Talk:Israel Shahak/Archive 7

WP:LEAD
The LEAD does not fairly reflect the controversies in Shahak's writing. It's not because he criticizes fundamentalism that David Duke and other anti-Semites joyfully rely on Shahak's writing. THF (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an additional issue that the word fundamentalist is misleading and a bit POV when used to describe either strains of Islam or Judaism (I could give a long rant about how both Islam and Judaism have extremists but don't have much in the way of fundamentalists but that would be somewhat off-topic). How is the rephrased version? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need to hear more than mention and links to the controversy - lets hear Shahak's views and opinions in his biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.59.55 (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9
Category:Antisemitism permanently removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Boteach
We have:
 * Writing in 2008, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach stated: "From the beginning the story was curious. What prohibition could there possibly be in allowing someone else to use one's phone on the Sabbath?"

Can anyone explain how this comment makes sense? I'm sure I have read many times that for a Jew to help another Jew to break a mitzva is itself a violation. Thanks. Zerotalk 09:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong. See Pikuach nefesh. 91.182.225.67 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you must have missed my point, as it was nothing to do with saving lives. Zerotalk 12:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed your point. Indeed. Helping a Jew to break a mitsva is a violation. But that is not a violation to break a mitsva to help saving a live. On the contrary, it would be one not to do so. 91.182.225.67 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, in the claimed story the individual who would make the phone call was not Jewish. So there wouldn't be any problem with it. At least, that's what I seem to gather from Boteach's statement. It may make sense to remove given that it isn't completely clear and it may require OR to disambiguate what he means. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this more, this may be my own dislike of Boteach getting in the way. It seems pretty clear that's what Boteach meant. A clarifying sentence may be in order. But there's no real OR issue. (Ok now read Boteach's article in full. That's clearly what he means). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it is true that Boteach describes the potential phone-caller as not Jewish. But I don't see where he acquired this information, since it doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the earlier sources (Shahak, Jakobovits, Segev). And it is hard to see how anyone at the time could have known this. Is Boteach suggesting that the telephone owner asked the person "Are you a Jew?" before deciding to permit or refuse use of the phone? If so, that surely compounds the offence. RolandR 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is where he acquired it relevant? In this context he's a reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it's relevant. His whole argument against Shahak rests on the fact that, since the person in question was not Jewish, no law would have been broken. But he is writing more than forty years after the incident, and seems to have been the first person to have noted this apparently crucial point. Unless we know where he learned this, the suspicion has to be that he invented it in order to create a case. RolandR 23:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if Boteach understood that a gentile was asking for the phone, his comment makes some sense. But without that information it doesn't make sense. So either that information has to be added to the article somehow, or the quotation has to go. I vote for the latter, since it seems like Boteach's assumption was unfounded. Zerotalk 01:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well no, Boteach's point is twofold: First that there's no good halachic reason to not let a Jew or a non-Jew use it and that it is particularly stupid to think that there would be a problem. In any event, do we have some reason to think that Boteach's belief that the potential caller was not Jewish is unfounded? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Boteach was writing forty years after the event. Shahak and Jakobovits, the only contemporary sources, are both long dead. Boteach seems to be the first person to have noted that the potential caller was not Jewish. We need a lot more than his assertion in order to accept this argument; it looks to me as though he simply made it up. RolandR 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So one person making something up and another making up details to try to show the other one had made it up? Wow. What a mess. Can someone maybe look up the original Shahak and Jakobovitz citations to see if they mentions whether or not the caller was Jewish? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done, and they don't. I don't suppose anyone ever asked. It is a detail which will never be known. RolandR 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we not cite reference 9 and possibly 32 as well due to the obvious bias that it contains? Anything written by either Hitchens or Boteach on this matter should be excluded. Xelaseer (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Should the incident be mentioned at all unless it is from a reliable news source and not some partisan source? Especially any allegation he "admitted" something, unless that can be independently verified? In any case one paragraph is all that is really necessary to avoid WP:UNDUE, especially if these are the only sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean; it was a pretty famous incident, mentioned in many sources. I've added several, and there are more besides. Also, based on your use of the term "partisan sources", I'm not sure you fully understand WP:NPOV and WP:V - they don't demand that sources be neutral, but rather they recognize that few (if any) sources truly are neutral, and instead demand a neutral presentation of the sources, and require that the sources themselves have (for example) editorial oversight or other relevant indicators of reliability. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * More refs help establish it is not just a few obscure people carping in a partisan manner about the "Alleged telephone incident" but a notable incident. Anyway, unless Boteach is quoting someone specifically referring to Shahak's specific allegation, who has special knowledge of the allegation, it just is irrelevant opinion and doesn't belong there.
 * Moreover, the whole presentation is confusing. Two points that stand out on even a quick peruse are: Which refs specify Immanuel Jakobovits evidence Shahak recanted; at least quoting it in footnotes would help. (The placement of refs gives the impression they support his allegation, even though some merely state Jakobvits made the allegation.) Also, Dan Rickman points out: "The alleged incident gave rise to a legal ruling by the then Chief Rabbi Unterman who clarified that the Sabbath can and must be broken to save anyone's life, applying the principle that this avoids 'generating hatred'." In other words, the issue was taken seriously enough that a Rabbi had to make it clear it was not an acceptable piece of Jewish law. Unterman's ruling must be described by a third party before Jakobvits comments on it, both for clarity and NPOV reasons.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Boteach does indeed refer directly to Shahak's allegations, that's what the whole article is about. Please actually look at the sources before challenging them.
 * Your use of the term "confusing" is confusing, since you don't actually indicate what is confusing about the presentation.
 * Reliable sources have stated that Shahak recanted, and this article merely states that that's what Jakobovits writes, not that Shahak actually did so, per NPOV.
 * I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Unterman. Jakobovits and others comment on Unterman's ruling, and neither "clarity" nor "NPOV" reasons require someone else to comment on it before Jakobovits does. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Carol, have you forgotten the discussion up here? Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this note and I have absolutely no memory of this. I know I've been watching the article for a few years. I can see that I did not sufficiently do my research at the time to make my points, which I am doing now. So I'm less confused than I was then, and should have better questions. Thanks for pointing this out. CarolMooreDC 15:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Chemistry?
Ok, Shahak was a chemist by profession and from what I understand a pretty decent one. Presumably we should have at least part of the article about that? As it is now, we essentially have an article about what amounted more or less to his lifelong hobby. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shahak's chemistry work was not notable. His anti-Semitism was. THF (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we keep our personal POVs out of evaluating the article? He was a professor at a respected university. I have a lot of trouble believing there are no sources discussing his professional work. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, some sources say he was a professor, others describe him as a lecturer. In many systems those are not the same thing. Can we confirm which is correct? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In Israel there are two lecturer levels and two professor levels. It would be very surprising if he didn't make at least the first professor level (associate professor) since most active researchers manage that.  His research output was reasonable: I guess 80-120 papers, but he seems to have stopped publishing chemistry a decade before retirement (which is not unusual).  The most recent paper I found (1978) was called "New aziridine synthesis from 2-azido alcohols and tertiary phosphines - preparation of phenanthrene 9,10-imine". I can't summarise his research as I can't understand it.  Zerotalk 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He was promoted to Associate Professor at the beginning of 1974. See here (top of second column). That is probably not a quotable document but I think it is clear enough that we can rely on our RSs that call him "professor". Zerotalk 04:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hebrew Wikipedia describes him as a professor, and he was always referred to by that title in Israel. It also states that he was a very popular lecturer among his students, and that he devoted much of his time to searching for a cure for cancer. RolandR 07:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, in rewriting politics and works section I have gotten good refs on popularity and cancer. There are a few links to papers he wrote, including with Ernst David Bergmann, the chair of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission. So I guess I should just stick in a few of those links rather than use that non-reference. Unless someone else wants to help by finding them from a search of "organic fluorine compounds" and "Israel Shahak". CarolMooreDC 15:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So the deal with sources?
I went into the article a few days ago and noticed the link to the article I'd written was to the Online Archive. So I swapped the link to a live version instead. All hell breaks loose. As of today, the link is no longer there, nor is Gil Student's link there. Both links had been on that page for a year, and there had been extensive discussion about my article for some time.

