Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Archive 1

Anti-zionist or Anti-semite?
Clearly critics of Israel are automatically anti-semitic for many. But is this appropriate for Atzmon? Certainly his writings suggest that he crosses the line between the two ideologies, for instance his assertion that American policy in the Middle East is derived from a particular lobby group. However, I have taken the view that to accuse him of anti-semitism is POV, whereas anti-zionism is used here as a neutral term, albeit unsatisfactorily realised in Atzmon's case. In the introduction he should be taken on his own terms, and the issues referred to as the article progresses. Philip Cross 21:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [I was too generous to Atzmon a year ago. Philip Cross 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)]


 * He's been accused of antisemitism by his critics. Rightly or wrongly, it is not up to us to decide to censor this information- we just report and the reader can decide if the case has been appropriately made. As an aside, to claim that world Jewry is controlling, or conspiring to control the world, has nothing to do with anti-Zionism - it is an antisemitic canard taken straight from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion .. Isarig 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Edna’s last version is by far supirior. It should be re posted immediately, Rance should then add his meaningless links to  names and articles written by people no one has ever heard of.

Isarig. the fact that Atzmon is accused of antisemitism in 2.5 Jewish tribal sites such as JSF or JPUK is of limited relevance. We are talking here about a man with a massive body of work.

zizitop

From EdnaS: It is very interesting to watch what is unfolding on wiki. Who is RolandR accusing of being my sock puppet? Zizi? I suggest we ask the wiki admin to do a check on IP numbers for all of us. I in fact am not calling for the restoring of my last edit on the Gilad Atzmon page¸ but am calling for the restoration of the excellent page submitted later by Nihipri¸ which was immediately removed by RolandR and his co-worker Isarig (sock puppet?)with no reasons given.

I was really amazed at the amount of non-judgemental¸ neutral and interesting information Nihipri had included¸ and realised how much research must have gone into this. To suppress this information is sheer vandalism. Who is RolandR to decide to withhold all those links from the public. A wealth of info¸ and written in a very neutral sytle. I do not see any embroidery in the information.

And for RolandR to extend his censoring of info on wiki to even deleting a call for 3rd opinion is outrageous. RR has an agenda here. We have reached the point where we need to call for mediation. I will be restoring my posting on the 3rd party page. Ednas 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I didn't delete your call for a third opinion. In fact, it was only when I tried to post my comment supporting this call, that I discovered that an administrator had deleted it. I'm not an administrator, I don't want to be, and I don't have the ability to delete suchh a posting even had I wanted to -- which I didn't.

Not really, Atzmon doesn’t take Jewish anti Zionists very seriously, he establishes the fact that they are nothing but crypto Zionists. He include them within his  3rd Category. And indeed, 3rd category Jews see an antisemite in Atzmon. So what. is it enough to make him into an antisemite? not really. 3rd category Jews see as well Hamas as a threat. Does this teach us about the Hamas? Not really.

Down to the point. Atzmon success in ridiculing 3rd category Jews is just a marginal part of his political writing, thus, the entry shouldn’t concentrate on that though it should be mentioned. Zizitop. 9.1.06 3am


 * To Roland Rance: As Wikipedia pertains to be an encyclopedia of sorts¸ my primary concern here is with neutrality and truth¸ whereas it would appear that you are operating in the realm of vendetta and fancy.  In the same way as I took exception to Isarig’s rapping me on the knuckles when I began to correct and add to the GA article (He announced pompously: "I have been editing this page since before you  started editing Wikipedia”)¸ when it is very clear that neither he or you had bothered to get the most basic facts straight about GA – birth date and place of birth¸ just for starters.


 * As I keep stressing however¸ this sort of poetic dabbling (coupled with venomous dislike for the subject matter) really has no place in an encyclopedia.

Ednas 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi and Felix¸ let’s get going then. I suggest we start with a broad comparison of the two versions¸ and come to some agreement about which one to have running while we work on the editing. I suggest that we work from the more inclusive¸ informative version¸ which is also less polemical and then decide what to incorporate from the Rance version. I also think the subtitles of music¸ literature¸ political writing and politics should remain as is¸ with perhaps one more as felix suggests¸ dealing with the controversy and labeling. Please respond soon so that we can speed up this editing process somewhat.

Ednas 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Like being in a furnace
Just been to see Gilad Atzmon this evening, indeed his set was like "being in a furnace", 'blinding, even, I'd say.... But is this NPOV??? I'd put it on my blog but not on wikipedia, can we tne down the hyperbole, even if it does reflect Gilad's gigs??? quercus robur 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about my comment bigging him up a little, but I am trying to convey the point that his style is very full on, high energy, fast, powerful, noisy, as opposed to some jazz musicians who might be described as soft, quiet, delicate, subtle - this is not Gilad's style. If you know what I mean, please rephrase the text keeping the point I am making but using less emotive language. Where was he playing by the way ?


 * The Jazz Bar at Westcliff on Sea, he plays there quite often... As for Gilad's style, how about 'intense' and 'influenced by John Coltrane as well as Arabic and Jewish traditional musics such as Klezmer? He also did this thing at the gig last week where he was doing arabic sounding chants down his clarinet, which sounded really weird... quercus robur 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Added more bio type stuff to the music section-perhaps a section for awards too?Felix-felix 11:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Left wing?
I have removed the description of Atzmon as "left wing", since he appears to reject this, both as a self-description and even as a useful term. See for instance the interview at, wher he says: "I argue that left and right are dated concepts. I am interested in an authentic moral thinking, something that is not found amongst our contemporary politicians". RolandR 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This page was edited by the anonymous user at 87.80.66.28, who replaced my user name at the end of my last efit. This vandalism will be reported.RolandR 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * *This page has been edited by someone using my username, who has removed my earlier edits and comments. RolandR 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

American Jews
I have replaced the quote from Atzmon's essay "On Anti-Semitism", "American Jews (in fact Zionists) do try to control the world, by proxy", with the phrase now to be found there "American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world". The original citation was not incorrect; it appears that since then, Atzmon himself has amended, and sharpened, his comment. RolandR 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the quotations from the cited articles a bit, to keep them 1)contigous and 2) more representative of the cited articles. See what you think.Felix-felix 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Maccoby
This para was in, but deleted, then put back in, maybe twice now. I don't see what's wrong with it. "In an exchange of letters with anti-Zionist activist Deborah Maccoby during February and March 2006, Atzmon described her as a 'modern day Christ killer', after she described Jesus as human rather than divine." BobFromBrockley 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I did that-I don't really see what it adds. It doesn't really show that he's a 'self-hating jew' or, well, anything really.Why keep it?Felix-felix 09:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't show that he is a "self-hating Jew" (a meaningless phrase, in my opinion). It does, however, show that he does not hesitate to attack critics (an anti-Zionist Jew in this case) in terms and language drawn from the most obscurantist medieval Jew-haters. This is clearly relevant in a discussion of Atzmon's politics. RolandR 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really relevant to his politics? It really just shows he's a bruiser in an argument-not much else. It doesn't enlighten the reader to his political convictions.Felix-felix 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On balance, I don't think this is extremely important, but think it is relevant, as the Christ-killer allegation is a strong anti-semitic trope, and thus contextualises the controversy, particularly given the citation is to a reference not otherwise cited ni the article (I think). BobFromBrockley 14:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Banned in Israel?
Isarig has removed from the article the assertion that Atzmon's books are "banned in Israel". As anyone who can read Hebrew can see, they are freely available even in Hebrew translation -- see Academon, Bookme and many more bookshop sites. In fact, one of his novels was nominated for a literary prize in Israel .RolandR 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. I believe it is not true that any of Atzmon's books are banned in Israel. If it is true, it certainly would need a reference. BobFromBrockley 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ednas reckons initially banned and then reinstated-Atzmon has stated this in interviews in the past (near the end of the interview)-These could be cited, for example. Felix-felix 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He states in the interview "it is now impossible to find my Guide to the Perplexed in Hebrew". I have provided several references to places where it is indeed possible to buy the book in Hebrew -- including the bookshop of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. And, as I note, this translation was nominated for an Israeli literary award in 2003. I would like to see an independent source for the alleged banning, before including this as a fact in the article. RolandR 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.Felix-felix 11:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning
To editors that keep revereting each other: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected
This article is now protected. Please discuss in talk and find some common ground to improve the article. When you are ready to resume editing, you may place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Before anyone complains, note that administrators always protect the wrong version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

We have a situation where extremely interesting¸ relevant and up to date info from the poster Nihipri has been vandalised repeatedly b Isarig and RolanR¸ and now the page is protected with their version¸ all the new info deleted again. They have an agenda to make sure the info on GA remains very superficial¸ without any meat¸ and portrays him in a bad light. I do not think leaving the entry protected with their information as is in the interests of anyone and would like to call for some mediation here.

Just comparing the two versions – the one which Isarig and Roland R have been insisting remains as it for ages¸ and the new info¸ it becomes clear which is more relevant¸ interesting and NEUTRAL.

I am relatively new to Wiki¸ but would like to know what can be done about this now?

It seems to me that wiki is not an encclopedia at all¸ but a disinformation site¸ controlled and protected by Zionist moles. That’s is how it is looking from where I stand.

Ednas 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton"


 * 1) The heading "Stalked by Sanhedrin" is, in my view, anti-semitic. To compound this by callnig Wikipedia a "disinformation site, controlled... by Zionist moles" is completely unacceptable. 2) It is not appropriate to have large quotes from the subject of a biography in a biographical article, especially when they are available on a website the article already references, and when they do no add information. 3) Some of the information about Atzmon's music and the Orient House Ensemble that Ednas/Nihiri added is actually appropriate to include, e.g. awards, collaborations, members of band, etc. 4) To my knowledge, Atzmon's novels are not banned in Israel. If they are, the statement needs a reference. If they are banned in Israel, it would certainly be appropriate to include mention of that in the article. BobFromBrockley 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that the books are not banned - RolandR has provided (above) links to Israeli bookstore websites (one of them is the bookstore of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem) that advertise and sell his books. I have no objection to adding factual information about the ensemble and the awards it won. I agree with your other comments regarding the antisemitic and otherwise unacceptable comments about "stalking" and "moles". Isarig 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To Ednas: What could be done now is for us to discuss, in a civil way, the changes you want to introduce into the article, reach consensus, and then add them. As a practical suggestion, there seems to be agreement that the information about the ensemble and the awards it won is relevant and important. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at suggesting a suitable paragraph? Here's something I'd be ok with, based on your contribution:
 * Atzmon's long-standing band¸ the Orient House Ensemble (named after the former PLO headquarters in East Jerusalem) includes Frank Harrison on piano, Yaron Stavi on bass and Asaf Sirkis on drums. Steve Baxter in Jazz Views described Gilad as "quite possibly the most exciting performer in the country" and wrote of the Orient House Ensemble: "Individually, you'd be hard put to find better practitioners of their respective arts, but collectively the rapport between them was a revelation"


 * Gilad Atzmon and The Orient House Ensemble have earned many jazz awards for the album Exile, including Best Jazz Album Of The Year - BBC Jazz Award 2003 and Best Jazz Album of the Year (2003) - Time Out Magazine.

