Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

WP:RS and WP:BLP policy on this issue

Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources (online and paper) reads: "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If he had a longer paper in a real source on this topic, then that could be used; or a summary on the blog could be used. Short ad hominen attacks out of no where on a blog are just against policy. So I am coming to the point where I don't think he should be used at all in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

More importantly Reminder on policy - WP:BLP#Sources: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A longtime editor with BLP expertise clarified on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion that:

There is, however, an imporant exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

So I will be removing that quote at once and it is now clearly against policy to put it back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But what counts as "material about a living person"? The quote -- in a section headed Allegations of antisemitism and responses" -- was clearly presented as AbuKhalil's own opinion, not as a statement of fact about Atzmon. Are you really suggesting that wa have a section on allegations, in which it is illegitimate to quote such allegations? RolandR (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clear that blogs on WP:RS which are likely to be edited can be used. Self-published blogs opinions cannot unless he had written a long piece on a WP:RS - and then that long piece rather than the blog entry should be quoted. All the sources in this article now meet WP:RS/WP:BLP criteria - though the AJC site would be questionable except Jazz news also published the piece so that should be linked as well. And one WP:RS had a supporting link to a document discussed in it. Since Malcolm continues his edit warring by reverting it I'll bring to WP:BLPN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please revert redundant, WP:OR edits

Drsmoo should revert his recent edit whose summary is wrong. It also deletes important WP:RS info in a highly POV way, a POV he has expressed repeatedly on this talk page.

• The catastrophe comment is in the Gibson’s silencing section where he writes:

There have been numerous attempts to silence Mr Atzmon, including inevitable charges that he is anti-Semitic, although he is Jewish himself. "I wish I could shut myself up and not care, but every time somebody tries to silence me, I know it must be because I'm saying the right thing, pointing on evil, on the core of evil. "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews. "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."

• It is NPOV to remove WP:RS info that Atzmon and others have characterized these numerous charges of antisemitism as an attempt to silence his criticism of Israel and Zionism. You give no good reason for deleting it so I assume it’s POV at work.

• DrSmoo’s collection of quotes not only includes ones redundant to earlier material (either direct quotes or general descriptions), but uses them in his own jumbled WP:OR manner. Since Gibson doesn't say these things are antisemitic you can't use in that section; only Atzmon's defenses in GIbson of why what he say is not antisemitic can be used in that section.

These quotes are already used or summarized Atzmon referred to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" "Im anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." (Not quoted but summarized above) It's obviously a political campaign to try to unite the power of America to fight the Jewish enemies" "Bush behaved Jewishly (ideologically) - he is a supremacist, he was a tribalist, but he is not a Jew as far as I'm aware." Your use of catastrophe quote here was what was out of context!

• The other Gibson material might start turning into Coatrack, but if you feel it must be used it belongs in earlier section, not antisemitism, and in the proper context of Gibson's paragraph headings.

• This kind of obvious WP:edit warring on a BLP by someone with a strongly expressed POV is very much against wikipolicy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should be built on secondary sources. As I understand it, a direct quote from Atzmon is still a primary source even if it is taken out of a secondary source. There was a time when this article was built around one Atzmon quote after another. That is not encyclopedic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

if you truly believe these quotes shouldn't be in the article at all, why was your most recent revert to a version that contained many more of them out of context? untwirl(talk) 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Essay on using quotations

Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves. However, there are certain guidelines an editor should remember about quotations within Wikipedia.
The first thing to remember when using quotations within Wikipedia is that they must be sourced. In general, using three or more consecutive words from a source is a quotation. We do not want to plagiarize, so be sure to attribute it to the source. Quotes, especially those from living people, must be attributed properly. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time. However, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated. As a courtesy to other contributors, if removing a quotation, please say so on the article's talk page. Second, editors should try to work quotations into the body of the article, rather than in a stand-alone quote section. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote.
Similarly, quotations should always be presented with an introduction; a stand-alone quotation is not a proper paragraph. Quotations should be put in context and given any necessary explanation. As an editor, it is your responsibility to read the source of the quotation thoroughly, in order to prevent misrepresentation.
Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information.
So using quotations in context of what a sources says is fine and please point out if I have not done that and I'll correct it. Or contest specific places where too long of quotations are used. Replacing WP:RS info and properly conformed quotes with improperly jumbled ones to prove a WP:OR POV point - as both DrSmoo and MalcolmSchosha have done - is against policy. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Carol, as has been explained to you before, essays are not policy. Wikipedia:Quotations is an essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's anything wrong with the (corrected) guidelines, do tell. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol, as has been explained to you before, essays are not guidelines either. Wikipedia:Quotations is an essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll start a campaign so that all essays have essay in the title to avoid confusion. Thanks for the tip.

However, your "I've told you before" statements really are harassment, even if you could pull up the relevant diffs. Are you threatening some sanction in your administrative role? Feels like it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Secondary sources

According to WP:No original research

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, malcolm. you seem to have neglected to read further down where it says, " Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." untwirl(talk) 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The intent is very clear, and restated in this official WP policy guideline many times, that articles should be built on reliable secondary sources. In the case of this article, it is particularly important to take this approach in order to avoid previous problems this article has had with WP:SOAP. It is important that Atzmon's views be described in a neutral way, but there is no reason to give him WP as a soap box to advocate his ideas.

WP:SOAP says

Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, if you feel there are too many Atzmon quotes explaining some point that the WP:RS has made, say so. However, considering that you have not responded to Untwirl's complete analysis in Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#edit_warring_again.3F of why your own quotes, which I consider WP:OR/POV and not according to the source's meaning. So that is why some may consider it questionable when you complain that quotes properly included according to the sources meaning are WP:SOAP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not read Untwirl's over long edit. As for the use in the article of the disputed Atzmon quote, I think it might be better to remove it until an agreement is reached on it. Clearly, what is there now does not have secondary sourcing either. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

so, are you saying you shouldn't have reverted, and you think it's better to remove it? does that mean your revert was just to make a point? seems disruptive to me, especially since you are now saying none of these quotes should be used according to your definition of OR, SOAP, NPOV, and whatever else you can come up with. my "over long" post does not need to be read in its entirety to get the point. i bolded the quotes you reverted back in out of context. all you need to do is read your version and look at the actual context to see the gross misrepresentation thats going on. let me repeat, you restored a version with more quotes out of context. now complaining that you think its a primary source and shouldn't be used at all is completely inconsistent with your actual editing. untwirl(talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the disputed quote? And from what version? The one in accordance with the source or your WP:OR POV assemblage which I and Untwirl have complained is clear edit warring. I have asked you to revert back to the original version and then we can discuss which quote. If you do not do so it is further evidence IMHO of edit warring. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

edit warring again?

this is going to be a long post, but it will highlight some problems with the cherry-picking of the gibson article that misrepresents atzmon's responses by placing them out of context. first, let's compare the 2 paragraphs that are being used to represent this article:

dr smoo's:

In 2009, Atzmon referred to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" and stated "Im anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." In the same article, he claimed that "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." He also asks "these were the people who were meant to be the guards of humanity? No. They definitely maintained evil." Atzmon says he considers the concept of Judeo-Christian values "A joke. It's obviously a political campaign to try to unite the power of America to fight the Jewish enemies" He adds that "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." And that "Bush behaved Jewishly (ideologically) - he is a supremacist, he was a tribalist, but he is not a Jew as far as I'm aware."

