This is an archive of past discussions about Israel Shamir. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Various comments on earliest version

98% of the material here presents or pretends to present him as an anti-semite. Is this the way Wiki treats evidence and NPOV editing ? Israel actually helps the state of Israel saving her honor, and the cause of truth. Israel is a kind, genuinely nice fellow whom I met in Germany and who does his best to help the state of Israel not become a pariah, like South Africa was before she gave up apartheid. Where is information about Israel being the only translator of great foreign authors into Hebrew? Where is his biography, his superb family of Galilean rabbis, where is Flowers of Galilee, where are his world-wide conferences, where are his military records - as a hero in the war? - Frankly, Israel's treatment in Wikipedia is a shame for the NPOV-committed editing. Happy serene editing - irismeister 21:30, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

The abofe is wright. Why is an articla about a man to here so witcsh hunting? This is enchyclopidic or not ? - Why don"t we see a list of the riter's publications? Is this a critisism or is this a honest "neuter" entri ? i thihnk this wikipedia is not serios. (unsigned comment by User:81.80.106.44 21:36, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC) )

I approve of this page. if you look at israel shamir's articles, they are purely and simply antisemitic, and no serious person could take them seriously. in one of them he claims that the watergate scandal was created by the jews because nixon wasn't sufficinetly pro-israeli! he was not a hero in any war, and he does not come from a family of galilean rabbis, although he has said many untrue things about himself. (unsigned comment by User:151.24.204.5 10:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC) )

What is and is not "anti semitic" is a matter of personal opinion. How do you know he was not a hero in any war? How do you have inside information about his family tree? From where did your information come? - Weixel (unsigned comment by User:151.24.204.5 10:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC) )

Encyclopedia article

Concerning the article on Israel Shamir: the text is a deadbeat, as there clearly is discerning views about Shamir and his allegiated anti-semitism. So is there for example on Chomsky or Avnery, although I hope no one accpets them viable anymore, at least for an encyclopedia article. I'm not saying that Shamir is a credible as the two mentioned, but the current etxt is simply ridiculous. Shamirs publications should be listed, and links to few debates of his should be added. Possibly a section about antisemitism and criticism should be added, although I do not think there is enough evidence to build on those. Safer to just give a short biography and few links outside of wikipedia.

-A.J.

I propose, whoever writes or edits this page must reveal whether he is entitled to Israeli citienship. That will make the case clear. Shamir

I am or was "entitled" to Israeli citizenship but I renounced the "honor" on my weblog.- Weixel

Before anyone attempts to delete my changes as a copyright violation, I have contacted Shamir by email and obtained his permission to use the material. Charles Godwin 13:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

why believe this?

this article on Shamir comes directly from his own web-site. Here's the link: http://www.nigelparry.com/issues/shamir/shamirbio.html.

Most of the information there seems quite incredible to me. Shamir was a spokesperson inthe Israeli Parliament? I doubt it very much. And there are serious doubts about everything else. Is he really Jewish? Many people claim he is actually one of the many non-Jewish Russian who moved to Israel to Israel during the nineties. This information onhim shoul be checked up.

What sort of Encyclopaedia is that?

This seems to be a good place to defame a person, for there is a full-time ADL overseer who immediately reverts this page to their ugliest lies. Last revert - in two minutes flat. Indeed these guys are in total control. Conspiracy forsooth! Shamir

Go look at the Wiki page on me, Chip Berlet and you will find that it contains criticisms. There is no conspiracy. I was working on another article when I noticed this page had been edited. I was curious, and looked at the page, and saw that all criticism had been deleted. I reinserted the criticism, then cut some of it as unfair, and rewrote some other points. There is no ADL overseer. Can we now add conspiracy theories to the list of criticisms?--Cberlet 13:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, why would you imagine that there is a "full-time ADL overseer" on this page? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism 68.98.64.244 (talk · contribs)

That is incorrect. Individual members of that project may be contributing here, but no mention is made on that WikiProject of the existence of this article and its obvious problems. Please do not cast silly allegations. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV means NPOV

