Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 17:31, 30 December 2010 (→Category: I hope you don't mind, I want to link to this discussion, so I am moving the collapse box below the heading.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Gilad Atzmon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Recent WP:RS on Atzmon

Articles mentioning his politics as well as his music. (There also are a few quoting him, dozens mentioning just music, plus all of the reprints of his frequent articles.) Not that they probably will be used properly in the highly biased lead and attack sections of this POV article (see tag top of page).

• Wandering jazz player, Feb. 2010, full interview with some good insights on his views.
• Interview: Gilad Atzmon by Rob Garratt, Nov 2009
• Irish Times article which states: Israeli reedman Gilad Atzmon, these days more widely known for his anti-Zionism than his music... (Perhaps most relevant comment that belongs here.
• Listen to the heroes of Israel by John Pilger, February 2010 which quotes Atzmon in a positive fashion. (Of course there are some highly partisan articles which probably will be quoted here denouncing Pilger for daring to say something nice about Atzmon; one cherry picked quote is from such an article but my attempt to present that context was of course deleted.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fyi I've found a bunch more and putting together various additions from WP:RS, especially in the writing section, to make article more NPOV. Just keep getting sidetracked. Maybe by end of the weekend. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS for Cohen allegations of what Atzmon said

Glad you recognized and fixed that policy violation, i.e. of Misplaced Pages:RS#Statements_of_opinion where "facts" from an opinion piece cannot be used in a BLP. Here is another one that must be fixed immediately.

• In a 2009 The Guardian opinion piece Nick Cohen compared Atzmon to members of the far-right with a paranoid mentality, for his statements that, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity." There is no independent verification that Atzmon made those statements at that event, which Cohen does identify and should be identified. Using similar statements Atzmon made elsewhere does NOT verify he said these things at this event. So the statements should be removed.
• Also "paranoid mentality" should not be linked to a book on paranoia in American politics. Obviously some sort of POV/coatrack. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, the Aaronovitch was actually fine; I didn't say it had problems, I said another editor had problems with it. It was not a policy violation. Neither are the other ones you cite. But if you'd like me to track down the original source of the various quotes being reacted to, thereby increasing the documentation of Atzmon's sorry history of antisemitic outbursts, I could do that. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Two editors, Malik and I, reminded you that opinion pieces cannot be used for facts just the opinions of the authors. If you can find a transcript of the Oxford Literary Festival event mentioned in Cohen's article, great. Of course, the fact that it was a debate on antisemitism which Aaronovitch and Cohen were both invited to participate in also should be mentioned. I have several refs to the event and descriptions which need to go somewhere. Haven't decided where yet. But no transcript. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, to clear up your evident confusion, if you read a little more closely you'll see that Cohen does not claim that Atzmon made those statements at the Oxford debate. The first antisemitic passage, "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe," comes from the justly lambasted Martin Gibson interview (since removed in embarrassment - either the paper's or Atzmon's - from the NZ paper's website but available elsewhere on the web), and the second antisemitic passage, "the Jewish tribal mindset—left, centre and right—sets Jews aside of humanity," comes from the Atzmon essay "Anatomy of an Unresolved Conflict" (since removed in embarrassment from Atzmon's own site but available elsewhere on the web). Sorry, Carol, but he really did say those wretchedly antisemitic things, just not at Oxford, and not without trying to cover his tracks later when word of them began to spread. Do you now propose to finesse them away? I don't think that'll work for you. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cohen clearly says that Atzmon said these things at the Oxford Literary Festival:

The nice, middle-class organisers of the Oxford Literary Festival had invited Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon who is - and you are going to have bear with me on this - a former winner of the BBC's jazz album of the year award. He declared that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity".

Even if he clearly did not, you can't just assume you know what the source is. That's called Original Research. This is a simple factual matter that Malik or Roland would be helpful in weighing in on so I am not once again forced to go to some noticeboard or other. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Atzmon may well have made these remarks at the Oxford Literary Festival. I haven't listened to his speech, which is available online at ; I haven't managed to find a transcript. If he did make these remarks on that occasion, he will have been quoting himself, since they appeared in print much earlier. The first appears in the Gibson interview, dated 23 January 2009, while the second is on the PeacePalestine website dated 8 May 2008. RolandR (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>*The archive doesn't really identify the event or have a timer so that the time at which comments were made can be identified. (And of course there is getting through the thick accent; I couldn't make out him saying them in a not very close listen.)