(same on both versions in italics)[2] Noting that he is a secular Jew married to a Jewish woman and in a band with three Jews, he says: "I never attack Jews, I hardly criticise Judaism – I never criticise people for their beliefs. But I can criticise conduct."[2] Atzmon also labels the term “antisemitism” an empty signifier, holding that “criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.”[51] In response to criticisms he is “self-hating” he has said “I'm not only a self-hating Jew, I'm a proud self-hating Jew! When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza, Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also.”[6]

note:dr smoo and malcolm cut out the citation that shows that the paragraph in question is from gibson's article.

and carol's:

Atzmon and others have characterized these numerous charges of antisemitism as an attempt to silence his criticism of Israel and Zionism.[51][32][6] Atzmon states that the “anti-Semitic slur is a common Zionist silencing apparatus.”[52] He told an interviewer “every time somebody tries to silence me, I know it must be because I'm saying the right thing, pointing on evil...” and that he continues to speak out because "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."[6]

Atzmon denies he is an antisemite.[6]

(same on both versions in italics)[2] Noting that he is a secular Jew married to a Jewish woman and in a band with three Jews, he says: "I never attack Jews, I hardly criticise Judaism – I never criticise people for their beliefs. But I can criticise conduct."[2] Atzmon also labels the term “antisemitism” an empty signifier, holding that “criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.”[53] In response to criticisms he is “self-hating” he has said “I'm not only a self-hating Jew, I'm a proud self-hating Jew! When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza, Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also.”[6]

Atzmon was invited to debate Denis MacShane and David Aaronovitch on the topic of antisemitism at 2009 Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival.[54][55]

now, let's put all of the quotes from the gibson article in context and in order; all of the quotes used in dr smoo's (and by proxy, malcolm's) version are bolded:

-world renowned saxophonist, author of 2 novels

-left israel after idf service convinced him that, "Israel had become a racist, militarised state that was a danger to world peace."

-he believes the Gaza war (and other "atrocities" committed by Israel) are supported by "Jewish people around the world."

-he believes that speaking out is risky - he could be targeted by Mossad

-People attempt to silence him with accusations of anti-semitism. "I wish I could shut myself up and not care, but every time somebody tries to silence me, I know it must be because I'm saying the right thing, pointing on evil, on the core of evil." "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." (and immediately after this statement) "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."

-"The difference between me and 99 percent of Jews on this planet is that I do not believe they have the right to a state," and "considering the crimes they committed since the state was born, along with the murderous extravaganza of the past weeks, not only do they not have the right to a state, the state should be dismantled immediately before they turn our planet into a fireball."

-he believes that, "stupidly we interpreted the Nazi defeat as a vindication of the Jewish ideology and the Jewish people." and in fact, ""The Nazis were indeed . . . evil. They did things that were disastrously inhuman and unacceptable. But this doesn't mean the Jewish ideology is correct, because in fact Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar."

-he believes that there is less justification for vilifying the german people for letting nazi atrocities happen than there is for "sitting idly by while the mess in the Middle East grows progressively more brutal," because the german people were themselves victims of tyranny and "democracies from America and Britain that launched an illegal invasion of Iraq which has killed two million Iraqis."

-he believes that "in Israel, 80 to 93 percent of people support this genocide of the Palestinian people, and by the way, the Israeli state is a theological state so it is in the name of the Jewish people."

-he believes that, after what jews went through with the holocaust that they should be "very reflective and very, very careful" in opposing racism. he says, ""Not only was this not the case, but three years after the liberation of Auschwitz they were ethnically cleansing the population from Palestine and their brutality is now far more obvious, manifested, celebrated. "They're living in a ghetto in the Middle East. They're threatening the entire region with their idiotic nuclear bombs. They're throwing their white phosphorus on civilians. "Gaza looks like a place that was nuked, and these are the people who are supposed to be the victim, and the bodyguard of humanity?"

-he says he can now understand "the anger of people towards Israel," in regards to actions like, "driv(ing) with tanks over innocent people, to see their houses demolished. To see babies cling for days to their dead mothers because Israeli armed forces don't allow the UN to come and rescue them, and these were the people who were meant to be the guards of humanity? No. They definitely maintained evil."

-"Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew" (this quote by the author, not atzmon)

-in context, the "i'm a proud self-hating jew" remark is followed by, ""When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also. "Why? Because of growing up in this kind of racist, nationalist, tribalist, chauvinist, supremacist society - and this is exactly what they stood up against."

-"While anxious to avoid comparing himself to these men, he thinks like them" he sees himself as, "a person who is indoctrinated into hatred and finds a way to start to love."

-speaking on the term judeo-christian he says, ""What is the difference between Jews and Christians theoretically? Christians are basically Jews who love their neighbour, so they are committed to the universal concept of humanity, whereas Judaism is tribalism." The word Judeo-Christian is an artificial construct, he says. "It's a joke. A joke. It's obviously a political campaign to try to unite the power of America to fight the Jewish enemies, because if the Americans are convinced that there is Judeo-Christian, so then the enemies are the Muslims."

-commenting on the gaza conflict, he says, "The rockets launched into Israel do not justify the killing of 1000 Palestinians in Gaza over the past few weeks, he says.

"My view on the rockets is very, very simple. The Palestinian people are ethnically cleansed. The majority of people living in Gaza were ethnically cleansed from Palestine, the place that is now momentarily called Israel.

"The rockets are hardly dangerous. I think in eight years they have managed to kill six people, yeah?

"The rockets are almost a peaceful message to the Israelis telling them: 'In case you don't realise it yet, you are living on my stolen land'.

"You can send a message in a bottle, and you can send a message in a rocket, but the Israelis are not yet ready to acknowledge there won't be peace in the region as long as they are sitting on Palestinian stolen land."

- he says that instead of making sure the west bank and gaza flourished, "They starved them! What do they expect anyone to do? And who is the one who comes to the aid of the oppressed? Not America, not Britain, not France - (Iranian leader)Ahmadinejad. There are plenty of Iranians who are not happy about this, but he is a humanist, and so is Hugo Chavez." and that the "Western world . . . is just obsessed with hegemony and control of energy resources."

-he says he is suspicious of obama (as having zionist leanings) but wants to give him a chancebecause he believes obama is "ethically concerned, and this is something that didn't happen in America for many years." "He wants to amend the damage caused by those Jewish political strategies such as Neoconservatism, such as the sub-prime mortgage crisis that was led by Alan Greenspan"

-and here is the "bush behaved jewishly quote in context: "Alan Greenspan's job was to create a financial boom so America's people were not concerned with the tactics used in the Middle East.

"It should have worked but it didn't work because the all-American boom was done at the expense of the most deprived Americans, and they just couldn't pay the mortgages so it all collapsed.

"It's not only Jews that have adopted this world view either. Bush behaved Jewishly (ideologically) - he is a supremacist, he was a tribalist, but he is not a Jew as far as I'm aware."

"Even in Christianity, this tendency to go Old Testament - into tribalism, into supremacy, into violence, into shock and awe . . . . This is something we have to fight against."

carol's version is definitely more representative of the sources. dr smoo's versions picks quotes completely out of context and strings them together. perhaps, the next step in dispute resolution is necessary since smoo and malcolm have come back here immediately to edit war as soon as their blocks expired. untwirl(talk) 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for that analysis. It's a shame it was necessary! CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a worthless post, we've all read the article, Carol's edit removes most of the antisemitic statements in order to make a point which jives with her theory that its impossible to be an antisemitie as long as you hate the Jewish state too. The only interesting thing in your post quite frankly is your conspiracy theory that Malcolm and I are working together, which is not only a ridiculous assertion, but particularly comical being that there is consensus in these discussions, and yet it is the two of you, along with RD232 previously, who continue to revert the article to your versions despite consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

huh? there is consensus to cherrypick quotes out of context (and remove sourcing) and list them as 'proof' that he's an antisemite? your imaginary consensus doesn't trump wp:blp. i didnt say you and malcolm were "working together." i said "by proxy," referring to the fact that malcolm reverted directly back to your version which was out of context and dropped the gibson cite completely. and i also remarked on the fact that you both were recently blocked (you for 3rr on this article and malcolm for calling people antisemites) and then returned here to edit war yet again. our job here is not to pick quotes that either prove or disprove that he is antisemitic. presenting his views in context along with criticisms and his rebuttals should be enough to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. you cannot disregard the conditions or explanations he puts with his statements without breaking blp policy. untwirl(talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not call anyone an antisemite, I just claimed that a high percentage editing in this area are. This is the edit from the arbcom case discussion that got me (unfairly) blocked:

Concerning antisemitism, from my point of view Nishidani's suggestion ("If there are anti-Semites in the I/P area, I think you should get your evidence together and make a case before arbitration, as it is an extremely serious charge...") is complete nonsense. It seems to me that, in the context of WP, accusations of antisemitism against users are a special case of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is troubling to deal with antisemitic dicks but (speaking for myself) it is something that I learned to live with. The suggestion that the problem could be settled by an arbcom case shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what antisemitism is, and how Jews cope with the problem of antisemitism.

