handle by their actual identity. I assume [only know that] Goodwin Sands is not your real name but the name of a sandbank in the English Channel. But even if the person uses their real name like me, one has to expect that their off Wiki behavior where highly relevant to an article may come up. Especially when one posts personal comments to an article already used as a source in the article as "Goodwin Sands" did. Note this is the first and only time I've brought it up; I'm not sure how it's supposed to be handled otherwise when relevant and more guidance needed. Including the whole issue of teams editors with strong POVs editing articles. Something being discussed elsewhere right now.
I can't remember if RolandR so strong reacted to that fact that one irate email I wrote 8 years ago was brought up dozens of times here and elsewheres by various partisans at various articles and deemed irrelevant at WP:ANI because of its age and origin (being a reaction to harassment by several people and death threats by another). So this is definitely a POV issue that would be of interest to people on noticeboards, or more neutral editors who drop by here.
"As for Goodwinsands false claims of "harassment" (especially regard the 1RR incident where you were in fact proved wrong) I think you should read Wikipedia:Harassment#What_harassment_is_not. Your behavior on your talk page is WP:uncivil and probably needs some wikiquette assistance. CarolMooreDC 18:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
There are many things I could quite justifiably reply to here, but I will instead only reply to this:

I assume Goodwin Sands is not your real name

That is, quite simply, not your assumption to make. I recommend you self-revert, and seriously consider the course you are on. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, Carolmooredc, please refrain from silently editing your responses after they have been replied to. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have complied with your proper requests. Please feel free to bring this to the appropriate noticeboard if you like. I think your personal talk page abuse of other editor's concerns is a matter for wikiquette assistance and perhaps we should just bring it there or to WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. In the meantime I'm about to finally post problems to your edits and let's discuss policy. CarolMooreDC 18:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring

The structure is rather haphazard. Looking at various other articles on political writers/critics of Zionism/etc I think it should be in relevant part:
3 Political views
3.1 Novels
3.2 The Wandering Who
3.3 Activism (including some recent newsworthy events)
4 Allegations of antisemitism (including criticism of wandering who since it's all accusations of antisemitism)
The rest remains Discography, Books, References, External links as is. CarolMooreDC 14:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense to split the discussion of The Wandering Who? into to pieces, with the praise up top and the condemnation shunted to the bottom of the page. The current arrangement is fine. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be right on the minor point since novels are handled somewhat similarly, but not on the major point of creating section #3. CarolMooreDC 15:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
As the majority of news hits on Atzmon that aren't from tiny little microsites address the antisemitism issue, rather than his activism, your section 4 should go before section 3. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Logic is also relevant to structure and it's logical to put the allegations at end, since there may be some new ones regarding recent activism you haven't seen yet. But let's not discuss generalities. Let's wait til new material entered and discuss specifics. Getting there. CarolMooreDC 16:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be silly

Carol, as an editor who has been repeatedly, and unfairly, hounded on Wikipedia over comments allegedly made elsewhere, you should know better than to legitimise such harassment by repeating the behaviour. GS, stop prodding and needling Carol, it's unnecessary. And both of you, please concentrate on the edits and content, not the editor. It is not the job of Wikipedia to prove that Gilad Atzmon is, or is not, a racist; we cover what others say. Since there are plenty of reliable sources for either side of this debate, we include both. Thjere are legitimate discussions about which sources are acceptable, and about the wreight to give to them; but not about the central issues here.

Regarding the Zero authors statement, don't be silly. Of course it was genuuine, and Richard Seymour's own blog is a perfectly good source for his views.RolandR (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

RolandR, first, on editing issues. It needs to be shown that this is Seymour's blog. Couldn't find a profile and his comment responses don't seem to be definitive. But, like Edward Alexander's opinion on the Finkler Question, I guess we are supposed to take it on faith. Maybe bring them both to WP:RSN since it's still a blog mentioning what others allegedly have signed.
Second, on behavior issues. I should have waited to question Goodwinsands - who's banned me from his talk page - at least til he gave a non-answer to a policy question, but the "coincidence" has been bugging me. You can bet if some ambiguously named editor had 7-10 postings saying how great Atzmon was online in a source used here as well as other websites there would be much discussion of it here.
Of course, I did later note this GS posting quoting policy: However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums. Goodwinsands neither confirms or denies it's him. Anyway, one more tweak on policy I'll have to keep in mind. Geez, I should never have confirmed I was THAT Carol Moore!!! :-)
I finally followed your link above and see it went to an old discussion of this issue I'd forgotten. There's a newer one elsewhere, can't remember where off hand, that didn't bring up the confirm issue; or I forgot it if it did. Too many policy discussions, too little time.
Bottom line is will Goodwinsands use the various questions at least two other editors have had about his status as an editor as an excuse to NOT discuss policy issues and just edit war. Let's hope not. CarolMooreDC 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, I must note that, very specifically in reference to WP:HA and what it has to say on the matter of 'dredging up their [alleged] off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits', I expect that is the very last time you will post on Wikipedia about your irrelevant speculations and insinuations about who I am or am not 'in real life'. Anything further will go straight to WP:AN/I under WP:HA in the context documented on my talk page. End of discussion.
RolandR, I have self-reverted an earlier comment. I do however reserve the right to continue to document the campaign on my talk page, and to bring it to the appropriate noticeboard 'at a time of my choosing'. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
In this day when anyone can claim to be anyone (real name or fake) anywhere it is silly to try to figure out if two user names in different places are used by the same person. After all, it could be someone trying to bait others using the same user name as someone else! (Something that might be fun for a certain type of person.) It's much better to stick with clear policy issues. Frankly, it was an inappropriate response to behavior issues better dealt with directly in a more appropriate forum. Sometimes clarifying what the real problem/solution is in behavioral circumstances can be difficult. CarolMooreDC 03:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Then this matter is settled. Goodwinsands (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it now ok to quote Atzmon from his website?