Look, I am a critic of Shmair, but the reason I edited the page was that there were a lot of claims that were not cited properly, the lead was a nasty personal attack on SHamir, and the criticisms were badly written. Please do not start a revert war in defense of a badly written and POV version of this article.--Cberlet 22:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article was badly written. But the main problem is that we don't have enough material about Shamir that is backed up by good sources. Therefore it's difficult to write a good article. His own home page is definitely not a good source and I still think it's given too much weight. At any rate, his own account should only be included with a strong disclaimer. Also, the most solid information on Shamir available comes from the Swedish official records. His legal name in Sweden is Jöran Jermas. This has been discovered by some journalists who investigated right-wing groups in Sweden. That information should not be hidden away in a criticism section. To state his legal name can hardly be called "criticism"? I've made some minor changes accordingly.--Denis Diderot 03:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This claim about his name and Sweden needs a cite!--Cberlet 12:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Expo Searchlight--Denis Diderot 12:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it. How about this? "In 2003 Shamir formally announced his conversion to Greek Orthodox Christianity."--Cberlet 18:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I write to you as a member of your Sister Church, a member of the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, for though born a Jew, by Grace of Christ I was baptised in its wonderful ancient cathedral of Mar Yakoub, the old see of St James, the brother of Lord and the first Bishop of Jerusalem. It is adjacent to the Golgotha and to the great Church of Resurrection, and it is the home church of local Arab-speaking Palestinian Orthodox community. I was baptized in the old deep octagonal Byzantine font so many saints and bishops of the Holy City were baptized in. My skin still feels the touch of olive oil and myrrh, soft, supple, fragrant, though it was more than a year ago." [1]. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find it. Can you add the cite to the page?--Cberlet 03:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shamir: In my view, YOU are ADL overseers, otherwise you would have something else to do but trying to defame me. You quote EXPO as the source for my alleged Swedish place, but EXPO is fully paid ADL subcidiary. They do not hide it and do not deny it, either. Everyone can come and visit me in Jaffa, where I am quite well known. On my site you can find refutations of all these claims. So hands off this text!

Shamir, (if you really are him and not an ADL overseer) if you make a claim, you need to back it up with sources. You claim that "EXPO is fully paid ADL subcidiary". What is the basis for that claim?

Denis Diderot 07:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I am not, nor have I ever been, an ADL overseer.)

Shamir: see entry Expo in Wikipedia

Please try to understand the concept of reliable sources. A text from your (or perhaps the real Shamir's) homepage is not a reliable source in this sense. Not even if you insert it into a Wikipedia article. You should also consider the concept of original research--Denis Diderot 14:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You use the name of a great dead man; and try to fit me into your schemes. Tell us who you are, what is your name, religion, country. Did you take the name of Diderot because of his hate to the Church? Shamir

I'm not sure what you mean by "your schemes", but this is Wikipedia and Wikipedia operates according to certain principles. Anyone who make changes to Wikipedia articles should abide by those principles. That was the point I was trying to make. So it's not a question of "my schemes" but of Wikipedia policies. Of course you are free to try to change those policies in a normal democratic manner. As for your other questions, I fail to see why they would be relevant here. My point is that this article, as any other article in Wikipedia, should be based on reliable sources. The information you keep removing from this article is sufficiently sourced according to Wikipedia policies. In fact I think the article is too accommodating towards Shamir, since too much information is taken directly from his home page (even if there is now a warning that some of the facts are disputed).Denis Diderot 19:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the material here is sufficiently sourced. The Expo and Searchlight articles themselves contain no source material whatsoever and are pure ad-hominem. Anybody can create a website and in it create an article containing unsubstantiated and obscure allegations. For instance, we are given no reason whatever why Joran Jermas is a bad guy, except that he is supposedly also Israel Shamir. By this logic, Joran should be highly peeved because he is being smeared by association with Shamir, not the other way around. What we are left with is a circular guilt by association. Shamir is a bad guy because he is secretly Joran Jermas, and Jermas is a bad guy because he is the real Israel Shamir. It seems you are an extremist who highlights smears against people by associating them with real or imagined negative characteristics or people. Would Israel Shamir be the first person to have dual identities, or for that matter, the first Israeli with dual nationalities? Joh Domingo

