Talk:Gilad Atzmon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
This article is part of WikiProject Jazz, set up to organize and expand entries on Jazz and related subgenres, as well as other related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in Israel may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] Anti-zionist or Anti-semite?

Clearly critics of Israel are automatically anti-semitic for many. But is this appropriate for Atzmon? Certainly his writings suggest that he crosses the line between the two ideologies, for instance his assertion that American policy in the Middle East is derived from a particular lobby group. However, I have taken the view that to accuse him of anti-semitism is POV, whereas anti-zionism is used here as a neutral term, albeit unsatisfactorily realised in Atzmon's case. In the introduction he should be taken on his own terms, and the issues referred to as the article progresses. Philip Cross 21:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) [I was too generous to Atzmon a year ago. Philip Cross 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)]

He's been accused of antisemitism by his critics. Rightly or wrongly, it is not up to us to decide to censor this information- we just report and the reader can decide if the case has been appropriately made. As an aside, to claim that world Jewry is controlling, or conspiring to control the world, has nothing to do with anti-Zionism - it is an antisemitic canard taken straight from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion .. Isarig 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Edna’s last version is by far supirior. It should be re posted immediately, Rance should then add his meaningless links to names and articles written by people no one has ever heard of.

Isarig. the fact that Atzmon is accused of antisemitism in 2.5 Jewish tribal sites such as JSF or JPUK is of limited relevance. We are talking here about a man with a massive body of work.

zizitop

From EdnaS: It is very interesting to watch what is unfolding on wiki. Who is RolandR accusing of being my sock puppet? Zizi? I suggest we ask the wiki admin to do a check on IP numbers for all of us. I in fact am not calling for the restoring of my last edit on the Gilad Atzmon page¸ but am calling for the restoration of the excellent page submitted later by Nihipri¸ which was immediately removed by RolandR and his co-worker Isarig (sock puppet?)with no reasons given.

I was really amazed at the amount of non-judgemental¸ neutral and interesting information Nihipri had included¸ and realised how much research must have gone into this. To suppress this information is sheer vandalism. Who is RolandR to decide to withhold all those links from the public. A wealth of info¸ and written in a very neutral sytle. I do not see any embroidery in the information.

And for RolandR to extend his censoring of info on wiki to even deleting a call for 3rd opinion is outrageous. RR has an agenda here. We have reached the point where we need to call for mediation. I will be restoring my posting on the 3rd party page. Ednas 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Of course I didn't delete your call for a third opinion. In fact, it was only when I tried to post my comment supporting this call, that I discovered that an administrator had deleted it. I'm not an administrator, I don't want to be, and I don't have the ability to delete suchh a posting even had I wanted to -- which I didn't.


Not really, Atzmon doesn’t take Jewish anti Zionists very seriously, he establishes the fact that they are nothing but crypto Zionists. He include them within his 3rd Category. And indeed, 3rd category Jews see an antisemite in Atzmon. So what. is it enough to make him into an antisemite? not really. 3rd category Jews see as well Hamas as a threat. Does this teach us about the Hamas? Not really.

Down to the point. Atzmon success in ridiculing 3rd category Jews is just a marginal part of his political writing, thus, the entry shouldn’t concentrate on that though it should be mentioned. Zizitop. 9.1.06 3am

To Roland Rance: As Wikipedia pertains to be an encyclopedia of sorts¸ my primary concern here is with neutrality and truth¸ whereas it would appear that you are operating in the realm of vendetta and fancy. In the same way as I took exception to Isarig’s rapping me on the knuckles when I began to correct and add to the GA article (He announced pompously: "I have been editing this page since before you started editing Wikipedia”)¸ when it is very clear that neither he or you had bothered to get the most basic facts straight about GA – birth date and place of birth¸ just for starters.


As I keep stressing however¸ this sort of poetic dabbling (coupled with venomous dislike for the subject matter) really has no place in an encyclopedia.

Ednas 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Jossi and Felix¸ let’s get going then. I suggest we start with a broad comparison of the two versions¸ and come to some agreement about which one to have running while we work on the editing. I suggest that we work from the more inclusive¸ informative version¸ which is also less polemical and then decide what to incorporate from the Rance version. I also think the subtitles of music¸ literature¸ political writing and politics should remain as is¸ with perhaps one more as felix suggests¸ dealing with the controversy and labeling. Please respond soon so that we can speed up this editing process somewhat.