The garden variety antisemite does not wish that he/she could have been in charge of the gas chamber at Auschwitz. They are just people who do not like Jews, who may occasionally make snide remarks, and show a general pervasive attitude of dismissiveness and disrespect. My personal view is that probably 90-100% of the users who initiated this arbcom case, and who support it, are in that category. Fighting back that level of antisemitism, which is so common, would be like fighting back the tide; and although Jews might complain about it, they virtually never try to make any kind of case -- with formal charges -- about it. Its just one of life's crummy annoyances. Getting rid of the average antisemite, would be like trying to get rid of the average dick: unfortunately hopeless.

I think what I wrote is accurate, and would not hesitate to repeat the same anyplace. I have never had any contact with the user who accused me of insulting him, and it is hard it see why it was thought I insulted a user I did not know existed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

malcolm - whether you stand behind this statement or not, it was deemed a blockable personal attack by an admin and repeating it here is asking for trouble. i strongly suggest you remove it, or user:sandstein may be informed of your continued disregard for policy. untwirl(talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has become a massive apology for Gilad Atzmon as well as a blatant whitewash of his actual statements

Despite consensus being reached numerous times, the article continues to be whitewashed, with quotes being pulled out of context. Claims that Atzmon is being "silenced" are put into the article as if they were facts, his antisemitic rhetoric is put into a context of anti-zionism that exists in Atzmon's writings in the same way that anti-zionist rhetoric exists in the writings of the KKK grandwizard. His most blatant antisemitic statements are either removed entirely (Bush behaved Jewishly, Nazism a Jewish ideology etc) or placed into a a completely non existent context, such as how his statement that Judaism is leading the world into a catastrophe is conveniently hidden away under a section of rebuttals against antisemitic statements and accusations which have already been removed from the article, as opposed to being front and center in the antisemitism section. This article continues to be primarily edited by Atzmon's biggest supporters, (also coincidentally having imagery like this http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/nuclearstar.gif emblazoned on a website) who seek to defend Atzmon by turning his antisemitic statements (and they ARE undeniably antisemitic, it IS a fact, not an opinion) into some kind of pale boring political statement, either by removing the statements altogether or hiding them away under his rebuttals in completely nonsensical contexts. Let's be honest when editing this article, aside from his few radical supporters, there is a consensus in anti-zionist circles, pro zionist circles, socialist circles, and right wing circles that Atzmon's writings are antisemitic. He has been censured as much by anti-zionists as he has been censured by zionists. The only place in which there is not a clear consensus of opinion regarding Atzmon is on this article which has been dominated by his biggest supporters.Drsmoo (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The article should describe Atzmon's views, only up to the point they are notable. The article should not be used as a platform allowing him (through excessive direct quotes) to use WP as a platform to promote his anti-Zionist and antisemitic views. Doing that violates WP:SOAP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's appalling. Wikipedia would never allow white supremacists to turn a David Duke page into a platform, and it shouldn't happen here, either. The page has gotten progressively worse, with repeated violations of NOR and NPOV. THF (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

to quote you from a similar blp issue:" The reason we then go to the primary source is to give Steyn a chance to defend himself by appropriately putting his words in context so that the article isn't twisted by Fisk's tendentious reading. You seem to be concerned that the result will make Steyn look bad, but it's only going to look bad to Fisk partisans wearing blinders. Everyone else is going to chuckle." this same reasoning applies here, with atzmon being given " chance to defend himself by appropriately putting his words in context." untwirl(talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. You insist certain quotes be in there. WP:BLP insists quotes be used in context as used by the source. This results in a long listing of his views which you then call a white wash." You can't accept that WP:RS don't see it the way you personally see it.#No consensus has ever been reached as anyone reading this talk page can read. Three editors who have constantly claimed the subject and/or other editors are antisemites keep working to make the article show Atzmon as an antisemite, even if it violates the accuracy of sources and context of quotes. This is easily proved and is against the Israel-Palestine arbitration.
2. It is harassment to search the internet for evidence that people have some view that is a bias. Only through harassment and baiting did I give one of many opinions I have on Atzmon here. My main goal is to NOT see Wikipedia abused by partisans.
3. If you want to have an argument about what the consensus in the world is, first please quote the appropriate wikipedia policy on determining that and applying it here. Then we debate what relevance it has to the article and whether sources use prove that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC

Thanks Untwirl for quoting that excellent statement from User:THF applied to another article. Hopefully he will lose his POV enough to realize it also applies here. THF/DrSmoo/Malcolm yell whitewash if you don't include the quotes and then whitewash if you try to use them properly per a WP:RS source or to allow the subject to defend himself, if necessarily through a primary source. (ie "Damned if you do damned if you don't.") That mostly has not even been necessary here since he's been mostly quoted by an interviewer in some context, like two interviewers stating that others have attempted to silence him: What else do you call physical protests that try to or successfully stop speeches and concerts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

personal attack discussion

Drsmoo's personal attack above on Carolmooredc is unwarranted, and I urge him/her to remove it. Any comments or images Carol may have on her personal website are entirely beside the point here; and I have seen no evidence that she is one of "Atzmon's biggest supporters". Even if she were, this would no more, in itself, invalidate her edits here than does my entirely opposite view of Atzmon. Please discuss the issue, not the editor.

I disagree with Carol's interpretation of the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboatd, but in line with advice there, I will not at present reinsert the AbuKhalil quote. It would help if, rather than engaging in petty personal attacks here, other editors contribute to the discussion on the noticeboard, in order that a clear consensus can be identified. RolandR (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Explain why this paragraph is not WP:OR QuoteFarm Misuse Primary Source?

The issues of using primary and secondary sources properly and not in a WP:OR quotefarm edit warring way have been discussed in the sections: "Using 3 recent WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR"; "Please revert redundant, WP:OR edits" and "Wikipolicy on using quotations"; "Secondary sources"; and "edit warring again?" DrSmoo refuses to engage in discussion about these, insults editors, and just keeps reverting in the same POV WP:OR manner putting a bunch of Primary Source quotes in the "allegations of antisemtism" article that only are Your allegations. Can there be any justification for this, wikipedia policy wise??

In 2009, Atzmon referred to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" and stated "Im anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." In the same article, he claimed that "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." He also asks "these were the people who were meant to be the guards of humanity? No. They definitely maintained evil." Atzmon says he considers the concept of Judeo-Christian values "A joke. It's obviously a political campaign to try to unite the power of America to fight the Jewish enemies" He adds that "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." And that "Bush behaved Jewishly (ideologically) - he is a supremacist, he was a tribalist, but he is not a Jew as far as I'm aware." He stated that "the notions of: ”Jewish people”, ”Jewish history” and ”Jewish nationalism”' were invented "In the late 19th century" He added "I categorically refrain from dealing with ”the Jews” as a collective or an ethnic group. Instead I restrict myself to criticism of Jewish politics, Jewish ideology and Jewish identity." He stated that the "Jewish form of secularity" is "supremacist, it is extremely intolerant of others in general" He added "In an ideal (free) world, we may as well be allowed to wonder how come, time after time, Jews ended up despised and detested by their neighbours." Regarding Antisemitism, Atzmon stated "in the old days, antisemites were those who didn’t like Jews, nowadays, antisemites are those the Jews don’t like." Commenting on what he perceives as the essences of Jewish identity, Atzmon wrote, "Chicken Soup- is what is left once you strip Jewish identity of Judaism, racism, chauvinism, White Phosphorous, supremacy, cluster bombs, secularity, Zionism, Israel, intolerance, Nuclear reactor in Dimona, cosmopolitanism, genocidal tendency, etc." In his article "Hatred has turned him into a Jew - Deconstructing Nick Cohen" Atzmon writes "I at first tended to interpret Cohen’s declaration as an acknowledgment that it was the loathing towards others which he finds in himself that made him into a Jew. I was obviously wrong." Atzmon added "As we noticed many times before, it is always someone or something else that transforms the ‘innocent’, ‘atheist’, ‘cosmopolitan’, ‘secularist’, ‘egalitarian’ person into a ‘Jew’." Aztmon continues further "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." Regaring Cohen's Jewishness, Atzmon writes "He possesses all the elementary ideological ingredients, he differentiates the value of people’s ideas based on the colour of their skin. He promotes war as a valid resolution to international problems. Yes, he may not be religious at this stage of his article. But surely most of those who follow the Jewish ideology have nothing to do with Judaism either." Atzmon continues further "we are left with no other option but to expect some growing resentment towards Israel, the Jewish state and Jewish interests in general." Repeating a previous statement, Atzmon says "without justifying any violent act whatsoever, the reasoning behind resentment towards Israel and Jews is rational." Atzmon views Cohen's increasing self identification as jewish as having "reverted to judaism."