It was asserted that it was not permissible to use any statements from Atzmon's website unless they were "made notable by a reliable source." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=412826478&oldid=411788678 There are currently multiple primary source quotes from Atzmon's website, none of which have been made notable by a primary source. Drsmoo (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is an editor who has claimed we have by consensus agreed on that position, although the record doesn't actually seem to bear out her claim. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
First, you don't mention which quote you mean. It doesn't seem to be removed. I assume it is one where Atzmon defends himself against some accusation?
Obviously I only stated part of policy. Using cherry picked quotes to make someone look good or bad is against policy. Using an individual's defense of themselves against criticism, when no other source can be found, is allowed. Now I have a list of other Atzmon defense links re: the book which I haven't even gone through yet and may find a defense in a secondary source and then I can replace the primary source one with that. Just ran out of energy last night. CarolMooreDC 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a wikipedia rule which states that it is ok to use non notable primary sources to support a particular position, but not to support a different position? Drsmoo (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
If you would tell me what the quote is, I could deal with the issue rather than discussing generalities and having to do searches of past archives on "cherry picking" - the 7 or 8 we've had. CarolMooreDC 21:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
All of the quotes attributed to "Gilad Atzmon website" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=462508303&oldid=462481742 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=462850429&oldid=462694634 Drsmoo (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I was lazy and just grabbed Atzmon primary source replies to a couple people rather than going through my list of WP:RS interviews and articles quoting Atzmon about the book. Quotes preferable to primary source quotes. I did find what I think is the main discussion that made adding some Atzmon’s self-defenses acceptable a couple years back. In Archive 3] an anti-Atzmon editor is quoted by a relatively neutral editor who then applies the same reasoning to Atzmon:

"The reason we then go to the primary source is to give Steyn a chance to defend himself by appropriately putting his words in context so that the article isn't twisted by Fisk's tendentious reading. You seem to be concerned that the result will make Steyn look bad, but it's only going to look bad to Fisk partisans wearing blinders. Everyone else is going to chuckle." this same reasoning applies here, with atzmon being given " chance to defend himself by appropriately putting his words in context." untwirl(talk)

Of course this sort of thing is in the context of WP:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. Though the latter is limited by policy "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if 1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;..."

If theoretically we accepted that view, it would mean removal of 2 of the 3 Atzmon quotes I lazily stuck in:

  • This diff’s Atzmon reply to MacDonald isn’t good because he states what he thinks MacDonald thinks. But then once you eliminate the guilt by association paragraphs about MacDonald and Duke, it’s not relevant anyway.
  • Sentence: Gilad Atzmon criticized Dershowitz' analysis at his website and offered to debate Dershowitz "any time."(If Dershowitz Wants a Debate, I Will Meet Him Any Time, October 23, 2011.) Striking the above, I think if just that statement is made, that reference is fine.
  • Sentence: He replied to the attacks writing “It seems as if the Zio-cons on both sides of the pond are now in a state of panic” and that critics “launched a typical Hasbara smear & intimidation campaign.” (Goldberg vs. Mearsheimer). Obviously attacks on others - but those others are unnamed. However, I’m sure he’s made similar or better defense in one of those interviews.

So how about we get rid of MacDonald and the Ziocon's panic and keep the debate offer - and agree to get rid of the WP:Undue/Guilt by Association MacDonald and Duke paragraphs that WILL be struck if I have to go to WP:BLPN. Then happiness will reign. CarolMooreDC 06:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am certain you will not find a backing consensus, with the suggestion of removing the MacDonald and Duke paragraphs. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
First, this is not a policy-based response to my concerns below in section Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#New_Edits_I_believe_violate_WP:RS_and_WP:BLP. If no one offers a policy-based defense to my issues, obviously I can make my changes.
Also note Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_by_soliciting_outside_opinions and WP:BLPN, especially This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period. CarolMooreDC 15:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The MacDonald and Duke information is neither WP:UNDUE nor 'guilt by association'. Do not remove it under those pretexts. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Saying "no it's not" in the wrong section and not responding to all concerns expressed at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#New_Edits_I_believe_violate_WP:RS_and_WP:BLPdoesn't pass muster as a policy based response. I'm busy today and tomorrow (including on putting in some more new WP:RS info) so will give you another couple days to formulate answers in appropriate spot. And to see what new issues arise. CarolMooreDC 17:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, I think any reader of this thread can see that your proclamation that the MacDonald and Duke material is undue and guilt-by-association is no less a bare assertion than mine that it is not. Mine, however, reflects the state of the actual article itself, the content determined by discussions here. I am disappointed that, now that the matter is settled, you are trying once again to pretend it isn't, simply because the result didn't go your way. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and consider taking the opportunity to lower the drama quotient. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to primary quotes

This debate seems to have gotten into a mess, has a consensus been established regarding the acceptability of primary quotes? Drsmoo (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think some factual material and some responses can be used sometimes IF there is no other sources. NPOV editors should be able to figure that out without a big row.
Per the above, I think the one thing that definitely can be kept in is his offer to debate Dershowitz; obviously MacDonald is more tricky since Dershowitz does mention him. If that is cut down to Atzmon just mentioning what his book is about and inferring it's different from MacDonald's views the BLP problem should not obtain. CarolMooreDC 18:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Factual material can be used if there are no other sources...so the criteria to use a self published source is if there are no reliable sources? Could you link to the wiki rule which allows for self published sources in these circumstances? Drsmoo (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Didn't I already link to: Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source? In both cases Atzmon is talking about himself in relevant circumstances. However, they aren't terribly critical, especially since there are all sorts of things he's said lately to WP:RS that could be quoted here, as I also said above. CarolMooreDC 20:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