Ednas 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Like being in a furnace

Just been to see Gilad Atzmon this evening, indeed his set was like "being in a furnace", 'blinding, even, I'd say.... But is this NPOV??? I'd put it on my blog but not on wikipedia, can we tne down the hyperbole, even if it does reflect Gilad's gigs??? quercus robur 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about my comment bigging him up a little, but I am trying to convey the point that his style is very full on, high energy, fast, powerful, noisy, as opposed to some jazz musicians who might be described as soft, quiet, delicate, subtle - this is not Gilad's style. If you know what I mean, please rephrase the text keeping the point I am making but using less emotive language. Where was he playing by the way ?

The Jazz Bar at Westcliff on Sea, he plays there quite often... As for Gilad's style, how about 'intense' and 'influenced by John Coltrane as well as Arabic and Jewish traditional musics such as Klezmer? He also did this thing at the gig last week where he was doing arabic sounding chants down his clarinet, which sounded really weird... quercus robur 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Added more bio type stuff to the music section-perhaps a section for awards too?Felix-felix 11:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left wing?

I have removed the description of Atzmon as "left wing", since he appears to reject this, both as a self-description and even as a useful term. See for instance the interview at [1], wher he says: "I argue that left and right are dated concepts. I am interested in an authentic moral thinking, something that is not found amongst our contemporary politicians". RolandR 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This page was edited by the anonymous user at 87.80.66.28, who replaced my user name at the end of my last efit. This vandalism will be reported.RolandR 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
*This page has been edited by someone using my username, who has removed my earlier edits and comments. RolandR 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Jews

I have replaced the quote from Atzmon's essay "On Anti-Semitism" [2], "American Jews (in fact Zionists) do try to control the world, by proxy", with the phrase now to be found there "American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world". The original citation was not incorrect; it appears that since then, Atzmon himself has amended, and sharpened, his comment. RolandR 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the quotations from the cited articles a bit, to keep them 1)contigous and 2) more representative of the cited articles. See what you think.Felix-felix 11:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deborah Maccoby

This para was in, but deleted, then put back in, maybe twice now. I don't see what's wrong with it.

In an exchange of letters with anti-Zionist activist Deborah Maccoby during February and March 2006, Atzmon described her as a "modern day Christ killer", after she described Jesus as human rather than divine. [3]

BobFromBrockley 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I did that-I don't really see what it adds. It doesn't really show that he's a 'self-hating jew' or, well, anything really.Why keep it?Felix-felix 09:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't show that he is a "self-hating Jew" (a meaningless phrase, in my opinion). It does, however, show that he does not hesitate to attack critics (an anti-Zionist Jew in this case) in terms and language drawn from the most obscurantist medieval Jew-haters. This is clearly relevant in a discussion of Atzmon's politics. RolandR 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it really relevant to his politics? It really just shows he's a bruiser in an argument-not much else. It doesn't enlighten the reader to his political convictions.Felix-felix 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On balance, I don't think this is extremely important, but think it is relevant, as the Christ-killer allegation is a strong anti-semitic trope, and thus contextualises the controversy, particularly given the citation is to a reference not otherwise cited ni the article (I think). BobFromBrockley 14:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned in Israel?

Isarig has removed from the article the assertion that Atzmon's books are "banned in Israel". As anyone who can read Hebrew can see, they are freely available even in Hebrew translation -- see Academon, Bookme and many more bookshop sites. In fact, one of his novels was nominated for a literary prize in Israel [4].RolandR 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I believe it is not true that any of Atzmon's books are banned in Israel. If it is true, it certainly would need a reference. BobFromBrockley 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ednas reckons initially banned and then reinstated-Atzmon has stated this in interviews in the past [5] (near the end of the interview)-These could be cited, for example. Felix-felix 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
He states in the interview "it is now impossible to find my Guide to the Perplexed in Hebrew". I have provided several references to places where it is indeed possible to buy the book in Hebrew -- including the bookshop of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. And, as I note, this translation was nominated for an Israeli literary award in 2003. I would like to see an independent source for the alleged banning, before including this as a fact in the article. RolandR 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough.Felix-felix 11:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR Warning

To editors that keep revereting each other: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

This article is now protected. Please discuss in talk and find some common ground to improve the article. When you are ready to resume editing, you may place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone complains, note that administrators always protect the wrong version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi there

We have a situation where extremely interesting¸ relevant and up to date info from the poster Nihipri has been vandalised repeatedly b Isarig and RolanR¸ and now the page is protected with their version¸ all the new info deleted again. They have an agenda to make sure the info on GA remains very superficial¸ without any meat¸ and portrays him in a bad light. I do not think leaving the entry protected with their information as is in the interests of anyone and would like to call for some mediation here.