• And I am not denying that similar comments were made in other publications, the question is, were they made at the Oxford Literary Festival as Cohen claims, since such facts cannot be imported from an opinion piece per Misplaced Pages:RS#Statements_of_opinion. In fact, that seems to be a problem with other assertions of what he said as well where source not identified. Will have to look more carefully. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, reread Cohen. The implication that Atzmon said these things at Oxford is your WP:SYNTH. It's not in Cohen. And I think people would probably take a dim view of any attempt to sanitize away the Cohen quote because it doesn't support your WP:SYNTH. RT-LAMP (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

IF that's the way you want it fine. But then according to Misplaced Pages:RS#Statements_of_opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. the fact that Cohen himself does not attribute the statements to any source, his own personal hearing of them, an Atzmon interview, an Atzmon writing, means we can't just do that. The fact that Cohen is obviously a very biased source, compared to others who have written about him, means that sourcing does have to be exact (according to my re-reading of relevant WP:BLP and WP:RS policies and discussions this morning.) And please stop personally insulting me by saying I want to sanitize the article when I just want a fair portrayal according to BLP standards not a listing of every biased opinion piece while factual information from more neutral sources is repeatedly deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again it would be helpful if Malik, who first brought up this issue, would opine. After all I have an opinion piece that states the fact that Cohen was a panelist in the debate, plus some opinions I want to quote, and I want to see if that fact can be mentioned. Do I have to go to WP:RS for more neutral or 3rd opinon? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the new way it is written infers Cohen says he got the statements from those sources which he does not. So that's synthesis too. If the actual sources are to be mentioned it must be done in a more compliant way, including links to the sources, as was done in the past. Do I have to tag it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, Carol. Cohen says that Atzmon said this, and draws his own conclusions. We have a separate reliable source that Atzmon did indeed say this, and Cohen is certainly a reliable source for his own opinions. Cohen's article is a bit ambiguous, and could be read to mean that he ascribed these comments to Atzmon's speech in Oxford; but this is not the only, or necesary, reading of his words. The fact that he does not himself state explicitly where and when Atzmon made his comments is neither here nor there; he is not bound in his Guardian piece by Misplaced Pages's rules on attribution. RolandR (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, if I recall correctly, my objection concerning the opinion column was using it as a RS for a statement that anti-Zionists criticize Atzmon. It can only be used to express the author's opinion. Now, if I understand your question, you're wondering whether an opinion column can be used as a RS concerning statements attributed to Atzmon. In the end, what difference does it make? You've been given other sources for Atzmon's statements, so cite his quotations to those sources if you want to be a stickler about it. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm starting to wonder whether the strict distinction between news and opinion articles really applies to the UK serious press in the way that it seems to apply in the US. It's clear that all the articles in the Observer, even those by star writers like Cohen who are given a lot of control over their content, are not so much "fact-checked" as picked over word-by-word by the libel lawyers. Obviously we can't an exception for this politically-charged bio, so I will consider raising it on the reliable sources policy talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think the issue of allegations (quotes or actions) from opinion pieces in general is important, but have gotten little response bringing up the inconsistencies or lack of clarity between WP:RS and WP:BLP on the topic at either talk page. I was thinking bringing it to WP:RSN is another option, and with Itsmejudith's above encouragement will do so. Also, even if this is true about the Brits and libel, I think it hurts the encyclopedia to use vitriolic articles like Kamm and Cohen's as sources of fact at all. Meanwhile I'll change the ref to what might actually be acceptable, i.e., including refs to the articles where Atzmon does say these things and quoting the sentence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

BlueBoar commented on this issue at WP:RS talk page and I replied that they were somewhat but not entirely applicable. Thunderstorms coming but do intend to correct RTLamp’s Cohen edits soon, including in light of what he wrote. But WP:RSN probably still good. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a couple of minor changes to Carol's latest edit.

Paul Eisen's essay is very plainly a Holocaust denial essay, and not merely because Aaronovitch said so. It's called "Holocaust Wars" - google for it, and you'll see there's just no uncertainty where Eisen is coming from. No reasonable person could read it as anything but a long, detailed love letter to the Holocaust denial movement, ending with an exhortation to fight "organized world Jewry and its primary arm, the Holocaust." There's a reason Atzmon's circulation of this essay caused such a big stink: it's an absolutely appalling work of antisemitism, really packed to the gills with antisemitism and Holocaust denial - to which Atzmon had only "a slightly different take," and refused to disassociate himself from Eisen, whom he continued to call "his good friend."

It's peculiar to efface von Brunn's crime, which is what triggered Cohen's article, following the Holocaust Memorial shooting by a matter of days.