New Edits I believe violate WP:RS and WP:BLP

  • This Goodwinsands diff expanding the Zero Authors' quote. Frankly, attacks on a blog are NOT WP:RS - especially in BLP - and the whole thing could be made up. I was giving Atzmon critics a break including it at all. Please find a reliable source that this happened (I couldn't find one) or per WP:RS and WP:BLP it will have to be removed.
  • At this diff Goodwinsands put back in the antisemitism section material from Dershowitz on David Duke from Dershowitz’ article criticizing the Wandering Who. It is duplicative of a reference to this fact in the Wandering Who section. More importantly, it is a mere “guilt by association” accusation, so it would not at all pass muster if taken to the WP:BLP Noticeboard.
  • At this diff Goodwinsands put back in the antisemitism section material from Dershowitz on Kevin MacDonald from Dershowitz’ article criticizing the Wandering Who. It is duplicative of a reference to this fact in the Wandering Who section. [Later correction after realized I was mistaken on the section: Goodwinsands replaced an NPOV description of Atzmon’s reply with unnecessary duplicate material about Dershowitz criticism of MacDonald to turn this into More importantly, it is a mere “guilt by association” accusation, so it would not at all pass muster if taken to the WP:BLP Noticeboard. [Later added: This should be reverted, though there are questions about whether this is a proper use of primary material.]
FYI, the sentence where this is referenced in Wandering Who section is: ‘’He writes that “hard-core neo-Nazis, racists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers” endorse Atzmon, including David Duke, Kevin B. MacDonald and Israel Shamir.[98]’‘ Isn’t that hard core anti-Atzmon enough for you?
  • At this diff Goodwinsands removes the titles and schools of academics explicitly mentioned by Dershowitz. I don’t have a problem with removing the schools as being excess detail. But it should be made clear they are academics because Dershowitz whole point is academics are supporting Atzmon. Therefore should read: “professors Brian Leiter, William A. Cook, Oren Ben-Dor and lecturer Makram Khoury-Machool." Geez, I hope I don’t have to stick that on the end of any note on a noticeboard. It’s really just sticking with the point the source (Dershowitz) is trying to make.
  • Finally, it occurs to me that Dershowitz article should be described as an opinion piece, since it's not a scholarly legal document and we don't want anyone to get confused :-) CarolMooreDC 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
See also: WP:OWN. Also, WP:HA. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Not an appropriate response to serious policy concerns. CarolMooreDC 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
For Goodwinsands edification here are the clearly relevant WP:NPOV//Undue and WP:Guilt by association policies that apply to both the Duke and MacDonald material. This is the appropriate place to respond. Note that multiple times Goodwinsands had defended David Duke material being given prominence here despite being presented with this information.
  • Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise: Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. Including copious material on this, as opposed to the one sentence summarizing Dershowitz view which I put in, is an obvious malicious attempt to say - "see how much these bad guys love Atzmon? He must be really bad too."
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources....Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views...Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements...Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Duke and MacDonald just aren't experts and our fringe characters who bear mentioning but not extensive quoting, especially when Dershowitz quotes them and there is a clear allusion to his views on that in the text. CarolMooreDC 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, as it should be clear to you by now, I know what the policies are. What I do not accept, and recognize that there is no broad acceptance of here, is your judgement of how the policies apply in these cases. Please, again, reduce the drama quotient. Goodwinsands (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You have given no rationale for why these policies don't apply, just again saying you disagree and then speaking for others who you assume agree with you. Since you have not objected to my other points, I would have to assume you have no problem with my reverting those back to my original edits. If you have a problem, please explain what policy you base your issue on. Feel free to review Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. CarolMooreDC 03:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Your assumption would in this case be wrong. I cannot support any of your proposed edits, for reasons I have explained in various places, your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT notwithstanding. Are you really going to force yet another tedious talk-page battle which will, in the end, go against you?
Nothing has changed since the last time this all was discussed. Please stop using the Monte Carlo method, rolling the dice again and again, hoping that one day it'll come up your way. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilad_Atzmon_.28Guilt_by_association.29 since obviously two people discussing this is not enough and NPOV comments needed. CarolMooreDC 01:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I see user:Brewercrewer came along and reverted an outside editors sensible edit saying merely "I don't agree/it's not proved." Not good enough. Let's hear an actual rebuttal here, Brewercrewer. CarolMooreDC 05:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
See bottom thread.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I can see that Brewcrewer is commenting about Duke/MacDonald below. Not commenting on the other issues I raised here, just to keep track for the future. CarolMooreDC 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

David Duke yet again

I consider the David Duke paragraph to be WP:UNDUE and unworthy of this sort of BLP article with its highly divisive content. The article should be pared to the bone, and tangential bits such as "this guy likes Atzmon" and "that guy hates Atzmon" ought to be reexamined for how far-reaching the connection is. If somebody's opinion has provable far-reaching ramifications, demonstrated by multiple sources, then it can be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Every now and then a sensible editor comes by and says this. You have said it particularly well. One does not have to be a big fan of everything Atzmon says to see this. One merely has to decide that this is an article where a line in the sand has to be drawn to say: organized partisans have to stop using Wikipedia to push their agendas and trash people in such a way it harms the encyclopedia. A lot of people hate wikipedia because some of the absurd and WP:Undue things that end up in Bios of people. Feel free to share such a comment on the BLPN page to encourage people to check it out. CarolMooreDC 05:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Judging from that last comment, Carolmooredc might benefit from a look at WP:CANVASS. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Canvass is not noting that a comment is appropriate at the original noticeboard where an issue is raised. The whole purpose of going to the noticeboard is to get community input! Canvassing is going around to lots of user pages, emails lists, web sites trying to get people to edit a wikipedia article, especially with a specific POV. CarolMooreDC 12:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Goodwinsands, that was uncalled for. I came here from BLPN, looked at the situation, and determined that David Duke was the outlier, the least worthy bit of information. I have not been influenced to come here and comment by anything except the appearance of this dispute at BLPN. There has been no canvassing. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I probably agree with Binker to pare down the article to its bones, but in its current status, which includes all those making nice comments about him, we must for the sake of neutrality include notable commentators critical of Atzmon. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
In theory, there is no requirement for positive and negative comments to be balanced out. If comments, negative or positive, are widely reported and have provable notability, they can stay in the article. After the article's text is sifted in that manner, whatever imbalance results will be due to external forces and will reflect Atzmon's coverage in the media. We are not responsible for creating an artificial balance between positive and negative. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course. A 50-50 balance would be imprudent where the general mainstream consideration for the subject is not 50-50, as in this instance. Thus making it ever more problematic the deletion of criticism by notable commentators published in notable sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
First, you should be clear what "nice things" you mean - his musical prowess, or his or other's responses to attacks on him?
Second, for umpteenth time, Wikipedia:Blp#Criticism_and_praise says: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.
Right now too many minor sources are being used to just repeat the same quotes over and over again or throw in their view he's a bad guy. Note that a number of equally minor sources haven't even been entered in to contest those views. But if there is agreement there is just TOO much, let's use one of those old, out of date, subpages above (archiving current contents if desired) to weed out the junk and present a nice cleaned up draft. Or do it here if people prefer. CarolMooreDC 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Duke's praise of Atzmon has been noted by Dershowitz, a notable source, and in fact both Dershowitz and Duke are far more notable than Atzmon is. Neither of them are minor sources. Drsmoo (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see another source beyond Dershowitz. If somebody else comments in a reliable source on David Duke's praise or on Dershowitz's connection between Duke and Atzmon, then it can stay. Likewise with other praise or criticism. This article should be held to very exacting standards; more so than uncontroversial biographies. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

