Jump to content

Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Archive 8

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

proud self- hating Jew

Now that Drmoos has found via the wayback machine a link to this ref name="Panayides", it should be restored. I will so within a day. This is a WP:BLP article and perhaps should be cited in context, i.e.

“My ethical duty is to say the things that I know and feel. I’m an artist. Do you know.. this is something I learned from Otto Weininger, the Austrian philosopher. He was a clever boy, killed himself when he was 21. ..He was definitely a proud self-hating Jew! I’m not a self-hating Jew: I’m a proud self-hating Jew! It’s a big difference… I celebrate my hatred towards everything I represent – or better to say [everything] I’m associated with

Either that, or something like.

Atzmon takes pride in being, like Otto Weininger, a self-hating Jew.

with the full context given in a note.

I haven't had much time to check back through the meme machine much here, but what little I have shows extraordinary distortion, taken out of context. The "Jews persecuted Hitler" claim in particular appears to grossly distort a detailed analogy he made between Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which by the way was opposed by Zionists who thereafter signed the Haavara Agreement with the Nazis. Whatever the merits pro or con, these complex allusions are spun into a smear, at least in Goldberg's account, and therefore 'Dershowitz notes', or Goldberg 'writes' etc. are inproper, and must be rewritten with 'claim/asserts/charges that', with the relevant sources they draw on in Atzmon's blog or writings given in the notes ()without comment). Editors would do well to note also that there appears to be a 'list' of such accusations which these writers mechanically pick their choice quotes from, since the same stuff circulates from journalist to journalist verbally unchanged and in the same order, coming from that Ynet review. Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Restoring the quote now. All "context" will come from reliable sources. Any whitewashing from sympathetic editors is original research and will be removed. Drsmoo (talk)|
Please be aware, Drsmoo, that doing so will violate 1RR,and will likely lead to a block. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me? When did I say it would be done immediately lol. Btw, the edits being made are certainly not good. Ie, the previously mentioned removal of a reliable source without checking and the attempts to obscure reliable secondary sources through original research Drsmoo (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood the word "now" as in "Restoring the quote now" to mean, you know, now. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Given the 1rr rule, feel free to restore the proud self hating Jew quote that was removed, along with the reference. It's strange for an editor to say he'll leave an article in a messed up state for a day. Given that you're aware of the fact that Nishidani removed a reliable source and reliably sourced information against policy, I'm assuming you will restore it. I'm sure you're also aware that linking to Atzmons blog for quotes is against policy as well Drsmoo (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No it is not, the subject of an article's personal blog can be used in that article for his or her own views. nableezy - 18:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh ok. Because Atzmon's blog is filled with anti semitic statements. He says extremely anti semitic things consistently on his blog. Previously the article had a lot of quotes from his blog and then it was claimed the article was non NPOV because of using his blog and all blog links were removed. So if we can use the blog then that would be helpful. Drsmoo (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You're taking this by the wrong end of the broom, Drsmoo. I don't have an opinion about whether Atzmon is anti-Semitic or not. I may eventually form a personal judgement when I get a copy of his books. I only know that every source I have so far controlled that is not an interview skews his views, readily available on his blog, with wild violence to the primary source's statements. Secondly, this is a BLP article, and therefore whatever an editor may think must not influence writing towards NPOV, which means giving full exposure to criticisms, and, where available, access to the author's ipsissima verba or reactions. It's as simple as that.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
So can we use his blog as a source as we please or do we rely on secondary sources? For example, he wrote this two days ago: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/7/1/mammonism-brexit-and-the-rest-of-us " The Labour Party is:

1. dominated by Jewish cosmopolitan ideology; and

2. funded by Jewish oligarchs.

The Jewish Left is pro immigration, pro identitarian politics, pro LGBT and so on. Jews realize that when things turn sour, it is the working class that turns against the Jews. This causes them to feel threatened by a cohesive working class. They prefer the working class to be broken into an endless number of different sectarian and identity groups. Jews would prefer society to be seen as a manifold of tribes and synagogues. That way the Jews are just one tribe amongst many. It is the Jewish Left that taught us that ‘the personal is political.’ These are the same people that trained us to talk ‘as a’: ‘as a black,’ ‘as a Muslim,’ ‘as a gay, ‘as a Jew’ and so on. They have succeeded in dividing us." This is his typical way of writing about Jews, so I'd be happy to include this and any of the hundreds of other anti semitic statements hes made.Drsmoo (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on these things. Someone else can tell you. I am arguing that if a critic reports his words, and that critic's piece is RS, then linking the reader to the source in the blog where it is imputed he held those views is appropriate. Your suggestion is distinct and a potential recipe for OR because he has dozens of pages on what he believes was the way Corbyn was leaned on to drop Jewish friends, or say his helping out on a Deir Yassin memorial fund, out of favour with the grey eminences who run the relevant British Jewry association. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No, selectively quoting from his blog in order to give what you personally feel is "context" is textbook OR. Your statement about Jewish "grey eminences" is creepy and messed up. Drsmoo (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As is your determination to cherry-pick from among his blog posts to highlight out-of-context sentences as part of your jihad to portray Atzmon as the world's leading antisemite. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
No, selectively quoting from his blog in order to give what you personally feel is "context" is textbook OR. Your statement about Jewish "grey eminences" is creepy and messed up. Drsmoo (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Drsmoo. I didn't quote selectively. I found both Goldberg and Dershowitz quoting directly from his blog. I changed the language saying they 'noted' he said to 'claim' he said and gave the links Goldberg provided and the full sentences in which those remarks the two cite are made. It is up to the reader to draw conclusions, if there are any. I don't consider that OR since I drew no conclusions, nor did I synthesize. Take it up on the WP:BLP page or WP:OR page or both if no one can clarify this technically here. What is disconcerting is that you are complaining in effect that I am allowing the reader to see the sources directly, which those two critics are quoting selectively from. I.e. it's fine if we can find sources that twist and distort his words to smear him, but unacceptable if, without editorial intrusion or comment, one simply provides here the links that are in Goldberg et al. Whatever the formal ruling, that is POV pushing to favour a verifiable smear.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect, you decided to do original research in expanding the quotes based on your personal opinion that they're out of context. If you can find a reliable source saying the quote is out of context is altogether different. I haven't felt the need to edit this article recently, but if we're selectively quoting from his blog then there's no reason not to. The idea that his anti-Semitic rant is out of context is hilarious. It's such a cliche far right anti semitic rant. Also Atzmon is far right himself and talks about evil Jewish communism as well. Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Take it to the appropriate board, for you are talking past everyone here.Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually that would be for you. It's already been decided on the talk page not to use a subject's own writings, only secondary sources. And the edits that you claim are out of context are your own original research, they're not reflected in any reliable sources. Even Electronic Intifada describes him as anti semitic. The expanded quotes are every bit as blatantly and unapologetically antisemitic as the ones that conform to wikipolicy. The issue is them being original research/primary sources/effectively making the page unreadable. Drsmoo (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilad Atzmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

More pretextual removalism in contravention of WP:BLP.

Bob you removed with the edit-summary ‘Irrelevant in this section, plus a primary source (and a Holocaust denying fringe source,' an important quote from Atzmon:-

Atzmon has said he does not deny the Holocaust or the "Nazi Judeocide” but insists "that both the Holocaust and World War II should be treated as historical events rather than as religious myth. ... But then, even if we accept the Holocaust as the new Anglo-American liberal-democratic religion, we must allow people to be atheists

The source is:-

Manuel Talens, 'Beauty as a political weapon; Three in one: jazzman, writer and activist – A conversation with Gilad Atzmon", Redress Information & Analysis 14 January 2006

(a)This is an interview with Atzmon, like many others on this page which you haven't removed as 'primary'.

(b) The source is Redress Information & Analysis, which I noted has been charged with hosting Holocaust-deniers. The problem with this is that the interview took place in 2006 and since then an eminently respectable journalist and historian, David Hirst, Beware of Small States: Lebanon, Battleground of the Middle East,, publishing with a major outlet Faber & Faber, 2010 p.459, cites later articles from that very venue by Uri Avnery and Jonathan Cook, neither of whom, like Hirst, would be seen dead let alone alive with anti-Semitic news outlets. Therefore it is not fringe, certainly not for Atzmon's views, which are quotable whatever venue he choses to express them in. If area-expert authors cite Israel-experts who have used Redress Information & Analysis after 2006, then clearly there is no ground in terms of Wikipedia rules of assessing the source for denying its use for the article.

(c) Given the fact (see the following section) that the article, in defiance of WP:BLP, makes a huge WP:Undue effort to stack the evidence against Atzmon, taking out what, on closely reading it from top to bottom, is one of the few illuminating sources for Atzmon's views,like Cross's elision, seems distinctly pointy, apart from being poorly motivated.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You can ask the reliable sources noticeboard if they think redress is a good source, but my main point is the way the quote was used. It was in a section entitled "Reception" and did not relate to the material in the section; it was not apparently a response to any particular reception, so inserting it here constitutes original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
So can you. By all means. I'm not people's workhorse. If you have doubts, go there by all means. The logical thing to do if you, as your edit summary stated, think something is in the wrong section, would jhave been to move it to a more appropriate section. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no effort here his we only reflect what secondary source say about him.Any writing that not printed in secondary WP:RS is WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't be silly (by the way your first sentence is garbled English). Before stepping into an argument, familiarize yourself with it by, for example, reading extensively. The questioned source is available in the original Spanish version, Manuel Talens "La belleza como arma política", Rebelion.org 19 December 2005, originally in the Mexican monthly magazine Memoria (No. 202, December 2005). The interviewer was a noted writer, a major translator, and conducted an interview for a Mexican magazine with Atzmon. It's uttery normal RS Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Jean Bricmont and attempted rearrangement