Yep, the first part is fairly easy, the article is split into music and politics sections-the former uncontroversial and factual, the latter more controversial-given Atzmon's controversial remarks. However, it seems to me that 2 editors are trying to portray Atzmon in a particularly bad light-quotes (of questionable relevance-like the 'Christ killer' quote) taken somewhat out of context, and positive ones removed repeatedly. So, how about straightforward WP editing of his music and then careful consensus reaching about his writing?Felix-felix 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution. I would be willing to help with this. Ednas 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are ready to resume editing, drop me a line in my talk page and I will unprotect the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to assist with the editing of the Atzmon info. However¸ first I would like the info submitted by Nihipri to be restored¸ and would like us to work from that info. It is outrageous that the Wiki admin protected the page in the version restored by Roland Rance¸ a completely biased “editor”¸ with an agenda against GA. I would also like Wiki admin to block Rance¸ Isarig (Rosen?)and Maccoby permanently from editing the GA info. This is the most obvious first step¸ and should have been done ages ago. Ednas 09:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ednas, that's a non-starter-Wikipedia is a collaborative and anarchic process, and other editors here, regardless of their personal agendas are at liberty to contribute as they see fit. With patient WP editing and discussing everything on the talk pages first-we can sort this article out properly. Having just had an exchange with a particularly intransigent editor from another article who was trying to paint me as an anti-semite for being sympathetic to Atzmon, it occurred to me that the article should have 3, rather than 2 broad sections, namely;


 * Music (uncontroversial and straightforward to edit)
 * Politics (GAs political stance on various issues, focussing on solely his stance-i guess this would mainly be about Zionism and Israel)
 * Polemics/Controversy/Insults/Call it what you will (which could encompass all the supposed anti-semitic name-calling stuff, whilst separating it from the actual politics that he espouses)

Ednas, you have to realise that the name-calling stuff will have to be addressed at somepoint in the article, and we're all going to have to agree about it, so clearly delineating where various things are going to go and being careful about using original sources (which the current version does not), I think we can produce a good article. Whaddya reckon?Felix-felix 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi and Felix¸ let’s get going then. I suggest we start with a broad comparison of the two versions¸ and come to some agreement about which one to have running while we work on the editing. I suggest that we work from the more inclusive¸ informative version¸ which is also less polemical and then decide what to incorporate from the Rance version. I also think the subtitles of music¸ literature¸ political writing and politics should remain as is¸ with perhaps one more as felix suggests¸ dealing with the controversy and labeling. Please respond soon so that we can speed up this editing process somewhat. Ednas 09:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Felix proposes three sections -- Music, Politics and Polemics/Controversy. I'm not sure this would work. Certainly the music section should be expanded, to include more discussion of GA's work, his bands, concerts and recordings, and his awards. Personally, I think that some of the language in the Nihipri edit was excessive, but this is a matter for discussion. I also think there should be a section for literature, to include mention of GA's novels and the critical response. This section should not include the untrue claim that his novels are banned in Israel, but should certainly note that the Hebrew translation of "Guide for the Perplexed" was a candidate for Israel's 2003 Geffen Award for science fiction..


 * But I think there would be a problem with any attempt to separate "Politics" from "Politics/Controversy". In the first place, much of GA's political writing is presented as a polemic against others. For instance, his important statement questioning the existence of antisemitism is included in his essay "1001         Lies About Gilad Atzmon", an undeniably polemical piece. It would be misleading to insist that this be included in a separate section than his non-polemical article "On Antisemitism". Equally, it would be invidious to create one section in which GA's side of a debate was presented, but to polace the response -- or, in some cases, the argument being responded to -- in a different section.


 * Felix seems to suggest that the Politics section could include GA's views on Israel and Zionism, while the Polemics section would include "all the supposed anti-semitic name-calling stuff". Without getting into any discussion over the merits or otherwise of GA's views, I would suggest that it is in fact extremely difficult to separate his views in this way. For instance, in the article "On Antisemitism", he writes "Since America         currently enjoys the status of the world's only super power and since          all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must          begin to take the accusation that Zionists are trying to control          the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical,          racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force. The world's number one super power          is there to support the Jewish state's wealth and security matters."  There is a view that this is simply a statement about Zionism (and therefore, according to Felix's suggestion, to be included under Politics), and there is a view that this is an antisemitic position (and therefore presumably to be included under Polemics). How does Felix propose to resolve such conundrums? My feeling is that, even with greater goodwill between the protagonists than exists at present, such an artificial separation would be extremely difficult. As things are right now, I think it would be well-nigh impossible. RolandR 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Roland, My thinking was that the proposed politics section could be relatively neutral and just stick to fairly bland statements about his basic position on various subjects, referenced, of course. The 'polemics section (let's call it this for now) could have the more controversial stuff, but there would be no reason you couldn't have stuff about Zionism and Israel in both (in fact, I definately thought we would)-it would be a tactic to get the page moving in a relatively uncontroversial manner which would give the interested reader an insight to what Atzmon 1)did 2)thought and 3)what the fuss (controversy) was about.
 * So, in the above example, I would propose that under a politics section-something like 'he is an opponent of Zionism and believes that US foreign policy may be influenced by Israeli concerns' or some such bland-ish summary; and then a fuller going over the controversial passages as above.I would also add that we should do the sections in order, the least controversial first (the music). What do you reckon? Want to give it a go?Felix-felix 11:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm certainly happy to see the music section expanded, and I agree that it makes sense to tackle the less controversial sections first. If nobody objects, I am happy to start editing


 * Well, unless you can show that you are not Gilad Atzmon, you can be considered to be even more biased. See Autobiography for the official policy, which states that "writing autobiographies is highly discouraged". I certainly had no intention of making any libellous statements, and apologise unreservedly if I have done so. If you can point to any such statements, I will certainly withdraw them if they cannot be substantiated. RolandR 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RR continues...the Nihipri section on music, and to submit it to Talk for discussion and approval. Then we can move on to his novels. RolandR 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, I 've asked Jossi to unfreeze the page-and then we can get the whole thing going again.Felix-felix 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ednas, trying to demonstrate 'agendas' to other editors on WP is a pretty futile exercise, no matter how well founded your reasons are, firstly, they are almost always unprovable, and secondly (and more importantly) they do not bar anyone from editing an article anyway. It is far better to avoid personal attacks by which I mean arguments ascribing behaviour on motives to a particular editor and other ad hominem writing, and instead focus on discussion of only the actual edits themselves. This should result in a cooler and more thoughtful discussion, hopefully resulting in a better, and more factual article. btw I'm not an admin here, Jossi is though.Felix-felix 14:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's try to keep personalities out of the equation. Atzmon is, by his own design, a controversial subject. But as far as wiki goes, most of the heat and fire about GA exists in the blogosphere, self-published web pages, and one-sided web sites or editorial comments.  Most of the cites that have been used, so far, to portray GA's  politics have been from dubious sources. When it comes to a living person, we need to follow WP:BIO and use only verifiable statements in the article.  Judging by the quality of what I see, when I Google 'Gilad Atzmon', this will probably make the politics section pretty short!  Just because there is a lot of info out there doesn't mean it usable to support a statement on a wikipage.  It needs to be verifiable WP:V  Mytwocents 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon's own statements, whatever view one takes of them, are verifiable. Many of them are published on his own website, so he presumably takes full responsibility for them. Others are posted under his own name on other websites, and have never been disowned by him, so one can assume that he accepts these too. Many of them are responses to articles by other people; it would be unacceptable to include GA's responses without including the texts to which they were a reply.

GA is indeed a controversial figure, and readers turning to Wikipedia for information will expect, and are entitled, to know why he is controversial. It would be silly to have an article about him which pretended that none of this existed, particularly when people can turn to Google and find dozens of pieces discussing this.

Wikipedia does not need to take a position on these controversies. But it does need to report both viewpoints fairly, with the references which allow readers to follow this up. RolandR 20:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Also, the current picture is about to be deleted as it is a copyvio, which is my fault. Does anyone have any non-copyright pics which we could upload?Felix-felix 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I mailed GA at the address on his site and he responded that the pic wiki has been using belongs to him and that Wiki can continue using it. Also asked about the issue re banning of his first book and his reponse is that it was banned 2 weeks after publication but the ban was later lifted. Ednas 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

GA confirms that the image wiki has been using belongs to him and is copyright-free. Ednas 12:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If the image belongs to Gilad Atzmon it is not copyright free. If Gilad Atzmon is the copyright holder, then he can state that he is releasing the image under GFDL in an e-mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (with a copy to you). If Gilad Atzmon knows that the image is copyright-free, then he can e-mail the information on who took the photo and how if came to be in the public domain to the above address. -- Donald Albury 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Donald GA has said that he can send an email but the address is not clear. Could U let me have the address and the filenameof the pic in question. Thanks. Ednas 09:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP
WP:BLP

When it comes to this articlee I think we need to follow Wiki Remove unsourced and poorly sourced material

Namely; (with my emphasis added)

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.

When it comes to GA's controversial or fringe views and his politics we should apply a very strict filter to what is is included in the article. This includes statements in the article and external links to blogs and sites with dubious fact checking. This will probably make the 'politics' section and the 'links' list very short, but it will keep the page from becoming a place to bash or promote GA's fringe beliefs. A brief, neutral mention of his Jewish background and his position on Israel and Palestine is warranted. But any controversial statements or quotes(we should avoid quotes) need to be cited to a real news article, not a blog or 'letter to the editor' or other sub-standard source. Mytwocents 18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone one step further and deleted personal attacks and references to those attacks. Lets move on and keep this discussion about the page and Altzman  A Wiki Talk page is not like IRC chat, we have to be civil and work together to make this a good NPOVarticle.  Thanks.  Mytwocents 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is the only way that the article can move forward, given the strength of feeling-properly sourced material, quoted in context.Felix-felix 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I added three tags to the article which highlight what I see as the problems with the page. Regarding the politics section, if I was writing the section it be pretty much this;


 * Atzmon has caused some controversy with his outspoken political statements. These are often criticised as anti-Semitic, or cited as evidence of Atzmon being a self-hating Jew. He frequently criticises the Israeli state, comparing it to Nazi Germany, and questions the political framing of the Nazi Holocaust.


