Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Recent WP:RS on Atzmon

Articles mentioning his politics as well as his music. (There also are a few quoting him, dozens mentioning just music, plus all of the reprints of his frequent articles.) Not that they probably will be used properly in the highly biased lead and attack sections of this POV article (see tag top of page).

Wandering jazz player, Feb. 2010, full interview with some good insights on his views.
Interview: Gilad Atzmon by Rob Garratt, Nov 2009
Irish Times article which states: Israeli reedman Gilad Atzmon, these days more widely known for his anti-Zionism than his music... (Perhaps most relevant comment that belongs here.
Listen to the heroes of Israel by John Pilger, February 2010 which quotes Atzmon in a positive fashion. (Of course there are some highly partisan articles which probably will be quoted here denouncing Pilger for daring to say something nice about Atzmon; one cherry picked quote is from such an article but my attempt to present that context was of course deleted.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fyi I've found a bunch more and putting together various additions from WP:RS, especially in the writing section, to make article more NPOV. Just keep getting sidetracked. Maybe by end of the weekend. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS for Cohen allegations of what Atzmon said

Glad you recognized and fixed that policy violation, i.e. of Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion where "facts" from an opinion piece cannot be used in a BLP. Here is another one that must be fixed immediately.

In a 2009 The Guardian opinion piece Nick Cohen compared Atzmon to members of the far-right with a paranoid mentality, for his statements that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity."[47] There is no independent verification that Atzmon made those statements at that event, which Cohen does identify and should be identified. Using similar statements Atzmon made elsewhere does NOT verify he said these things at this event. So the statements should be removed.
Also "paranoid mentality" should not be linked to a book on paranoia in American politics. Obviously some sort of POV/coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, the Aaronovitch was actually fine; I didn't say it had problems, I said another editor had problems with it. It was not a policy violation. Neither are the other ones you cite. But if you'd like me to track down the original source of the various quotes being reacted to, thereby increasing the documentation of Atzmon's sorry history of antisemitic outbursts, I could do that. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Two editors, Malik and I, reminded you that opinion pieces cannot be used for facts just the opinions of the authors. If you can find a transcript of the Oxford Literary Festival event mentioned in Cohen's article, great. Of course, the fact that it was a debate on antisemitism which Aaronovitch and Cohen were both invited to participate in also should be mentioned. I have several refs to the event and descriptions which need to go somewhere. Haven't decided where yet. But no transcript. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, to clear up your evident confusion, if you read a little more closely you'll see that Cohen does not claim that Atzmon made those statements at the Oxford debate. The first antisemitic passage, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe," comes from the justly lambasted Martin Gibson interview (since removed in embarrassment - either the paper's or Atzmon's - from the NZ paper's website but available elsewhere on the web), and the second antisemitic passage, "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity," comes from the Atzmon essay "Anatomy of an Unresolved Conflict" (since removed in embarrassment from Atzmon's own site but available elsewhere on the web). Sorry, Carol, but he really did say those wretchedly antisemitic things, just not at Oxford, and not without trying to cover his tracks later when word of them began to spread. Do you now propose to finesse them away? I don't think that'll work for you. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cohen clearly says that Atzmon said these things at the Oxford Literary Festival:

The nice, middle-class organisers of the Oxford Literary Festival had invited Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon who is - and you are going to have bear with me on this - a former winner of the BBC's jazz album of the year award. He declared that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity".

Even if he clearly did not, you can't just assume you know what the source is. That's called Original Research. This is a simple factual matter that Malik or Roland would be helpful in weighing in on so I am not once again forced to go to some noticeboard or other. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Atzmon may well have made these remarks at the Oxford Literary Festival. I haven't listened to his speech, which is available online at [1]; I haven't managed to find a transcript. If he did make these remarks on that occasion, he will have been quoting himself, since they appeared in print much earlier. The first appears in the Gibson interview, dated 23 January 2009, while the second is on the PeacePalestine website dated 8 May 2008. RolandR (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>*The archive doesn't really identify the event or have a timer so that the time at which comments were made can be identified. (And of course there is getting through the thick accent; I couldn't make out him saying them in a not very close listen.)

And I am not denying that similar comments were made in other publications, the question is, were they made at the Oxford Literary Festival as Cohen claims, since such facts cannot be imported from an opinion piece per Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. In fact, that seems to be a problem with other assertions of what he said as well where source not identified. Will have to look more carefully. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, reread Cohen. The implication that Atzmon said these things at Oxford is your WP:SYNTH. It's not in Cohen. And I think people would probably take a dim view of any attempt to sanitize away the Cohen quote because it doesn't support your WP:SYNTH. RT-LAMP (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

IF that's the way you want it fine. But then according to Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. the fact that Cohen himself does not attribute the statements to any source, his own personal hearing of them, an Atzmon interview, an Atzmon writing, means we can't just do that. The fact that Cohen is obviously a very biased source, compared to others who have written about him, means that sourcing does have to be exact (according to my re-reading of relevant WP:BLP and WP:RS policies and discussions this morning.) And please stop personally insulting me by saying I want to sanitize the article when I just want a fair portrayal according to BLP standards not a listing of every biased opinion piece while factual information from more neutral sources is repeatedly deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again it would be helpful if Malik, who first brought up this issue, would opine. After all I have an opinion piece that states the fact that Cohen was a panelist in the debate, plus some opinions I want to quote, and I want to see if that fact can be mentioned. Do I have to go to WP:RS for more neutral or 3rd opinon? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the new way it is written infers Cohen says he got the statements from those sources which he does not. So that's synthesis too. If the actual sources are to be mentioned it must be done in a more compliant way, including links to the sources, as was done in the past. Do I have to tag it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, Carol. Cohen says that Atzmon said this, and draws his own conclusions. We have a separate reliable source that Atzmon did indeed say this, and Cohen is certainly a reliable source for his own opinions. Cohen's article is a bit ambiguous, and could be read to mean that he ascribed these comments to Atzmon's speech in Oxford; but this is not the only, or necesary, reading of his words. The fact that he does not himself state explicitly where and when Atzmon made his comments is neither here nor there; he is not bound in his Guardian piece by Wikipedia's rules on attribution. RolandR (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, if I recall correctly, my objection concerning the opinion column was using it as a RS for a statement that anti-Zionists criticize Atzmon. It can only be used to express the author's opinion. Now, if I understand your question, you're wondering whether an opinion column can be used as a RS concerning statements attributed to Atzmon. In the end, what difference does it make? You've been given other sources for Atzmon's statements, so cite his quotations to those sources if you want to be a stickler about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm starting to wonder whether the strict distinction between news and opinion articles really applies to the UK serious press in the way that it seems to apply in the US. It's clear that all the articles in the Observer, even those by star writers like Cohen who are given a lot of control over their content, are not so much "fact-checked" as picked over word-by-word by the libel lawyers. Obviously we can't an exception for this politically-charged bio, so I will consider raising it on the reliable sources policy talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think the issue of allegations (quotes or actions) from opinion pieces in general is important, but have gotten little response bringing up the inconsistencies or lack of clarity between WP:RS and WP:BLP on the topic at either talk page. I was thinking bringing it to WP:RSN is another option, and with Itsmejudith's above encouragement will do so. Also, even if this is true about the Brits and libel, I think it hurts the encyclopedia to use vitriolic articles like Kamm and Cohen's as sources of fact at all. Meanwhile I'll change the ref to what might actually be acceptable, i.e., including refs to the articles where Atzmon does say these things and quoting the sentence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BlueBoar commented on this issue at WP:RS talk page and I replied that they were somewhat but not entirely applicable. Thunderstorms coming but do intend to correct RTLamp’s Cohen edits soon, including in light of what he wrote. But WP:RSN probably still good. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor changes to Carol's latest edit.

Paul Eisen's essay is very plainly a Holocaust denial essay, and not merely because Aaronovitch said so. It's called "Holocaust Wars" - google for it, and you'll see there's just no uncertainty where Eisen is coming from. No reasonable person could read it as anything but a long, detailed love letter to the Holocaust denial movement, ending with an exhortation to fight "organized world Jewry and its primary arm, the Holocaust." There's a reason Atzmon's circulation of this essay caused such a big stink: it's an absolutely appalling work of antisemitism, really packed to the gills with antisemitism and Holocaust denial - to which Atzmon had only "a slightly different take," and refused to disassociate himself from Eisen, whom he continued to call "his good friend."

It's peculiar to efface von Brunn's crime, which is what triggered Cohen's article, following the Holocaust Memorial shooting by a matter of days.