I removed the comments in the article from Jean Bricmont as it is an introduction, or non third-party promotional material, for the French edition of Atzmon's book The Wandering Who, but this was reverted. More recently, I have tried to rearrange content of this section, so the more mainstream critical material is first and the defence follows from people like Richard Falk, who has himself been accused of antisemitism. But my attempt counts as a revert "in part", and WP:1RR is in force here, so I have self reverted. However, I remain unhappy with this section. Philip Cross (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion yesterday because of your edit summary, "rm non-third party source", which I mistakenly read as "rm third party source" (hence my reply), for which I apologize. Nevertheless, I don't agree that it's promotional material -- it seems explanatory to me. Just as I've used the modern introductions to older books as sources (sometimes for facts, sometimes for opinions, as appropriate), it seems to me that the introduction to a foreign-language edition of a book can be cited for its author's opinion (which is how it is used here). — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Bricmont's comments are WP:FRINGE in defending a book most commonly accepted to be antisemitic. He attempts to defend a book which has no substantial mainstream advocacy. They should be removed, or at least treated as secondary as I suggest above. Philip Cross (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Alan Dershowitz and Jeffrey Goldberg are in my view totally unreliable, vapidly unreadable blurters, but I, for one, leave their rants there because they are public figures. In the serious world of scholarship, no one takes them seriously, surely, as opposed to the 'mainstream'.
What do you mean by fringe? If you means that the source is out of touch with some 'normal' mainstream, then you're in odd territory. Most human ethics come from the fringe: Socrates was fringe according to the court of his peers, the citizens of Athens; idem Christ, idem Spinoza, etc.etc., all put to death or threatened by the same for their iconoclasm, or hatred of group think. Jean Bricmont is a perfectly respectable source. Everybody who does not pay lipservice to an unambiguous line (with us/agin us) gets it in the neck as an anti-Semite, like Richard Falk. Every figure opposing the invasion of Iraq, universally now known to be a massive geopolitical fuck-up, was, at the time, chanted down by the 'mainst(r)eam' press as fringe. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is paid lipservice to by the mainstream, but as the exchange here with Bricmont, Steven Weinberg and many others show, no one's happy with it. When you have a notable public figure, who happens not to be alone in this case, taking a line out of step with 'orthodoxies' ('commonly accepted'), then, precisely because the contrived fiction of the 'mainstream' will hammer away at this as unacceptable (without usually studying the issue), we need careful coverage, and meticulous attention, so that readers who are interested in the topic can get a notion of what is actually being said by whom.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
What Philip Cross means by "fringe" is clearly set out in the link to Wikipedia policy he helpfully included: WP:FRINGE, so maybe read that before editorialising here? Your or Richard Falk's opinions on this or that geopolitical incident are really not relevant to creating an encyclopedic article here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I agree with Philip Cross, but I haven't reverted Nishidani's edit, as I am not sure there is consensus, as per MShabazz comment above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
No it isn't. He'd better cite specifics of that page, and you should too.

To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.

Patently, Bricmont, one of the world's leading physicists, and therefore someone with a highly developed rational faculty, is taking a controversial book, and construing the way he thinks it uses the word 'Jew', and makes an inference from the results of his analysis.
To brandish, as does Cross, the 'fringe' flag against Bricmont, while keeping mum about the rest of the company cited on this page, is odd.
Bricmont, as a physicist, is stepping into an area where Cross challenges his competence to comment. If so, he would be like Alan Dershowitz (a legal scholar, one with a deeply troubling record for accuracy in these matters), and Jeffrey Goldberg, just a journalist, with no known credentials specifically warranting us to take him as an authority on the topic of either anti-Semitism, or Atzmon, but merely half-penitent ex-Kahanist, who, while now deploring the violence of that terrorist group, still is apparently on record as asserting Meir Kahane had 'profound insights'
Neither Dershowitz, nor Goldberg, can be construed as representing a position 'broadly supported by scholarship in its field.' The field in question is 'anti-Semitism' which is vast, and has no mainstream consensus, because competent experts have consistently reached opposing conclusions on how to define it. Secondly, all 3 authors are not scholars of anti-Semitism, but Cross would just 'cross out' the one source which takes the trouble, rather than flinging adjectives at this BLP object of their distaste, to try and tease out textual nuances the 'public' brow-beating commentariat insouciantly ignore.
Lastly, this is a BLP article, and one is obliged to tread very warily, as warily as Cross treads when he reverts any comma or phrasing other editors endeavor to add to the article on Oliver Kamm, where he brooks no interference. Bricmont is one source that, uncombatively, construes the usage employed by Atzmon. I have no opinion myself as to how Atzmon's vast output is to be interpreted, anti-Semitic,self-hating Jew, or otherwise. But any textual source by a reputable thinker which hazards to try and parse and clarify the contentious use of the word 'Jew' in his writings, is not only helpful: it illumines an obscure POV that is all too easily twisted and distorted by his predictable antagonists. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Considering that Atzmon's political viewpoints are often described as misunderstood, I am loathe to remove any material from this article—especially material that was written by somebody other than Atzmon—that discusses what they think he means. In general, I think this article (like many about controversial figures or controversial books) would benefit from more explanation of what the subject wrote and less quotation from people whose profession it is to express faux outrage. We have more than 1,000 words in this article about Atzmon's book The Wandering Who?, but virtually nothing about the book itself. It's all about the name-calling surrounding it and the pissing matches between so-called experts, none of whom have much expertise in (what the publisher describes as) the book's subject matter. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Malik Shabazz The problem his book is not really notable.It is not mentioned or reviewed in scholarly literature(I didn't found anything valuable at least).--Shrike (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
On secound thought the book like any other controversial polemic gained some publicity for example [1]--Shrike (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Empirical analysis of what's going on, removing text re Atzmon, maintaining huge imbalance for his critics.

'Total. 26 people/organizations cited critical of Atzmon 1463 words of text


'Total. 8 people favourable 541 words of text by Atzmon defenders, all notable people.

That is, critics of any description are given ample voice, 3 times what the defenders of his honour are quoted as saying, while editors are chipping away even at Atzmon's right to be quoted in defense of his positions. So, where does this patent WP:Undue bias, using as often as not yawningly boring bloggers, trade unions and every other scraping from the googling barrel, often reduplicated (Bradfford incident) sit with the strict neutrality and fairness imposed on editors obligatorily by WP:BLP?Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Curiously, you link to a hndis page for John Lewis (the journalist does not have a page) and (originally) the wrong person for Andy Newman, who also does not have a page. Criticism of the UK's Socialist Workers Party has been considerable in recent years, justifiably so. Positive comments are mainly restricted to people who have a direct connection with that group. The same applies to Atzmon, as is clear from the the Bricmont passage. (
The number of admissible reliable sources critical of an individual vary. As Wikipedia is intended as a mainstream encyclopedia, the limited number of sources which are positive about fringe figures like Atzmon is not relevant as the neutral point of view is considered less applicable. From the opening summary of WP:FRINGE: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is". Philip Cross (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Errors corrected. You should familiarize yourself WP:Undue and WP:BLP, which are policy and not with personal essays about Wikipedia which are not policy.
Where do you get the idea Atzmon, as opposed to Oliver Kamm, is a fringe figure? Even Andy Newman, whoever he is, acknowledges that he is 'a world renowned jazz musician', and, in Atzmon's reconstruction, it is what jazz does to music that accounts for what he has done to his identity, i.e., riff endlessly on its dissonances. Bob removed the source that tells us that.
I guess, permit the illation, because you appear to be making a simplistic confusion between person (no person is 'fringe'- the premise there is that other people are 'central,' the silent majority, the mainstream, whatever-crap) and movement or ideas, which can be fringe. What you are doing is like calling Isaac Newton a fringe person because 95% of his papers deal with fringe ideas. This page is not about a theory, as your misuse of WP:Fringe implies: it is dealing with a notable musician, a novelist and controversialist.
Several people quoted in the attack section are, in your terms, non-notable fringe bloggers. I don't see this troubling either of you. I see, also, a total failure to understand the implications of the above bias breakdown for a WP:BLP article.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Gilad Atzmon is a fringe figure because he is considered to be an antisemite, and antisemitism is a fringe attitude even if, for some people, it isn't. He has no affiliation to a reputable mainstream publication or publisher either, even if he has an international profile as a musician. The Times newspaper and Prospect, which Oliver Kamm writes for, are recognised as reliable sources for the purposes of this website, and both the journalist and publications, are suitable for citing in multiple articles. Gilad Atmon, and his writings, as a fringe commentator and writer, are only really suitable for citing in this article. Or articles which analysis contemporary antisemitism, since statements like "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act" are not examples of proper scholarship, let alone mainstream opinion. Philip Cross (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
You realize of course that you are explicitly saying, by logical entailment, that Henry Ford, Richard Nixon, Mel Gibson, Roald Dahl, Winston Churchill, Arthur Balfour, Charles Lindbergh, Coco Chanel, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, (sorry, I haven't got time for several hours of this, and dinner is on the table) are fringe figures. You are wasting other editors' time by making silly remarks, whose incoherencies you haven't taken the time to think about. The rest of your reply is just nonsense, as pointed out, and ignored. Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The people you list are better known for reasons other than their antisemitism. In the cases of "America Firster" Charles Lindbergh, Mussolini apologist Ezra Pound and collaborator Coco Chanel especially, you are defending people with reprehensible politics. Philip Cross (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me clarify the (il)logical status of your statement:

Gilad Atzmon is a fringe figure because he is considered to be an antisemite, and antisemitism is a fringe attitude even if, for some people, it isn't

(a) (some) Other people think Atzmon is an anti-Semite.
(b) Antisemitism is a fringe attitude.
(c) Therefore Atzmon is 'fringe'.
You would be flunked at sight the first week in any sophomore course on logic or philosophy if you tried to put that over as coherent, let alone cogent. The premise, note, is a total shambles, because it imputes a truth-value to a subjective opinion held by a range of people concerning someone else and is counter-factual since an equal number of reputable people deny that imputation about the same person.
Do you understand that? Do you see that your major premise is a false universal? ('is considered' etc.)Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"Considered" is the usual Wikipedia disclaimer. If it helps, Atzmon is an antisemite, or the term means nothing at all. Putting it another way, you seem to think the Wikipedia articles on antisemitism should all be deleted because you do not appear to accept the concept is valid. Philip Cross (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPCOI reads:an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.[