So what's the deal here? Because I feel like I got dogpiled on and wasn't given any opportunity to explain myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemathisphd (talk • contribs) 22:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see an explanation yet. Seems a clear case of non-notable and self-published source. Unfortunately sometimes most editors (including me) don't regularly look carefully through every article they watch. But once someone notices a problem will support fixing the problem, which is what happened it your case. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:RS on self-published sources. CarolMooreDC 23:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These weren't used as sources, but rather as external links - WP:SPS doesn't apply. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what happens now? Andrew
 * They were indeed used as external links, rather than as sources. But even here, they were inappropriate. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of books, articles, and web sites which discuss Shahak. Listing only two, which both offer a highly POV, hostile interpretation of the same incident (which itself was a minor part of Shahak's career) is certainly undue, if not tendentious. It looks to me like a way to sneak non-reliable sources into the article. RolandR (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing wonderful evidence that you didn't read my article. I don't discuss the phone incident at all. Can you cite some TOS or other guideline for Wikipedia that would dictate them being inappropriate?


 * Further, You describe yourself as an anti-Zionist, and I can't help but wonder if this ideology did not motivate your deletion. Andrew


 * The relevant guideline here is WP:EL. Those removing the links would have to explain how the links violated WP:ELNO; obviously they'd have to at least look at them first before deciding. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's interesting, Jayjg. One of the types of site "generally to avoid", according to WP:ELNO, is "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." One of the articles we are discussing here is The Interpretational Errors of Israel Shahak, by Andrew E Mathis PhD, which is to be found at "the Home Page of Andrew E. Mathis". So if this link is to be included, it is incumbent on those who would include it to demonstrate that Andrew E Mathis, PhD, is indeed a "recognised authority". RolandR (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a recognized source on the topic of anti-Semitism and have been for years. That includes being cited as a source here on other Wikipedia articles. So is Gil Student, for that matter, and I think that, at the very least, Gil Student's work needs to be cited.
 * I would like to resolve this issue without regard for politics because I don't think the deletion of the links to my and Gil Student's articles were deleted for apolitical reasons. Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.115.61 (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately with the starting of a second whole new thread below which has now gone off into discussion of a specific section, I've lost track of which link we're talking about, because it does seem to me it was updated to be published from some secondary source or other. Perhaps Andrew could make that section a subsection of this and we could separate the telephone incident. (I did look more carefully at ONE of the articles in question yesterday and had some some comments but now can't figure out which one it was among these various people and links.) CarolMooreDC 14:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Reinsertion of R' Gil Student's link
I'm suggesting here that we discuss or vote or otherwise decide on reinserting a link to Rabbi Gil Student's article on Shahak in the external links. The article I suggest link to is this one:

http://www.aishdas.org/student/shabbat.htm

It is not self-published but is published by the AishDas Society, an outreach organization within Orthodox Judaism. Further, Gil Student is a recognized authority on Jewish Law, as indicated by Wikipedia itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Student