While it was on my mind I did a quick draft of what the article should look like to be more structurally rationale (as I proposed above) as well as NPOV per this discussion. The most undue criticism is removed and some notes on other needed changes and updates. The overall "balance" of praise and criticism can be figured out after that. See this this permanent page as of right now. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Balance of praise and criticism" is irrelevant and unencyclopedic. What matters are the views of reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you bother to read what people write at all? Wikipedia:Blp#Criticism_and_praise is policy. It says: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. if this isn't WP:I Didn't Hear it, I don't know what is. CarolMooreDC 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you bother to read what people write at all? Calm down. Goodwinsands (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Balancing the levels of criticism and praise when they are not in balance in the real world is equivalent to giving "disproportionate space to particular viewpoints" the key is to include the opinions of reliable sources, whatever they may be, and not to "balance" a section by removing reliable sources from one side and posting more minority views from the other. Neutral = detached and accurate, the David Duke article is not neutral in terms of being 50/50 with criticism and praise for Duke, it is neutral because it is objective. Artificial "balancing" is non neutral. Drsmoo (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There is only so much room in each article. The one sentence Dershowitz mention of Duke/MacDonald/Shamir is sufficient for this article. A couple more paragraphs is WP:Undue. Balancing is not mentioned in the policy I quoted. CarolMooreDC 02:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
'There is only so much room in each article.' Then maybe we can compensate for the Duke and MacDonald material by condensing extraneous information about, say, his novels - which are literarily unimportant - or some of the lists of the various personnel configurations of his various ensembles. Goodwinsands (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Google "Gilad Atzmon musician" you get 2.7 million returns, a good proportion mainstream sites covering his music. "Gilad Atzmon antisemite" you get 586,000 returns, many of them his comments on it or openly Tony Greenstein or other minor nonWP:RS posts, plus a lot of partisan "WP:RS." Not too much truly neutral analysis. The article is about 1/6 allegations against him already, so it looks "balanced" if that's what you mean by balanced. CarolMooreDC 03:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about notable sources, or is Wikipedia policy now based on google search results? If one searches for "David Duke racist" many of the top results are David Duke denying that he's a racist or youtube videos saying he's not racist. Based on your argument we should be editing his wikipedia page to be "balanced" in light of these google results. No, we use notable sources. Skewing the results to make them "balanced" between praise and criticism is inherently misleading and dishonest. Drsmoo (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
First, when we talk about Duke/MacDonald we are talking about WP:Undue: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is what the Neutral editors at WP:BLN have been saying.
Wikipedia:Balance#Balance relates to prominence of view points." Google search results can give you can inkling if more WP:RS talk about whether he is an antisemite or a musician. They can't tell you how many sentences should be devoted to characters who have merely praised Atzmon. Got the difference now?? CarolMooreDC 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately Google Search results are not a good barometer, but if we're using them to get an "inkling," the first is a link to his home site, second is a link to his political writings on his home site (worth noting that the political writings section is more linked to than the music section) the third is a link to one of his writings, the fourth is the wiki page the fifth is a link to his writings on a far right site, the sixth is a review of his antisemitic minstrel show on an anti-zionist site, the sixth is an article on Atzmon and antisemitism from the Guardian, the seventh is his myspace music site, the eight and ninth are links to musical performances of his on youtube, the tenth is him talking about Israel and Judaism on Russia Today, and the 11th is a link to a blog discussing Mearsheimer writing about Atzmon and Atzmon's antisemitism on a conservative/libertarian legal blog. That's what's on the first page of google results. Drsmoo (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember Google results are not the same for everybody, so your results may be different than somebody else's. Google takes many factors into account before it feeds you the results, and some of what you see is personalized or tailored. If you do a lot of searching for antisemitism, for example, you may see those kinds of results more often. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
All the more reason why they're not a good source for determining content on a wiki page Drsmoo (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting about tailored; I assume for the top 20 or 50 or 100 returns especially? Also, 100 news searches of say a two year period or a books.google search usually will bring up more about musicianship. Web searches bring up a lot of partisan blogs either way. Anyway, I think any search of his name from a relatively noncontaminated IP will find far more sources (besides his own writings) on him being a musician (and perhaps even a writer/activist on Israel/Palestine?) than an antisemite. Now with the constant campaign waged against him - including using wikipedia - that might change over time. CarolMooreDC 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Contaminated? Jeez... lol. Google search results aren't a source to base wiki policy on. Btw I did a google search for "gilad atzmon" through a few different US proxies and the results were exactly the same Drsmoo (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm learning new vocabulary here. Not only does 'neutral' turn out to actually mean 'agrees with me', but 'contaminated' means 'disagrees with me.' We are lucky to have such a Wikipedia master to teach us these things. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Sour, dickish comments will not advance your argument. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, by "contaminated" I meant contaminated by previous serches that were clearly pro-Atzmon ("Atzmon great jazz player") or anti-Atzmon ("Atzmon big antisemite"). CarolMooreDC 15:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Admin brought same issue to BLPN in November!