It's editwarring at its worst. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't personally attack you, I merely linked to your page and stated that you are a huge supporter of Gilad Atzmon. How is that an attack? ADditionally the argument presented on this article is that one cannot include a blatantly anti semitic quote by Atzmon, such as ""In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." This is a statement which belongs in the antisemitism section. I also trimmed down the section Drsmoo (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You linked to one page and referred to another, which information you could only find by doing internet searches on me. That is defacto "outing" and harassment in my opinion. Also claiming I have the POV of "huge supporter" when your only evidence is one of many personal opinions I was baited into sharing and my attempt to go by wiki policies, is hostile editing.

It's no different than if, for example, I were to keep harping on certain facts on User:Malcolm_Schosha's page as evidence of his POV, which neither I nor anyone else has.

I don't remember seeing or using the phrase "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." but it only belongs in "allegations" of antisemitism if it IS one or if it is part of a response by Atzmon, as determined by a WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not Malcolm Schosha, do not infer that I am. Drsmoo (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also in that case we should retitle the allegations of anti-semitism section. First the views section was removed, and replaced with the anti-semitism section. Now you are suggesting that quotes should be removed from the anti-semitism section if they are not outside allegations. In that case where would they be put? Therefore, the section detailing his anti-semitism should certainly include the statements that have garnered him his reputation.Drsmoo (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously in Mentioning Malcolm I was making the point that harassing people because you learn about some POV (like any one might read on another editor's talk page or searching their name on the internet) is wrong. I haven't done it. You have.

The redundant "Views" section title was removed since the first three paragraphs also were about his views/politics. However "Allegations of Antisemitism and responses" is clearly a different topic.

Also, again in your latest edits you have Misused primary sources and I'll correct it (as other editors have before). I'll also bring your latest effort to WP:BLPN because you obviously need encouragement to not place Your allegations of antisemitism in there, i.e., by quoting things You think are antisemitic, as opposed to what sources say are. Don't you get it? I was wrong to do it a month ago to explain his view points-especially when there are lots of WP:RS that do. You are wrong to do it now to explain why YOU think he's an antisemite. Maybe someone at WP:BLPN can explain it to you in such a way you will finally understand it, since obviously several of us have not been able to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol, contrary to your protests, I was not even reprimanded. Administrators found nothing wrong with my behavior. You are the one engaging in personal attacks, and you should stop doing it immediately. There is nothing redundant about those quotes whatsoever and they should be in the article. I will put them in the politics section. Drsmoo (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain Unbalanced, WP:OR and Too Short tags or they can be removed

• User:THF put up unbalanced but his only complaint about unbalanced - that Article didn't say Atzmon says antisemitism doesn't exist was proved to be false, since he says it is an "empty signifier" and that's in article. Don't speak for other editors (since one's with differing opinions have at different times called it unbalanced for different reasons), only for yourself and your issues.
• WP:OR - User:THF, please explain or remove tag.
• Too short: User: THF, what is missing? It's been a while since this was discussed and there have been a lot of changes to body of article. What specifically do you want to see? If you don't enlighten us in talk, we can remove tags. Thanks CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed WP:OR and Too Short tags since they were not explained. Left in unbalanced as long as people keep trying to put out of context quotes in for POV purposes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with today's edits (04/06)

More specifically regarding: this diff and this diff. Note that you have to fix another reference you messed up. A number of changes were useful or innocuous. You did remove your personal POV of what is antisemitic in the allegations section. However the problem remains you continue to violate policy in other ways, evidently to prove your POV that Atzmon is an antisemite, as opposed to being accused of being one.
1. Here in bold - against WP:RS - you start with a Primary source when there are three secondary sources which should be mentioned first, with primary sources only a back up. And such long explanations belong in the responses section, from which you removed them. Why the compulsion to put long explanations up front?

Some of his comments have led to accusations of antisemitism and holocaust denial, which he denies, labeling the term “antisemitism” as an empty signifier, holding that “criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.”REF:Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who?,

2. Here you show your obvious POV where (crossed out) you delete his explanation of why he believes Israel is driving the world to catastrophe - its brutal use of bad weapons. Certainly a major point of his. Do we need more quotes to prove it?

He believes that Israel’s attacks “grow progressively more brutal” as they use white phosphorus on civilians and threaten the region with their nuclear weapons.

3. Here you have removed part of his quote thereby misrepresenting what he says earlier:

Atzmon writes he does not criticize "the Jews" as an ethnic group, but "Jewish politics, Jewish ideology and Jewish identity."

4. Again per: Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#edit_warring_again.3F you have removed these quotes from the WP:RS Gibson's actual context of commentary and put them together in you own WP:OR compilation. Please read that talk section to understand what you are doing wrong. It will have to be corrected again. And, of course, for some reason you bring up his denying antisemitism again though it belongs in the next section in the relevant paragraph from which you removed it.

Atzmon has referred to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" and stated "Im anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." He claims that "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." In response to allegations of anti-semitism, Atzmon has responded that he carries on because "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."

Needless to say it's a lot easier to make all these inexplicable changes than to have to explain why many of them are against policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo replies

More specifically regarding: this diff and this diff. Note that you have to fix another reference you messed up. A number of changes were useful or innocuous. You did remove your personal POV of what is antisemitic in the allegations section. However the problem remains you continue to violate policy in other ways, evidently to prove your POV that Atzmon is an antisemite, as opposed to being accused of being one.
1. Here in bold - against WP:RS - you start with a Primary source when there are three secondary sources which should be mentioned first, with primary sources only a back up. And such long explanations belong in the responses section, from which you removed them. Why the compulsion to put long explanations up front?

There is no reason not to, it makes the article flow better, and it makes more sense, there is no reason for any secondary sources to be mentioned before primary sources. Drsmoo (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of his comments have led to accusations of antisemitism and holocaust denial, which he denies, labeling the term “antisemitism” as an empty signifier, holding that “criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.”REF:Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who?,

2. Here you show your obvious POV where (crossed out) you delete his explanation of why he believes Israel is driving the world to catastrophe - its brutal use of bad weapons. Certainly a major point of his. Do we need more quotes to prove it?

He believes that Israel’s attacks “grow progressively more brutal” as they use white phosphorus on civilians and threaten the region with their nuclear weapons.

The issue was that your edit showed your POV as you stated Atzmon's opinion as a fact, which it is not, and not even as Atzmon's opinion, but as an actual fact. This has no place in an encyclopedia article. Drsmoo (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Here you have removed part of his quote thereby misrepresenting what he says earlier:

Atzmon writes he does not criticize "the Jews" as an ethnic group, but "Jewish politics, Jewish ideology and Jewish identity."

Yes, that quote is important and should be in the article Drsmoo (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Again per: Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#edit_warring_again.3F you have removed these quotes from the WP:RS Gibson's actual context of commentary and put them together in you own WP:OR compilation. Please read that talk section to understand what you are doing wrong. It will have to be corrected again. And, of course, for some reason you bring up his denying antisemitism again though it belongs in the next section in the relevant paragraph from which you removed it.

Incorrect, I placed them in the same context that they appear in in the article, which is a response to allegations of anti-semitism.

Atzmon has referred to himself as a "proud self-hating Jew" and stated "Im anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." He claims that "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." In response to allegations of anti-semitism, Atzmon has responded that he carries on because "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."