I have edited the page. The Searchlight articles contain much that is purely speculative and designed to imply some nefarious motive to the Swedish connection. It is simply not born out by any of the allegations contained in the articles. Much of it is unsubstantiated; that Shamir emigrated to Russia in 1983, for instance. Also the reference to the according to Swedish Authorities' is pure bull, and implies that the Swedish Authorities issued a comprehensive statement. The information is purportedly glean from the Swedish Census, which contains little information about the actual physical whereabouts of Shamir, except on a particular given day. The census records may indicate, but it merely indicates that Shamir was registered under the name Jermas, it does not confirm that he lived in Sweden during all this time. A note has been placed before the Roland Rance quote indicating that Rance is an long-time antagonist of Shamir, and provides no substantiation for his statement that Shamir writes under the pen names mentioned. They are not well known, and a google and Nexus search reveals no writing under their names. I suggest that the item be removed altogether unless Rance can provide substantiation for his claim, and context as to why it is relevant. - Joh Domingo

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, key Wikipedia policies. Your insertions are unsourced, and appear to be entirely your own POV regarding Shamir, or are original research that you have invented to defend Shamir. The information that is actually in the article is completely and properly sourced - if you think the authors of these articles have done a poor job, find some other source which refutes them, but don't make up your own refutations. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't lecture on NPOV when clearly you don't understand the concept. It is one thing to only use biased sources or cherrypick quotes to support you POV, quite another to extrapolate from those sources. Nowhere in the one-sided sources is reference make to 'According to Swedish Authorities'. It should be pointed out that the articles in question themselves contain no substantiation about basic assertions on citizenship, residence and almost every other claim. The POV inserted are provided for balance. - Joh Domingo

If the sources contain no substantiation that could be a problem, but you can't go about writing your own rebuttals of them - please read the original research policy, which specifically forbids what you are doing. Most of your insertions consists of POV essays and defences you have written for Shamir, nothing else. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or personal blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, point taken. - Joh Domingo

There seems to be too much criticism of Shamir on this page. Perhaps some more pro-Shamir content could be added to reduce the bias on this page? Andrew_pmk | Talk 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can find encyclopedic sources which are supportive of Shamir, then go for it. His positions are so radical, however, that you might have difficulty finding any. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"What precisely is the proceedure here? The article is certainly biased. While I agree that everything about Shamir should be presented, including information about his various identities, the way it is presented here seems heavily slanted towards one point of view. I haven't time to read all the links, but some of the claims about the Shamir quotes seem seriously overstated. I disagree that evidence should be wiped, or whitewashed. But are the claims in the articles true? Does it matter? This article gives the impression that it believes in the veracity of these claims. Just my two-cents." --David131324.224.233.125 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

comment by Bill Watson

Since Israel Shamir simply speaks the truth about Zionism and Talmudic Judaism, this offends Zionists and Talmudic Jews. The Jewish attacks against Israel Shamir are designed to help hide the ugly reality that drives modern Talmudic Judaism.

Bill Watson (unsigned comment by 24.224.233.125 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC) )

stop the vandalism and flame War

This is ridiculous, stop editing and reverting so we can at least discuss this amicably. Shamir is not a public figure and the entry should at least reflect this. I imprudently violated some wiki rules in my edits before I had read them. For this I apologize. But some issues need to be pointed out. I am acquinted with Shamir, and have witness incredible ad-hominem attacks against him. Clearly some of the entries here violate clearly defined rules here at Wikipedia.

The entire piece is replete with criticisms of Shamir and in the main derives from one source – Roland Rance, who writes in the ‘Socialist Viewpoint’ Magazine about content circulated via private email amongst primarily Jewish Socialist anti-Zionists. ‘Socialist Viewpoint’ is a political magazine produced with the purpose of presenting a particular POV. In his article, Rance makes some outlandish claims.

1.