 * We should keep the section short and sweet, with verifiable statements, even though finding usable sources is the sticking point in this section IMO. Mytwocents 08:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some difficulties with Mytwocents' suggested text. Many anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian activists and writers are criticised by Israel's supporters as antisemitic, or if Jewish are described as "self-hating". The significant difference in Atzmon's case is that such criticisms come from the left and from anti-Zionist Jews, many of whom have themselves been so described. If we use Mytwocents proposed text, there would be nothing to indicate that even many radical critics of Israel and Zionism sharply differentiate themselves from his positions.


 * Regarding sources, most of Atzmon's articles appear in places Mytwocents describes as self-published -- on his own site, on Israel Shamir's site, on the PeacePalestine weblog and elsewhere. From these, they are widely circulated, and they form part of a significant debate. Similarly, responses are published on sites like Jews sans frontieres, Lenin's Tomb or Random Pottins. These too are then circulated, and take part in the wider debate. The fact that they are "self-published" is not entirely relevant, since the people publishing them (on both sides) are the activists on the issue and the protagonists in a debate. If we dismiss all of these sources, we are left with very little to explain why Gilad Atzmon is a politically controversial figure.


 * In any case, it does not appear to me that any of these sources is being used as a "secondary authority". Rather, they are the direct source for the claimed information. For instance, quoting Atzmon's views on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion does not tell us anything about the protocols themselves, but does tell us what Atzmon says about them. Similarly, quoting Michael Rosen's comment on Atzmon's alleged "racist views" does not in itself establish that these views are racist; but it does tell us that Rosen thinks so. So I think Mytwocents' concerns are misplaced. --RolandR 11:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that that's a very difficult position to sustain, RolandR-as the article is supposed to be about the subject, rather than a list of complaints/opinion (or praise) of the subject. GA is certainly controversial-and as someone has said before, by his own design, and this is worthy of mention-but the page is already a barrage of other peoples opinions about him-and our primary aim shouold be the creation of a good WP article. If this isn't managable, then how about a bland statemant on his controversy, as above, with no quotes, and leave it at that? I don't think that mytwocents has misplaced concerns-the page has just been protected-and if we're interested in this article, then we ought to address these concerns properly, don't you think?Felix-felix 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted Felix-felix's edit on the reportedly imminent legal clash between Atzmon and Sue Blackwell on the basis of "what reliable third party sources have published about the subject"WP:BLP and also Reliable sources policy. Note, I wrote on the page "it was reported on several blogs" which is not the same as saying "Atzmon is planning a libel action against" which would give readers a greater degree of certainty that this is "in the works". Philip Cross 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that-however it's blog gossip-and thus unencyclopedic until properly verified. Are the bloggers notable and relevant to Atzmon? This sectin is degenerating again into a quotes section-in this case unsubstantiated stuff from JSF and Harry's place-hardly unbiased sources.Felix-felix 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So why was it replaced? I've removed it again..Felix-felix 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sue Blackwell has confirmed this to me in a personal email, so I have restored a slightly reworded para to the article. RolandR 01:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards section
From the intro "He has earned many jazz awards". A bullet pointed list would be good. Does anyone know which ones he's won? And won, not been nominated for!Felix-felix 11:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected
The article is now unprotected. Hope that the last 10 days have been useful in finding some common ground. If editors need any further assistance with the dispute, drop me a message in my talk page. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Spring Clean
Well, this is a pretty depressing state of things after all the talk following the protecting of the article. I propose a bit of a spring clean, mainly by splitting the politics section into politics (which would be descriptive) and quotes 1)by him and 2) about him. That should at least start to give the article some shape, cos it's almost unreadable at the moment. An awards section would be good, if anyone knows which awards he's won. I think we should stick strictly to primary sources too. I've started by adding a (free) picture.  Felix Felix talk 15:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism
He and many others deny it-a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOP, as one of my recent colleagues is fond of pointing out. It should go.  Felix Felix talk 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He does not deny it - he claims antisemitism is meaningless. Isarig 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  "I am an anti Zionist and oppose the Zionist mindset. I look at questions of Jewish identity and I do question the ties between a Jewish world view and Zionism. I refute totally that I am anti-Semite. In fact I also believe that the current concept of an Anti-Semitism is meaningless." . I'll remove the category again, as per WP:BLP.  Felix Felix talk 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He says we should take the notion the Jews are trying to control the world seriously. He refuses to condemn the burning of synagogues. He calls political opponents 'Christ killers'. he says antisemitism is meaningless. He has been accused of antisemitism by numerous sources. This article is clearly related to antisemitism, and the category is relevant. Isarig 02:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He refutes it as do many others. A category is specific and not just quoting the opinion of others, thus your inference is OR. Therefore a BLP vio. Out it goes.  Felix Felix talk 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But the category is "Antisemitism", not "Antisemites", and includes people such as Abraham Foxman and Ilan Halimi. Inclusion in this category is thus not claiming that GA is an antisemite, but rather that the category is relevant to this article, and this article to the category. I see no reason not to include it. RolandR 07:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In all of his "editing", Felix-felix has consistently sought to remove any material that potrays Atzmon in any sort of balanced, i.e. less than fully favorable, light, no matter how well-documented that material may be. It is therefore impossible to conclude that he is anything other than a worshipful admirer of Atzmon -perhaps even a personal friend? - who is seeking to impose a throughly one-sided POV agenda. I suggest that he be warned - if not ultimately banned - for his POV violations. More balanced and professional editing in conformance to Wikipedia rules must be instituted.
 * Gosh, what an insightful edit. Ban away. Whoever you are. However, fair point by RolandR, although neither Foxman nor Halimi are accused of antisemitism-which is the only reason to include Atzmon-and he has consistently denied the accusation-which is defamatory.Thus I still think that it should go, as per BLP. I'm happy to keep an open mind about it, but as per BLP, it should go until there's consensus.  Felix Felix talk 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-semitism"
Including Gilad Atzmon in a category called "Anti-Semitism" is clearly unacceptable under the biographies of living persons policy. It cannot be attached as a blanket category to anyone ever accused of anti-Semitism, because it is a generally pejorative term which will unfairly taint Mr. Atzmon's life and reputation. It cannot be proven that Mr. Atzmon is an anti-Semite, there is no general historical agreement that he is, and he himself vehemently denies it. Throwing him into a blanket category along with Adolf Hitler and Nazism is unacceptable in the extreme. FCYTravis 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the header of the antisemitism category: Note: This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic. Abraham Foxman is included in this category, as are Richard J. Green, John M. Oesterreicher and others. There is no implication that the person is antisemitic, but merely that the article discusses antisemitism. You might be thinking of another category, Antisemitic people, which was deleted. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out earlier, Jayjg, in fact just before you banned me, Abe Foxman and others aren't facing accusations of antisemitism,which they deny, unlike Atzmon. Atzmon isn't in the category for any other reason than the contested accusations, unlike the other examples you give. It's defamatory, and he's a;live and contests it, so the category should go.  Felix Felix talk 05:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Felix-felix, I blocked you for 3RR, which you had violated; I didn't "ban" you. As for the category, it merely indicates an article that discusses antisemitism in one way or another. Regarding your argument, if there were truly a BLP violation in mentioning accusations of antisemitism then the article wouldn't be able to mention it at all; yet it obviously mentions it, if only to note Atzmon's argument that he is not antisemitic. In addition, your arguments make little sense; the accusation of antisemitism is always contested, and almost no-one admits being an antisemite. I don't see why Wikipedia should have free reign to (in an NPOV way) list notable accusations of antisemitism and rebuttals from right-wing figures such as David Irving, but should have an entirely different set of rules regarding left-wing figures. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a disingenious argument-I obviously don't think that the notable inclusions of various accusations of antisemitism against him are BLP, they're sourced and anyone reading the (now fairly garbled) article can make their own minds up about it. However, his inclusion in the category is not 'sourced' he's put there by editors who are in effect saying, yup, that Atzmon's an anti-semite (And making out he's included in the category for any other reason is just ridiculous, he's no scholar on anti-semitism). So your argument boils down to 'if someone's accused of antisemitism, then we'll categorise them as such'. And whilst some odious race hate figures may well deny that they are, some do. However that does not affect the underlying BLP issue, which is there to protect WP against defamation lawsuits, rather than your feelings on whether Atzmon hates other Jewish people or not. And, frankly I am pretty ticked off about the block, for following the BLP guidelines, I now have another block on my block log after resolving never to get another.  Felix Felix talk 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything is disingenuous argument, it's the claim that the accusations of antisemitism (and Atzmon's rebuttal) are sourced, but the "category" is not. The category is for articles that discuss antisemitism. This article discusses antisemitism. If the discussion doesn't violate BLP, then the category does not. Also, I have no "feelings" about Atzmon, nor have I given any indication of such; please discuss the article, not other editors. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument makes no sense. The Atzmon article references various people accusing Atzmon of antisemitism. These are sourced accusations. The category is 'Antisemitism', not 'people accused of antisemitism'. He says he's not antisemitic, and there's no other (realistic) reason to include him in the category apart from the fact that he's been accused of antisemitism. Thus the inclusion is a value judgement, implying that the accusations are correct. It's defamatory, he's alive (and litiginous, not that it should make any difference), and it's thus a BLP vio. I was, of course, discussing the article, you are the one who wrote; "I don't see why Wikipedia should have free reign to (in an NPOV way) list notable accusations of antisemitism and rebuttals from right-wing figures such as David Irving, but should have an entirely different set of rules regarding left-wing figures." You may well not do, but that's immaterial-WP:BLP trumps these concerns of yours.  Felix Felix talk 12:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument makes no sense. The category is "Antisemitism", meaning "articles with discuss antisemitism". It is not a "value judgement" to say that this article discusses antisemitism, nor does it defame Atzmon in any way to state that this article discusses antisemitism. Again, the category is not "antisemitic people", which was deleted, or "antisemites", which I don't think exists, but "antisemitism", articles which discuss antisemitism. If it's not a violation of BLP to note that the David Irving or Abraham Foxman articles discuss antisemitism, or to discuss antisemitism in their articles, then it's not a violation of BLP to note that this article discusses antisemitism. The Category is very, very clear that is it about articles that discuss antisemitism, so your continued misrepresenting it as something else, or pretense that it somehow (a) doesn't violate BLP to have a discussion of antisemitism in the article, but (b) does violate BLP to put it in the category of articles that discuss antisemitism, is becoming disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the article isnt about antisemitism at all, its about Atzmon, and it has a large sections on accusations of antisemitism made against him. There is no "discussion" of antisemitism in the article, unless you count alot of quotes purporting to show or accusing Atzmon of said antisemitism. I dont think that BLP policy is based on what happens to other articles, and I pretty sure that you dont either. However, its not difficult to understand that the inclusion of Atzmon in the antisemitism category is defamatory, Im not the only person to have thought so, and to quote the WP:BLP page "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced,...or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." Btw Ive had a look at the WP:GAME page, and for the life of me cant see how it applies to any of this.  Felix Felix talk 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The antisemitism category is used for articles that discuss antisemitism in some way. It's clearly not used for articles that are just "about" antisemitism, then it would have 4 or 5 entries at most. The only people who have claimed it is "defamatory" are those who have misunderstood the meaning of the category. It is not "defaming" Atzmon to state that his article discusses antisemitism; indeed, as you point out, it has a lengthy discussion of accusations of antisemitism made against him, and his rebuttal. The Richard J. Green, Tuvia Grossman, Norman Hapgood, John M. Oesterreicher and Joseph Seligman articles also mention antisemitism, and are included in the category, though there is no implication that these people are antisemitic. Now let me ask you a couple of things: 1) do you think that it is a violation of WP:BLP to list, in an NPOV way, accusations of antisemitism against individuals from reliable sources and/or their rebuttals of the same? 2) If the answer to 1) is "No", do you think it is a violation of WP:BLP to include those articles in a category noting such a discussion? Please answer "Yes" or "No" to both questions, and explain your reasoning. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, this isn't difficult to understand. The article doesn't discuss antisemitism generally, or even a specific aspect of antisemitism, it details accusations and refutations of Atzmon's supposed antisemitism. All of these are sourced, and thus WP is merely acting as a secondary source about these opinions. However the categorisation of the article in the antisemitism category because Atzmon  is accused of  antisemitism is a value judgement. Should Atzmon decide to take legal action on the basis of defamation from the article, he could not do so on the grounds that the article included sourced quotations of various accusations, but he could do so on the grounds of the categorisation. This is, as I'm sure you know, the basis for WP:BLP, to protect the wikipedia project from potentially devastating legal rulings, which could ruin wikipedia. This is why WP:BLP trumps the 3R rule, and why controversial edits should be removed immediately;