Your words above state clearly that you have a personal conviction Atzmon is an anti-Semite, and your editing has consisted in removing crucial material by a respectable third party which defends him from that accusation.Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nishidani, while I understand your point, WP:NPOV does not require us to create a false balance by suggesting that Atzmon's political views have as many supporters as they do detractors. In fact, it says we should not try to even the number of "witnesses" or words for and against, but rather present arguments "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Atzmon's political views may or may not be widely misunderstood, but I don't think there's any question that they're widely denounced, by people from every point along the political spectrum. They're denounced by leftists, centrists, and rightists. They're denounced by Zionists, non-Zionists, and anti-Zionists. They're denounced by supporters of the Palestinians, opponents of the Palestinians, and people who wouldn't know a Palestinian from an Israeli. If there are reliable sources that defend his political views that have been overlooked, by all means add them. Likewise, if some of the sources cited are questionable, question them. But please don't turn this into a numbers game that (a) is contrary to policy and (b) won't improve the coverage of the subject of this article or the article itself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That's something I can listen to. Let me assure you I have no intention by my statistics of arguing for a gutting of the article to create a false balance between the accused, and the plaintiff, though in law, when an accusation is not proven - and in Europe law, many countries are being asked to consider the promotion of anti-Semitic views a felony - WP:NPOV demands that editors tread very warily, and should not, as Cross is doing, assert 'If it helps, Atzmon is an anti-Semite.' Cross is entitled to that view, but trying to influence the article to prejudge the verdict comes close to disqualifying him from editing here, because, read against current proposals, he is saying Atzmon is engaged in what many regard as an indictable form of criminal activity.
I think in this toxic media world one is obliged to take into account the atmosphere of hysteria that is generated, and the 'battle over public opinion' waged there. 94% of terrorist acts in the U.S. are performed by 'whites' yet the polls consistently show that half of the population associate Muslims with the major threat to that country. They do so because press coverage highlights the religion or ethnicity of terrorists in the one case, and downplays it in the other. Reliable sources reflect this bias.

Per WP:BLP,

'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.'

Though the article, like most of this genre, are slapdash coatracks of corralled accusations on a single issue, with zero attention paid to a careful portrait of the figure in question, I haven't removed any of that material, though I think a lot of it just gossip. I take continual exception to anyone who believes individuals can be reduced to, or their identities collapsed into,some group portrait -Jews, Chinese, Americans whoever- and by that criterion Atzmon's remarks can consistently be read as smearing Jews. But at the same time, taken in the overall context of his multiple remarks (I am now reading his blog) I see no evidence whatsoever, so far, that he is what I understand to be an anti-Semite, and I've met a lot. If anything I think, as has been observed (Marc H. Ellis) he is best understood in terms of the Jeremiahs of the OT, and very much working in his homeland rhetorical environment where eminent public figures, even prime ministers can say with impunity, and have their wiki bios umblemished by the fact, that all Arabs are 'hayot teref', lizards, snakes, vermin, pigs, bacteria, cockroaches, moles, ants, lice, subhumans, crocodiles, dogs, etc.etc.etc. That is the discursive world he grew up in, one rarely if every reported except as an ephemeral blip in the 24 hour news cycle, while everything Atzmon says in visceral reaction is minutely scanned for 'prejudice' and constantly repeated. Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Unclear why we're using the author's blog/hate site as a source. Information should be sourced from reliable third-party sources, not hate blogs. We also can't use his own book as a source for information about his life. Drsmoo (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

Please drop the throwaway line about 'hate blog'. You are not supposed to accuse a living person of being a hater here.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
As constructed by you, the biography section is primarily constructed by the author's self description, which is against BLP, and there is certainly plenty of doubt as to his reliability. There is no shortage of reliable, secondary sources referring to Atzmon's writings, both the blog and the book, as hate speech. Drsmoo (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
His book is a reliable source for his own words, how exactly are you claiming it is not? Please read WP:SELFPUB which explicitly allows the use of material written by subject of a biography in that biography. I am reverting your edit as being directly contradicted by the policies of this website. nableezy - 18:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you realize, Drsmoo, that it would follow from your antic assertion, that many wiki bios, like that of Oliver Kamm (29 sources from Kamm out of 33), could not exist? This now makes 3 editors doing little but removing serious matter, when the real work, fixing the numerous dead or inaccurate links, is ignored.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Weren't you banned/censured for personal attacks? You seem unable to stop. Wikipedia is clear that self-published information is only to be used as a supplement. If another article is written inxorrectly then that should be fixed as well, rather than making this one worse. As it stands, your edits have transparently formed a soapbox for the political views of the subject, which is not acceptable. Using a self published source for details about a subject is fine. Using it to soapbox in the subjects POV is not. Drsmoo (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It's significant that you haven't even taken the trouble to examine the book which you would deny editors the right to cite from. It's significant you evidently haven't even read the page you are editing. Atzmon's book was published by Zero books, an imprint of John Hunt Publishing, so it ain't self-published information, and two authors in our article note that it was published by that firm, and not by Atzmon. It is information in an autobiographic forward to the author's theories about Jews and Zionism, and prefatory allusions to one's life in an otherwise critical work of analysis are not 'self-published information' except for people who have difficulty construing the meaning of the words they themselves use. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's a soapbox where you're filling the subject's biography section with quotations from his own book, that you (not a third party) have selectively cherry-picked. The Oliver Kamm example doesn't fill his biography section with quotations, cherry-picked or otherwise. Obviously this is a violation and will be removed. Drsmoo (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Drsmoo, your statement on the usage of "self-published information" is plainly wrong. What the link I asked you to read says is:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook.

Which of those things is violated here? You have made a number of assertions about Wikipedia policy that are plainly incorrect, and that anybody can see are plainly incorrect. Please dont. nableezy - 22:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Drsmoo. Don't repeat threats to remove material from Wikipedia when, despite three requests that you do so, you keep refusing to cite the words from the guidelines that you suggest would validate your otherwise unrecognizable claims about policy. By the way, just as your remark about 'self-published information' defies construal for its semantic obliquity in this context, 'selectively cherrypick' is um. . 'redundantly pleonastic'. By the way, the text says born Tel Aviv. The autobiography has him living in Jerusalem in adolescence.Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The early life section is A. primarily based on Atzmons autobiography and B., more egregiously, being used to cherry pick long quotations and function as a POV soapbox. Both are against policy. Additionally, the section was being used to host information not related to Atzmons early life, ie, information about today, which was removed. Drsmoo (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Could you kindly desist from repeating your claims, while refusing to cite the precise wording of wiki policies you assert, without evidence so far, ostensibly back them. There are no long quotations, but two short one sentence quotes, and note that I edited with attribution to ensure these are read as authorial claims, not as facts. Again, distortion by exaggeration, and worse still, your latest edit is ungrammatical, tautological, illogical, and therefore plainly silly, apart from being trivia. If you write: 'The protest was organized by local Labour councillors was held by the Jewish Community of Berkshire, the head of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and members of Reading's LGBT+ community.' You are telling the reader that the local Labour councillors are identical to the Jewish community of Berkshire, among other things. Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The edit was made from my phone and has now been fixed. If that counts as a revert and puts me over 1rr, feel free to undo it. I don't believe it would be considered a revert. Also considering adding a quote from Mondoweiss about Atzmon's criticisms of "Jewishness". Drsmoo (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
No problem there. There are so many quotations about Atzmon, one can't understand what he thinks. Whenever I see anyone subject to so much vituperation and hostility, my natural instincts are to go very very warily, ignoring tertiary comments to examine what the subject actually appears to state, reading with contextual construal. Any one editing this page does well, whatever their perspective, to listen carefully to Norton Mezvinsky's opening remarks in the video posted here. As would be expected, in his cross-interrogation he makes the same forceful challenges any of us would make, but more incisively. But he prefaces this with what all of us know what happens in these situations: if it is known you are going to talk to Atzmon, you get flooded with emails and telephone calls, threats, even from friends, telling you to back off. Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Drsmoo, you have asserted that something was against policy without basis. What policy, and quote that policy, backs your position that the early life section may not use Atzmon's own words how they are used. I quoted from Wikipedia policy, policy that allows the use of such sources. Can you do the same? If not, your assertions that such and such is against policy are meaningless. nableezy - 16:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeerah etc.

Middle East Online,[1] Aljazeerah.info.[2]

  1. ^ Examples of Gilad Atzmon in Middle East Online: 'Autumn in Shanghai,' 20 October 2009.
  2. ^ Examples of Gilad Atzmon in Aljazeerah.info include Beyond Comparison Archived 4 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine, 12 August 2006; "Planet Chomsky versus Dershowitz's Orbit", 24 May 2010.

This stuff was not included when I relocated this patch to the lead (where mention of his journalism is appropriate). The only function seems to be that he publishes in obscure red-linked sites occasionally. The articles are not used so far in the article. If anyone can find use for them in the article, fine.Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems

(a) This appears to be a deadlink. (b)it's a blog, apparently, and you need something stronger than that for the assertion he supports holocaust denial. Unless such sources can be corrected by workable links, so that editors may assess them, they should be removed.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hope not Hate is a British anti-fascist advocacy group of sound reputation. Blogs are admissible when they are from publications and organisations, as you should know, Philip Cross (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
If you read what I wrote, the link we have doesn't work, and that is the primary problem. Once anyone (wayback machine?) finds a workable link, the status of the blog referred to can be judged for its adequacy. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As you wrote "it's a blog, apparently, and you need something stronger than that for the assertion he supports holocaust denial", I naturally assumed you were going to delete the passage from the introduction, as other sources are not already cited on this very issue. Philip Cross (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The blog of a reputable organisation is not the same "a blog". I know this was archived on Wayback Machine, but Wayback Machine isn't working on my computer right now.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP reads:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

That very much looks like Lowles is unacceptable. He runs this blog on the organization he runs, HOPE not hate. It is doubly self-published. I think he fails to meet our standards. And in any case, I'm sure Dershowitz or a few others can be found to say the same things. All that blog did was sweep up quotes from the internet. He obviously hasn't read Atzmon. He obviously hasn't faced the obvious difficulty: many scholarly figures of note disagree with him, a blogger. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is silly. It is not self-published. It is published by Hope Not Hate. A Financial Times blog, a Reuters blog or a BBC blog is not of the same status as a personal (self-published) blog on Wordpress or Blogger. Lowles is a recognised expert on racism and fascism, publishing a piece on the website of the major anti-fascist/anti-racist organisation in the UK. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not being silly. Address the issue I noted above:-