Also, it's worth pointing out that "thetruthseeker.co.uk," the new source Carol added, is a really grotesquely antisemitic site. Here's a sentence from an essay posted there just this week: "The BP oil spill must be seen in the context of an ongoing covert war against America waged by the Illuminati, i.e. the Masonic Jewish central banking cartel led by the Rothschilds." (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=12740) As the left increasingly repudiates Atzmon, he's finding an increasingly appreciative audience on the David Duke/David Irving/Stormfront right. RT-LAMP (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of WP:Soapbox out side of the WP:RS, which there is no "duty" for me to investigate? To make others think I am an antisemite? I didn't research truthseeker since a quick look at list of "contributors" showed a bunch of notable writers -who may not have approved use of their articles. But if it is an objectionable site, I can removed that link and just quote more fully from the article I copied from the original source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I have not and do not call you an antisemite. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And I did not allege that you called me one. But constant WP:SOAPBOX breast beating about how he allegedly is one certainly has the effect on editors and others who might drop by of making them think the person you are complaining to about their edits is one. Meanwhile, you didn't answer my question about removing the link to TruthSeeker and just quoting more fully from the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your source, your call. If you want to say, "To find out more about Atzmon, here's where to swim in the TruthSeeker sewer," who am I to complain? Like water, Atzmon's essays seek their own level. I'm just happy to see you finally accept that Atzmon really said what Cohen credited him with saying. RT-LAMP (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to make me look bad by your comments re: source being a sewer. I'll look more carefully at the site and/or ask WP:RS and see, since sometimes such otherwise NON-WP:RS sites that include copies of others' articles published are allowed to be used. I don't know if that one quote you mention enough would be enough to disqualify it. (For example see these discussions of newspaper and other reprints of Reliable Source articles, documents, especially by less or even non-reliable sources: #1, #2, #3, #4.) Given the contrasting views there, I'd like to hear opinions from other editors here before having to go to WP:RSN. On the other hand I don't mind just putting in a fuller in context quote to show that it does in fact from that article (and I do have copy of the original) and dropping the link.

Meanwhile, your attacks on Atzmon just make it clear your POV makes neutral editing very difficult for you. I was not questioning whether he said these things but whether using these quotes without Cohen's attribution was allowed under wikipedia policies. If they were not clearly made in other sources they would not be allowed. I get the impression editors are more flexible - as I have been in the past - if there are independent sources of the statements. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone who looks into your history on this article is likely to smile at your saying "your POV makes neutral editing very difficult for you." RT-LAMP (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean stick with Misplaced Pages policies, esp. WP:NPOV on WP:BLP?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy should be followed in all BLPs and sometimes it isn't an enviable task policing that. However, ensuring that BLPs stick to policy should not involve us making our own constructions of the views of BLP subjects. Please do go to RSN. I'm pretty sure that Cohen is RS on this, but it may be best to attribute him so as to be on the safe side. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did already just attribute the quotes to Atzmon's specific articles since that seems like the likely outcome and was the accepted practice in this article on this exact issue in the past and is a practice I might want to use in the future elsewhere. I'll save such trips to RSN for issues where facts cannot be independently verified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New article by Atzmon

I am not going to put this in the article, but editors may be interested in Atzmon's article about the Gaza flotilla massacre, Jewish ideology and psychosis – a danger to world peace, in which he writes "Within the discourse of Jewish politics and history there is no room for causality... I have hardly seen any Israelis or Jews attempt to understand the circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." It might be considered original research to say so, but I have rarely seen a clearer statement that European Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust. RolandR (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't his first time on that turf; the article cited here for being attacked by Kamm plays on the same pitch - '65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbours?' - and also depicts a Holocaust-lite notably without gas chambers. It's reprehensible stuff and unmistakeable in its intent.

It's difficult not to conclude that Atzmon's few remaining defenders either simply can't detect any form of antisemitism short of shouting "Jews to the gas" or they've made a decision - conscious or unconscious - that they simply will no longer engage the antisemitism question in any form other than raw denial. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I note also that when, in the Google box of my browser, I type "atz" the first suggested completion from Google is "atzmon holocaust denier." Doesn't prove anything, of course. But it's still not hard to see in it a reflection of what Atzmon's reputation really is. 141.142.240.3 (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just again to point out POV interpretations given to so many things he writes: "circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." He does not write: "Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust." He talks about European -not Nazi- and resentment - not genocide. In the next, again "Europeans" and "standing up" is ambiguous, especially since he then asks something which I think everyone, pro and con Israel can agree on "Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history?" Obviously it would be helpful if he did NOT write such ambiguous things!

But of course the context of the whole article is removed. (Though perhaps at least it should be mentioned in the footnote leading to the original article.)

Again we have the double standard in Misplaced Pages editing: one can criticize Catholic (pedophiles) or Muslim (terrorism) or Fundie Protestant (sex-capades) behavior and say it leads to anger against them, without being accused of planning genocide. (Even though some feel that is what is happening vs. Muslims.) But if you criticize even a small number of Jewish people - or Israel - for bad behavior and note the simple fact it leads to anger against even innocent Jews, you are allegedly justifying genocide.<s?d That is the POV from highly partisan sources I see in the lead and the allegations of antisemitism section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just again to point out POV interpretations given to so many things he writes: "circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbours in the 1920s-1940s." He does not write: "Jews were themselves responsible for the Nazi holocaust." He talks about European -not Nazi- and resentment - not genocide. In the next, again "Europeans" and "standing up" is ambiguous, especially since he then asks something which I think everyone, pro and con Israel can agree on "Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history?" Obviously it would be helpful if he did NOT write such ambiguous things!