I have written in current BLPN case:

An admin brought same issue here a month ago
I somehow failed to note that this whole David Duke topic was brought here a month ago by an administrator User:Malik Shabazz at this archive. These editors just keep arguing to keep this material in and reverting policy based deletions of the material. I think it's time to identify the worst offenders and to step this up to Special enforcement on biographies of living persons. Especially since this is a case where there is an organized British campaign to cancel this man's gigs and destroy his musical career; one public critic has admitted writing against him outside of Wikipedia; various hostile editors have disrupted, been banned or retired once threatened with sanctions; some anonymous IPs have had British locations. This kind of abuse of Wikipedia is one of the main reasons I have continued to work on this article as long as I have. What is the next step? Advice welcome. CarolMooreDC 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough! Once sentence to cover Derhowitz guilt by association opinion is enough. Anything more is pure POV pushing violation of BLP. (Except perhaps Atzmon's primary source reply to MacDonald if it ONLY covers Atzmon's opinion, as a means of countering Dershowitz opinion.) CarolMooreDC 17:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Having seen yet another neutral editor agree there is far too much criticism in here, in addition to those doubting Duke/MacDonald paragraphs, I have removed them under WP:BLP. It's really the responsibility of those who want that material in to prove it. (Bringing in more biased editors would not count :-) There then also would be less need for Atzmon specific responses; these could be updated anyway. But let's not put the cart before the horse.
I've worked on this enough for today. Tomorrow I'll list the least credible/needed most Coatrack/piling on/repetitive/non-notable/non-WP:RS accusations that should come out.
I cleaned up the parts of Atzmon's primary source replies that dealt overtly with individuals. Plus still working through list of his replies to accusations at WP:RS. Additionally, this policy issue of BLP's "right of reply" in general (be it Styne or Atzmon) and from primary sources in particular probably is something that has to be clarified in policy. Not first time I've run across editors debating this. CarolMooreDC 21:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
You said "bringing in more biased editors would not count" I take this to mean that if more editors came in and agreed the material should be left you would dismiss them as being biased. With that said I personally believe the whole article should be shortened, and the activism, writings and allegations of antisemitism sections should be combined into one "Views" section, similar in length to the views section of Israel Shamir, which is about 1,000 words, where as the sections detailing Atmzon's views add up to about 2,000 Drsmoo (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So only last month this went to the notice boards, you didn't get the result you wanted, and you're rolling the dice again? New month, maybe a new result? And if not you'll try again in January? How about a little Noticeboard Roulette?

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies here, Carolmooredc. Please stop with the Noticeboard Roulette. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DrSmoo: I think we all know what a biased editor in this article would be and how they'd be brought in, though not by anyone here editing currently, of course :-) Shorter in general would be better. That's what I tried for with Dershowitz/duke/MacDonalde. If there wasn't all this criticism, there wouldn't be need for all these defenses. As for his views, obviously they deserve some coverage because they get more attention than Shamirs.
Goodwinsands: I did not see Malik Shabazz' BLPN Note about deterioration in article last month or would have commented. Evidently not announced here. Obviously the changes made to delete some of the WP:Undue in Dershowitz per that announcement were insufficient since when I paid more attention to it this week the whole section was still poorly written and organized and with Duke/MacDonald material, thus my changes, some of which were reverted. When I brought the more specific complaint in same vein to WP:BLP I heard people agree Duke/MacDonald and the WP:Coatrack were wp:undue. Didn't you?? CarolMooreDC 00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, I noticed at the Shabazz BLPN Goodwinsands wrote re the ten anti-Zionist writers"...

it has been referred to by other WP:RS. Please do tell since I complained above I couldn't find any mention to put in the article and I want to bring that and another issue to WP:RSN. CarolMooreDC 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Dershowitz article. I've added the citation. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Carolemooredc's sandbox

The version at User_talk:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_2 appears to be an acceptable compromise regarding Dershowitz listing the names of three Atzmon fans. I lean more toward deletion of those bits but in the interest of achieving consensus the version is pretty good. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is the one I already put in the article to replace the two paragraphs and make them happy. But as you can see they ALSO want the two paragraphs. That's why I went to WP:BLPN. ;-( CarolMooreDC 15:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the link to what s/he refers to above, since used sandbox for other stuff since. Of course, I'm not sure what the issue is at this point. Except probably yet another attempt to deal with excessive WP:UNDUE/POV. By the way, if (name redacted) writing articles vs. Atzmon, protesting Atzmon, signing petitions against Atzmon is NOT a POV which means he can't put critical stuff directly in the article, I assume going to see him twice in person at well-known respectable venues with dozens of respectable peace and justice activists and talking to him to try to figure out what the heck is going on in his mind is not one either :-) Let's not have double standards here. CarolMooreDC 19:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Carol, please note that I have never suggested that any views which you may have expressed elsewhere preclude you from editing any article here on Wikipedia. What matters is the quality of the edits themselves, and this is not prejudiced by any assumption about your possible motives, intention or conflict of interest. I don't believe that I (a fellow sexagenarian) have displayed any double standards. RolandR (talk) (UTC)
Regarding RolandR redacting "a name"... Hmmm, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_31#User:RolandR_on_Gilad_Atzmon_article. You admitted it at the noticeboard. Just like I've admitted who I am somewhere or other. But it is true I only should have brought it up as part of specific discussion of RolandR's editing and not as part of a more general discussion where did not name this (adjective redacted) person going to see him in person. So I'll be more careful next time, or as long as that bit of wikietiquette remains in my Sexagenarian brain. CarolMooreDC 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Responding to RolandR: 21:18, 13 March 2012 -- I will agree that you have not raised any double standard issues (at least in recent memory and don't feel like going back further and checking). Thinking of various other individuals (especially one under so many different names?) who has done so or would do so in a flash. CarolMooreDC 17:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Returning to the question of primary sources, which came up a couple of years ago here but was unresolved - it seems that quite a bit of this site depends much too heavily on Atzmon's own website, which is used again and again and again as a primary source. Is there a special reason it is allowed here? Frizzmaz (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Past primary source discussions mostly were about cherry picking quotes that no one had seen as notable and stringing them together in a WP:Synth way for POV purposes. I think we did clean that up.
It's used around 20 times now, sometimes as backup, sometimes as only source in innocuous way per policy, sometimes per BLP to allow people context of what he said or wrote or to provide a "defense" of it. (Those last categories doubtless debated ad nauseum.) I think you'd have to point out which ways you think are problematic.
The article still is WP:Undue on criticism with low quality sources and/or repetitive references but I got sick of fighting with a persistent sock puppet and other POV editors about it myself. In fact when I gutted bios from my watchlist yesterday, I evidently missed this one. User:Carolmooredc 16:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Why remove neutral bio info?