Also, it's worth pointing out that "thetruthseeker.co.uk," the new source Carol added, is a really grotesquely antisemitic site. Here's a sentence from an essay posted there just this week: "The BP oil spill must be seen in the context of an ongoing covert war against America waged by the Illuminati, i.e. the Masonic Jewish central banking cartel led by the Rothschilds." (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=12740) As the left increasingly repudiates Atzmon, he's finding an increasingly appreciative audience on the David Duke/David Irving/Stormfront right. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of WP:Soapbox out side of the WP:RS, which there is no "duty" for me to investigate? To make others think I am an antisemite? I didn't research truthseeker since a quick look at list of "contributors" showed a bunch of notable writers -who may not have approved use of their articles. But if it is an objectionable site, I can removed that link and just quote more fully from the article I copied from the original source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I have not and do not call you an antisemite. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And I did not allege that you called me one. But constant WP:SOAPBOX breast beating about how he allegedly is one certainly has the effect on editors and others who might drop by of making them think the person you are complaining to about their edits is one. Meanwhile, you didn't answer my question about removing the link to TruthSeeker and just quoting more fully from the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your source, your call. If you want to say, "To find out more about Atzmon, here's where to swim in the TruthSeeker sewer," who am I to complain? Like water, Atzmon's essays seek their own level. I'm just happy to see you finally accept that Atzmon really said what Cohen credited him with saying. RT-LAMP (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to make me look bad by your comments re: source being a sewer. I'll look more carefully at the site and/or ask WP:RS and see, since sometimes such otherwise NON-WP:RS sites that include copies of others' articles published are allowed to be used. I don't know if that one quote you mention enough would be enough to disqualify it. (For example see these discussions of newspaper and other reprints of Reliable Source articles, documents, especially by less or even non-reliable sources: #1, #2, #3, #4.) Given the contrasting views there, I'd like to hear opinions from other editors here before having to go to WP:RSN. On the other hand I don't mind just putting in a fuller in context quote to show that it does in fact from that article (and I do have copy of the original) and dropping the link.

Meanwhile, your attacks on Atzmon just make it clear your POV makes neutral editing very difficult for you. I was not questioning whether he said these things but whether using these quotes without Cohen's attribution was allowed under wikipedia policies. If they were not clearly made in other sources they would not be allowed. I get the impression editors are more flexible - as I have been in the past - if there are independent sources of the statements. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone who looks into your history on this article is likely to smile at your saying "your POV makes neutral editing very difficult for you." RT-LAMP (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean stick with Wikipedia policies, esp. WP:NPOV on WP:BLP?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy should be followed in all BLPs and sometimes it isn't an enviable task policing that. However, ensuring that BLPs stick to policy should not involve us making our own constructions of the views of BLP subjects. Please do go to RSN. I'm pretty sure that Cohen is RS on this, but it may be best to attribute him so as to be on the safe side. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did already just attribute the quotes to Atzmon's specific articles since that seems like the likely outcome and was the accepted practice in this article on this exact issue in the past and is a practice I might want to use in the future elsewhere. I'll save such trips to RSN for issues where facts cannot be independently verified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New article by Atzmon

I am not going to put this in the article, but editors may be interested in Atzmon's article about the Gaza flotilla massacre, Jewish ideology and psychosis – a danger to world peace, in which he writes "Within the discourse of Jewish politics and history there is no room for causality... I have hardly seen any Israelis or Jews attempt to understand the circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." It might be considered original research to say so, but I have rarely seen a clearer statement that European Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust. RolandR (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't his first time on that turf; the article cited here for being attacked by Kamm plays on the same pitch - '65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbours?' - and also depicts a Holocaust-lite notably without gas chambers. It's reprehensible stuff and unmistakeable in its intent.

It's difficult not to conclude that Atzmon's few remaining defenders either simply can't detect any form of antisemitism short of shouting "Jews to the gas" or they've made a decision - conscious or unconscious - that they simply will no longer engage the antisemitism question in any form other than raw denial. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I note also that when, in the Google box of my browser, I type "atz" the first suggested completion from Google is "atzmon holocaust denier." Doesn't prove anything, of course. But it's still not hard to see in it a reflection of what Atzmon's reputation really is. 141.142.240.3 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just again to point out POV interpretations given to so many things he writes: "circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." He does not write: "Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust." He talks about European -not Nazi- and resentment - not genocide. In the next, again "Europeans" and "standing up" is ambiguous, especially since he then asks something which I think everyone, pro and con Israel can agree on "Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history?"^[1] Obviously it would be helpful if he did NOT write such ambiguous things!

~~But of course the context of the whole article is removed. (Though perhaps at least it should be mentioned in the footnote leading to the original article.)~~

Again we have the double standard in Wikipedia editing: one can criticize Catholic (pedophiles) or Muslim (terrorism) or Fundie Protestant (sex-capades) behavior and say it leads to anger against them, without being accused of planning genocide. (Even though some feel that is what is happening vs. Muslims.) But if you criticize even a small number of Jewish people - or Israel - for bad behavior and note the simple fact it leads to anger against even innocent Jews, you are allegedly justifying genocide.<s?d That is the POV from highly partisan sources I see in the lead and the allegations of antisemitism section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just again to point out POV interpretations given to so many things he writes: "circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." He does not write: "Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust." He talks about European -not Nazi- and resentment - not genocide. In the next, again "Europeans" and "standing up" is ambiguous, especially since he then asks something which I think everyone, pro and con Israel can agree on "Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history?"^[2] Obviously it would be helpful if he did NOT write such ambiguous things!

He writes with that level of ambiguity because the use of dog whistles requires it. It's a deliberate strategy, and a standard technique for racists and cut-rate demogogues. That way, the hate-the-Jews audience he's aiming for can get their chuckle, knowing full well what Atzmon's doing - trying to transfer blame for the Holocaust onto the Jews - while the Atzmon-sanitizers can say, "Well, he never really said the Jews were responsible for their own deaths, so it's all perfectly okay and wonderful." RT-LAMP (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, let me ask a specific question. We know what the Europeans (speaking generally) did to the Jews of Europe (speaking generally) in WWII. Atzmon calls that "standing up" to the Jews. Do you find his choice of words in any way defensible? And while I'm at it, his use of the egregious and literally medieval charge that the Jews killed Jesus - do you consider that more of his "anti-Zionism"? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But of course the context of the whole article is removed. (Though perhaps at least it should be mentioned in the footnote leading to the original article.)

Again we have the double standard in Wikipedia editing: one can criticize Catholic (pedophiles) or Muslim (terrorism) or Fundie Protestant (sex-capades) behavior and say it leads to anger against them, without being accused of planning genocide. (Even though some feel that is what is happening vs. Muslims.) But if you criticize even a small number of Jewish people - or Israel - for bad behavior and note the simple fact it leads to anger against even innocent Jews, you are allegedly justifying genocide. That is the POV from highly partisan sources I see in the lead and the allegations of antisemitism section.

A reprehensible paragraph. Perhaps you could give us a percent figure. What percent of the Holocaust was the Jews' fault, in your analysis, Carol? How many of them deserved what they got? Nobody is accusing Atzmon of "planning genocide." Just in engaging in revisionist history which includes both demonstrable elements of Holocaust denial and an attempt to shift as much of the blame as possible onto the Jews. Maybe you can't hear the dog whistles, Carol - after all that's why they're dog-whistles - but Atzmon has been called out by the left, the right, the center, the Zionist, and the anti-Zionists for it, and maybe it's finally time to ask yourself what so many people all over the political spectrum see and you don't. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

<bacdent>It's silly for me to try to have a rational discussion of POVs in this article given the irrationality surrounding the subject, so I shall desist and strike comments above. I'll stick to specific edits that actually will be done. I would request that RTLamp remove his uncivil WP:SOAPBOX comments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote from "Jewish Ideology and World Peace"

There's nothing ambiguous about Atzmon's writings at all. I've included Atzmon's statement regarding "fanatical tribal Jewish ideology." into the article. Drsmoo (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain that the quote belongs in the article, but if it does, then it should be the paragraph and not just half a sentence taken from it. Unomi (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite an example of a wikipedia article that quotes whole paragraphs? There are many notable quotes in that paragraph, for example, Atzmon referencing the "Jewish Khazar" theory, which was invented by far right racial theorists. As well as the line about "psychotic merciless biblical poisonous"(he really loves to lay on the inane adjectives, it really would be quite unseemly to include the whole bilious paragraph in the article. Will you put forth an argument for why you feel, in this one instance on wikipedia, that an entire paragraph should be quoted? Drsmoo (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that not quoting only 1/2 sentence out of a paragraph on a subject should be limited to this article at all. Nor do I quite understand your rationale for not including the whole paragraph if it is meant to support the charges forwarded by that section of our article. Unomi (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because including the whole paragraph would mean that 1/3 of the section would be that one paragraph. It would turn the article into an unencylopedic mess and be ridiculous and hard to read. It is important to be concise, editing is key. Drsmoo (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with taking such a small fragment out of a larger whole, especially not on the grounds that it would be unencyclopedic to include more of the context - perhaps it would be best that we wait for more input from other editors before we proceed one way or another. Unomi (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait for more input, I think though if you have a problem with standard wikipedia practice, then that's a different issue. Also if you could explain how in your opinion the full paragraph changes the context of the quote, then that would be helpful. Drsmoo (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There are different threads of antisemitic discourse, and when Atzmon enters a new area, that justifies the inclusion of the relevant quote. In this case, as Drsmoo points out, a new element here is his promulgating the Khazar-replacement nonsense, a wacky pseudoscientific theory -- disproven by DNA analysis -- that says Ashkenazi Jews aren't really descended from the Israelites. That's a blanket smear against Ashkenazi Jews, calling them all impostors, and as such is antisemitic. It's just another place where Atzmon's rhetoric overlaps that of, say, David Duke, who is also big on the Khazar-replacement thing. Quoting the whole paragraph of Atzmon's antisemitic drivel is overkill, because most of it is not new; he's driveled it before. But the Khazar business is new, it's a new arrow in Atzmon's antisemitic quiver, where it joins more familiar standards like Holocaust denial, international Jewish conspiracy, embrace of "Protocols," and that golden oldie, Jewish deicide.

