Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Jews Against Zionism

Is there a consensus on this removal of mention of JaZ, edit summary "Demo by small group not significant"? While the group are probably not significant in relation to UK politics in general, they feel to me significant in relation to the subject of this article, as that's really where the controversy about his views and his relation to the left/Palestine Solidarity Campaign started. If it is mentioned in reliable sources, it is presumably noteworthy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to expand. Yes, it is a very small group, which does not even have a Wikipedia article and is little reported (apologies to anyone involved). According to WP:BALANCE 'the views of small minorities should not be included at all.' Secondly, it is only a demo outside a bookshop. There must be thousands of such protests every day around the world: only the biggest or most significant historically are covered in Wikipedia. So, it would be WP:UNDUE to include it. On your point, it is not the case that everything that is reported should be added to Wikipedia. If the group's viewpoint has significant support, there should be better examples from more significant people in more significant sources than a US academic round up.WP:PROPORTION Jontel (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Small group, perhpas, but covered in a global report on antisemitism. Being repuidated by anti-Zionists is signficant, particularly since Atzmon was active in similar small groups. Of obvious relevance.--Hippeus (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There are not thousands of protests around the world about Atzmon though are there? Nobody is saying they are noteworthy in an article about anything else. They are mentioned in conjunction with Atzmon in a fair few sources, e.g. an academic book by Philip Mendes,[2] Dave Rich's non-academic book based on his doctoral research,[3] New Statesman,[4][5] CounterPunch,[6] a book and a semi-academic review article by David Landy,[7][8] as well as various left periodicals such as What Next journal, Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières, Weekly Worker[9][10][11] (Note: I am not saying we should cite these sources here, just showing some evidence of why the group might be noteworthy.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Jews who are against Zionism are a minority; for Atzmon to be protested against by an organisation representing that minority (among which he might be included) is significant.

I have a very clear conflict of interest with respect this proposed edit, so will not make it. I would point out, though, that although Jews Against Zionism was a small group, and the demonstration received very limited mainstream coverage, it had a much more significant impact on the parts of the British left involved in this issue, and was arguably a factor in an important part of this left later making a major political reversion. Although my own recollections are not themselves a reliable source, they could help explain and contextualise some of the contentious political issues involved here. If it is of any use, I could - without polemicising - outline in the Talk page what was at stake. RolandR (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:RolandR. I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Jontel (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The background is that, in the early 2000s, anti-Zionist Jews had initially tried to work with Atzmon. However, we soon recognised that his views were actually far from ours, and tended to ascribe personal responsibility to all Jews for the actions of Israel – a position that some of us considered to be both antisemitic and Zionist at the same time. Some of us had been reading and writing on these issues for decades, and were well aware of the subtle nuances at play, which were missed by others who took what we considered to be a more superficial view. For a while, Atzmon was welcomed and lionised by parts of the left in Britain; notably by the SWP, at that time a significant and influential group on the far left.

Atzmon’s views became more explicitly antisemitic, but the SWP continued to host him at events, including their annual Marxism event. At the time, I had many arguments about this with friends in the SWP, though at the time I did not know (since they do not permit public dissension from their line) that some party members were also criticising their links with him.

This came to a head in 2005, when the SWP invited Atzmon to address a meeting at their central London bookshop Bookmarks on “The Deconstruction of the Zionist Identity”. Initially, several of us wrote privately to the bookshop and the party, arguing that it was inappropriate for a Marxist group to provide a platform for such an ideologically suspect polemicist. When this proved ineffective, we reluctantly decided to mount a public protest. At the time, we counted more people attending the protest than the meeting itself, at which Atzmon lauded the writings of Otto Weininger, described by Hitler as “the one decent Jew”.

Although the demonstration was not reported in the mainstream press (and nor was the event itself), it was discussed widely on the British left. It contributed significantly to raising awareness on the left of Atzmon’s problematic views. It also embarrassed the SWP, and although never acknowledged it was undoubtedly part of the process which led to the party eventually dissociating itself from Atzmon and his views.

As I freely acknowledge above, these are my own recollections as a central participant in the events. They are clearly not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, but may help illustrate why this small demonstration was sufficiently notable to be worth including in the article. RolandR (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Roland. Very helpful. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

On a related note; Atzmon is currently placed in the category of Anti-Zionism; would not Category:Anti-Zionist Jews be more appropriate? (He has described himself at various times as a "proud self-hating Jew", "a Jew who hates Judaism", as well as "not a Jew anymore".) Nedrutland (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would not make that category change, precisely as he has repudiated the identification "Jew". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. Atzmon has repeatedly made it clear that he no longer regards himself as a Jew. He has expressed particular venom against those who identify as "anti-Zionist Jews", who he describes disparagingly as "Third Category Jews". For us to include him in this category would be an egregious breach of the BLP rules. RolandR (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Atzmon in other WP articles

Editors here might be interested in debates about inclusion of Atzmon in other WP articles: James Petras (talk), Socialist Workers Party (UK) (talk), and Antisemitic canard (talk). BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bobfrombrockley. I have commented on the first two. Input from more editors would be useful, I'm sure. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of link to subject website

Wikipedia's editing policies WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:REVEXP. User:Hippeus has twice removed the link to the subject's website ([12][13]), without providing a meaningful edit summary, despite me in the interval providing clear policies and reasons why the link should be included, as it always has been. 'WP:ELYES ‘articles …should link to subject's official site’. and WP:ELOFFICIAL ‘Official links (allows readers) to see what the subject says about itself’. (Exception: reason to believe copyright violation) I added that this was especially relevant where article: is a WP:BLP; contains severe and extensive criticism, subject is the target of censorship attempts and subject alleges a smear campaign: all applicable here. Link was always in article until recently.'[14] What are the Wikipedia policies on which your removal of this link is based and what is the evidence that the website is in breach of them? Jontel (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Can Jontel source his claim that Atzmon is the "target of censorship attempts and subject alleges a smear campaign"? I am certain consensus at an article can exclude a link to a site, even if official, that has problematic content. Given the content on Atzmon's site, I favour excluding it. What do other editors think? --Hippeus (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In answer to Hippeus' questions to me, the attempts to stop Atzmon performing and his allegation of a smear campaign are in the article and are sourced. Obvious questions for Hippeus arising from his response, to enable editors to respond, are: In what way is the content problematic? Can he demonstrate this? What is the basis for his certainty that links to such material can be excluded? Jontel (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jontel, a link to his official website has been in place consistently since 2008 and there's no valid reason to remove it now - re:WP:ELOFFICIAL. It's not for us to decide to exclude something because we personally find the content "problematic". --DSQ (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like Wikipedia to not link to racist websites, but I don't think there is any policy against doing so when it is the official website of a BLP subject. We seem to link to official websites of other Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists, as you can see if you look at the other articles in the relevant categories at the bottom of the article, so I have to agree with DSQ. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As this discussion has been open for nearly a week and contributions have paused, it seems an appropriate time to close it WP:CLOSE. Expressed opinions for retaining the link note conformity with Wikipedia policies WP:ELYES and WP:OFFICIAL, the practice for other articles and the article’s own practice since shortly after its creation, despite concern over the website’s content. Consequently, I will reinstate it. Jontel (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral edits, Irving as an "historical author"

Jontel's edits were rejected at Tendentious editing in archive 8, but it appears we are back here again discussing the same material. I reverted Jontel, as the edit:

1. Used a letter to the editor, by Atzmon, as a source in our article. See WP:MANDY.
2. Entered irrelevant background information, framed tendentiously.
3. Obfuscated the signficance of David Irving by presenting him as an "historical author", while the cited source describes Irving as "notorious Holocaust denier David Irving".

I suggest Jontel post here his edit suggestions and achieves consensus first, Jontel's framing in the leadoff of Irving as a "historical author", in the face of sourcing, is troubling.--Hippeus (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that much of the material in this article has been tendentiously edited in the past or by User:Hippeus, even in relation to sources which themselves are tendentious and based on little evidence. Consequently, the picture presented in almost every case is a distortion. Wikipedia takes a dim view of an WP:ATTACK article "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject". That is why I have been trying to improve the article, in the face of bulk reversions by Hippeus, who generally fails to justify them except in partial or general terms, in defiance of WP:SUMMARYNO ‘Avoid vagueness’ (in edit summaries) and WP:REVEXP ‘Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion’. In response to the numbered points:

1. WP:MANDY refers to a well evidenced claim, not an oral phrase ripped out of context and reported by we know not who to a campaigning organisation who have seized on it in their campaign against the institution. All the media have done is to report the claim, they have not checked it. According to WP:BLPBALANCE, ‘Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.’ It seems entirely appropriate that the subject's account of what he said is included, given the extremely thin evidence that he said it and the hostile source from whence it came.

2. Including relevant context is important in enabling understanding: Hippeus' approach of excluding all context wherever possible is one of the reasons the material is misleading. Hippeus does not say what context is referred to but that I have sought to add is relevant.