Here is the background to my hostility towards Israel Shamir, who also writes under the names of Schmerlin, Robert David, Vassili Krasevsky and Jöran Jermas. I cannot vouch for which of these is the real Israel Shamir:

- I have search high and low since this article first appeared, and nowhere can I find any verification of this claim. The quote is simply unverifiable to date. Such outlandish claims require more than just this dubious source. If the editor wishes to retain this quote, he should be required to verify it from a reliable source. The quote should be removed. 2.

Shamir is apparently a right-wing Russian journalist, who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist.

It is an innocent enough observation, but a POV nontheless. Shamir ‘pretends’ to be a leftist? He might also be pretending to be heterosexual. Roland might be pretending to be an anti-Zionist leftist. Who Knows? It is speculation and the rest of it is too.

Roland has an axe to grind and is not an unimpeachable source, his remarks should be stricken. There are more legitimate sources for this material.

The following quote

According to Swedish authorities, Shamir lived in Sweden from 1984-1993, when he emigrated to Russia.[5] [6]

is unfortumately pregnant with false impressions, and the sources themselves are of dubious value. Shamir himself is not on record denying these ‘allegations’. ‘Swedish Authorities’ are not involved at all, and it is not alleged that Shamir is in violation of any laws. Someone, somewhere, has consulted the Swedish Census to ascertain this information. It is on the public record. Expo is a Swedish language version of the ‘Socialist Viewpoint’, part of a ring of Sister publications linked to the Socialist International. English speakers are unable to verify the quotes attributed to it. ‘Searchlight’ Magazine is also affliated with the Socialist International. Both are magazines devoted to propagandizing particular political viewpoints that are at odds with Shamir's views. They are not reliable sources for Wikipedia.

The ‘disputed’ facts appear not to be ‘disputes’ at all. None of the details in Shamirs biography are disputed. The main bone of contention appears to be the ommission in it, of Shamir’s links to Sweden. Shamir would have some reason for neglecting to mention it, but none of the speculations of his critics suggest he did anything illegal; they just feel they were entitled to know. The brouhaha sourounding this issue is unbecoming and I suggest that we simply insert the line:

Ommitted from Shamirs official biography is the fact that he is also a resident of Sweden, where he appears on the census since 1984. He also obtained a Swedish passport under the name Joram Jermas in 2001, indicating that he changed his name, and obtained Swedish citizenship.

That, at least, as far as I can tell, is not in dispute; and eliminates a major bone of contention.

The quote sourced from Indymedia can thus also be removed.

Lets settle on resolving the biography issue first. – Joh Domingo

Let's be clear. Shamir is a public figure, he is controversial, and he apparently (at least an editor using his name) has attempted to sanitize this page repeatedly. Searchlight magazine is also controversial, but it is an appropriate source for Wikipedia when properly cited. The material from Expo was translated into English, who can't verify it? As for Shamir's claims about being an "Israeli Jewish leftist," it matters because a number of well-known Israeli Jewish leftists had never heard of him before he popped up in the United States and briefly became a minor celebrity on the political left by claiming he was a well-known "Israeli Jewish leftist" who opposed Zionism. The biographical ommissions matter.--Cberlet 14:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, let us examine you objections.

Israel Shamir is a public person. - perhaps, from your POV, but certainly he would not qualify for a biographical inclusion on wiki. His family details and personnal preferences are irrelevant to this subject. i.e the information contained in the searchlight and and Socialist Viewpoint articles. He is not some fugitive Nazi, and we are not on a search & destroy mission.

Shamir sanitizing this page - I would too, it consists entirely of unadulterated smear. No attempt has been to provide balance, it is patently biased, and it appears that only quotes that confirm editors POV are allowed. Even toilets are cleaned periodically. This page is a sewer.