Unomi, part of Drsmoo's concern (as I read it) is a result of the history of this section of the article, which a certain editor at has continually edited with a view to dismiss, excuse away, or minimize Atzmon's antisemitism. That makes this section much more compact that it could otherwise be. If Atzmon's latest antisemitic outburst is quoted at paragraph length, then there are others, equally scabrous and hate-filled but quoted here in only single sentences, which would deserve the same treatment, and I think the inevitable ballooning of this section is what Drsmoo is trying to avoid. One of the purposes of citing the quotes is to allow the reader to easily find the original context and determine from there whether Atzmon's words have been misrepresented. Correct me if I'm wrong, Drsmoo. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I think there's an issue on notability grounds for even a one-sentence quote. I've had some foul WP:RS Atzmon quotes I've posted removed, not because they weren't WP:RS but because their notability hadn't been established by a secondary WP:RS source. That's why so many sentences in this section are of the form "Prominent person X called Atzmon 'Z' for saying 'Y'" rather than just, "Atzmon said 'Y'": that's the formulation that's evolved to show notability via secondary sources. (I would hope this is not a nonce rule evolved solely for the present article, incidentally.) The quote under consideration looks like it might be the same kind of thing no matter the length - Atzmon giving another antisemitic belch on his website and largely being ignored by secondary sources, leaving the inclusion on the wrong side of WP:UNDUE. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

True, when it is covered by a notable commentator it will be included. Drsmoo (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the scientific research that refutes Atzmon's "Khazar" delusion was done in part by a researcher named Dr. Gil Atzmon, a researcher at the Einstein College of Medicine. [2] RT-LAMP (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This article's consensus is "No Cherry Picking from Primary Sources" - which is what this quote from Atzmon is. I thought we had agreed repeatedly in this article to stop cherry picking various quotes from Atzmon articles to prove that he is an evil guy. If no WP:RS brings up what he says, it is not notable. This also goes for all the nice things he says about himself, which editors also have ruled cherry picking from primary sources. (The exception being very few and specific, for example, if it is the only place where he responds to specific or general negative accusations against him, per WP:BLP.) Do I have to quote all the places in WP:BLP and WP:RS that prove this point and every time various editors on this talk page have said this in the talk page archives of this article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Important Biographical info deleted against policy

At this diff, RTLamp reverted important information from an Atzmon interview about the reasons Atzmon turned against Israel, information straight from Atzmon in a WP:RS interview. (Deleted material in Italics.]

"He told an interviewer that it was there he first learned about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, legislation to prevent their return, and the wiping out of Palestinian villages. “We were indoctrinated into a denial of the Palestinian Cause. We were not aware of it.”"Theo Panayides, Wandering jazz player, Cyprus Mail, February 21, 2010.

Given there are nearly 500 words in the section of criticism of Atzmon's writings, one would think 24 words for the actual issues that brought him to his rather angry views would not be WP:UNDUE or POV. I know one neutral editor who looked at the article on my request at Editor's Assistance discussed this issue with you on your talk page, instead of here. He actually wrote to you here: From a biographical POV, I would like to know more about his experience as a paramedic during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as that seems to have contributed to his current state of mind.

You replied with a long WP:SOAPBOX on why the article must emphasize Atzmon's antisemitism to which the editor replied here" Keep in mind that a biographical approach is not only needed, it's essential to the structure and composition of an encyclopedia article about a musician and author like Atzmon. I encourage you to pursue an analysis and critique of Atzmon's writing within the paradigm of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That's what I've been trying to tell you as well.

(Full discussion User_talk:RTLamp#SPA_concerns. SPA meaning WP:Single Purpose Account, which I had to look up myself.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the same neutral editor who Carol quotes above [also wrote:I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that Atzmon is antisemitic, anti-Zionist, and at the end of the day, anti-Jewish. RolandR (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what anyone who first learns about Atzmon by reading this article as it is now would think. Relevant comments appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article as it is now the body seems 'ok', I don't know much about Gilad so it can be hard to tell, but I am somewhat concerned that the lead seems to not adequately reflect the contents and relative weightings of the article body though. Unomi (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

First, a specific opinion the specific question answered in this thread would be great.

Today I'm ending procrastination and forcing myself to put together and enter important WP:RS info that will help figure out actual weighting. Obviously his importance as a musician is largely missing from lead. In fact I've found several WP:RS that call him a "jazz legend." CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it took most of weekend to organize all the WP:RS i"ve accumulated in last 6 months, so still working on that. Just put in the one most pressing edit in this period. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Headings

I removed the "Writings" topic heading, because it was essentially empty and the one or two sentences there were redundant. I also renamed the "Politics" section to "Politics and Activism" and moved an out-of-place blurb detailing his various forms of activism out of the lede and into that section.

Let me explicitly note that I did not make "Criticisms" a subheading of "Politics and Activism" because the criticisms are largely charges of antisemitism. Antisemitism is not a kind of politics but rather a kind of bigotry, and therefore placing the antisemitism controversy under a "Politics and Activism" heading would be a category error. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since politics and activism pretty much redundant, and writings are his main form of activism, I changed to "Writings and activism," though "Writings and politics" probably would be acceptable. Activism just more specific. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cohen attack piece "criticism" against BLP

I put the POV inline tag on this sentence in the article for reasons below, most comments repeats of discussions on Cohen by various editors in the last three archives on this. I think it should be removed for reasons below:

In a 2009 opinion piece for The Guardian, Nick Cohen found Atzmon's writings "similar" to the "incoherent internet postings" of the white supremacist murderer James Wenneker von Brunn. In particular, Cohen cited Atzmon's writing that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity".^[3]^[4]^{[neutrality is disputed]}

Cohen's piece is just an Attack Opinion piece: starting with comparing a Jew to a white supremacist murderer; this just shows its vitriolic opinion, no matter who publishes it
WP:RS problems with quotes: As we've discussed here previously, it is not clear whether Cohen is getting his information from the Oxford debate where someone else allegedly quoted Atzmon or elsewhere. So Wiki-editors had to include two articles where Atzmon did in fact say these things. But this is really tortured sourcing.
Quotes are out of context: The statements are quoted totally out of context. (Including links to original articles barely balances that issue.) Even including the full paragraph contexts of the quotes, which should be done, doesn't really correct the problem.

Overall, this entry falls well below WP:BLP standards. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Cohen is a well known commentator on Middle-Eastern affairs and the removal of his analysis causes the article to WP:UNDUEly lean towards one side of a POV. The above comment appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT dressed up as policy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with BLP standards as perhaps I ought to be. Can you show me exactly how this falls below? If nothing else, the Guardian source does qualify as a RS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to read the page WP:BLP. A few quotes from it:

Note that WP:RS is not the only criteria and the page reads: policy in a nutshell -Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. There is already lots of criticism of Atzmon without a tacky attack like that that lowers the tone of the encyclopedia.
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. A ranting opinion piece which doesn't even clarify where the opinion writer got the quotes is not high quality.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, Comparing Atzmon to a murder is pretty sensationalist.
BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner... Obviously comparing a Jew to a "white supremacist murderer" is quite sensationalist.
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content. Biased or malicious content - comparing a Jew to a "white supremacist murderer"?
Also of relevance Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion.