3. Hippeus is incorrect in saying I obfuscated the significance of David Irving and mispresents my edit. After my edit, the article read: 'historical author and Holocaust denier David Irving'. This does not seem outlandish given that his article records that he has written over twenty non-fiction books on historical subjects. Consequently, a demand by Hippeus that this be sourced is trivial.

I suggest that I be allowed to seek to continue to bring the article closer to Wikipedia's standards through edits. Putting everything through the Talk page in the first instance would be very cumbersome. This is not Hippeus' article WP:OWNERSHIP. While anyone can of course challenge any edit at any time, rejection of almost any improvement with little justification cannot be sustained. I suggest that Hippeus instead of mass reverting changes en bloc reverts only those changes for which there is a valid objection and includes the rationale in the edit summary. That is the recommended process for collaborative working and demonstrates good faith, as well as following Wikipedia policies. An alternative is for him to raise well-founded objections to specific changes on the talk page. Jontel (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If Atzmon's views or replies are not covered by reliable secondary sources, they should not be on this page in accordance to WP:WEIGHT. As for Jontel's astounding assertion that his description of David Irving as an "historical author" was correct and trivial to source, Jontel should produce secondary sources describing Irving in this manner when covering Atzmon. The source in the article uses "notorious Holocaust denier David Irving". Irving has been thoroughly rejected by the history community.--Hippeus (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELFPUB allows subjects to self-publish. In the specific circumstances of a small event where there is presumably one anonymous account of what he said, even if that claim is then reported widely, WP:WEIGHT hardly applies. On Irving, I was just seeking to replicate his article introduction "David John Cawdell Irving (born 24 March 1938) is an English author and Holocaust denier[1] who has written on the military and political history of World War II, with a focus on Nazi Germany." Obviously, there are sources within the article for that. The article seems happy with the phrase "historical author": "The description of Irving as a historian, rather than a historical author, is controversial, with some publications since the libel trial continuing to refer to him as a "historian"[148] or "disgraced historian",[149] while others insist he is not a historian, and have adopted alternatives such as "author"[150] or "historic writer".[151]". I think you are thinking of the word historian, which I did not use. Jontel (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

pinging participants of prior discussion on very similar edits back in May, @RolandR: @Drsmoo:, @Tritomex:, @BobFromBrockley:, @Bondegezou:, @Winchester2313:, @Nedrutland:. Hippeus (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a bit cumbersome to to through edits on Talk first, but sometimes that cumbersomeness is a necessary price to achieve good material. Given some rancour in the above comments, this seems like a situation in which it is a worthwhile cumbersomeness. Ergo, I suggest it would be useful to bring more disputed edits here. I also think it helps to discuss specific proposed text here: here's version A, here's version B, then people can be clear about what is being proposed, and indeed suggest compromise wordings that didn't occur to the editors in dispute. I assume and believe all editors are acting in good faith, so let's get to the details, because I'm not clear from the above quite what the alternate possible wordings are. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: this is the disputed edit, some of which is material that was discussed in the last discussion in May 2020 and some is new. I am particularly concerned with Jontel presenting Irving as an "historical author and Holocaust denier" while the cited source writes "notorious Holocaust denier David Irving". In accordance with Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Independent sources and WP:WEIGHT I also think we should avoid self-published material by Atzmon as he is described by scholars, anti-racism organisations, and the media as an antisemitic Holocaust denier. In cases which Atzmon's assertions are not covered by independent, reliable, secondary sources then I don't think we should amplify them on Wikipedia. Hippeus (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

These policies are specifically in relation to discussion of fringe theories, not in regard to what he says about his own life. We need to use these policies with care to avoid impinging on WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSPS. Jontel (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Atzmon, per reputable sources, promotes fringe theories such as Holocaust denial. Therefore, FRINGE policies are relevant. Aztmon's self-published writings fail BLPBALANCE as they aren't secondary reliable sources. BLPSPS allows very limited use of self-published sources by the subject, it does not advise such use and does not override WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore some of the content fails the prohibitions in BLPSPS, namely 1- "unduly self-serving", 2- "claims about third parties", 4- "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (reliable sources report otherwise, general issues with Atzmon's other claims). 5- "the article is not based primarily on such sources" may also be an issue.--Hippeus (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems as if you are trying to lay down general rules for the article, based on certain perceptions of Atzmon. I am afraid that would not be correct. I do not see a basis for basing the applicability of Wikipedia policies on the assertions of his ideological opponents. These policies are designed in relation to considering discrete elements and should certainly be taken into account in reference to specific material, when we come to discuss them. So, the policy on fringe theories will be relevant to material directly asserting fringe theories and the policy on authenticity if there are specific reasons to doubt that something is true. On 'unduly selfserving' and 'claims about third parties', we can look at that on a case by case basis. On 'primarily', I am sure that most of the article comes from secondary sources after the edits I proposed. Jontel (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No, this is based on reliable sources descriptions of Atzmon. Wikipedia follows reputable sources. --Hippeus (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This thread of the discussion is getting rather vague for me. I think we're doing better considering specific text as below. Bondegezou (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

SOAS report

What about...

In December 2004, Atzmon was alleged to have said in a talk with university students that "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". Atzmon responded that the quote was "inaccurate and taken out of context. [...] I claimed that since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people', and bearing in mind the atrocities committed by the Jewish state against the Palestinians, any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right."

I think both versions have unnecessary detail (why does it particularly matter that this was at SOAS?). WP:BALANCE means it is appropriate for Atzmon's response to be included as well (and the newspaper making the original claim chose to publish the response, so I think it counts as more than self-publishing). I'm not certain how much of Atzmon's response to quote: it could be trimmed down. Bondegezou (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally support, I agree the venue matters little, this is about Atzmon. I concede your point that the Guardian chose to print Atzmon's letter back in 2005, however this denial is ignored by all later sources, including: book in 2010, JC in 2019, or The Guardian itself in 2018. Since Atzmon's letter is ignored by subsequent sources, I think it should be excluded on Wikipedia as well.--Hippeus (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a limit to an argument that those sources didn't cover something so we shouldn't either. Those sources didn't say lots of things that are in this article. Those articles were written for other purposes to this article and under different editorial guidelines. We need to follow WP:BALANCE/WP:BLPBALANCE. We can do that by following what The Guardian did at the time: make the initial report and publish Atzmon's response. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We mention Falk and the LSE later on, so it is consistent to mention SOAS here. We could omit all of these details, which are not strictly required, or include them. While we can leave out the BoD campaign, I think we should include the source with the context. Instead of a quote about atrocities, we could paraphrase, which Wikipedia prefers WP:IMPARTIAL e.g. 'Atzmon responded that he had been suggesting that anti-Jewish activity in Israel could be seen as politically motivated rather than driven by prejudice, not that it was justified.' Regarding the comprehensiveness of later reports, these are highly summarised or hostile so would not try to present a balanced picture. Jontel (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Here, the SOAS case, Atzmon gave a talk and said some stuff. With the Falk/LSE case, it's a bit more complicated: someone else was giving a talk, this was disrupted, Atzmon said some stuff to people around him. Thus, it seems to me that you need a bit more context in the latter case, whereas the former is covered by "a talk with university students". But I've no particular objection to adding "at SOAS" here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

So, just to summarise so far, we might be at (note correction to event date, based on source, and more detailed source): 'In April 2005, Atzmon was alleged to have said in a talk with SOAS university students that "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". Atzmon responded that he had been suggesting that anti-Jewish activity in Israel could be seen as politically motivated rather than driven by prejudice, not that it was justified. Jontel (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this allegation is made by an effectively anonymous student, and used by a pro-Israel campaign group as part of its campaign for SOAS to enable more appearances by pro-Israel speakers. This is not a reliable basis for a serious allegation against a living individual. The relevant policy is: ‘Be wary of relying on sources…that attribute material to anonymous sources.’ WP:BLPGOSSIP The later references are all from strongly pro-Israel sources and so are highly antagonistic to militant anti-Zionists such as Atzmon, as well as doing no more than repeating the bare allegation. There is a strong case for not including the allegation at all. If the allegation is included, including Atzmon's clear rebuttal is important due to the weakness of the source, as well as WP:BLPBALANCE. Jontel (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Jontel wording there looks sensible to me. It is right to be wary of sources who cite anonymous sources, but I think the proposed wording is careful enough ("is alleged to have said") and Guardian etc are good enough sources. Also agree balance gives a case for the response, which was published not self-published. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As this discussion has been open for a week and no further changes have been proposed to the latest iterations for a little while and some agreement expressed, it seems an appropriate time to close it WP:CLOSE. I will add the latest iterations on the Talk page for the three events to the article. Editors are of course entitled to propose further changes. Jontel (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Hippeus has edited in the article what I thought was the consensus version of the SOAS statement, so I feel we need to look at it again. I have looked at it again and, while I try to be conciliatory if I can, I now take a dimmer view of it. Let us be clear about the facts. According to the Guardian report, which is sourced in the article, the Board of Deputies collated a number of allegations by Jewish students, including the words of Atzmon. Two of the other sources in the article, Jerusalem Post and a book, referenced the Guardian article, while the fourth source, the Times of Israel, in a report 13 years after the event, referenced an article in its sister paper, Jewish News, which may well have done the same: I cannot find that article. Wikipedia says that challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest should be treated as exceptional. WP:EXCEPTIONAL The claim about what he said has been challenged by Atzmon, who called it “inaccurate and taken out of context”. I do not think his account of what he said contradicts or overrides that challenge. The student allegation is supported purely by a self-published source i.e. the student’s or students’ own report or, at best, the Board of Deputies if they sought to verify it, which still makes it self-published. There is an apparent conflict of interest: the Board and probably the student(s) are pro-Israel and so are politically opposed to Atzmon. All three requirements for it to be considered exceptional are therefore met. Wikipedia says that exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources. We have one source and that is not a high-quality one for all of the reasons stated. If yet another consideration is required, Wikipedia says ‘Be wary of relying on sources that … attribute material to anonymous sources.’ as this does. WP:BLPGOSSIP It does seem to me that this material is not verified.