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

The piece, an attack post on our BLP subject, is a personal blog on a website. The rule above seems clear in its implications. As for Lowles, he's an activist, and no doubt does meritorious work, but such people always work within a political bunfight context, and he himself appears historically to have militated in fringe Marxist groups, and people like Gerry Gable, who have had more than a spot of bother with the law over libels. I only recognize as 'experts of racism and fascism' people who have done the scholarly legwork on either or both, i.e. a couple of thousand scholars who analyse these phenomena and get their work published in quality WP:RS outlets.
This can all seem pettifogging, for what we are disputing is not the content, which can stay, but the source, and source validity is determined by wiki rules, which I have cited and you should address, if you want Lowles kept.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
First, here is the oldest Wayback Machine archive of the post: https://web.archive.org/web/20120111105903/http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1493/gilad-atzmon-supporting-holocaust-deniers-and-spreading-hatr
Second, on the WP policy issue. WP is clear that not all blogs have the same status. WP:NEWSBLOG says "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals." HnH is obviously not a newspaper, but it is an investigative[2][3] and research organisation as much as a campaigning one. It is widely used as a source of specialist information (on fascism and racism) by media professionals.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] What WP:BLOGS cautions against is self-published blogs: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason [i.e. not because it is a "blog"], self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published books are not reliable sources - not because they are books, but because they are self-published. Same with self-published blogs. The HnH blog clearly does not fall into the "Anyone can create a personal web page" category: this is a professional organisation, dedicated to research, which has been funded by the UK government among others.
You make an additional claim that Nick Lowles is an "activist" and therefore partisan and therefore not an expert. This is tendentious, especially given for example Jean Bricmont is an activist as well as a physicist, Oren Ben-Dor is an activist as well as a legal scholar, Norton Mezvinsky is an activist as well as a historian, Marc Ellis is an activist as well as a religious studies academic, etc etc. Unlike them, Lowles is also a specialist researcher in the topic at hand: antisemitism, racism and fascism. If the only legitimate experts are academics, then a huge part of Wikipedia needs to be deleted (for example, any uses of SPLC, ADL, the Simon Weisenthal Centre, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch etc etc etc has to be deleted, which would gut Wikipedia. So, going back to WP:BLOGS, even if Lowles' post was "self-published", it'd have a good chance of being considered a reliable source based on his expertise, which is widely recognised e.g. in the citations from media professionals I've already noted, as well as the fact he is published by reputable newspapers such as the Guardian[12]: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Finally, you try to throw a bit of mud at Lowles by claiming he has "militated in fringe Marxist groups" (is that true? which groups? when? and what does "militated" mean? And haven't e.g. Ellis and Ben-Dor also hung out in fringe left groups) and associating him with Gerry Gable (who was accused but I believe never tried for libel in 1984 when Lowles was a teenager and who has nothing to do with Hope Not Hate anyway), but this is really beneath discussion here it's so irrelevant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That dodges the policy. This is a WP:BLP page where the policy is, as I quoted, not to use blogs and websites by parties critical of the subject of the article. You dodge this by citing an irrelevant policy caution on the policy regarding News sources:. Hope not Hate not a news organ or source but a 'left wing a advocacy group based in the United Kingdom that "campaigns to counter racism and fascism". As as you admit, WP:NEWSBLOG is not pertinent. Lowles may be an expert on the groupuscules of British fascism: there is no evidence he has any historical or conceptual understanding of the topic, and there is no evidence he did 'investigative research' on Atzmon other than by googling quotes. They are unlinked, unsourced, and therefore this is not ‘investigative research’, and the conclusions are generalizations based on ignoring the complete record, which any expert is supposed to address. I.e..

Atzmon targets “Jewishness” in his writings and not just Zionism or Israel. He writes about Jewish traits – as though every Jewish person is the same - in a way that is clearly racist.

Now, if Lowles were a serious scholar of antisemitism and fascism, he would have read Atzmon’s ‘The Wandering Who’, and would have had to measure this simplisticdeclaration against the explicit caution Atzmon makes in that work:

‘It is crucial to mention at this early stage that there will be not a single reference to Jews as ethnicity or race. In my writing, I differentiate between Jewes (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness-ness (the ideology.'

This is a complex character, who in his own idiom, frequently ‘surfs close to the winds’ (comes close to trespassing on ideas that are usually the preserve of antisemites), and is therefore the object of a huge amount of controversialist coverage, and we do not need careless bloggers kibitzing on something that clearly have had no patience to study closely. I’ll take it to the BLP board. It seems pretty clear cut.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
See now at the BLP discussion board here.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to quickly say that the version of the Hope not Hate page you quote was one maliciously edited by this user. It is not a "left-wing" advocacy organisation. It is interesting that you selectively quote "campaigns to counter racism and fascism" and not the next phrase "combine first class research with community organising and grassroots actions to defeat hate groups at elections and to build community resilience against extremism." BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I notice you introduce the topic in a very non-neutral way at the BLP noticeboard, e.g. using a redlink to Lowles and not linking to HnH, and not bothering to include the archived link to the source in question which I provided above. But the policy issue related to BLP is WP:BLPSPS, which is about self-published sources not blogs in general. Your argument is analogous to quoting "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books" as justification for not quoting books. I referred to WP:SELFPUB to get further guidance on what constitutes "self-published". As the blogpost in question is clearly not a self-published source, WP:BLPSPS is not grounds for excluding this quote. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


I've never cited Electronic Intifada on Wikipedia, despite my belief it should be used. But it is rigorously eliminated from every I/P article on sight, by ('pro-Israeli') editors who insist it fails WP:RS. It is therefore curious to note that here, if the matter concerns an attack on someone like Atzmon, a critic of Israel, the same editors don't appear to mind allowing an esception to their rule here. You can't have it both ways. Either one accepts EI or one does not. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The other editors are right, whatever their stance might be. In fact, the Electronic Intifada open letter in 2012 advocates the disavowal of Atzmon because the authors believed he was linking himself to Zionism! Philip Cross (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Isn't EI a legit source for opinions (e.g. disavowals) published in it, whether or not for other stuff? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
In this piece, Ali Abunimah found Atzmon's comments "disturbing" at a conference in Stuttgart, Germany to which Atzmon invited himself in 2010. Nothing I found on the site (the only two substantial pieces are already cited on this talk page) isn't developed on websites with a higher reputation and, apart from inadmissible comments, no defence of Atzmon either. Philip Cross (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
All I ask of editors is that they be coherent in their application of policy. The information itself is important for this article, and must be retained. But, if people are to be coherent, they cannot protest EI when it is cited to attack Israeli policies, and stay mum when it has material attacking a critic of Israeli policies.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Hope Not Hate is a legit and well known anti-racism advocacy group. Don't see any issue with its inclusion. Another additional good source is Jewcy, which describes Atzmon as "widely derided as anti-Semitic" and also criticises Atzmon's embrace of national socialism (which features in his writings but doesn't get brought up much) "No less than four times did Atzmon mention Weinberg by name, interspersed between assertions that he has “no problems with national socialism,” Drsmoo (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Here is the link to the Jewcy article: http://jewcy.com/jewish-social-justice/the-socialism-of-fools BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not particularly worried by its inclusion. The article inevitably will be stacked with hostile comments by ideologically obsessed airheads, even notable ones, who just slash away with names without examining, as do serious thinkers within Judaism (Norton Mezvinsky, or Yaakov Shapiro, for example), exactly what Atzmon is arguing. All I can see is that HNH's spokesmen know nothing of Atzmon, Zionism, Judaism, or Israel. Give me a reader of books and background anyday to loudmouths screaming hysterically from bits and scraps of googled 'stuff' ripped from context.Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't need the reminder. The talk page is for working towards encyclopedic collaboration. The defects of this page were well remarked on by another editor, and my words, more meo, reaffirmed the point.

In general, I think this article (like many about controversial figures or controversial books) would benefit from more explanation of what the subject wrote and less quotation from people whose profession it is to express faux outrage.

So far we have 4 editors removing information, buttressing the attack profile by piling on inane clichés. When time allows I will explainparaphrase from the author and secondary sources, what Atzmon argues in his book. After we have some idea of what he actually thinks, then editors are welcome to backload all the trash they can scour up from the internet meme machines to create the desired hysterical reaction in the reader. To state this, and edit towards correction is not foruming. By the way, Marc Ellis's comment on his interpretation of Atzmon 2011 was incorrectly removed while taking out blurb references. I've watched for four days to see if the NPOV loyalty of editors would restore it before I do. None have. Why? Well, it isn't hysterical. I will add a foruming note: when my readerly nature was noted at school, a teacher mentioned that the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was still in effect. So I looked it up and acquainted myself, taking hints from it, with a remarkable number of thinkers.It's queer for me to observe how this has been resurrected in other quarters.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Reaching consensus is not facilitated by calling the other editors' contributions of a page "inane" and "trash". BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Quite true, Bob. That's why I did not call other editors' contributions 'inane' /'trash'. The adjective and substantive refer to the material introduced. Insouciance to the niceties of reading is one of the problems we have on Wikipedia, and in the larger world of controversy. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In addition to not being a forum, Wikipedia isn't about your personal views of what anyone "really meant". Wikipedia is only based on reliable sources. Your interpretation is irrelevant and inadmissible. Drsmoo (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yawn. Please read WP:Please don't try to teach granny how to suck eggs. What I edit in on Wikipedia consists, invariably, of what the subject or secondary sources paraphrasing that subject's view, say about what she or he means. That means that if I see what I personally view as bullshit sourced to a reliable source, despite believing the reliable source is written by a fool, I leave it in, and, as often as not, revert it back in if it is improperly removed. I'm one of the few editors on this page who hasn't excised stuff on whatever pretext, because they may feel it is unflattering to a personal POV.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In this case, "granny" has repeatedly been topic banned from wikipedia. Don't pretend like you're known for following the rules. "When time allows I will explain from the author and secondary sources, what Atzmon argues in his book". Your "personal views" and "explanations" are completely irrelevant. Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
You should strike that out, since it is a gross misrepresentation, in fact a bold-faced lie I have never been banned from Wikipedia, let alone repeatedly. Your assertion is a maliciously mendacious personal attack, and you would do well to strike it out.
One more thing, about editing with competence. You just edited in from a dubious source.