Needless to say it's a lot easier to make all these inexplicable changes than to have to explain why many of them are against policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

None of my edits were at all against policy in any way shape or form. Your edits stated opinions as facts in order to create a certain POV. Drsmoo (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Point 1: If an editor contests the use of primary sources before secondary sources, they should be used, including in the Nick Cohen article which doesn't even bother to mention that Nick Cohen was the one who made the statement in question - total misrepresentation! If you want to stick those quotes in, you have to have full context. Make up your mind.
  • You haven't answered my question about why you need 3 lengthy denials of antisemitism - is it for POV purposes to keep bringing the subject up? Must be cut back to brief mention in intro and all relevant quotes in the response to allegations section.
  • You take this out of the beginning of a paragraph, sticking it in at the end: "Atzmon denies he is an antisemite." as an after thought - removing one reference. Looks pretty POV.
• Point 2: I don't have a problem with inserting "he thinks" - it's not being there is not excuse for removing an important point that he's made frequently in many places (about Israel's illegal weapons/nukes/WMDs) and will be reinserted.
• Point 3': You evidently misrepresent what I said. I complained you removed "the Jews" as an ethnic group, but since you didn't put it back you seem to be inferring I do NOT want "Jewish politics, Jewish ideology and Jewish identity" which is not true. Please explain.
• Point 4: See reply to Untwirl. Again, the strong POV comes from those who have expressed repeatedly over and over in negative comments about the subject and other editors that the article must be written to stamp him an antisemite, not from those who think we should let the sources speak accurately - including permitting his opinions to be voiced, esp. where editors insist certain quotes be used - and let people decide for themselves.

Refusal to contest any point will be considered your agreeing with that point. ;-)

Assuming that the editors no long are going to being calling other editors antisemites, what is the best avenue for dispute resolution besides WP:NPOVN after I show how these long series of insults have made it clear how Drsmoo's recent edits have only one goal - to POV push Atzmon as an antisemite.CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl replies

in regard to point 2, if the white phosphorus and nuclear statement is going to be included it must be attributed either with quotes or "he believes." i agree with smoo on this one point: we shouldn't state his opinion as fact, even if many people believe it. the same standard applies for stating as fact labels of antisemitism to atzmon: even if many people believe it, we don't state it as a fact.

point4, however, you are incorrect about the context. "he has referred to himself as a "proud self-hating jew"" is misleading when taken out of the context of and in defense of being called one and leaving out his remarks about humanism. as far as the other statements, this is the actual context:

People attempt to silence him with accusations of anti-semitism. "I wish I could shut myself up and not care, but every time somebody tries to silence me, I know it must be because I'm saying the right thing, pointing on evil, on the core of evil." "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews." (and immediately after this statement) "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." untwirl(talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

For clarification, this is the context for the quote included in the Gisborne Herald article "Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew", but this does not bother Gilad Atzmon.

"I'm not only a self-hating Jew, I'm a proud self-hating Jew!

"When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also.

"Why? Because of growing up in this kind of racist, nationalist, tribalist, chauvinist, supremacist society." I don't think there is anything out of context about the use of this statement in the article. Drsmoo (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

the best summary of his response to acusations of antisemitism here would be "In response to accusations of antisemitism, Atzmon has said, "They try to call me an anti-Semite, I'm not an anti-Semite. I've got nothing against the Semite people, I don't have anything against people - I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews. I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop." —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) untwirl(talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Agreed, and added your suggestion to my edit. Drsmoo (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>
Just to reply to Untwirl here, with replies to Drsmoo to follow above...

• point 2: No problem with making explicit "he believes" which I thought was implicit.
• point 4: One can get a headache sorting it all out which makes it easier to claim that one agrees when one is just going about one's POV business. So perhaps the bottom line must remain combating certain editors' extremely strong POV to prove Atzmon is an antisemite (and to intimidate other editors with similar accusations).

I think any NPOV Wikipedia editor will give an ex-Israel ex-IDF Jewish masters in philosophy and artist a lot of room to express his inner angst and criticism of his own religion and former country, as amply described in WP:RS publications. They won't keep twisting them to make him look bad in a very POV pushing way, bullying other editors with accusations like here; here, here; here; here; here; : here, here, here, Here and here, to name a few examples. But maybe it's back to WP:NPOVN, noting these POV abuses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

These are far and away the most in context his quotes have ever been on this article. Drsmoo (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The context can be corrected if the quotes are put in the right place and not in two places they don't belong in the Politics section. Otherwise you are nonresponsive to the POV issue directly above or my questions in your section above. So I guess you agree with my proposed corrections? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to all your suggestions. The quotes are perfectly in context and I have full confidence any mod or administrator would agree. It's better to let the quotes speak for themselves than butter them up. Drsmoo (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't, so I assume you have no problem with the ones you didn't comment on. In any case in near future I'll make the changes to make article more NPOV in accordance with BLP and bring the change to WP:BLPN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of Nick Cohen-related quote BLP violation of Self-Pub source attacking others

As with the Angry Arab quote attacking Atzmon, there are several problems with the Atzmon article criticizing/attacking Nick Cohen for writing an article called "Hatred is turning me into a Jew." Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source says "Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:...2. it does not involve claims about third parties."

• Atzmons' title of the article - ""Hatred has turned him into a Jew - Deconstructing Nick Cohen" - used in the text of the article yet - attacks Cohen, even if he is just paraphrasing Cohen's own words.
• The title used as a reference attacks Cohen
• Most of the article involves claims about/criticism of/attacks on Cohen
• The cherry picked quote is taken out of context but what is the context? Attacking Cohen.
• The cherry picked quote obviously is there for the POV reason of making Atzmon look bad without providing context of his saying that Cohen is allowed to attack people but other people are kept out of the country for such bigotry; but proper context would be a BLP violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree, feel free to say so. I'll delete the anon IP revert obnoxiously claiming vandalism soon; doesn't count towards 3rr of course :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think any quote which does not cast Atzmon in a purely positive light is cherry picking and should be removed. The majority of editors on this page agre more with my edits. Drsmoo (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

what makes you think deleting it will not count toward 3RR? It is not vandalism, but a good faith edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is a clear violation, it doesn't count to 3rr. It is an interesting BLP problem which I'll bring to appropriate place. In meantime, let's make sure the quote reflects when Atzmon really said, which is a definite BLP issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering it's a direct quote, I don't think you're going to find people who will disagree that it's what he said Drsmoo (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but his context was that Cohen is a racist, and that he's allowed to say racist things that other racists are NOT allowed to get away with. It may be an obnoxious point, but if you are going to use it, you have to use it in context. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, his context was that Jews are racist. Something he has said in many forms. Reverting POV edits and non good faith editing Drsmoo (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you think that the quotes are out of context find someone who agrees with you, because the consensus in editing certainly does not. Drsmoo (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>

First, obviously if you have editors accusing other editors of antisemitism as was done so frequently above, of course you are going to drive them away, and a consensus obtained by driving away other editors hardly counts.

Second, as usual you ignore my main point: 'Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source says "Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:...2. it does not involve claims about third parties."

Third, only if NPOV allow the quote as an exception to the rule that you cannot use self-published claims about a third party (that Cohen is a racist) in an article, would I argue the necessity of includng Atzmon's view that Cohen thinks its OK for his group to engage in it but wrong for everyone else and that Atzmon things its wrong for everyone.

Finally is there any possibility you will reply on the Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source issue? Feigned incomprehension is a violation of civility too, you know ;-) Therefore rather than discussing the issue we end up with your reverting things that I think any neutral admin will say violate BLP policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has accused you of anti semitism,I merely linked to your page may be that was unnecessary. No one was "Driven away" in the way you describe. If the moderators decide that there is an issue with the content in this article than it should be changed, at the moment, no moderators have agreed with you that there are problems with the article. Right now there is a consensus that the article is good. Drsmoo (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

General statements about white washing and possible antisemitism have been made in general about all the editors who argued for an NPOV article. The other thing that drives people away is editors who just make changes, ignore all criticisms and refuse to engage in constructive discussion. As in Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Almost_giving_up above.

Also, just because no one else is commenting today, doesn't mean that my specific criticisms of policy violations are wrong; and even if three people agreed with you, it wouldn't mean they were right and won't be seen as being against policy. There was no consensus to make your changes and there is none for me not to make them per policy. And consensus must be based on working within wiki policies, not violating them. That's why we bring in neutral editors to deal with violations.

