Talk:Israel Shahak/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Cohn link

Please stop deleting the critical Cohn link. If we were to delete everything that "misquoted", we'd have to delete all of Shahak's work as well. Cohn is a Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of British Columbia and a published author, and the criticism was published in a periodical which has been publishing since 1952. There is no policy reason for removing it; on the contrary, policy is quite clear that we simply quote what reliable sources say, we don't attempt to evaluate if they are correct. All the moreso for an external link, which is not even quoted. As for your false Talmud quotes "analogy", there are no reliable sources which carry them. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Cohn's edited quote is deliberately misleading as anyone who looks at the full quote can see. This makes it unreliable. I have nothing against honest criticism of Shahak. What's your reason for adding Cohn's link? Apart from the misquote it doesn't contain anything arguements that aren't put better in the other links. Conch Shell 08:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:RS: "However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion or in any other way attempt to investigate or evaluate whether they are right or wrong." Just because you think Cohn is in error, or misquoting, or whatever, that's no reason not to include the include the link; on the contrary, you are doing the very thing you should not be doing, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In addition, WP:RS applies to actual citations in an article, where the standards for inclusions are even higher than for external links. As for Cohn, he provides interesting and cogent criticism of Shahak; there aren't all that many links provided doing so, so there's no reason for removing it. Please do not remove it again unless you have a policy-based reason for doing so. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There you go, removing the Luke Ford link was much more sensible. As long as you work within policy we should have few, if any, edit conflicts. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cohn's paper turns out to be a book-review in Israel Horizons, the mouthpiece of Meretz USA. It's no more a reliable source than any other political pamphlet. Conch Shell 07:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a book review in a published magazine; if you have any sources indicating that Israel Horizons is unreliable, let me know. As for Werner Cohn, he's a published professor, and the requirements for external links are looser than for article sources. Please don't remove it again unless you have a policy based reason to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to me to show that Israel Horizons isn't a reliable source. You might as well allow links to articles in neo-nazi magazines on the Holocaust page. Conch Shell 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Meretz-Yachad is an Israeli dovish social democratic left wing party." Are you seriously comparing them to neo-Nazis? It's reliable enough for criticism; we don't state his criticisms as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

removing indentation

I've removed this link because it's deliberately misleading and is not from a reliable source. Neither are the other comments. Ariel Sharon made an off the cuff remark about the 'Jewish lobby running Washington' but I wouldn't take a report about it in the liberal Jewish press as a statement of fact.

Incidentally Jayjg, you state on your user page that you are on the Wikipedia arbitration committee and that Jimbo Wales personally made you an administrator. Do you realize that by canvassing political opinion (for the Israeli right) you are endangering Wikipedia's status as a charitable foundation? Conch Shell 13:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring them all, because there's no evidence any of them are unreliable. The only thing that seems to make them "unreliable" is that you don't like them. Ariel Sharon never made an off-the-cuff statement about the "Jewish lobby running Washington", that was something his enemies made up to vilify him. Finally, I haven't "canvassed political opinion for the Israeli right)"; are you threatening some sort of legal action against Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The links look perfectly appropriate for a criticism section, and the sources may not be reliable as source for facts, but they are certainly reliable (and notable) as source for opinions. I too am curious just what Conch Shell's last paragraph could conceivably mean. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

i) Political pamphlets are not reliable sources of information. That's all there is to it.

ii) I don't need to threaten to take legal action against Wikipedia, I'm not the only one whose noticed a deliberate political bias threatening Wikipedia's charity tax breaks. Please don't give its enemies any more ammunition. Conch Shell 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (PS Sharon's remarks were broadcast on the BBC)

I'm not sure what your criteria for acceptable sources are but it clearly isn't wikipedia's, it is obvious that they are perfectly acceptable and reliable sources. Furthermore I really hate it when people try to bring macro-political rants into a content dispute, I don't think it helps your argument in the least.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Political pamphlets are not reliable sources of information. That's all there is to it. That's correct in that they are not reliable sources of factual information; they are, however, obviously reliable sources of opinion -- and that's what's being reported. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A magazine published by a Zionist organization is not a "political pamphlet", and you have deleted other properly sourced criticisms. Your claims of "deliberate political bias threatening Wikipedia's charity tax breaks" need further explanation and documentation, particularly in light of the fact that you seem to equate dovish left-wing social-democratic Israeli political movements with the "right-wing" and "neo-Nazis". And finally, Sharon never said that on the BBC or anywhere else, it's a fabricated quote. Your assessment of sources is completely unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

removing indentation

i) RE: Sharon - I actually saw the clip on the news (along with several million other people), but this is another matter.

ii) Political pamphlets are not reliable sources of information, no matter what their perspective.

iii) A link to Cohn's article appears on the Jewish History, Jewish Religion page were the controversial quote appears in full. By including a link to a deliberately misleading article (without any counterbalance) you are violating Wikipedia's rules on canvassing opinion. Please obey them. Conch Shell 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

i) No, it's fabricated, and has never been on the news.

ii) Magazines are not political pamphlets, and published magazines are certainly good enough for presenting opinion.

iii) The link is not "deliberately misleading", and including it as an external link does not violate any Wikipedia rules, including "canvassing opinion", whatever you imagine that to be. There is no policy reason for removing this, and no-one agrees with your doing so. Please stop doing it.

iv) You have violated the WP:3RR rule on this article; please do not do so again, it is a blockable offense. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It was broadcast by the BBC - this is a separate matter.

The link contains a deliberate misquote, as you know. Adding deliberately misleading information is considered vandalism.

I made three reverts in 24 hours, like Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. Neither of us have broke any Wikipedia rules. Conch Shell 08:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't broadcast by the BBC. This is a complete fabrication, and please stop repeating it. The "quote" is a hoax (see here), and your inability to recognize or admit this undermines your whole claim to be able to evaluate sources. As well, the Cohn link does not contain any deliberate misquote that I am aware of, and it is not up to you to make these assessments anyway, as has been repeatedly explained to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The actual clip was broadcast nationaly on British TV, I saw it along with several million other people. No doubt it will apeear on youtube.com in the near future. Conch Shell 08:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, maybe in your dreams. Let me know when it shows up. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the book found, and how much of it is found there?

The entire book (not "extracts") is found on Radio Islam.[1] The entire book is also found on Biblebelievers,[2] Historical Review Press,[3] , and CODOH.[4] These are obvious, easily verified facts, and each time you try to suppress the straightforward facts you force me to do even more research, which inevitably ends up making Shahak and his book look worse, because Shahak is basically only supported by extremists, anti-Semites, and neo-Nazis. Your attempts at whitewashing are only making things worse for you; you should quit while you're ahead. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no link to "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" anywhere on the Bible Believers pages. Perviously only selected chapters appeared on Radio Islam. If Shahak's work was anti-semitic then there would be no need for people like Cohn to fabricate quotes. Conch Shell

Did you not read what I wrote above? The entire book is also found on Biblebelievers. Click on this link!---> [5] <---Click on this link! As for Radio Islam, the entire book was always there, they haven't changed anything. Please do proper research in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the book had been removed from Bible Believers and most of it from Radio Islam, they've reinstated it since I last checked. Conch Shell 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's always been on both. When did you check to see if it was gone? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Towards the beginning of this year. Conch Shell 09:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It ought to be possible to check this using the internet archive at www.archive.org/ --Dannyno 08:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • "Shahak is basically only supported by extremists, anti-Semites, and neo-Nazis." - Jay, kindly explain into which of these brackets do you fit 1. Gore Vidal, 2. Noam Chomsky, 3. Edward Said (who wrote the foreward to Jewish History...), 4. Christopher Hitchens, 5. Prof. Norton Mezvinsky, etc?

"Editorials have described him as"

Conch, can you explain what you're trying to add with this phrase? Do you imagine that saying someone is an "anti-Semite" is anything but an opinion? Or do you imagine there are scientific tests for these things, with some objective scorecard at the end, which are somehow more reliable than "editorials"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is a fuzzy concept. If it is merely opinion then it has no place in a Wikipedia article. I added the phrase "editorials have described him as" to give information about the source of the descriptions. I have also replaced the anti-semitic people category with the anti-semitism one to maintain a NPOV. Conch Shell 09:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite the "editorials". --Dannyno 07:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Shahak - a righteous Jew ( by some defintions ) - I will have to read his work. Below it is claimed he said Judaism is racist. If he was alive he probably would agree - though I doubt he ever said it, but of course someone seems to want to say he did. Isn't it us Jews vs them goyim - if that aint racist what is. I hope you don't think I am not better than a goy.

The Mathias article on Shahak's errors in intrepreting the Talmud/etc was really clear ( like mud ). Who ever guessed that the Talmud - hakk?? or not - said such nice/kind things about the goyim. Thanks Mathias for the info. It's hard to clean up cursing the goyim houses and their being dogs but he succeeded in spades.

The whitewashing must stop

Conch shell, the glowing Guardian obit specifically described him as being rejected from the kibbutz as "too weedy". Paul Bogdanor is a published author, and the CAMERA criticism is properly cited, and stated in a neutral tone. Claims of anti-semitism are always "empirical", there's no scientific measurement of anti-Semitism. Your constant removal of properly cited, neutrally stated information from this article, simply because it is critical of Shahak, is, at this point, vandalism. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA are claiming that Shahak is one of the world's leading anti-Semites without producing any evidence. This claim is not authorative and has been removed.

Edward Alexander is a retired English professor, his claims regarding social history are not authorative and have been removed.

Paul Bogdanor is a business man, his comments on political science are not authorative and have been removed. David Irving's drivel is removed from other pages for this reason, he too is a published author. The same standards should be applied here.

Removing unauthorative material is not vandalism. If you wish to dispute my edits then please take this matter to arbitration. Conch Shell 13:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's not how it works. You need to attempt to gain consensus for your position here on the talk page. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms are not presented as facts, but as opinions, and cited to the sources. Alexander and Bodganor are both published authors who have written about this and related topics. Exactly who, in your view, is qualified to "authoritatively" describe someone as an anti-Semite? As I asked before, is there some institute which scientifically measures these things? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Exactly who, in your view, is qualified to "authoritatively" describe someone as an anti-Semite?"

My opinion is irrelevant - you're not trying to get me to say that I'm making a POV edit are you, Jayjg?

Perhaps you'd care to explain what make's Alexander and Bodganor's opinions more notable than David Irving's? Conch Shell 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

David Irving does not qualify as a reliable source so it is obvious why is opinion is less acceptable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As Jayjg pointed out we are not talking about statements of fact but mere opinion. Alexander and Bodganor are not a reliable source of information in this instance, what make's their opinions more notable than David Irving's? Conch Shell 13:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If nobody can give a reason why Alexander and Bodganor's opinions are notable then does anyone have any objections if I remove them? Conch Shell 08:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Irving is not a reliable source of anything -- even his own opinion! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Comparing a convicted Holocaust denier with published and respectable authors is specious. Please explain what you mean by "notable", and provide the policy or guideline which discusses what "notable" means in this context. Until then, you need to stop trying to completely whitewash this article, which is already highly favorable to Shahak. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

removing indentation

It's not a case of whitewashing but preventing a smear-campaign. When I added a definition of anti-Semitism by Shahak on that page it was removed because he was not an academic in a relevant discipline whose work had been subjected to peer review, therefore his opinions were not notable. Alexander and Bognor are not academics in relevant disciplines whose work has been subjected to peer review, therefore their opinions are not notable. Conch Shell 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please quote the policy or guideline which confirms your application of "notability" in this context. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could quote the policy or guideline you used to remove a quote from Israel Shahak on the anti-Semitism page? Conch Shell 08:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If nobody can give a reason why Bognor's opinions are notable then I propose removing them. Conch Shell 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can quote the policy or guideline which confirms your application of "notability" in this context, I propose you stop trying to whitewash this page, and move on to some less disruptive activity. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a case of me whitewashing but you conducting a smear-campaign. Also, your cronies now won't be able to use the excuse of "notability" to remove material that they object to in the future. Conch Shell 08:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Notability" depends on context and usage. Your editing has now passed from the disruptive stage into the vandalism stage, and will be dealt with as such. And please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I most humbly apologize for any offence that I have caused you by implying that you are on friendly terms with Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, Guy Montag (etc). Conch Shell 15:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a "crony" is nothing like implying they are on friendly terms. Please use the Talk: page for honest dialogue, rather than dishonest sarcasm. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

YEA!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Notability depends on context and usage." Can you quote the policy or guideline which states this, please? Conch Shell 08:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've asked you to do the same, since you keep trying to remove Bogdanor (and just about everyone else critical of Shahak) on the grounds that they are not "notable" here, or in some other way disqualified from commenting on him. See my questions above from over a week ago, e.g. Please explain what you mean by "notable", and provide the policy or guideline which discusses what "notable" means in this context. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, all my edits are in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Conch Shell 08:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as has been explained many times. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Could someone please explain the justification for including IS in the "anti-Semitic persons" category, when the point is clearly disputed? CJCurrie 19:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Shahak bio odd inconsistency

According to the Guardian October 30, 1988:

He lived in the Warswa ghetto from 1940 until the Jewish uprising in the spring of 1943 when he was deported with his parents to Poniatowo concentration camp.