At this diff User:Frizzmazz, who complained about primary source info above, removed info from reliable sources that seems highly relevant in a bio:

  • A profile in The Guardian in 2009 which described Atzmon as "one of London's finest saxophonists" stated: "It is Atzmon's blunt anti-Zionism rather than his music that has given him an international profile, particularly in the Arab world, where his essays are widely read." The Guardian reference
Seems like a relevant analysis of him from neutral perspective. Maybe move it out of the lead to a reception section, but why remove it? Will put that back in restructured section.
  • Gilad Atzmon's service as a paramedic in the Israeli Defense Forces during the 1982 Lebanon War caused him to conclude that "I was part of a colonial state, the result of plundering and ethnic cleansing." From counterpunch, though there are several other more recent references not yet used that explain he started out as a medic and then joined the band. Don't feel like adding updated and more fully detailed material today. Maybe later.
I believe this originally was higher up in bio of early life where really does belong with other factoids about him that were removed or probably would be. In the past, I believe some editors wanted all the details of denunciations of him in the article, but wanted no details of his life as an Israeli and why he rejected it in the article. Doesn't that seem relevant - from an NPOV point of view?? See Wikipedia:BLP#Balance. User:Carolmooredc 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Really, no - what matters is how the article now appears, not the minutia of past Wikipedia wars. Also I looked in vain at WP:BLP for some sort of right-of-reply, from primary sources if necessary, to respond to every claim made about the subject of an entry. Could you please point me to where this is spelled out, and in particular, explicitly where it is called for, tit for tat, for each individual allegation rather than a general response? A Wikipedia article is not a trial, in which there is an right to cross-examine on every point using primary materials, is it? Frizzmaz (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I forgot, trashing people you hate on Wikipedia is great sport and going to BLP or ANI usually gets you no where. So unwatching this page. Trash away. User:Carolmooredc 00:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Bit of an over-reaction, wouldn't you say? Frizzmaz (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Like I always say, I do believe that Wikipedia eventually could face a class action lawsuit charging Wikipedia Foundation malfeasance if some creepy-assed lawyers ever decided to put one together with 30 or 40 aggrieved subjects of bios. All they have to do is search throughout the BLP policy, BLPN and its header, ANI and other relevant pages and they could do a real big case based on copious written evidence. But no es mi problema. User:Carolmooredc 11:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2013

In '4: Writings', please change "Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54]"a Jew who hates Judaism"[55] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3]" to "Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3]. The change has been discussed on the talk page in 5:Atzmon "hates Judaism" & agreed, as Atzmon has denied making the statement and has blamed mistranslation. eg: "I have to agree with Carol on this. Unless secondary sources supporting either side can be found, then it can be assumed that this issue is disputed, which means that this can't be included in a BLP.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC))"

thanks

Roy Bard (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Roy Bard (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry didn't realize protection on. Fixed it. Hope it sticks!! User:Carolmooredc 00:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2013

Please change "Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54]"a Jew who hates Judaism" [55] [56] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3" to "Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3"

See talk for further explanation. The claim that "Atzmon has defined himself as "a Jew who hates Judaism" has been disputed by Atzmon since the article was published, and as a BLP any disputed claim should be acknowledged as such,The edit revert fails to do so and therefore falls short of NPOV.

Roy Bard (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this suggested change. The statement was made in Atzmon's words, in an interview in a major newspaper which certainly qualifies as a reliable source. Despite the comment above, Atzmon has never denied that he gave this interview, nor that he used the words in contention. The interview is still available on the paper's website, and Atzmon has apparently never made any representation to the paper claiming that he was misquoted. His only objection, as far as I can see, has been to the translation of his words. Since I have added the unchallenged Hebrew original, any other editor is able to request a translation from another Hebrew speaker. This should confirm my statement that the English version (also cited from a reliable source) is correct. I see no justification for removing the statement. RolandR (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Roy, you might consider WP:BLPN - noticeboard. Also consider registering with an email address so you can edit yourself. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 16:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you need to register an email address in order to edit protected articles. You just have to become auto-confirmed, which requires making a certain number of edits (possibly 10) to other articles. Many confirmed editors do not give an email address. ֻֻRolandR (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's the details. Wikipedia:AUTOCONFIRM#Autoconfirmed_users. User:Carolmooredc 17:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no opinion about the edit. I am removing the {{edit semi-protected}} template from this section because the semi-protection has recently expired. 67.100.127.173 (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned that we seem to be at a stalemate. Roland R writes: "The statement was made in Atzmon's words" and yet those are words attributed to Atzmon by a third party. The argument that those attributed and contested words are to be given primacy over Atzmon's actual words in his own article, on his own website, seems to be convoluted. In his immediate response on 15/11/2011 Atzmon wrote: " It seems as if Yediot's writer failed to translate 'self hatred' into Hebrew. He has managed to come up with with some very creative ideas, such as ‘a Jew who hates Judaism’, and ‘Jew Hater.’ I will point at these". That rebuttal is consistent with what he has said elsewhere, in relation to himself and also to Jesus, Marx and Spinoza, all of whom he has cited as 'self-hating' but nowhere else as "against Judaism". The inclusion of the contested quote, without acknowledgement appears to be in conflict with the WP:BLP#Importation_of_off-wiki_disputes_into_Wikipedia guideline which states that ". Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all.[9]". The re-inclusion of the contested quote distorts the article, and I therefore propose to edit it out, as this would be consistent with the WP:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion guideline which states that " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." At the least, it seems fair that a re-inclusion of the omitted text should note that Atzmon contests the words attributed to him by the journalist. (Roy Bard (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