Finally, if I wasn't going by wiki policy I would have no problem with expanding what Atzmon says to make the context clear that he thinks Nick Cohen is a racist, and stick in the Cohen article too. But I do think it is against policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no wiki policy violations on this page whatsoever, the mods have agreed with the editors on this. Drsmoo (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who the mods are, but this specific issue still be explored and dealt with. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But maybe I'm wrong

Since Drsmoo finally agree with me above, AFTER I put the material, in I will strike my change only from this section, leaving his original statement for context

So here's the context of what Atzmon says and here is my shorter summary. Feel free to tweak the summary - do not gut the in context content:

ATZMON: Noticeably, when writing to Jews, Cohen allows himself to employ the most racist ideas and expressions. “As long as the conspiracy theories of the counter-enlightenment come from ideologues with dark rather than white skins, nominally liberal men and women will not speak out.” Someone should remind the Observer columnist that ideologies do not have ‘skin’ and ideologues cannot choose the colour of their skin either. Hence, referring to ideologues with dark skin is far beyond bigotry. It is racism per se. And yet, Cohen will get away with it because he is ‘Kosher’ as he himself admitted. In contemporary Britain a Dutch right-wing racist MP is deported for making a film, yet a racist can be a prominent columnist for the Observer. This is actually a good thing. It is probably the last remnant of Britain’s legendary liberalism. In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory. You might want to ask yourself why we stop a Dutch MP yet we let Melanie Philips and Nick Cohen celebrate their symptoms on paper. One possible answer is that we expect a Dutch Christian to be a Humanist, yet we allow the racially orientated tribal campaigner to be a racist bigot. We expect them to advocate wars, we expect them to refer to people’s skin and colour.

Of importance is the fact that Melanie Philips, who has nothing to do with the article, is also Jewish, the language of "tribal" also references Atzmon's consistent language when describing Jews. As is the reference to Cohen being "Kosher" Infact, the quote itself "Jews only territory" is what is important, he is referring to all Jews, he has said Racism is Jewish only, not Nick Cohen onlu. In addition, the is in light of the suggestions made by Wikidemon who says "The quote in question is "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory". He did write that, didn't he? It's hardly a BLP violation against Atzmon to repeat what he said. But I agree that it should either be put in context or not included at all. Provocative words, out of context, confuse more than they enlighten. But what basis is there for putting it in context? I could find no reliable sources that comment on what he meant by that, only an analysis of his own words. Trying to explain it, with reference to his own piece, is a form of original research. We're supposed to simply report on what the sources say, not conduct an analysis of them. Oh, and regarding the BLP vio against Nick Cohen, that's unavoidable because it's in the title. One partial solution, which might be a bit awkward, is to avoid repeating that title in the body of the article. If it must be repeated inline as an attribution you could say something like "In an opinion piece written in 2009,[cite] Atzmon..." But to repeat the above point, and after reading both Cohen's and Atzmon's editorials, those can't really be used at all without a third party trying to explain them. Trying to sift through opposing partisans' incendiary essays to figure out which way the flames are flying really does seem like original research. "- Wikidemon

I agree with Wikidemon that the best course going forward is to include the quote, by itself, the quote which refers to Jews as a whole, and also ties in directly with similar statements Atzmon has made.Drsmoo (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

:ARTICLE: Atzmon criticizes British columnist Nick Cohen's Jewish Chronicle article "Hatred is turning me into a Jew" where Cohen writes "As long as the conspiracy theories of the counter-enlightenment come from ideologues with dark rather than white skins, nominally liberal men and women will not speak out." Believing this to be an apology for Jewish racism, Atzmon writes "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory."REF: Nick Cohen ETC, Gilad Atzmon ETC. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed information regarding Nick Cohen, it is against Wikipedia rules, and Atzmon's comment is in reference to all Jews, not simply Cohen, so it does not need Cohen's statements to be in context. Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Per the above recitation of wiki policy that is wrong. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP Supports repeated deletion of material

I have given you ample opportunity to agree with me that that material was against BLP. But you wait til after I make the edit. More cooperative editing appreciated.

WP:BLP READS:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: ...WP:Neutral point of view...We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] This supports repeated deletion of this material.

Do I have to make a separate section to quote all your POV statements showing your strong prejudice against the subject of the article so there will be no doubt that it is your goal to take things out of context to make him look bad. I will find an administrator who will deal with your clear biased violation of policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, the consensus on this article does not now and has never agreed with you, and the moderators who you regularly threaten me through do not agree with you. I am not intimidated by your "threats" as you are on the wrong side of the POV issue Drsmoo (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually no one besides Wikidemon has commented on this specific issue. And there was a consensus NOT to use Self-PUblished Atzmon quotes unless they were necessary to make some point a 3rd party made - and then preferably in self-defense. Have you forgotten the "cherry picking" complaints?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A compromise avoiding BLP issues

If Wikidemon thinks this is acceptable I will go with it, at least til some other editor agrees that it is an all or nothing proposition using Atzmon's Nick Cohen article - also replacing two deleted quotes with a summary. Note summary does not directly make claims about Cohen, just quotes him before using Atzmon's larger generalization. So there is at least some context. Does WikiDemon have a thought on this?

Atzmon extends his criticism of Israel to Zionism and Judaism, including through philosophical texts on Jewish identity discussed by the likes of Noam Chomsky. Atzmon says the military experience of “my people destroying other people left a big scar” and led to his condemnation of “Jewishness” as "very much a supremacist, racist tendency". Atzmon has asked “How is it that people who have suffered so much and for so long can inflict so much pain on the other?” and questions ‘How can Zionists, who are motivated by a genuine desire to return, be so blind when it comes to the very similar Palestinian desire?” He also has criticized statements like Nick Cohen's "As long as the conspiracy theories of the counter-enlightenment come from ideologues with dark rather than white skins, nominally liberal men and women will not speak out.” He charges "In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory."REF: Gilad Atzmon, Hatred Has Turned Him into a Jew, Palestine Think Tank, March 7, 2009. and REF:Nick Cohen, Hatred is turning me into a Jew, The Jewish Chronicle. February 12, 2009

Bringing to WP:RSN and Editor Assistance; don't revert meanwhile

I am making a good faith effort to get some NPOV on the WP:BLP, WP:RS issues the Cohen article quote brings up. In the meantime WP:BLP says such controversial material should be removed in the article. Drsmoo keeps putting back it in, probably 1/2 dozen times by now. Drsmoo has been warned here:

This recent talk page comment is problematic. In my honest opinion, you are being unnecessarily confrontational. Have a look at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles, you should be engaging in a calm, reasonable and courteous discussion in an effort to resolve the disagreement in a dignified fashion, with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Also, note that revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. If these problems persist then a topic ban could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert the Cohen article sentence back until this issue is settled. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not been warned, the quote you posted was the first iteration of a mandatory reply message by an admin, and the reamining three or so edits of the same statement made no reference to any potential bands whatsoever. I don't know if your attempt is to deceive other adminstrators?, but it certainly hasn't been working, as you've already removed the suggestions made by the administrator after they weren't to your liking. Please cease the personal attacks, and edit constructively. Drsmoo (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What part of If these problems persist then a topic ban could be applied. do you not understand?? And what have I removed from where??

My only request is you stop putting in controversial BLP material until we find some truly NPOV editors to opine on this WP:RS/WP:BLP issue. Is that asking too much?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The part where that line was removed removed literally a minute and fifteen seconds later. Which you then attempted to pass off as unique, along with the subsequent edits which made it more than clear that it was only a mandatory message in regard to your complaints. Your actions, in presenting the 5 revisions of the same message(all within 3 minutes of one another) as being 5 unique ones, is a blatant act of lying, and clearly duplicitous behavior. You are attempting to poison the well through deceit. It is ridiculous, you should stop, and focus on the article. There is a consensus that the article was blatantly POV, you disregarded that consensus, you went to an outside editor, he made a suggestion, you disregarded that too. Please remember to go with the wikipedia consensus, and if you inquire others for their suggestions, don't disregard them because you don't think they're passionate enough Drsmoo (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And it does seem to be asking a lot for you to decide to ignore any editor you feel is either not suitably NPOV(to your standards) or too ambivalent, or whatever reason. Drsmoo (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DrSmoo's POV statements vs. Atzmon and editors trying to make article NPOV

Note that Having looked at all DrSmoo's edits on this page, I do not see evidence any of these were removed but will strike them if Drsmoo provides diff where they were removed.