Just comparing the two versions – the one which Isarig and Roland R have been insisting remains as it for ages¸ and the new info¸ it becomes clear which is more relevant¸ interesting and NEUTRAL.

I am relatively new to Wiki¸ but would like to know what can be done about this now?

It seems to me that wiki is not an encclopedia at all¸ but a disinformation site¸ controlled and protected by Zionist moles. That’s is how it is looking from where I stand.

Ednas 09:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton"

1) The heading "Stalked by Sanhedrin" is, in my view, anti-semitic. To compound this by callnig Wikipedia a "disinformation site, controlled... by Zionist moles" is completely unacceptable. 2) It is not appropriate to have large quotes from the subject of a biography in a biographical article, especially when they are available on a website the article already references, and when they do no add information. 3) Some of the information about Atzmon's music and the Orient House Ensemble that Ednas/Nihiri added is actually appropriate to include, e.g. awards, collaborations, members of band, etc. 4) To my knowledge, Atzmon's novels are not banned in Israel. If they are, the statement needs a reference. If they are banned in Israel, it would certainly be appropriate to include mention of that in the article. BobFromBrockley 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that the books are not banned - RolandR has provided (above) links to Israeli bookstore websites (one of them is the bookstore of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem) that advertise and sell his books. I have no objection to adding factual information about the ensemble and the awards it won. I agree with your other comments regarding the antisemitic and otherwise unacceptable comments about "stalking" and "moles". Isarig 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To Ednas: What could be done now is for us to discuss, in a civil way, the changes you want to introduce into the article, reach consensus, and then add them. As a practical suggestion, there seems to be agreement that the information about the ensemble and the awards it won is relevant and important. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at suggesting a suitable paragraph? Here's something I'd be ok with, based on your contribution:

Atzmon's long-standing band¸ the Orient House Ensemble (named after the former PLO headquarters in East Jerusalem) includes Frank Harrison on piano, Yaron Stavi on bass and Asaf Sirkis on drums. Steve Baxter in Jazz Views described Gilad as "quite possibly the most exciting performer in the country" and wrote of the Orient House Ensemble: "Individually, you'd be hard put to find better practitioners of their respective arts, but collectively the rapport between them was a revelation"
Gilad Atzmon and The Orient House Ensemble have earned many jazz awards for the album Exile, including Best Jazz Album Of The Year - BBC Jazz Award 2003 and Best Jazz Album of the Year (2003) - Time Out Magazine.


Yep, the first part is fairly easy, the article is split into music and politics sections-the former uncontroversial and factual, the latter more controversial-given Atzmon's controversial remarks. However, it seems to me that 2 editors are trying to portray Atzmon in a particularly bad light-quotes (of questionable relevance-like the 'Christ killer' quote) taken somewhat out of context, and positive ones removed repeatedly. So, how about straightforward WP editing of his music and then careful consensus reaching about his writing?Felix-felix 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution. I would be willing to help with this. Ednas 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are ready to resume editing, drop me a line in my talk page and I will unprotect the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to assist with the editing of the Atzmon info. However¸ first I would like the info submitted by Nihipri to be restored¸ and would like us to work from that info. It is outrageous that the Wiki admin protected the page in the version restored by Roland Rance¸ a completely biased “editor”¸ with an agenda against GA. I would also like Wiki admin to block Rance¸ Isarig (Rosen?)and Maccoby permanently from editing the GA info. This is the most obvious first step¸ and should have been done ages ago. Ednas 09:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Ednas, that's a non-starter-Wikipedia is a collaborative and anarchic process, and other editors here, regardless of their personal agendas are at liberty to contribute as they see fit. With patient WP editing and discussing everything on the talk pages first-we can sort this article out properly. Having just had an exchange with a particularly intransigent editor from another article who was trying to paint me as an anti-semite for being sympathetic to Atzmon, it occurred to me that the article should have 3, rather than 2 broad sections, namely;
  • Music (uncontroversial and straightforward to edit)
  • Politics (GAs political stance on various issues, focussing on solely his stance-i guess this would mainly be about Zionism and Israel)
  • Polemics/Controversy/Insults/Call it what you will (which could encompass all the supposed anti-semitic name-calling stuff, whilst separating it from the actual politics that he espouses)