Atzmon is widely derided as anti-semitic for his conspiratorial views about Jews.

Apart from the questionable source, here you have stated as a fact what is a POV, of a good many writers, amongst them the author of the piece you quote. No editor is entitled to state as a fact what is a point of view. Saying, as you did, that Atzmon has 'conspiratorial views about Jews' is to intrude what I think it might be legitimate to infer is your personal point of view by selective use of sources. For while this has some RS support, the diametrically opposed point of view also has RS support. Atzmon is quite specific that he doesn't believe in Jewish conspiracies.(The Wandering Who, p.76).
Worse still, the source reads:-

his conspiratorial views concerning a shadowy Jewish global cabal,

You have made out the entire Jewish people, down to every last person, are members of this phantomatic 'shadowy Jewish global cabal' belief in which is attributed to Atzmon, who in his book states the opposite on both scores.
Therefore, on Wikipedia your line must be recrafted to read 'for what his critics say are his conspiratorial views about Jews.' So, to quote you back to yourself:' Wikipedia isn't about your personal views of what anyone "really meant".' It is about giving due weight to all relevant points of view without infringing NPOV, not about selective quotation or weasel language that insinuates as a fact what is a theory.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect, the view that he's anti semitic is (technically) an opinion. That he is widely derided as anti semitic is a factual observation by a reliable source. Drsmoo (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
For Chrissake, try and take some time to read what others write and make an effort to construe or spell out their English correctly. I said you are asserting that it is a fact he has conspiratorial views. It is not. To change 'concerning a shadowy Jewish global cabal,' to 'Jews' is a deliberate falsification of the source. Look up cabal. It is a secretive clique or minority and by definition cannot signify an entire people. I heard Ian Paisley rant on about Catholics like anti-Semites rant on about Jews, but if a text said:'concerning a secret Catholic global cabal' I would not construe that as 'concerning Catholics'. I might be entitled to infer that, but his language wouldn't be explicitly saying that, and Wikipedia would not allow me to print that personal inference imputing it even to a cunt like Paisley. Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
We should add the Southern Poverty Law Center as well. There's also a new haaretz opinion column. Drsmoo (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Does there need to be a new section

The new last sentence of the "Allegations of Antisemitism" is not about an allegation of antisemitism, but about what Atzmon said in public about National Socialism. I was thinking it should move to a different section, but wasn't sure where, as "Writings" obviously refers to his writings not his public appearances. Then I noticed the first paragraph of "Writings" doesn't refer to his writings either, but to his identification in relation to Jewishness. I wondered if we need a new section on his politics or his views? Or is that too messy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The whole article is a mess, with material dislocated everywhere. Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's exaggerated. Actually the music sections are fairly good, missing only an outline of the way he is attempting to meld Jewish and Palestinian/Arab musical modes.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Delete the line below as it is out of date:

He tours extensively as part of Sarah Gillespie's band, playing saxophone, clarinet and accordion.[42]

Antonramic (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is out of date, you don't delete the line. You change the tense from present to past.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Philip Cross (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Gilad Atzmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

David Tate article

User:Malik Shabazz has removed my citation to a 2006 article from The Guardian about Atzmon's appearances at a series of Socialist Workers Party events[1] citing WP:RSOPINION. Obviously The Guardian article does not count as a self-published source. Nothing in the article is especially controversial, and is in other sources cited here, so the BLP issue is not applicable, except for the mention of Atzmon's booking at three SWP events from 2004 to 2006. So, apart from my goof in momentarily forgetting multiple cites to the John Lewis, the !RR rule, and not making personal attacks, I don't see what is so objectionable. Using the search function revealed that any issues concerning the David Tate article have not been discussed before. Philip Cross (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tate, David (24 May 2006). "Unite against Facism: let's hope so". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 February 2018.
Please look at the top left corner of the page at The Guardian. It says "Opinion", as in "This is an opinion column, not a news article." Wikipedia does not allow the use of opinion columns as sources for facts, only as sources for the opinions of their authors. For the third time, please read WP:RSOPINION. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisted URL

Running this article through Checklinks revelas a URL that is blacklisted: rainloresworldofmusic.net. I didn't touch it because this article seems to be a battleground for something other than music. But someone needs to delete it.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Minor edit requests

Under "Novels", last sentence of 3rd para, the article "a" should precede "comedic". Login54321 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Nedrutland (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Under "The Wandering Who?", the punctuation separating an inference from a citation by Dershowitz ending with "hellish continuum" should be a comma, not a period. Login54321 (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Nedrutland (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Under "Allegations of antisemitism", the allegation that Atzmon yelled "rauss" is unsubstantiated by the 3 footnotes at the end of the sentence (the 3rd having a dead link). According to Google Translate, "rauss" is not a German word per se, but a German word for "out" is "raus" (one 's'). Login54321 (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Rauss altered to raus; citation sought. Nedrutland (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be the source of "raus" - probably not RS by WP criteria? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think Bob's correct. Not that it would surprise had that been said, but BPL issues demand fair strong sourcing at Jonathan Hoffman's attitude to GA is not quite, um, 'neutral'. That source even smears Richard Falk as anti-Semitic, which is disgraceful. I think one should elide the source, replaced it with a 'cn' note, and if that is not adequately found within a month, remove it.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Under "Responses", the footnote at the end of the 2nd para (about Aaronovitch and Cohen) contains a dead link; it should be https://www.thejc.com/gilad-atzmon-s-discordant-notes-1.8882 . Login54321 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Nedrutland (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Surely "Atzmon has had conflicts with anti-Zionists who have attempted to stop his performances" should read " Atzmon has had conflicts with pro-Zionists who have attempted to stop his performances" or at least " Atzmon has had conflicts with anti-anti-Zionists who have attempted to stop his performances"? Clynerr (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No, not at all. This is not the place to rehearse the arguments, but very many anti-Zionists (Jewish and Palestinian) have indeed opposed Atzmon, characterising him as antisemitic, and supported calls for his meetings and performances to be cancelled or boycotted. See for example this call from the US Palestinian Community Network - and there is much more in a similar vein from noted anti-Zionist activists. RolandR (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing noteworthy criticism

These edits have removed a number of well sourced noteworthy criticisms of Atzmon. I don't want to just revert, but do other editors support this removal? Seems to me the justification for removal, that the criticisms repeat criticisms others have made, is weak; the fact multiple people make similar criticisms shows us that they deserve weight in the article. (Sources lost: [13][14][15][16][17] and Landy, David (2011). Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights: Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel. London: Zed Books. p. 167. ISBN 978-1-84813-926-8..) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. If we do have a repetition of claims, then we should summarize additional critics, however we should certainly mention them.Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
As nobody gave the counterargument, i have now restored. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources

Some additional reliable sources describing Atzmon's going from mere anti-zionism into overt antisemitism.

David Hirsh, Contemporary Left Antisemitism, Routledge, 2018

  • "Atzmon is not satisfied with demonizing Israel. He demands also that anti-zionist Jews cease defining themselves as Jews and only then may be accepted into the human community and the Palestine solidarity movement." (page 238)
  • "In truth, Atzmon is a pioneer of an anti-imperialist, anti-bourgeois, anti-zionist antisemitism which is no longer in any meaningful sense on the left." (page 239)
  • "He is self-conscious and knowing when he plays with antisemitic rhetoric." (page 234)
  • "Atzmon fights for explicitly anti-Jewish politics with the Palestinian solidarity movement, broadly conceived, and in order to win, it is necessary first for him to defeat the anti-zionist Jews and those of their allies who consider themselves to be anti-racist." (page 236)

Nicholas Terry, Holocaust denial in the age of web 2.0: Negationist discourse since the Irving-Lipstadt trial. In Holocaust and Genocide Denial: A Contextual Perspective, Routledge, 2017

https://books.google.com/books?id=VzgkDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=genocide+denial&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihqt73vJPiAhVvxFkKHdhjAeQQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=atzmon&f=false

  • "The attitude of the secular anti-Zionist movement towards Holocaust denial confirms its relative uselessness as a weapon in the struggle to delegitimize the existence of Israel. Although left-wing supporters of Faurisson belonging to La Vieille Taupe were attracted to negationism because of their commitment to anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism, exceedingly few anti-Zionists have subsequently followed suit. It is here, however, where one can find the few equally rare Jewish Holocaust deniers or ‘fellow travellers’, such as Paul Eisen, Israel Shamir, and Gilad Atzmon, many associated with Deir Yassin Remembered. When several deniers were expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Atzmon regrouped with other sympathisers around the website Deliberation, reprinting some negationist materials alongside the standard anti-Zionist fare."