 * "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2] He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."


 * Again, I don't really think that this is difficult to understand-which is why I think that the article should be removed from the category, and which is why I'm ticked off for being blocked for reverting this.
 * So in answer to your questions 1)No and 2)Yes (and that's notwithstanding the fact that the category is about antisemitism, not living people accused of antisemitism).  Felix Felix talk 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You still seem to be assuming that Category:Antisemitism is Category:Antisemitic people. It's not; the latter was deleted. Also, your argument makes little sense; we aren't "speculating" that this article discusses antisemitism, and it isn't a "value judgment" to say this article discusses antisemitism. Rather, it is a fact that it does so, recognized by all, and not a violation of WP:BLP, as you admit. Frankly, it's far more likely that Wikipedia would be sued the claims and counter-claims regarding antisemitism in the article itself, than it would be for including the article in the category of articles that discuss antisemitism, not that either has any real likelihood. What you seem to be saying is that it's fine to have a category for articles that discuss antisemitism, and fine for articles themselves to discuss various allegations of antisemitism, but not fine to put any of those articles into that category. This is difficult to comprehend. Would you insist that this contradictory policy apply to all articles that discuss allegations of antisemitism, or only this specific one? Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the point here is not hard to comprehend-there is no discussion of antisemitism in the article except about the contested accusation of Atzmon's supposed antisemitism. This is different to any other article in category antisemitism, and it represents a value judgement in the categorisation, which is defamatory. Your opinions on the likely legal consequences of passages in the article are fascinating, but hardly substantive. What I am saying is that wikipedia shouldn't defame living people, unless it's reporting as a secondary source-the categorisation is clearly not that. We're not getting very far here. Perhaps I should raise this elsewhere.  Felix Felix talk 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is absurd; the articles in this category discuss all sorts of aspects of antisemitism; why single out a specific one? Again, if the article can discuss the allegations, then why can't it be in a category of articles that discuss those allegations? How is it "defamatory" or a "value judgement" to say that the article on Atzmon discusses allegations of antisemitism? Would you insist that an article on David Irving or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not be included in the category antisemitism? Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The category is not "articles containing accusations of antisemitism which may or may not be true", it's "antisemitism", and antisemitism is something that Atzmon denies. If the category were for accusations of antisemitism, I'd agree that it's inclusion wouldn't be either defamatory or a value-judgement, however it's not, and being called an antisemite can certainly be defamatory. As I understand it Irving is fairly frank about his anti-semitism (and general rascism and bigotry generally), and Ahmadinejad is not in a position to take legal action against WP-which, is the whole point of WP:BLP. But I'm not editing those pages, I'm editing this one. As the admin here, don't you feel you're a bit too close to the issue here?  Felix Felix talk 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that Wikipedia does not claim to hold the truth, it only claims to hold verifiable information from reliable sources: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia also doesn't make editorial decisions based on who is more likely to sue it, and Irving, like Ahmadinejad and just about everyone else accused of it, denies being an antisemite. Finally, the category is "articles that discuss antisemitism", as this article surely does, not whatever you are pretending it is, and it's neither "defamatory" nor a "value-judgement" to say this article discusses antisemitism. I'm not going to respond to any more of these continued repetitions that pretend the category is something that it is not. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, not truth.is a good point, Jayjg, although it doesn't support your contention. The inclusion of the Atzmon article in the antisemitism category is not backed up by any verifiable sources, the (sourced) accusations, are just that, accusations, and they are contested. The article doesn't discuss antisemitism in any way, except in that Atzmon is accused of antisemitism. Your views on the 'truth' of this (which is why you brought up Irving and Ahmadinejad) are irrelevant-the overriding issue is the BLP one, which, I contend, is the case here. To make my case, I don't need to address every other article in wikipedia for possible BLP vios to do so (although I will say that I think your assertions about Irving (and Ahmadinejad) are incorrect). And to be labelled as an antisemite is obviously defamatory, if a person had been accused of being a paedophile, and the accusations were sourced but contested by that person and others, do you think it would be OK to put the article in category:pedophilia? I find it hard to believe that you would.  Felix Felix talk 17:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review my previous comment. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That you're not going to respond? Well, that will sort everything out, then. OK. I tried.  Felix Felix talk 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've responded many times. The Antisemitism category contains articles that discuss antisemitism; the disclaimer at the top of the category page emphasizes this. Nevertheless, you keep pretending it is something else, and repeating arguments based on that pretense. If you have new arguments, preferably ones that are not based on pretending the category is something other than it is, please bring them forward. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But Atzmon is not a "left-wing figure". I note above his comment that "left and right are dated concepts". Elsewhere, he argues that "If the left insists upon maintaining its relevancy it must re-evaluate the entire idea of working class politics." He has repeatedly made such comments, which makes it very hjard to recognise him as any sort of left-wing figure, regardless of the illusions of the SWP. RolandR 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless of whether he is left or not, there is a discussion about whether or not he is antisemitic, and he has commented on that discussion, which is why the category is in the article. As for you, Roland, I think you've made your views clear here, haven't you? Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have indeed, and that is quoted in the CounterPunch article. I'm glad that you accept JsF as a reliable source, and hope to quote from it again. RolandR 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course JsF isn't a reliable source, don't be ridiculous. It's a radical blog. And I didn't quote from it, but you did publish your views on it. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography? discography?
The article is unbalanced as it is almost entirely devoted to the subject's political statements. Since the lead implies that he is notable first as a musician, secondly as an author and only thirdly as a political commentator, then surely there should be a list of his works, perhaps with some of the languages they have been translated into, and a discography? I will make a start on the biblio but I think there is a standard form for discography that I am not confident with. Itsmejudith 11:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What language was A guide for the perplexed written in? The article refers to a "translation" into Hebrew, while the English edition is clearly a translation. Itsmejudith 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. The original was written in Hebrew, and I have corrected the article accordingly. RolandR 12:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Itsmejudith 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Start of the controversy
At the moment there is no description, and no source, for any original comments that started off the controversy. It starts with Atzmon replying to accusations. What did he originally say, when and where, that made others react so unfavourably? Itsmejudith 23:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As was written a few weeks ago: "In all of his "editing", Felix-felix has consistently sought to remove any material that potrays Atzmon in any sort of balanced, i.e. less than fully favorable, light, no matter how well-documented that material may be. It is therefore impossible to conclude that he is anything other than a worshipful admirer of Atzmon -perhaps even a personal friend? - who is seeking to impose a throughly one-sided POV agenda. I suggest that he be warned - if not ultimately banned - for his POV violations. More balanced and professional editing in conformance to Wikipedia rules must be instituted."

This problem has only gotten worse in the time since then; Felix-felix (who appears to live in London and therefore may be a close political friend of associate of Atzmon's)has continued to engage in excessive POV reverts. Clearly, given his reluctance to learn from his previous "blocks", I think the time has come that he be PERMANENTLY BANNED from future editing of not just this entry, but the site as a whole. I would ask jayjig and other Wikipedia administrators to keep a much closer eye on this serial violator, "Felix-felix".