Ednas, you have to realise that the name-calling stuff will have to be addressed at somepoint in the article, and we're all going to have to agree about it, so clearly delineating where various things are going to go and being careful about using original sources (which the current version does not), I think we can produce a good article. Whaddya reckon?Felix-felix 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi and Felix¸ let’s get going then. I suggest we start with a broad comparison of the two versions¸ and come to some agreement about which one to have running while we work on the editing. I suggest that we work from the more inclusive¸ informative version¸ which is also less polemical and then decide what to incorporate from the Rance version. I also think the subtitles of music¸ literature¸ political writing and politics should remain as is¸ with perhaps one more as felix suggests¸ dealing with the controversy and labeling. Please respond soon so that we can speed up this editing process somewhat. Ednas 09:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Felix proposes three sections -- Music, Politics and Polemics/Controversy. I'm not sure this would work. Certainly the music section should be expanded, to include more discussion of GA's work, his bands, concerts and recordings, and his awards. Personally, I think that some of the language in the Nihipri edit was excessive, but this is a matter for discussion. I also think there should be a section for literature, to include mention of GA's novels and the critical response. This section should not include the untrue claim that his novels are banned in Israel, but should certainly note that the Hebrew translation of "Guide for the Perplexed" was a candidate for Israel's 2003 Geffen Award for science fiction. [6].
But I think there would be a problem with any attempt to separate "Politics" from "Politics/Controversy". In the first place, much of GA's political writing is presented as a polemic against others. For instance, his important statement questioning the existence of antisemitism is included in his essay "1001 Lies About Gilad Atzmon", an undeniably polemical piece. It would be misleading to insist that this be included in a separate section than his non-polemical article "On Antisemitism". Equally, it would be invidious to create one section in which GA's side of a debate was presented, but to polace the response -- or, in some cases, the argument being responded to -- in a different section.
Felix seems to suggest that the Politics section could include GA's views on Israel and Zionism, while the Polemics section would include "all the supposed anti-semitic name-calling stuff". Without getting into any discussion over the merits or otherwise of GA's views, I would suggest that it is in fact extremely difficult to separate his views in this way. For instance, in the article "On Antisemitism", he writes "Since America currently enjoys the status of the world's only super power and since all the Jews listed above declare themselves as devoted Zionists, we must begin to take the accusation that Zionists are trying to control the world very seriously. It is beyond doubt that Zionists, the most radical, racist and nationalistic Jews around, have already managed to turn America into an Israeli mission force. The world's number one super power is there to support the Jewish state's wealth and security matters." [7] There is a view that this is simply a statement about Zionism (and therefore, according to Felix's suggestion, to be included under Politics), and there is a view that this is an antisemitic position (and therefore presumably to be included under Polemics). How does Felix propose to resolve such conundrums? My feeling is that, even with greater goodwill between the protagonists than exists at present, such an artificial separation would be extremely difficult. As things are right now, I think it would be well-nigh impossible. RolandR 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Roland, My thinking was that the proposed politics section could be relatively neutral and just stick to fairly bland statements about his basic position on various subjects, referenced, of course. The 'polemics section (let's call it this for now) could have the more controversial stuff, but there would be no reason you couldn't have stuff about Zionism and Israel in both (in fact, I definately thought we would)-it would be a tactic to get the page moving in a relatively uncontroversial manner which would give the interested reader an insight to what Atzmon 1)did 2)thought and 3)what the fuss (controversy) was about.
So, in the above example, I would propose that under a politics section-something like 'he is an opponent of Zionism and believes that US foreign policy may be influenced by Israeli concerns' or some such bland-ish summary; and then a fuller going over the controversial passages as above.I would also add that we should do the sections in order, the least controversial first (the music). What do you reckon? Want to give it a go?Felix-felix 11:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly happy to see the music section expanded, and I agree that it makes sense to tackle the less controversial sections first. If nobody objects, I am happy to start editing