Should wikipedia be comparing Jews to "white supremacist murderers"? Unless of course its known they've really murdered someone, which Atzmon obviously has not. (He was a medic when he was in the Israeli military in 1982.) I'm sure people can find better criticism pieces of Atzmon that don't make Wikipedia look like a tabloid. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop arguing with the straw man. Nicks never compared him to a white supremacist. He compared his writings to the writings of a white supremacist.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference not clear to me or to 95% of readers or professional journalists who might come here, either, I'm sure. But if editors are fine with puerile attacks, I guess if you can't fight them, join them? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that it fails BLP. As a compromise, what if the piece in question were cut down in size so that it has less prominence? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's much a "compromise", with all due respect. The content was removed on basically spurious grounds. It was simply a misreading of the source. I actually would like to add that Atzmon has a small penis, based on internet rumors. So how about we "compromise"? We won't add the content I would like to add but we'll readd the content that was removed based on a misreading of an article. Cohen is a well known and respected commentator on Middle Eastern affairs. A lot worse has been said about Atzmon then comparing his writings to the writings of a white supremacist. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem using the Cohen column as a source, but I think we're "abusing" "NPOV" by "overusing" "quotation marks". From WP:NPOV#Impartial tone: Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page history, this is the fourth time CarolMooreDC has brought removing the Cohen source up in the talk page. Wikiediting is about consensus, one cannot simply bring an issue up once every few months until one gets their way. We have had this exact discussion three previous times, there is no reason to have it again. I removed the tag, if it is reinserted i will take the issue up with AN/I for disruptive editing. Drsmoo (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'd like to see how many NPOV admins would consider Cohen's comments anything but trash. FYI, to confused editor above, Cohen's comments have not been removed. Enough said on this topic. I'm pretty much done adding stuff - barring occasional updates - and will just deal with attempts to delete NPOV or add more trashy POV material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment from Cohen is just an attack and shouldn't be in a comic never mind wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what O2RR says, that junk should come out mark nutley (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, I can't see it and not remove it, edit summary of..BLP removed comparison to a murderer - excessive opinionated personal attack - Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. The other issue I forgot to mention is (per Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_6#WP:RS_for_Cohen_allegations_of_what_Atzmon_said) the article falsely claims Cohen got these from Atzmon's writings and ref's those writings. In fact Cohen actually clearly says that Atzmon said these things at the Oxford Literary Festival. He says: The nice, middle-class organisers of the Oxford Literary Festival had invited Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon who is - and you are going to have bear with me on this - a former winner of the BBC's jazz album of the year award. He declared that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity. If he had been from the British National party, the festival would have had nothing to do with him, but as he was a fellow traveller of the Socialist Workers party, the literary ladies in their floral dresses and the bookish gentlemen in their ill-fitting jackets welcomed him to the quadrangles of Oxford. However other editors held that this quote is "ambiguous" and that we should say Cohen got these from his writings. This is because I pointed out that Cohen's claiming as fact that Atzmon said them there would NOT be allowed per Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion. So this is an another example of questionable editing practices in this quote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an incorrect statement, the quote doesn't infer that Atzmon said these at a debate, which is obvious. As was said earlier, this is another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you have claimed Cohen to be a "polemicist" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321452236&oldid=321451528 you have brought this false point up numerous times on the talk page (this is the fourth time), you cannot bring incorrect points up over and over and over and over until you get your way, despite the rest of the editors, it is is the worst possible form of wiki editing. The quote doesn't claim or even seem to claim that Atzmon said it at this debate, and the article links to where he originally said it. Those links are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Atzmon#cite_note-Cohen-68 Drsmoo (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your ambiguous first sentence, which is the only relevant one. Do you mean you agree the quote obviously means Atzmon said it at the debate? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it ambiguous? I said "the quote doesn't infer that Atzmon said these at a debate, which is obvious." how do you go from that to "Do you mean you agree the quote obviously means Atzmon said it at the debate? " I don't understand. Drsmoo (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't infer it...he writes it. I thought that's what you were agreeing with. Let me put most relevant parts in Bold:

The nice, middle-class organisers of the Oxford Literary Festival had invited Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon who is - and you are going to have bear with me on this - a former winner of the BBC's jazz album of the year award. He declared that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity. If he had been from the British National party, the festival would have had nothing to do with him, but as he was a fellow traveller of the Socialist Workers party, the literary ladies in their floral dresses and the bookish gentlemen in their ill-fitting jackets welcomed him to the quadrangles of Oxford."

I know all the Atzmon haters may want to deny Cohen is talking about what he heard at Oxford but I doubt NPOV editors or anyone at WP:ANI would. Just because I got disgusted and gave up before, doesn't mean consensus to ignore this fact trumps policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it plainly doesn't say what you want it to say. Straight up. "He declared" refers to any date in the past, he's describing why it is shocking that they invited Atzmon given what he has written. Drsmoo (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP says: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

If Cohen said it about what he heard Atzmon say, we are expected to accept this "fact" from him, which is against Wikipedia:Rs#Statements_of_opinion.
If we declare Cohen was referring to his writings, without his explicitly saying so, it is even worse since we are engaging in WP:Original research, including in adding those links.

NPOV editors please note that the full text of one of those quotes comes from an interview where a WP:RS helps sets context, but Drsmoo repeatedly deleted both the interviewer's and Atzmon's context because he prefers to use something out of context even when it is questionably sourced like this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack (it is not) the truth is that poor reading comprehension is not an excuse to remove a source. If the source is removed I am going to bring the issue to AN/I on the grounds of disruptive editing. Consensus has already been reached in this talk, and it was reached the three previous times as well. You can not just continue bringing the same issues up over and over. Drsmoo (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Hmm, I'd say reading into Cohen that he was talking about Atzmon's writing is far more of a problem then reading into his statement that he claimed Atzmon made these declarations at the Oxford Literary Festival event he mentions twice in the paragraph. And this is a different issue that brought to WP:RS before, which was News_Story_Quote_vs._Out_of_Context_Opinion_Piece_Quote Which more credible, Gibson News peice or Cohen Opinion piece. Of two Non-involved editors who responded, both agreed with me.

More relevant here, at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_6#WP:RS_for_Cohen_allegations_of_what_Atzmon_said which does address this issue the two least POV responses were: Cohen's article is a bit ambiguous, and could be read to mean that he ascribed these comments to Atzmon's speech in Oxford; but this is not the only, or necesary, reading of his words. The fact that he does not himself state explicitly where and when Atzmon made his comments is neither here nor there; he is not bound in his Guardian piece by Wikipedia's rules on attribution. RolandR (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) and Now, if I understand your question, you're wondering whether an opinion column can be used as a RS concerning statements attributed to Atzmon. In the end, what difference does it make? You've been given other sources for Atzmon's statements, so cite his quotations to those sources if you want to be a stickler about it.Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC) At this point it's not really that I care that much about whether it stays in. I think it's important to clarify whether if an opinion piece author throws in some ambiguous or questionable statements that make one wonder where he got his info, should that influence use of the material? I guess in the end, it's all politics and who stacks the deck. Which is why I gave up last time and will this time unless NPOV editors opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, since I think reasonable editors above admit there is some ambiguity, I changed Atzmon's "writings" to "declarations" and we can just let the readers go to Cohen and decide for themselves where Cohen got that info of what Cohen said Atzmon "declared." On the other issue, I'm sure I'll run into some ambiguous sourcing by an opinion piece stating some factoid some day on some article, so I don't want to be too much of a stickler and earn too much bad karma :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation

Following this article is like watching a slow car crash happening. You can see that something really nasty is developing, but hope that the drivers can stop their cars quickly or swerve aside so that nobody gets hurt badly. We need to find a way of working more cooperatively on this article. Has anybody got any suggestions? Gilad Atzmon has detractors on the left and among supporters of Zionism. He has had notable conflicts with Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch. He has supporters too, of course. The article should represent each viewpoint (including Atzmon's) in a neutral way and at suitable length. Everybody needs to accept that the article will contain material which they don't like. Perhaps the best way would be to allow editors who are in sympathy with each viewpoint to do that viewpoint's initial write-up. It might help if we can find one or two editors who are acceptable to everybody to act as arbitrators. ← ZScarpia 13:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good points, though in general the article has been a contest between a majority who want to prove he's an antisemite and me and various passerbys who don't think it's our place as wikipedia editors to WP:Soapbox ad nauseum against him for whatever our criticisms may be, though sometimes the constant soapboxing does draw us in to opine that maybe he isn't the worst person since Hitler and various other white supremacists. At this point the Cohen piece is the biggest problem. But the more NPOV people don't seem to be around right now, as in general they haven't been when the topic of Cohen's offensive piece comes up. I'll bring it up again if NPOV editors come back. Meanwhile at least one can put in more positive opinions, for balance, whether or not one personally agrees with every single aspect of every single one of them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede

I edited the lede. But I forgot to remove the "and" after the word "novelist" in the first sentence, and to insert a comma in its place. Since the page is under a 1-edit-per-24-hours limit, will someone else make the fix? Thanks in advance. --Roscoe W. Chandler (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Two consecutive edits are considered as just one edit for the purpose of such sanctions, so you would not be in breach if you corrected your error. I am reluctant to do this, as this would then be considered my only permissible revert of the day to this article, and it is possible that I will want to edit it later. RolandR (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the minor change. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cites to Atzmon's blog

A tour by Orient House Ensemble is worth mentioning. However, I changed "is currently touring" because the source date was apparently 2007 or 2008. It links to Atzmon's blog page, and I would really rather we did not do that. The notable musical tours and concerts should be sourceable to the BBC for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

Why there is "Antisemitism" in the category list bottom? Sounds POV to me. 60.241.201.241 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The category is a catch all for anything related to the topic. I don't like it either, but that's the way it is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories bias categories can no longer contain biographies or articles about organizations. Thus someone who evidently has been doing that sort of general cleanup has removed the category.CarolMooreDC (talk)

Cherry picking primary Atzmon sources

Because just quoting Atzmon articles that have not been made notable by WP:RS mentioning specific quotes has lead to massive and months of edit wars and disputes, editors have been pretty strict about not doing it. "Cherry picking" quotes, whether one agrees or disagrees with them, not a good idea in this article. See Wikipedia:Primary_source#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source."