Goodness!  Felix Felix talk 21:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit summary
Felix-felix, please don't hide controversial category removals in stealthy ways. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Incomplete edit summary.Apologies.  Felix Felix talk 13:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Locked?
If I may inquire, why is this page locked?--Grauniad63 00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Persistent vandalism by new/single issue editors, much like yourself. Check out the history.  Felix Felix talk 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Whitewash"
Isarig, I removed the part of the passage about Atzmon comparing Israel to Nazi Germany,(a passage that I wrote) because it's redundant, a quote doing literally that appears in the quote section. So, it's not a whitewash-just a cleanup.  Felix Felix talk 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit agian removed the antisemitism category, again without noting you have done so. Please stop these sneaky attemps to remove a category over the objections of numerous editors. Isarig 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Isarig, I shouldn't have to remind you, of all people, about WP:AGF-should I? And you haven't addressed my point, above.  Felix Felix talk 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pissin' match
I suggest the way to avoid this being yet another pissin' match WP article with supporters putting in the nicest stuff and detractors putting in the nastiest stuff, which in the end really says nothing and looks amateurish (because it is amateurish), is to grow up about article writing and buy the man's freakin' books and use them to make the article truly substantive, plus about 75% longer. Novel idea, maybe, but hey. Cryptographic hash 03:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I suggest not buying his meretricious and sexist novels. It's enough to read his deeply disturbing articles, on his own website and elsewhere, to see that much of the criticism of him is well-founded and legitimate. RolandR 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, a biographer of a person who has never read his books. I'm impressed. Spoken in true Wikipedia style. Cryptographic hash 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And where did you get the impression that I haven't read them? I am advising others to learn from my experience and not waste their time. RolandR 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ROFL. Buy that and I have something else for you to buy. Cryptographic hash 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read the books, I've read the articles, I've listened to the music live and on CD, I have corresponded with GA, and I have met him several times. What is your qualification for editing this? RolandR 21:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You've also been engaged in a public feud with him and picketed his appearences. WP:COI springs to mind.  Felix Felix talk 05:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That might be relevant if you could point to even one edit where my known opposition to Atzmon's political statements and writing had led me to make an NPOV edit. Nearly all of my contributions to the article have consisted of adding references to or quotes from his own wrirings. On occasion, I have deleted unbalanced hostile criticism of Atzmon, and my last edit before this week had an edit summary (unfortunately truncated somehow) defending you against personal abuse. I have not sought to disguise my interest in this article, and I have been careful to edit within Wikipedia guidelines. I was responding above to Cryptographic hash's laughable suggestion that I had too little knowledge of GA to contribute to this article; you are in effect suggesting the exact opposite! RolandR 08:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. Now this is true Wikipedia style. Cryptographic hash 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the defence-from what I know about you, I wouldn't expect you to side with the Zionist crazies that haunt this article either. But the WP:COI point stands, and it's an obvious point to make after your penultimate edit on this page, above.  Felix Felix talk 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that edit was on this Talk page, where it is, I would argue, acceptable. It is certainly not the sort of remark I would make in the article itself; and I believe my editing record reflects this RolandR 11:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No redundancy
I am not sure what you think is redundant about the statement that he compares Israel to Nazi Germany. Perhaps you think that once we said he is a critic of Israel, nothing more needs to be said, but this is false. Criticisms of Israel and/or her policies may range from the mild, nearly uncontroversial claim that Israel could do more to preserve the natural coastal sand dunes by limiting urban sprawl, to the extremist position that Israel is an illegitimate estate with no right to exist. On this spectrum, a comparison with Nazi Germany is clearly on the extreme end, and thus it is not at all redundant to describe where on the spectrum of critics Atzmon lays. Isarig 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For my part, I would prefer to keep the quote directly comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in, I have to say that I don't think that it reflects badly on Atzmon, and encapsulates his feelings and style, and is therefore fairly illuminating. But I would think that, as I am the editor who put the quote in to start off with, as well as the (now redundant) passage in the lead in that you keep restoring. This passage is redundant, as the quation later on illustrates his view about this more fully. I have to say that I don't accept that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is an extreme position-the comparison is made with respect to many countries, institutions and people, and is so common as to have given rise to Godwin's Law. It's a bit frustrating working on this article, to have editors drop in and undo work on the basis of imagined 'whitewashes' of subjects that they obviously feel strongly about. Especially when a few moments reflection reveal the 'whitewash' to be nothing of the kind.  Felix Felix talk 08:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It really does not matter who put it in first. You do not own this article, or even your contributions to it. Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. It is an extreme position to compare Israel to Nazi Germany not because of anything to do with Israel, but becuase of the nature of the Nazi regime and the treatment it received from the international community. Comparing any country to Nazi Germany is an extreme position, and that holds true no matter which country or how many countries are so compared. Godwin's Law illustrates this clearly. As the WP article tells us, the law is invoked when someone makes "use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons" involving Hitler or the Nazi regime. Isarig 14:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think you are projecting your own prejudices, comparing any country to Nazi Germany is something that people do, literally, all the time-to hold it as "an extreme position" is your personal opinion. As for your helpful quotation of part of the article on Godwn's law, this illustrates, what, exactly? I am also aware that I don't 'own' the article-pointing out that the original edits were mine was to illustrate that removing one of them couldn't be what was laughably called "a whitewash".  Felix Felix talk 06:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is true that people compare countries to Nazi Germany all the time. And those that do, are making an extreme, exaggerated comparison, for the purpose of inflammatory rhetoric - which is what the Godwin's Law snippet I quoted says. Isarig 14:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you may think that, but the fact remains that they do, and whether making such a comparison is "extreme or exaggerated" is a matter of subjective opinion and, anyway, irrelevant.  Felix Felix talk 06:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You were the one who introduced Godwin's Law into this discussion, so presumably you agree with it's relevance and definition, which as I've shown you, is exaggerated comparison to Hitler or Nazi Germany, for the purpose of inflammatory rhetoric. This is not a matter of subjective opinion, but of well knwon concepts and there meaning. Isarig 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I did, to illustrate how often people use comparisons to Nazi Germany. Which they do. All the time. Exaggerated comparisons and inflammatory rhetoric are obviously subjective descriptions, in addition to being well known concepts. Your point remains obscure.  Felix Felix talk 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the point is obscure at all. It is simply that people who make such a comparison, per the article you referred to, are making an exaggerated comparison for the sake of inflammatory rhetoric. Isarig 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article states, the rule does not make any statement as to whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. illustrating my point.  Felix Felix talk 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, but the fun is over. Wiki will face legal consequences if it continues to publish this article on Gilad Atzmon, which is vandalised on an almost daily basis, and if his name is not removed from the category, anti-semitism. He will follow up shortly with a letter to wiki admin. Thanks for your co-operation, but take note that the blissful libel days are over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magienoir (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP - deleting least defendable accusations vs. Atzmon
While I doubt today's vandalism or the above is a comment from Atzmon or his representatives, I was getting ready to delete the following anyway. I do know that Atzmon himself aggressively defends his reputation against constant (and often dubious) accusations of antisemtisim. WP:BLP cautions us to be conservative in making accusations without very reliable sources. Plus WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE indicates deleting the following entries best way to go: Carol Moore 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Roland Rance, Fri 17 June: No to Holocaust Denial at Bookmarks!, Labournet.net, June 17, 2005. Retrieved on May 10, 2008. ''Reason: added by User:RolandR, who evidently helped organize the protest (which itself is not terribly wiki-noteable) and then wrote about it on an online site that really is not WP:RS for biography. RolandR actively defends Jews against Zionism and has followed me to a couple different wiki discussion areas to defend these questionable entries. I think he's got some WP:Conflict of interest issues here.
 * Jews Against Zionism, SWP and Gilad Atzmon, Weekly Worker 584, July 8, 2005. Reason: Also covers this protest, but a biased source about a not very notable event.
 * Michael Rosen letter to the editor, Socialist Worker, January 6, 2007. Reason: letter to editor from not very notable person and not suitable under WP:BLP.
 * Al-Jazeerah.info quote link no longer working and it's just a quote without third part commentary; lots of similar quotes can be found on Atzmon's home page.
 * Social Democrats invited known anti-Semite to seminar, The Local, March 23, 2007. Reason: this one is probably ok, unless several editors think not.
 * I'd have to look into the RolandR one a bit more; I agree that JAZ should not be used as a source anywhere in wikipedia outside of their own article (Neturei Karta) or articles about their members (such as Yisroel Dovid Weiss), but I resotred the Hitler/Israel comparison, expanding it so that it is no longer just a quote, but now an indication of Atzmon's views comparing Nazi Germany favorably to modern Israel, and sourced it to the 8/14/2006 ArabNews article. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As it now stands, the article includes criticism of Atzmon's views only from right-wing or pro-Zionist sources. However, it is certainly notable that there is at least as much criticism from the left, and from anti-Zionist Jews. Indeed, it is arguable that this is the most significant aspect of his political writings -- that, unlike for instance Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, but in a similar way to Israel Shamir, he actually divides the pro-Palestinian movement into at times very hostile camps. This criticism is at present excluded from the article, although several polemics, by Atzmon and others, directly responding to such criticism, are included (footnotes 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25). If the criticism is not notable, then nor is the response to the criticism; and it is surely unacceptable to allow links to harsh (and arguably antisemitic) criticism of Tony Greenstein, Roland Rance and Michael Rosen, but to exclude their own comments which led to the cited responses.
 * Therefore, unless the deleted material is restored, I intend to remove all of the responses noted above. RolandR (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Roland, the proper way to balance an article is not to remove properly cited material from one viewpoint, but to balance it with properly cited material from the other viewpoint. This is even in BLP's, in that properly cited criticism is completely acceptable. JewsAgainstZionism is not a reliable source. Blogs, outside of ones published by Atzmon himself, is just not acceptable per WP:V and WP:BLP. By all means, if you can find reliable and verifoable sources for left-wing criticism, that would be fantastic. However, threatining to remove proper criticism from one viewpoint because acceptable criticism from the other viewpoint cannot be found is improper. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me, Avi. At one stage, the article was expanded to include criticism of Atzmon, and his response. Now his response has been allowed to stand, but the criticism which led to it has been deleted. This is certainly not NPOV.
 * Jews Against Zionism is certainly a reliable and acceptable source for their own views, which includes explaining why they organised a picket of Atzmon. Michael Rosen, writing in Socialist Worker, is undeniably an acceptable source for his criticism of the SWP over their links with Atzmon. Counterpunch has rejected responses by Lenni Brenner, Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance to the article by Mary Rizzo, so has forfeited its right to be considered a relianble source in this matter. Some of the material linked to from the article, and particularly 1001 Lies About Gilad Atzmon, consists of little more than direct racist personal abuse of his Jewish critics.
 * I fail to see how anyone can defend this abuse of Wikipedia in support of Atzmon's campaign to smear anti-Zionist Jews. RolandR (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Made intro to Arab news quote more accurate.
 * Editing wikipedia can be frustrating. Take Jewish lobby where all sorts of mainstream sources USE it as a synonym for Israel lobby but just because we couldn't find a WP:RS source making this obvious point, we haven't been able to get that in.
 * Start a Jews Against Zionism UK page. (What is it's URL anyway.) Then could distinquish from the Brooklyn group.
 * I'm sure there must be more reliably sourced lefties criticizing him. Use a search engine.
 * What criticism taken out and what was its source? Must specify to make a point.
 * If Atzmon that bad people going to his site will find out soon enough. Carolmooredc {talk}
 * I explained some months ago, at Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation), why I was reluctant to start a Jews Against Zionism (UK) page. In addition, such an article would be a magnet for constant vandalism from the Runtshit vandal, who has defamed me in (literally) thousands of edits to Wikipedia. The group's URL is www.jewsagainstzionism.org.
 * Although there is a great deal of left-wing criticism of Atzmon, most of this is on blogs, which are generally not acceptable as sources. I still don't understand why you object to the letter by Michael Rosen in Socialist Worker, which is a reliable source on this. RolandR (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Carol, your changes to the Arab News intro masked the point that Atzmon does not like the comparison because he believes modern Israel is worse than Nazi Germany. I have left your construction, but added a sentence in the intro to restore accuracy, and added an Atzmon sentence in the quotation to support it. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that was obvious from what he said. You may be over doing it a bit. Also, the paragraph should be directly below the first one since it is not from a 3rd party criticism or his replies to criticism and thereby stands by itself merely as a view point. Carol Moore 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I wasn't sure, so it cannot hurt to clarify it for the reader, and bring reliable sources to back it up. As for the order, I just put it into what i believe is chronological, as Atzmon's responses are 12/2006, I believe. Another option is to put all criticism in one subsectin, and his response in another—logical as opposed to chronological. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the politics section already is an overly long criticism section. Maybe we should change "writing" to "Politics and writing", move first paragraph of politics there and change to criticisms.
 * Also, just quoting something controversial he says is NOT criticism. You as an editor are not allowed to criticize what he said or that would be WP:Original research. I'm sure some RS third party must have criticized it, including some of those already mentioned in the articles referenced. Remember wikipedia is not about piling on criticism to benefit political partisans. Find the couple most outrageous, most criticized things he said and use those.
 * Also remember in a case where the biography person assertively replies to criticism, for balance such replies should be included. So unless some really notable person/publication says something, or he makes some sort of real news, I'd say enough is enough.
 * Michael Rosen was just smearing him, and in a matter of small organization political infighting, not providing a real critique or new information sodefinitely problematic when combined with the source, which might be appropriate for NON-BLP matters. Please read WP:BLP. Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, you are correct when you say we cannot quote a subject and then in-article use that quote to criticize the subject. However, that is not was is happening vis-a-vis the ArabNews quote. rather, we are quoting what he said in the section on his politics. It is incontravertible that he claims that the comparison between Israel and nazi Germany is incorrect, as Israel is worse. It is that kind of statement, and the response it engenders, from all sides of the political spectrum, that makes him notable. So quoting his own words without adding any editorial commentary is not only allowed, but recommended. Let us bring his own statements and let the reader decide. -- Avi (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While I do think it's out of place in current sectioning, and piling on, and myself have been shot down many times for doing just that kind of RS quoting in a couple articles (usually as WP:OR). However, will wait for others to opine. If the section remains "politics," there is a lot from various sources that could be included about his less controversial views on Israel Palestine and other topics and that would balance out all the (still relatively partisan) criticisms. I'll think about putting it on my long list of things to do. :-) Carol Moore 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Sorry to weigh in when this discussion has been going on so long, but I have been too busy to edit recently. I just wanted to comment on the reliability of the sources under discussion: 1) LabourNet is a perfectly decent source, used as a source for around a dozen other articles (e.g. Great Western Hospital, Mansour Osanlou, Mark Serwotka, Ilan Pappé). 2) Weekly Worker] is good enough source too: of course "biased", but held to the same standards of accuracy as any other published newspaper. Although published by one political party, it carries material by authors from a range of left-wing perspectives. 3) The idea that [[Michael Rosen is non-notable is laughable to anyone who reads The Guardian or has visited the children's section of a library. He is a respected political activist close to the SWP, Britain's largest left party, and the SWP newspaper regularly carries his material, in this case a criticism of their actions. Surely a notable source.
 * It is worth adding that there are plenty of alternative sources that could be used on Jews Against Zionism and the Bookmarks picket, e.g. the Alliance for Workers Liberty, Exeter Socialists, the Arabic Media Internet Network, the Socialist Unity Network, [Comment is Free]], or other Weekly Worker articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Publication by the Guardian
The article listed The Guardian amongst the places where Atzmon has been published. ("Atzon is a political writer who has been published by".) (Indeed, it was listed first, probably because it is the most authoritative of the publications.) The footnote was this: Gilad Atzmon, A Response to David Hirsh, The Guardian, December 12, 2006. I have removed this, because it is not, as (a) he was published at the Guardian's blog site, Comment is Free (CiF), which is very different from being published in the newspaper, and (b) what they published was a right to reply piece - initially a comment on the blog post - which the Guardian make very clear, in the introduction to the post, is far from an endorsement of his views. It is, therefore, tendentious to claim the Guardian has published Atzmon. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First there is the WP:BLP issue where a higher standard is necessary for people making libelous accusations against others; a mainstream reliable source is just much better. The other issue is keeping the article WP:NPOV and not getting into WP:undue. Listing every little criticism from every minor source and only having a couple responses from the object of attack is just not NPOV or encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place where partisans are given free reign to smear people they disagree with on contentious issues. And let's not forget  Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles where this sort of thing is discourage. Carol Moore 17:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * The problem is that you are permitting attacks by Atzmon on his critics, and response to their criticisms, while deleting the criticism which led to these attacks and responses. It is not Atzmon who is the subject of libellous attacks, but those of us who criticise him; which is why Tony Greenstein is suing him for libel. RolandR (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't see any edits that directly make those points (just vague claims of this on talk or in articles), so didn't know what specifically you are referring to. It's your job to make it clear in the text. The two Greenstein-Atzmon exchanges in or about Comment is Free and elsewhere are relevant. But let's keep it short, since airing every detail of small time political spats and even lawsuits isn't the goal of wikipedia and BLP. Carol Moore 18:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * My edit comments explain my changes to two sections. If you want to criticize him for things he says, at least provide enough context so what he says makes his case and doesn't come out just as hostile rants. One of these days I'll have to read one of his articles to see how much and in what sense he actually does reject Jewish identity. Maybe his critiques belong in that article. That article could use a Jewish Identity Politics section, if someone wants to write it. ;-)  Carol Moore 00:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

