User talk:Viajero/Leumi

Norman Finkelstein
Theresa Knott proposed a very reasonable solution to this particular conflict on the talk page for The Holocaust Industry; consensus (so far) is to go with that version of the "anti-Semitism" attack on Finkelstein. If Leumi won't agree to that solution, then we have a problem: "Some Jewish groups" and "Some American Jews" both imply that the Finkelstein-bashing goes beyond one set of tendentious allegations from a group that, whatever its influence on public opinion, is not renowned for objectivity or fairness.

To put it another way: Whether Finkelstein's book actually contributes to anti-Semitism is unknown -- some Holocaust deniers have waved him around triumphantly, but any effect beyond this small gang of crackpots is unproven, and who cares what they think anyway? Nobody, but for the ADL and some fringe groups ("Israel Campus Watch"), made the attacks on Finkelstein, as far as I can tell, so it's not fair to imply otherwise.

General principle: If, say, I were to add stuff I "researched" from Holy Blood, Holy Grail and similar nonsense, to Merovingian, Jesus Christ, or Mary Magdalene, while saying "Some scholars think (crackpot idea)", without making the idea's source absolutely clear, that would be deeply misleading: it would equate lunatic conspiracy theories with serious scholarly works on the subject. The same standard applies here, I think.

The issue of From Time Immemorial
What's needed here is, I think, more information about the book itself (though such an article will probably spawn its own hideous edit war :-/): if you just cite something to a book without further information, that implies some sort of sound footing; if you do the same, but also provide a link to an article showing the book to be the propagandistic fraud that it is, then anything referenced to that book is suddenly seen in a very different light, eh? More of the same principles.

So if everyone really wants to resolve this conflict constructively, not just to score points, I suggest finding some general principle that we can all agree on (as, I hope, what I've suggested here is) and applying it to all controversial edits. Everyone should understand their own views before blindly insisting that they're right. --MIRV 19:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stuff copied from conflicts between users

 * I have come to know User:Leumi in a different sense. I have found him to be a voice of reason in talk page discussion, even while he is being trolled. Perhaps the regular attacks against him (see Talk:Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair for example) have gotten the better of him at times, but he is a new user, and considering his civil tone, deserves a great deal of accommodation. The impression I have gotten is that he has made a remarkably unfortunate choice in screen names (see Irgun for info) and thus has attracted heated opposition from the other side of these contentious issues. I have suggested he might want to try other pages in order to avoid the trolls, but these subjects are where his interests (and skills) lie. In conclusion, I argue that he brings a great deal of value to the wiki, not the least of which is a responsive attitude to polite and reasonable conversation. JackLynch 20:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Nobody has disputed that Leumi has been unfailingly polite and reasonable in discussions, and his handle is a non-issue dragged in by some obnoxious git as a pointless cheap shot; what's at issue is his sometimes-nakedly-biased editing on articles (which is a problem, I agree). (Do note that in some of the cases Viajero has documented, he is not the only one to have edited in such a manner.) --MIRV 20:08, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * and I am not saying he is the perfect editor yet, but I think he has loads of potential. I havn't been here long, and I learned fast, but the first week or so I had very little idea of how things worked, or how best to handle a dispute over edits dear to my heart. Anyways, I think this is a very complicated situation, and a new user with lots to add, both intellectually and socially (a bit of polite discussion goes a long way, w me) JackLynch 20:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree, it can sometimes be difficult dealing with newbies, and some new users are quicker to learn the wikipedia way than others, we never the less should be more patient. theresa knott 22:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm quite surprised such a large stir has been caused here. It seems the schoolday is the time where most edits occur, so I unfortunately must resort to playing catch-up for a while. I certainly have no wish to hurt the NPOV format of this work, which I respect and value as much as you do. Before I begin, I'd like to thank those of you who have spoken up for me here, as well as those who have criticized in a reasonable and constructive manner. I value both very much. As for my edits, I think that while they represent one perspective, they do not take away from the NPOV manner. I include in my edits information on how something is viewed in a manner other than portrayed. I don't portray my views as fact, or as anything more than another way of seeing things. I agree that we all have a responsibility to make things neutral, and because of that we should all add the varying perspectives surrounding an issue, focusing on those we know best. Then by others contributing to what we write with an opposing viewpoint, in addition as opposed to instead, we can add balance and in addition to the facts of the issue, show the facts about how it's percieved. That's what I've seen in the format many sysops have proposed and as such I've adopted it for my own. Like you I am committed to neutrality, and I hope we can move forward in these issues with representing alll the facts and views on the issues, instead of censoring those that some do not like. We all have good intentions here, and I know that we can eventually reach some sort of progress with them. After all, we are all comrades in working for the same concepts of neutrality and balance, not enemies and as such, how can we fail to reach some sort of balance? Hopefully we'll arrive at something satisfactory to all of us.Leumi 23:47, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Several additional points in response to Jack and the others:


 * Social skills for me are equally important and I appreciate when people are gracious online, but the point is that we are compiling an encyclopedia, not having a tea party. Socials skills are a means to that end.  As you will have noted above, I wasn't questioning Leumi's social skills; my problem is that he says one thing (very politely) while doing another.  And doing it over and over and over again.  Either he is extremely naïve or extremely calculated.


 * I completely agree that we have to be patient with newcomers. However, Leumi has been here for two weeks, made many hundreds of edits to various articles, and yet he is still unable or unwilling to adopt our policy of editorial neutrality.  I spent five hours last night going over and over again the problems with his edits and at the end of it I didn't feel I got ANYWHERE.  NPOV is not rocket science; it is pretty easy to learn here.  You watch how more experienced users edit your pieces, and if you are open to it you catch on pretty quickly.  However, you edit Leumi's texts for neutrality and he goes right back and reinserts his pro-Israel bias over and over again.  He doesn't learn; it is a closed system.


 * If we were dealing with, say, ancient Roman battles or Victorian literature, a little POV wouldn't matter. Not that I would condone it, it is just not that important.  But we are dealing with the most contentious, bitterly divisive issue in world politics.  Our articles on the Middle East have to be scrupulously non-partisan, without a hint of pro-Israeli or pro-Arab leanings.  It is completely unacceptable to reference the highly partisan sources Leumi proposes, such as Daniel Pipers, whom the mainstream media describes as "the most rabid islamophobe in the US", or the ADL, which Chomsky describes as "one of the main pillars of Israeli propaganda in the US".  We include this stuff in our articles and no one will take us seriously, least of all in the Arab world.  Look at it this way, what would happen if we referenced extremist Arab leaders in our articles?  We would be considered a bunch of kooks.  As for Leumi's knowledge, another user Zero, a Middle East historian, said to me, he "wouldn't be so bad if he actually knew some history."


 * I am all for cutting some slack for new users and being extra patient with Leumi because he has Asperger's, but I am adamantly opposed to extending this to tolerating his insertion of pro-Israeli bias in our articles, for whatever reason. I spent many hours this afternoon documenting his highly POV edits so as to alert this community to the problems he is causing.  Being "a little more patient" with him, won't at this point, IMO, solve the fundamental issue of his lack of neutrality.  As we all know, neutrality is key to the success of this project; we lose it and we are hosed.