He writes with that level of ambiguity because the use of dog whistles requires it. It's a deliberate strategy, and a standard technique for racists and cut-rate demogogues. That way, the hate-the-Jews audience he's aiming for can get their chuckle, knowing full well what Atzmon's doing - trying to transfer blame for the Holocaust onto the Jews - while the Atzmon-sanitizers can say, "Well, he never really said the Jews were responsible for their own deaths, so it's all perfectly okay and wonderful." RT-LAMP (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, let me ask a specific question. We know what the Europeans (speaking generally) did to the Jews of Europe (speaking generally) in WWII. Atzmon calls that "standing up" to the Jews. Do you find his choice of words in any way defensible? And while I'm at it, his use of the egregious and literally medieval charge that the Jews killed Jesus - do you consider that more of his "anti-Zionism"? RT-LAMP (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But of course the context of the whole article is removed. (Though perhaps at least it should be mentioned in the footnote leading to the original article.)

Again we have the double standard in Misplaced Pages editing: one can criticize Catholic (pedophiles) or Muslim (terrorism) or Fundie Protestant (sex-capades) behavior and say it leads to anger against them, without being accused of planning genocide. (Even though some feel that is what is happening vs. Muslims.) But if you criticize even a small number of Jewish people - or Israel - for bad behavior and note the simple fact it leads to anger against even innocent Jews, you are allegedly justifying genocide. That is the POV from highly partisan sources I see in the lead and the allegations of antisemitism section.

A reprehensible paragraph. Perhaps you could give us a percent figure. What percent of the Holocaust was the Jews' fault, in your analysis, Carol? How many of them deserved what they got? Nobody is accusing Atzmon of "planning genocide." Just in engaging in revisionist history which includes both demonstrable elements of Holocaust denial and an attempt to shift as much of the blame as possible onto the Jews. Maybe you can't hear the dog whistles, Carol - after all that's why they're dog-whistles - but Atzmon has been called out by the left, the right, the center, the Zionist, and the anti-Zionists for it, and maybe it's finally time to ask yourself what so many people all over the political spectrum see and you don't. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

<bacdent>It's silly for me to try to have a rational discussion of POVs in this article given the irrationality surrounding the subject, so I shall desist and strike comments above. I'll stick to specific edits that actually will be done. I would request that RTLamp remove his uncivil WP:SOAPBOX comments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote from "Jewish Ideology and World Peace"

There's nothing ambiguous about Atzmon's writings at all. I've included Atzmon's statement regarding "fanatical tribal Jewish ideology." into the article. Drsmoo (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain that the quote belongs in the article, but if it does, then it should be the paragraph and not just half a sentence taken from it. Unomi (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite an example of a wikipedia article that quotes whole paragraphs? There are many notable quotes in that paragraph, for example, Atzmon referencing the "Jewish Khazar" theory, which was invented by far right racial theorists. As well as the line about "psychotic merciless biblical poisonous"(he really loves to lay on the inane adjectives, it really would be quite unseemly to include the whole bilious paragraph in the article. Will you put forth an argument for why you feel, in this one instance on wikipedia, that an entire paragraph should be quoted? Drsmoo (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that not quoting only 1/2 sentence out of a paragraph on a subject should be limited to this article at all. Nor do I quite understand your rationale for not including the whole paragraph if it is meant to support the charges forwarded by that section of our article. Unomi (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because including the whole paragraph would mean that 1/3 of the section would be that one paragraph. It would turn the article into an unencylopedic mess and be ridiculous and hard to read. It is important to be concise, editing is key. Drsmoo (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with taking such a small fragment out of a larger whole, especially not on the grounds that it would be unencyclopedic to include more of the context - perhaps it would be best that we wait for more input from other editors before we proceed one way or another. Unomi (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait for more input, I think though if you have a problem with standard wikipedia practice, then that's a different issue. Also if you could explain how in your opinion the full paragraph changes the context of the quote, then that would be helpful. Drsmoo (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There are different threads of antisemitic discourse, and when Atzmon enters a new area, that justifies the inclusion of the relevant quote. In this case, as Drsmoo points out, a new element here is his promulgating the Khazar-replacement nonsense, a wacky pseudoscientific theory -- disproven by DNA analysis -- that says Ashkenazi Jews aren't really descended from the Israelites. That's a blanket smear against Ashkenazi Jews, calling them all impostors, and as such is antisemitic. It's just another place where Atzmon's rhetoric overlaps that of, say, David Duke, who is also big on the Khazar-replacement thing. Quoting the whole paragraph of Atzmon's antisemitic drivel is overkill, because most of it is not new; he's driveled it before. But the Khazar business is new, it's a new arrow in Atzmon's antisemitic quiver, where it joins more familiar standards like Holocaust denial, international Jewish conspiracy, embrace of "Protocols," and that golden oldie, Jewish deicide.