Searchlight is an appropriate source if properly quoted. - I agree that a source can technically be correctly quoted, but it does not follow that it is necessarily appropriate to use it. I am a Newbie here, and I am not completely familiar with the all the rules, so I am governed by what I can glean from the information provided, in the time I have been able to do so. Guidelines for what constitutes 'Reliable Sources' has this to say:

Evaluating sources
Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable. Find out what other people say about your sources. Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

(Emphasis added) - Sorry for the long Quote, I will learn to provide wiki quotes soon

Although this is a guideline, and not policy, the sources used in the article fails on several counts, and serves here to violate the principles governing neutral presentation of the subject. This does not detract from the fact that such opinions exist, but other, more reliable sources exist for such material; such as the link to the Jonathon Pollard article that lies unused at the bottom of the page. As for the non-English source; are Turkish and Russian sources allowed, if we provide a translation?

Shamir claims to be an 'Israeli Jewish Leftist' - Where has Shamir claimed to be a Leftist? Please provide references. I have been reading Shamir for several years, and not once have I come across a claim that he is or a Leftist although his eclectic style could lead a reader to assumptions. This seems to be the main complaint of the critics - that he is not a leftist.

The Biographical ommissions would matter if they were pertinent to the subject at hand - which is 'Israeli Writers'. What needs to be esthablished is whether Shamir lives in Israel or not. There is nothing unusual nowadays about living in two countries. Millions of people also have two or more passports, particularly so in Israel, I believe. If Shamir changed his name, he would have had to change it from something. If he is 'controversial', all the more reason to move about under the radar. It is only important if you can esthablish he ommitted it for nefarious reasons. That some people believe it is so, can legitimately be included; but to make it the focus of the article is not reasonable. The 'dispute' about his Swedish residence seems to revolve around a need to 'prove' Shamir does not live in Jaffa. Why not be open about this and say that this is the dispute, rather than include a long bio from Shamir's website and then claim it is all disputed? Alternatively, include the details from the bio that is not disputed, or omit it altogether. If it cannot be verified, it should not be included. If nothing of substance can be verified, the article should be removed altogether. No sense including an article in wikipedia, just in order to smear someone; even if it can be verified that someone believes the smears enough to publish it.

How then would you edit the changes I suggested? - Joh Domingo

edits

I am in the process of collecting material as regards to Shamir's biography. I will be editing in the next couple of days. It appears that Shamir is well known in Israel as a journalist, and particularly well-known for his reporting in Pravda during the period 1989-1993. I will be giving suitable secondary references, most of it negative, to demonstrate this clearly. I would appreciate it if people refrain from engaging in flame wars, eliminating quotes that do not conform to your POV. I will not remove items that do not conform to my POV that are correctly documented, except to clarify when an obvious distortion of quotes in being relied upon.

It is quite clear to me that Shamir is/was an Israeli citizen. His also taking out Swedish citizenship seems to be an opportunity that arose because of Family ties. His son was exiled to Sweden after the Seige of the Church of Nativity, and it is also possible that he is/was married to a Swedish citizen and that he prefers to keep his personal life private. Personal details will only become public if Shamir chooses, or a close personal friend gets it published in a reputable outlet; presumably only in the case it becomes pertinent.

It is probable that he availed himself to the opportunity because of his anti-Zionist activities - a bolt-hole would come in handy in the event his Israeli citizenship was threatened. There is insufficient evidence either way - certainly not for the accusation appearing in the Expo and Socialist Viewpoint references; which are not considered suitable secondary sources for Wiki anyhow, and which contain speculation based on ignorance of Shamir's career. People don't cease to exist, or suddenly appear simply because they don't exist in an English version somewhere. It is an anglocentric view, and relies on anglocentrism to give weight to speculations that seek to promote a partisan POV. That is why Socialist Viewpoint is not considered to be a suitable secondary source on wiki about Shamir, as Shamir would not be a suitable secondary source about Jews. Jonathon Pollard is not a suitable source either, as a self-declared warmonger (it is on his website 'I am a Warmonger'), but he has managed to get his piece published in the Times of London, and he serves a usefull purpose in giving voice to the many editors who dearly want to publize Shamir's 'Jermas' identity.

Insufficient reference is given to Shamir's own claims to Jaffa residency in his writing; which is a primary source. I feel the category 'Swedish Writers' should be changed, he does not write in Sweden, and the circumstances of his Swedish citizenship does not qualify him for the title. But I won't labor the point. - Joh Domingo