Shahak and his mother escaped and were hidden by the Polish resistance in Warsaw. Discovered by the Gestapo, his mother bribed their way on to a register of Jewish citizens of foreign countries, sparing them the "selection" system which led directly to the gas chambers.

Shahak spent two years in a foreign nationals' compound in Bergen-Belsen extermination camp.

According to the Guardian July 6, 2001:

during the wartime Nazi occupation of Poland, the family was forced into the Warsaw ghetto, his father even sought out a chess tutor for his son. But soon the family was torn apart. Shahak's older brother escaped and joined the Royal Air Force, only to be shot down; Shahak's father disappeared and the hiding of fair-haired Israel with a poor Catholic family ended when his mother could no longer pay for his keep. In 1943 both were deported to the Bergen Belsen concentration camp.

Warsaw and Bergen-Belsen 1943 same in both versions. The second version fails to mention Poniatowo. Perhaps a simple omission, since it appears to have been a very short time. But in the first version they were "hidden by the Polish resistence", and then his mother had enough money to bribe German officials. In the second version he was hidden by "a poor Catholic family" who betrayed them when his mother ran out of money. Strange. Perhaps Conch Shell can explain? --Denis Diderot 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is also a bit confusing, from Shahak's statement to the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs Apr 4, 1974: "My high school was in Tel Aviv, the first high school ever established in Tel Aviv. My university study was in Jerusalem. I spent my life before 1945 in Germany." Perhaps he meant to say that before 1945 he was in Bergen-Belsen for 2 years? --Denis Diderot 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just include information that is common to both? Conch Shell 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I had hoped you knew more about Shahak or how the two versions came about. The third version (where he lived in Germany) should probably just be ignored.--Denis Diderot 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whitewash redux

CJCurrie, can you explain why you continue to whitewash the article? The Praise section is now twice as long as the Criticism section, and even includes some original research defending Shahak against the fact that he's the darling of anti-semites and Holocaust deniers. What more can you ask, at this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My last change was a minor adjustment in the wording. It wasn't "whitewashing". CJCurrie 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok, but my comment was made hours before that minor adjustment, and obviously referred to your previous deletions, which, among other things, left sections with headers but no content. In any event my latest edit seems to have met with your acceptance, so I'm glad we can move on from that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to explain the confusion -- I missed your comment the first time around, and read the date as "23:36, 25 July 2006" this time. CJCurrie 04:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this removed? If accurate, it's important for NPOV.

Despite this claim, Shahak repeated the accusation in his 1994 book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, describing the reaction to the Haaretz article as "sanctimonious twaddle", adding that the rabbinical authorities did not reverse their decision. CJCurrie 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is important, thats why it was added, and thats why it was re-added. but, it seems, it was you who removed it ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but is it accurate? Did Shahak actually respond to Jackobovits? Was Shahak even aware of what Jackabovits published? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Jackabovits claimed that Shahak had withdrawn the claim, but shahak continued to make the claim, publishing it in his 1994 book, and giving his opinion of the general (not specific) reaction to the article published in Haaretz. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it either -- I believe Conch Shell did, though it may have been accidental. CJCurrie 18:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Shahak dismissed the rabbis' reasoning for saving non-Jewish life as 'sanctimonious twaddle'. I've added a direct quote to make this clear. Should this paragraph even be in his biography? Conch Shell 13:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I added the paragraph about phone incident, is because shahak stated this as his reason to begin study of the Talmudic laws regarding the Jewish interaction with Gentiles, which is a prominant feature of a lot of his work. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"RE: He also disputes Shahak's conclusion that Judaism is "racist" because it has laws against denying medical treatment on the Sabbath" - did Shahak actually state this? I can't find the quote in 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion.' Conch Shell 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep misunderstanding policy; it's not up to you to decide that a source is "wrong", and therefore exclude it. We simply quote what the sources say. You did it for months with Cohn, and more recently with any other source critical of Shahak, and now you're starting again with Student. Stop please, and instead edit in accord with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Student's article is not a reliable source of information, Shahak never equated Judaism with racism as any peer review would have shown. Consequently I'm removing the erroneous material (without breaking the 3RR). Conch Shell 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure where you got the idea that you are the authority on what constitutes an unacceptble source, but the source in question clearly qualifies as reputable and reliable enough for a wikipedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How can an article that contains a glaring error be reliable? Student is making a statement of alleged fact, not expressing an opinion. Conch Shell 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your incorrect opinion that it contains a "glaring error" is irrelevant, and in any event, as WP:V points out, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact that you continue to defend Shahak even though his own works contain "glaring errors", yet nitpick about anyone who criticizes Shahak for this, is telling. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak never stated that Judaism was racist, that's all there is to it. Conch Shell 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion; it certainly was his thesis. Anyway, what does that have to do with policy? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Jay, Shahak argued that organized Orthodox religious Judaism, as practiced in Israel during the 1960s, was guilty of condoning discriminatory practices. This argument may be disagreeable on its own terms, but it is not the same as the accusation that "Judaism is racist". The latter is your extrapolation of Shahak's beliefs, not an NPOV assessment of the same. CJCurrie 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, kindly explain your statement where you accused me of editing "solely for the purpose of disruption". --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tom, you reverted in original research, even though it had been explained that it was original research, and then when that didn't work, you reverted in a poorly written modification of another section that had already been reverted by other editors. Given my intimate familiarity with your editing, it looked deliberately disruptive to me; do you have another explanation? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I "reverted in" a poorly written whatsit? What are you talking about. Why do you feel to the need to constantly attack other people? --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to show up on every single article that is even touched by certain editors and revert to a previous version? Though I suppose I should at least thank you for even touching the talk page this time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you an example; you've now written "Reviewing Shahak's account days after his death, Rabbi Gil Student... ". That's a pretty neat trick; after Student died, he still managed to review Shahak's work. I disapprove of bad writing and bad behavior, because neither belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Yentob's phrasing of Student's criticisms. The original was misleading, if we can't agree on this then I suggest we take the matter to arbitration. We can sort out whether Bodganor's opinions are notable at the same time. Conch Shell 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please quote people accurately, rather than using original research to make up fake quotations for them. And please keep in mind that Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first, and that it does not deal with content issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here's a quote from Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion: "in our struggle against the racism and fanaticism of the Jewish religion, our greatest enemies will be not only the Jewish racists (and users of racism)...". Need anything more be said about this? Feel free to move on to some other bogus issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think quite a lot more could be said about that. To refer to "the racism and fanaticism of the Jewish religion" and "Jewish racists" no more necessarily condemns all of Judaism as racist and fanatical than to say "Islamic fundamentalists" necessarily condemns all Muslims. This ought to be clear from, for example, Shahak's words on p12 of JHJR, where he refers to the "struggle against" chauvinism and fanaticism. What Shahak is arguing for in JHJR is the *reform* of Judaism. Therefore he doesn't think it inescapably chauvinist or fanatical. --Dannyno 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg: A) please stop bandying around the word "whitewash" whenever someone doesn't agree with you. There is no reason for a crit section to be as long as any other section. B) Your above quote, as ably Dannyno demostrated, is NOT evidence that Shahak was an anti-semite, but it may be evidence that YOU think he is. sounds POV to me... Palenque 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"concerning medical treatment"?

Student's arguments aren't about medical treatment per se, but actually about Shahak's claim that Judaism is racist, based on things like this alleged law about medical treatment. Please re-read his arguments to see what their focus is. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, Shahak argued that traditional Orthodox Judaism was culturally chauvanist. As I've stated before, this argument may be objectionable on its own terms, but it is not the same as the assertion that "Judaism is racist". More to the point, Student's refutations (the three that we've cited, anyway) are connected with the specific controversy surrounding about medical treatment. CJCurrie 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Shahak specifically said that Judaism was racist; there are any number of quotes that show this, but the one I've listed above should do. Would you mind reverting to the accurate text? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide one of these quotes then, Jayjg? (and not a misquote from someone else). As you said with regard to Student "quote him accurately please, don't make up quotes for him." If not I propose restoring Yentob's edit. Conch Shell 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly quoted Shahak on the page, but that's not relevant for the article, since, unlike you, I don't plan to do any original research there. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The current text is accurate. CJCurrie 23:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And how about your assertion that Shahak doesn't describe Judaism as racist; is that accurate? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to post this to the other section, but if you wish I'll do it here:

One can speak of the "racism and fanaticism of Christianity" (or any other religion) without accusing the entire religion of racism in blanket terms. "Of" can mean both "inherent in" or "emanating from" -- and it isn't clear which sense Shahak intended in the (half-)quote that you've provided. Does Shahak ever criticize Reform Judaism or Conservative Judaism? Does he never praise Jewish religious figures from the liberal side of the spectrum? My understanding is that he was a vocal secular critic of "traditional Orthodox Judaism"; this doesn't mean that he condemned the entire religion (and those who practiced it) outright.

I won't pretend to be an expert on Shahak, but reducing his argument to "Judaism is racist" seems like a serious oversimplification. (I'll look up "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" when I get a chance ...) CJCurrie 23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above discussion, the current text remains accurate. CJCurrie 23:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak simply refers to "the Jewish religion", he doesn't differentiate between Orthodox, Conservative, Reform. And he calls it racist. Here are some other quotes:

• "When racism, discrimination and xenophobia is prevalent among Jews, and directed against non-Jews, being fuelled by religious motivations, it is like its opposite case, that of antisemitism and its religious motivations."
• "Such discussion will, it is hoped, lead people take the same attitude towards Jewish chauvinism and the contempt displayed by so many Jews towards non-Jews (which will be documented below) as that commonly taken towards antisemitism and all other forms of xenophobia, chauvinism and racism. It is justly assumed that only the full exposition, not only of antisemitism, but also of its historical roots, can be the basis of struggle against it. Likewise I am assuming that only the full exposition of Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism can be the basis of struggle against those phenomena. This is especially true today when, contrary to the situation prevailing fifty or sixty years ago, the political influence of Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism is much greater than that of antisemitism."
• "And, for a Jew who truly seeks liberation from Jewish particularism and racism and from the dead hand of the Jewish religion, such an answer is not very difficult."

It's no "oversimplification" to state that Shahak considers Judaism to be racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes. I'm now certain that Shahak meant "emanating from" rather than "inherent in". CJCurrie 03:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're certain. In any event, the claim that Shahak saw Judaism as racist is hardly outrageous or unjustified, and the persistent attempts to remove Student's quotes and arguments based on this claim have no basis in policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Jay, I do not agree with that assessment. My reading of the quotes you've provided is that Shahak believed Jewish religion to be responsible for fomenting an exclusionary ethos within Jewish culture. Whatever one may think of this statement, it is still not the same as the belief that "Judaism is racist", and reducing Shahak's essentially secularist beliefs to such a statement is both unnecessarily and inflammatory. CJCurrie 03:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak's entire "analysis" is "both unecessary and inflammatory". In any event, your disagreement with Student's summary is interesting, but not particularly relevant to the article content. Given the above quotes, it's quite clear how Student could have come to that conclusion, regardless of your more sympathetic view of Shahak's statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was actually disagreeing with your assessment, not (in this instance) with Student's summary. I can fully grasp how Student could have arrived at his conclusions concerning Shahak, and I have no objection to conveying his conclusions in the article -- but I don't think we should elevate them to the level of uncontested truth.