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

2 ‘The quotes were in context, your attempts at censorship to cover for this Antisemite are disgusting and pathetic.

3 It is plainly clear that Atzmon is an anti-semite more than he is an anti-zionist. He hates Israel because he believes they follow "Jewish ideology." I think the attempts to whitewash his blatant racism by calling them "attempts to silence him" as you have done in your edit Carol, is not only blatantly dishonest and morally repulsive, it is massively POV.

4 And why on earth do you have this icon on your website [1]’‘ Doing off wiki research to harass editor.

5 Let's be honest when editing this article, aside from his few radical supporters, there is a consensus in anti-zionist circles, pro zionist circles, socialist circles, and right wing circles that Atzmon's writings are antisemitic. He has been censured as much by anti-zionists as he has been censured by zionists. The only place in which there is not a clear consensus of opinion regarding Atzmon is on this article which has been dominated by his biggest supporters.

6 I didn't personally attack you, I merely linked to your page and stated that you are a huge supporter of Gilad Atzmon. How is that an attack? Additionally the argument presented on this article is that one cannot include a blatantly anti semitic quote by Atzmon, such as ""In the UK bigotry and racism is becoming a Jews-only territory." This is a statement which belongs in the antisemitism section. I also trimmed down the section.
List posted by: CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you find it acceptable for me to post a list of quotes you've made relevant to the issue of Jews and anti-semitism in response to your list? Drsmoo (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was drawn directly from this article relating to editing this article that showed a strong POV, which I don't think you'll find. My comments here have been about making the article NPOV, including to defend myself after after being repeated baited (specifically or generally) with charges of antisemitism. I assume you are Not talking about searching around outside the talk page to harass me here? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your aim in posting your list is to perhaps convince certain people that I am acting in ways which are against Wikipedia rules, despite the fact that no moderators or users have agreed with you. I am factually obliging by Wikipedia rules consistently. By attempting to censor information, you are not. Nor is your attempt to paint me as not following the rules when moderators have consistently agreed that I am. Now again, if it is your aim to paint in the eyes of moderators that I am "biased" (which I am not in any way, and my position is that of the consensus on this Wiki page) an argument for you can quite certainly be made. Drsmoo (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I already mentioned elsewhere some of these complaints about POV/bias and/or behavior by other editors in this talk page, just to remind Drsmoo of something he keeps denying in posting above:

• Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#Bad_Recent_Edits_.28cooperative_editing.29 - 2 editors besides me complain here
• Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_2#Atzmon.27s_continued_controversial_writings - 2 editors besides me again complain here
• Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Choices:_Links_only_or_full_explication - another editor besides me complains here
• Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Almost_giving_up - 2 editors besides me again complain about your behavior
• Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#edit_warring_again.3F - another editor besides me complains here
• Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#personal_attack_discussion - another editor complains here

And there are these administrative (moderator as you put it) actions and comments:

• block per 3rr/edit warring complaint
• note on ARBPIA
• Admin Editing advice
• More Admin Editing advice and mention of possible topic ban
• Another admin note

CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol, both of your lists are erroneous, anyone who actually checks your links can see that I was temporarily suspended for an accidental 3rr only with no reference to anything else. Your claim that it was for an edit warring complaint is erroneous. You already know this, the other messages are mandatory suggestions due to your repeated complaints, most of them are just different edits of the same message as opposed to different messages (which is how you are seeking to portray them). They found no evidence of any wrongdoing of mine, and you know this. Drsmoo (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite your erroneous descriptions, the first few links are only you complaining, or you complaining about malcomn schosca. Most of those are just you complaining and no one else, and I am not Malcomn Scoscha, do not infer that I am again. As has been said before, no wiki rules have been broken by me, and your list confirms that.Drsmoo (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First, are you the Anon IP who edited your comments above or was it someone else. Fix if you've been vandalized.

Second, people can draw their own conclusions from the above and I'm quite sure they will agree the links show other people complaining about your behavior, even if they (or I) also criticize others in the same sections. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

They can and certainly will judge for themselves, so far no administrator has found any issues whatsoever with the current article. However you certainly did attribute "complaints" about Malmn Scoscha to "complaints" about me, and you also included the same generic administrator statement about 3 or 4 times. The whole thing is rather silly. It would be more productive to try and improve the article to make it accurately reflect Atzmon's statements. Right now you are trying to censor the article from Atzmon's own statements, and when that doesn't work, you're trying to threaten and ban every user who is keeping the article accurate. Drsmoo (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some sections editors complain about both of you; you are still included in the criticism.

I actually should have complained more about WP:UNDUE quoting of same issues over and over; my main goal is to make sure all quotes are in full context, preferably that set by WP:RS. You however continue to cherry pick Primary Sources to promote your POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly established, there is nothing POV about this article and anyone who has read Atzmon's articles will likely agree. The only POV is your attempt to remove any and every quote of Atzmon's which does not fit the image of him you would like the article to convey. Through whichever machinations you think will work. You ignored the suggestion by Wikidemon, after asking for his/her help, and reverted my edit despite it being to Wikidemon's suggestions. You are asking for it not to be reverted until another administrator gives a different answer. The one pursuing POV is you. If no other administrator has anything to say in conrast to Wikidemon's suggestions than they should be upheld. Drsmoo (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Antisemites being protected from Jews... geez, has anyone else seen that pig flying nearby? I also heard it's snowing in hell :-) Drone2Gather (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary source misuse in first denial of antisemitism

Despite requests above, there still is no explanation of why you keep putting in after first mention he denies antisemitism the primary source material: labeling the term “antisemitism” as an empty signifier, holding that “criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology and practice.” It is too abstruse for most people without a proper secondary source context.

• If you really feel that his views on the term antisemitism should be MORE than just a denial, then that we can have a separate paragraph in the politics section with Atzmon's critique of using the charge of antisemitism to shut people up when it is a meaningless word that masks the real issues of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power. Starting with secondary sources, of course. And then make the denial shorter in the response section. (IF you don't reply, I'll assume you agree and create one soon.)
• Remember the brouhaha about using primary source info to make him look good? you seem to be doing that to make him look bad. Both are wrong, but the latter makes deletion of your material more necessary per BLP.
• Do you understand that an editor is trying to have a discussion with you to work on a compromise here?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I completely disagree that there is anything at all hard to comprehend about that quote, and I doubt the article needs to be "dumbed down" for that purpose. I don't feel there is a need to make his views on the term antisemitism more than a denial. I think what is there is already articulate, comprehensible and accurate. Also you should be careful regarding phrasing Atzmon's opinions as your own opinions as you seem to have done given how controversial they are. Nor do I feel any need to make the denial shorter, and the consensus on the article agrees. There is already a paragraph regarding Atzmon's view that "there is no such a thing as anti-semitism" what else needs to be added? If anything, an article should include more information, not less. I don't recall a brouhaha regarding primary sources to make him look "good", and I disagree that primary sources are being used to make him look "bad" primary sources are being used to accurately state his positions. And I understand you are trying to work on a compromise, but your compromise seems to involve removing information rather than adding information, and it seems that when you remove information the article becomes less reflective of Atzmon's statements. Drsmoo (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My compromise is moving up relevant information to the views version, rather than dividing up the views so they don't make sense. It's not dumbing down, just bringing divided sections together so they make sense. Will do it at some point in near future when I feel like it. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as relevant information is not removed(it is better to add information than to remove) there should be no problem, and as long as the work remains in context :-) Drsmoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC).

<backdent>
Since these are two statements define antisemitism and are both primary sources, they obviously belong together. Everything else can stay below. It works in politics section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoping other editors will return to this article

Unfortunately the talk page has completely devolved. Hopefully other editors will return so that we can discuss positive changes to the article. Drsmoo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

Maybe they would point out to you that you keep cherry picking Primary Source material out of context, when the consensus was to try to use Secondary Sources to set up any point and only use Primary Source if it was some important point, especially related to defense against some accusation. But you just cherry pick away to make him look bad. Your POV is out of control. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No quotes are being used out of context, particularly this last one, more than a whole paragraph was used to insure that every line was perfectly in context. It seems to me that your decision of what is in context and what is not in context has different parameters than others. Drsmoo (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack tag

Per Wikipedia:COATRACK I've put that tag on since it is clear that the POV is not to provide balanced view point on Atzmon's views and criticism of those, but to keep adding and adding out of context primary sources to show that wikipedia can be used to annihilate any one who some people consider antisemites. Do not remove until this has worked its way through the system. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How long do you anticipate it will take for this to work its way through the system, is there a time limit you have in mind?