Wikipedia says ‘Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.’ WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. I consider that this material is poorly sourced, is contentious and is derogatory and propose that it be removed. I invite everyone’s views on this. Jontel (talk)

Jontel's original research aside, what we actually have is four different reliable sources (The Guardian in 2005, JPost in 2006, Time of Israel in 2018, and an academic book from 2010) reporting this. Not only isn't this self-published, this is grade A sourcing. Furthermore, Atzmon's own response which Jontel sought to include, [15], makes a very similar point: "I claimed that since... any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation". Following Jontel's challenge of this as exceptional, I did more digging and came up with 2018 Guardian reporting and 2019 JN reporting on a very similar 2003 piece of wring by Atzmon in which Atzmon writes: "I am not saying that synagogues aren’t being attacked, that Jewish graves are not brutally smashed up. I am saying that these acts, that are in no way legitimate, should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or ‘irrational’ hate crimes.". So no, this is not exceptional. --Hippeus (talk) 10:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not regard these arguments as having any merit whatsoever. Regarding original research, all I have done is look at the sources in the article. I am not sure what is wrong with that. Regarding the Grade A sources, as I have said above, four sources reporting a self-published claim does not affect its status as a self-published claim. The sources do not support the claim. ‘The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.’ WP:UNSOURCED Regarding Atzmon’s letter, while this naturally covers the same ground as the alleged quote, it draws the opposite conclusion. Whereas the quote could be taken as formally being ambivalent on the question of burning down a synagogue, while veering towards supporting a ‘rational act’, the letter makes clear that he did not justify violence against Jews or their interests and that such violence was not justified. Regarding the exceptional nature of the claim, it did not have to meet all the possible criteria advanced, just one, which I set out. Hippeus asserts Atzmon has said something similar before. That is insufficient to challenge its status as exceptional and does not justify including unverified material. In any case, the second quote does not support the first. In this second quote, Atzmon says that such actions are “in no way legitimate”. Again, that is the opposite of the sense of the alleged quote. Jontel (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

LSE report

Here, the differences between edits are small. I think the original version was mostly fine. What about...

At a talk by Richard A. Falk at LSE in March 2017, which was being disrupted by pro-Israel activists, Atzmon was alleged to have commented that Jews had been "expelled from Germany for misbehaving" and also to have suggested that people should read David Irving, a Holocaust denier.

This calls Irving a Holocaust denier, as he is, but it puts his name first, as that's the most factual bit (Atzmon recommends Irving) before we get to the explanation of why this is notable (Irving is a Holocaust denier). There's a link to Irving should people want more details. Bondegezou (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Support, this is sensible and re-ordering so that Irving prefixes Holocaust denial is sensible. --Hippeus (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem with calling Irving a Holocaust denier in this context is that it associates that characteristic with Atzmon's recommendation that people read him, which could be taken to imply that this was the reason Atzmon recommended him, when the immediate context of the remarks was not reported, even if overheard. The term does not come from the reported event. Such adjacency is a known source of bias. It would be better to allow readers to form their own conclusions about the significance of Atzmon's recommendation from the context of the section heading or by following the link to Irving's article. We do not need to use the source to define Irving when he has a Wikipedia article. Thus we could omit both the Holocaust denier and historical author descriptors. Jontel (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's why I suggested this word ordering. Atzmon recommended Irving, but we don't know the immediate context, as you put it, Jontel. Thus, I suggest text saying "Atzmon [...] suggested that people should read David Irving". However, we need to explain to the reader why this matters, why this is being reported or being noted here. We can neither expect the reader to know about Irving or to have to follow a link before they can understand the basics. Thus I suggest following that with the next clause ", a Holocaust denier".

If you are concerned this is insufficient, we could split that into two sentences: "Atzmon [...] suggested that people should read David Irving. Irving is a Holocaust denier." Or maybe "Atzmon [...] suggested that people should read David Irving. The latter drew criticism when this was subsequently reported because Irving is a Holocaust denier." Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that addresses the issue, with the last formulation being best, I think. Thank you. Jontel (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So, I think we have or are very close to consensus for...

At a talk by Richard A. Falk at LSE in March 2017, which was being disrupted by pro-Israel activists, Atzmon was alleged to have commented that Jews had been "expelled from Germany for misbehaving" and also to have suggested that people should read David Irving. The latter drew criticism when this was subsequently reported because Irving is a Holocaust denier. Bondegezou (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I prefer "Irving is a Holocaust denier." or "...read David Irving, a Holocaust denier.". This follows more closely the language in reliable sources. Irving is primarily known as a Holocaust denier, and this is true since the 80s or something like that. When Atzmon made these comments, Irving's status was crustal clear. The proposed phrasing may imply that Irving's Holocaust denial was only subsequently reported, which is not the case here. --Hippeus (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the suggested wording ("The latter drew criticism when this was subsequently reported because Irving is a Holocaust denier.") can be interpreted to imply that Irving's Holocaust denial was only subsequently reported. That would be garbling the logic of the sentence.

Would dropping "subsequently" help? Bondegezou (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps: "Subsequent reporting criticised Atzmon's recommendation of Irving as he is a Holocaust denier." ? --Hippeus (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, or what about "Reporting criticised Atzmon's recommendation as Irving is a Holocaust denier."? Bondegezou (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Jewish News (the only reference) actually criticised Atzmon; they just reported it. Perhaps replace second sentence with 'A media report (or Jewish News) noted that Irving was (or is) a Holocaust denier.' Jontel (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for these late changes: We should also ideally include the phrase 'the works of' in the first sentence as these are in the source. Jontel (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Other sources are available [16], [17]. It would be more accurate to say that LSE was itself criticized by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who recommended Jewish students avoid studying at the university, due to antisemitic hate speech by Atzmon and others at the meeting. --Hippeus (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all elements of that response are untrue. It would not be more accurate: firstly, because my version was entirely accurate; secondly, because it was not the Board, but its president, and, thirdly, because Arkush only referenced the presence of Falk, not Atzmon or antisemitic hate speech by anyone at all. Jontel (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Relevant quotes from the three articles: Jonathan Arkush tweeted: “As @LSEnews thinks it ok to have people like Richard Falk to speak, I strongly advise Jewish students to study elsewhere.”/ Mr Arkush said that the LSE was “the only university willing to give hospitality to this notorious antisemite [Mr Falk]” / Following the event, Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush told Jewish students not to study at the London School of Economics because the prestigious university hosted professor Falk. Jontel (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This feels as if we've stumbled into an unnecessary overcomplication. How can we succinctly explain to the reader why recommending Irving is something being discussed in a section titled "Allegations of antisemitism"? If I was explaining events, I would say, "This is problematic because Irving is a notorious Holocaust denier." Now, Wikipedia can't speak like that, but can we have a short phrase that gets the same point across, without getting into the weeds of who criticised LSE over what? Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were nearly there. How about 'At a talk by Richard Falk at LSE in March 2017, which was being disrupted by pro-Israel activists, Atzmon was alleged to have commented that Jews had been "expelled from Germany for misbehaving" and also to have suggested that people should read the works of David Irving. Jewish News noted in its report that Irving is a notorious Holocaust denier.' Jontel (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that works. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the earlier consensus version worked better (or, better still, Bondegezou's original proposed version) as it was far cleaner. There are other sources than Jewish News, e.g. Jewish Chronicle[18] so no reason to single out JN as if that publication is unusual in seeing Irving as a Holocaust denier. It is surely uncontroversial that recommending Irving is noteworthy precisely because Irving is known as a Holocaust denier; it doesn't matter why Atzmon was recommending Irving so we don't need to create torturous subclauses or an extra sentence. I also don't see why the disruption is relevant, unless it was reported he was heckling the disruptors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree about making it clean. On your second point, it cannot be a coincidence that Atzmon commented informally on Jews being expelled from Germany for misbehaving while pro-Israel activists were being expelled from the meeting for misbehaving. One obviously led to the other and we can easily make that context clearer. We should avoid introducing a motive for Atzmon's recommendation of Irving's works but need not reference the media, which is causing complications, in mentioning Irving's reputation. How about something like 'At a talk by Richard A. Falk at LSE in March 2017, Atzmon was alleged to have commented that Jews had been "expelled from Germany for misbehaving" after pro-Israel protestors had been removed, and to have recommended the works of David Irving, whose Holocaust denial views are widely known.' Jontel (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Where in the sources are you getting the chronology ("after pro-Israel protestors had been removed")? I'm not clear of the relevance of the disruption exactly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We can avoid the chronology. Atzmon is talking about Jews being expelled from Germany for misbehaviour because Jews were being expelled for misbehaviour in front of his nose, so the point of including the latter is to explain partly why he said the former. It was presumably a joke, albeit one in poor taste and including a controversial point. This practice of quoting snippets of overheard conversation out of context is not an ideal basis for an encyclopaedic biographical entry, so we should at least include what context there is. So, to avoid chronology and make the point clearer: 'At a talk by Richard A. Falk at LSE in March 2017 at which pro-Israel protestors were expelled for disruption, Atzmon was alleged to have commented that Jews had been "expelled from Germany for misbehaving", and to have recommended the works of David Irving, whose Holocaust denial views are widely known.' Jontel (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC) We could call the pro-Israel protestors 'Jewish pro-Israel protestors' if that would make it clearer, as they were named in the article and their Jewishness can be referenced.Jontel (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant coupled with Jontel's personal assertions ("joke" or "misbehaviour" by Jews in meeting). Besides being heard by many people, Atzmon himself confirmed this, and stands behind the statement: "Atzmon later confirmed to Jewish News he “indeed” recommended Irving’s work “to anyone who is interested in history rather than the Holocaust religion”. He added that Jews have been expelled from many countries, saying: “Jews are always expelled for a reason. This isn’t to say I support expulsion or any measure against Jews or anyone else.”".--Hippeus (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we losing focus a bit here? My latest proposed iteration of the edit has the same sense and almost the same words as the current version: from 'At a talk by Richard A. Falk at LSE in March 2017, which was being disrupted by pro-Israel activists, Atzmon was alleged to have commented that Jews had been "expelled from Germany for misbehaving" and also to have suggested that people should read Holocaust denier David Irving.' to 'At a talk by Richard Falk at LSE in March 2017 at which pro-Israel protestors were expelled for disruption, Atzmon was alleged to have commented that Jews had been "expelled from Germany for misbehaving", and to have recommended the works of David Irving, whose Holocaust denial views are widely known.' If we can accept and implement that change, then editors can then go on to propose other changes if they wish. 16:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to the change, which is indeed close to the current version which also seems satisfactory to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Islington ban