Anthony Julius, Trials of the Diaspora, Oxford University Press, 2010

  • "His incontinent, malicious verbalizing, which has no connection to real thought, is of significance only because he nonetheless continues to be admired in anti-Zionist circles." (page 559)

Also, a source for Atzmon sharing an event at the Holocaust denial group Institute for Historical Review, with Kevin MacDonald and Mark Weber (redirects to entry on IHR) (former editor of the white-supremacist National Vanguard).

http://www.ihr.org/news/oct2016meetingreport.html

McShtum (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

add the link to Gilad Atzmon's website: www.gilad.online Noladgemini (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done The web site is linked in the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed from jazz project

I am removing this article from Wikiproject Jazz because of the inability of editors to keep their politics out of articles. I have no interest in fighting such battles.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: I don't blame you for not wanting to deal with it, frankly I'm in the same boat (although from the lede it appears extracting the topic from the political aspects would be impossible), but why is that a valid reason for removing it from the jazz wikiproject, when the topic seems clearly to fit within the scope of the project? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any restrictions that say I must include this or that article in the project. If you are asking what's the big deal, the big deal is I get emails every day regarding changes to articles. I spend probably my first hour handling these usually trivial but time-consuming matters. Given the number of articles in the project, and that I am nearly doing it alone, I try to spend my time as productively as possible. That means avoiding political-religious battles that have been going on for two thousand years. If there is an article which involves petty bickering (more than usual, I mean), I would like to cut it loose, assuming I am free to do that. If not, let me know, and I will return the project template.
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the "rules" regarding projects. Generally the scope of a project is given, in this case "Improve and standardize existing jazz-related articles." This seems to be a jazz-related article. However, the project also says "WikiProject Jazz is a group of editors" and you're probably feeling like a group of one. . I don't know what the answer to this particular problem is. I certainly won't insist that WP Jazz be retained, with an IAR sensibility in mind. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
What's IAR? Re: Army of Me: Yeah, Eddie's gone AWOL over the Foundation imbroglio, still in wait-and-see mode. He was typically reticent—I have always admired his patience and even temper—but I believe his reasoning was he didn't want to spend a lot of time on a volunteer job (of all things) and then get fired for no reason at all. I don't blame him. I told him, for what it's worth, that getting fired at any time for no reason at all is a normal day in America. People are different. They have different degrees of tolerance, and they have to decide for themselves how much they want to put up with and how they want to spend their time, time being our most valuable commodity.
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You made me laugh re: American workplaces. See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:05, 27

September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks—and I wasn't even trying to be funny! I believe it...
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Losing your job in the USA is not funny, but I found your allegory to be witty, nonetheless. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I support Atzmon being included in WikiProject Jazz, as is supported by RS. Bondegezou (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

To continue... Atzmon is clearly a jazz musician. Vmavanti's reasons for removing this article from WikiProject Jazz make no sense. If s/he doesn't want to receive alerts about changes to this article, then s/he can change what alerts s/he receives. If s/he doesn't want to get involved in the political edits on this page, s/he can ignore them. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

SPLC

Hi user:Hippeus Your edit adding the SPLC quote [18] is sourced to a blog.[19], contrary to WP:BLPSPS. 'Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.' Please can you revert it. Jontel (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a self-published source. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources listing of Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source. Your "blog" argument has been refuted at RSN: [20], [21],[22]. It is written by the staff of the SPLC's Intelligence Report, WP:NEWSBLOG. It is attributed.--Hippeus (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Jontel has made a series of edits which cumulatively remove much of the criticism of Atzmon, particularly from the left, misleadingly creating the impression that it is only Jewish supporters of Israel who oppose him. One recent example has been not merely misleading, but positively deceptive. The article originally stated 'In 2011, David Landy, an Irish academic and former chair of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign wrote that Atzmon's words, "if not actually anti-Semitic, certainly border on it".' At 10.19 this morning, Jontel added a citation needed tag to the assertion that Landy was a former chair of Ireland PSC.[23] At 10.22, s/he amended the sentence to describe Landy as "an Irish-Jewish academic", with an edit summary "Relevant, from Amazon author profile".[24] Jontel did not actually give a url for the source of his statement. I searched, and found the relevant author profile on Amazon. This states "David Landy is an Irish-Jewish academic, active in the Palestine solidarity movement. Formerly chair of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, he is currently based in Lancaster University, where he teaches contemporary social and cultural theory, and race and migration."[25] Thus, the source which Jontel used to add his unnecessary description of Landy as Jewish also contains, within a few words, the information for which three minutes later s/he requested a citation. It stretches the bounds of credibility to believe that Jontel did not see this, and the addition of this tag, questioning the reliability of the statement that Landy was chair of Irish PSC at the same time as adding the statement that Landy is Jewish can only serve to undermine the credibility and validity of Landy's statement. This is an example of, at best, misleading and tendentious editing, which should be avoided particularly on such a contentious article. RolandR (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy for criticism to be included if it is appropriately sourced. On the specific description of David Landy, I think it should be sourced and did not regard an Amazon profile as a particularly good source, which is why I did not add it as a source to the article as per WP:AMAZON. That is why I added the citation needed note. You seem to have accepted that as you have added another source. Adding a citation note should not be inferred as intending to undermine the text but to seek sourcing to support it. In the context of seemingly bitter disputes between Jewish anti-Zionists, I think the fact that Landy is Jewish has some relevance. I do not think that my editing was misleading and am seeking to make the the article less tendentious. Jontel (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
In that case, you should not have added the assertion, derived entirely from the Amazon author profile, that he is Jewish. If a citation was needed for the (easily verifiable) statement that Landy had been chair of Irish PSC, then it was also necessary for the statement that he is Jewish. You cannot have it both ways, and accept this as a source for one assertion while rejecting it for another. And it is not the case that I agreed that this was not a particularly good source; I only became aware of it after I had added a separate source for the Irish PSC statement. RolandR (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree RolandR, much of the information removed was notable, and from reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
And yet you removed, without explanation, the notable information about the opposition to Atzmon expressed by leading Palestinian activists. I request that you self-revert that unjustified exclusion of content. RolandR (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't intend to remove anything. I think I may have inadvertently performed a revert. Will undo the damage now. Drsmoo (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with RolandR, here huge violations of Wikipedia guidelines happened.Tritomex (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Me four. Article has been whitewashed to extreme.--Hippeus (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The huge number of edits (about 250!) include some useful rigorous cleaning of the text, but also a cleansing of criticism and skewing of the presentation of the criticism. This version, as as edited RolandR at 21:57, 27 April 2020, seems to be the best one to use for comparing the new version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been trying to make the article less tendentious. I am conscious of WP:BLP, particularly 'Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.' It seemed to me that the material I amended or removed typically had issues of concern, and my reasons are set out in my edit summaries. Jontel (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I have undone many of Jontel's recent additions and redactions per consensus above.--Hippeus (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

John Lewis

I can't find the edit summary, but this quote While music journalist John Lewis has praised much of Atzmon's work, he notes that "trenchant politics often sit uneasily alongside music, particularly when that music is instrumental". In a 2009 profile in The Guardian, Lewis criticized his 2006 comedy klezmer project, Artie Fishel and the Promised Band, as "a clumsy satire on what he regards as the artificial nature of Jewish identity politics."[1] While Lewis described Atzmon as "one of London's finest saxophonists", he observed that: "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."[1] has been trimmed of criticism, to: Music journalist John Lewis has praised much of Atzmon's work and described Atzmon as "one of London's finest saxophonists".[1] Here is the original source: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/mar/06/gilad-atzmon-israel-jazz-interview#history-byline%20%22Manic%20beat%20preacher Any views? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur that this should be reverted. Bondegezou (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
So, that is in the section Jazz reviews and awards. Discussion of how widely read his essays were seemed out of place. And, given that he has issued 16 albums, a critical comment on a single comedy project seemed overly detailed, given that only one of the albums had a review included. Jontel (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
We cannot entirely separate Atzmon the musician and Atzmon the activist. Reliable sources talk about them together, so we have to too. Thus, I think it is appropriate for the fuller quotation to stand within the Jazz reviews section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

How Atzmon describes his (non-)Jewishness

I am a bit concerned about this edit which deletes three reliably sourced statements from a decade's span of instances, with one 2011 interview by Silvia Cattori (an apparently non-notable person whose publishing output is largely in fringe right-wing websites like Voltaire Network and GlobalResearch) in Countercurrents.org, which at first glance appears to have dubious reliability. Any thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I have removed Cattori from Countercurrents.org and reinstated the previous paragraph.--Hippeus (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Lewis was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

USPCN letter

The stable version of this article said: A group of leading Palestinian activists issued a statement in March 2012 calling for "the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people". Describing him as a racist and antisemite, the statement affirmed that "we regard any attempt to link and adopt antisemitic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism." Signatories to the statement included Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Nadia Hijab, Joseph Massad and several others.[1][2][3][4][5] I can't find the edit justifications, but Jontel stripped away the sources, attributed it to one, and (presumably based on original research) identified the signatories, described as Palestinian by all of the sources, as "US-based": According to The Electronic Intifada, a group of mainly US-based Palestinian activists, including Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Nadia Hijab and Joseph Massad, called in March 2012 for "the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people" and affirming that "we regard any attempt to link and adopt antisemitic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism."[6] Because I didn't check the old version, I edited this a couple of days ago to: A group of Palestinian activists, including Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Nadia Hijab and Joseph Massad, issued a statement, originally published by the US Palestinian Community Network, in March 2012 calling for "the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people" and affirming that "we regard any attempt to link and adopt antisemitic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism."[1][7][8][9] In can't fund all of the edit summaries explaining why, but Jontel has since unilaterally edited back to this version: {{According to The Electronic Intifada, a group of mainly US-based Palestinian activists, including Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Nadia Hijab and Joseph Massad, called in March 2012 for "the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people" and affirming that "we regard any attempt to link and adopt antisemitic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism."[10]}} Electronic Intifada citations need attribution, because RSN/PS says There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed. But I don't understand why Electronic Intifada is the only source Jontel tolerates for this. When there are multiple sources, we don't need attribution. Also "A group of mainly US-based activists" is not justified by the sources, which universally use phrases like "leading Palestinian activists". BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The EI listed the signatories and often their organisations, so one can see that a large proportion are US based. I had to check a few. I think that it is more useful to say that, or at least mainly Western based, than leave the natural but incorrect impression on readers that it is Palestinian activists from Palestine. While not all the signatories give institutions, 13 out of 22 are clearly Western based from the list in the article, so that does not require original research. Of the sources, two were the same EI article, one came from the USPCN website, one is not available and one was the JTA, who did not use the full text, and did not add anything. So, the EI seemed the best source. I am unsure why multiple sources are required. The original JTA reference might be the best secondary one.Jontel (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC) And, which of the sources say 'leading'? I hadn't actually noticed your edit. I added the attribution at one point. Jontel (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Also, the JTA article just said they saw it on the EI website, so that is hardly independent confirmation. Similarly Hope not Hate and 972 reference EI. Jontel (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Multiple sources mean that attribution is unnecessary, plus if it were simply EI it wouldn't be clear it was noteworthy. In the case of this particular disagreement, the multiple sources also give us a sense of how the authors should be described. You noticing they are US based or checking if they are or counting how many are "Western-based" (your term) is by definition original research isn't it? iNews describes them as "leading Palestinian activists", JTA as "A group of Palestinian activists", [ Hope not Hate] "Palestinian activists", Jewish Currents "prominent Palestinian authors". Yes, JTA, HnH and 972+ all reference EI, but that is because EI (along with the USPC) is a primary source. I agree JTA is the best single secondary source, but I see no reason not to include more than one to be safe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added Jewish Currents as a source as it is an independent source i.e. they did not appear to have sourced it from EI. Consequently, I have removed the attribution. The word 'Western' has been removed by another editor. Jontel (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Palestinian writers, activists disavow racism, anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon". Electronic Intifada. Retrieved 13 March 2012.
  2. ^ "Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon". US Palestinian Community Network. Retrieved 13 March 2012.
  3. ^ "Palestinian activists disavow Israeli musician Atzmon". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 14 March 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  4. ^ "Palestinian writers, activists disavow racism, anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon". Electronic Intifada. 13 March 2012. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  5. ^ "Palestinian writers disavow Gilad Atzmon". Maan News Agency. 14 March 2012. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  6. ^ "Palestinian writers, activists disavow racism, anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon". Electronic Intifada. 13 March 2012. Retrieved 25 March 2012.
  7. ^ "Gilad Atzmon heads to Reading – HOPE not hate". HOPE not hate. 2017-10-20. Retrieved 2020-04-30.
  8. ^ Goldstein, Alyssa (2012-03-18). "Gilad Atzmon and the Problem of Jerks in your Movement". Jewish Currents. Retrieved 2020-04-30.
  9. ^ "Palestinian activists disavow former Israeli Jew for anti-Semitism". +972 Magazine. 2012-03-14. Retrieved 2020-04-30.
  10. ^ "Palestinian writers, activists disavow racism, anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon". Electronic Intifada. 13 March 2012. Retrieved 25 March 2012.