2 WP:OR issues in summary of "Swindler's List" article

 * Here Atzmon writes:
 * Yet we must never forget that not all Jews follow the Bible. Some are not even aware of the biblical text or its content. Some may even suggest to us that we must never forget the Bund and its progressive, secular and cosmopolitan heritage that is currently maintained by half a dozen enthusiastic Jewish Marxists around the world. Indeed, we have to admit that, out of the very few Bundists who didn’t immigrate to Israel after the war, half a dozen do not agree with Israel, Zionism and the robbery of Palestine. This is certainly a reason to be cheerful. However, Bundists believe that instead of robbing Palestinians we should all get together and rob whoever is considered to be the rich, the wealthy and the strong in the name of working class revolution. Here is the Bund’s call for action taken from “The Vow”, the Bund’s anthem:


 * We swear our stalwart hate persists,
 * Of those who rob and kill the poor:
 * The Tsar, the masters, capitalists.
 * Our vengeance will be swift and sure.
 * So swear together to live or die!''


 * On the face of it, robbing the rich, confiscating their homes and grabbing their wealth is seen as an ethical act within the progressive discourse. As a young revolutionary I myself took part in some righteous parades.

My original edit: About most of the former and current "Jewish Marxist" members of the "bund" (the General Jewish Labor Union), he writes:

RolandR's re-edit of my statement reads: Writing about the Jewish revolutionary Marxists of the "Bund" (the General Jewish Labor Union), he writes:


 * This eliminates Atzmon's statement that he is NOT writing about ALL members of the "Bund" (he writes: "a half a dozen do not agree with Israel, Zionism and the robbery of Palestine...") This introduces the false impression he is talking about everyone in the group.


 * As you can see Atzmon uses the phrase "Jewish Marxist," he does not use "Jewish revolutionary Marxists." Just because he mentions revolution does not give one free reign to insert it there.  (For all we know the Bund might consider it an insult. But that's not for even a member of the group to insert in a summary of how he describes the group, unless there is a WP:RS reply to Atzmon explicitly doing so.)

This is a paragraph about what he says, NOT about what people want people to think he wrote or about what they think he should have written. Therefore it should revert to my original edit. Also, if RolandR is a member of the "bund" he should reveal that WP:COI. Carol Moore 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * 1) I am not and never have been a member of the Bund or its successor groups, and I do not agree with its political position. I have no conflict of interest in wishing to reinsert the objective description of the Bund as a revolutionary organisation.


 * 2) In the context referred to in the article, Atzmon makes it clear that he is indeed referring to All Bundists, including the "half a dozen (who) do not agree with Israel, Zionism and the robbery of Palestine", since he goes on immediately to write "This is certainly a reason to be cheerful. However, Bundists believe that instead of robbing Palestinians we should all get together and rob whoever is considered to be the rich, the wealthy and the strong in the name of working class revolution" (my emphases). He is quite clearly stating that the Bundists who do not agree with the plunder of Palestine would instead rob the rich. This is not original research on my part, but the obvious meaning of his text. What would be unacceptable OR is the insertion of my own interpretation of this into the text -- that Atzmon is implying that all Jews are thieves;those called Zionists want to steal from the Palestinians, while those called Bundists want to steal from the rich.


 * 3) Atzmon does indeed refer disparagingly to the Bund as "Jewish Marxists". This does not mean that we have to adopt his terminology. It is inarguable that the Bund were consciously revolutionaries. Our own article about them notes that "During the Russian Revolution of 1905 the Bund headed the revolutionary movement in the Jewish towns, particularly in Belarus", while a Google search on the terms Jewish, Bund and revolutionary  finds nearly 100,000 articles. I have several books on my shelves which describe the Bund as revolutionaries. For instance, in an article The Essence of Bundism, written in Warsaw in 1934, Polish Bund leader Victor Alter writes: "But the Bund absorbed the tremendous experience of the postwar revolutions and of everything that happened after them. Against the background of that experience, and in accord with the principles of revolutionary Marxism and its own party traditions, the Bund formulated its attitude towards the core problems of our time" (included in "Henryk Erlich and Victor Alter:Two Heroes and Martyrs for Jewish Socialism", translated and edited by Samuel A.Portnoy, Ktav Publishing House, Hoboken NJ 1990, ISBN 0-88125-357-X, p278-9). Atzmon does not accept this subjective and objective analysis of the Bund, and chooses to ridicule it; but we need not -- indeed, should not -- follow his example. RolandR (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, per #2 I can see I did misinterpret where he was applying that some bundists did not agree. However, replacing "Jewish Marxists" (which some may consider a slur and others might not) with "Jewish revolutionary Marxists" still distorts his meaning and becomes WP:OR. (And for those who consider "J M" a slur, it would seem to make your point stronger by leaving it there.) Anyway, the quote immediately following says that they act "in the name of working class revolution." So additionally revolutionary is redundant. I'm not a total purist on WP:OR, so if you want to be redundant, I think you could put in [(the revolutionary General Jewish Labor Union) - except that article doesn't even have the word revolutionary! Can you find a WP:RS reference using revolutionary describing the current bund? Then you could put that ref after the word union.  Carol Moore 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Sorry Carol, but which article does not have the word "revolutionary"? As noted above, The Wikipedia article states "During the Russian Revolution of 1905 the Bund headed the revolutionary movement in the Jewish towns, particularly in Belarus", and Atzmon's article states that "Bundists believe that instead of robbing Palestinians we should all get together and rob whoever is considered to be the rich, the wealthy and the strong in the name of working class revolution".