Unomi, part of Drsmoo's concern (as I read it) is a result of the history of this section of the article, which a certain editor at has continually edited with a view to dismiss, excuse away, or minimize Atzmon's antisemitism. That makes this section much more compact that it could otherwise be. If Atzmon's latest antisemitic outburst is quoted at paragraph length, then there are others, equally scabrous and hate-filled but quoted here in only single sentences, which would deserve the same treatment, and I think the inevitable ballooning of this section is what Drsmoo is trying to avoid. One of the purposes of citing the quotes is to allow the reader to easily find the original context and determine from there whether Atzmon's words have been misrepresented. Correct me if I'm wrong, Drsmoo. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I think there's an issue on notability grounds for even a one-sentence quote. I've had some foul WP:RS Atzmon quotes I've posted removed, not because they weren't WP:RS but because their notability hadn't been established by a secondary WP:RS source. That's why so many sentences in this section are of the form "Prominent person X called Atzmon 'Z' for saying 'Y'" rather than just, "Atzmon said 'Y'": that's the formulation that's evolved to show notability via secondary sources. (I would hope this is not a nonce rule evolved solely for the present article, incidentally.) The quote under consideration looks like it might be the same kind of thing no matter the length - Atzmon giving another antisemitic belch on his website and largely being ignored by secondary sources, leaving the inclusion on the wrong side of WP:UNDUE. RT-LAMP (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

True, when it is covered by a notable commentator it will be included. Drsmoo (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the scientific research that refutes Atzmon's "Khazar" delusion was done in part by a researcher named Dr. Gil Atzmon, a researcher at the Einstein College of Medicine. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This article's consensus is "No Cherry Picking from Primary Sources" - which is what this quote from Atzmon is. I thought we had agreed repeatedly in this article to stop cherry picking various quotes from Atzmon articles to prove that he is an evil guy. If no WP:RS brings up what he says, it is not notable. This also goes for all the nice things he says about himself, which editors also have ruled cherry picking from primary sources. (The exception being very few and specific, for example, if it is the only place where he responds to specific or general negative accusations against him, per WP:BLP.) Do I have to quote all the places in WP:BLP and WP:RS that prove this point and every time various editors on this talk page have said this in the talk page archives of this article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Important Biographical info deleted against policy

At this diff, RTLamp reverted important information from an Atzmon interview about the reasons Atzmon turned against Israel, information straight from Atzmon in a WP:RS interview. (Deleted material in Italics.]

"He told an interviewer that it was there he first learned about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, legislation to prevent their return, and the wiping out of Palestinian villages. “We were indoctrinated into a denial of the Palestinian Cause. We were not aware of it.”"Theo Panayides, Wandering jazz player, Cyprus Mail, February 21, 2010.

Given there are nearly 500 words in the section of criticism of Atzmon's writings, one would think 24 words for the actual issues that brought him to his rather angry views would not be WP:UNDUE or POV. I know one neutral editor who looked at the article on my request at Editor's Assistance discussed this issue with you on your talk page, instead of here. He actually wrote to you here: From a biographical POV, I would like to know more about his experience as a paramedic during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, as that seems to have contributed to his current state of mind.

You replied with a long WP:SOAPBOX on why the article must emphasize Atzmon's antisemitism to which the editor replied here" Keep in mind that a biographical approach is not only needed, it's essential to the structure and composition of an encyclopedia article about a musician and author like Atzmon. I encourage you to pursue an analysis and critique of Atzmon's writing within the paradigm of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. That's what I've been trying to tell you as well.

(Full discussion User_talk:RTLamp#SPA_concerns. SPA meaning WP:Single Purpose Account, which I had to look up myself.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the same neutral editor who Carol quotes above [also wrote:I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that Atzmon is antisemitic, anti-Zionist, and at the end of the day, anti-Jewish. RolandR (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what anyone who first learns about Atzmon by reading this article as it is now would think. Relevant comments appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the article as it is now the body seems 'ok', I don't know much about Gilad so it can be hard to tell, but I am somewhat concerned that the lead seems to not adequately reflect the contents and relative weightings of the article body though. Unomi (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

First, a specific opinion the specific question answered in this thread would be great.

Today I'm ending procrastination and forcing myself to put together and enter important WP:RS info that will help figure out actual weighting. Obviously his importance as a musician is largely missing from lead. In fact I've found several WP:RS that call him a "jazz legend." CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it took most of weekend to organize all the WP:RS i"ve accumulated in last 6 months, so still working on that. Just put in the one most pressing edit in this period. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Gilad Atzmon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Category

There have been several discussions about the inclusion of this article in the Antisemitism category: Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#Category:Antisemitism, Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#"Anti-semitism", Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#No_redundancy, Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#Bad_Recent_Edits_(cooperative_editing), Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_1#"Whitewash", and elsewhere. The consensus has been that the category should be added. At the top of the page, it states: "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic." This article does indeed discuss antisemitism, so the category is relevant.