What say you? Andrew
 * I don't see any reason for its removal. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason for its inclusion. Please explain what this external link adds to the article. RolandR (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an external link that analyzes a famous and controversial incident in Shahak's life. The relevance is obvious; the reason for exclusion is not. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Roland, would you like to submit the matter to arbitration? Aemathisphd (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is definitely not the appropriate next stage. Arbitrators would not consider this issue, which is a very civil and low-key content dispute. If we can't reach agreement on this talk page, and no other editors chip in to establish a consensus, then you could request a third opinion. RolandR (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, the whole Israel_Shahak in WP:Undue and really not of much interest to the general reader as to those interest in minutae of Jewish law and/or who want to knock Shahak. If it's that important an issue, why not put it in the most relevant Jewish law related article? But in this article the section should be cut in half and only the most notable and/or relevant sources used.
 * Now that it is established who Gil Student is and a non-self published source found, whether his work should be a reference can be decided compared to others in that section. But putting it as an external link on an issue already overblown here is just POV pushing to the max. Third Opinion - or maybe WP:BLPN for WP:POV - definitely place to go if those who can't see WP:Undue problem here continue to argue to just add to the WP:Undue in the external links section. CarolMooreDC 06:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE applies to article content, not external links. There have so far not been any specific policy or guideline issues raised in relation to the link; I'll wait a couple more days for any to be advanced before restoring it. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * [Later insertion: Hmmm, WP:Undue does mention content once, but mostly mentions viewpoint, which I think includes everything in article, including see also, external links, etc. CarolMooreDC 15:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)]
 * I beg to differ. First of all, Shahak wouldn't be famous were it not for the telephone incident. Second, the Student article rebuts Shahak's claims by citing how he misuses his sources. R' Unterman addresses the incident in his article and ties it to the general spirit of Jewish Law. R' Student does a far more thorough job. Aemathisphd (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is certainly not the case. Shahak was very well known, around the world, as a harsh critic of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. His writings and books were widely circulated, he was regularly visited and contacted by foreign journalists, researchers and activists in Jerusalem, he was (and continues to be) cited by many writers on the situation. None of this was dependent on the "telephone incident" which, I repeat was (except for his critics) a very minor aspect of his work. At the very least, you would need to adduce a reliable source for this assertion if you intend to base the weight given to this incident on its alleged centrality in Shahak's life and career. RolandR (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Roland. The only notable thing about the telephone incident is its use by his enemies.  A thought experiment: suppose someone started inserting material in support of Shahak's version of the incident (not saying that it happened, but saying that it is easily possible). How far would that get?  (I think the answer is obvious, and illustrates what the problem is here.) Zerotalk 12:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the "thought experiment" is about. If someone found reliable secondary sources supporting Shahak's version of the incident, what do you imagine would happen if they started inserting it? Nothing specific that I'm aware of, but perhaps you had something in mind? Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You both misunderstood my point. Sure, Shahak was famous for his writings. However, no one would have paid attention to his writings or published them in the first place were it not for the "telephone incident." There are dozens if not hundreds of Israeli critics of Israeli policy and Jewish culture. They don't all get book deals. Shahak did because his name was already well done in anti-Israeli circles — because of the phone incident. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. Shahak was not well known in "anti-Israel circles" because of this incident, which was widely seen as a marginal anecdote. He was well-known because of his trenchant analysis, his prodigious memory, his unique filing system, and his invaluable fortnightly translations, digests and analysis of the Israeli press. For some twenty years, he provided a near-irreplaceable service for researchers, writers and activists. RolandR (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The person who's wrong or who is deliberately misreading what I write is you. What I said (see above) was that Shahak got a publishing contract because he was well known in anti-Israel circles and that he was well known in anti-Israel circles because of the phone incident. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't misrepresent my statements, as it amounts to a straw man argumentation on your part. Given your blatantly political reaction to my edits a few weeks ago, I'd kindly ask you to back off. Aemathisphd (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the fact that you have recently been blocked for edit-warring to include a link to your own research in this article, it would seem to me that you are in no position to lecture others on perceived conflicts of interest. Perhaps it is you who should "back off"? RolandR (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, blocked at YOUR REQUEST. Done for clearly political reasons. And that link to my research had been placed by other people and had been there for a year. And then you defended your deletion of the link by claiming it said something that it didn't. You're aware that Wikipedia records all of this, right? Aemathisphd (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "There are dozens if not hundreds of Israeli critics of Israeli policy and Jewish culture..." But not all of them are professors, authors and president of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. I'm tempted to cut it in half (or more) to what, as someone not familiar with nuances can look at it from what the reader might find of interest. Unless someone wants to beat me to it. Fine to move the relevant parts to some article where the religious issues are debate. CarolMooreDC 20:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as Zero0000 points out, if anything the section should be longer. It appears to be a seminal incident for him in terms of his turn to activism, is the incident he chose to open what is likely his most famous polemic, and is commented on by many sources. It's obviously not material about general "religious issues", but material specifically about the Telephone incident and related claims. I can already see some obvious material that should be added to it, but if you find other reliable secondary sources on the topic, we can use those too. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the section So I can see that more than just cutting is needed. CarolMooreDC 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Title: It doesn't make it clear that this is "seminal incident for him in terms of his turn to activism." If so the whole title and context of section need to change. Otherwise one reads through it quickly as a combination of smear and esoteric discussion, thus my comments above.
 * 2) First two paragraphs seem ok.
 * 3) Immanuel Jakobovits alleging that Shahak had subsequently been forced to admit that he had fabricated the incident (according to Jakobovits, "in true Protocols style") in order to support his thesis. Per WP:BLP this needs proper detailing at least in a foot note about Shahak's alleged confession. It just hangs there as something we are supposed to believe, no questions asked.
 * 4) Then the next sentence says akobovitz also cites a lengthy responsum by Isser Yehuda Unterman,... Why not just have Unterman's reply as a sentence and leave off Jakobovitz? It's like by having him quote and explain Unterman in next paragraph you are giving credibility to an unexplained accusation vs. Shahak. Has to be handled differently to not be very POV. Just mention how others responded, not through the lens of Jakobovitz. And there doubtless are more responses than just those Jakobovitz names.
 * 5) Was there no support for Shahak's accusation being true in some minority of cases at the time or over the years? I would be surprised if not.
 * 6) There's a mention of Shahak making this accusations again years later that also seems might need more context.
 * 7) Rabbi Shmuley Boteach cited Eli Beer, a later dramatic comment but meant to build up POV of Shahak having made an allegation which he confessed to Jakobovitz is a lie.
 * Responding:
 * 1. The article doesn't claim that this is a "seminal incident for him in terms of his turn to activism", and the section in no way appears to be a "combination of smear and esoteric discussion". Please make more accurate and relevant statements.
 * 3. The claim is properly attributed to Jakobovits, a reliable source. Shahak is long dead. So is Jakobovits. WP:BLP applies to living people - that's what the "LP" stands for.
 * 4. We cite the immediate source, per WP:NPOV. Please review WP:SUBSTANTIATE. If there are "doubtless are more responses than just those Jakobovitz names", then please provide them.
 * 5. Feel free also to provide any "support for Shahak's accusation being true in some minority of cases at the time or over the years" that you can find in reliable secondary sources.
 * 6. Regarding "also seems might need more context", please review weasel words.
 * 7. This is what reliable sources say on the topic. Your pejorative spin is merely a personal opinion.
 * In summary, your comment consists of unsubstantiated claims, misreadings of policy, and bad faith assumptions. If there is anything here that is a "combination of smear and esoteric discussion", it is your post. In the future, please make posts that refer only to substantiated facts and article content. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * [Insert specific response to specific comments]
 * 1. If the incident did influence his activism some reference to it belongs in his "Politics and works" section to give the section context. Hey, I'm assuming you are accurate here! :-)
 * 3. Ok, No more BLP. Just NPOV and WP:UNDUE and WP:RS...
 * 4. Suggestion more sources can be found is hardly verboten.
 * 5. Written before I read below that Shahak was only talking about one incident at the time, not some broader pattern. In any case, that's something article again doesnt make clear, leading to my speculative comment.
 * 6. weasel words.... or WP:nitpicking???
 * 7. We aren't allowed to have personal opinions of the effect of a sentence? Not saying whoever edited necessarily had that intention, just saying that's the result. Perfectly allowable. "No newbie here" here.
 * In summary, take me to ANI if I'm so wicked :-) CarolMooreDC 03:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is the "Reception" section of the article which is the worst, with a grossly excessive amount of quotation in the text and footnotes, all chosen to provide a negative viewpoint. Returning to the telephone section, my "thought experiment" wasn't well understood; my fault, I'll try again. I don't think it is our business here to add stuff for or against a particular understanding of Jewish law. That belongs in Halacha or somewhere else. My point was that I could, if I wished, add sources supporting a different reading of halacha. But I won't do that because I don't think it belongs here. In this article it should be enough to note that various named persons claim Shahak was wrong and provide links to where someone can read the argument. Shahak's actual claim is not even presented properly. He claimed that one particular person refused to allow his telephone to be used to save a non-Jew on Shabbat. It may or may not have happened, but you can't refute it by halacha any more than you can prove a murder didn't happen by citing the law that it is illegal. The only interesting part is the response of authorities. Compare Shahak's "They added much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequence of such an act puts Jews in danger, the violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake." and Jakobovits' "Even biblical violations of the Sabbath are warranted for non-Jews 'on account of enmity', i.e., if the refusal to render such aid may imperil Jews." Notwithstanding the polemical language that Shahak liked to use (to his detriment), these statements are more or less identical. Zerotalk 02:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Zero, of course people cannot add their own understanding of Jewish law to the section, in support of one or another view of the issue - that would be original research. However, the sources used explicitly discuss Jewish law as it relates to and in the context of the alleged Shahak telephone incident. As such, it is not original research, and is obviously specifically (and only) relevant to this article. Regarding whether or not one can "refute" or "prove" whether or not the incident happened based on halacha, well of course one cannot. That is, however, not really the point. Shahak uses the incident to "prove" that halacha itself demanded these alleged acts; therefore, the various discussions of third parties regarding halacha vis-à-vis this alleged incident are entirely relevant and appropriate. If you can find other reliable secondary sources that discuss the halacha of this alleged incident, and support Shahak's views, I, for one, would welcome their inclusion. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You say "Shahak uses the incident to "prove" that halacha itself demanded these alleged acts" — yet nobody has quoted him making that claim. Actually the claim of his that is quoted (included the "sanctimonious twaddle" part) contradicts that. Zerotalk 03:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points Zero. Why not play with it since you have more knowledge. Maybe start by adding more from Shahak for proper context. [Added later, edit conflict: Of course, seeing you did add something, I don't understand why another throw away line like invented the case of a Gentile who was not given treatment on the Sabbath, is inserted. Since this is a charge a little more than accusations he admitted he lied seems to be in order under WP:BLP. Especially when the revelation comes from books that aren't easy for average reader to find. Can we in both cases can we at least quote from sources in footnotes on this allegation??] CarolMooreDC 02:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Carol, Zero's points have been essentially refuted by my subsequent ones. Your response is to suggest that Zero use Shahak as a primary source to refute the statements of his critics. Surely even you can see that that would violate WP:NOR? It would be helpful if you would make comments that consist of more than personal (and often irrelevant) opinion, and that conform with policy, rather than recommending editors violate it. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You disagreed with him; I don't know you refuted him, but I was too distracted by home duties to go into details. Some how missed your response to me I'll go back and look at. CarolMooreDC 03:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Carol, at least Zero always makes intelligent comments. And while you were writing "distracted" responses that had few, if any, actionable recommendations in them, and still claiming that Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy applied to individuals who have been dead for over a decade, Zero0000 was busy finding and adding reliable sources on the incident. Good work Zero0000! Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, at least Zero always makes polite comments. And were you too distract to see I said I hadn't read your comments including the reminder on this not being BLP (and of course NPOV still applies). Wikipedians are allowed to give general opinions on things that don't seem right to people who have more experience with a topic. Going to do some final home duties and then detail more on what I think should be done by Zero if he knows more. And maybe I'll just do them myself. (Still haven't added a couple things to other articles we've discussed in past.) Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's impolite to respond without first reading what you are responding to, even if you admit to not having read what you are responding to. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Activism section
Hopefully,not too big a problem since it's all from existing sources, just fleshing things out a bit. I left out the letters to the editor cause off hand didn't see a ref, but we can find one and/or link to this collection of his letters here or as external source, assuming that's not a problematic web page.