The page remains protected, therefore I would request that the edit be made on my behalf, or the protection be removed.

Please change "Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54]"a Jew who hates Judaism" [55] [56] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3" to "Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3"

In the event of re-inclusion I will raise the matter on the WP:BLPN noticeboard. (Roy Bard (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

I repeat my earlier objection, that the statement was made in Atzmon's own words, in an interview in Hebrew in a major Israeli newspaper. Atzmon has never denied that he gave this interview, nor that he used the words in contention. The interview is still available on the paper's website, and Atzmon has apparently never made any representation to the paper claiming that he was misquoted. His only objection, as far as I can see, has been to the English translation of his words. Since I have added the unchallenged Hebrew original, any other editor is able to request a translation from another Hebrew speaker. This should confirm my statement that the English version (also cited from a reliable source) is correct. I still see no justification for removing the statement. RolandR (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As noted above " an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest." I am concerned that semantics are being engaged to deliberately distort the article for political gain, and that a conflict of interest is impeding the process. Unless you are willing to stand aside, I can see no alternative than to take the matter to the WP:BLPN notice board, in order to seek arbitration on the matter. (Roy Bard (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Go ahead, bearing in mind that the same stricture also clearly refers to "just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject". There is absolutely no distortion in my comments above, nor in the edits I have made to this article. RolandR (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Atzmon "hates Judaism"

(Roy Bard (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}

"Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54]"a Jew who hates Judaism"[55] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3]"

The reference at 55 is to a ynet article. In a commentary on the article [3] Atzmon notes that:

"For some reason, the translator couldn’t handle the notion of ‘self-hatred’ it must have felt like a cognitive dissonance. It should read as “He defines himself as a ‘self hater’. and consequently “Of course. As a ‘self hater’, I put myself under a magnifying glass."

I think that therefore the line should be edited to read:

"Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3]"

Roy Bard (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, Atzmon does tend to say the most extreme things to get the point across, so we'd need some definitive proof the translator got it wrong. Do you have the original Hebrew article and do you translate? Usually we take WP:RS's word for it, but in a Biography, if there's a good case for a bad translation, things can be corrected. User:Carolmooredc 19:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have the Hebrew version, and neither do I translate. However, it seems strange to me that you don't accept that Atzmon specifically denies that he said he is "a Jew who hates Judaism", as he denies saying that Jesus and Spinoza were "Jews who hated Jews". In the introduction to the article I cited, he states that "As far as I am aware, the article didn’t make it to the Hebrew online Ynet (it is hidden in the Hebrew achieve), but yesterday it found its way to the English website Ynetnews." so it would appear that there is no Hebrew version to be had. He goes on to say "The article in English contains some gross mistranslations. It seems as if the Israeli English translator didn’t know how to handle ‘self hatred’, and instead came up with some very creative ideas, such as ‘a Jew who hates Judaism’, and ‘Jew Hater.’ I will point at these mistranslations in the body of the article.". By leaving the disputed claim in, I believe the article does not meet Wikipedia npov principle that editors should "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." Roy Bard (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so you are saying that somewhere else Atzmon says this. A link would help. I personally think it should come out on that basis per WP:BLP and it should be done one a link is provided. However, there are so very biased editors who will put it back in over and over, even if we bring them to noticeboards which agree it doesn't belong. It's the reason I largely stopped working on this article. But if you are right it should be removed. User:Carolmooredc 21:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The same text I cited above appears on Atzmon's website: "Ynetnews: The protocols of Gilad Atzmon" gilad.co.uk/writings/ynetnews-the-protocols-of-gilad-atzmon.html#entry13728902 [4]. Roy Bard (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Atzmon's personal website can't exactly be considered a non-bias source on this issue. A reliable secondary source would be preferred.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

The articl;e also appears at thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=37827 - but we seem to be in a loop where we have to ignore the 'seriously contested assertion' because it is made by one of the two people present when the interview was given. The Community Security Trust notes: "He repeated this idea in an interview with the Israeli news website Ynet (using Atzmon’s preferred translation): Asked why he is a self-hater, Atzmon stresses that he is in good company. “The Jews who ultimately contributed to humanity are those who hated themselves,” he says in an interview. “Jesus was a self hater, and so were Spinoza and Marx.”" in their article on Atzmon, which seems to be an independent acknowledgement that the translation is disputed [5] Roy Bard (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