The recent inclusion of a primary source doesn't in any way contravene Wikipedia's recommendations. No interpretation of the source is made. The statements quoted are straightforward, descriptive statements. The source is not "cherry-picked", it is representative of his views on Israel's economy. There is no justification for removing it. Avaya1 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It probably will just lead to a lot of hassle because of course there may be alternate ways of summarizing/quoting what he has to say, trips to WP:BLPN if one or the other side thinks it's a prejudicial interpretation, etc. etc. etc. Some people's desires to quote other things he's written as counters to all the allegations mae against him, etc. etc. etc. Deja vu all over again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But it's just a straight summary and quote from his latest article. If anything, the more controversial quotes from that article haven't been included (for example, an interesting footnote about a rumour about Lehman Brothers). This is what Atzmon himself publishes, so it's hardly violating BLP - he wants these to be known as his views. It could probably be argued that, if anything, the section requires at least a few quotes from primary sources, since it's otherwise predominantly just quoting accusations made by and about him, with very little content on what he actually says. Best Avaya1 (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote an NPOV summary listing arguments in order as he makes them - not placed as to make him look totally ridiculous. He has a coherent argument though obviously statistical evidence could prove or disprove it one way or the other, assuming they could be found. You might not like it, but it should not be twisted to look just stupid and bigoted. Also since he originally self-publishes his material, sending it out to various outlets that may or not publish it, the reference should go to his website. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: revert. I know Goodwinsands is brand new to wikipedia and may not understand all the policies. FYI, you can't quote everything Atzmon says, and when you quote him it has to reflect his argument, not someone's attempt to make him look bad. I guess a trip to WP:BLP is in order - yet again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I presume it's also the case that an editor can't summarize his words in a way designed to make him look better than his words actually do. That is unfortunately what your summary apparently did. It's not up to you to say "I know it sounded terrible, but what he REALLY MEANT was..." when one could reasonably see a rather visible gulf between your version and his. However, as I understand it, the real question here is whether or not this material belongs, not whether or not a given editor's summary of the material can be questioned for "POV" reasons. My own sense is that its redundant; one can certainly get the flavor of Atzmon's rather obvious anti-Semitism from the other quotes posted here, in a way everyone agrees is "reliable source", and other blast of it isn't necessary. Goodwinsands (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Avaya, the problem with using primary sources (i.e., with quoting Atzmon himself) is that we have to rely on a Wikipedia editor's judgment that the quote is "typical" of what Atzmon has said/written. Why that essay and not this one? Why that quote and not this one? Using secondary sources eliminates part of that problem because it indicates that an independent third party felt what Atzmon wrote or said was worthy of comment.

If Atzmon's latest essay includes anything noteworthy, a third party will report on it and we can cite the third party. If nobody else writes about it, we're creating our own news (WP:NOR). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll remember to quote you when it happens again six months down the line! CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. People's statements are RS for their own views. We need to agree criteria for which statements are worth including. People make throwaway statements sometimes, or statements that they retract. Those aren't usable at all. Being picked up by a third party is a useful criterion, but I'm not sure that it's the only one. How public the context of the statement could also be relevant; is it the conclusion to a text; is it consistent with other statements. That sort of thing is also relevant IMHO. Trying to consider the general principle, not this particular case. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Atzmon (and many people who say things others don't like) is editors tend to look for primary source things they can take out of context and twist around to make statements look even more extreme or controversial than they would look in context. (In this case, an NPOV summary at least helps people know what statistics they should look at to prove/disprove his contentions; the POV intepretation we saw here just looks nutty.) And of course DrSmoo is in there adding cherry picked out of context sentences now to prove his POV. If I did the same thing he'd be deleting away, of course. (And by the way there have been a lot of WP:RS new reports and reviews of both his political and musical activities in last six months I've been saving up and now I've been motivated to put it in!)

Given the history of people trying to put this sort of thing in the article, maybe somebody has to make a ruling it's not allowed and people trying to do it after a warning should be blocked from the article. (Linking to an Atzmon article after some WP:RS comments is fine.) And I agree not everything said by (alleged) WP:RS should be used, in this case the Cohen quote being very problematic. But I gave up that fight a while ago. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"look for primary source things they can take out of context and twist around": this seems to me like a blanket accusation of bad faith of the sort I thought was not allowed by "wiki-quette." Could it be that the editors you agree with are acting honestly, and simply have a different perception of Atzmon in relation to the anti-Semitism issue? I'm sure you would agree he has said things about "the Jews" of sufficient scope and nastiness to preclude declaring that he is self-evidently *not* an anti-Semite. Googling around, I can't find for example any excuses sufficient to explain away his passing around and defending the Paul Eisen essay about how there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz - that's straight up jackboot stuff. It would be kind of unfortunate for you to imply that those who don't share your perspective are all acting in bad faith and are being deliberately deceptive, yet that seems to be what you're saying. Goodwinsands (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I for one was trying to descalate this. This is what I think is workable. We need to summarise GA's views. Some quotations would illustrate them. We discuss proposals one by one according to the criteria I suggested: 1) has the quote been discussed by others, 2) does the context make it likely that the quote represents an attempt by GA to make his view clear. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We would need someone neutral to do the summaries. From looking back at the history of this page, I do not think this is a job for either Carolmooredc or Drsmoo. And since I have stated my own position - that Atzmon's anti-Semitism is just as clear and pronounced in context as it is in these individual sentences - I'm out too.

I think it's important that we include not only Atzmon's views but responses to those views. I think, for example, that it's quite telling that Robert Faurisson agrees that Atzmon has one foot in the Holocaust denial camp [[4]]. Faurisson is one of the world's leading Holocaust deniers, and as such is in a position to judge how well Atzmon's stance correlates to the system of beliefs of Holocaust denial. It would strike me as very strange and "POV" not to include this kind of material, as it helps explain Atzmon's dramatic fall from grace. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

I thought I would make this a separate section.

Looking through the various policies for "reliable sources," for "biographies of living people", etc., I haven't been able to come up with a source for the policy that says, "certain quotes can only be used if they are mentioned by other people." If that is in fact a rule, I think we would agree it is very, very unevenly applied in this entry, seemingly only coming into play in what apparently used to be a separate section on the accusation of anti-Semitism. Could someone enlighten me? Goodwinsands (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Including primary sources (which are not necessarily discussed by secondary-sources) is not only acceptable, but necessary here, since otherwise all we have are accusations and counter-accusations, with no actual content. Notice that all the best wikipedia articles which discuss writers, liberally quote from primary sources. Nothing here contravenes BLP, since this is what he publishes. As for the accusation that any selection of a primary source is inherently biased, this is clearly nonsense, and the representativeness of the selection can be easily increased, by adding additional selections from other primary sources. I don't understand why some editors oppose the NPOV use of primary sources in this article. I can only suspect that they wish to obscure the content of his writings for some reason (please explain below)? It makes no sense to have a section on his writing, and to yet to exclude primary quotes or summaries from his actual writings. Thanks Avaya1 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are the relevant policies, all particularly stringently applied when it comes to WP:BLP. Please read them and consider deleting both your and Drsmoo's cherry picked primary source quotes obviously chosen for POV reasons. I'm not going to edit war on this. Appropriate administration options are needed now.

Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources: Exercise caution in using primary sources...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if 1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;...'
Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: Primary sources...Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source.
Wikipedia:Cherry_pick#Fact_picking: Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias...Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.
Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations: Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.
Wikipedia:Quotations#Alternatives_to_quotations: A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimising the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both.
Wikipedia:BLP#Semi-protection.2C_protection.2C_and_blocking: Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that non-compliant material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages in accordance with the protection policy. Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption; see the blocking policy.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This response looks quite impressive until you start to actually read these rules and see how they are applied, at which point you discover that the argument - that they prohibit the use of primary materials in the biography of living people - is less than the sum of its parts. Admittedly I don't know all of Wikipedia policy inside out, but based on what you've presented here, to take them one by one:

Rule #1 does not prohibit the use of primary sources, only encourages "caution." I hope that you are not trying to present it as if it says the use of primary sources are not allowed in "BLP", because it does not.
Rule #2 exactly fits what Avaya and Drsmoo are doing: using self-published material - that is, Atzmon's website - to support the fact that Atzmon has in fact said these anti-Semitic things and is proud enough of them to post them personally. Simply put, you are allowed to quote Atzmon's own website about Atzmon. If Gilad Atzmon said two plus two is five, you can't use his blog as a source to support "two plus two is five," but you CAN use it to support "Atzmon has said that two plus two is five." This rule is about the distinction between these two cases, specifically allowing what Drsmoo and Ayala are doing.
Rule #3 seems to be the general rule to which Rule #2 was designed to override. Again, it does not forbid the use of primary sources, and again I hope that you are not trying to present it as if it says the use of primary sources are not allowed in "BLP."
Rule #4 seems to be dealing with a "coatrack" article, which seems quite different than what this article is. Are all "BLP" articles "coatrack" articles, or only this one?
Rule #5 seems to be unsuited to the discussion. Which editor is it empowered to declare that Atzmon's anti-Semitic words are only meant to be rhetorical? We are again at the part where you want to impose a statement of the form "I know he said X but he MEANT Y." Where does one apply for the special merit badge that allows one to personally declare what the writer REALLY MEANT? I thought that kind of editorial intervention was the very definition of not "POV".
Rule #6 seems a hasty stretch which undermines Atzmon's own reputation. Surely someone with sections in his entry full of praise for his ability to say exactly what he means, and the wonderful skill of his communcation, should not have to repeatedly hide behind "I know what he said LOOKS really anti-Semitic, but he just said it badly. Again. And again and again. And again. Oh, that's right - and again."
Rule #7 is about "unsourced or poorly sourced" material; by the rules above, this does not include primary source material from Atzmon's own website when the subject is Atzmon himself.