I don't see that Atzmon's rebuttal adds much here and it's selective to quote that bit of his response. However, Jontel's phrase "races and religions" sticks closer to the source than the alternate "religious communities", so I'd go with...

In 2018, Islington Council banned Atzmon from performing at the Islington Assembly Hall, as the council feared Atzmon's appearance could harm relationships between different races and religions.

How would that be for others? Bondegezou (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Support, including wording tweak. --Hippeus (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

There are some specific points. I hope we can agree that Wikipedia should be accurate. Also, it is better to use fuller, local sources than summarised ones from a distance. Similarly, it is better to use the words of the journalist to whom the reference is attributed, than to the necessarily highly summarised headlines and subheadings, written by a sub-editor. Banned has the connotation of a legal decision as its article suggests. This was the council deciding what to do in its own property, not some borough wide prohibition, so we should make that clear. Stopped or barred is more appropriate (stopped was the word used by the journalist) and council-owned is relevant as it was the basis of the council's authority to stop the performance. Both the article and the Islington Council statement commence with a reference to a complaint being made, the latter referring to the Jewish community. This is relevant in explaining how the decision arose and pointing to the efforts being made to stop him performing. It is significant to those interested in his musical career and that of The Blockheads that it was a Blockheads performance that he was stopped from performing in. I agree that his comment is not necessary to understanding the event and could be dropped. Jontel (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I agree "stopped" better than "banned", and I agree with adding "council-owned". I presumed the reader would understand that Islington Council owns Islington Assembly Hall, but that's presuming too much local knowledge.

I don't think that this arose from a complaint is needed. That's more detail than is necessary here. The council made a decision: it doesn't matter how the issue came to their attention.

This section is about Atzmon and anti-Semitism. The act he was to play with doesn't seem that pertinent. Other sections, about his music, describe his history with The Blockheads.

So that would produce...

In 2018, Islington Council stopped Atzmon from performing at the council-owned Islington Assembly Hall, as the council feared Atzmon's appearance could harm relationships between different races and religions.

How's that, all? Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I misssed your suggestion. OK, if we can include the more detailed local source as well/ instead. In 2018, Islington Council stopped Atzmon from performing at the council-owned Islington Assembly Hall, as the council feared Atzmon's appearance could harm relationships between different races and religions. Jontel (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy with the additional source. This looks good to me. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I support that wording and additional source too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

References

"Jews control the world"

Hippeus notes in the article Atzmon's statement that "We must begin to take the accusation that Zionists are trying to control the world very seriously". In fact, this statement, which appears on Atzmon's website, is a subsequently edited version of his original comment. In the article as originally published in 2003, and preserved in the Internet Archive, what Atzmon wrote was "we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy".[19] I find it hard to see this as a statement about Israeli politics; it is clearly an accusation against "the Jewish people", and particularly against American Jews. RolandR (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to imply a possible link between the strong representation of pro-Israel Jews in American political administrations and US government support for Israel. Jontel (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@RolandR: after searching for sources with the original quote, of which there are quite a few, as well as finding a source stating it was amended, I added the original to the article.--Hippeus (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, Atzmon goes on in the same essay to write "I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus... Why is it that the Jews who repeatedly demand that the Christian world should apologise for its involvement in previous persecutions, have never thought that it is about time that they apologised for killing Jesus?" Surely this is the quintessential antisemitic canard? RolandR (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

While I do not disagree, and sources such as Sunshine make the point that Atzmon is one of those involved in the "recycling of traditional antisemitic conspiracy theories", I would prefer to see a source stating this directly. Hirsh does give this quote as an example of "openly anti-Jewish rehtoric".

References

Proposed removal of article from the Anti-Judaism category

Background No rationale was provided for the article’s inclusion in the Anti-Judaism category when it was added.[20] or on the occasions when my removal of it was reverted. I do not see a discussion of the question in the Talk page archive.

Policies ‘Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial.’ WP:CATVER This categorization is controversial because of Atzmon’s avoidance of hostility to Judaism as a religion and absence of competing religious belief.

‘It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.’ WP:CATVER I do not see verifiable information in the article supporting the categorisation.

Argument The Anti-Judaism category is defined as the "total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior."… adding ‘… the concept of Judaism has been challenged over the past two thousand years by scholars of both Christianity and Islam.’

Atzmon is not opposed to Judaism as a religion: “In my work, I also refrain from criticizing Judaism, the religion…. and “Those who follow Judaism…(are) a harmless and innocent group of people…. Judaism as a world religion can be vindicated by suggesting that Jewish nationalist messianism is merely an interpretation. Also, “I am sympathetic towards religious Jews as much as I am sympathetic towards religious groups or religious belief in general.”

He does not adopt competing religious beliefs and practices: ‘“It was a regular secular childhood," he says’

I appreciate that some definitions of Judaism may include secular political or cultural views or behaviours criticised by Atzmon; however, I suggest we have to follow the category’s definition regarding the question of whether to include an article in it.

If anyone disagrees with the article’s removal from the category, please say why. Thanks. Jontel (talk)

References

Ignoring original research into Atzmon's writing above, scholarly analysis concludes that Atzmon is anti-Jewish, and opposed to Judiasm itself:

Gilad Atzmon, himself born an Israeli Jew, has made a career out of denouncing Judaism itself as the problem with Zionism. One open letter opposing him describes his ideology as making “no meaningful distinction to be made between Jews in general and Israeli atrocities. According to Atzmon, the latter are simply a manifestation of Jews’ historic relationship to gentiles, an authentic expression of an essentially racist, immoral, and anti-human ‘Jewish ideology.’ ..."