When the subjects of BLPs deny a controversial accusation, even on their own website, we have to either remove it or quote their explanation. For BLP legal reasons. Frankly, the whole thing is so confusing on so many levels, I think the best thing is to leave it out. I'd say remove it and if anyone puts it back who ever can explain the issue best (i.e., not me) should put it up at WP:BLP Noticeboard. I'll support removal. User:Carolmooredc 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Carol on this. Unless secondary sources supporting either side can be found, then it can be assumed that this issue is disputed, which means that this can't be included in a BLP.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC))
Consensus! YEah! So feel free to remove it. User:Carolmooredc 23:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Unlike the others commenting here, I do understand Hebrew, and can confirm that the phrase objected to is indeed an accurate reflection of the Hebrew original,[3] in which Atzmon states "דווקא בתור יהודי ששונא יהדות, אני שם את עצמי תחת זכוכית מגדלת ובוחן כל אספקט יהודי בתוכי." The English version, " As a Jew who hates Judaism, I put myself under a magnifying glass and examine every Jewish aspect in me", is a literal translation. Atzmon does not claim that he was misquoted; nor, so far as I am aware, was the interview (by an Israeli journalist of an Israeli musician) conducted in English, so the claim of mistranslation would appear to be an example of sleight of hand, designed to mislead those who cannot check the original. Since this is a clear and unchallenged statement, in Atzmon's own voice, in a leading and reliable source, I have reinstated the phrase. RolandR (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So the WP:RS is correct then. I think that whole quote should be included for context. User:Carolmooredc 00:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
If you mean the whole sentence, it should probably be included in a footnote/ref, to avoid unbalancing the sentence. I'm about to go to bed, but could do that tomorrow. RolandR (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That's what I meant. De-energized myself. User:Carolmooredc 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The re-inclusion of the disputed text remains problematic. Firstly, it claims that "Atzmon has defined himself" thus, and yet Atzmon specifically denies saying or meaning, and in any other instance where he talks about Judaism he is clear that that his problem is not with Judaism, but with Jewishness. He claims that he is mistranslated (but perhaps he is misquoted) and this appears to be borne out as in the article he is said to say of Jesus and Spinoza that they too at "Jews who hate Judaism" and yet elsewhere he refers to them as "self-hating Jews" - this article therefore is a) disputed by Atzmon, b)in direct contradiction to other statements by Atzmon and c)therefore misrepresentative of Atzmon who specifically has stated he DOES NOT define himself thus.

":When the subjects of BLPs deny a controversial accusation, even on their own website, we have to either remove it or quote their explanation. For BLP legal reasons."

The editor has offered to add a footnote, however if despite the rules re disputed statements in BLP's the disputed statement is to remain in the body, then so too should the denial, in the interest of NPOV. I therefore request that the disputed text is either completely removed or removed from that sentence and that a separate sentence is added saying that the quote has been attributed to Atzmon who denies saying or meaning it.

Roy Bard (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for enforcing BLP on this. (My quote above, not Wikipedia, FYI.) Anything that contested in BLP does have to be removed. If you can't remove it yourself, why not ask a neutral editor at WP:BLP Noticeboard. A few years back I was there a few times, and have been there far too frequently lately, and am a bit burned out on it, but will support anyone else there. User:Carolmooredc 11:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ A Dissident Meditation on Jewish Identity: A Review of Gilad Atzmon’s “The Wandering Who?” by Kevin MacDonald, The Occidental Observer, October 3, 2011.
  2. ^ Gilad Atzmon, Gilad Atzmon: Supremacists on ‘The Wandering Who’, Gilad Atzmon website, October 7, 2011.
  3. ^ http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=37827
  4. ^ http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ynetnews-the-protocols-of-gilad-atzmon.html#entry13728902
  5. ^ http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=3188

Pink Floyd

Appears on new Pink Floyd album "The Endless River". 188.67.68.113 (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Incoherent, Propagandistic Slant to Article

For gosh sake, an individual neither of fanatical self-identified Jewish or Jewish-Zionist identity OR self-identified ANTI-Jewish or ANTI-Judaeo-Zionist ideological background, bring some non-partisan balance to this joke of an article.

Zionists and anti-Zionists need to learn Wikipedia is not a drama-stage for their polemics and psy-ops, for God's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

For some reason (<-No techie) links appear below my observation of the obvious. Appreciate if this could be fixed by more cyber-savvy editor.

Wikipedia methods of dispute resolution in the case of ideological militants, BTW, need serious improvement. Why allow extremists from either side to taint the discussion...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of the bias you perceive in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need of sardonic mockery, dear fellow.

Can't individuals transcend ideology and their pet ideological commitments for one darn moment and just try to recount the facts instead of skewing things...? Not asking for much, really, in terms of quality content of an encyclopedia... Doesn't Wikipedia believe in unprejudiced objectivity unrelated to all-too-human inter-group conflicts...?

I believe it would be scientifically appropriate to get editors TOTALLY UNINVESTED in the issue but otherwise intelligent and critical to simply take over in these types of situations...

For example: a paleontologist obsessed with Mongolian raptors - let that guy, let that or that type of editor handle articles full of such strife and disputatious content like this and similar ones... How can one circumvent the negative possibility of the content existing as foredoomed artifact of ideological projection and ideological polemics, bogged down in self-referential disproportionality ?

If you were serious and not mocking me, I apologize and shall respond when my chaotic schedule allows. Rather than what seems to me obviously not quite "normal" in this article being dealt with, however, and going over in detail the weird emphases and bizarre criteria implicit behind highlighting these facts as against other facts concerning this person, etc., the issue is larger than Atzmon: why not get top Wikipedian editors of good reputation and known lack of bias to brainstorm a way to truly ensure objectivity in "charged" issues of this sort, avoiding deadlock and stasis of data...? I am not asking Zionists to stop being Zionists or anti-Zionists to drop their beliefs either, simply for those clearly psychologically pre-committed, if unable to be even-minded, to at least not make the page a mess of self-referential silliness... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a question. Could you provide an example of the bias you perceive in the article, dear fellow? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
How about the fact that a Jew is being called antisemitic? Not only is that the most confusing irony, it's also given greatly undue weight. Using scary terms to indicate that this Israeli is not proud of his heritage is a downright slant. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
He refers to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" many notable sources refer to him as antisemitic. Drsmoo (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gilad Atzmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_7&oldid=1079504518"