Obviously there seems to be a conflict between Warschawski saying Shahak wrote letters to the editors critical of the Palestinian national movement and Hitchens statement on his support for Palestinians. Hitchens is probably more right in intent than facts. So I don't know if something should be done about that. I have other thoughts on reception section but will save for now... CarolMooreDC 19:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there is a contradiction here, and will have to reread the sources more closely. Shahak was a vocal opponent of the actions of the Israeli state and its institutions, both within the state of Israel and in the territories occupied in 1967. He was not a supporter of the Palestinian national movement, especially not of its leadership and institutions; rather, he supported the Palestinian people themselves. In fact, Shahak was, as far as I could tell, against all forms of nationalism, and took a humanist stance. This analysis comes from personal conversations with Shahak, which obviously cannot be accepted as reliable sources; but they certainly support Warschawski's statements. It should be possible to locate some of Shahak's many letters to the Israeli press, but this would require access, which I do not have, to their archives; most do not seem to be available online, and two important papers (Hadashot and Davar), which published many of his letters, have ceased publication.
 * I've just had a look at the link provided by Carol to some of Shahak's letters. Although the letters themselves look authentic to me, I'm not certain that this site can be regarded as a reliable source. However, since the letters are dated, and the newspaper indicated, it could, and should, be used as a guide to help locate lettes in the archives. RolandR (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it. He meant he would not criticize them in person in Israel/occupied territories. I do have to wonder if that's the best quote for his overall philosophy and goals, but not terribly motivated to change it. CarolMooreDC 15:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info
From this diff of Jayjg's. I don't have objections to other changes but strongly question removal of these two facts:
 * Complete removal from the article of Shahak being described as "a Holocaust survivor"; Rickman and Ari Alexander both mention this. I assume that if I put it in the wrong place it belongs in the lead.
 * Removal from the Activism and Works section of In December of that year he became widely known in Israel for the “telephone incident” because of a letter in Ha'aretz stating he had witnessed an Orthodox Jew “refusing to let his phone be used on the Sabbath to help a non-Jew who had collapsed nearby.” (Reference Rickman. I did forget to add the specific source that mentions December, though that factoid not crucial.) In a section on activism how can you possibly leave out ONE sentence that clearly shows this was his first act of activism? Defies all chronological logic and is just confusing to readers who get further down. CarolMooreDC 02:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Complete removal from the article of Shahak being described as "a Holocaust survivor. Is this a serious statement? The very first paragraph of the article describes his travails during the Holocaust. The second paragraph opens by again mentioning the Nazi experiences. Do you think the reader has completely forgotten these facts three paragraphs later?
 * 'In December of that year he became widely known in Israel for the “telephone incident” etc.. Again, is this a serious statement? The material about the alleged telephone incident is found where it properly belongs, in the section on the alleged telephone incident. What didn't get included there was your claim that "he became widely known in Israel", because we don't have a source for it'. Rickman, the source you used, certainly never made that claim, nor that it was "his first act of activism". Please review WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Other "Holocaust survivors" are thusly described (and I didn’t even check to see if WP:RS call them that like they do Shahak), for exampleAlina Szapocznikow, Elie Wiesel, Dina Babbitt, Liviu Librescu. It seems especially important if WP:RS say that influenced their later activism, and I guess I'll have to find/quote the relevant ones that say explicitly the fact that Shahak was a “Holocaust Survivor” colored his views.
 * Telephone incident under Activism:
 * First, if my summary language of “became widely known in Israel” is not quite accurate for his getting publicity in newspapers, etc., the language can be corrected and full details filled out. That is Not an excuse to expunge the sentence from his activism chronology.
 * Second, it was my error to call it "his first act of activism" on this talk page. However, I did not call it that in the article text.
 * Again, there is no logical reason for removing a simple sentence explaining the chronological order of events in an informative encyclopedia, especially when the section itself receives so much attention later in the article. One must assume some POV reasons I won't bother to detail. CarolMooreDC 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it a good idea to use completely unsourced Start-class articles like Alina Szapocznikow as examples of good practice. The phrase "Holocaust survivor" made no sense where it was, but I've added it to the lede, where it at least summarizes article content. Because of your repeated complaints, I've also mentioned the telephone incident in the political activism section, thus duplicating it in the article, and therefore causing the writing to be worse. In the future, do not make any more pejorative and nonsensical statements about my actions, such as "there is no logical reason for removing a simple sentence" (there were actually quite logical reasons regarding not repeating material, already explained), nor utterly false statements about me such as "One must assume some POV reasons" - in fact, per per policy, one must not "assume some POV reasons", but instead do the exact opposite. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, do not make these kinds of comments again. Refer solely and only to article content. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes. As for your comments on mine, I guess when an individual keeps asking "Is this a serious statement?" one should just bring up WP:AGF and not try to make strong statements to prove one is being serious?? I thought they were more in line with the kind of honest strong statement that we all recently discussed a couple months ago on Wikiquette. Perhaps I was wrong? However, it obviously is best to say something "doesn't look logical" or "this looks POV to me." Wiki diplomacy and all that. CarolMooreDC 18:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate notes and references
It looks to me like almost all the "notes" are fully referenced and "references" duplicates most of them. Anyone want to defend that before I go through, properly cite anything from notes that isn't already a duplicate, change notes to "References" and put everything else into the currently empty external links? After that we can debate what needs to be removed from links, since some of the material from questionable and/or advocacy sites doesn't really belong anywhere in the article. CarolMooreDC 03:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notes and references are different things, and serve different purposes. Notes give specific citations for specific claims, tying back to the sentences they support. Notes may refer to multiple sources, and may provide further context regarding the material in the article. References, by contrast, give an alphabetical listing of all sources used in an article. For another example of many, see Temple Israel (Memphis, Tennessee). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots - really most - Wikipedia reference sections include "notes" with specific and even multiple citations, quotations, etc. However, if this Notes/References structure remains, a) should alleged sources which aren't used inline be either put inline or removed? b) should all the details in notes that are duplicated in references be removed from references? In other words, should it not be done properly? CarolMooreDC 03:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is an "alleged source"? What are "details in notes that are duplicated in references"? Perhaps you could provide examples of what you mean. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alleged source is one that does not have an inline citation to make it clear what it is sourcing. (See: WP:Inline citation.) For example: Safian, Alex. "NPR's Special Bias", Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, September 30, 2002; Strom, Ron. "The mother of all anti-Jew sites", WorldNetDaily, May 27, 2002; "Edward Said's Documented Deceptions", Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, August 1999.
 * Do we really need an inline citations needed tag??
 * Duplicate Notes/References examples:
 * Notes: Warschawski, Michel, The Last Israeli Liberal: Remembering Israel Shahak (1933-2001),], Jerusalem Quarterly, Issue 13, Summer 2001. References: Warschawski, Michel. "Israel Shahak", Jerusalem Quarterly, Issue 13, Summer 2001.
 * Notes: "'The Life of Death': An Exchange" By Israel Shahak, (with a) Reply by Timothy Garton Ash, The New York Review of Books, Volume 34, Number 1, January 29, 1987. (Plus quotes). References: 'The Life of Death': An Exchange By Israel Shahak, Reply by Timothy Garton Ash, The New York Review of Books, Volume 34, Number 1, January 29, 1987.
 * Notes: Adams, Michael. "Israel Shahak", The Independent, July 26, 2001. References: Adams, Michael. "Israel Shahak", The Independent, July 26, 2001.
 * Etc. more than two dozen times in the article. CarolMooreDC 03:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding "alleged sources", I suspect they were used as citations at one time in the article, but the citations were later removed. I've removed them. Regarding the Notes and References, I've shortened most of the Notes, which should solve the problem. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removal of dubious material. The fact they were left in references, possibly after removal of questionable material, is one of the problems with separating notes and references. The other it suddenly occurs to me being that it just makes it harder for the cursory reader to find out what the real sources are. Of course, this is a great way of making sure that low quality sources that include negative information are given equal weight to higher quality sources that provide more positive information. (I always felt there was something fishy about them in some controversial articles; that feels like it.) Of course, barring putting all reference in notes, one way to do an NPOV balance is to include more positive notes if there is a large number of negative ones, as there are in this article. CarolMooreDC 18:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV & Not Undue account of telephone incident
Having now reviewed all sources, I think this is an NPOV and encyclopedia way to deal with this in a NOT WP:Undue fashion without excessive religious argumentation which belongs in some other article. Note that Bogdanor and Schwartz really just repeat Jackovits, adding little else, so are they really necessary. And Boteach also provides nothing new except his own analysis (Rant?). I left them in anyway. Please do not edit inside the box.

Frankly, I think the wider community in any RfC or WP:NPOVN discussion would support this version. CarolMooreDC 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a very nice job, Carol, and thank you for it. I submit that R' Student's article could be added along with a short sentence. Something like:


 * More recently, Rabbi Gil Student of the Orthodox Union argued the point citing several traditional sources of Halacha.


 * It could go right at the end of the second paragraph.


 * Also, I think the Boteach citation can be junked. It adds nothing of worth, IMO.