This article has this category since 2011, and it is hard to find reputable indepenendent sources on Atzmon that exclude this.--Hippeus (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Atzmon's own words can be a legitimate source, as per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Moreover, there is also an interview. Your sources comprise a pro-Israel campaigner and an effectively self-published non-academic and neither them nor you discuss the distinction Atzmon and the category make between Judaism as a religion and Jewish nationalism. Longevity on the article is not a Wikipedia policy, as far as I am aware. Sources on Atzmon seem to lack indepth analysis and be hostile, so that this is absent from them is not for me good evidence that the distinction does not exist for Atzmon. I do not find your arguments sufficient. Jontel (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This labeling of reputable sources as "Jewish", "Israeli", or "hostile" is tendentious. Atzmon's own words fail WP:BLPSELFPUB criteria 1, 2 & 4, besides having zero WP:WEIGHT in the face of multiple reputable sources. Dr. David Hirsh is an academic expert on the subject published by Taylor & Francis. Dr. Spencer Sunshine is an academic expert with a specific expertise on far-right movements, and has been published by the Journal of Social Justice which is a peer-reviewed academic journal.--Hippeus (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Atzmon, his words do not fail the criteria. it is not self-serving to assert one's philosophical position; he is talking about his own position, not third parties, and; there is no reasonable doubt that these are his words and his views. Regarding your sources, they are tendentious: both are campaigners against Atzmon's views. Your description of them as academic experts and reputable is highly arguable. Regarding what they say, Hirsh does not mention Judaism and Sunshine's reference to some anonymous letter is not a reliable source. However, none of these are the principal reason they are not relevant. The reason that they are not relevant is that they do not assert that Atzmon criticizes Judaism as a religion as opposed to its political expression, which is the point at issue here, as per the category definition. Jontel (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the category. However, Sunshine and Hirsh are beyond reasonable dispute experts on antisemitism. Hirsh is an academic who has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and academic books on antiemitism among other topics. Sunshine has a doctorate in sociology, publishes in peer-reviewed journals and is a widely quoted expert on the far right and antisemitism. Sunshine is not relying on "some anonymous letter" (and at any rate, as his peer reviewed aricle is a reliable source we can assume he has assessed his sources with due diligence). Therefore, regardless of individual editors' judgements about the blurry line between criticising Judaism and "its political expression" (whatever that means) we have reliable sources attributing anti-Judaism to Atzmon. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think people are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. What are the standards for including an article in a category? According to WP:CATVER

1. A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.
2. Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.

What is the definition of the category is question? From the category page: "Anti-Judaism is the "total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior."[1] Anti-Judaism, which is the rejection of a particular way of thinking about God, is distinct from antisemitism, which is more akin to a form of racism. Scholars who see a less clear line between theology and racism have coined the term religious antisemitism. Nevertheless, the concept of Judaism has been challenged over the past two thousand years by scholars of both Christianity and Islam." To summarise: it is the opposition to the religion from a religious viewpoint. Setting aside one's opinion of the reliability of Hirsh and Sunshine, neither has suggested that Atzmon is opposed to Judaism as a religion, nor that he has done so from a religious viewpoint. Sunshine does accuse Atzmon of denouncing Judaism but illustrates this with apparently secular examples. He is presumably using Judaism as a term for Jewish identity in general rather than the religious doctrines in particular and this usage is discussed in the Judaism page. Even if Atzmon was criticising the religion, and there is no evidence that he has done so and he has repeatedly denied it, his criticisms of Jewish nationalism are not made from an alternative religious viewpoint. There is no evidence that he fits the criteria and it would be wrong to include him into this category of religious disputation simply on the basis of seeking a category to put him into. Jontel (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Once again, we get Jontel's opposing reliable academic sources based on his own reading of Atzmon. Expert sources are explicit here:

1. Hirsh: "Atzmon is a former Israeli paratrooper, a successful jazz saxophonist, a campaigner for Palestine, and someone who is comfortable employing openly anti-Jewish rhetoric. For example he wrote: 'I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus ..."  
2. Sunshine: "Gilad Atzmon, himself born an Israeli Jew, has made a career out of denouncing Judaism itself as the problem with Zionism"

Judaism is explicitly a religion, not "Jewish identity". Blaming Jews for killing Jesus is a religious. Experts say Atzmon denounces Judaism itself.--Hippeus (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Jontel makes an important point about policy on categories, that Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. I think therefore the best thing to do would be to take a step back, leaving the category off for the moment, and Hippeus (or anyone) propose or add a verifiable sentence on Atzmon's anti-Judaism in an appropriate place in the article and then, if there is consensus for that edit, we can consider re-adding the category.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs)

Yes, despite the second from last comment, I am afraid that I persist in the view that the evidence for the article’s inclusion in the category is not sufficiently strong and therefore agree with the suggestion of removing the article from the category until stronger evidence can be found. In the meantime, I am happy to discuss the latest defence of the case for inclusion. In summary, there are two relatively brief references to Atzmon being anti-Jewish. He is very critical of Jewish political culture and clearly that culture arises from the religion to some extent, as most cultures do. However, a general definition of anti-Jewishness is not the same as the category’s specific definition of Anti-Judaism which is opposition to Jewish religious beliefs and practices from a religious viewpoint. In his many writings, Atzmon has not been shown to criticise Jewish religious beliefs and practices and does not criticise Jewish political culture from a religious standpoint.

Regarding Hirsh, did Atzmon say the Jews today were responsible for the death of Jesus? (source used by Hirsh, for convenience [21]) No, he argues against the idea that people today are responsible for their ancestors’ actions. Did he say that the Jews were solely responsible? No, he mentions the role of the Romans. Was he wrong in his assertion? There are numerous accounts referenced in Wikipedia of the role of the Sanhedrin and the crowd in the events. Did he say that all Jews living at the time were responsible? No, he just said “the Jews” which is admittedly ambiguous, but this sentence is all that Atzmon says directly on the subject. He is not exploring historical events but making a wider point about the relationship of Zionists to history. Hirshes’ criticism of Atzmon for “employing openly anti-Jewish rhetoric” is ambiguous. Does he mean that Atzmon is being anti-Jewish or that Atzmon should not use phraseology which has been used against Jews, even if simply to illustrate a point, which is what Atzmon did. Even if all of these objections were overcome, this is not an attack by Atzmon on the Jewish religion or from a religious perspective.

Regarding Sunshine, he does say directly that Atzmon has been denouncing Judaism. He bases this conclusion entirely on an open letter he has read in MR online.[22] In the quotes they use (trigger warning), Atzmon critiques Jewish nationalists and Jewish progressives, Jewish politics and the Jewish view of history. He observes that ““Jewishness” clearly involves an ethno-centric and racially supremacist, exclusivist point of view that is based on a sense of Jewish “chosen-ness.” Similarly, “Jewishness is, sadly enough, inherently intolerant; indeed, it may be argued that Jewish intolerance is as old as the Jews themselves.” and “It seems that the entire world of Jewish identity politics is a matrix of herems and exclusion strategies. In order to be “a proper Jew,” all you have to do is to point out whom you oppose, hate, exclude or boycott.” Of course, one need not agree with any of this. The point is that, while a political culture might arise from a religion, it would be wrong to reduce a political culture to a religion or blame a religion for all of the acts of its adherents. One would not do that with other religions and Atzmon does not do so. All of his references are secular. Really, what he is criticising is Jewish nationalism, and Zionism is the modern expression of that, so his inclusion in the anti-Zionism in the United Kingdom category is the right one. Jontel (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Atzmon is not criticising only Jewish nationalism and Zionism. His comments on the perceived Jewish role in the Russian and Spanish revolutions make it clear that he sees any political action by Jews, even when they happen in an entirely secular and non-Jewish environment, as an unacceptable expression of "Jewish supremacy". Equally, his suggestion that the acts of Zionist disrupters of pro-Palestine meetings in London are analogous to what he calls the "misbehaviour" of Jews in Germany which led to Nazi antisemitism show that his hostility is not at all to Zionism, but to Jews as a whole. RolandR (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Exceptionalism might be more appropriate. However, I should probably avoid trying to summarise his views as it isn't essential to the main point here that his critique is a secular one. I have crossed that out rather than debate it unnecessarily. Jontel (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Two points: 1) It is not our job to say if Hirsh and Sunshine are right to describe him as a proponent of anti-Judaism; as they are reliable sources, the criterion of verifiability is met. (My own view, for what it's worth, is that when somebody attributes something nefarious to "the Jews" this is anti-Jewish; the distinction between "the Jews" and "all Jews" is meaningless and indeed "the Jews" is the formula most typically used by antisemites. When anti-Jewishness focuses on theology, e.g. the killing of Christ, this is typically named anti-Judaism. But that's just my view; to repeat, it is the perspectives of reliable sources that count.) 2) Nor can we say too much about their sources; as they are reliable sources we can trust them to verify their claims unless they are contested by other reliable sources. We don't know if Sunshine bases his conclusion "entirely on an open letter he has read in MR online"; he may have drawn this conclusion from any number of sources but chosen to cite one. Similarly, Atzmon says "for example" and gives specific instances; we can assume he is drawing his conclusion from a larger body of sources and has chosen to cite the most apposite. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The killing of Christ is not a theological question per se. It is a historical fact. Atzmon did not raise any theological issues in relation to it. Hirsh did not describe him as a proponent of Judaism; rather that “he was comfortable employing anti-Jewish rhetoric” i.e. saying things that anti-Jewish people have said. Hirsh’s second example is of Atzmon’s views regarding the power of American Zionists – nothing to do with the religion per se. Spencer’s Journal is open to challenge regarding its credentials. Here are some alternative sources from much more established and reputable academics. In 2012, Norton Mezvinsky wrote that "Gilad Atzmon is a critical and committed secular humanist with firm views, who delights in being provocative." He adds “Labeling his views anti-Semitic, however, is incorrect. Criticizing certain members and certain cultural aspects of the group is allowable and often warranted. A Jewish tradition of internal criticism has existed for at least two centuries, and probably for longer." Meirsheimer says "I do not believe that Atzmon is an anti-Semite…If one believes that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite, then Atzmon clearly fits in that category. But that definition is foolish — no country is perfect or above criticism-and not worth taking seriously." It is thus controversial to include him in the category, contrary to WP:CATVER. Jontel (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither John Mearsheimer (international relations scholar) nor Norton Mezvinsky (historian of the Middle East) is an expert in antisemitism (whereas Sunshine and Hirsh are) and their comments here do not address the specific issue of "anti-Judaism". BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: I've reviewed both arguments and the article, and checked out a couple of the cited references.... One in particular struck me as important to this argument . Atzmon clearly says in this article:

" We must take the accusations that Jews are trying to take over the world with utmost seriousness. Israel is the Nazi Germany of our time. In fact, Israel today is worse than Nazi Germany."