In any event, I'm not sure that anything in this discussion is relevant to the article text. Even we are to assume the worst possible interpretation of Shahak's beliefs, the wording that sparked this discussion ("concerning medical treatment") is still accurate. CJCurrie 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Conch Shell still feels the need to whitewash even your wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with her/him. CJCurrie 04:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering that your wording is a compromise version, it might make sense for all of us to enforce that compromise, rather then me being forced to every time. If you think your wording is reasonable, then act on that; otherwise there's no point in just me doing so, I might as well just go back to my own wording, which I believe was better. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of difference between saying that some Jews are racist and that all practitioners of Judaism must be racists. Does anybody have any objection to the current version of the article and if so why? Conch Shell 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's quite a difference, but then again, nobody makes either argument. And I have no objection to the current version - if you do, please say why. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak never said that Judaism was racist for denying medical assistance to non-Jews on the Sabbath, the words "Shahak's accusation" are misleading. However the phrase "this accusation" is not. It doesn't make a false claim about what Student said, either. Conch Shell 08:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shahak did indeed use his dubious story as evidence of why, in his view, Judaism was racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look at JHJR (to which Student refers) he didn't. Conch Shell

I've obviously looked at JHJR; I'm the one who had to finally bring all those quotes from it, to dispel yet another series of false claims you had made, specifically that Shahak didn't say Judaism was racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between refering to Jewish racism (the subject of your quotes) and saying Judaism is racist. 83.105.123.18 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If only that were the subject of the quotes; however, the quotes are about Judaism, and alleging it is racist. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I initially used the phrase "Shahak's views concerning medical treatment" to distinguish that particular controversy from Student's "racism" accusation. If Conch Shell thinks the current wording is still ambiguous or unfair to Shahak, I would be willing to consider another rewording. CJCurrie 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to the current edit. Conch Shell 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There will always something. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sure that this article is accurate, as you do on other pages. Conch Shell 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're just trying to whitewash Shahak, as you have continually done. If it weren't this issue, you'd just come back in a couple of weeks and yet again delete some other criticism of Shahak, hoping to slip it in under the radar. We'll stick with the compromise wording for now, which is fully accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Student's paper is based on a misunderstanding and shouldn't even be in the article. Keeping it in the article is the compromise. Conch Shell 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Student hasn't misunderstood anything; in reality, he's exposed Shahak. And you still have not come to terms with Wikipedia policy; we don't debate the sources, or claim they are false because we disagree with them - instead we just neutrally report what they say. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding misleading information is considered vandalism (like your doing with Student's claims) so we have to judge whether it's true. Consequentely I'm reverting to my earlier edit. Conch Shell 07:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please edit within policy; the fact that you disagree with Student doesn't make him incorrect or his claims false. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Like you did with the 'Kach claims regarding Goldstein' and 'Was there a gas chamber at Belsen?' sections? Conch Shell 12:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Those weren't sections in this article were they? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They were sections that breached Wikipedia guidelines which you not only failed to remove but restored or reverted. Conch Shell 08:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your opinions about Wikipedia policy and my actions are almost invariably incorrect; in any event, does that have anything whatsoever to do with the content of this article? Is there an issue on this article you feel needs to be resolved? Please use the Talk: pages for their intended purposes. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to restore the deleted sections, then? Conch Shell 12:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do your comments have anything to do with this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - you apply different standards to different articles. Why? Conch Shell 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please use the Talk: page for discussions of this article's content. Are there any other changes you feel need to be made? Aside from deleting all criticisms of Shahak, that is, that's a given. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please use the Talk: page for honest dialogue, rather than dishonest sarcasm. Conch Shell 12:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"in breach of copyright"

Conch shell, your claim that his works are found "in breach of copyright" is a legal conclusion; can you provide evidence for this? I've already provided plenty of evidence that his works are found on Holocaust Denial websites, above (see #Where is the book found, and how much of it is found there?). Your claim that this uncontroversial fact has suddently become "Original Research", and that you will now "bargain" for it, is a violation of WP:POINT - please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly - I'll just remove the whole sentence when I'm not in danger of breaking the 3RR. "Shahak's books can be found on Holocaust denial websites" is original research. Please do not reinstate it unless you can provide a reliable source for this information. Conch Shell 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found and provided sources; the links to the sites themselves. You can also be blocked for simple disruption as well; please stop doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do these websites have permission to reproduce the book in whole or in part? Whether they do or not may be of some interest, but surely the important point in terms of building an encyclopedia is to discuss *why* those sites want to refer to the book. What do they read there that is of use to them given that Shahak is explicit in criticising holocaust denial and Islamic fundamentalism? Merely to say "these bad websites have reproduced the book" smacks of an attempt to discredit the book by association or contamination and is arguably a cunning POV strategy. The job of a reference work would be to explain why it is that holocaust deniers and Islamic fundamentalists have made use of the book in this way, and what that really tells us about Shahak's work. Does it tell us that Shahak is a holocaust denier? Surely not, since he is not a holocaust denier. So what is the learning point here? --Dannyno 20:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether those websites have permission to reproduce the book in whole or in part; there is certainly the suspicion that they have violated his copyright, which means that Wikipedia should avoid linking to those copies, in order not to further any violation. On the other hand, we don't know for sure that they are violating his copyright, which is why Wikipedia should also be cautious in outright making that (possibly defamatory) legal claim. As for why the article mentions Shahak's popularity with neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and various other anti-Semites, it is because it is notable enough that a number of sources have actually commented on the fact. For example:

• ...his writings appear on neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial websites around the world. [6]
• It's a truism that you can tell a man by the company he keeps, and if you go to just about any neo-Nazi or fundamentalist Islamic website you'll see the company that keeps Shahak: His articles and commentaries are lovingly preserved under such titles as "The Jewish Hatred Towards Christianity"; "The Jewish Laundry of Drug Money"; and "Israel's Discriminatory Practices Are Rooted in Jewish Law." [7]
• Jewish History, Jewish Religion (1994) is... more likely to be cited on a neo-Nazi website, than your local synagogue's... (Radio Islam contains the full text of Shahak's work) as well as groups that are often openly anti-Semitic (David Duke and Bradley Smith include Shahak's book on their websites). [8]
• The site [Radio Islam], it turns out, does not present Islam as the only vicitim of Judaism, but speaks of other religions whose followers allegedly have been persecuted by Jews. One column by Professor Israel Shahak, for example, discusses a supposed Jewish tradition of spitting on the Christian cross, a practice he contends has gone on since 200 A.D. and continues to grow in popularity. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27731]
• it should be noted that the French edition of Shahak’s book is published by La Vielle Taupe, described by Cohn as a “neo-Nazi sect in Paris that publishes books denying the holocaust.” [9]
• ...the present-day disciples of Hitler were equally enthusiastic: "Dr. Israel Shahak etc." mourned the American Nazi leader David Duke.. The Jewish Divide Over Israel, Edward Alexander, Paul Bogdanor (eds.), p. 124.
• In most of these anti-Semitic websites, homage is paid to one Professor Israel Shahak who is described as a courageous and knowledgeable Jew presumably for his resurrection of the old distortions and canards about the Talmud in his book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion. Laudable reviews, quotations and even whole chapters from the book appear on many anti-Semitic websites. [10]

The connection is notable enough that Steven Plaut has even called Shahak a "neonazi anti-Semite". The connection is notable enough that Shahak's co-author Norton Mezvinsky had to add a disclaimer to the introduction of their work noting that anti-Semites and anti-Semitic groups "utilize unduly Shahak's criticisms in trying to justify their hatred of Jews." Does that help explain why it is both relevant, and not original research to mention this? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The question, surely, is whether Wikipedia is a compilation of polemics or an attempt to build a serious reference source. The issue is not whether to "mention" the (mis-)appropriation of Shahak's work by particular groups, but to offer some neutral evaluation of that appropriation. Some antagonists have made a great deal of it, but why should an encyclopedia just list a bunch of people who say that "a man is judged by the company he keeps"? What use is that to anyone who wants to understand and evaluate Shahak? Is having your book cannibalised by your opponents "keeping their company"? Clearly not. This is polemic, not serious NPOV criticism.

Were I coming to this article as someone interested in Shahak and wanting to know what his contribution to scholarship and politics etc was, I would learn more from sources that engaged with his historical and religious arguments than from political opponents who accuse him of being contaminated by "association" (especially where there is no association in any meaningful sense).

What exactly is it that an anti-Semite finds congenial in Shahak? Explain that clearly and you've got a proper encyclopedic article. And what would Shahak's response be, given that his books criticise religious fundamentalism and calls Nazi anti-semitism "demonic"? Most of what is here now is not "critical sources" but un-encyclopedic polemic. That's the crucial point. --Dannyno 06:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are all interesting questions, Dannyno, and if you can find some good sources that discuss these issues, it would be fascinating to read their conclusions. The sources I've read (some of which I've provided), suggest that neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and various other anti-Semites are enamoured with Shahak's work because he, like them, is anti-Semitic, and because his Jewish origins give their own views a veneer of respectability. In any event, we must work with what he have; good luck in finding other sources to add even more material. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We do have other sources: Shahak's own writings, in which he and his co-authors specifically repudiate the support he's received from anti-Semites. (Have you read the introduction to his work on fundamentalism in Israel?) CJCurrie 20:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right, we do have Mezvinsky's introduction update repudiating the anti-Semites who use Shahak's stuff. I specifically mentioned them in my previous comment; perhaps you didn't notice. The repudiation is also found in the article itself. However, I don't see where this repudiation actually attempted to explain why Shahak was so popular with neo-Nazis, Holocaust Deniers, and other anti-Semites, so I'm not sure what point you're making, or how it's relevant to what Dannyno is looking for or what I've already said. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And the Nazis made use of some of Nietzsche's ideas, does that mean he was a Nazi Jayjg? Guilty by association shouldn't fly on WP any more than it does in the courts. Palenque 07:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

it is exactly for these kind of weirdos

that there should be a "self hating Jews" category. Amoruso 05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Praise??

Half of the socalled "praise-section" reads like pure defamation. And the following surely violate WP:RS#Extremist_websites (=Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution.):

Ernst Zündel praised him as "a voice of reason and decency in a country where 'the people of the lie' live and hold sway - and, sadly, also govern," and David Duke described Shahak as "one of the Jews I have most respected" and dedicated his book Jewish Supremacism to him.

Unless somebody can justify the links to these extremist, I will delete them. Regards, Huldra 18:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable, Huldra. I just now realized that not only did you ignore the discussion above, and deleted "the links to these extremist", but you also inserted links to extremist antisemitic hate sites like Radio Islam, and antisemitic copyright violating personal geocities sites like "Alabaster's archive". Frankly, you have lost all credibility with these edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable indeed, Jayjg, that somebody can reinsert links to extremist like David Duke and Ernst Zündel...and complain that other insert links to "extremist antisemitic hate sites," ROTFL! You just made my day! (almost as funny as being told that Dore Gould is well poison ;-D) (Though I will confess; that one link to Shahaks work was a miss on my part)

As for quoting "extremist opinions": when I raised the issue on WP:RS last summer [11], the opinion was quite clear, e.g: "Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source." ...I have kept to that policy, Jayjg: I have kept the ref. to Anti-Defamation League, Stephen Roth Institute, etc. It is you who are violating it by including direct ref. to people like David Duke and Ernst Zündel.