In short, all of these rules put together do not actually combine to produce the result that you claim they do, and I think would be unfortunate to imply that they do. Instead, they build the case that one must be careful when using first-person, primary-sourced, self-published words, but there is simply no prohibition from doing so. I am not certain the specific material under discussion is necessary, but the argument that Wikipedia rules demand that it be eradicated has not been supported here. "Use caution," yes. "With care," yes. "Never never never never never," no. And finally, although I've already gone on at length, I have to say that I find it quite telling that such an argument needs to be erected simply to protect Atzmon from the direct implications of his very own words. Occam's Razor would have something to say about the claim that "he's not an anti-Semite but despite his alleged terrrrific literary skills he habitually falls into anti-Semitic wordings so frequently that we are unable to present his own words directly without a layer of WHAT HE REALLY MEANT WAS, because otherwise you will inevitably get the wrong idea." Goodwinsands (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, you fail to address any of my points (so I will re-post them below). Instead, you list the BLP policies, none of which I contravene.

Contrary to what you write, the included paragraph doesn't "cherry pick" for "obvious POV" reasons. It quotes extensively and representatively from his latest article, and actually excludes the more controversial statements in it. It's not a question of whether or not Atzmon has controversial opinions. Encyclopedic articles on writers would be useless if they didn't give some, hopefully representative, indication of that writer's published opinions.

As for the claim that any selection of a primary source is inherently biased, this is nonsense (and also not supported by wikipedia policies). However, the representativeness of the selection can and perhaps should be increased, by adding additional selections from other primary sources. I don't understand why some editors oppose the NPOV use of primary sources in this article. I can only suspect that they wish to obscure the content of his writings for some reason (please explain below)?

As for the 1RR violation, apologies, I didn't notice the restriction. I can't revert now without changing intermediate edits? Avaya1 (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

{insert} Read the policy to understand it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One user and one admin have now reverted the questionable interpretation of Atzmon which two different people reverted without adequate rationales. Now there are more rationales presented, but the bottom line is at least one of you admits that he wants the edit to prove his POV; the editor who originally wrote it is suspected of writing with the same POV. Even if it is accepted that these types of primary source summaries are allowed, I have no doubt NPOV editors would go with my edit as reflecting his argument as opposed to merely looking for quotes to make him look bad. And my summary was not WP:OR but in compliance with Wikipedia:Quotations#Alternatives_to_quotations: A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimising the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. So think about if you really want to defend this edit to NPOV editors familiar with attempts to use Wikipedia to push their own POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Driver: But officer, I have a legal license to drive.

Officer: That doesn't mean you can drive down the sidewalk.

Editors have a license to paraphrase. Do they have a license to paraphrase in a way that distorts the text? Goodwinsands (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a distortion is an issue to debate after we get outside opinion (for the umpteenth time) from outside editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, every time the outside editors say the same thing, and yet the above user keeps bringing up these arguments. Drsmoo (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To be even fairer, and a bunch of other noninvolved editors have agreed over time which is why this article went for a whole 8 months without a cherry picked POV primary source quotes. And lets not forget the various blocks for edit warring against policy, ~~see here and [here.~~ CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your first link doesn't work, an accidental 3rr isn't a big deal in any case, and I'm not sure how that has anything to do with what's being discussed?. I'm urging you to please edit cooperatively and constructively, rather than attempting to attack and mud-sling against people you disagree with. Drsmoo (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bringing up the fact that we've had months and months and months of this whole debate about editors using cherry picked quotes to support their POVs against Atzmon has led to all sorts of editing warring, controversy, etc. which finally led to a tacit agreement to stop doing that is just background info new editors might want to know. But I will strike links to block related discussions. Also, of course, it now has motivated me to go through all those WP:RS google alerts on Atzmon to add new NPOV updated material from big British papers who write about him regularly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the article already includes links to The TImes, The Guardian etc. Hopefully there won't be as much resistance to their inclusion into the article as there was previously. Drsmoo (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of times these issues have been discussed before:

Just in case you haven't bothered to read past archives. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good heavens, what a mare's nest I've wandered into. Someone has some serious ownership issues going on here, so I'm thinking it's time to wander out rather than beat my head against what's rather clearly a wall. I am happy to see the editor has at least admitted that a "tacit agreement" is the source of the otherwise non-existent "rule," despite her clear claims earlier that it was contained in Wikipedia policy. That was after all the reason I created the section: to get to the bottom of whether such a Wikipedia policy truly existed; once you get past the browbeating, it turns out that it does not. Goodwinsands (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

First note that another editor also reverted the economics paragraph as wp:or. (He would have done to mine also, if that had been up at the time.)

Also, the tacit agreement was because editors were exhausted arguing policy, going to noticeboards, getting outside opinions, having those opinions ignored, going back to other boards, editing blocks, etc etc etc, after the last couple months of wrangling on the article. (And that's before I discovered WP:Wikiquette.) And it was obvious the next step was going to be more of ratcheting up than people were in the mood for, be it WP:ANI, WP:ARBPIA, mediation, etc. However, we aren't at that point here yet. We haven't even gone back to BLPN yet for the 7th or 8th time. I'm hoping people will think about the fact that if you announce your intention to use cherry picked quotes to prove a point against the subject of the article, you've already have pretty much proved your bias in editing, which is a strike against you under WP:BLP in the WP:NPOV category.

But if people want to leave in the biased misinterpretation of a primary source made to look him look like a fool, we can bring in some uninvolved editors to explain to you why that's against policy and why my version would at least be a more accurate summary of what he says, though certainly not an endorsement of it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

[Insert]Excuse me, the only person repeatedly going to noticeboards etc was you, because your opinion was disagreed with by the editors of the article, and it was also disagreed with by the people on the noticeboards, which is why you kept going. When the editors disagree with you, it is not right for you to write them off as biased and attempt to go to a noticeboard, and then when you go to a noticeboard, and they disagree with you, going to the same noticeboard with the same question a few weeks later is not a valid way of editing on wikipedia. Nor is threatening other editors and saying that you are trying to have them banned for disagreeing with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=352845153&oldid=35230279 "Unless it's like the lottery and if I complain to the right forum on the right day and the right admin(s) see and recognize the perniciousness of your editing history, they will ban you permanently from this article." I sincerely hope that you will edit constructively, as opposed to with absolute hostility. Likewise, I hope that other editors will continue to work on the article and not be scared off by threats. I am again URGING you to edit with civility. Drsmoo (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[Insert reply]: When POV editors form a consensus that goes against policy one goes to the relevant noticeboard, as each policy is violated. This cuts short endless arguing and soapbox from involved editors. Also please see: Wikipedia:Harass#Threats - Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats. Also, asserting that other editors on all the various noticeboard all disagreed with me is an unsupported - and untrue - allegation and a personal attack. Feel free to delete it. The one diff you present only indicates some involved editors on this article disagreed with me.

Obviously other editors agreed with me on the principle of no WP:OR POV interpretations of cherry picked quotes because those all did end up getting taken out. I believe the only one or two it was generally agreed were OK to keep in were the ones where Atzmon had defended himself against repeated attacks, often the very attacks on the page. That per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[indent continued]Saying that you are planning to use Wikipedia "like the lottery and if I complain to the right forum on the right day and the right admin(s) see and recognize the perniciousness of your editing history, they will ban you permanently from this article." Is not using "normal Wikipedia processes." Normal Wikipedia processes are to discuss with the editors, and then if no agreement can be formed maong editors, to take it to a noticeboard, and then when the noticeboard makes a decision, to completely abide by it. Repeatedly going to noticeboards in the hopes that if you do, eventually a solitary admin will agree with you, is not "normal wikipedia process" You have to accept noticeboards, and editors, when they don't agree with you, and please stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong on this article. Drsmoo (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[indent continued]I didn't get the point of your diff before, but obviously I spoke in frustration. As I just wrote at WP:BLP: :To answer Jonathan Wallace, I think when you put everything togther - cherry picking of quotes, the repeatedly announced motive "he's an antisemite and we have to prove it," quotes taken out of context to make something controversial sound extremely bigoted or just loony, WP:Undue negative quotes, all build up to an obviously strong POV that is against WP:NPOV in BLP. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough originally. Such biased editing led to months of absurd arguments as people would pick ones against him and others would try for a more NPOV intepretation (which often was alleged to be "pro-Atzmon.") So pretty soon every set of quotes and summaries ends up coming here or WP:NPOVN or WP:ORN for outside opinions, which disrupts work and wastes time. The same is true in other articles. I'm sure editors here could name quite a few bios where this sort of thing happens. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

However that is not what has been occurring on this article at all, there is not and has been no attempt (at least by me) to put statements out of context. The opposite in fact has occurred, you have attempted to have Atzmon's anti-semitic statements removed from the article, or to put them out of context by posting extremely POV equivocations. There is no context in which "Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and 'Jewish ideology' are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal." is anything but an extremely anti semitic statement. And just because Atzmon makes an extremely anti-semitic statement, does not mean that it automatically "is POV" and should be removed. And again, I repeat, repeatedly going to noticeboards " like the lottery and if I complain to the right forum on the right day and the right admin(s) see" is not normal wikipedia process. Drsmoo (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I suspect this is pointless to say, I will anyway. "If you announce your intention to use cherry picked quotes to prove a point against the subject of the article" is your tendentious interpretation, not what was actually said. As with several other things you have treated as self-evident truths, it turns out not to be self-evident upon investigation. If this is your attitude toward fact in Wikipedia discussions - just as the policy you claimed to exist turns out not to - I can understand why the discussions routinely become so contentious.