 * As for WP:RS references to the Bund as revolutionary, see for instance the blurb for the Russian State Archive of Social and Economic History publication of the Bund archives, which states that "It (the Bund) was founded as a clandestine revolutionary organization in Vilna (now Vilnius in Lithuania) on October 7, 1897" . The American Slavic and East European Review published an article in 1958 titled "The Archives of the Jewish Bund: New Materials on the Revolutionary Movement". Do you accept the New York Times as a RS? Because in 1908, it published an article referring to "the Revolutionary Bund of this city, an organization of Jewish citizens helping the Jewish revolutionary movement in Russia". According to the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, "their (ie, the Bund's) goal was to attract East European Jews to the emergent Russian revolutionary movement)". In "Jews and Other Ethnic Groups in a Multi-ethnic World", Ezra Mendelsohn quotes a British diplomat in Warsaw in 1906, who described the Bund as "the most powerful and most important revolutionary organization in the empire". In contrast to Atzmon, members of the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project, who wrote the invaluable book "Our Roots Are Still Alive" in 1977, recognised the Bund as revolutionary and anti-Zionist: "Revolutionary organizers attacked the Zionist viewpoint in illegal newspapers, smuggled into shops or passed secretly in the crowded streets of the ghetto. The Bund, an all-Jewish socialist organization, vigorously protested Zionism's fundamental idea of Jews as "alien." ... The Bund's Fifth Congress called for a revolutionary solution to anti-Semitism" And so on. The weight of literature recognising that the Bund was a revolutionary organisation is so great, that it would be OR to insist on the contrary.


 * Come on Carol, I am not one of those making you jump through hoops to establish that people use the terms "Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" interchangeably, and I have supported your common-sense approach on that. So why are you attempting to use the same restrictive criteria here to prevent me from applying a clearly true and objective description to the Bund? RolandR (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I re-searched General Jewish Labor Union and missed it before. How about ''revolutionary "Jewish Marxists." I don't get the hypersensitivity to the term, unless it's somehow related to his being an ex-Jewish Marxist and it somehow gives his negative ideas about Marxism more credibility. But unless somoene else jumps up demanding the exact quote, I'm done with it.
 * I have only discussed "Jewish lobby" and "Israel lobby" interchangeably in one article and don't have a problem with the need for a WP:RS source to say they are used so. Carol Moore 00:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Trying to understand my "hypersensitivity" to the term "Jewish Marxists", I think it is because Atzmon ascribes a negative quality to this. It is not that the term in itself is uncomplimentary, but putting it, as you did, in quotes implies that we share Atzmon's mockery of the people so described. So, although I believe that they were subjectively and objectively revolutionaries, I would forego that word if we could either remove the quotes from around "Jewish Marxists" or (preferably, but maybe not acceptable) writing "About the the "Bund" (which he dismisses as "Jewish Marxists"), he writes ...". RolandR (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Please look this: http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/10/gilad-atzmon-the-credit-crunch-is-a-zio-punch/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.61.51 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * An overly long quote was just added. My question. Just delete after the first couple sentence - or delete and note what his "evidence" was - i.e., Rothschild manipulating the English stock market during the Battle of Waterloo, which seems pretty silly. Either way, of course, we're using primary sources (can't remember if that's per se BLP violation - but I believe it also was done to let him defend himself...) and frankly someone must have criticized his "argument" by now. Carol Moore 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Article in total close to violating BLP?
I really think the whole article is getting there, so adding gratuitious insults from opinion pieces doesn't help. Once I get over my head cold will decide if it should be taken to WP:BLP noticeboard as being overly POV negative or whatever... Carol Moore 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * Obviously it's an extremely difficult biog to get right. I'll have another look over it now, but it's probably a good idea to take it to BLPN again to get further opinions. No negative reflections on those who edit the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion and good edits! I'll do it. Carol Moore 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * In asking for opinion a couple of issues that should be brought here also came up besides generally WP:UNDUE:
 * There are a lot of Atzmon articles about Palestine and other topics that could be mentioned which would make the whole article unduly long. So is it acceptable to replace a couple of the allegations with descriptions of other of his "political views"?
 * Whether to have a separate shorter section on "Allegations of antisemitism" separate from "political views."
 * Something I didn't put in but mention above: Editor RolandR is a political opponent of Atzmon's and they do write nasty things about each other in other forums. He has been pretty good about allowing me to revert what I consider his POV edits, including using his own article as a reference. But that WP:Conflict of interest has to be known by new editors when looking at his edits.Carol Moore 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Bad Recent Edits (cooperative editing)
User:Drsmoo and User:Antifacist have chosen to edit this article with POV edits and even insulting edit summaries. After I reverted their changes a few times User:Avraham (Avi) has threatened to get me in trouble under the WP:3RR (3 revert rule], even though policy clearly says 3rr "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." Therefore I have invited all three to participate in cooperative editing on this article. Below are specific problems with these edits that I consider violations of BLP - some very serious. Please do not intersperse your replies in my original message which I will keep intact. Copy whatever you are going to reply to to your response. Finally I think that Politics and Allegations of antisemitism should be separate sections, so I no longer object to using that in a section title. Carol Moore 17:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This Diff:
 * Removal of from "He studied philosophy in Germany." This never has been sourced and I looked and could not find such a source and believe I removed it before. It plainly does not belong here.
 * Removing ref and replacing questionable fact on Orient House Ensemble'
 * Removing description of his 2003 CounterPunch piece "Collective Self-Deception: The Most Common Mistakes of Israelis" which actually is a piece about his political views
 * Atzmon was quoted by Iranian Press TV as having called the Holocaust a "complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists". REF:http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38848&sectionid=351020604 I put this   here on Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Note the woman was sentenced to 3 years in prison in part just for reading what he said in court! So that belongs as part of the story, if the source is reliable.
 * Use of this Dutch language source is clearly against V - esp. for BLP http://www.westline.de/nachrichten/archiv/index_mono.php?file_name=20051128231021_630_001_2315688&jahrgang=2005&stichwort=atzmon&&start=0&order=datum&ort=bo
 * Hirsch does not outright charge Atzmon with antisemitism, but quotes a woman who does and puts his comments in that kind of context. So let's be accurate. I try to be. Do we need a separate section to break down point by point what he says?
 * Deleting more info about http://palestinethinktank.com (I don't have a problem with moving stuff back up to a section called "writing")
 * Reverting Reviews of Atzmon's music when those are reviews of his books; pure vandalism
 * This diff:
 * This probably could find another appropriate spot since we do need balance for all these POV charges from advocacy groups and individuals: He also has written: "I write about things that I find while looking into myself. This is indeed very dangerous for people who try to promote some collective dogmatic and ethnic tribalism."REF:

A good article on Atzmon http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1559.

For starters, Israel Shamir is not an "Activist writer" he is an anti-semite plain and simple. And Gilad Atzmon is a holocaust denier as well, to the extent that he even denies that the concept of Holocaust denial and anti-semitism exist. There's no compromise or middle ground here. The facts of the matter are he's a delusional bigot. Drsmoo (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to attempt to stay out of the content issues for now, focusing on policy adherence, and I would like to remind Carol that while true BLP issues are not subject to 3RR, POV-edits that are being misrepresented (through accident or otherwise) as BLP reversions are subject to 3RR. BLP allows for negative information about people, when properly sourced. And in this case, where Atzmon's notability seems to mainly arise from his political stances and the accusatins against him, such information is appropriate, if WP:BLP's sourcing requirements are properly followed. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Drsmoo:Links to articles not WP:RS on wikipedia, pushing your personal POV opinion without adequate references, or deleting WP:RS info because it bothers your personal POV opinion, is plainly against Wikipedia policies. Please read the template at the top of the article's page about repeated violations of WP:BLP.
 * Avi: I have listed my reverts. Please tell me which one you feel violates policies since I don't know what you are talking about. These threats without backup of charges don't seem to me to be something admins should be engaging in. Thanks! Carol Moore 17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Carol, I am not accusing you of anything. I have Gilad Atzmon watchlisted, and when checking the history, you had a sequence of many reverts, so I informed you of the 3RR rules, no more no less. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I explained the BLP exceptions, including on this talk page, but you keep pushing it, without really clarifying (here) what it is you think I am doing wrong, so it feels like a threat :-). Also feel free to see Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles which encourages civil and cooperative editing. It also creates a working group that intends to much more quickly and effectively deal with dispute resolution on problems that arise in editing articles related to these topics.

Carol Moore 17:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC
 * I'd like to know why Drsmoo undid all my edits, including the minor ones that were only style and wikification. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I have restored Judith's last version, which seems the most neutral and objective recent edit. We should discuss any further proposed changes here. Where editors disagree but are acting in good faith (and I would include myself and Carol in this category), this should be productive. It will not be possible if editors are not acting in good faith; I name no names, and let's see if anyone decides to fit that category. RolandR (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I was just looking through the list of places where Atzmon has been published and I have a query about Uruknet, which does not have a WP article. The article on the "Bagdad Blogger" Salam Pax describes it in passing as the Iraqi government ISP under Saddam Hussein. This raises a number of issues, not least how someone can be "published" by an ISP. Any views about whether it should be included here? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So does that mean we agree to take turns reverting questionable changes made by parties who don't bother to give good reasons for them here? I'll list definitively the ones I want to make in the near future, most discussed in some way or another above. Carol Moore 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

<---Avi, I hope you noticed that we discussed above letting each other know what edits were were going to make before hand, as I did below. But if I have any problems with them I'll let you know. Remember some WP:RS info and references were removed by vandals and others and I'm still trying to get back them back in there. But if you make some changes I suggested, Yeah! Carol Moore 19:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV summary of German article

 * For one thing, Israel Shamir is not an "activist" he is a lying Neo Nazi. And any article calling him an activist is insane. Secondly, saying that a source is invalid because it's in German is not very logical. It is a fact, not an opinion, that Atzmon is considered an anti semite by many Jewish as well as anti zionist groups. If the only claim that a source is invalid is that some users disagree with it, it should not be deleted. Drsmoo (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of this Dutch (or German, who knows) language source is clearly against V - esp. for WP:BLP The source of this article does call him an activist; it also uses another smear against him and smears in opinion pieces are against WP:BLP.  What matters is not the unsourced opinions of editors but the sources we are using and what they say. The other option is to not mention Shamir at all. Carol Moore 17:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Carol, I believe you have misread the pertinent policy. Let me quote it in full (emphasis added is my own):

If the source would pass WP:V and WP:RS in its own language, it is acceptable for EnWiki, if there is no appropriate English language source that has the same information, so I believe you are mistaken regarding the policy, Carol. I am not making any qualitative or quantitative statement about the source in and of itself, other than WP:V#English does not necessarily forbid its use. We use Arabic citations on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for example (BBC Persian), but require the English version of Al Jazeera articles where they exist. -- Avi (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew about that, as would anyone who read the link I provided V. But until someone got around to doing it, I don't think that the quote should be there. Do you agree it should be removed until that time? Carol Moore 18:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on both Google's translation and AltaVista's Babelfish, the quote seems accurate , so I do not think there is justification for removing it at this point. Rather, in my opinion, we should request a German-speaker to confirm the machine translation. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, anyone who reads the whole article sees that this statement now in the article is false: "Many attendants of a German book reading Atzmon was hosting left in protest after he called the Holocaust a "complete forgery initiated by Americans and Zionists." Only several people left and there is no such quote. See my end statement about why I am putting POV on this whole article because of distortions like this throughout the article.