As for "Alabaster's archive" copy-right; according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works it says: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." I do not know anything else than what the web-site claims; namely that they are not a copy-right violation. Do you know that it is a copyrigh violation? And that that site is "antisemitic" is just your POV, which you of course is entitled to. Regards, Huldra 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Alabaster's archive says everything on the site is either not under copyright, or included for "are published here for the purposes of non-profit scholarly review and critical community education pursuant to the "fair use" clause in American copyright law." That's just double-talk for "I'm ignoring copyright law because I don't think I'm going to be sued". And the choice of text Alabaster's archive publishes make it clear what kind of site it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also: the sentence: "Shahak's books can be found on Holocaust denial websites widely considered anti-Semitic, [11] such as Radio Islam, "Bible Believers", Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press"" is now listed under "Praise"; isn´t this a bit absurd? Does anybody believe that Shahak would have felt this to be "praise"? Or, for that matter, that those quoted (Anti-Defamation League, Stephen Roth Institute, American Jewish Committee, etc) has meant it as praise? Obviously not. I suggest that the sentence is moved to the "Critisism" paragraph. Regards, Huldra 23:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has had any comments about this: I´m going ahead. Regards, Huldra 09:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is simply an excuse to attack him and really quite deplorable. --Zero^talk 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it to the proper section; these groups praise him to the high heavens, and, as shown above, this is quite notable. Please stop removing relevant praise from various notable individuals simply because you find yourself uncomfortable in their company. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous! Both Jew Watch and Radio Islam contain multiple quotations from Moshe Sharett's diary, claiming it supports their positions. Will you agree to put such slander-by-association text in Moshe Sharett's article? --Zero^talk 13:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Have Jew Watch, Radio Islam and similar sites approvingly published the entire contents of Sharett's diaries on their websites? Have various sources noted that these groups love to publish Sharrett's works? You've been debating this point for 2 1/2 years now, Zero0000; the fact remains that the neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers love for Shahak's work is notable. They are just as much admirers of his work as the "pro-Palestinian and left-wing circles" listed in the article, and their admiration has been noted in other sources. In fact, their admiration is so notable that even Shahak's co-authors have seen fit to comment on it. You may think it unfortunate that he was admired both by people you like and people you don't, but this particular fact about Shahak can't be swept under the rug; indeed, it was an inevitable consequence of both his personal history and his often factually dubious and outrageously overblown rhetoric. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If we try to keep to the policy (or more correctly for WP:RS: guidelines), then that first question of yours is quite irrelevant. Your second question (="Have various sources noted that these groups love to publish Sharrett's works?") is, however, relevant, (if those "various sources" are noteworthy.) Regards, Huldra 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has been noted, and please stop deleting valid references and sources, or pretending praise is criticism. Please don't delete relevant, properly sourced, and neutrally stated material again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, Since when are Jew Watch and Radio Islam reliable sources whose opinion on anything is permitted by Wikipedia rules? And to answer your question: from our point of view Shahak and Sharett are not similar, but from the point of view of groups like Jew Watch the difference is unimportant. Both are seen as Jews who exposed the wrongdoings of Jews or Israel. That's why both of them are quoted at length. An argument equally as good as yours can be made that it is notable how Sharett's writings are regularly quoted by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic extremists. The internet is full of examples. I'm not opposed to mentioning incontrovertible facts, but the current formulation here betrays its purpose too strongly, which is not to report notable facts but to defame Shahak by associating him with people he despised. Also, calling this "praise" is something I find quite offensive. These groups are making cynical use of him; calling it "praise" implies some unity of purpose which never existed. --Zero^talk 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The information in question had already been moved to a non "Praise" section, in recognition of your objections. The views of various notables (even though extremists) are quoted when the views themselves have been listed as notable. Shahak's views were essentially identical to people he "despised", so their admiration for him is unsurprising; the only surprising thing is that Shahak was able to square the dichotomy of his deep hatred of Judaism and its practitioners with his own Jewish origins and Holocaust experiences. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(This is an aside to state my opinion, which is not relevant to the argument about this article.) The answer to your last sentence is that Shahak was not anti-Jewish. He was (very) anti-Jewish-religion, and by extension anti-anything that he regarded as being inherited from religion (such as Zionism). He thought of himself as a reformist. He did not believe in the innate inferiority of Jews compared to other people, which is what the title "anti-Semitic" usually connotes.--Zero^talk 09:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Classical antisemitism was, in fact, Anti-Judaism; that Shahak was not a racial antisemite is neither here nor there. Sometimes Jews delude themselves into believing that they are fighting hugely evil Jewish ideologies, and therefore must embrace the hatred and rhetoric of their enemies. The logical endpoint of this kind of thinking is when Jews in Orthodox garb end up on a stage at a Holocaust Denial conference embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the cameras. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Zero, Shahak has been accused of antisemitism and of the fabrication or distortion of material that portrays Jews or Judaism in a poor light. It's therefore highly relevant that antisemitic groups hail him as one of their own. It isn't relevant that they admire Moshe Sharett, just as it wouldn't matter if tomorrow Jew Watch were to say something nice about Tony Blair. The admiration by antisemitic groups of figures who clearly have nothing to do with their views is incidental, but it isn't incidental with Shahak, because it speaks to the heart of the criticism that others have made of him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely, if it "speaks to the heart of the criticism that others have made of him", why can you not make a ref to such a statement? As of now, this is only your opinion. And it is facinating; here:[12] you wrote that "David Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source".......But now you insist on quoting the same David Duke with the rational that it "speaks to the heart of the criticism that others have made of him"?! Some standards seem to be very flexible. Regards, Huldra 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They don't admire him, they cynically make use of him. There's a huge difference. If a Jew writes something critical of Judaism, the fanatics will rub their hands with glee. It doesn't establish the Jew as one of the fanatics; my point is that this false argument is being introduced into the article in the hope that people will fall for it despite its falsity. As for your argument, it exposes your case. You want to cite Jew Watch because you think it supports the accusations of antisemitism against Shahak. That's just your personal opinion (read original research), which is exactly why we should not cite Jew Watch (at least, not in this fashion). Another example of original research is your claim that praise of Blair would be irrelevant when praise of Shahk isn't. Again, that is your private analysis. --Zero^talk 09:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I think they admire him just as much as the radical left do, perhaps moreso. More importantly, I've also brought quite a few sources noting their embrace of Shahak, which moves it out of the realm of original research and back into the realm of verified, neutrality enhancing material. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And, in any event, they don't really "admire" Sharett; rather, they selectively quote his diaries in order to "prove" the "fundamentally racist and ethnic supremacist nature of Zionism", which prompted the "invidiousness" of the "secret Zionist plans" (including those of Sharett) to ethnically cleanse Israel of Arabs, then turn around and selectively quote him again when he views Israeli actions vis-à-vis Arabs as being too harsh. There's a dark, conspiratorial narrative going on here, shared by a small group of alienated anti-Zionist Jews, often self-proclaimed "Palestinians": Uri Davis, Livia Rokach, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Allan Brownfield, etc., who quote each other liberally, write glowing introductions to each others books, and are loved by the radical left, the radical right, and the Arab world, as the few Jews who are willing to "tell the truth". Shahak was part of that cabal, though he went a bit farther than most, which makes him even more popular on the antisemitic sites. Israel Shamir is a fellow traveler, though he seems to have gone a bit too far for even this group. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jay but this is mostly a statement of your own opinion of these people. That's my point, basically. You can't escape the fact that "Jew Watch praises Shahak" will be taken by every reasonable reader as a negative opinion about Shahak. But whose negative opinion? Answer: yours. Another example: Hitler admired England very much. There are many proofs; start with Mein Kampf. Should we add to England a paragraph making that point? On the assumption you will answer "no" (but you can surprise me ;-), I put it to you that the real difference is that you don't think England deserves such treatment while you think Shahak does. --Zero^talk 09:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my opinion, and I stand by it. However, the point here is not only the unusual way in which these far-right sources have latched onto and revere Shahak, but also that this has been noted in many different sources. I'm not the first person to note and comment on this, not by a long-shot. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with SlimVirgin: it's not trivial at all that Zündel, Duke and Radio Islam praise Shahak. --tickle me 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Links on Jewish History, Jewish Religion

Jayjg thinks that this article should not have any links on it that relate to the book JHJR. I think that's odd, because most of the article is about Shahak's political views, particularly as portrayed in JHJR, and not about his chemistry. What do others think? -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.49 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Beit Or has now both (a) deleted a link to "Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions," and (b) restored links to The Interpretational Errors of Israel Shahak and The Jews are Bad!, when all three links seem to be reviews of JHJR. I've asked him to explain himself here. -- DLH

Well, Beit Or has not seen fit to show the courtesy to me of responding here, so I'm copying my message at his talk page here: -- DLH 69.19.14.44 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up (about 3RR). I think, however, that you have participated in creating a striking inconsistency at the Israel Shahak article. Another editor (Jayjg) removed a link to "Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions," with the comment "the link is about the book, not about Shahak," (which I think is a very poor reason, as I noted on the talk page of the article), but when, for reasons of consistency, I removed the links to The Interpretational Errors of Israel Shahak and The Jews are Bad! (which I think are less scholarly, more poorly written, and more biased than the other article, and which are also reviews of the book rather than comments directly about Israel Shahak), you restored them. And, I note, you also repeated (unintentionally? It was coincident with another edit you made) the deletion of the link I added. Surely, if links that are about the book do not belong, then all three links should go; but if links that are about the book are admissable, then no legitimate reason has been given for the deletion of the link that I added. Could you please make sure your actions are consistent, either by restoring the link I added or by deleting the other two, or, in the absence of that, please explain at the talk page of the article why you think the two anti-Shahak book reviews belong but the neutral-on-Shahak book review does not belong? Thanks. -- DLH

The Jews are Bad! is certainly about more than JHJR; much of it discusses Shahak and the famous telephone incident. Regarding edits like this, please review the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the subtitle for The Jews are Bad!, which is, "A review of Jewish History, Jewish Religion. The Weight of Three Thousand Years. by Israel Shahak, Foreword by Gore Vidal." Also, "Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions," is about more than JHJR, discussing as it does the reasons Shahak wrote it and the reception that Shahak's work in general has received in Arab, Muslim, and openly antisemitic circles. Did you read either of the articles? And what about that edit do you think is my original resarch? I am not Bob Werman, if that is what you were thinking. -- DLH 66.82.9.80 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I've read the articles, I'm the one who brought them as references in the first place. The Werner Cohn article may have that subtitle, but it spends a fair bit of space discussing Shahak and L'Affaire Shahak. The Alexander article spends almost all of its time discussing the book itself, almost nothing discussing Shahak. In any way, it's moot, I've moved it all to the standard "Notes" "References" format, which handles all sorts of issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your changes. I want to add a sentence or two on remarks that I believe Shahak made in JHJR regarding the obligation to save non-Jewish lives (or not, according to Shahak), but otherwise I didn't find anything in the article that strongly struck me as misplaced. -- DLH 66.82.9.92 03:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the paragraph you inserted that was not about L'affaire Shahak, which was about the telephone incident, whether it was plausible, and the furor surrounding it. Additional claims Shahak made regarding Jewish attitudes to gentiles should go elsewhere, if anywhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think your removal is inappropriate. Several references are given in the paragraph on Jakobovits' denouncement of Shahak, buttressing the claim that, contrary to Shahak's statement, Jewish Law requires violating Sabbath in order to save non-Jewish lives. But Shahak's own references supporting his position, you wish to suppress. It is as though Shahak is on trial for slander, but while every opportunity is given for those who accuse him to make their case, Shahak's defense of himself is limited to a cursory summary of his position. These are the standards of the Spanish Inquisition. Are you seriously promoting your latest deletion as contributing to the quality, and especially to the balance of the article? I think the effect is the exact opposite. -- DLH 66.82.9.92 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If Shahak directly addresses Jakobovits, then bring that material, making it clear that Shahak is responding to Jakobovits. Quote him referring to Jakobovits. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your standard is ridiculous, and I'll show you very clearly why: Suppose we look not at Jakobovits, but rather Student, and we hold that any evidence Shahak has provided that contradicts Student can only be included if Shahak has directly refered to Student's comments. Isn't that, first of all, an accurate extrapolation of the policy you insist upon with regard to Jakobovits? But then we run into an obvious and insurmountable problem with the policy, just by looking at the first sentence of the paragraph on Student's criticism: "Reviewing Shahak's account after Shahak's death, Rabbi Gil Student also casts doubt on its veracity ..." Whatever underlying standard it is that you want to maintain or achieve for this article, can you state it in a more reasonable way? I don't mean to trample your intent with this article, but what you insist here cannot be taken seriously. -- DLH 66.82.9.92 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your example is confusing, and does not seem to relate to policy at all. This is an article about Shahak, not Jakobovits or Student; thus sources discussing Shahak are relevant. The specific section is about the alleged telephone incident, so any sources which discuss that can be quoted. If Shahak specifically responds to his critics on that issue, that's relevant too. Rather than fighting Wikipedia policy, it's best to work within it. Wikipedia's no original research policy can be extremely difficult for new editors to accept, but it must be accepted. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How can Shahak have responded to Student's comments, which were made after Shahak had died? This is what you seem to be insisting on here, and it is confusing! Now, there is this question of, "are Jews obligated to save non-Jews on the Sabbath?" And the article contains the core of both Jakobovits' and Student's arguments and citations indicating that, yes, Jews are obligated to save non-Jews on the Sabbath. But Shahak, in his book, cites both the Talmud and commentaries on it that indicate quite clearly that Jews are not only not obligated to save non-Jews on the Sabbath, but they are prohibitted from saving non-Jews, and not just on the Sabbath. On what ground do you insist that the arguments that Jews are obligated to save non-Jews on the Sabbath, and that Israel Shahak is a liar and a hoax for claiming otherwise, but that Israel Shahak's arguments to the contrary should not see the light of day, even though this is, as you note, an article about Shahak? How can you think it is appropriate to convey arguments that Shahak is wrong at a higher level of detail than what was given to Shahak's actual position? Should not the article be more concerned with what Shahak actually wrote and argued than with his critics' arguments that he was wrong? And do you think that your latest deletion accomplishes this, or at least moves toward it? -- DLH 66.82.9.92 19:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Shahak can't respond, but other reliable sources can. These don't, however, include Wikipedia editors constructing arguments on his behalf. And, keep in mind, the section in question is only about the veracity of the telephone story, not about his accusations about Judaism in general. By the way, Shahak, a chemistry teacher by trade, is a reliable source only on his personal views regarding Jewish law, not on Jewish law itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gil Student is a quantitative analyst by trade; is he also not a reliable source on Jewish Law? -- DLH 66.82.9.74 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gil Student is also an Orthodox Rabbi, which involves literally years of intensive study of Rabbinic Law, followed by rigorous testing before ordination is granted. Was Shahak a Rabbi, or did he have some other expertise in Jewish law of which I am not aware? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I could note that Shahak wrote and published a book on Jewish history and religion, which, on its face, would make him as qualified a reference on Jewish law as, for example, Alan Dershowitz is on Middle East politics and history. But, no, I do not know of any particular expertise that Shahak has that would make his opinion on Jewish law something to seek out. I do think the fact that he was president of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights would tend to qualify him to be cited as an authority on civil rights in Israel, possibly even on the effect of Jewish law on those civil rights. I don't propose, though, that this is relevant to the question at hand.

The standard you propose for the "L'Affaire Shahak" seems to be that only matters that directly relate to the actual incident (including whether or not it occurred) and whether or not the alleged refusal on the part of the Haredi man to allow his phone to be used for the sake of saving a non-Jewish life on the Sabbath was in accordance with Jewish law. Is that accurate? (You can amend it later if you change your mind.)

I don't think this would be a bad standard. However, immediately it would seem to exclude the comment from Werner Cohn in the first paragraph, which actually I would have removed when I removed the general JHJR material earlier, if I had been more thorough. Would you agree with this?