 * Thoughts? Aemathisphd (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that's I've studied the whole thing, I don't have a problem with including a footnote with Zeev Falk's comment as an example of past debate and mention of Student's work - and even Boteach - as example of continuing debate on Halacha (which should be defined earlier in section). Boteach obviously is not as "encyclopedic" a reference for facts, especially since better ones already exist. It would be nice to know exactly what did happen as far as Jackovits claim on fabrication - Orthodox Jew he had witnessed "simply did not exist."  - since the wording does leave room for interpretation/questions: where did this alleged exchange/confession take place - in person, via letter, in the newspapers? Did Shahak not remember where this happened? Had the person moved by the time he tried to find him? Did Shahak say "my word is good enough, I don't have to produce him." Or did he say, "Ok, I made him up, but it could have happened."  Somewhere in some dusty archives in Jerusalem there's probably an answer to that. CarolMooreDC 13:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Boteach's remarks only make sense if he had a misunderstanding or unwarranted assumption, see the section on him above. I hope we can just leave him out.  Falk's remarks are interesting in that they describe Unterman's ruling as an innovation. (Falk is/was a law lecturer at the Hebrew University who wrote books on Halakha.)  On another tack, does anyone have the date of Shahak's original letter in Haaretz?  I might be able to get it, but I only have microfilm access and my Hebrew is awful so I'm not going to search more than one issue.  Segev said that the non-Jewish person who collapsed according to Shahak was a student from Africa; I don't remember that detail from anywhere else so maybe it is in Shahak's letter. Zerotalk 14:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Only December '65. Nothing more specific than that. I could conceivably get through the Hebrew if you could find the letter, but obviously 31 days of newspapers is a bit of a task. Aemathisphd (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with leaving Boteach out. Will give it 24-36 hours before put up my whole new Political Activism section. Most of rest is just more ref'd details of things already there from sources already used in article. CarolMooreDC 18:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment—while I'm a little late to the discussion, I have read this entire section, and did not find a reason to change the current version. I believe that the current version is better than the proposed one because it is better written and more relevant to Shahak and the incident. However, I would also like to hear the reasoning behind having to introduce such a radical change in the first place. What is non-neutral or problematic in the current version? Also, if there's an irrelevant passage, can we not remove it without rewriting the entire section? —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. Based on them, I've modified the section to better represent the sources, and conform with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and good writing style. Kudos to everyone! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said or inferred above, this is a biography of Israel Shahak. This is an important event in his activist life, evidently his first bit of activism, driven by a traumatic incident. It goes under his activism. You don't ignore it there and then make it a big philosophical debate later, just like you wouldn't throw the fact he was a Holocaust survivor in the last sentence. When I properly place it in context we can discuss more. CarolMooreDC 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a chronological description of his life, so it's in the right place. Please don't move it, as it will make the article worse, and we won't be able to discuss it in its proper context. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For starters a short paragraph on its relevance is definitely not wp:undue while trying to find a proper article for the whole philosophical discussion, which I forgot to mention is still too long. (I.e., I thought footnote on boteach and footnote with text OK for Falk, just to compromise, but putting it in the text too much). Not to mention Jayjg emphasizing Falk saying "fabrication" (and not even alleged fabrication) when in fact there is just one source alleging it was a fabrication, and without sufficient detail to be persuasive, is HIGHLY pov. IMHO. To be corrected.
 * Also, in that vein an existing problematic summary edit by someone else is "Some authors, including Werner Cohn," editorial statement is inaccurate since it's only Jackovits and Cohn as far as I can see. I fixed it and hopefully it won't be reverted.CarolMooreDC 17:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Larger issue remains: what is the point in a bio of Shahak of having a whole section of philosophical debate on one minor issue? Even the slimmed down version I put above seems a bit much. Why not find a more appropriate article for the debate?? Or else have a section on all the debates he's engendered? Since there does seem to be more than one. CarolMooreDC 16:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Low and behold, using categories, I found the appropriate article where this issue is already touched on and suggested the philosophical back and forth be added there. Activities_prohibited_on_Shabbat. CarolMooreDC 19:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a specific incident relevant to Shahak, not a general case. There is no "philosophical debate" here, there are multiple reliable sources that discuss the story, and whether or not it actually happened. Activities_prohibited_on_Shabbat is about activities prohibited on Shabbat, not incredible tales. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To reply only to the point above, all the reliable sources depend solely on Immanuel Jakobovits vague allegation "Shahak eventually had been forced to admit that the Orthodox Jew he claimed to have witnessed 'simply did not exist'." None give any independent description of this alleged admission. Check the references. Where there are any, it's Jacobovitz. It's all piling on from one source. Again, WP:Undue. The general topic is obviously of relevance to that article, but if people choose not to use the example there, fine. CarolMooreDC 01:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "all the reliable sources depend solely on Immanuel Jakobovits vague allegation" - and your evidence for this claim is? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. First, I did just realize that technically the references are that four people say that Jackovitz said something, which is different than each saying it and not mentioning they used Jackovitz as a reference, which is what I misunderstood as piling on. We do not know on what basis Falk alleges Shahak lied, since the text is not online. I don't think we need this introduction to Falk's quote, including the mysterious parenthesis: Falk wrote that though he disapproved of the Shahak's "invented [] case", it had a positive outcome.  Just more WP:undue stuff in that section. CarolMooreDC 23:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you have no evidence that "all the reliable sources depend solely on Immanuel Jakobovits vague allegation", and anything you want to remove you describe (again without any evidence whatsoever) as "WP:undue". Understood. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

POV of Duke et al paragraph
Jayjg's wrote in his revert here as "restore WP:NPOV in this section." It seems to me the current version is POV because it says in effect: THESE BIG ANTISEMITES LIKE HIM!!!!! [3 sentences; 3 long quotes in references] (Mezvinsky says they misuse his work.) [1 sentence, no long quote in refs]. That seems to be a pretty obvious guilt by association POV right there. (I did just add to counter the strong negative POV Mezvinsky writing in same source: "It should be obvious that Israel Shahak and I abhor what these anti-Semites do but that we are not responsible for them or for what they do."

Looking at the refs I find that:
 * "Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions" is actually a very sympathetic article that needs to be quoted elsewhere in this article. Will put on my do list.
 * and that just a few words were edited out of the Bogdnar quote which were seems pretty pov; so I put them in.

My reverted version emphasized that some people criticized him because he was found on antisemitic sites which said nice things about him. My question is, why would it be more POV to lead with the Mezvinsky sentence than to lead with assertions Shahak (and Mezvinsky for that matter) are published on a bunch of bad web sites (or that he was criticized for that)? Or does it just depend on one's POV?? CarolMooreDC 16:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This topic has been discussed before (please review the archives). Reliable secondary sources regularly commented on Shahak's value to and use by antisemites; Shahak's own co-author responded to this issue. How can one "lead" with a response to an issue one has not yet raised? In any event, it would seem impossibly POV to just include the response/defense of Shahak without actually listing the issue itself, as brought by multiple sources. Next, you complain about "3 long quotes in references", but then complain that other quotes in the references aren't long enough! And finally, the "very sympathetic article" is already "quoted elsewhere in this article". It would be helpful to read the article before commenting on its contents. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I did review the archive and saw different discussions, not the one I brought up. Actually what you write about order does make sense, though I still think all the "reliable sources" are trying to promote guilt by association. Just annoying IMHO.
 * If you don't think it's likely others will take out quotes one thinks are too long, one can add quotes that balance them, which I did.
 * I see I did miss the other use of Ari Alexander because the same reference was used in two separate and separated footnotes. Stuff happens. CarolMooreDC 02:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Shahak wouldn't have given David Duke the time of day, but he got three whole sentences in the article as if he is somehow a great and worthy commentator. Now he has a brief mention (which is a compromise since he deserves nothing) and two sentences which are about Duke and not really about Shahak are gone. Zerotalk 10:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Glad that someone else also saw that point and did something about it. CarolMooreDC 18:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple secondary sources have commented on this, so it can't simply be suppressed. That said, I've shortened the material to one sentence. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering Duke is mentioned in the first sentence, whose foot note is used as an excuse to attack Shahak, that is hardly suppression of the fact that his work is used by such people. And your "one sentence" on Duke is just a run on sentence of the previous three. So looks more like a plain old revert without sufficient discussion to me. CarolMooreDC 22:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He's no longer "mentioned in the first sentence", since the source itself didn't mention his work being on websites, which is what the first sentence was about. He's mentioned in exactly one sentence of 32 words; perhaps a bit longer than average, but hardly "run-on". The rest doesn't merit a response. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is beyond ridiculous. Duke is now in 7 (that's SEVEN) sentences in the article, despite being entirely irrelevant to the subject of the article.  Some of those sentences don't even mention Shahak.  This blatant stacking of the article has to stop. Zerotalk 01:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Duke was mentioned in exactly one sentence of 32 words in the article, which you removed. Were you reading a different article, perhaps? Also, why are you calling people like Ari Alexander an "opponent of Shahak's writings"? Is there some source for this? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can count perfectly well. The footnotes are part of the article, in fact they are the most blatant pov pushing in the article. I didn't delete Ari Alexander so I don't know why you asked about him. Also, why is Bogdanor treated as a reliable source when everyone knows he's only an activist?  Zerotalk 15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So what do you think of my proposed paragraph below? Frankly, I'm about ready to do an RfC on the whole issue (or NPOVN??). It is absurd that there is all this detail in this article, and not even a reference to the one mention in Duke article. Obviously a guilt by association implication. Why not just have one of his critics say it in the article, as I do in my proposal.  CarolMooreDC 04:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice this thread before I made my edit because it wasn't at the bottom of the talk page, so apologies for that. However, I don't understand why Duke was removed from the first sentence when the source does state that Shahak appears on his website. "Jewish History, Jewish Religion (1994) is... more likely to be cited on a neo-Nazi website, than your local synagogue's... (Radio Islam contains the full text of Shahak's work) as well as groups that are often openly anti-Semitic (David Duke and Bradley Smith include Shahak's book on their websites)." Alexander, Ari. "Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions", MyJewishLearning.com. Accessed June 13, 2010." 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At some point the editor who did it may explain; I can't quite remember who and don't feel like checking. You can if you like. It might have been a sloppy oversight; not sure. CarolMooreDC 04:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV paragraph