But really, I have wasted enough time on this article, as its "owner" leaves me with a sense that it is not in the best hands and that improving this article, with its mysterious ad hoc rules designed solely to protect Atzmon from his very own words, is not possible under current conditions. My time is better spent elsewhere. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again. Writers are RS for their own work. We have to do some selection but should not cherry-pick, i.e. we select a variety of statements that reflect the actual balance of Atzmon's statements. Not just the most lurid ones, not just the most innocuous either. A selection that represents the different things he has said at different times. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the above discussion, but came here because of the BLP/N thread. Editors adding primary source quotes they really like, dislike, or find particularly revealing about an individual, is a long-standing problem. Simply, it's wrong, especially in the case of controversial figures. If secondary sources have analysed a writer's work and comment about particular passages in that individual's writing, we can report that, and quote the passages they quote. We should not perform our own analysis of what is most representative about an individual's output. Please focus on secondary-source coverage, not primary sources. --JN 466 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we need an explicit sentence in WP:BLP saying POV use of quotes is against policy. (I did it myself for a while til people pointed out why it was wrong, quoting various policies as I did above.)

Also note, in case my description in BLPN was confusing, the diff of the other set of cherry picked quotes which is a misrepresented summary of his article and was reverted twice for WP:OR by two editors - but is back again is here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it out. --JN 466 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss (BRD)

Is one way to avoid those trips to noticeboards. User:Goodwinsands did this revert of my revert, claiming again, wiki policy does NOT say, "quote only what Aaronovich quoted"; context is helpful; quote is significant and typical of Atzmon). Now, for a new user it is amazing Goodwinsands knows every tiny bit of policy so can say what is not in it. Which policy by the way? Anyway, the problems are:

You don't say: "so and so writes" - and then quote things they did not write. That's total WP:Original research. If you thought it was that important you could put whole relevant quote in the reference that links directly to Atzmon's article. That is certainly something that might be discussed. As is, it is not just misleading WP:OR, but WP:Undue and a violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. You have declared your strong POV vs. Atzmon so your violation of policy is especially problematic. Please revert it and discuss; otherwise we may need to go back to WP:BLPN to have someone explain policy to you again.
We don't use self-published blogs that are basically attacks on people; it was questionable enough using his attacks when they were published on a WP:RS and several did not like it at WP:RSN. I'm sure this would fail in a trip to WP:RSN. So I'd definitely revert that back too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Carol, I agree with you that taking quotes from Aaronovitch and Atzmon and mixing them together is prohibited WP:synthesis, which is why I reverted it.

I disagree with you, however, about Goodwinsands and any POV that editor may have concerning Atzmon. All editors are allowed to have POVs. We are expected, however, to try not to let them interfere with the project of writing a neutral encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be more specific, I mean the kind of announced POV we've seen in the past from a couple editors, basically "he's an antisemite and this article has to prove it, policies be damned." So as soon as I see someone opine Atzmon is an antisemite and fights obvious and well known policies, by force of habit I start to assume that's what they mean. But I must remember new editors especially just may not understand Wikipedia policies and will comply when they do. Because of so many policy violations her in the past, I've become sensitive to even minor ones in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I do not think the article has to "prove" anything about Atzmon's anti-Semitism. But at the same time, the article should not be a whitewash; if anti-Semitism is a feature of Atzmon's writings - and it is - the article should reflect it. It is not a coincidence that Atzmon is widely regarded as an anti-Semite even within the pro-Palestinian camp. The man's writings fairly bristle with anti-Semitic markers, not just a few "cherry-pickings" from here or there, and as such the paragraph we're talking about is indeed representative of his thought. In fact, showing the whole paragraph makes that even clearer than just the sentences Aaronovich quotes. Since the passage is both notable and a fair representation of Atzmon's position, I am going to return it, in a better-cited form, when the "1RR" rule allows me to. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding problematic material already addressed at RSN

RE: Drsmoos edits, now reverted by another editor: Just so you will understand. In a September Reliable source discussion on Advocacy group’s opinion used in BLP outside editors agreed that this was not a particularly reliable source for a BLP, plus it didn't really add any info of value. Here we discussed it as well. Please see Disruptive editing/refusal to get the point: In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors continue to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point is accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. This has been your pattern in the article since the beginning. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, just to clarify, you have removed considerably more than what was discussed at the outside discussions you link to, correct? That seems rather hard to support. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On a closer look, the Socialist Worker material (the site apologizes for printing an interview with Atzmon) is a considerably different case than the Aaronovitch stuff, it was excluded for "UNDUE", although there was agreement that the source was acceptable as a "SPS". The significance of the source is that when even the "Socialist Worker," which is about as anti-Israel as you can get, calls you an anti-Semite, then it blows a wide hole into the defense that Atzmon is only being attacked with "zionist lies" that he's an anti-Semite, since even his own side calls him one. But if the decision is that it's "UNDUE," then so be it. Goodwinsands (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Finkler Question

What is the relevance of the book to this biography? The main character in the novel hears about a jazz musician who is based on Atzmon. Is the musician a character in the book? or is he merely a casual reference? If anybody's actually read the book, that would be great. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted POV removal of material

Goodwin Sands has made the following edits to remove material which I believe to be highly biased and POV edits and therefore have reverted them.:

Diff 1: moved longstanding lead Biographical material which explains his activism;
Diff 2: removal voices of support for him that already had been shunted into references, even as he adds an "Allegations of antisemitism" subsection; if that's added those quotes should be in an "Response to allegations" subsection - which was the compromise position a year or two back
Diff 3: removal of WP:RS info from BBC and JazzMagazine about what his Artie Fishel character was about and leave only criticism of the character
Diff 4: removal of neutral review comments from WP:RS about his books and just leave in the negative ones

CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Each of these edits is fully justified, or I wouldn't have made them. Looking over the past discussions, I strongly encourage Carolmooredc to take a look at WP:OWN, and I wholly reject her repeated accusation that my edits are POV. Goodwinsands (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not discussion per WP:BRD. This is edit warring. And, I just realized, a violation of 1RR which above post shows you are well aware of. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please spell out why you consider this "edit warring" when it rather clearly is not, and why in your view it violates WP:1RR although it rather clearly does not, and the noticeboard you tried to slap my wrist with immediately concluded it clearly does not? Also, is it your intent to edit war away the changes I have made while accusing me, unjustly, of edit warring? In short, is putting anything in this article you personally disapprove of "edit warring"? Goodwinsands (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that two of the edits are completely uncontroversial and can't see why anyone would object, and while two of them are less straightforward they are hardly "highly biased". Diff no.1 moves a section explaining Atzmon's activism (as Carol puts it) to, er, the section on his activism, so that seems totally uncomplicated. No.2 and no.4 turn a smorgasbord of arbitrary quotes praising Atzmon into a concise encyclopedia entry with references that interested readers can follow up. No.4 removed both negative and positive comments, so is not making the article "highly biased". The only questionable edit is no.3, which removed repetition and puff, but also some sourced material on band members etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also just looked over the edit history and cannot see how GoodwinS can be construed as having made two reverts in 24 hours, which is the criteria for violating the 1RR, so it seems to me that if there is edit warring it is the exaggerated response to the edits.BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of questionable material under blp

I do hope you agree with my similar edits just made. Removing a cherry picked quote from primary source Atzmon, which we've had many battles about here with outside editors agreeing that it should not be done.

Also the Cohen quotes are just oblique references to other material which it really is WP:original research for us to go searching for the source. And Kamm just yells antisemitism at an Atzmon quote, which is hardly any kind of encyclopedia analysis. The review of a book which allegedly has a character based on Atzmon ALSO just repeats two accusations discussed in detail above. Again, just piling on and duplicative vs. WP:BLP. It's amazing this stuff has lasted as long as it has!

All of this per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints..., please note this article in the past was constantly under attack from SPA editors and/or editors screaming insults about Atzmon inserting negative info about Atzmon. Removing positive information would be another way to unbalance the article. Thus my complaint. So a careful count of negative vs. positive material important in this article.

Re: reverts. There is debate about how long it is before reverting information becomes a revert. Some say anything is. Some say only recent material. Others only constroversial or challenged material, recent or old. I'd say the latter myself. What's your view? Anyway, the policy needs to make that clearer. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at the edits now, but just on a couple of points you make. I agree that criticism and praise should be included, but the key point is "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". There is an enormous amount of criticism and praise out there for Atzmon, and we need to be careful about how we choose what to include to make this a well-rounded encyclopedia article. That does not mean only linking to or quoting sources that are themselves "encyclopedia analysis", but it does mean working out what opinions are notable. On reverts, I think the technical definition of a revert is fairly clear, and stretching it too far essentially means any edit becomes a revert. I agree that people can violate the spirit of that rule while keeping to the law, but I didn't see that happening in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So which definition do you think it is? All, controversial or recent? Just curious, since I'm still confused. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the edits, and the main ones I disagree with are the removal of Kamm and Cohen, which I don't understand justification for. On reverting, see WP:revert BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Listing critics like that is a good solution I recommended years ago! [Added later: however, per below, I doubt any of these are WP:RS, being small political publications with agendas, one article written by an intermittent contributor to this article.] Also you've got some dings there. Thanks for help page will read later and maybe finally get it all straightened out!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Removing a cherry picked quote from primary source Atzmon, which we've had many battles about here with outside editors agreeing that it should not be done." The history of this article shows that such claims from Carolmooredc should not necessarily be taken at face value; as noted above, there is a tendency to considerably broaden her interpretation of how much material was actually under discussion in any given decision.