As I think about it, though, there is another matter: the attacks on Shahak's character. The occurance or non-occurance of the original event is already covered sufficiently, I think, by the standard I stated above. However, the other end of it is that Shahak claimed that he was told by members of the Rabbinical Court that the alleged "phone denial" was proper, and, as late as 1994, he claimed that, "Neither the Israeli, nor the diaspora, rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling that a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile." And Jakobovits, especially, looking presumably at the same ruling as Shahak, essentially calls him a liar on this matter. Essentially, Jakobovits reads the ruling and sees the bottom line that non-Jewish lives are to be saved in the same manner as Jewish lives, but Shahak reads the ruling and sees that non-Jewish lives are to be saved only toward the end of avoiding enmity against Jews, and not for their own sakes. And Shahak lays out the history of this interpretation.

You wrote earlier that, "If Shahak specifically responds to his critics (on the phone issue) that's relevant too." He does respond, as is already quoted in the article, to the rabbinical authorities' rulings (which Jakobovits' main topic as well), accusing them of adding "much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequence of such an act puts Jews in danger, the violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake." Do you still think that Shahak's response to his critics should be included in the section, and do you think that his characterization of the meaning of the rabbinical rulings qualifies as such a response?

As another matter, because both Jakobovits and Student are indicating as having accused Shahak of fabricating the original event, Student especially on the grounds that there is no reason in Judaism for it to have occurred as described, then I think that reliable reports of similar events are relevant. I am thinking, of course, of the Mail-Jewish Digest comment, although I recognize that this has many issues separating it from being a "reliable report." I would like at least to get an agreement on the principle: if person X has an article about him that appropriately notes his claim that event Y is impossible, is it original research for an editor to append to person X's article the comment that event Y actually did occur as reported by a reliable source subsequent to person X's claim, even when the report from the reliable source does not mention person X or the fact that his conjecture has been disproved by event Y?

Finally, I note that restricting material in this article's section to the phone incident only moves the disagreement on other matters to the JHJR article, unfortunately.

-- DLH 69.19.14.40 06:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My inclination at this point is to add a comment at the end of the "L'Affaire" section paragraph on Shahak's JHJR remarks indicating that he never acknowledged that Jewish law required violating the Sabbath to save a non-Jewish life, and then point to the JHJR article, which needs to be filled out with his more specific comments on that and other matters. -- DLH 66.82.9.58 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How many times must we go over WP:NOR? This article is about Shahak, and the section in question talks about the Telephone incident. Thus all sources used must also be about Shahak, his views, or the telephone incident. We, as Wikipedia editors, can't be looking for other sources to bolster what we believe Shahak's arguments to be; rather, we must find reliable sources which make these arguments. Please stop removing relevant material that is on the topic, and inserting your own original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't add whatsoever "comment" anywhere ever, that's OR indeed. --tickle me 12:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"please don't remove the Cohn section"

(copied from tewfik's talk page)

Why not? The Cohn sentence, "Werner Cohn would state in 1994: 'Dr. Shahak does not seem to notice that this clamor, which he duly notes, is in itself a refutation of his charge that current Jewish life is dominated by orthodox inhumanity,'" is about Shahak "not seeming to notice" the implication of a reaction to the affair, and not about the affair itself. Jayjg has been insisting that Shahak's opinion on the ruling does not belong in the section, which makes it difficult to see how Cohn's remark about his opinion can be kept. Please explain yourself. Thanks. -- DLH 69.19.14.41 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You still fail to understand WP:NOR. We quote what reliable sources have said about the incident, including reactions to it. We don't make up our own arguments about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, first of all, this question was not directed at you. Secondly, you have been insisting that Shahak's own views on the underlying situation should not be put in the section, for reasons that strain credulity. Read very carefully, Jayjg, the quote that you just re-inserted from Cohn: he is not commenting on the situation, but rather he is commenting on Shahak's reaction, and as you note forcefully, when it serves your apparent underlying interest of censoring Shahak's comments from the article, the section is about the incident, and not about Shahak's opinion about it. Please try to be at least consistent enough in your actions that a child could not see the hypocrisy. And give your wailing about WP:NOR a rest; as I've told you repeatedly, I've read it, and I am comfortable with my understanding of it. I'll ignore all your future bleating on the matter as harassment. -- DLH 66.82.9.62 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cohn is commenting on the controversy surrounding the telephone incident, which is fair play. Shahak is not commenting about that at all. Please read policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Cohn is commenting on Shahak's "charge that current Jewish life is dominated by orthodox inhumanity." -- DLH 66.82.9.62 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Cohn is commenting on the "clamor" surrounding the phone incident; here's the full paragraph:

One of Shahak's charges has been taken very seriously. Some thirty years ago Shahak reported to the press that he had personally witnessed the following incident: an orthodox Jew saw an injured non-Jew on the Sabbath. To save the man's life, it was necessary to call an ambulance. The Jew had the phone handy but would not allow a violation of the sabbath, i.e. use of the phone, because the injured was a non-Jew. In Shahak's version, with which he begins this book, the Jew here followed the ruling the of orthodox rabbinate. The story was taken up by Ha-Arets in Israel, then by the Jewish Chronicle in London and other publications, all joining in a clamor against the barbaric orthodox. (Dr. Shahak does not seem to notice that this clamor, which he duly notes, is in itself a refutation of his charge that current Jewish life is dominated by orthodox inhumanity).

As is quite obvious, it's about the "Affaire". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Really. And what does the quote from Cohn that you insist belongs in the article tell us about the "Affaire?" That there was "clamor" after it? Does that warrant a quotation, since Shahak himself apparently "duly notes" it? This is encyclopedic information, that a source with a quote is needed for? Is it really? Oh, but what else does the quote claim: aha! that this clamor refutes a charge that Shahak makes! This might be encyclopedic, except someone keeps insisting that the charges that Shahak makes do not belong in the section where the quote is inserted. Again, very much like the Spanish Inquisition, you want full audience for anyone insisting that Shahak's charges have been refuted, but you deny any hearing at all of Shahak's charges. You're acting as a propagandist, quite simply. -- DLH 66.82.9.56 05:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

????

Someone seems to have forgotten to take his medicine this morning. Or else, there is no limit to the lengths that a propagandist is willing to go. I hope you get better one day, Jayjg. -- DLH 69.19.14.32 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest reverts

Zero, could you say what the issue is with that material, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well vs Censorship

This is really quite facinating: on the Sabeel-article I learned that mentioning that the NGO Monitor was published by Dore Gold was Poisoning the well (!) [13]...therefore it had to be removed. (What this makes Dore Gould...well, I´m still laughing!)

Anyway, mentioning Neo-nazis in connection with Shahak (a connection, btw, he never supported in any way, quite the opposite;) is that Poisoning the well? OH no! not to mention that, that is censorship!

May I suggest that people actually read the Poisoning the well and the Censorship articles .....before they start throwing the words around? Thanks! I must just confess though, that I am stunned at the different "standards" set here, and I am really struggelig to take this seriously. Regards, Huldra 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: And yes: last time I checked every mention of Dore Gould was cut out from the Sabeel article in connection with the NGO Monitor.

Your arguments have nothing to do with this article. The fact that Israel Shahak is used by Nazis is notable, and there are a half-dozen sources listed which note it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If nobody who is RS has found it notable, then it simply is not for me or you to say that it is noteable. If we cannot back it up, then it is just our WP:OR. Therefore, the following sentence must be removed

Ernst Zündel praised him as "a voice of reason and decency in a country where 'the people of the lie' live and hold sway - and, sadly, also govern," [13] and David Duke described Shahak as "one of the Jews I have most respected" and dedicated his book Jewish Supremacism to him. [14]

....(unless you want to include Zündel and Dukes opinion about, say, Sharon or Ben-Gurion or Begin... in the articles about Sharon or Ben-Gurion or Begin.. ? You simply cannot say that "some" of Zündel and Dukes opinions are noteable, and others are not.)

Because, lets take a look the next sentence:

Shahak's books can be found on Holocaust denial websites widely considered anti-Semitic, [15] such as Radio Islam, "Bible Believers", Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press".

and at the sources listed, which is supposed to "back it up", let us just analyse this one footnote (which looks very impressive with references); footnote no. 15,

• The E.U. Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia,
  • 2006 annual report: nothing about Shahak, no Radio Islam, no Zundel, no Duke,
  • total site: not mentioned: Shahak, Radio Islam, Zundel, Duke
    • What is mentioned in the 2006 report is this: ""Jews continue to experience antisemitic incidents, which tend to be well documented by both official and unofficial sources. And, although their experiences remain under-documented, Muslims are increasingly coming to NGOs´attention as victims of racist violence and crime." (most discrimination (by far): was registred against Roma)

• Anti-Defamation League: Whaw! this is the only place here that mentions Shahak at all! However, they do not mention that he is used by Holocaust denial websites or neo-Nazi people; instead they do something much, much more useful (IMO), namely, they argue against Shahaks writings/opinions, like in: "The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics February 2003:

  Probably the most far-reaching claim made by anti-Talmud polemicists is that Judaism views non-Jews as a subhuman species deserving only hatred and contempt from its Jewish superiors. 1Shahak (1994) p. 94; Shahak, Israel. Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (Boulder, Colorado: Pluto Press, 1994)

  In its long history, Judaism has had its share of bigots, racists and xenophobes, some of whom expressed their prejudices in religious terms. In certain historical periods there have even been Jewish sects whose worldview placed Jews higher than non-Jews in inherent value. But normative Judaism has never diminished the essential humanity— and the concomitant holiness, derived from the doctrine of creation in imago Dei—shared by Jews and non-Jews alike.

• Stephen Roth Institute, [1]=[14]: dead link, [2]=[15]: nothing about Shahak, (nothing about David Duke, but include Zündelsite (Canada), Radio Islam (Sweden)),

• American Jewish Committee, [3]=[16] wrong link, no Shahak on the official website, no Radio Islam, no Ernst Zundel, But many David Duke,

• the Southern Poverty Law Center, [4]=[17] : no Shahak (plenty on David Duke, Radio Islam, Ernst Zundel),

• Political Research Associates, [5]=[18] the link : no Shahak, no Radio islam, yes on david duke, yes ernst zundel. The home page: same,
• and various academics (e.g. [6]=[19] Holocaust Denial Literature: A Bibliography, but no Shahak),

Conclusion: the above two sentences (in purple) are pure Poisoning the well. They must be removed; if they are not removed, well, then we can expect to see sentences on the Wikipedia pages of, say, Menachem Begin/David Ben-Gurion/Ariel Sharon/or whoever/ like this:

Ernst Zündel/David Duke/Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard/Adelaide Institute critizized Menachem Begin/David Ben-Gurion/Ariel Sharon/or whoever/ and called him "the worst murderer in modern times/lier and a thief, or bla-bla-bla," and dedicated his book "Jewish Thiefs" (Or whatever) to him.

.

Menachem Begin/David Ben-Gurion/Ariel Sharon/'s books and quotes can be found on Holocaust denial websites widely considered anti-Semitic, [15] such as Radio Islam, "Bible Believers", Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press".

I have absolutely no wish to see such a developement, or to give Ernst Zündel/David Duke/Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard/Adelaide Institute and other loonies more place than they deserve.

Finally, I must note that I´m apparently aiming at moving targets here. I repeat some of my edit 16 February 2007[20], as it was never answered: here:[21] you wrote that "David Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source".......But now you insist on quoting the same David Duke directly with the rational that it "speaks to the heart of the criticism that others have made of him"?! And I just do not understand that an editor can lambast another editor for (inadvertedly) linking to a extremist site, declaring that "Frankly, you have lost all credibility with these edits"....and then calmy linking directly, on purpose, to the same "extremist site". Honestly, how do you think this looks for an "outsider"? Regards, Huldra 00:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong footnote. Try 12. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened the text even more, so it's extremely clear which footnotes apply to which claims. It's still footnote 12. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Defamatory slanders"

Shahak is not a living person. He is long dead, BLP doesn't apply, and his approval by neo-Nazis and other antisemites has been noted in many places, and is even commented on in the introduction to one of his books. This is not defamatory or slanderous, but obviously notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that Wikipedia is an apropriate forum for character assasination, even of people who are no longer alive and no longer capable of answering accusations against them. The tactic of smearing people by trying to associate them with Nazis has been used by Israeli propogandists for many years agains most of Israels critics. And it is ironically the jewish critics who get the worst attacks. This is not in any way notable or encyclopedic.