 * RE: Duke, if Shahak is such a big influence, move all that material to the David Duke article where right now there's just one unreferenced sentence; here it's just POV guilt by association editing;
 * It's just piling on to fully quote refs that merely assert he's on nasty sites and then fully quote the whole reference; therefore the first sentence should be ref'd only by the four names and years of publication;
 * The most cogent criticism is from Moaz, so just quote it in the text, with the short ref. and thus there is sufficient context for Mezvinksy's reply.

References ^ Moaz, Jason (2001); Alexander, Ari (2010); Posner, Laurence (1999); Institute for Jewish Policy Research (1996). ^ Maoz, Jason (2001) ^ Shahak, Mezvinsky (2004), p. xiii-xiv.<Br>

Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Everyone likes it? Meanwhile, I do agree that the current references and all those long quotes support noting that that these people are critics of him to some extent (least true of MyJewishLearning.com). However, if they weren't quoted, per my proposal above, I don't think it would be necessary to describe them at all. CarolMooreDC 04:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's an absurdly inappropriate edit. Reliable secondary sources discuss Duke's use of Shahak, so it's not "POV guilt by association", it's just following WP:NPOV. In addition, citation templates all provide parameters for quoting text precisely because quotations assist with verification and with understanding exactly what sources have said. Why have these footnote quotations been removed, while lengthy footnote quotations repeating Shahak's religious claims have been retained? What part of policy suggests removing quotations in footnotes because "it's just piling on to fully quote refs"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust survivor
Lead is starting that way :
 * Israel Shahak was a Polish-born Holocaust survivor and Israeli professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, known especially as a liberal[1] secular political thinker, author, and civil rights activist

May I suggest we remove the fact he was a Holocaust survivor and keep this for the end of the lead in sorting information per relevancy. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead is only four sentences so not clear where there would be a better place in the lead. What the article might need more of is his comments on his experiences and the whole Nazi genocide. Searching books google for "Israel Shahak Holocaust Nazis genocide" I see he had a lot to say but, oops, it's controversial again. Obviously the most NPOV sources. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 22:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Context vs. guilt by association
Per this diff Plotspoiler claims Nazi types quoting Shahak should come first because it establishes "context" of criticism. But we know even if no neonazi ever quoted him, all those criticisms would be made. (As they are on so many people who are the tiniest bit critical even of the state of Israel.) So it seems to me that putting that information first is just a quilt by association tactic. One more diff to add to the list of POV edits in this article for review by others when energy permits. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 22:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that given no response I finally got around to bring this issue here Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 04:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * People have been doing this for year. Notice the difference between this article, and say, all the writers/speakers that influenced Anders Behring Breivik. Now, if you try to add to the bios of Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and others, the fact that Breivik was deeply influenced by them, (And with a lot more WP:RS than has ever reported the neo-nazi quotes  about Shahak!)  -then you will see it swept out in no time.  But in Shakak-bio it stays, why is that?  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's called systematic bias of editors and sources... CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 06:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess this is one of the reasons why Anders Behring Breivik loves English Wikipedia (no kidding!) Nobody in Scandinavia has praised it as much as he has. I guess it fits his world-view perfectly. :(   Cheers, Huldra (talk) 06:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * carol - do you really think there is a systematic bias of editors and sources? does it swing only one way or both (or even in other directions)? and huldra, just because 'other stuff exists' doesn't mean it applies here. Soosim (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is "other stuff does NOT exist". It applies only here. (Oh, and on the bios of some other critics of Israel) Then it must be legitimate to ask...why? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry, huldra, i don't follow what you wrote. Soosim (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, very specifically: I can easily find dozens of WP:RS that mentions that Anders Behring Breivik was greatly influenced by, and praised people like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller  or Daniel Pipes. Why cannot that be mentioned in the articles about  Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller  or Daniel Pipes? If David Duke  does not go out -totally- of this article, why should I not insist that other writers are treated like Shahak? Very specifically: Do you have any argument  against adding the info about Breivik to these bios? Or will you argue for ...another standard for those writers?  Cheers Huldra (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Huldra obviously goes further than I in wanting to remove completely the material mentioning use of Shahak's material and pointing out it's not allowed on other articles. And I see User:IronDome has removed it entirely.
 * In any case, the first sentence detailing which groups use his material and making guilt by association claims is problematic because it's from one of those hundreds of advocacy groups, Institute for Jewish Policy Research, and should be removed as a self-published work about a 3rd party. However, because the info is out there I think it is appropriate to include this from his co-author, as previously in the article:
 * In a new introduction to his re-edition of their Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Norton Mezvinsky wrote that antisemites and antisemitic groups "utilize unduly Shahak's criticisms in trying to justify their hatred of Jews. They have continued to do this either by citing and/or using out-of-context some of Shahak's points" and that "It should be obvious that Israel Shahak and I abhor what these anti-Semites do but that we are not responsible for them or for what they do."  CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 17:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That already is in the article (last sentence. ) There is still a lot which should be removed, sentences like "Like the Nazis before him, Shahak ..". Now, "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is in (a) definition of what anti-semitism is, why is it more acceptable to use in discussion of an individual?  "Arguments" like that is not an argument, is is just a  defaming  technique. It should go, together with the Jason Moaz -quote (same stuff) and  note 37. That just for a start. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the whole section more carefully, it is clear it Moaz (who I note actually is published by ADL, not Jewish Insitute, in one of their reports that walks that comes quite close to being just too biased to use here) is used a couple times as one of the ways of repeating variations on a theme over and over. The criticism paragraphs and quotes are just WP:Undue and should be cut 30%. Just because there are a thousand pro-Israeli "WP:RS" willing to yell antisemite at the drop of a hat doesn't mean we have to use them all and promote the propaganda frenzy. Only higher quality intelligent criticisms should be used. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 20:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I read his (long) Haaretz obituary once, and guess what: not a word about David Duke, etc. I believe it was the same for the other major Israeli newspapers; so why should it be mentioned here? This wikipedia -article has been used to defame him for years, in a manner which would never have been allowed for the writers I mentioned above. Again, why do we have different rules for different people? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, nothing appropriate to future edits.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in saying ‘If someone would say we won't save a non-Jewish life on the Sabbath, he is a liar,’would appear to take a dim view of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shas.

Asher Zeiger 'Don’t violate Shabbat to save non-Jewish life, top Shas rabbi says,' at The Times of Israel, 17 May 2012 Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt he would, as do most Jews. Obadia Yosef is in his 90's and for some time now is more known among Jews and Israelis for his outrageous statements than anything else.

Saving the life of a Non-Jew on the Sabbath is not controversial but accepted: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1358/are-you-allowed-to-save-a-non-jews-life-on-shabbos

To quote R' Moshe Feinsten, "A refusal to treat a non-Jew on the Sabbath would be totally unacceptable... (Igrot Moshe, Orah Hayyim 4:79; Additional sources below for this ruling can be found below.)