Well, unless you can show that you are not Gilad Atzmon, you can be considered to be even more biased. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the official policy, which states that "writing autobiographies is highly discouraged". I certainly had no intention of making any libellous statements, and apologise unreservedly if I have done so. If you can point to any such statements, I will certainly withdraw them if they cannot be substantiated. RolandR 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RR continues...the Nihipri section on music, and to submit it to Talk for discussion and approval. Then we can move on to his novels. RolandR 12:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I 've asked Jossi to unfreeze the page-and then we can get the whole thing going again.Felix-felix 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ednas, trying to demonstrate 'agendas' to other editors on WP is a pretty futile exercise, no matter how well founded your reasons are, firstly, they are almost always unprovable, and secondly (and more importantly) they do not bar anyone from editing an article anyway. It is far better to avoid personal attacks by which I mean arguments ascribing behaviour on motives to a particular editor and other ad hominem writing , and instead focus on discussion of only the actual edits themselves. This should result in a cooler and more thoughtful discussion, hopefully resulting in a better, and more factual article. btw I'm not an admin here, Jossi is though.Felix-felix 14:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to keep personalities out of the equation. Atzmon is, by his own design, a controversial subject. But as far as wiki goes, most of the heat and fire about GA exists in the blogosphere, self-published web pages, and one-sided web sites or editorial comments. Most of the cites that have been used, so far, to portray GA's politics have been from dubious sources. When it comes to a living person, we need to follow WP:BIO and use only verifiable statements in the article. Judging by the quality of what I see, when I Google 'Gilad Atzmon', this will probably make the politics section pretty short! Just because there is a lot of info out there doesn't mean it usable to support a statement on a wikipage. It needs to be verifiable WP:V Mytwocents 18:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon's own statements, whatever view one takes of them, are verifiable. Many of them are published on his own website, so he presumably takes full responsibility for them. Others are posted under his own name on other websites, and have never been disowned by him, so one can assume that he accepts these too. Many of them are responses to articles by other people; it would be unacceptable to include GA's responses without including the texts to which they were a reply.

GA is indeed a controversial figure, and readers turning to Wikipedia for information will expect, and are entitled, to know why he is controversial. It would be silly to have an article about him which pretended that none of this existed, particularly when people can turn to Google and find dozens of pieces discussing this.

Wikipedia does not need to take a position on these controversies. But it does need to report both viewpoints fairly, with the references which allow readers to follow this up. RolandR 20:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Also, the current picture is about to be deleted as it is a copyvio, which is my fault. Does anyone have any non-copyright pics which we could upload?Felix-felix 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I mailed GA at the address on his site and he responded that the pic wiki has been using belongs to him and that Wiki can continue using it. Also asked about the issue re banning of his first book and his reponse is that it was banned 2 weeks after publication but the ban was later lifted. Ednas 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

GA confirms that the image wiki has been using belongs to him and is copyright-free. Ednas 12:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If the image belongs to Gilad Atzmon it is not copyright free. If Gilad Atzmon is the copyright holder, then he can state that he is releasing the image under GFDL in an e-mail to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" (with a copy to you). If Gilad Atzmon knows that the image is copyright-free, then he can e-mail the information on who took the photo and how if came to be in the public domain to the above address. -- Donald Albury 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Donald GA has said that he can send an email but the address is not clear. Could U let me have the address and the filenameof the pic in question. Thanks. Ednas 09:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

WP:BLP

When it comes to this articlee I think we need to follow Wiki Remove unsourced and poorly sourced material

Namely; (with my emphasis added)

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages.