Antisemitism

Jontel just changed "Atzmon's publications have been widely criticized as antisemitic" to "Certain of Atzmon's publications have been criticized as antisemitic". I think this underplays the issue. I don't think the criticism is pinned at all on the publications, but on Atzmon itself. for instance Hope not Hate says Atzmon is "an antisemite who has promoted the works of Holocaust deniers",[26] it does not refer to any particular criticism. I don't think we should underplay the extent to which Atzmon has been repudiated: multiple anti-racist organizations, multiple experts. Atzmon has even been rejected by anti-Zionist groups. I think widely is an apt summary, but if not, we can simply list all of the many who have repudiated.--Hippeus (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That first point is mostly right: his The Wandering Who? was criticised but so have been certain of his verbal comments and actions. On the second point, one can be more specific without listing them all. So, a revision which might address your concerns might be: 'Atzmon has been criticed as antisemitic by a number of commentators and anti-racism organizations.' Jontel (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Writing "a number" downplays the situation here. The condemnation here is nearly universal.--Hippeus (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
That is untrue. The article quotes a number of people defending him. Moreover, most of those attacking him are from a narrow field of his ideological opponents. Jontel (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Well of course the criticism and attacks come from ideological opponents. You could equally say "most of those defending him are from a narrow field of his ideological supporters". What is notable about Atzmon is in fact the broad range of his opponents, from diehard supporters of Israel and Zionism to longsatnding Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists. That is why removing most references to the anti-Zionist opposition to Atzmon distorts the article. It also means that the article fails to reflect one major reason for his notability - the fact that a soi-disant proponent of Palestinian rights has alienated so many Palestinians and anti-Zionists. RolandR (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Theree was nothing wrong with what was there a couple of days before i.e. 'His criticisms of Zionism, Jewish identity, and Judaism, and views on Holocaust denial and Jewish history, have led to allegations of antisemitism.' Jontel (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to agree with RolandR that "most of those attacking him are from a narrow field of his ideological opponents" is misleading, as the range of his critics - from Trotskyists and leading Palestinians via the most well-known anti-racist organisations in Europe and North America through the mainstream Jewish community to the Zionist right. The article, to follow the guidelines in WP:DUE should reflect this range. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I support the "widely criticized" wording. The weight of sources and cases justifies it. Bondegezou (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
So, the policies here are WP:SUBSTANTIATE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If you wish to use the opinion 'widely', you can list the range of critics in the body of the article as substantiation for the claim, or reference a reliable source where this has been said. Jontel (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources stating the contrary, while reliable scholarship describes Atzmon in terms of antisemitism and Holocaust denial.--Hippeus (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A related issue: what do people think of the organisation of the "Antisemitism" section into "Timeline", "Anti-racism organizations", "Scholarship" and "Responses"? I think it would be much better to organise it chronologically. I think this for three reasons. First, because Atzmon's views have changed over time (and people who defended him early on criticised him as his views evolved). Second, because it is is confusing and invites repetition - there are academics cited in the "Timeline" and "Responses" section as well as the "Scholarship" section, and there are details on attempts to no platform him mixed into the "Responses" section. Third, because it makes it very bitty. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I support using a chronological perspective. Atzmon's views have evolved and we need to cover that. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree for the reasons stated. Jontel (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Terry text

In this edit, User:Hippeus appears to have added a misleading paraphrase of the source.

The source says this: "It is here, however, where one can find the few equally rare Jewish Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers' such as Paul Eisen, Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon, many associated with Deir Yassin Remembered. When several deniers were expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Atzmon regrouped with other sympathisers around the website Deliberation..."

The paraphrase he added was this: 'Nicolas Terry characterizes Atzmon, along with Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir, as one of the very few Jewish Holocaust deniers who were associated with deir Yassin Remembered. Terry notes that after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign expelled several Holocaust deniers, Atzmon rallied other sympathisers around the Deliberation website.'

The source is vague. However, you will see that Hippeus omits the two qualifications: that Atzmon may be a 'fellow traveller" and that he may not be among the 'many' associated with Deir Yassin Remembered. You will also see that Hippeus changes Atzmon's role from participating: 'regrouped with’ other sympathisers, to the central role of 'rallied’ other sympathisers.

I did revise this apparent distortion. My version said: 'In 2019, Nicolas Terry characterized Atzmon as one of the very few Jewish Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'. Terry notes that, after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign expelled several Holocaust deniers, Atzmon rallied with other sympathisers around the Deliberation website.'

However, this revision was reversed by Hippeus.

So, what do people think? Should we try to be accurate? Jontel (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree Terry is a bit ambiguous. What would be helpful would be for this not to be in a "scholarship" section so that it could be used alongside other sources to describe this incident fully and in historical context, as it was a turning point in Atzmon's relationship to mainstream Palestine Solidarity on the one hand and Holocaust revisionism on the other. The Telegraph says "A Telegraph investigation shows DYR [Deir Yassin Remembered] was riddled with prominent Holocaust deniers that included its founder Paul Eisen as well as...Gilad Atzmon, a notorious Holocaust revisionist; and Francis Clarke-Lowe... [Eisen's Holocaustrelated] claims prompted a number of DYR directors to withdraw from the group. In 2007, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) cut its links with DYR over its anti-Semitism". However, my view is that in 2007/8 Atzmon was a supporter of Eisen (who was a Holocaust denier) but not yet a Holocaust denier himself, and therefore fits better in Terry's "fellow traveller" category. Also, Terry's chapter was 2017 and we need to say who he is. So I would say something like: In 2017,University of Exeter Holocaust historian Nicolas Terry characterized Atzmon as having been one of the very few Jewish Holocaust deniers or "fellow travellers", along with Paul Eisen of the group Deir Yassin Remembered and Israel Shamir. Terry notes that, after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign expelled several Holocaust deniers, Atzmon rallied with other sympathisers around the Deliberation website.(ref to Terry) This expulsion took place in 2007.(ref to Telegraph) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree your text reflects the source better than what we have and can see the benefit of putting the sources in one section to portray developments more clearly. Jontel (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
There is two things we could do to improve your text, in my view. One is to avoid potential guilt by association. Here, Terry mentions Eisen and Shamir without asserting any actual connection with Atzmon. So, for this biography, their names could be omitted. Secondly, the Telegraph article describes Atzmon as a 'notorious Holocaust revisionist' without any elaboration. It would be better to omit such prejudicial labelling where it is asserted without evidence, even in the sources. Jontel (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Atzmon is mentioned in the same breath as Eisen by multiple sources as evidenced by a cursory search. They both belong to the same organizations, and Atzmon has been involved in promoting Eisen:

JPost (2006): "an article by Paul Eisen, entitled "The Holocaust Wars" which Atzmon described as "a very important text." The article is a defense of the neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who says that there was no Nazi plan to exterminate European Jewry and no gas chambers."[27]

The Telegraph (2017): " DYR was riddled with prominent Holocaust deniers that included its founder Paul Eisen as well as Gill Kaffash, a former Labour councillor, who knew Corbyn for many years; Gilad Atzmon, a notorious Holocaust revisionist; and Francis Clarke-Lowe, who was chairman of a pro-Palestinian group of which Mr Corbyn is patron.".[28]

Times of Israel (2018): "Holocaust denier Paul Eisen, right, speaks with Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon, who the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center both call anti-Semitic." (image caption on photo of joint Eisen and Atzmon video)[29]

No guilt by association here, sources tie them together.--Hippeus (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In a WP:BLP, associations reflecting upon the subject's reputation should be specific and evidenced. I hope that is uncontroversial. This has to be more than belonging to the same organisation, or speaking to each other, or being mentioned in the same sentence by someone. If Atzmon defended or circulated Eisen's work, as is asserted, that would be a meaningful association. We really need, though, a source quoting someone who was there at the time, or a persuasively valid quote from Atzmon himself. A lot of the articles give the impression of just quoting other likeminded articles, without having any actual knowledge. Jontel (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Of course Atzmon has defended Eisen and circulated his work. I was trying to show examples from his own website, but cannot do so because it is blacklisted by Wikipedia. But he has shared several articles by Eisen, including one attacking BDS and another charmingly titled "A Very Kosher Dishonesty" (which he describes as a "must read"). In various articles of his own, he comments "My worst crime, it seems, is supporting ‘Holocaust denial’ by sharing Paul Eisen’s The Holocaust Wars with my email list back in 2005"; "If there is one Jew I fully admire, it must be Paul Eisen"; "Back in the day, Paul Eisen taught me the iron rule of Jewish politics". These and many others are on his website, if you can face looking through it. RolandR (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I get the guilt by association argument, but the issue is that Eisen and DYR were central to these events, and it was Atzmon's defence of Eisen that helped make him contentious within PSC. When Terry says "several deniers were expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign", it is DYR he is referring to. Shamir is less relevant, so I'd tend towards including Eisen's name but not Shamir's. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Goldberg text

Another example of a misleading addition.