"As a Jew who hates Judaism"

"(in regards to the death marches of the holocaust) So the death marches were actually humane. This is a very consistent ruling"

You say the definition of Anti-Judaism is

"total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior."

The problem then is that he is not a person who necessarily accepts a competing system of beliefs and practices.... except he does- And those practices are Anti-Judaism for lack of a better description. His adopted belief system is that the system that Judaism is inferior. While this may not be an actual organized church- it is no less a belief system.

What's more- this article, outside of what the truth about Atzmon's beliefs may or may not be- has an entire section dedicated to the aligations of antisemitism that have been made against him. I think that alone would qualify as a valid reason for including the tag, his own quotes not withstanding. But since we have those as well, my opinion is the tag should remain. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Nightenbelle (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

As the one who asked for a third opinion, I thank Nightenbelle for giving time to offer an opinion. I do not think further involvement is required, though it is permitted. I do not agree with the opinion.

The editor’s view is that Atzmon meets the category’s criterion of accepting a competing system of beliefs and practices (to Judaism) by being anti-Judaism. That is wrong. Firstly, it is a circular argument, so is worthless in explanatory terms. Secondly, it is clearly contradicted by the category article. System of beliefs links to theology and practices links to ritual. The article is almost entirely composed of Christian anti-Judaism and Islamic anti-Judaism and stops with the reformation, indicating its focus.

The quote “As a Jew who hates Judaism”, from a rare and extremely hostile interview of Atzmon by an Israeli tabloid, was refuted by Atzmon as incorrect. Regarding the quotes about world takeover, Nazi Germany and death marches, I would caution about the danger of taking sentences out of context, particularly from a deliberately contrarian, even provocative, writer. More importantly, they are not criticism of the Jewish religion from the perspective of an alternative religion, as the category is defined. The editor refers to an entire section in the article containing allegations of antisemitism. Whether or not these allegations are false, either as to fact or interpretation, and some of them are, they do not support Atzmon’s inclusion in a category dedicated to conflict between religions. Jontel (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling someone else's argument worthless is rude- you should find a more professional way to disagree with someone. You were dismissive and.... missed the point of what I was saying entirely: saying that his belief system IS anti-Judaism is not a cyclical argument. When someone is against something so strongly that they spend a significant amount of time working against it (like writing entire books about being against it) That then becomes a belief system. This isn't cyclical- its a fact. There are people for whom the battle against something becomes a kind of religion (belief set) in and of itself. That is what I was saying appears to be true in this case. What's more- the definition you provided for Anti-Judaism says- "by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices" Nowhere does that definition say by persons belonging to a religion. That is something YOU have added to the definition. Atzmon's competing system of beliefs are his anti-Judaism beliefs. His competing beleifs are his belief Israel is "Occupied Palestine." Competing beliefs and practices do not at all have to include religious beliefs. Now, I'm done- there is a 2 to 1 consensus at this point, but do what ya'll like. At this point- either an RFC, further discussions (which won't include me), or a DRN case (which I will recuse myself from mediating since obviously I'm involved here). Best of luck. Try not to scare off other potential editors by insulting them next time they come. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not miss the point of what you are saying. I reject it. The category article is clearly talking about opposition to Judaism from other religions, as I demonstrated in my response. I did not provide a definition: it came from the relevant article. It did link to theology and (religious) ritual and it would be hard to think what else beliefs and practices would mean. Your personal definition of beliefs and practices is not at all persuasive and has no authority over that of the article concerned. I do not mean to insult or dismiss you but you are wrong and that cannot be left unsaid. Jontel (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I had commented on the unreliability of the Spencer Sunshire material, on which defence of the article's inclusion category is posited, despite it not justifying inclusion as set out above, in a separate section. Jontel (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is a strong consensus by multiple editors against Jontel here, and relitigating this in another long section below is tedious.--Hippeus (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the Spencer Sunshine reference as unreliable

Proposal: As we know, Wikipedia says ‘Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.’ WP:VERIFY It is proposed that the Spencer Sunshine material in the scholarship section of the article is removed, as being unreliable in terms of the publisher, the journal, the author and the material.

Case: Recently, some allegations regarding Atzmon were added to the Scholarship section from the Journal of Social Justice, published by the Transformative Studies Institute, and written by one Spencer Sunshine. The journal is a free online publication.[23]

Wikipedia says: ‘On scholarship, Wikipedia says that: ‘Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.’ WP:SCHOLARSHIP Similarly, it says ‘Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:REPUTABLE I can find little very few independent references to either the journal on the institute on the internet, so one can hardly call them reputable.

Wikipedia says: ‘Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view.’WP:SCHOLARSHIP The institute states that it is a ‘fully-volunteer educational think tank’ [24] whose mission is ‘to found an interdisciplinary graduate school focused on social problems and social justice’ John_Asimakopoulos#Transformative_Studies_Institute which does sound as if it has a particular point of view. Wikipedia says: ‘The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to self-published sources. WP:SCHOLARSHIP While this publication does have a review board, the peer review process is unstated.[25] Wikipedia says: ‘If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university…’ WP:SCHOLARSHIP The editorial board or team is small and comes from several universities. The institutions, if any, of some members are unstated. [26] Wikipedia says: ‘Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.’ WP:SCHOLARSHIP The institute says that ‘none of the ideas presented by individuals across our programs and publications necessarily represent our institutional viewpoint…’ [27]

One might expect a scholar to be an employed academic. From his personal website: ‘Spencer Sunshine, PhD, is a researcher, writer, activist, speaker, and political consultant regarding far right movements.’ i.e. not an employed academic. [28] He has not published any books and the only academic work he references are a paper or papers in the Journal of Peasant Studies. Indeed, the Journal of Social Justice says that ‘we welcome submissions from intellectuals from any occupation—this means everyone.’ [29] Sunshine has also written for the Times of Israel and Jewish Telegraph Agency, so is presumably pro-Israel and thus personally hostile to Atzmon’s political views.