 * -- Viajero 00:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Viajero, first by no means should you ever cut me any slack because of my medical condition. I know you have good intentions there, but in all honesty, I'd rather be treated equally and don't expect or want anything less than what you would give to someone who is neurotypical. Having said that I do want to take issue with your characterizing my edits as non-NPOV and claiming I don't understand the nature of the concept. I am not inserting &quot;a pro-Israeli bias in our articles&quot;, I am simply providing an opposing point of view where there is previously not one. Furthermore, I am very well acquainted with Middle Eastern History, and I respectfully ask you or Zero to point out any historical errors that that statement implies I've made. Should you point out somewhere I have erred I am always willing to correct my errors and learn from them, something that I hope we all are able to do. Second, Daniel Pipes, while controversial, is certainly less so than Noam Chomsky (who is by no means whatsoever mainstream), and furthermore he has been nominated by the President, who despite the problems you (and though you may not believe it I) have with him, he is by definition representing mainstream opinion in the country. Third, the ADL is a respected, mainstream organization whose positions you may not agree but that does by no means make them illegitimate or inaccurate. Fourth, as for your &quot;closed system&quot; analogy, I respectfully ask you to consider your own role in this as well. As you have well admitted you too have strong views on the topic, and I think you have made the mistake of creating non-NPOV language on the side of the palestinians, especially by refusing to allow other points of view. I recognize that within your social and ideological circles some of the opposing viewpoints I brought up may be in your mind illegitimate, but yours is not the only recognized perspective, and you shouldn't bias the encyclopedia by acting as if it is so. Once again, I express my wishes that we can come to a mutually acceptable conclusion on this. I recognize the legitimacy of your perspective, and I ask that you afford views not fitting within your select set of opinions the same dignity.Leumi 04:27, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * My curiosity finally got the better of me, and I looked at a bunch of Leumi's changes. I tell you, I just don't see the big POV problem. Conversely, Chomsky is known to be one of the most partisan authors on the subject, so it makes me suspicious when someone quotes him as if he were an objective authority. I also note that Viajero is saying things to Leumi like "you don't have the foggiest idea what neutrality is", which is really pushing it ad hominem-wise. So I'm more inclined to look sharply at Viajero than at Leumi in this dispute. Stan 01:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * One more thought for Viajero: maybe you didn't get anywhere with Leumi because he's right and you're wrong about the POV? A good scholar should always be willing to examine his/her own position skeptically, but you seem awfully convinced that it can't be you that's mistaken. Stan 01:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Stan, I don't claim to be impartial. My point of view might best be summed up as simple indignation over what Israel is doing in Palestine, but not only for the impact on its Arab neighbors but also for the dehumanizing effect on Israeli society itself.  I am neither anti-Israel nor pro-Arab (both silly concepts); I am anti-state and pro-people.  As an American citizen I am embarassed the US's actions in the Middle East; they are not only harming Arab culture, they are also dehumanizing American society.  The only thing I assert here and now is my dedication to editorial impartiality. I defy you to find a biased statement in anything I have written here on the Middle East, but it won't be easy because there isn't a lot; this isn't a subject for which I feel a profound affinity.  That being said, when I see someone like Leumi entering weasel language, and citing discredited scholarship and highly partisan actors, an alarm bell rings, just as it would if the topic were, say, Venzuela.