When it comes to GA's controversial or fringe views and his politics we should apply a very strict filter to what is is included in the article. This includes statements in the article and external links to blogs and sites with dubious fact checking. This will probably make the 'politics' section and the 'links' list very short, but it will keep the page from becoming a place to bash or promote GA's fringe beliefs. A brief, neutral mention of his Jewish background and his position on Israel and Palestine is warranted. But any controversial statements or quotes(we should avoid quotes) need to be cited to a real news article, not a blog or 'letter to the editor' or other sub-standard source. Mytwocents 18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone one step further and deleted personal attacks and references to those attacks. Lets move on and keep this discussion about the page and Altzman A Wiki Talk page is not like IRC chat, we have to be civil and work together to make this a good NPOVarticle. Thanks. Mytwocents 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is the only way that the article can move forward, given the strength of feeling-properly sourced material, quoted in context.Felix-felix 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I added three tags to the article which highlight what I see as the problems with the page. Regarding the politics section, if I was writing the section it be pretty much this;
Atzmon has caused some controversy with his outspoken political statements. These are often criticised as anti-Semitic, or cited as evidence of Atzmon being a self-hating Jew. He frequently criticises the Israeli state, comparing it to Nazi Germany, and questions the political framing of the Nazi Holocaust.
We should keep the section short and sweet, with verifiable statements, even though finding usable sources is the sticking point in this section IMO. Mytwocents 08:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
There are some difficulties with Mytwocents' suggested text. Many anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian activists and writers are criticised by Israel's supporters as antisemitic, or if Jewish are described as "self-hating". The significant difference in Atzmon's case is that such criticisms come from the left and from anti-Zionist Jews, many of whom have themselves been so described. If we use Mytwocents proposed text, there would be nothing to indicate that even many radical critics of Israel and Zionism sharply differentiate themselves from his positions.
Regarding sources, most of Atzmon's articles appear in places Mytwocents describes as self-published -- on his own site, on Israel Shamir's site, on the PeacePalestine weblog and elsewhere. From these, they are widely circulated, and they form part of a significant debate. Similarly, responses are published on sites like Jews sans frontieres, Lenin's Tomb or Random Pottins. These too are then circulated, and take part in the wider debate. The fact that they are "self-published" is not entirely relevant, since the people publishing them (on both sides) are the activists on the issue and the protagonists in a debate. If we dismiss all of these sources, we are left with very little to explain why Gilad Atzmon is a politically controversial figure.
In any case, it does not appear to me that any of these sources is being used as a "secondary authority". Rather, they are the direct source for the claimed information. For instance, quoting Atzmon's views on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion does not tell us anything about the protocols themselves, but does tell us what Atzmon says about them. Similarly, quoting Michael Rosen's comment on Atzmon's alleged "racist views" does not in itself establish that these views are racist; but it does tell us that Rosen thinks so. So I think Mytwocents' concerns are misplaced. --RolandR 11:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that that's a very difficult position to sustain, RolandR-as the article is supposed to be about the subject, rather than a list of complaints/opinion (or praise) of the subject. GA is certainly controversial-and as someone has said before, by his own design, and this is worthy of mention-but the page is already a barrage of other peoples opinions about him-and our primary aim shouold be the creation of a good WP article. If this isn't managable, then how about a bland statemant on his controversy, as above, with no quotes, and leave it at that? I don't think that mytwocents has misplaced concerns-the page has just been protected-and if we're interested in this article, then we ought to address these concerns properly, don't you think?Felix-felix 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted Felix-felix's edit on the reportedly imminent legal clash between Atzmon and Sue Blackwell on the basis of "what reliable third party sources have published about the subject"WP:BLP and also Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy. Note, I wrote on the page "it was reported on several blogs" which is not the same as saying "Atzmon is planning a libel action against" which would give readers a greater degree of certainty that this is "in the works". Philip Cross 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that-however it's blog gossip-and thus unencyclopedic until properly verified. Are the bloggers notable and relevant to Atzmon? This sectin is degenerating again into a quotes section-in this case unsubstantiated stuff from JSF and Harry's place-hardly unbiased sources.Felix-felix 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So why was it replaced? I've removed it again..Felix-felix 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Sue Blackwell has confirmed this to me in a personal email, so I have restored a slightly reworded para to the article. RolandR 01:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards section

From the intro "He has earned many jazz awards". A bullet pointed list would be good. Does anyone know which ones he's won? And won, not been nominated for!Felix-felix 11:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

The article is now unprotected. Hope that the last 10 days have been useful in finding some common ground. If editors need any further assistance with the dispute, drop me a message in my talk page. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spring Clean

Well, this is a pretty depressing state of things after all the talk following the protecting of the article. I propose a bit of a spring clean, mainly by splitting the politics section into politics (which would be descriptive) and quotes 1)by him and 2) about him. That should at least start to give the article some shape, cos it's almost unreadable at the moment. An awards section would be good, if anyone knows which awards he's won. I think we should stick strictly to primary sources too. I've started by adding a (free) picture.FelixFelix talk 15:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Antisemitism

He and many others deny it-a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOP, as one of my recent colleagues is fond of pointing out. It should go.FelixFelix talk 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

He does not deny it - he claims antisemitism is meaningless. Isarig 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/l/Talk%7EGilad_Atzmon_b8b3.html"