This argument does seem to be polarized into pro-israeli/pro-palestinian camps, and I suggest that we issue a RFC to bring in some editors who have not been involved in editing pages about Israel and Palestine, who have not taken sides on the issue so that they can give their opinion about this article. What do you think? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 23:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I just think you need to follow policy, rather than focusing on editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a RFC [22] to solicit some hopefully impartial input from editors who are not involved in the Israeli/Arab conflict.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this hasn't changed. It is grossly excessive and obviously slanderous. Vicious attacks on someone based on malicious association and innuendo might be good enough somewhere else but they aren't good enough here. What's with all the footnotes, quoting Shahak's enemies one after the other? It looks ridiculous and obviously violates NPOV. This matter deserves one sentence at best, of the form "opponents of Shahak regularly noted that Shahak was quoted favorably by Neo-Nazi and other anti-semitic organizations." Then one or two references at most to examples of such opponents, then Mezvinsky's statement. That's the maximum that is reasonable. --Zero^talk 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero, I don't understand why it's not of obvious significance that Ernst Zündel praised him as "a voice of reason and decency," and David Duke called him "one of the Jews I have most respected." There are primary and secondary sources. It's just one short section in the article. There are no BLP issues. It would seem inappropriate to try to cut it down still further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when is either David Duke or Ernst Zündel a reliable source? Who gives a %^%$(*& what their opinion is? This is an obvious massive violation of the rules and the two of you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. --Zero^talk 09:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They're a source for their own opinions, and the admiration of people like Duke etc. for Shahak has been commented on by other sources. In fact, it's even been commented on by Shahak's co-authors, in the introduction to his books. Name one another late 20th century author who has his works reproduced in full on all the major antisemitic websites! This is the elephant in the room regarding Shahak, and it is you who should be ashamed for trying to hide it. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can quote from July, last year [[23]]: "Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source". Sooooooo, which publication (≈reliable source) has noted that Duke called Shahak "one of the Jews I have most respected"? Regards, Huldra 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you haven't actually looked at the footnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I take note that sombody can express such a view, given my detailed analysis of footnotes just above, under Talk:Israel_Shahak#Poisoning_the_well_vs_Censorship. It think it would be very nice if people could try to answer questions put to them, instead of attacing the editors who makes these question. So I repeat: which publication (≈reliable source) has noted that Duke called Shahak "one of the Jews I have most respected"? Thank you. Huldra 01:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Ps: I would like to see that somebody did answer my questions under Talk:Israel_Shahak#Poisoning_the_well_vs_Censorship. If nobody answers: does that mean it is a consensus for removing the two (purple) sentences? Regards, Huldra 01:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong footnote. Try 12. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have of course looked at note 12, so I repeat my question: which of those sources have noted that Duke called Shahak "one of the Jews I have most respected"? (Of course, the question becomes moot, if we accept Slim´s explanation below) Regards, Huldra 11:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a misunderstanding of the policy that no primary sources are allowed. Of course they are, so long as they're used to make purely descriptive claims ("A said X"). And there are secondary sources who have noted that these groups or individuals support him. In addition, the section is quite short, so there's no undue weight issue; arguably quite the reverse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you Slim, for making that clarification. But would that mean that, say, if Duke said/wrote/stated that "mr X is one of the Jews I have most despised", and there were secondary sources that had noted that Duke et. al. despised mr X, then that should go into mr X´s biography? Regards, Huldra 01:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends if some secondary source has noted Duke's relationship to the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A serious encyclopedia would analyze how & why Shahak's wrinting is often used by the extremist fringe. Perhaps the section needs some improvement, but totally blanking it is not right. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A serious encyclopedia first needs to see if his writings are used "often" by neo-nazis and if this is notable, or part of a defamatory campaing to delegitimize his writings. It would also need to consider whether undue weight was given to his critics, and whether the crticisms were real criticism of his ideas or ad homenium attacks. 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinions are fascinating, but Wikipedia's rules are WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

<intend>Lets look at this on a more general level: If RS (≈[[WP:RS]) A states that EXTR(≈"express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist") B has praised / criticized any C, that means that we can now in the article about C quote B directly, and link directly to his/her/their website. This would e.g. mean that in the article about Jesse Helms, we could quote directly from the LaRouche_Movement and link directly to their web-site? Why? Because a RS (Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 273., see under LaRouche_Movement#Criticism) have noted such a relationship. I think this is opening a can of worms. Regards, Huldra 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Jesse Helms has notability outside of what the LaRouche movement thinks. Shahak's only notability is that his flawed works are used to justify anti-Semitism. -- TedFrank 11:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice this comment before now. It is an absolutely amazing comment, which one really have to bring some evidence to support. Even the present (very flawed) article does not support such a view. Until some evidence is brought, I think I will disregard the comment. So, I return to my question, "do we open the can of worms"? Regards, Huldra 21:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So now your issue is only with quoting Zundel and Duke? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC

If you are new here, welcome. Please read #Poisoning the well vs Censorship and #"Defamatory slanders" for an introduction to the discussion here. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming here because of the RFC; have never edited the article. The only reason I'm aware of Israel Shahak at all is because he is so frequently quoted by neo-Nazis and by left-wing anti-Semites like Jorn Barger. It's the most notable thing about him, and he would have been utterly forgotten if his canards weren't so useful to bigots. It would be a drastic violation of NPOV not to mention it, and it belongs in the first paragraph of the article. That said, I'd edit the second sentence in the article section to read simply David Duke dedicated his book Jewish Supremacy to him; there is no need to give a platform to Zundel's or Duke's actual anti-Semitic words. -- TedFrank 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello TedFrank, Thank you for your opinion. And I can assure you that your above mention of Jorn Barger is the first time I have ever heard of that person. And I don´t know anybody in my part of the world (=Scandinavia) who have heard of Shahak because of neo-nazis or other loonies. As for the inclusion of those references; please see my argument above.Huldra 11:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

per WP:NPA, I've deleted the portion of Huldra's comment above that were a personal attack, since this talk page is about the Israel Shahak article, and not about me. I'm here on the talk page because of an RFC, and I've never edited this article, and I certainly don't care enough about the article to be slandered and defend myself against a series of untrue accusations simply because I proposed a compromise that only partially agreed with Huldra's position. Per WP:CALM, I'll take this page off my watch list, and leave others to discuss it. -- TedFrank 12:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I strongly disagree with the above caracterizations of my edits, [24][25]. Regards, Huldra 15:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to welcome TedFrank to this discussion. But with all due respect your assertion that Huldra's edit was a personal attack is plain wrong. On the countrary, her comments help me make sense of your suprising and unual opinions. The fact that you took the unusual step of censoring another editors comments from a talk page [26] shows in my opinion that these comments are valid. I have not restored Huldra's edit as it remains in the talk page history along with your attempts to suppress it, and other editors will no doubt read it and draw the necessary conclusions. I have also asked Adam Kellner, Ittay and Number , 67 to come into this discussion, as it could benefit from a wider and more balanced spread of viewpoints.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA plainly says that it is inappropriate to comment on the editors, rather than the edits. Wikipedia policy also permits the removal of personal attacks from talk pages, and nothing I removed from Huldra's comments had anything to do with Israel Shahak. If you think that my behavior on this talk page vis-a-vis Huldra is in the wrong compared to Huldra's (and now your) behavior vis-a-vis me, I encourage you to raise it with the appropriate Wikipedia authorities rather than to continue to distract the discussion on this page from the relevant issue of improving the NPOV of the article about this notable anti-Semite. -- TedFrank 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(convenience break #1)

There was absolutely nothing in Huldra's edit which can in any way be considered a personal attack. Your censorship of her words [[27]] really just shows your own inability to answer her arguments. Your characterisation of Shahak as "this notable anti-semite" says it all. This is an encyclopeadia, not a neo conservative blog. And what we are writing here is supposed to be a balanced biography, not an excercise in mud slinging and villification of an individual who you dont like. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to respond to Huldra's personal attacks because this is the Israel Shahak page, not the "TedFrank page." Please address my statements on Shahak's well-documented anti-semitism, rather than continuing to personally attack me. -- TedFrank 12:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The section, as it stands to me here (last edit by Jayjg), is of of notable interest, clear and NPOV. Though the list of combined refs appears excessive and perhaps should be shaved, in one ref, Noam Chomsky, who is alive gets side-swiped for no particular reason to make a point about Shahak. This is guilt by association - by proxy - second removed - of an unrelated subject and detracts credibility from the overall point.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky isn't unrelated, since, along with Hitchens and Said, he was the prime promoter of Shahak to the mainstream left. If that taints Chomsky, well, it should. -- TedFrank 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, in response to Zleitzen's comment I've shaved down the quote to contain only the parts relevant to Shahak. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only person here troubled by the proportion of the article devoted to attacks on Prof Shahak? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the proportion of the article devoted to attacks on Shahak. The article as currently written has a POV problem because it whitewashes Shahak's record--one doesn't even have a hint that he is a controversial, marginalized, and discredited figure until Section 4 of the article, and the most notable thing about him, the fact that he is the (witting or unwitting) tool of anti-Semites, isn't mentioned until Section 6. These facts should be in the introductory paragraph. -- TedFrank 01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ted, Shahak is certainly contraversial. His views may be marginalized in that they are only held by a small proportion of Jewish Israelis. But to say that he is a discredited figure is your point of view. There is too little in the article about his writings, eg. nothing about his harsh criticisms of the PLO leadership, (criticisms made at a time when they still enjoyed overwhelming Palestinian support). ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is ok in its current form [28] (which includes a minor edit by me to put the Hebrew name and dates in the same brackets as standard). I believe it presents both points of view in a balanced manner (for instance, the L'Affaire Shahak section deals with his claim, then the response, then his retort to the response, then a final response, i.e. two points made by each side). The Praise and Criticism sections are of approximately equal size, whilst the Use by neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers bit appears uncontroversial. I would also have no problems with a bit about his criticism of the PLO leadership being added. Number 57 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(convenience break #2)

I'm responding to Abu Ali's invitation to comment on this RfC. (User talk:Itayb#Prof Shahak). I will comment on the following points:

1. TedFrank's statement, that Shahak's being frequently quoted by anti-Semites "belongs in the first paragraph of the article."
2. Zero's statement, that "Vicious attacks on someone based on malicious association and innuendo might be good enough somewhere else but they aren't good enough here."

In short: i agree with both points. My opinions are based on the following excerpts from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

• "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Wikipedia:Lead section

"Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." Wikipedia:Lead section#Writing about concepts

• "Readers are left to form their own opinions." Wikipedia:NPOV#The neutral point of view

"assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves" (original emphasis) Wikipedia:NPOV#A simple formulation

• "However, that would be an example of an unpublished synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and it constitutes original research." Wikipedia:Attribution#Unpublished synthesis of published material

In my opinion, the lead should mention that Shahak's writings are criticized for being endorsed by notable anti-Semite individuals and websites. In my opinion, based on footnote 12, this constitutes a significant criticism. The fact that Shahak is well-known in the anti-Semite circles also contributes to establishing his very notability.

However, this anti-Semite endorsement should not be used, in my opinion, to advance the position, that Shahak's writings are themselves anti-Semitic, or to belittle or dicredit them. That would be in violation of both the NPOV and the Original Research (Attribution) policies, as cited above. In fact, even as original research, such usage would run the risk of committing the "Guilt by Association" fallacy. Itayb 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it´s late, so here is last post here for the day: I would like you to note that all of the "mainstream" sources, earlier quoted in footnote 15, (see above) found the issue non-notable. I also found e.g The Guardian obituary [29] which does not mention this. If we quote Zundel/Duke, etc anywhere in the article, then we would show that Wikipedia attach far more weight to these sources (CAMERA, Jewish press etc) than mainstream newsmedia does. Then we should not be supprised when people call Wikipedia for Zionistpedia, or whatever. Good night, Huldra 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(convenience break #3)

The irony of citing the Guardian to prove that Shahak had notability beyond that of a prop for anti-Semites does not escape me.

I'd cite the New York Times obituary to refute the Guardian, except Shahak's death wasn't notable enough to make the Times,[30], making him less notable than the typical .260-hitting infielder.

I agree with Itayb's analysis on both points. The controversy over Shahak and anti-Semitism belongs in the first paragraph; Shahak's writings aren't anti-Semitic because Duke endorses him, and it would be inappropriate to suggest that. Shahak's writings are anti-Semitic because they lie about the Jewish religion for the political purpose of damaging Jews. It's possible to criticize Israel without falsely calling Jews Satan-worshippers. One can disregard every anti-Israel remark in Shahak's writings and legitimately come away with the opinion that those writings are anti-Semitic. -- TedFrank 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Ted Frank, I am not sure what point you are making about the Guardian. Are you arguing that it is not a reliable source? If you discount the Guardian, another English paper, the Independent published an obituary on 26/7/2001 saying:

"ISRAEL SHAHAK was one of Israel's most distinctive and controversial citizens. A leading academic, a writer and a lifelong campaigner in the cause of human rights, he had something of the character of an Old Testament prophet. Once denounced by ignorant fanatics - in Britain as well as in Israel - he eventually won the respect of all but the most blinkered nationalists."