 * Now, I'd like to know where you stand on the following: "refugees that claim they were driven" or "refugees that were driven"? -- Viajero 04:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to tell you where I stand. To me the word "claim" has connotations. When I read "So and So claims such and such" I mentally add "But I the author, don't believe them". The word "said" for me is neutral. "refugees said that they were driven" or "witnesses have said that they saw refugees driven" is quite acceptable IMO. theresa knott 09:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Theresa, to me, this is still backtracking. Is it simplistic to assert that by definition refugees are forced to leave their homes? What is the difference whether one has a gun pointed to one's head or one is threatend by an impending invasion or one is hungry? Is there a case in modern history where refugees voluntarily left their homes? This is not a rhetorical question; I don't know, maybe there is. But it runs counter to my intuition. Look, let me draw an analogy that I used in a message to Ed the other day. Here in Holland where I live, when the water gets too high and the dikes are threatened, they evacuate people from the low-lying lands. People don't leave because they are standing in water up to their necks and are about to drown; they do so because of a perceived danger. And they don't report in the newspapers that people "claimed" or "said" they were forced to leave. It would be preposterous! There is a clear agent involved, an obvious cause and effect. Is this any different with refugees? When we write about American history now, do we couch Indian Removal in such terms as "they were allegedly driven from their homes"? Of course not. If indeed the situation in Palestine in the 1940s is radically more complex then this (which I doubt), than by all means, let's incorporate nuances, but let's cite unbiased scholarly historical resources, not anti-Palestinian revisionist screeds of the kind Leumi refers to. Since my knowledge of this topic is limited, I try to be as flexible as possible about what kind of information gets included in such articles; where I get intransigent is when I suspect that this kind of language is used not to reflect complexity but to dilute or mask the truth; it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. -- Viajero 12:09, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The trouble is -how do you know the truth? I know that you are suspicious of leumi's motives, and perhaps i am being naive in trusting him, but i can't help thinking that there is a way of sortng this out with the right wording. How about "they had to flee" or they "fled for their lives" or "they were driven out by fear" or "they had to take refuge". I suspect that either yourself or lemi will dislike at least some of these, but with enough bashing away at it I really believe that we can work together, get somw wording that everyone can live with, and create a better article. Let me strike up a different point. Leumi is probably the first of many, let's get the articles in question so good, so fair, so NPOV that no one can fault them. I don't know, perhaps it's all doomed to failure, but I don't want to give up hope yet.theresa knott 15:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Someone around here once said (Jimbo?) that at times the most realistic goal one can hope for is an article to which nobody has any major objections. I can live with that more modest ambition. (We are never going to achieve perfect balance on this topic.) I can also live with toying with the phrasing along the lines you suggest. Zero left a comment just now on the article Talk page with regard to the refugees, which we can use as a point of departure. I haven't given up hope yet either. -- Viajero 15:50, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * "refugees said that they were driven" seems like a reasonable version to me. You're right Theresa "claim" does have some connotations, although it may be semantically correct. As such, I agree with that proposal, to use "said" instead of "claim". Viajero, while "forced" might be (arguably) technically correct for leaving out of fear, you must admit that it carries some connotations and the average reader will not read it as "out of fear" but see it as "gun to the head". Fled, by definition, implies out of fear, and as such encompasses that definition. If we're too avoid the connotation problems that Theresa pointed out, we can't only be semantically correct, and even that is questionable when only saying "forced", but also practically impartial, so that the reader sees a balanced version, as opposed to one that gives him the wrong idea. I'm glad we're making some progress here, and I know that we can come up with something soon.Leumi 17:34, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * You cited a Chomsky statement above as support for your assertion that the ADL is a "highly partisan source", but Chomsky is himself known to be highly partisan, so it doesn't reflect well on you to use his remark uncritically. I've read some of the hefty books in this area, plus read both Israeli and Arab online newspapers daily for over a year (before Wikipediholism), and all I know is that one can hardly find a single claim that hasn't had oceans of blood and ink spilled over it. To take your specific example, it's certain that the refugees claim they were driven from their homes, but the truth of the claim has been a matter of the most intense debate for years. I don't have an opinion on its truth, nor can the encyclopedia. (I could write an article I suppose, but I do WP for fun, and anyway there are a million uncontested facts that are not getting written down when we have debates over the contested ones.) Stan 05:29, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I would have preferred to avoid a discussion about Chomsky here, but since I brought him into the discourse I guess I have no choice. ;-) I am sure you are acquainted with his writing, but indulge me a moment for my take on the man and then I will return to the subject at hand:

Chomsky is a pariah in the US, but in other parts of the world, such as in Latin America, he is revered as a great moral voice on par with individuals like Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein. Even in Israel, he has more access to the mainstream media than in the US. In Europe, when he speaks, he is treated almost like a rock star; his anti-imperialist discourse finds a lot of resonance here.

As you probably know, Chomsky is above all a critic of state power. In particular that of the US government but also that of Israel. He is indeed highly critical of the Israeli government, but this does not imply he is an Arab apologist; he does not in any way, shape or form condone Arab terrorism. If he criticizes the Israeli state more than the PLO, it is because the former is so extensively supported by the US.

You wrote above:


 * Conversely, Chomsky is known to be one of the most partisan authors on the subject, so it makes me suspicious when someone quotes him as if he were an objective authority.

and


 * but Chomsky is himself known to be highly partisan,

This perplexes me. According to the AHD, partisan means "a fervent, sometimes militant supporter of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea". Does Chomsky take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? No, he is against what he calls "Israeli state terrorism" but this does not mean he is sympathetic to the PLO. Is he the "militant support" of any cause? If any, it would be non-miltarism -- hardly an institution in this world! Ok, that makes him not the person for objective evaluation of military strategy. So, he is highly critical of the ADL, indeed, but in what way do his personal interests interfere with his perceptions? What disqualifies him from being considered objective? One may disagree with his assertion that mining the harbor of Managua by the Reaganites in the 1980s was a terrorist act but how is he impartial about this? Chomsky is not the leader or spokesperson of the Communist Party or any other movement seeking power. He is not an ideologue beyond being anti-statist in a vague kind of way. If he supports (as I believe he does) a single state solution, this is because he believes it is most practical solution at the moment, not necessarily the ideal one. There is no such thing as Chomskyism. He is basically a loner who writes articles and books and gives speeches critical of American foreign policy.