The one that is most cited is "to prevent the Gentiles from hating and persecuting us (מישום איבה)," for if it happened that a Gentile died and it became known that a Jew refused to save him, they would not be too happy (for obvious reasons). Another reason is based on Nachmanides (Ramban), who rules based on Leviticus 25:35 that a Jew is obligated to save a Righteous Gentile (גר תושב), even on Shabbat. (Additions to Sefer Hamitzvot, "Positive Commandments that the Rambam Neglected," 16. Cf. R. Shimon ben Zemah Duran, Zohar HaRakia, 81 n. 39. Cf. also Meiri Yoma 84b.) This is ruling is then extended to include all Gentiles. (See "Laws of Medical Treatment on Shabbat" by R' Dov Karrol for more details about this approach.) In addition, many Rabbis nowadays feel that we have an extremely strong moral and ethical obligation as well, based on the overarching principles of "all people are created in the Image of God" and Tikkun Olam, "Sanctifying God's name," and "Do not stand idly by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.”

When choosing whose life to try to save when one cannot try to save everyone, the Talmudic answer is NOT to select on who is Jewish but rather who has the greater likelihood of survival. f two patients come before a doctor with the same life threatening problem simultaneously, he or she should first treat the one most likely to survive (NA YD 152:2). When all other factors are equal, the Talmud (SA YD 151:9) gave a hierarchy to follow which, however, is difficult to follow in practice in our day (NA v5 p. 112). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What the 'correct' answer is is irrelevant - Wikipedia is not the place to debate proper religious doctrine. Those who criticize Shahak by saying that, according to their own interpretation, of course you would save the gentile, would similarly be missing the point. What matters is are there any people out there who, claiming to be Jews and acting on the basis of that, would refuse to save a non-Jews life on the Sabbath. The answer to that is probably yes - there are all sorts of religious people out there with all sorts of practices. This line of argument is like saying that an abortion clinic could not possibly have been blown up, and as proof quoting the Pope and various Christian theologians arguing that Christianity forbids things like blowing people up. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree as have stated before and deleted last two paragraphs of telephone incident as irrelevant. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 01:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I re-added the content because it belongs in the article. The source article directly addresses Shahak's claims so it's very relevant here. It's not some kind of general religious debate (as CarolMooreDC, who made the edit I reverted stated), but debate precisely about Shahak's claims. —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As discussed in archive 7, Boteach's comment makes no sense, unless he had the impression that the person asking for the phone was not Jewish (something not in his article or any other source we know of). Although I agree with you that it directly addresses the incident, I don't think it is helpful to have nonsense in the article. Zerotalk 03:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Zero, there are two issues here. One is persistent attempts (for over three years now) by CarolMooreDC to remove this material on entirely spurious grounds; archive 7 is filled with examples of and discussion on this. The latest example is the recent removal of the material on the grounds that CarolMooreDC "agrees" with an IP editor that the material is "irrelevant". The IP editor, in fact, makes no such statement or claim, but merely disagrees with an earlier IP editor who supported Boteach, on the grounds that there are "probably" people who would do what Shahak's claims because "there are all sorts of religious people out there with all sorts of practices". I hope (but am not optimistic) that these kinds of policy violating justifications and edits have finally come to an end.
 * The second is your statement that "Boteach's comment makes no sense, unless he had the impression that the person asking for the phone was not Jewish". It's unclear to me why Boteach's statement would make no sense, and I see no reliable sources in archive 7 supporting this view. Boteach is a fairly famous Orthodox rabbi, who has stated (in the context of Shahak's claims) that he finds Shahak's story to be "curious" because he can find no religious prohibition on allowing any individual to use one's phone on the Sabbath. Editors on this talk page have stated that there is a difference if the person asking to use the phone was Jewish or non-Jewish, but that is pure original research; there are no reliable sources supporting this argument, and Boteach, the Orthodox rabbi, states the opposite. Moreover, even if such a source could be found, stating "Boteach is wrong regarding Shahak, because Jewish law actually states XYZ", then WP:NPOV would demand that we include both views, not simply excise Boteach's.
 * The bottom line here is this; if editors have issues with the content here, then the solution is to find more reliable sources that discuss Shahak and/or the phone incident. What Wikipedia does not allow is deleting reliably sourced material simply because one disagrees with it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I was responding to AnonIP 124.191.144.183's first sentences: "What the 'correct' answer is is irrelevant - Wikipedia is not the place to debate proper religious doctrine. Those who criticize Shahak by saying that, according to their own interpretation, of course you would save the gentile, would similarly be missing the point." The rest of it frankly didn't make sense to me so maybe I totally misread the meaning. Reading too fast I did miss that Boteach's opinions has some relation to what Shahak alleged.
 * But rereading the section again more carefully after a year or so, I think really the biggest problem is that it is NOT under criticism since obviously it is heavily weighted towards criticism. There should be a brief mention of the incident in his politics section since it is the incident that first brought him to public attention (as somebody or other said, though would have to research that ref in old edits). That would solve my nagging WP:Undue/POV issues and save a trip to WP:NPOVN. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the "biggest problems" here is that there is a "Criticism" heading to begin with, one that was inappropriately added despite the fact that a) the material in the "Criticism" sub-section does not all consist of criticism, but rather a mix of support and criticism, and b) WP:CSECTION clearly explains why Criticism sections should be avoided regardless. Carol, please remove it. As for putting the discussion of the telephone incident in the "Criticism" section, the description of the telephone incident is just that, a description of the incident and its fallout and analysis, not "criticism". This suggestion has been made before and rejected, for obvious reasons. Please review the archives. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually last year I came to understand that about "criticism" sections, but didn't even know I'd put it in. :-)
 * Not putting the incident in historical context still does not make sense to me but if neutral editors gave better reasons, maybe it would.
 * My question: why does the opinion of a noted historian (Tom Segev on the facts of the what happened during the incident get one sentence and religious writers opinions about what happened get seven or eight?
 * Plus a few other issues, some of which could be fixed with a bit of reorganizing and more referenced info. Fixing it all not my highest priority, but just a nagging annoyance. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 21:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the current version Boteach's writings actually get about the same amount of coverage in the article as Tom Segev's (about 2 lines on my monitor, not including quote), but even if there was a difference, Boteach is an authority on the subject, while Segev is not. I have no problem with expanding the part about Warhaftig's opinion, but only if the source addresses the issue with the same depth as Boteach does, i.e. we should not artificially inflate the paragraph just to make it longer. I also don't see a way to shorten the part with Boteach without losing any of the content. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Expertise may be one part of what makes a Source Reliable, but bias is another part. When bias is too strong, one must wonder about expertise. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 02:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how either of them are experts - experts on whether or not one particular individual refused to allow the use of his phone one time? Experts on what Shahak genuinely believes regarding a claim he made about seeing something? - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. While your other comments today were a bit over my head during a harried wiki editing day, this is point on. I feel bad I haven't corrected the mess yet per several very good analysis, besides my own, of last month. Busy busy busy. but it is on my do list. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 19:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jayjg, you know as well as anyone that a Jew is forbidden to assist another Jew in violating a prohibition. But I'm not editing. That part of the article pales into insignificance compared the malicious attempt to paint Shahak as a Nazi. Zerotalk 02:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To say that a Jew is forbidden, or not forbidden, is to make a religious judgement. Forbidden by whom ? God ? There is only a correct answer to this if we assume a particular religion is correct and that a particular interpretation of that religion is the correct interpretation - assumptions obviously made by people such as Boteach. It's like saying "real Muslims are prohibited from killing innocent civilians". Who determines who is or is not a 'real Muslim' and what 'correct Islamic teaching' is? Even if you wish to claim that their is a correct interpretation, and we can determine who the true Jews, Muslims, Christians etc. are, that would still only apply to one narrow set of beliefs. If Mormons are 'true Christians', in the sense that they have the right religion, it would make no sense to then talk about who the true Jews are and who has the 'correct' interpretation of Jewish scripture, as all Judaism would in fact be false.- 124.191.144.183 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is WP:Undue opinionating on what a big anti-semite he was as well. (I did at least move the Nazi web pages down to the end where there is the preceding context as opposed to it's just popping up out of the blue; not a 1rr issue since I reverted self per Jayjg's request which I agreed with. If that's a problem I'll revert the section header removal for 24 hours.)
 * The antisemitism allegations are just more typical/less interesting a thicket than the telephone incident WP:undue debate and unproven allegation he admitted he lied. Rereading it again this time around I see all sorts of aspects I missed last time. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 06:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The point I was trying to make above is like this. Consider this for an argument - "Boteach didn't run for Congress as a Republican, because God commands Jews to vote Democrat". If you can see the multiple problems with that argument, then maybe you can see the problems with the 'religious' arguments against the phone incident having happened (that's not to say, by the way, that it did happen - Denying the antecedent). - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel Shahak bibliography
Would anyone be opposed to creating a Israel Shahak bibliography article? Many other writers have such pages. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel Shahak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207083050/http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive1/sweden/index.htm to http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive1/sweden/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805220714/http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf to http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Gore Vidal
"In the Foreword to the fist edition (1994), Vidal said, “Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then, an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistlestop campaign train. ‘That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.’ As neither Jack nor I was an anti-Semite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.”"