I agree with BobFromBrockley that the removal of Cohen is given at best a very thin justification, and Kamm essentially no justification at all.

I'll also point out that having a character who serves a pivotal dramatic role in a Man Booker Prize-winning novel clearly based on you - Carolmooredc, as an American, may not know that this is by far the most prestigious literary prize in the UK, and carries a cultural meaning beyond even the American National Book Award or Pulitzer Prize - is hardly insignificant; I can't help but wonder whether, if the character were presented in a positive light rather than (like Atzmon himself) as a Holocaust denier, Carolmooredc would be the first to demand the material stay. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see my question higher up on this page concerning the novel. This is a biography. What relevance does a fictional character in a novel—even an award-winning novel—have to a biography? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It establishes that Atzmon's ongoing flirtation with Holocaust denial is so sufficiently recognized a part of the cultural milieu of London that a celebrated writer, seeking a scabrous example of antisemitism in the UK, seized on Atzmon's Holocaust denial as a subject, expecting a significant number of UK readers of his now-famous book to recognize the fictional character's real-life counterpart. And recognized it was, as the citation showed. It is a notable reflection on Atzmon's reception in the intelligentsia in the UK and a perfectly valid topic for this article.

You'll notice, for example, that the article on Joseph McCarthy includes an entire section on fictional characters he inspired; there's an entire paragraph on Senator John Iselin in The Manchurian Candidate, both novel and film. I'm sure I could dig up many similar examples of fictionalized versions of someone being noted in that person's article. So there is solid precedent for including the use of Atzmon in The Finkler Question in this article, and as such there is no NPOV reason to exclude it. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

~~Goodwinsands is entirely correct. JerryDavid89 (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)~~

All it establishes is that one non-notable individual writing a book review for an advocacy organization has an opinion that the character is based on Atzmon. Since when is that sort of thing OK via WP:RS and WP:BLP?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that RolandR reverted the "opinion" comment without answering my concern about why one person's opinion is not identified as such. Alexander does not say it is a fact, told to him by the author. And he merely repeats criticisms already in the article. Is that "piling on" really necessary? Also, a quick search of the web showed no other person alleging that Finkler's author is talking about Atzmon. Seems like a BLP violation to me. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your "Contributions" Carolmooredc, why are you always editing on behalf of famous antisemites? Do you have some problem with Jews? You think too many Jews live in DC? And defending horrendous regimes like those of Saudi Arabia? You hate the State of Israel so much you try to portray is neighbors and enemies in the best light possible? Is Carol Moore your real name? Because surely you would be embarrassed by such transparent bigotry? JerryDavid89 (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

JerryDavid89 (talk · contribs), I admit to being somewhat confused myself regarding what constitutes a personal attack and what's considered tolerable rhetoric between editors. But in general you'll probably want to mellow out a little in order to avoid being sanctioned in the Israel-Palestine topic area – even if you're thoroughly convinced that the editor you're addressing is incompetent or editing in bad faith.—Biosketch (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a personal attack, but I certainly have higher standards of ethics to adhere to than an internet website's policy. I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I didn't challenge such blatant prejudice when I saw it. Thanks though. JerryDavid89 (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with you, believe me. But for future reference, if you do plan on contributing to the Project regularly – which, considering your edits, one would hope you do – know that there are formal procedures for dealing with editors in whose contributions you identify a biased pattern. It's more constructive if you establish the pattern empirically with diffs than if you attack the editor personally. And you'll stay out of trouble that way, too.—Biosketch (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

~~Thanks, will look into it. JerryDavid89 (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)~~

I'll reply to Carol's question later. But I too must object to the personal attack above, Whatever Carol's motives in editing Wikipedia (and I have seen nothing to suggest that she has an animus towards Jews), the only issue of concern to us here is the content of her edits. The question she asks me is perfectly legitimate, and I will reply appropriately. I strongly urge you to strike out your uncalled-for comments above. If you fail to do so, and Carol makes a formal complaint, I shall have no hesitation in supporting her. RolandR (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Insert: someone else complained at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_bad-faith_and_slow_edit-warring. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Carol, I indicate in my edit summary why I restored the neutral word "writes" over your edit "opines that". As the Manual of Style states: "Said, stated, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable. To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter." "Opines" is clearly in the same category as "claimed" and "asserted", and should therefore be avoided in this context.

Alexander is not the only person to state this, though oher comments appear to have been in blogs, eg at [http://geniza.wordpress.com/ Indymedia UK: Back to Antisemitism?: "Howard Jacobson put a former-IDF ex-pat jazz-musician anti-Zionist Holocaust denier into his Booker-winning novel The Finkler Question– although it was plainly not meant as a dig at Atzmon, since the former-IDF ex-pat jazz-musician anti-Zionist Holocaust denier plays jazz drums, not jazz saxophone, which is a completely different thing." And, although this is clearly not reliable sourcing, it is commonly accepted in British literary and political discussion that Jacobson intended this parallel to be drawn. I really don't think it is contentious, or defamatory. Do you? RolandR (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

According to is definitely better than writes. And assuming Alexander is a reliable source, I think it would be appropriate to mention quickly that some people think it's about Atzmon. But it seems absurd that the same editor who took out neutral info about Atzmon's book put in all that defacto opinion about what was in someone elses book. By the way, there has been about a year of high quality WP:RS update info on Atzmon that has been added. One of these days I'll put it in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Alexander review, as used in this article, is WP:RS under WP:SPS. I also have new WP:RS material about Gilad Atzmon's Holocaust denial I am considering adding.

To comment on the exchange earlier in this thread, I'll agree with others that Carolmooredc has a problematic history in this article; I seem to remember her being blocked at least once, and apparently at least one admin has politely requested she go find other Wikipedia fields to plow. Her immediate response when I questioned -- quite rightly, it turned out -- the existence of an unstated rule she was trying to pass off as Wikipedia policy was to place a passive-aggressive attack on my talk page insinuating that I was a lying sock puppet. And her badly bobbled attempt to pin a bogus WP:1RR on me only a few days ago didn't help her already tenuous position at all. But in combating WP:CPUSH it is the on-going collection of a body of evidence, not the intemperate harangue, that makes the case that makes a difference. I strongly recommend JerryDavid89 strike his attack on Carolmooredc. Slow and steady is the preferred course. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we can drag up every block every editor ever had on every topic. And go through the large numbers of editors who opined that I was harassed so much it wasn't surprising I lost my temper. And we could discuss the massive editor rejection of a new User POV noticeboard that happened right after it. And make vague references to something some admin said somewhere, etc etc, personal attack all day long. But that's not good talk page style is it?

But thanks for reminding me that I was still working on trying to get the 3rr article to clearly define which of three meanings is most commonly used. And obviously making the edit warring aspect of the 1 or 2 RR on your part would have helped. So let's stick to issues, not personal attacks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is ridiculous, we've discussed this material multiple times, and CarolMooreDC took it to multiple noticeboards, and the consensus was that the material would be included. Now months (more?) later, she just brings up the exact same argument again as if nothing happened, and there was no lengthy debate etc? Restoring the removed section. An editor can't just choose to disregard a conclusion they don't like. Drsmoo (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to previous discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_6#Cohen_attack_piece_.22criticism.22_against_BLP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_5#Sentence_by_sentence_analysis_showing_these_are_political_accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_6#WP:RS_for_Cohen_allegations_of_what_Atzmon_said Drsmoo (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping document the pattern. Goodwinsands (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Goodwinsands removed neutral or positive material after adding negative material, til the paragraph on a book that allegedly mocks Atzmon was longer than information on Atzmon's own book. He claimed it was old material so it wasn't a Revert. By the same standards Goodwinsands used, I deleted some repetitive and WP:UNDUE material, with the back up of another editor. He re-added just a list of more individuals criticizing Atzmon (generally with same or mere opinion criticism) with links to articles, which I always have found acceptable [later add: (if the refs are WP:RS, which below I'm about to detail they are not)]. Yet now the editors whose major wiki interest seems to be including negative info on Atzmon yell foul. Very strange. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

^ http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html
^ http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html
^ Nick Cohen "The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer", The Observer, 14 June 2009
^ The first quote is contained in Martin Gibson, No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’, originally published in Gisborn Herald, January 23, 2009 and the second in Gilad Atzmon, Anatomy of an Unresolved Conflict, published at PeacePalestine blog, May 8, 2008.

[1] ttp://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html

[2] ttp://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html

[Cohen-3] Nick Cohen "The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer", The Observer, 14 June 2009

[4] The first quote is contained in Martin Gibson, No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’, originally published in Gisborn Herald, January 23, 2009 and the second in Gilad Atzmon, Anatomy of an Unresolved Conflict, published at PeacePalestine blog, May 8, 2008.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]