It's worth noting that the category includes articles such as Itzik Feffer, Irène Némirovsky, The Fixer (Malamud novel), Joseph Seligman, The War on Britain's Jews?, Simon Wiesenthal Center and Rodrigo López (physician). There is, of course, no suggestion that any of these is/was antisemitic, rather that the topic of antisemitism is discussed in these articles. Since the topic is also discussed in this article, the category is clearly helpful and relevant, so I am restoring it. RolandR (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the detailed explanation. Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Considering that Roland has written articles about Atzmon being antisemitic and, I believe, engaged in picketing against him, and admitted his conflict of interest here, I don't think he's the most NPOV commentator or this topic.
• The description really is disengenuous because some of those individuals are antisemites and some have been accused of it, though there are varying opinions. Evidently it's against BLP to have a category called "People accused of antisemitism." CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Which of the individuals I noted above is antisemitic? RolandR (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And you, Carol, have made comments elsewhere stating your belief that "mostly Jews" own and control the media. So I would suggest that you are not the most ideally ideal person to be judging whether or not Atzmon is an antisemite. RT-LAMP (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, why can't you just edit constructively, rather than constantly trying to have everyone you disagree with removed from the topic? Drsmoo (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. RT-LAMP (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Roland. I meant individuals in the category page, not that you named. I am criticizing the category itself which to me is the larger problem. I think it would be more honest to have one that says they are accused so that the surreptitious smearing of a lot of innocent critics of Israel at least would be brought out more openly. I'm not bothering to engage in discussion of applicability to Atzmon. Guess I should put a note on the category's talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure anout that, Carol. I haven't studied all of the 437 articles in the category, let alone those in the 26 sub-categories. But on an initial look I can't see any who have been falsely or maliciously accused of antisemitism. There certainly seems to have been no attempt to stuff the category with articles about opponents of Israel, or biographies of those (like me) laughably described as "self-hating Jews". Which articles are you referring to? RolandR (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it. Just if there was such a category it would be easier to clean up articles that need it :-) (And two years ago I thought this would be such a quickie article, as others had been before.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Just looking now at the "A"s right now the following people obviously are accused of being antisemites. Your denying this is what got my backup in the first place: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel; Abu Hamza al-Masri; Alexander III of Russia, American Defense Society??; Anti-Jewish Action League of Sweden; Anti-Semite and Jew; Anti-Zionism; Argentine Patriotic League; Armenian Aryan Union; Aryan Brotherhood; Aryan paragraph; Gilad Atzmon, etc. I'd think you would be concerned with getting Anti-Zionism out of that list myself, in that antiZionists generally are against bigotry; of course some Zionists allege they're all antisemites by definition, so it might end up in both lists.CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point entirely. I did not state that none of the people on the list were antisemitic; I said that I could not see any who had been "falsely or maliciously accused of antisemitism". And, while I of course agree that anti-Zionism is not equivalent to antisemitism, that article also discusses -- at length -- the allegation and the purported relationship. So, in the same way as with this article, it is clearly appropriate for inclusion in the category. As has been discussed at length, here and elsewhere, this is not a "List of antisemites"; it is a navigation category for articles relating, in one way or another, to the topic of antisemitism. RolandR (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic of problems with the category itself are best discussed at the category’s talk page and would become relevant here if a new "allegations of antisemitism" category was created. (And then once that existed it would be more relevant to discuss if people falsely placed there.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to personal accusation after internet research on me

Headings

I removed the "Writings" topic heading, because it was essentially empty and the one or two sentences there were redundant. I also renamed the "Politics" section to "Politics and Activism" and moved an out-of-place blurb detailing his various forms of activism out of the lede and into that section.

Let me explicitly note that I did not make "Criticisms" a subheading of "Politics and Activism" because the criticisms are largely charges of antisemitism. Antisemitism is not a kind of politics but rather a kind of bigotry, and therefore placing the antisemitism controversy under a "Politics and Activism" heading would be a category error. RT-LAMP (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since politics and activism pretty much redundant, and writings are his main form of activism, I changed to "Writings and activism," though "Writings and politics" probably would be acceptable. Activism just more specific. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cohen attack piece "criticism" against BLP

I put the POV inline tag on this sentence in the article for reasons below, most comments repeats of discussions on Cohen by various editors in the last three archives on this. I think it should be removed for reasons below:

In a 2009 opinion piece for The Guardian, Nick Cohen found Atzmon's writings "similar" to the "incoherent internet postings" of the white supremacist murderer James Wenneker von Brunn. In particular, Cohen cited Atzmon's writing that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity".