What is this rubbish doing in the article? It has nothing to do with Israel Shahak. Anyone is welcome to put it on Vidal's page. It does not belong here.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Problematical or useless
There's quite a lot of problematical (unverifiable) stuff here. I can't find any means of verifying the following.
 * "Edward Said's Documented Deceptions", Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, August 1999.
 * Camera is not usable in my view on a WP:BLP page, and this article is about Shahak, not about Said.


 * Falk, Zeev (1967). "Gentile and Stranger in Jewish Law", in "Steps", translated by Arieh Rubinstein, published by the Movement for Torah Judaism, Jerusalem Post Press.
 * There are a zillion sources for this. All we have is a viewpoint mentioning Shahak, with a claim. The person in question does not appear to be notable-


 * El-Asmar, Fouzi (1975). To Be an Arab in Israel, Frances Pinter. ISBN 0-903804-08-5.
 * This is all very nice, but it's barrel-scaping


 * Ottolenghi, Emanuele. "The War of the Jews", National Review, September 20, 2006
 * Given Ottolenghi's position his view can be included, but I keep getting a dead link notification.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:BLP is no longer applies to this page.--Shrike (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Thanks for that.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It was me who first added the Falk citation, but it has since been gutted in order to remove the key point. See the original to get what I mean. Falk's opinion is that Unterman's ruling overturned an existing principle rather than confirming one as is usually portrayed. Zerotalk 14:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed.
 * In other words.
 * It is incumbent upon the State of Israel to appear as a kingdom of mercy and not to be stringent in applying the [Jewish] law. While I dissociate myself from the methods of action of Dr. Israel Shahak, who invented the case of a Gentile who was not given treatment on the Sabbath, it was this fiction that led Chief Rabbi Unterman to issue a ruling permitting the violation of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile. While no explicit permit has yet been discovered concerning prohibitions stated in the Torah itself. perhaps this was the opening of a new page in our attitude towards righteous Gentiles and non-Jews in general, the culmination to be hoped for being that there will be no gulf between moral feeling on the one hand and the Halakha on the other. Z. Falk, Gentile and Stranger in Jewish Law, in "Steps", translated by Arieh Rubinstein, published by the Movement for Torah Judaism), Jerusalem Post Press, ca. 1970, pp. 47–53.
 * was distorted to produce what we have:-
 * "In 1967, Prof. Ze'ev Falk said he had disproved the claims of Shahak: “While I dissociate myself from the methods of action of Dr. Israel Shahak, who invented the case of a Gentile who was not given treatment on the Sabbath, it was this fiction that led Chief Rabbi Unterman to issue a ruling permitting the violation of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile"
 * I'll restore Falk, since you have personally controlled the source.
 * There are other examples. I noted this yesterday, for example. The source states:
 * "One comes away from this book with a stark sense of the fundamental illiberality of Zionism. As Israel Shahak explains, it was an explicit reaction against the individualistic Enlightenment and an atavistic attempt to restorethe stifling ghettosof 18th-century Poland. Zionism's fathers believed Jews could not live normal lives among gentiles—even in free, democratic societies—and propounded a notion of 'Jewish people,' rights that rejected the spirit of the age. Zionism, writes Shahak, 'can be described as a mirror image of anti-Semitism,' since it, like the anti-Semites, holds that Jews are everywhere aliens who would best be isolated from the rest of the world. Moreover, 'both anti-Semites and Zionism assume anti-Semitism is ineradicable and inevitable.' This attitude among Zionist Jews led to a capitulation to anti-Semitism in Europe, in lieu of a conviction to rally the world's liberal forces against it. Small wonder that some notorious anti-Semites, Eichmann, for example, have been attracted to the Zionist program. The results have been catastrophic.Shahak's paper makes much of the last 40 years understandable. Given Zionism's premises, it is unsurprising that Arabs would have been seen as obstacles to be swept away ruthlessly and that the state of Israel would be run ostensibly for the benefit of 'the Jewish people,' no matter the cost in the fives and liberties of non-Jews. Some of the horrifying results are documented in Anti-Zionism. The record of callousness and dishonesty is appalling, all the more so because it was done in the name of Judaism."
 * In other words Richman supported the kind nof reading Berger, Shahak et al made. This became:
 * "In effort to explain the behaviour of the State of Israel towards their Arab neighbours, Prof. Shahak proposed that the Israeli interpretation of Jewish history produced a society who disregard the human rights of the Arab peoples, within Israel and around Israel.[10] That Zionism was a “régime based on structural discrimination and racism.” In the book review of Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections (1988), Sheldon Richman countered Shahak's description of Judaism, by personally characterising Shahak as a Jew for whom Zionism was a reflection of, and a capitulation to, European anti-Semitism, “since it [Zionism], like the anti-Semites, holds that Jews are everywhere aliens who would best be isolated from the rest of the world.”"
 * I'm taking time over this. There are some sources that are extremely dubious, like Bodganor and Werner Cohn, neither of whom would be regarded in my view as serious sources in any respectable academic environment. But we need to keep them in to maintain some solidity of evidence on the hostile side of reception.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The mangled text gave 1967 for Falk's view, while above you say ca.1970. I don't now how one can formulate the difference in the template. Is there any way one can track this down. By the way, checked up on Falk. He was an interesting chap who was quite aware of, and critical of, the problems Shahak spoke of, since he did a lot to try and modify the stringencies of halakhic rulings regarding women. See Professor David Golinkin, 'Ze'ev Falk - In Memoriam 1923-1998,' Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women's Studies & Gender Issues No. 2, Crossing into Modernity: Renegotiating Jewish Gender Identities (Spring, 5759/1999), pp. 214-217 Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 'While no explicit permit has yet been discovered concerning prohibitions stated in the Torah itself,' ..
 * This is obscure, but contextually suggests that Unterman's ruling was made in lieu of explicit permits in rabbinical tradition that finesse or get round the prohibitions in the Torah (that would not permit helping goys on the Sabbath). I think he is saying that Shahak was correct in his claim, but his methods were improper (if so then Falk was implicitly challenging, albeit with delicacy, the claims made about the state of halakhic law in Jakobovits's tirade) Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Zero in particular. They don't mention Shahak, but it shows he was correct, and Jakobovits obtusely wrong in his denialist hot-air huffing and puffing. Not that this is new. It was obvious, but unfortunately, no sources seem to give Shahak credit for noting the fact. Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Adi Ophir, Ishay Rosen-Zvi,Goy: Israel's Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile, Oxford University Press, 2018 p.221.
 * Most of the good sources on the topic fail to mention Shahak, and I can understand that because Shahak was neither an expert nor particularly reliable. I'm not aware that he ever invented something out of thin air, but he often committed the sins of failing to provide historical context or failing to distinguish minority from majority views. The telephone incident is a perfect example: although I'm confident that a considerable majority of Israelis would hand over their phone, there is a substantial minority who would not. I don't know if the incident happened, but I know that writers who claim it is impossible are ignorant or dishonest. Unfortunately this leaves us with the situation where writers who mention Shahak are mostly his enemies, and writers who confirm or partly confirm his claims rarely mention him. So writing an article that presents a balanced view within the rules is very difficult. Zerotalk 02:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, precisely how I too see it. My attention was drawn to this by David Dean Shulman's review of a few books in a June piece for the New York Review of Books, which surprised me because Shulman is omnivorous, but appears to have woken up to the issue only on reading the magnificent scholarly text I cited above, just out.  Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)