Hence, If I quote Chomsky approvingly, as I did, it cannot be inferred, I maintain, that I am suddenly partisan in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am and remain anti-war. That's it.

It was out of sheer laziness that I used his quote about the ADL; I found it in the middle of the article on the ADL here, in the course of the discussion with Leumi, and looked no further. You are absolutely right to point out that casts me in a certain light. I accept that there are strong associations connected with his name.

Now, hypothetically speaking, suppose that you and I were editing that or a similar article. I add the quote (or something like it). You say, sorry, but that is a marginal viewpoint. You'd have a point; I might accept that and look for another. Or I could insist, saying this is a good quote; reflects exactly what I think needs to be said. You say, ok then we label it as the POV of someone who reflects a a very small minority. I could say, well, Chomsky's ideas may not show up on the radar of US political discourse but look here at this poll from Eurobarometer from last month which showed that support for Israel in Europe was very low, 10 to 15% (this is true; it was listed on Current Events awhile back). Hence, in the US it might not the the case, but his opinions surely do reflect the beliefs of an overwhelming majority of Europeans. At this point, perhaps we would agree, perhaps not, but at least we would have a rational basis for discussion.

Back to Leumi. In view of the issues I have raised above, how have I compromised my neutrality for demanding comparable neutrality from him? Leumi won't accept that his sources (Daniel Pipes, ADL for example) are extremist and won't accept them being labeled as such. (See this edit of his: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Norman_Finkelstein&oldid=1910085 (''Removed non-neutral phrasing. ADL is not a pro-Israel advocacy group.'').) I have no difficulty with Chomsky being labelled a radical critic; I may share his ideas but I have no illusion that they reflect the beliefs of more than a small minority of Americans; I do my very best to be aware of my own POV. I spent a lot of time on Alberto Fujimori, a politician I consider a shameless crook, but at the same time I know that he was popular during his two terms in office and 15% of Peruvians would vote for him tomorrow if they could. (Every once in awhile a Fujimorista shows up and hassles me on details.) It would be intellectually dishonest to have have an anti-Fujimori diatribe for an article. Why am I being impartial for likewise insisting that Leumi acknowledge and take into consideration his own particular perspective? Or to put in terms you used earlier, how am I pushing my POV here?

I too contribute to Wikipedia for my enjoyment, and I would rather be devoting the time I spend here on other things, like dead opera singers, but I also feel that those of us born into privilege are obliged to do something for the oppressed and downtrodden of the world.


 * -- Viajero 13:42, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The mere use of the phrase "Israeli state terrorism" gives one away - that is a phrase invented to justify Palestinian actions that would be met with shock and revulsion if they occurred in the center of Paris. The Noam Chomsky article makes it clear that his focus has been on advocacy rather than research; the advocacy may go over big in Europe (unsurprisingly, since anti-Americanism has been growing for years, just look at any random European's Talk: comments), but it's still advocacy. If the ADL is extremist, the WP article sure doesn't make the case; surely there must be lots of quotes from respected authorities saying so in different ways, and yet there is only the Chomsky quote. In fact, in that article, Chomsky comes off as kind of a kook, because the objective facts in the article run counter to his claim.


 * So I think you're starting from a non-neutral position but arguing that because you consider it to be neutral, people who take a different view must be non-neutral. When you say "Leumi won't accept that his sources are extremist", you're trying to discredit him by assuming a contested claim as factual. That's pushing POV just as much as anybody else. Stan 15:02, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I only just noticed Leumi's name on the Problem Users page, which I hadn't visited before a couple days ago, and belatedly would like to weigh in. I worked with him at Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair, both trading edits and discussing things on the talk page. Several times it occurred to me that he was viewing the issues with less than perfect disinterest (a rare skill that somehow only I of all people seem to possess ;)), but whenever someone pointed to an instance and gave a good reason for thinking it biased, he seemed perfectly able to perceive it and eager to fix it. I think we need to be cautious judging people from disussions that bear on Israel and the Palestineans. Everybody knows these are hopelessly impassioned issues. We can hardly blame anybody for arriving with a POV, and we should not expect adversaries in these discussions to paint perfectly objective portraits of each other's behavior. 168... 08:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)