 * Langendreer: "If we are not courageous enough to give us the past, such as adult people to make, then we are not mature enough to us to make what I regard as the true evil of our time consider."
 * Actually, it was followed by a reading concert planned, but the presence of the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon on Sunday in the station Langendreer developed differently than expected.
 * Instead of his new novel "My One and Only Love" (My one and only love) to read Atzmon wanted rather than the book and its emergence backgrounds tell. "In Israel," said the London since 1994 in exile Atzmon, "will be locked up if you do not believe the official matches." In his books he tried to re-arrange the past.
 * Heated debate
 * What followed was a heated debate between the writers and the audience, during which several spectators at protest left the hall. Atzmon described the famous Historiography us about the Second World War and the Holocaust as a complete, by Americans and Zionists initiated counterfeiting. The Germans should finally recognize this and are no longer guilty and do not feel responsible."You are the victims," Atzmon said.
 * Massive criticism
 * The bombing raids on German cities had taken place because the Americans and these bombs had wanted to use. And just as it was in Vietnam and today in Afghanistan and Iraq have been. The true evil of our time are George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon.
 * Especially the discussion flared up violently, as Atzmon, the number of killed during the Holocaust Jews questioned and argued that there was "no forensic evidence" that this amount had actually 6000000. A thesis to him massive criticism from the public revenue.
 * Finally broke Schorneck Frank, organizer of the festival, the dispute to the musical portion of the evening case. But the remaining audience in the hall was the desire to be impressive jazz improvisations of Atzmon and "The Orient House Ensemble" visibly lost. Dienstag, 29. Tuesday, 29 November 2005 |  Quelle: Ruhr Nachrichten (Bochum) November 2005 | Source: Ruhr Nachrichten (Bochum)


 * The fact that Atzmons political views, when they are not just deleted, are interspersed with accusations of antisemitism make this article particularly POV and I'm going to put that tag in. Again I am proposing we separate political views from actual accusations into two different sections and put back some his views I put in last week so people do get a good overview and not just a POV summary. Then readers can decide for themselves, instead of having some editors' POV imposed on them. Carol Moore 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Carol, it is true that Google translates the word "mehrere" as "several". In Yiddish, "mehr" however can mean "many" or "more" so that is why we need to ask a German speaker whether in context the word means "many" or "several". An acceptable solution would be to remove the word "Many" from the sentence pending confirmation from German speakers. Removing the quote in and of itself may be construed as a POV whitewashing attempt. Also, I do not believe that the use of the term "many" qualifies the entire article for a POV tag. The sources brought, so far, seem to be reliable, and the accusations of anti-semitism exist and are sourced. While discussion should be had on how to best represent the accusations and the responses to said accusations, I remain uncertain that the tagging is appropriate in this case. -- Avi (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * More importantly he does not say anything like the Holocaust is "a complete forgery initiated by Americans and Zionists." You did notice that, didn't you?? I hope you will read the other sources as carefully or you are making a lot of work for me pointing out things you misunderstood.  sigh. Carol Moore 19:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What he does appear to say (given the vagaries of poor computer translations) is that "the historiography of the Holocaust is a complete forgery initiated by Americans and Zionists" . RolandR (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Carol, assuming the word "Historiography" is an accurate translation and not a poor choice by the machine, he has said that written records of the Holocaust are a complete and total fraud, which is comparable to saying that the Holocaust, as described, never happened. That woul dmean the forgery of tens of tousands of US, British, and german military records, countelss images, thousands of books, etc. This is why we need confirmation from a German speaker, but the machine translation is strongly supporting the text as written. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First I am embarassed to say that I didn't notice that he allegedly said it in this article because I was focused on fact he allegedly said it in other article too. Let's straighten that out soon! Carol Moore 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Update from a German speaker: original article is from a reliable source (a respectable local paper; and it reports that he said "there is no forensic evidence" for the number of dead Jews being 6000000; which cannot be read as a claim for any other number, never mind zero. Rd232 talk


 * There's a whole nother discussion below; a second translation makes some things clearer. But overall insufficient WP:RS and details to bring up the topic at all at least at this point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Four Hopefully Noncontroversial changes
Ie those that follow wiki policies closely but have been reverted against wiki policy. Please comment with reference to wiki policy if you disagree, not personal opinion. But remember things clearly vs. BLP can be removed immediately and repeatedly...
 * Immediate removal of "He studied philosophy in Germany." This never has been sourced and I looked and could not find such a source and believe I removed it before. I have a feeling it was just made up to make him look like a German "nazi."
 * I have checked the article history, and this claim seems to have been inserted originally by User:Ednas. Ednas, as is apparent from her edits, is sympathetic to Atzmon, and seems to be a personal friend. So Carol's suspicion of the motive behind thius edit is almost certainly mistaken. However, I have been unable to find any reliable source for the claim. Although I find it in several websites, it looks as though they all quote or copy our article. I think this may be an innocent mistake, based on Atzmon's own statemment that he came to England "to study German philosophy", and also confusing him with Gunther Wunker, the protagonist of his novel A Guide to the Perplexed, who moved from Israel to Germany. So I agree that, unless we find an independent and reliable source, we should remove this statement. RolandR (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Put back the removed reference; remove dubious "currently touring" info (originally in that reference) from paragraph on Orient House Ensemble'
 * Use of this Dutch (German?) language source is clearly against V - esp. for BLP
 * Remove categories under "External Linksk", esp. Reviews of Atzmon's music when those are reviews of his books! Carol Moore 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Carol, the source is in German, not Dutch. and in turn comes from an RS, namely 'Ruhr Nachrichten (Bochum)'. Actually, as reported this ref does not make Atzmon out to be a Holocaust denier of the Irving type. He is cited as questioned the figure of 6 million, and argued that there was no forensic proof/evidence for that 6,000,000. I don't see why this cannot be reported here. Readers can draw their own conclusions, as to whether he is equivocating or whether he blew his top at the 'round', 'upper limit' figure of 6 million, when even serious scholars have calculated nearly a million less (Raul Hilberg thought 5,100,000, Yehuda Bauer is for the figure Atzmon contested), and what he understood by a phrase like 'forensic proof/evidence'. I find these ambiguities deeply distasteful. But the source is reliable, the language source not really problematical as long as one gets a bilingual German/English native speaker to construe it with great precision (it has some grammatical niceties). If anything it is far too succinct, and vague to be definitive one way or another on Atzmon's views, in that a bitter altercation betwen him and listeners gets just two or three lines. I side in any case with Avi here, even though I'ìve only edited this page once or twice, and could be viewed as an intruder.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Adjustment. I have had guests all afternoon and checked too quickly, while engaged in a conversation, looking only at the last paragraph. The first part clearly says he regards the the Holocaust as it has been described in historiography as a forgery started by Zionists and Americans. What caught my eye was his blaming Stalin, which looks like a reference to Ernst Nolte's work and the historians' notorious controversy of the 1980s that spurred. I apologize for this unprofessional intrusion.  Doesn't change my judgement though. The source looks RS to me.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there should not be much problem with using a German-language source if it provides info that is not available elsewhere. We can very easily find a fluent German speaker to comment on its interpretation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to article
I have not even begun to vet the political sections; the musical section was a complete mess in itself. I don't think I will have time to do the politics, even just check the links for accuracy now, so I'll take off the inuse tag. -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Avi, perhaps we could prevail on User:Ravpapa to look at the music section as well? Perhaps he's our man. Delicate request, to ask such a deeply erudite mélomane to drop the I-pod Mahler and look at this, but, faute de mieux!Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, Nishdani. My (limited) musical knowledge does not cover jazz at all (maybe a smattering of Dave Brubek). The structure was a mess though, collaborations and albums in paragraphs separated by style and political leanings. I hope that now, at least, there is a coherent skeleton which can be enfleshed by someone more knowledgeable. -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remind me sometime in the future to send you a copy of my 85 cds on the history of jazz! Yes, it's now better for that work. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Allegations title
"Allegations..." is the most neutral way to say that Atzmon has been accused of holding anti-semitic views. Remember the months long discussions on the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" articles? The accusations of antiSemitic views make him especially notable, so to hide that is, in my opinion, artificially damping the very facts that give this person that extra boost of notability. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in the intro that we say what the subject is notable for, in this case jazz music combined with some - let's diplomatically say "unusual" - political views. Thereafter we "let the facts speak for themselves". A neutral subheading will not hide the content of the section; the accusations of antisemitism will still leap out at any reader who has the slightest interest in Middle East politics. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anyone noticed my repeated proposal that we have two separate sections, one for politics and one for accusations? (Some would have the same sources.) I think putting them together, especially with accusations is POV. Carol Moore 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice. "Views" followed by "Responses" would be in line with other articles on controversial subjects. "Views" will be hard to do, as we don't want to cherry-pick only the statements that his critics have highlighted but to give some kind of representative sample of what he has said. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My exact sentiments. Also, you can't compare allegations against a state, like Israel, with allegations against an individual who could sue wikipedia if he chose. And the sources make their view  clear. I assume you mean a "Politics" section with "Views" and "Responses" sections. There is info that was deleted on his views, including where his political pieces have been published. I'll give it a shot. Carol Moore 21:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable; go for it. -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)An improvement, Carol. Even if it only makes things more structured, that is a definite plus. My sense of symmetry would like to see the Antisemitism section have the title "Antisemitism" and two subsections "Allegations" and "Responses". But I understand from a connotation perspective that it may be viewed as too negative, so your setup may be preferable. We have a ways to go, but nicely done. -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I tell people, if you start editing wikipedia be ready to make a commitment cause it can take a year or so to learn how to both recognize and be NPOV! Carol Moore 22:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)