Your your attempt to use a non-existent op-ed in the NYT to "refute the Guardian" does expose the weak foundations of your arguments. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My personal experience with the Guardian when it has reported on people and events I have first-hand experience with is that its reporting is highly unreliable and slanted. Even if one disagrees with that assessment, the Guardian has been criticized, including by its own columnists, for its own anti-Semitism. Still, I acknowledge that the Guardian meets WP:RS criteria. But that's not the point. The point is that the Guardian editorial policy does not dictate Wikipedia editorial policy, any more than the failure of the New York Times to even mention Shahak's death means that the entire article should be deleted. More importantly, Abu, while you spend lots of time personally attacking me, you fail to address the substance of my discussion of the Shahak article: is it your position that calling Jews Satan-worshippers is not anti-Semitic, as several reliable sources have noted? -- TedFrank 12:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a means of settling this dispute, inspired by the Wikinfo philosophy, as well as by the democratic legal process.

Divide the article into three main sections: "Undisputed Facts", "Assessment of Life and Work from a Sympathetic Point of View", "Assessment of Same from a Critical Point of View" (think of better headers, of course). Each of these super-sections may be divided into subsections as appropriate.

Writing from a sympathetic POV does not mean abandoning the attribution policy - "No Original Research" and "Direct and Explicit Attribution to Reliable Sources" - which should at all time be closely adhered to; the very same applies to writing from a critical POV.

The lead should mirror the article's structure. It should consist of three five sentence long paragraphs. The paragraphs should give the highlights of the undisputed facts section, the sympathetic section and the critical section, respectively. Itayb 15:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an interresting idea. I would like to add that the section on criticism is no longer than the criticism. And the criticism really consists of actual criticisms of his ideas, rather than personal attacks by association and inuendo. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Writing from a "sympathetic POV" is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. There is a wiki set up for writing articles from a sympathetic POV; Wikipedia is not it. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(convenience break #4)

I knew Israel Shahak, and I simply do not recognise him in many of the comments above. Shahak was certainly not an antisemite. As a liberal and a rationalist, he was critical of all religions; but he never made the categorical error of confusing critique of the religion with hatred of or discrimination against its adherents or their descendants. As he write at the end of "Jewish History, Jewish Religion", "Although the struggle against antisemitism (and all other forms of racism) should never cease, the struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism, which must include a critique of classical Judaism, is now of equal or greater importance".

For those of us critically studying Israeli society in the 1970s and 1980s, Shahak was simply irreplaceable. His regular production of closely annotated collections of and translations from the Hebrew press were an invaluable resource.

User:TedFrank above states that he had never previously heard of Shahak, and then accuses him of calling Jews "Satan-worshippers". Such an accusation can only result from distorting or misreading Shahak's own words, or from relying on a secondary source which distorts or misreads them. What Shahak actually argued was that the cabbalists interpreted Jewish practice to bear this meaning, and that Jews who held this belief worshipped together with Jews who rejected it ("Jewish History, Jewish Religion", pp34-5).

Shahak was equally critical of fundamentalists of all religions. He wrote extensively against the practice of "honour killing" in Palestinian society, and held Islam and Christianity to the same ethical standards by which he assessed Judaism.

The argument that Shamir's appearance on David Duke's site proves his antisemitism is specious. After a quick check, I note that Shahak (75 mentions) is referred to much less frequently than Alan Dershowitz (103 mentions) and Ariel Sharon (345 mentions) , and about the same as David Ben-Gurion (74 mentions). Surely nobody is going to suggest that this proves the "antisemitism£ of these figures? And the suggestion that an obituary in The Guardian somehow proves Shahak's antisemitism is simply laughable. RolandR 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I or others have said.

1. I did not say "I never previously heard of Shahak." I said I learned of Shahak from antisemitic websites, and that those websites' use of his antisemitic writings is the most notable thing about him. It's certainly not respectable scholars of religion who cite to Shahak's writings on Judaism.
2. No one is arguing that the mention of Shahak's name on David Duke's website proves his antisemitism. Shahak's antisemitism proves his antisemitism, and the antisemites know which side Shahak is on because they're happy to quote his writings verbatim.
3. No one has said that an obituary in the Guardian proves Shahak's antisemitism. I noted that the failure of the Guardian to comment on Shahak's antisemitism proves nothing, because the Guardian regularly downplays (if not incites) antisemitism.
4. The "worshipping Satan" remark doesn't come from me, but comes from Shahak: one can readily find the complete text of the passage in question by googling for "Shahak Jewish History" on the antisemitic Bible Believers website if one wants to verify that Shahak calls this part of "classical Judaism." RolandR's attempt at a saving interpretation is not only incorrect, but violates WP:NOR. -- TedFrank 18:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "The only reason I'm aware of Israel Shahak at all is because he is so frequently quoted by neo-Nazis and by left-wing anti-Semites"; ie, you have absolutely no knowledge about his work or its importance, only second-hand information from those who distort and misquote him. RolandR 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is double-talk. In the sentence above, you actually assert what you claim not to be asserting -- that the fact that antisemites quote Shahak proves that he was an antisemite. RolandR 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Then what does your comment "The irony of citing the Guardian to prove that Shahak had notability beyond that of a prop for anti-Semites does not escape me" mean?. And please give some evidence to back up your assertion that "the Guardian regularly downplays (if not incites) antisemitism."

If it is original research to go back to an alleged source, and see what it actually says, then I plead guilty. I am not offering a saving interpretation, but quoting the book. Have you actually read the book, or only the out-of-context quotes to be found on websites attacking Shahak? Here is the full passage from the book:

Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the cabbalists, are designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan. At a certain point in the morning prayer, some verses in Aramaic (rather than the more usual Hebrew) are pronounced. This is supposed to be a means for tricking the angels who operate the gates through which prayers enter heaven and who have the power to block the prayers of the pious. The angels only understand Hebrew and are baffled by the Aramaic verses; being somewhat dull-witted (presumably they are far less clever than the cabbalists) they open the gates, and at this moment all the prayers, including those in Hebrew, get through. Or take another example: both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshiping Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter. Indeed, the cabbalists believe that some of the sacrifices burnt in the Temple were intended for Satan. For example, the seventy bullocks sacrificed during the seven days of the feast of Tabernacles9 were supposedly offered to Satan in his capacity as ruler of all the Gentiles,in order to keep him too busy to interfere on the eighth day, when sacrifice is made to God. Many other examples of the same kind can be given.

Several points should be made concerning this system and its importance for the proper understanding of Judaism, both in its classical period and in its present political involvement in Zionist practice.

First, whatever can be said about this cabbalistic system, it cannot be regarded as monotheistic, unless one is also prepared to regard Hinduism, the late Graeco-Roman religion, or even the religion of ancient Egypt, as 'monotheistic'.

Secondly, the real nature of classical Judaism is illustrated by the ease with which this system was adopted. Faith and beliefs (except nationalistic beliefs) play an extremely small part in classical Judaism. What is of prime importance is the ritual act, rather than the significance which that act is supposed to have or the belief attached to it. Therefore in times when a minority of religious Jews refused to accept the cabbala (as is the case today), one could see some few Jews performing a given religious ritual believing it to be an act of worship of God, while others do exactly the same thing with the intention of propitiating Satan - but so long as the act is the same they would pray together and remain members of the same congregation, however much they might dislike each other. But if instead of the intention attached to the ritual washing of hands anyone would dare to introduce an innovation in the manner of washing, a real schism would certainly ensue.

Even this quote, though lengthy, is out of its context in a dense and closely-argued book. The very title of the relevant chapter, "Orthodoxy and Interpretation", indicates that Shahak was discussing a particular interpretation of already-existing practice. Shahak does not, as User:TedFrank claims above, call Jews "Satan-worshippers". RolandR 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What's your point, Roland? That Shahak appears to have completely invented this "Satan" stuff? Does he provide any footnotes for the claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said, and I cited all of my claims that Roland is demanding cites for. Roland continues to misrepresent what I said, and I'm not going to waste time playing Argument Clinic; that I wouldn't be aware of Shahak if not for the efforts of antisemites to publicize his work does not mean that I know nothing of him. I read the chapter in question: it's available in full (probably in violation of copyright law) on the Bible Believers website, and I again encourage others to visit that antisemitic website if they disbelieve what I said about Shahak. In any event, Roland's extensive quote also proves my point: Shahak's claim that Judaism is polytheistic is antisemitic as well. -- TedFrank 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Shahak claims that Judaism was not always monotheistic. In what way is that antisemitic? RolandR 01:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Equating Jews with Nazis and claiming that they worship Satan - surely are antisemitic. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(convenience break #5)

It does not matter, for the purposes of Wikipedia, whether Shahak's writings are truely anti-Semitic or not.

As far as i see, nobody contests that Shahak is sufficiently notable, for whatever reasons, to be deserving of a biographical article in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is quite clear about what should and should not be included in the article.

Wikipedia is not censored, all content is acceptable, provided it meets the following criteria:

1. It should be concise: all statements should directly pertain to the subject matter of the article, and duplicity of information is to be avoided. (This is my personal opinion. I have not been able to find a policy or guideline that states this explicitly.)
2. It should be well-attributed: all statements must be directly and explicitly supported by reliable secondary sources.
3. It should be free: the presentation of the material must not violate copyright.

Additionally, a good article should bear the following qualities:

1. It should be comprehensive: all that's pertinent is to be included.
2. It should be neutral: the article, on the whole, should not advance any particular assessment of the subject matter; readers are to be left to form their own opinions.
3. The lead should be short, and faithfully summarize the article in its current state.

You think that some piece of information is missing from the article? Be bold and add it! No need to discuss your action. Make sure, though, that it clearly meets the above criteria.

You think a particular statement in the article clearly violates one of the above criteria? Be bold and change or delete it, as appropriate! No need to discuss your action. Make sure, though, to clearly indicate the violated criterion.

If an edit war ensues, or, in my opinion, if there's a good reason to fear a particular edit would bring about an edit war, the controversy should be discussed in the talk page. In my estimation, a more specific objection is more likely to generate a productive discussion, than a general one. Also, an accusation of an obvious violation of a particular policy is more likely to prevail than a general statement of discomfort, or a "grey-area" violation. Hence i would recommend all such discussions to concern themselves with a particular phrase or sentence. The arguments should center on whether or not this statement clearly violates one of the above criteria. Itayb 09:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the most prominent webpages about Israel Shahak?

If one Googles Israel Shahak, the #2 entry is a critique of his anti-Semitism, the #4 and #9 entries are anti-Semitic sites trumpeting Shahak's anti-Semitism, the #6 entry is the anti-Semite Jorn Barger's website (who Huldra says she never heard of), the #8 entry is the anti-Semitic Radio Islam website, and #10 is a Holocaust revisionist website. #3, #5, and #7 are favorable eulogies that whitewash his anti-Semitism. But six out of the top nine non-Wikipedia Google links for Shahak emphasize his anti-Semitism. The collective wisdom of the Internet, such as it is, believes the most notable thing about Shahak is his attacks on Judaism. -- TedFrank 12:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look in Google for "Israel" + "Racist" and "Israel" + "Genocide" you will find that according to "The collective wisdom of the Internet" Israel is a racist state which is actively perpetrating genocide. You can find ANYTHING at all on the internet, becuase EVERYBODY is putting up EVERYTHING on the internet all the time. It is the fate of controversial people like Israel Shahak that much of what is put up about them on the net is put up by their fiercest enemies. This is no criteria to judge a person, and you know it very well.Adam Keller17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but eight of those nine links are put up by Shahak supporters. The most prominent websites promoting Shahak are promoting his anti-Jewish work rather than his anti-Zionist work. -- TedFrank 18:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam, Roland: denial is usual companion of hate speech. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Humus, I don't understand your point. Please explain...ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding any of the points made here any more. Is the current debate about whether the links to antisemites should also be in the lead? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break #7

I suggest, based on the discussion above, that (1) the notable and reliably-sourced accusations of antisemitism should be mentioned in the lead, as well as in a section in the main text; (2) one doesn't need to quote Duke and Zundel; (3) the fact that Duke dedicated his book to Shahak is notable, and should be mentioned. I haven't seen any argument that the antisemitism allegations aren't notable or reliably sourced, just that they are supposedly incorrect or malicious, which is irrelevant to WP:A given that WP:BLP does not apply. -- TedFrank 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed various uses of primary sources both sympathetic and critical (although this "balance" was not intentional). This RfC demonstrates how easy it is to take Shahak's words out of context. I believe both parties would agree with me on this point. Hence, primary sources should be utterly avoided, since they cannot "be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge" Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources.

As for TedFrank's comment, that "the fact that Duke dedicated his book to Shahak is notable, and should be mentioned." Firstly, "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit content within the articles." (Wikipedia:Notability), so you needn't demonstrate that whatever you add to the article is notable. However it must conform to the Attribution policy, and that's why i've removed it.

Surely, the fact, that a person dedicates a book to another person is nothing special. Even if the dedicator is a raving anti-Semite and the dedicatee is a Jew, such a dedication, by itself, is meaningless, since, for one thing, you can't tell why it was made. For instance, it may be the case, that Shahak saved Duke's daughter from being hit by a car on the street, and Duke expressed his gratitude by dedicating his book to him.