• Cohen's piece is just an Attack Opinion piece: starting with comparing a Jew to a white supremacist murderer; this just shows its vitriolic opinion, no matter who publishes it
• WP:RS problems with quotes: As we've discussed here previously, it is not clear whether Cohen is getting his information from the Oxford debate where someone else allegedly quoted Atzmon or elsewhere. So Wiki-editors had to include two articles where Atzmon did in fact say these things. But this is really tortured sourcing.
• Quotes are out of context: The statements are quoted totally out of context. (Including links to original articles barely balances that issue.) Even including the full paragraph contexts of the quotes, which should be done, doesn't really correct the problem.

Overall, this entry falls well below WP:BLP standards. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Cohen is a well known commentator on Middle-Eastern affairs and the removal of his analysis causes the article to WP:UNDUEly lean towards one side of a POV. The above comment appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT dressed up as policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with BLP standards as perhaps I ought to be. Can you show me exactly how this falls below? If nothing else, the Guardian source does qualify as a RS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to read the page WP:BLP. A few quotes from it:

• Note that WP:RS is not the only criteria and the page reads: policy in a nutshell -Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. There is already lots of criticism of Atzmon without a tacky attack like that that lowers the tone of the encyclopedia.
• We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. A ranting opinion piece which doesn't even clarify where the opinion writer got the quotes is not high quality.
• Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, Comparing Atzmon to a murder is pretty sensationalist.
• BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner... Obviously comparing a Jew to a "white supremacist murderer" is quite sensationalist.
• Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content. Biased or malicious content - comparing a Jew to a "white supremacist murderer"?
• Also of relevance Misplaced Pages:RS#Statements_of_opinion.

Should wikipedia be comparing Jews to "white supremacist murderers"? Unless of course its known they've really murdered someone, which Atzmon obviously has not. (He was a medic when he was in the Israeli military in 1982.) I'm sure people can find better criticism pieces of Atzmon that don't make Misplaced Pages look like a tabloid. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop arguing with the straw man. Nicks never compared him to a white supremacist. He compared his writings to the writings of a white supremacist.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The difference not clear to me or to 95% of readers or professional journalists who might come here, either, I'm sure. But if editors are fine with puerile attacks, I guess if you can't fight them, join them? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that it fails BLP. As a compromise, what if the piece in question were cut down in size so that it has less prominence? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's much a "compromise", with all due respect. The content was removed on basically spurious grounds. It was simply a misreading of the source. I actually would like to add that Atzmon has a small penis, based on internet rumors. So how about we "compromise"? We won't add the content I would like to add but we'll readd the content that was removed based on a misreading of an article. Cohen is a well known and respected commentator on Middle Eastern affairs. A lot worse has been said about Atzmon then comparing his writings to the writings of a white supremacist. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem using the Cohen column as a source, but I think we're "abusing" "NPOV" by "overusing" "quotation marks". From WP:NPOV#Impartial tone: Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the talk page history, this is the fourth time CarolMooreDC has brought removing the Cohen source up in the talk page. Wikiediting is about consensus, one cannot simply bring an issue up once every few months until one gets their way. We have had this exact discussion three previous times, there is no reason to have it again. I removed the tag, if it is reinserted i will take the issue up with AN/I for disruptive editing. Drsmoo (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'd like to see how many NPOV admins would consider Cohen's comments anything but trash. FYI, to confused editor above, Cohen's comments have not been removed. Enough said on this topic. I'm pretty much done adding stuff - barring occasional updates - and will just deal with attempts to delete NPOV or add more trashy POV material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment from Cohen is just an attack and shouldn't be in a comic never mind wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what O2RR says, that junk should come out mark nutley (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, I can't see it and not remove it, edit summary of..BLP removed comparison to a murderer - excessive opinionated personal attack - Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. The other issue I forgot to mention is (per Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_6#WP:RS_for_Cohen_allegations_of_what_Atzmon_said) the article falsely claims Cohen got these from Atzmon's writings and ref's those writings. In fact Cohen actually clearly says that Atzmon said these things at the Oxford Literary Festival. He says: The nice, middle-class organisers of the Oxford Literary Festival had invited Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon who is - and you are going to have bear with me on this - a former winner of the BBC's jazz album of the year award. He declared that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity. If he had been from the British National party, the festival would have had nothing to do with him, but as he was a fellow traveller of the Socialist Workers party, the literary ladies in their floral dresses and the bookish gentlemen in their ill-fitting jackets welcomed him to the quadrangles of Oxford. However other editors held that this quote is "ambiguous" and that we should say Cohen got these from his writings. This is because I pointed out that Cohen's claiming as fact that Atzmon said them there would NOT be allowed per Misplaced Pages:Rs#Statements_of_opinion. So this is an another example of questionable editing practices in this quote. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an incorrect statement, the quote doesn't infer that Atzmon said these at a debate, which is obvious. As was said earlier, this is another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as you have claimed Cohen to be a "polemicist" http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321452236&oldid=321451528 you have brought this false point up numerous times on the talk page (this is the fourth time), you cannot bring incorrect points up over and over and over and over until you get your way, despite the rest of the editors, it is is the worst possible form of wiki editing. The quote doesn't claim or even seem to claim that Atzmon said it at this debate, and the article links to where he originally said it. Those links are here http://en.wikipedia.org/Gilad_Atzmon#cite_note-Cohen-68 Drsmoo (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your ambiguous first sentence, which is the only relevant one. Do you mean you agree the quote obviously means Atzmon said it at the debate? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it ambiguous? I said "the quote doesn't infer that Atzmon said these at a debate, which is obvious." how do you go from that to "Do you mean you agree the quote obviously means Atzmon said it at the debate? " I don't understand. Drsmoo (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't infer it...he writes it. I thought that's what you were agreeing with. Let me put most relevant parts in Bold:

The nice, middle-class organisers of the Oxford Literary Festival had invited Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon who is - and you are going to have bear with me on this - a former winner of the BBC's jazz album of the year award. He declared that "Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe" and "the Jewish tribal mindset - left, centre and right - sets Jews aside of humanity. If he had been from the British National party, the festival would have had nothing to do with him, but as he was a fellow traveller of the Socialist Workers party, the literary ladies in their floral dresses and the bookish gentlemen in their ill-fitting jackets welcomed him to the quadrangles of Oxford."

I know all the Atzmon haters may want to deny Cohen is talking about what he heard at Oxford but I doubt NPOV editors or anyone at WP:ANI would. Just because I got disgusted and gave up before, doesn't mean consensus to ignore this fact trumps policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it plainly doesn't say what you want it to say. Straight up. "He declared" refers to any date in the past, he's describing why it is shocking that they invited Atzmon given what he has written. Drsmoo (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:BLP says: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

• If Cohen said it about what he heard Atzmon say, we are expected to accept this "fact" from him, which is against Misplaced Pages:Rs#Statements_of_opinion.
• If we declare Cohen was referring to his writings, without his explicitly saying so, it is even worse since we are engaging in WP:Original research, including in adding those links.

NPOV editors please note that the full text of one of those quotes comes from an interview where a WP:RS helps sets context, but Drsmoo repeatedly deleted both the interviewer's and Atzmon's context because he prefers to use something out of context even when it is questionably sourced like this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

While I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack (it is not) the truth is that poor reading comprehension is not an excuse to remove a source. If the source is removed I am going to bring the issue to AN/I on the grounds of disruptive editing. Consensus has already been reached in this talk, and it was reached the three previous times as well. You can not just continue bringing the same issues up over and over. Drsmoo (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Hmm, I'd say reading into Cohen that he was talking about Atzmon's writing is far more of a problem then reading into his statement that he claimed Atzmon made these declarations at the Oxford Literary Festival event he mentions twice in the paragraph. And this is a different issue that brought to WP:RS before, which was News_Story_Quote_vs._Out_of_Context_Opinion_Piece_Quote Which more credible, Gibson News peice or Cohen Opinion piece. Of two Non-involved editors who responded, both agreed with me.

More relevant here, at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Archive_6#WP:RS_for_Cohen_allegations_of_what_Atzmon_said which does address this issue the two least POV responses were: Cohen's article is a bit ambiguous, and could be read to mean that he ascribed these comments to Atzmon's speech in Oxford; but this is not the only, or necesary, reading of his words. The fact that he does not himself state explicitly where and when Atzmon made his comments is neither here nor there; he is not bound in his Guardian piece by Misplaced Pages's rules on attribution. RolandR (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) and Now, if I understand your question, you're wondering whether an opinion column can be used as a RS concerning statements attributed to Atzmon. In the end, what difference does it make? You've been given other sources for Atzmon's statements, so cite his quotations to those sources if you want to be a stickler about it.Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC) At this point it's not really that I care that much about whether it stays in. I think it's important to clarify whether if an opinion piece author throws in some ambiguous or questionable statements that make one wonder where he got his info, should that influence use of the material? I guess in the end, it's all politics and who stacks the deck. Which is why I gave up last time and will this time unless NPOV editors opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, since I think reasonable editors above admit there is some ambiguity, I changed Atzmon's "writings" to "declarations" and we can just let the readers go to Cohen and decide for themselves where Cohen got that info of what Cohen said Atzmon "declared." On the other issue, I'm sure I'll run into some ambiguous sourcing by an opinion piece stating some factoid some day on some article, so I don't want to be too much of a stickler and earn too much bad karma :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html
2. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html
3. Nick Cohen "The unlikely friends of the Holocaust memorial killer", The Observer, 14 June 2009
4. The first quote is contained in Martin Gibson, No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’, originally published in Gisborn Herald, January 23, 2009 and the second in Gilad Atzmon, Anatomy of an Unresolved Conflict, published at PeacePalestine blog, May 8, 2008.