There are obvious issues,too, with the material added to the Wikipedia article, too, which is: ‘According to Spencer Sunshine, a researcher on the far-right, Atzmon along with Israel Shamir and Alison Weir forms an axis of crypto-antisemites who recycle traditional antisemitic conspiracy theories with the replacement of "the Jews" with a code word or synecdoche. Spencer states that Atzmon denounces Judaism itself as the root issue in Zionism, With Atzmon framing Israeli atrocities as a "historic relationship to gentiles, an authentic expression of an essentially racist, immoral, and anti-human ‘Jewish ideology.’". Spencer notes that Atzmon's appearances on White nationalist media such as Counter Currents has not stopped Atzmon from being platformed in left-wing publications such as CounterPunch.’ Issues: What is an ‘axis of crypto-antisemites’? One definition of axis is alliance but in the paper (p11), no personal relationship is implied between those named. He might be defining axis as a political spectrum, but that does not make much sense, either. The use of the term is misleading, particularly when used out of context in the Wikipedia article. Sunshine then quotes an unnamed and unreferenced attack on Atzmon (p12), with this then being seemingly presented in the Wikipedia article as either a quote from Sunshine or Atzmon. Finally, Sunshine says that Atzmon ‘likes to appear’ in Counter-Currents’, which appearances he implicitly condemns, (p13) but one finds that he is referencing Atzmon being interviewed to promote ‘The Wandering Who?’. Authors are not always selective about who interviews them when promoting their work – Atzmon is not writing a guest column for the publication, as is implied. This material appears to be unscholarly, which is exacerbated when extracts are used, and is not a reliable source. I propose that it not be used in the article for these reasons. Jontel (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I propose that the screed above be removed as original research and a Biographies of living person policy violation towards Sunshine. It appears that Jontel is challenging a published expert academic on the basis that they are allegedly pro-Israel. This arguement is specious enough, however Jontel's basis to this arguement is on even shakier footing, namely a single op-ed in Times of Israel and Jewish Telegraph Agency (which appears to have been reprinted elsewhere) in which Sunshine argues that mainstream Jewish movements should accept/tolerate young Jewish leftist anti-Zionists. A cursory examination of Sunshine's published positions on politics show that "pro-Israel" is a false label here.--Hippeus (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Hippeus What is this original research? You have not said. I have included a lot of sources. Instead of suggesting deleting everything, best practice is to tag any material under question with a citation needed tag. I have not violated WP:BLP as I have provided sources. Sunshine's views on Israel are not central to the case for removal and I am happy to remove that element. Jontel (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of highly reliable source, include and expand academic content. Sunshine was published by a peer reviewed journal, has a Ph.D in the field, has published other studies that are cited, is a fellow at Political Research Associates, and is frequently quoted and cited as an expert on extremism by media such as: Mother Jones, Forward, Wired, The Daily Beast[30], The Guardian, Truthout, Haaretz, Al Jazeera, thejournal.ie (AFP), SPLC's Hatewatch[31], The Nation, and probably quite a few more because I gave up after skimming the first page of results.--Hippeus (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I am challenging the inclusion of the material in the article on the basis that the Journal from which it comes does not satisfy Wikipedia policies for a reliable source for the reasons I have given. Jontel (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. I find this proposal problematic in all sorts of ways. First, there is a case to be made that this is not best placed in a section entitled "scholarship" if we pursue a narrow definition of "scholarship" to mean "employed in a university". That would not mean this is not a reliable source, which would justify the call for immediate removal from a BLP article. I have no experience in Wikipedia policy around what counts as scholarship, so I will focus on whether the pubisher/journal is a reliable source for a moment. The Journal has an editor-in-cheif, John Asimakopoulos (Google Scholar:[32]) and editor, Deric Shannon (Google Scholar:[33]) who are both published academics, as well as a review board made up of academics.[34] Although we can't verify this independently, it says it has a peer-review process. This particular issue had a guest editor, Shane Burley, who is not an academic but has widely published[35] in reliable sources such as the The Independent,[36] and NBC,[37] largely on the topics of fascism and anti-fascism, a topic on which he is also the author of a published book. All of the other contributors to the issue are academics. But even if the publication was not scholarly, the reputability of the author alone would mean this would qualify as a reliable source. The author: Jontel says Sunshine has not published any books. In fact, as well as his published book on Nietzche,[38] he has a forthcoming book on "unorthodox fascism" with the academic publisher Routledge in their series, Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right[39], which is one of the most reputable series in the field. He has also pubished in Anarchist Studies, published by Lawrence & Wishart[40] and numerous reports for Political Research Associates. As a journalist, he has written a huge amount on antisemitism, racism and fascism,[41] in publications including the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and TeleSUR. I am quite shocked to see a Wikipedia editor saying that a writer who has published in Israeli publications (actually the Times of Israel piece was syndicated from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, established in 1917, which is based in New York) should be excluded. The claim that this makes him "pro-Israel" is as absurd as suggesting that because he has published in US-based publications such as ColorLines and Truthout he must be "pro-American", while the claim that it would make his expertise on antisemitism and anti-Judaism unrelaible is deeply problematic - and even more bizarre given the article republished by the Times of Israel was anti-Zionist. The clear reliability of the author means that we should not be ourselves seeking to verify the material in it, which would veer into original research. But even here the charges against the material are dubious. How Sunshine is using the term "axis" is not an issue; all that matters is that he describes Atzmon as one of these three "crypto-antisemites". If there is a problem with the word "axis", we could simply rephrase this as follows: "Atzmon is a 'crypto-antisemite' who recycles traditional antisemitic conspiracy theories with the replacement of 'the Jews' with a code word or synecdoche" and leave out mention of Shamir and Weir. And the point about Counter-Currents is irrelevant; our text simply mentions "Atzmon's appearances on White nationalist media such as Counter Currents" and does not quote the "likes to appear". I can't access Counter-Currents (my IP blocks it under the category of "Weapons, Violence, Gore and Hate") but I can see from Google that they have interviewed him multiple times as well as profiled him and reviewed his books glowingly - while Atzmon has reciprocated by promoting these appearances on his website, his Goodreads blog and his Twitter feed. (This is my original research, by the way, not for inclusion in the article, but sufficent to refute the claim that Sunshine is unreliable on this topic.) In short, at most we might want to consider if "Scholarship" is the best section and we might want to edit out the Weir/Shamir/axis reference, but otherwise I see this content and sourcing as solid. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Hi -- I think we could resolve the "who?" in the following sentence by changing "supporters" to "readers of his website". The article mostly uses "supporters", but it makes it clear that the request was posted on his site.

Change:

Atzmon had sought help from his supporters to cover the remaining £40,000 of legal costs and damages.

to

Atzmon had sought help from readers of his website to cover the remaining £40,000 of legal costs and damages. AntediluvianBlue (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor AntediluvianBlue:  done, and thanks very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal battlefield

Grow up, everyone. Please.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Concert review in further reading

At the moment, there is a rather lonely concert review in Further reading. It does not seem different from the many other concert and album reviews written over the years. Looking at other musicians, I do not see a Further reading section with lot of reviews. I would prefer to remove it or add others. What do people think? Jontel (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Heidegger

This is a very minor point, but re this edit: the source for Heidegger is Keith Kahn-Harris, who says: "The title of Atzmon’s latest book, “Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto” (Skyscraper Publications), is an explicit reference to Heidegger, although there is little sign that Atzmon has engaged extensively with the notoriously difficult — and notoriously controversial — philosopher (Heidegger was a known Nazi sympathizer at one point, and his relationship with Nazism is still hotly debated). Rather, the book’s references to Heideggerian concepts such as “Being” are little more than buzzwords, intended to establish intellectual credentials." He doesn't mention Being and Time. "Being-in-the-world is a key Heideggerian concept, and I think it's safer to say the title references the philosopher rather than the book. I don't feel strongly on this, obviously, and not describing Heidegger is probably sensible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining; by all means change it back to what you added. Jontel (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Done (in more minimalist way). BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Atlantic is not a self-published source

I don't understand this edit justification Jontel. Our source is the Atlantic, which is not a blog, and we attribute this opinion to the author. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't answer for Jontel. However, this is the only mention of blood libel in the book:

I was fourteen years old at the time. I asked the emotional tour guide if she could explain the fact that so many Europeans loathed the Jews so much and in so many places at once. I was thrown out of school for a week. It seems I didn’t learn the necessary lesson because when we studied the middle age blood libels, I again wondered out loud how the teacher could know that these accusations of Jews making Matza out of young Goyim’s blood were indeed empty or groundless. Once again I was sent home for a week. In my teens I spent most of my mornings at home rather than in the classroom.

Burrobert (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, so the policy is: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about any living people, except for claims by the author about himself or herself. This holds even if the author of the source is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#For_claims_about_living_people Attribution does not change that. Importantly, this source is not used to evidence Goldberg's opinion of Atzmon, as you suggest, which would be ok. It is used to support a claim of fact about what Atzmon purportedly wrote. Admittedly, WP:BLPSPS does says that "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." However, Goldberg is the Editor-In-chief; I do not expect that his opinion pieces, which this clearly is ("lunatic thoughts") are subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Moreover, he sources the claim entirely from a blog, hurryupharry, so the claim is also from a self-published source at one remove, without any other supportive sourcing. Additionally, the blog does not support what Goldberg says. The blog link in Goldberg's article, available from wayback machine, quotes Atzmon as writing "It seems I didn’t learn the necessary lesson because when we studied the middle age blood libels, I again wondered out loud how the teacher could know that these accusations of Jews making Matzo out of young Goyim’s blood were indeed empty or groundless. Once again I was sent home for a week. In my teens I spent most of my mornings at home rather than in the classroom." Contrast this with Goldberg's statement that "In this new book, Atzmon suggests, among other things, that scholars should reopen the question of medieval blood libels leveled against Jews". Goldberg is presenting a child's challenge to his teacher many years ago as the adult Atzmon's current suggestion. For whatever reason, Goldberg is mistaken and the evidence for that is in the link embedded in his own article. Jontel (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit unclear if you're arguing that Goldberg in the Atlantic is self-published because it is a "blog" or that Harry's Place is a blog and it is where Goldberg gets his information? If the former, it doesn't look like a blogpost to me, but I can only see the top of it before hitting a paywall. If it is, it would clearly count as WP:NEWSBLOG and therefore exempted from the BLPSPS prohibition. Assuming you're just saying HP is a blog: Is it not original research for us to be checking Goldberg's correct use of sources? If he's reliable for his opinions, it's not up to us to fact-check him, so long as we attribute. Just because his text is hyperlinked to the blog does not mean it's his only source (a hyperlink in an online publication is not like a footnote in a scholarly one). The YNet review also mentions this passage by the way. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