Surely, the reason you wish to cite the dedication is in order to have the reader deduce from it, that Duke endorsed Shahak's writings. But why would it matter what Duke thought about Shahak's writings; it is not an article about Duke? Surely, you wish to have the reader deduce, that Shahak was himself anti-Semite, like Duke. That maybe the case, but unless you are able to quote (reliable) secondary sources that make this claim, you are carrying out original research, attempting to advance a position, that Shahak was an anti-Semite. This violates both the Attribution policy as well as the Neutral Point of View policy.

Again, Shahak may well have been an anti-Semite, and your using his being endorsed by anti-Semites to support this conclusion is not unreasonable. But you simply can't draw the conclusion yourself in Wikipedia, sound as it may be, nor imply it. It should be explicitly stated by others. Itayb 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the stuff cited solely to secondary sources, and included other secondary sources. Please don't remove it again without prior discussion. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the citation, Duke himself states the reason, and in any event, reliable third party sources note the citation; that's enough for our purposes. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more sources

User:Tiamut was kind enough to do a bit of digging and has posted a list of useful sources on my talk page. As I probably won't be able to spend much time on-line this week, I have copied her post here as it is very relevant to the discussion above and also provides material which is worth adding to the article. Thanks to Tiamut for the hard work. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is a review of the book, Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections, [31] in the WRMEA that quotes and discusses one of Shahak’s essay. You might find this quote very relevant to the issue at hand:

  Zionism, writes Shahak, "can be described as a mirror image of anti-Semitism," since it, like the anti-Semites, holds that Jews are everywhere aliens who would best be isolated from the rest of the world. Moreover, "both anti-Semites and Zionism assume anti-Semitism is ineradicable and inevitable."

• This article [32] at the History News Network entitled, "Poisoning the Well: The False Equation of Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism" by Professor Irfan Khawaja addresses the smears laid against Shahak and a slew of others. She say there is a broad trend of

  … reflexive equation, by defenders of Israel, of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, itself part of the emerging literature on "the new anti-Semitism." Focusing on the undeniable fact that many anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, and that anti-Zionism can easily be used as a disguise for anti-Semitism, writers in this genre simply insist over and over that no one can be an anti-Zionist without simultaneously being an anti-Semite ... What is at work here is less a discernible principle than a robotic sort of cut-and-paste procedure: Come up with a list of people who a priori must be anti-Semites; then cast about for ‘evidence’ of this claim by finding sentences here or there to which you give an anti-Semitic interpretation regardless of the intention of the author or the context of the utterance. Where the evidence is simply too thin to support a straightforward accusation, insinuate that anti-Semitism is at work without actually making an assertion that it is. Repeat the process until you run out of people.

• And finally, this is an article about a talk that Shahak gave with Chomsky [33] that described the debate provoked by their analyses:

We are doing to Palestinians what Christians have done to [Jews]," Shahak continued, tracing the history of the oppression of Jews throughout European history. "It is quite common that a persecuted group becomes a persecutor," he said.

… In reply to the audience's hostility, Shahak said that Jews who perpetuate a "denial of common humanity" are "Jewish Nazis." Another audience member angrily responded to Shahak, "You were lucky you survived [the Holocaust], but 6 million Jews didn't."

Several others said that Shahak's use of the phrase "Jewish Nazis" was disrespectful to the memory of the Holocaust. Shahak maintained that "Jews can become Nazis."

What does this have to do with the content of the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's for the criticism section. It provides sorely lacking balance to the guilt-by association smears of the criticism section and the neo-Nazi section above. See my latest edit. And there's more to come. :) Tiamut 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, for original research. Criticism should be criticism, really, you're changing the scope of the section. There is a Praise section that is equally unbalanced, because, of course, it's praise. We could, of course, add "counter-praise" to the Praise section, but that would just be a never-ending mess. I've moved one section that was merely about Shahak's views of Zionism and antisemitism to the proper section. Please don't try to synthesize arguments to defend Shahak from his detractors, that's not really within policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Irfan Khawaja lists 25 people, Shahak being only one of them. It seems quite iffy to have such a lengthy quote from her when it is only peripherally related to Shahak at all, and much more a critique of those she feels equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism. If you really want to "balance" the article in a way that actually conforms with policy, rather than turning the article into yet another partisan battleground, you'd be much better served by filling out the biography section, discussing his other works, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase that Shahak is admired "in pro-Palestinian and left-wing circles" is a form of counter praise. Khawaja's quote is very relevant as it puts the attempts to smear Shahak and other critcis of Israel's government in context. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was actually there to separate them from the neo-Nazis and antisemites, who, quite frankly, also praise him, to the skies; so much for your theory. In reality, the neo-Nazis and antisemites should be in the "Praise" section, but Shahak supporters found that so offensive that they insisted they be put in quarantine. Anyway, it's not "counter praise", but feel free to take it out - you'd notice real counter-praise if it were there. "Attempting to put in context" = WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "counter-praise", and tried to re-organize the article to have a section dealing solely with accusations of antisemitism, so that it can contain views and counter-views. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done a further re-organization incrporating praise and criticism into one section and subdividing it down into Praise from his peers, Criticisms from his community (incorporating a sub-section with L'Affair Shahak), and Accusations of anti-Semitism. I think that this formulation is fairer and better meets the requirements of NPOV. L'Affaire Shahak should be in a section on criticisms and it is directly related to the accusations that his work is not credible. The body of the article itself should be developed to represent some more of Shahak's views, perhaps those that are less disputed, so as to represent his notability as an academic and a scholar, for which he is much more well-known than for his allegedly "anti-Semitic" views. Tiamut 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Insisting that the praise is from "his peers", criticism is from his "community" etc. is not "fairer and better", but rather rank POV. "Alexander Cockburn" is his peer? In what way? Did they teach chemistry together? In addition, L'Affaire Shahak is neither praise nor criticism, but an important incident in his life. Cohn's point was about the at the time, not about the publication of the book years later. Khawaja's point does not respond to Ottolenghi's; Khawaja's point is about anti-Zionists being accused of antisemitism, whereas Ottolenghi's is about Jews who abet antisemites, a different point. The re-organization seemed to pay attention to chronology only when it suited a specific agenda, and ignored it otherwise. Please don't re-organize the entire article in a way which is both non-standard and which POVs the subject. I see others objected as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your formulation places the sub-headings as follows:
4 Praise
4.1 By neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers
5 Criticism
5.1 Accusations of antisemitism

How is this less NPOV than my own edit which read instead:

3 Praise & criticism
3.1 Praise from his peers
3.2 Criticism from his community
3.2.1 "L'Affaire Shahak"
3.3 Accusations of anti-Semitism

You own edit implies that Shahak is only praised by neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers (a sub-heading I believe is included for effect since it can easily be included under the accusations of antisemitism category and be prefaced by Ottolenghi's remarks. Further, L'Affaire Shahak was only a big deal in Isrel and among the Jewish community and the criticism emnanted from there so it is approrpiate as indicated by the sources provided and the text. It is reasonable to place it in a section entitled criticisms of the community and certianly not WP:OR. So to quote you: "Please don't re-organize the entire article in a way which is both non-standard and which POVs the subject. I see others objected as well." (note the request for Arbcomm below which you have ignored) Tiamut 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Praise from antisemites and neo-Nazis is not an accusation of antisemitism. The heading was insisted on by supporters of Shahak; I've removed it for you. I didn't place it as a sub-category of praise, though that's what it was. L'Affaire Shahak, as it makes clear, was a big issue around the world; the article mentions the furor in The Jewish Chronicle, for example. I've already explained why "peers" and "community" is made-up POV and OR. The article has been organized this way for years, so please don't pretend that your radical re-organization is some re-organization of my own. You're the one who insisted on including counter-arguments regarding antisemitism in the "Criticism" section, which forced some minor re-organization of that section only. The ArbCom does not deal with content issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The subheadings should now be:
4. Praise
5. Criticism
6. Accusations of antisemitism
which is how it was from the start. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made changes to accomodate your concerns about POV to the headings as well. It now reads:

1 Biography
2 Politics and works
3 Praise & criticism
3.1 Praise
3.2 Criticism
3.2.1 "L'Affaire Shahak"
3.2.2 Accusations of anti-Semitism
4 Notes
Tiamut 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you've basically just reverted. There are many issues with your reversion; for example, L'Affaire Shahak happened in the 60s, and it's not "criticism" of him, it's an incident that he claimed happened, and various responses to it, including his own. In addition, you've made false attributions; Ottolenghi didn't accuse him of antisemitism, nor did the ADL, etc. The "On the subject of anti-Zionism and its relationship to anti-Semitism" bit is pure original research; the accusations of antisemitism are mostly related to his fantastic tales regarding Jews worshiping Satan, not his views on Zionism - your arrangement falsely POVs these arguments too. You're attempting to make the "Criticism" section as large as possible, by inserting items that aren't criticism, and then also inserting various defenses against that criticism (including original research ones). You can't have it both ways; if it's criticism, then it's criticism, not criticism + praise + defense mixed together. Also, articles should be readable, not merely point form statements; please stop turning readable narrative into an excel spreadsheet. Massive re-writes and re-orgs, especially POV ones like this, need consensus first. Please try that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll address you comments one by one:

• On moving L’Affaire Shahak: its primary use of notability is that it is used by his critics to assert that is unreliable. That it is given such prominence in the article is in no way warranted. His actual views, rather one alleged mistake he made in interpretation should be given some space in the body.

• Which Anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism part is "pure original research exactly"? And how does it differ at all from the inclusion of Ottolenghi?

• On what basis do you believe that “the accusations of antisemitism are mostly related to his fantastic tales regarding Jews worshiping Satan, not his views on Zionism?” Where is your WP:RS for this claim?

• I’m not trying to make the Criticism section larger (what a weird accusation). It just so happens that the majority of the article is made up of wild critiques of Shahak, rather than an actual representation of some of his arguments.

• Further: the point form format is fully negotiable. :) Tiamut 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Regarding L'Affaire Shahak, it's actually a big deal, since it's not stating that he made a mistake in interpretation, but rather that he created an international furor around an incident he is alleged to have invented. And when the Chief Rabbi of England takes you up on it, it becomes an even bigger deal.
2. The Ottolenghi insertion addresses the issue of whether or not Shahak was an antisemite; Ottolenghi presents a nuanced view that, if nothing else, he definitely aided antisemites. The Anti-Zionism stuff, on the other hand, is some original research quoting Shahak's views on anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and doesn't at all address the issue of whether Shahak himself was an antisemite, which, of course, is the topic of the section.
3. When Shahak's critics quote things like "blood libel", and refer to his distortions of the Talmud, it's a sure bet that they're not talking about Zionism.

-- Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

1. ::He wasn't chief Rabbi at the time it happened and it wasn't an "international furor", nobody heard about in China, India, South America, and most other parts of the globe outside of limited circles in the Western world. Tiamut 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
2. ::I like Ottolenghi's statements a lot. I tried to place them in a place they were more directly relevant, say before the listing of all the crazy anti-Semites who use Shahak's work, so as to put it into the proper context. As for the anti-Zionist thing, I address that in response to your coments in the RfC below. Tiamut 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
3. ::I don't follow, but I believe this is about your "Jewish satanic" allegations above, and it's still WP:OR.Tiamut 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "worldwide furor", I'm sure there are billions of people unaware of all sorts of things, and all the moreso in 1965, when modern means of rapid communication and dissemination of information were unavailable. Nevertheless, people all over the world got up in arms about it. Also, Jakobovits did indeed become Chief Rabbi, and he was a significant figure in Judaism and in British society. Ottolenghi's statements provided a counterpoint to the claim that Shahak was called an antisemite only because he was anti-Zionist. And Ottolenghi himself referred to blood libel, and the ADL referred to Shahak's fabrications about the Talmud, as did a number of other sources used in the article. That's not OR, and that's not about Zionism, that's about Shahak's fantastic tales about and misrepresentations of Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for a gradual, comprehensive, collective review of the article

We all want the same thing: to write a good article, that conforms to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We all want to avoid edit war. The current state of the article is controversial. The current ongoing discussion is not orderly and unfocused. I would like to propose the following steps to try and work the differences of opinion out together, and achieve our mutual goals:

1. All active editors suspend their editing of this article - even edits done for the improvement of the aesthetical or structural characteristics of this article.

2. We archive the current talk page, and start a new, clean page of discussion.

3. We tag the article with the noncompliant template: {{noncompliant}} , and the ActiveDiscuss template: {{ActiveDiscuss}} .

4. We go over the article section after section and sentence after sentence, and attempt to reach an agreement about their compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We'll only deal with what is not with what should be.

5. At any time each of us can summon up third opinions from other Wikipedians, for instance those involved in working on the policy pages.

6. Those sentences, over which agreement cannot be reached, will be marked in the article with the Dubious tag: {{Dubious}} .

7. When the review is over, we will turn to the ArbCom and let them decide about the controversial sentences. We will all be bound by their decisions for at least one month afterwards. Itayb 08:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no issues with the current content, this is not how articles are edited, and the Arbitration Committee does not make content decisions. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)