In this [edit], User:Hippeus quotes Goldberg as writing that Atzmon wrote ‘that Hitler was persecuted by Jews, and that Jews traffic in body parts.‘ When you go to the article, you find that Atzmon was writing about the boycott promoted by American Jews of Nazi Germany and about Israeli organ trafficking. By putting things in very general terms, Hippeus gives a misleading picture to the casual reader.

Hippeus also repeats obvious distortions by Goldberg. So, Goldberg says that BDS activists have repudiated Atzmon. But, using the link in the Goldberg article, one sees that Goldberg bases this claim on one small far left group in the UK.

Similarly, Goldberg says that Atzmon called for renewed scholarship into the veracity of long rejected medieval blood libels. In fact, in the link from the article, Atzmon recounts an episode in his childhood where he asked his teacher for evidence for what he was taught, a very different matter.

I think the easiest thing would be simply to delete the Goldberg material, as it is highly misleading.

Is character assassination, based on routine distortion, justified in this case, even though it is supposed to by an encyclopaedia? If Atzmon is open to justified criticsm, why is so much distortion required to condemn him?

What do people think? Jontel (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Goldberg is a respected and prominent writer, now editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, so his views are relevant. Also, there is a difference between "AA called BB a toe-rag" and "BB is a toe-rag" citing AA as reference. No doubt the paragraph could be improved but its inclusion is reasonable. Nedrutland (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Goldberg accurately quotes Atzmon as writing "Jewish texts tend to glaze over the fact that Hitler's March 28 1933, ordering a boycott against Jewish stores and goods, was an escalation in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership" and "Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the blood-thirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ trafficking seem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum". And he could have found many more essays in which Atzmon makes similar comments. So Goldberg's summary, and that of Hippeus, seem perfectly correct to me. Regarding BDS, our own article, and the source that Goldberg quotes, both note that Atzmon has been repudiated by, among others, Ali Abunimah and Omar Barghouti, both acknowledged leaders of the international BDS movement.RolandR (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Jeffrey Goldberg is a rather highly regarded journalist, and The Atlantic is a very mainstream publication. As such, this clearly belongs in the article as per wp:rs. The more credible sources (as opposed to clearly partisan sites and publications) used as references the better. Winchester2313 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Atlantic is a great source, and this is attributed. Jontel appears to think Jontel's analysis of Atzmon's statements stands to scrutiny. I merely re-instated content that was present in the article prior to Jontel's massive redactions and that is supported directly by the Atlantic, and I quote:

1. "Atzmon also believes that the Jews persecuted Hitler: [Atzmon quote]

2. "He [Atzmon] has also suggested that Jews specialize in the trafficking of body parts: [Atzmon quote]"

3."In this new book, Atzmon suggests, among other things, that scholars should reopen the question of medieval blood libels leveled against Jews-- accusations that Jews used the blood of Christian children to make matzo, and which provoked countless massacres of Jews in many different countries."

Jontel's assessment of Atzmon can not replace reliable reporting on Atzmon.--Hippeus (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Libel case

Jontel removed a sentence about Atzmon appealling for help with the costs of the libel case with the summary "Trivial and vindictive". I did not see the sentence as trivial and, as it was adequately sourced, restored it with a minor edit. (I am uncertain what was meant by 'vindictive'.) Nedrutland (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, it is a serious matter to Atzmon to have legal costs he cannot pay but, in a biography of him, it does not seem to me to say anything in particular or add to the existing coverage of the legal case. Is it not schadenfreude? If not, what is the purpose of including it? It is not the case that everything that can be sourced should be included. WP:BLPGOSSIP Jontel (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
It added an indication of the size of the award and costs that was lacking before. I consider it of greater relevance to the notabilty of Atzmon than the mention of his current residence and number of offspring that has been recently added. Nedrutland (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
It is a poor indication as the £40,000 is just part of the damages and costs, as the source but not the addition to the article makes clear. I have now clarified that in the article. I do not think there was an award. It was an agreed 'out of court' settlement, not one determined by the judge, even though judicial proceeding had commenced. That is why there is no public figure for the costs and damages. If anything, quoting a partial figure is misleading. If the court case contributed significantly to Atzmon's notability, it would have been covered outside the Jewish press. Residence and number of children is extremely common in biographical articles, even though they rarely relate to notability. Jontel (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The BLPGOSSIP arguement is out of place as Atzmon himself has made very public pleas for funds. This has been covered in depth in media and is obviously relevant.--Hippeus (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

unscrambling the Nicholas Terry quote

The quote from Nicholas Terry has been overcompressed to the point of being inaccurate. The full paragraph from Terry makes four main points.

  • There are "exceedingly few" Holocaust deniers on the anti-Zionist left, which generally rejects Holocaust denial
  • Jewish "Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'" are "equally rare", but the few who do exist are to be found on the anti-Zionist left
  • A group of these "Jewish Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'" including Atzmon, Eisen, and "Shamir" congregated about DYR
  • This group, when rejected by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, regrouped at a [now long defunct] negationist website called deLiberation.info

Somehow in the present version the "very few" designation of points one and two floated off and then attached itself erroneously to point three. I'd propose the following summary instead if it is to be so compressed:

Nicholas Terry writes that, while he finds "Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'" are very rare in the Palestinian rights movement, and are similarly rare in the Jewish community, he regards Gilad Atzmon as an example of both. Terry includes Atzmon among a small group, including Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir, who affiliated with the organization "Deir Yassin Remembered" but were rejected by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.<cite ...>

ParaScopus (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not know what happened and am not challenging anyone's account. However, Terry does not connect the dots very well. I agree he says:

  • There are "exceedingly few" Holocaust deniers on the anti-Zionist left
  • Jewish "Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'" are "equally rare"
  • The few Jewish "Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'" who do exist are to be found on the anti-Zionist left
  • Eisen, Shamir and Atzmon are examples of the few Jewish "Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'" on the anti-Zionist left

He then says:

  • Many of the few Jewish "Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'" on the anti-Zionist left are associated with DYR
  • The PSC expelled several deniers
  • Atzmon regrouped with other sympathisers around Deliberation.

He thus implies but does not assert the involvement of the three named individuals in DYR or the expulsions. We need other sources in support really. Jontel (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It should not be difficult to find sources for Eisen, since he was a founder and the UK Director, of DYR. It may be more difficult to find a reliable source for the other two, though I believe that Shamir was previously listed as a DYR Board member on their site. This may not count for much, since I am aware (from personal conversations) of people listed as Board members who had no connection with DYR, and who were unsuccessful in pleas to be removed from the list.
I would be cautious about describing Atzmon as being on the anti-Zionist left, since he has repeatedly argued that the terms "left" and "right" have no significance and should be abandoned. This is indeed one of the themes of his book Being in Time, in which he argues for a synthesis of elements of left and right politics and thought. RolandR (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Although I agree that Atzmon has by now abandoned the left in favor of the alt-right (Ron Unz, Institute for Historical Review, etc.), this particular assessment comes from Nicholas Terry discussing the time around the 2012 PSC AGM which among other things memorably repudiated Holocaust denial and expelled the denier Francis Clark-Lowes:

The attitude of the secular anti-Zionist movement towards Holocaust denial confirms its relative uselessness as a weapon in the struggle to delegitimize the existence of Israel. Although left-wing supporters of Faurisson belonging to La Vieille Taupe were attracted to negationism because of their commitment to anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism, exceedingly few anti-Zionists have subsequently followed suit. It is here, however, where one can find the few equally rare Jewish Holocaust deniers or ‘fellow travellers’, such as Paul Eisen, Israel Shamir, and Gilad Atzmon, many associated with Deir Yassin Remembered. When several deniers were expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Atzmon regrouped with other sympathisers around the website Deliberation, reprinting some negationist materials alongside the standard anti-Zionist fare.

So Terry, an academic scholar of the Holocaust denial movement, clearly and directly places Gilad Atzmon into the category of "Jewish Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers'" and then demonstrates that Atzmon does not shun such company. CIting this, among other virtues, substantiates the lede. The matter of whether or not Terry is *also* in the same passage calling Atzmon a member of DYR is I think a minor sidelight in comparison. Atzmon's association with DYR, like Eisen's, can be easily established with reliable sources, as can DYR's being known as a Holocaust denial organisation, but I don't think its nearly the main sting of Terry's argument and therefore I don't think resolving the point is a searing necessity.
If paraphrases are deemed too contentious, and Terry's style obviously does not lend itself to accurate soundbiting, I'd happily suggest the entry simply uses two sentences verbatim, with minimal editorial smoothing, and let whoever wants the whole context follow the link. Something like ...
Nicholas Terry, in a study of Holocaust denial after Irving v Penguin Books, writes:

It is here [in the secular anti-Zionist movement], however, where one can find the few equally rare Jewish Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers', such as Paul Eisen, Israel Shamir, and Gilad Atzmon, many associated with Deir Yassin Remembered. When several deniers were expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Atzmon regrouped with other sympathisers around the website Deliberation, reprinting some negationist materials alongside the standard anti-Zionist fare.<cite ...>

ParaScopus (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
On consideration, these two verbatim sentences would be better, given that both DYR and deLiberation.info are really ancillary points, and this version doesn't leave hanging any threads about them or what "equally few" means. This is my recommendation.
Nicholas Terry, in a study of Holocaust denial after Irving v Penguin Books, writes:

Although left-wing supporters of Faurisson belonging to La Vieille Taupe were attracted to negationism because of their commitment to anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism, exceedingly few anti-Zionists have subsequently followed suit. It is here, however, where one can find the few equally rare Jewish Holocaust deniers or 'fellow travellers', such as Paul Eisen, Israel Shamir, and Gilad Atzmon, many associated with Deir Yassin Remembered.<cite ...>

ParaScopus (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that is more accurate and helpful than the quote we currently have and support its inclusion. Jontel (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_8&oldid=1147112209"