More the former for reasons I shall explain. We should understand the letter and spirit of policies. The issue with self-published sources is that they are not checked by anyone else and are so generally less reliable. Goldberg, writing a personal opinion piece in the publication of which he is editor in chief, is effectively self-published. You are wrong that WP:NEWSBLOG overrides WP:BLPSPS; Wikipedia sets a higher standard for material about living people because of the damage it can cause, as well as libel law, so the reverse is the case. I would be more concerned about Goldberg relying on a blog for his information if that was the source of the error. In fact, as I indicated above, the blog quotes the book correctly: the error is Goldberg's own. He entirely ignores what the blog says, even though he uses it as a source. Significantly, the YNet review, while also false, contradicts the Goldberg account. The point is, this is not about an event or an interpretation. The book is open to anyone to read and misrepresentation is obvious. Let's not spend time arguing over attempts to introduce material to Wikipedia that is self-evidently defamatory. Why would you want to do that? Jontel (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, so won't push it, especially as you are arging for omissions rather than inclusions, but I feel your arguments are based on original research: saying that your reading is better than Goldberg's (and also better than the YNet reviewer's), and is backed up by a tendentious interpretation of the SPS policy that would mean we could never quote an editorial, even for an opinion, because its written by an editor and therefore "self-published". Maybe the solution would be to quote the primary source in full, as per above, as we know that secondary sources (The Atlantic and YNet) consider this particular passage noteworthy and therefore would be due if we footnoted the secondary sources too. Could say something like "The book says X, which Y and Z interpreted as an argument for keeping the question of the blood libel open". BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Atlantic is a superb source. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I personally limited my interpretation of SPS to statements of fact about a BLP. Yes, I like the approach you propose and am happy for both the original passage and what the secondary sources said to be included, subject to agreement on the wording (perhaps what was in the article before). Jontel (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So, something like In the book, Atzmon writes abourt his school days: "when we studied the middle age blood libels, I...wondered out loud how the teacher could know that these accusations of Jews making Matza out of young Goyim’s blood were indeed empty or groundless", which has been interpreted by Halily and Jeffrey Goldberg as making an argument for keeping the question of the blood libel open.? This seems to cover Goldberg's "scholars should reopen the question of medieval blood libels leveled against Jews" and Halily's "children should be allowed to ask their teachers "how do they know that the accusations that Jews used the blood of gentile children to back matzot are indeed empty or groundless accusations."" BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy with your suggestion. Jontel (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reiterating that The Atlantic is the type of source we should be using.--Hippeus (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Zero authors

Dershowitz mentions Zero Books authors calling for their publisher to disassociate itself with Atzmon, saying "The thrust of Atzmon’s work is to normalise and legitimise anti-Semitism." The quote is from their letter, published here. The 2011 letter is on the website of one of the signatories, Richard Seymour and is signed by Robin Carmody, Dominic Fox, Owen Hatherley, Douglas Murphy, Alex Niven, Mark Olden, Laurie Penny, Nina Power, & Kit Withnail. The letter is cited by the 2012 As’ad AbuKhalil et al statement published by] Monthly Review and others; this mention plus Dershowitz's establish noteworthiness, I think. Can/should we mention/cite? For context on the authors, see this profile. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Applying the rules, I would think that, as it is not an appropriate source, it should not be used to support the text and, if it is not being used to support the text, it should not be an inline citation. Perhaps it could go in Further reading? However, perhaps other editors have dealt with this issue before and know better, albeit BLP rules are perhaps stricter. Jontel (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I will remove for now. Pasting citation here for future reference. Richard Seymour, Owen Hatherley; et al. (2011-09-26). "Zero Authors' Statement on Gilad Atzmon". LENIN'S TOMB. Retrieved 2021-02-23. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We should avoid borderline sources - both Atzmon himself and his supporters in non-reliable publications, or his detractors.--Hippeus (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sneak reverts by Jontel

In diff Jontel removed extensive content on a SOAS talk which was discussed and agreed in the talk page archives, this was not clearly explained in the edit summary. The events in SOAS were extensively covered by reliable sources and merit inclusion.--Hippeus (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not true, is it. My edit summary said "Coverage of speeches where he reads out parts of the paper do not really add anything and have been omitted." That is reasonably clear. As his paper is covered and as criticism of his paper in included, and as this covers the same ground as the speeches, it does not add anything to include coverage of the speeches in the article. That would mean covering the same material twice. The anonymous reports of speeches are also not as reliable as reporting an actual paper. Jontel (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Longer lead

Separately addressing one of Burrobert's many valuable points, I think a longer lead would be appropriate given the length of the article, as per MOS:BLPLEAD "The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight." It need not be massive – perhaps a dozen sentences. How should we approach this? I could just add a draft to the article so we have something to start from? Jontel (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes the lead is currently too short and unbalanced. You should go ahead and put something down that we can build on. Burrobert (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will. Not today, though, as I have reached the one a day limit for reverts. Jontel (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have covered almost all the points above. Your amendments look good. Burrobert (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate your spotting and raising the issues. Jontel (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• A longer lead is fine, but it should be clear on how Atzmon is viewed by nearly every reputable source in terms of antisemitism.--Hippeus (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It does say that he has been described as antisemitic. Jontel (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Jontel's changes

Jontel's recent edits added content from unreliable sources such as like www.shoah.org.uk and http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com and push a view of Atzmon reliable sources do not. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

These are sections of the article which concern his opinions. He should be a fairly reliable source for his own opinions. The added content is Atzmon's own words in an article and interview, respectively, in publications sympathetic to him. You have asserted but not demonstrated that they are unreliable. In any event, their sympathy for him should make them more reliable as a source of his opinions than on other subjects, and more reliable than other sources for his opinions. If we are entitled to include self-published material from him WP:BLPSPS, we are entitled to hear what he says in other publications. Some of his political opponents misrepresent what he says. However, his description of his opinions generally matches descriptions by other sources, except that he expresses them in a more clearly understandable way. You seem to wish to limit the article to hostile coverage but articles should not be intended primarily to disparage the subject.WP:ATTACK Jontel (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) So, just to be clear, I am just using these as sources for Atzmon's own words, not for the views of the publications themselves or their other contributors. Jontel (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the PeacePalestine blogspot blog is a reliable source for anyone's words except the blogger's own. I also strongly suspect that NRhZ-online is not a reliable source either.Its German Wikipedia page describes it as a blog and quotes what look like reliable sources describing it as “mixture of veritable anti-Semitism , dusty anti-capitalism and conspiracy theories”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I notice Jontel has also added Shoah.org.uk as a source for Atzmon's views. I don't think that can be a reliable source either. I have re-added RS? tags to these quotes until we have resolved the question here or, if we can't, perhaps via recourse to the RSN. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So, I'm suggesting at this point that the three sources should be treated as reliable only as a source of Atzmon's attributed words in an article and interviews, on the basis that they are sympathetic to him and thus will faithfully reproduce what he says. So, they are akin to self-published sources, which is allowed under WP:BLPSPS subject to certain criteria. I am not suggesting their use as a source for any other content. As this is their only suggested usage, could we address any issues with that? I am here being guided by WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. ". Jontel (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I think it's relevant to say that there are few extensive interviews of and article by Atzmon in the mainstream press. Alternatives to these are limited. Jontel (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

BLPSPS exempts SPSs as sources on the subject if "written or published by the subject of the article". These are written and published by others, who are sympathetic but on whom we cannot rely for accuracy. Blogspot blogs that haven't been edited since 2008, for example, are often hacked by spammers.You could argue that the interviews count because "said by the subject" is analogous to "written by the subject", but that's a stretch. The PeacePalestine interview is sourced from a Spansih original published elsewhere, with its author and the blogger collaborating on the translation. One version of the Spanish original is up and might be a better link: https://rebelion.org/la-belleza-como-arma-politica/ Shoah.org.uk might count as BLPSPS as written by the subject though not published by him, although it looks like a very dodgy website to me. Finally, NRhZ is an article about Atzmon, by an anonymous contributor to a blog, so definitely not written or published by the subject. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

One other thing: I can't find the Mount of Olives/Holocaust survivor quote in the NRhZ source. There are other Atzmon articles on the site and I wonder if we have the wrong ref, possibly as a result of my edits? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; that gets rid of NRhZ and I will look for the right one. Jontel (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I will try to replace shoah and make the change you suggest on peacepalestine later on today. Jontel (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've got to the bottom of my mistake. Apologies for the confusion. One NRhZ citation was a review of being in Time. Another, as you suggest, was an interview with Atzmon where he made the comment about his family's experience in the Holocaust and I forgot there were two. Here is the link. [42] How do people feel about the article using this source just for this interview response? Jontel (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

nrhz.de is not acceptable, period. Replacing blogspot with the Spanish source at rebellion.org is not an improvement, rebellion.org is an alternative website, it is not reliable. The point here should be using reputable normal sources, not fringe stuff. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced Rebelion as a source. Jontel (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I've replaced shoah as a source. Jontel (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have posted on Nrhz.de to RSN. Jontel (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Haven't had time to engage with the issues below yet but just wanted to say (as we have struggled for consensus on this page) that I support all of these edits by Jontel and Burrobert, which improve the article and make it more encyclopedic. Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• The recent changes have been wholly tendentious and have used Atzmon's self-published material extensively. In diff, Jontel prefixed reliable sources by: "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively", which is absurdly pejorative.--Hippeus (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The article was tendentious; my changes make it more balanced. The subject of a BLP is an appropriate source WP:BLPSELFPUB. How is "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively" pejorative? I don't follow you. Jontel (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)