Coatracking is described as when: A significant amount of the article's content may actually relate to an entirely different subject."

I do not see how that has anything whatsoever to do with this article, as further supported by the examples of coatracking displayed here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COATRACK#Typical_coatracks

Coatracking is described by Wikipedia as an article being about something different than it's intended subject. I do not see how that has any relavence to this article whatsoever. Drsmoo (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do not care if Carolmooredc's keeps her tags on the article till the Messiah comes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatracking is a number of issues including Wikipedia:Coatrack#Fact_picking: Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants.

I was doing that unwittingly a couple months back when kept summarizing his newest articles. Those who pointed that out were correct and I stopped. Using Primary sources out of context of the actual article and instead of using Secondary sources (and quote from him from those sources), when there are lots of secondary sources available, is one example which probably needs listing.

In fact this article (the worst example of a number of similar BLPs) has made me realize that WP:BLP articles need to be much more specific about NPOV issues and interlink to each other more. A project to work on soon. While I'm waiting for Britney Spears to finish her Messianic manifesto :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone looking at this article will see that it presents a balanced view of Gilad Atzmon, and is the most balanced the article has ever been, though it can still be improved. There is no example of coat racking. In any case, the way to improve the article is to add additional information, not to censor information. It is always better to have more info, not less. Drsmoo (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is coatracked because you keep adding Primary sourced info with NO 2nd party context to push your POV that he's an antisemite and the article has to prove that. That two other editors have expressed similar opinions, giving you moral support for violating BLP makes it worse. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Newest Wp:Coatrack#Fact_picking

Drsmoo adds this latest Primary Sourced cherry calling it "significant quote from recent article" - not bothering to mention the context, according to the first sentence: "The issue I am going to discuss today is probably the most important thing I’ve ever had to say about Israeli brutality and contemporary Jewish identity."

In his article "War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History" Atzmon writes:"The most interesting aspect of the Holocaust religion is its God-figure, namely 'the Jew'." He follows "[The Jew] will have to accept that his newly formed father-figure was formed in his own shape. More concerning is the devastating fact that the new father is proved to be a call to kill. Seemingly, the new father is the ultimate evil God of them all. I wonder how many Jews will be courageous enough to shun their esoteric newly formed father-figure. Will they be courageous enough to join the rest of humanity adopting a universal ethical discourse? Whether the Jew drops “The Jew”, only time will tell. Just to remove any doubt, I did drop my “Jew” a long time ago and I am doing fine."REF:http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/18/gilad-atzmon-%E2%80%93-war-on-terror-within-the-end-of-jewish-history/

We all know by now Atzmon says outrageous things to advance his political religious analysis; secondary sources say so and quote him over and over. But it's Wp:Coatrack#Fact_picking and WP:OR to keep throwing in the article what an editor personally thinks is significant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Another editor's views on this issue Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_2#Cherry-picking: The recent edits have cherry-picked primary sources of Atzmon's views to present him in the most favorable light, in violation of WP:OR. That's how we got into this dispute in the first place, because Drsmoo reasonably wanted to balance these quotes with other cherry-picked quotes that showed that Atzmon was not remotely reasonable. The only views of Atzmon that should be in the article are those that have been noted by reliable secondary sources. THF (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, if you read the top of the page on WP:Coatrack, you will clearly see it stated that it is an essay. It is not WP policy, nor is it a WP guideline. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. See Template:Coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can make a template. That does not make WP policy. There is nothing but an essay, clearly marked that the essay is not WP policy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you are arguing article content using an essay for support. It is not WP policy, and spending time discussing it is ok if you want, but there is no reason other editors should be particularly interested. Probably, discussing "coatrack" is just wasting time. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So Ok to put back all this primary source material previously removed under coatrack??

User: THF didn't consider it a waste of time when he complained about Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_2#Cherry-picking aka Wp:Coatrack#Fact_picking and got me to delete all of the below Primary Source material that was there in March. But DrSmoo says it's ok to add stuff. So you both are saying it's ok with you all if I put it back in? Specifically:

In his 2003 CounterPunch piece "Collective Self-Deception: The Most Common Mistakes of Israelis" Atzmon details ten beliefs which he considers "grave, indeed fatal, mistakes." He differentiates Jews who have rejected these nationalist beliefs and "Israelis" who blindly accept "one of the most radically chauvinist worldviews" which he believes "turns the Israelis into an impossible candidate for any form of peaceful negotiation." He therefore proposes a gradual scheme of bans and boycotts. He recommends that states who "ban anti-Semitism, neo-Nazi propaganda and any other form of racist activity" should consider "adding Zionist activity to their list of prohibited activities."

In a 2004 article in The Guardian called “Free Jazz”, Atzmon wrote about the co-optation of jazz as a revolutionary movement, commenting: “Jazz is a world view, an innovative form of resistance. For me, to play jazz is to fight the BBS (Bush, Blair and Sharon) world order, to aim towards liberation while knowing you may never get there, to fight the new American colonialism. To say what I believe in, to campaign for the liberation of my Palestinian and Iraqi brothers.” However, he also has written about a resurgence of British jazz lead by groups like the F-IRE Collective.

Atzmon has accused "Israel, the Jewish state" of following the call of Moses in Deuteronomy 6:10 "to plunder, rob and steal," specifically from the "indigenous Palestinians of their land, cities, villages, fields, orchards and wells" for "over a century." Writing about the Jewish revolutionary Marxists of the "Bund" (the General Jewish Labor Union), he writes: "Bundists believe that instead of robbing Palestinians we should all get together and rob whoever is considered to be the rich, the wealthy and the strong in the name of working class revolution." Stating "Robbery and plunder doesn’t live in peace with a deep understanding of the notion of human equality" and citing his own youthful vengeance towards "wealthy goyim," Atzom further asserts: "The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution."

In October 2008, Atzmon wrote an article intended to "disentangle the horrifying tribal plot that accidentally led towards the destruction of the American Empire and Western financial hegemony." He details various "Jewish tribal political operations" and concludes: "You may wonder at this stage whether I regard the credit crunch as a Zionist plot. In fact it is the opposite. It is actually a Zionist accident. The patient didn’t make it to the end. This Zionist accident is a glimpse into Political Zionism’s sinister agenda. This Zionist accident provides us with an opportunity to see that as far as misery is concerned, we are together with the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the Afghans. We share one enemy." He also writes: "It would be devastating to see innocent Jews being implicated collectively by the crimes committed by a very few tribal nationalist enthusiasts."

In January 2009 at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Turkey, in criticizing Israel's recent attacks on Gaza, quoted Atzmon. Erdogan said: "Gilad Atzmon: 'Israel's barbarity is way beyond cruelty.' He's Jewish." A week earlier Atzmon had said in an interview with an Iranian journalist: “What we see in Gaza is holocaust denial in its making. The Jewish state exercises hardcore barbarism. Yet, the world keeps silent.” In a satirical piece Atzmon also had presented British Prime Minister Gordon Brown with a list of “essential defensive weapons” to give Gazans “a fair chance to defend themselves from Israeli barbarism.” In early 2009 Atzmon issued an "important" statement on "Israeli brutality and contemporary Jewish identity" in light of "an Israeli genocidal campaign against the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza."

Oren Ben-Dor, who also grew up in Israel and now teaches at the School of Law, University of Southampton, UK, commented on a 2008 petition condemning what they labelled “the constant attempts to silence Gilad Atzmon.” In Ben-Dor's opinion: "All those who try to smother Gilad's endeavours, to distort his voice through vulgar associations and conventional clichés, and to utilize uncritically accepted conventional havens for thoughtlessness, do not really do justice to the intellectual game as far as Palestine is concerned."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, please review WP:SOAP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, then tell DrSmoo to stop using it that way with all those primary sources proving the point he wants to prove. Soapboxing is also my complaint. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no soapboxing going on, and the administrators have agreed. My opinions are based on Atzmon's words, not the other way around. Your opinions lead to your desire to block Atzmon's opinions from this article. Drsmoo (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)