Talk:Israel Shahak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

See also: talk:Israel Shahak/archive 1, talk:Israel Shahak/archive 2

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] "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. [9]
  • 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.” [10]
  • ...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. [11]

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)

[edit] it is exactly for these kind of weirdos

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

[edit] 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," [1] and David Duke described Shahak as "one of the Jews I have most respected" and dedicated his book Jewish Supremacism to him. [2]


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 [12], 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. --Zerotalk 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? --Zerotalk 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. --Zerotalk 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.--Zerotalk 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:[13] 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. --Zerotalk 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. --Zerotalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit]  ????

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)

[edit] Latest reverts

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

[edit] 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 (!) [14]...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]=[15]: dead link, [2]=[16]: nothing about Shahak, (nothing about David Duke, but include Zündelsite (Canada), Radio Islam (Sweden)),
  • Political Research Associates, [5]=[19] the link : no Shahak, no Radio islam, yes on david duke, yes ernst zundel. The home page: same,
  • and various academics (e.g. [6]=[20] 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[21], as it was never answered: here:[22] 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)

[edit] "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 [23] 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. --Zerotalk 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. --Zerotalk 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 [[24]]: "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)

[edit] 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, [25][26]. 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 [27] 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)


[edit] (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 [[28]] 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 [29] (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)


[edit] (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
"assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves" (original emphasis) Wikipedia:NPOV#A simple formulation
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 [30] 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)


[edit] (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,[31], 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)


[edit] (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)

[edit] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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, [32] 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 [33] 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 [34] 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)

[edit] 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:

Accuracy dispute This article may not be compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia.
To be compliant, it must be written from a neutral point of view, must be attributable to reliable sources free of original research, and must be encyclopedic.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

, and the ActiveDiscuss template:

Accuracy dispute This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed.
Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable.
Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes.

.

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 — see talk page].

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)

[edit] "Professor" so-and-so

Please don't keep re-inserting titles like "Professor" into the article. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the guideline. Thanks for bringing my attention to it. Tiamut 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] an analysis of the "Praise" section in light of Wikipedia's policies as a representative of the whole article

I consider the article, in its present state, to be not compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia. To be compliant, it must be written from a neutral point of view, must be attributable to reliable sources, free of original research, and must be encyclopedic. In my opinion, many statements in this article violate one or more of these stipulations. I will focus on the "Praise" section, but it's just a representative example.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Shahak, like many people, was known by many individuals: his family, his coworkers, his neighbors, his grocery store vendor, etc. Some of those who knew him were famous, and some were relatively unknown. Each of them had some opinion about him. It would be irrelevant to list what a random group of them thought about him.

But this is exactly what's going on in the Praise section. The people quoted are people, who happen to be relatively well-known, and, moreover, whose opinions of him happen to be documented. But there is no a-priori reason to favor the opinion of a famous individual over the opinion of a relatively unknown one. Gore Vidal, a famous American novelist and essayist, is quoted as saying, Shahak was "the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets". Would the article be any worse or better, if, instead, Shahak's help would have been quoted as saying "he was the kindest person who ever walked the face of the earth"? Norton Mezvinsky, a history professor, is quoted as saying Shahak was "a rare intellectual giant and a superior humanist"? Would the article be any worse or better, if we replaced the name "Norton Mezvinsky" by the name of one of Shahak's relatives?

The section seems to me to repeatedly evoke an appeal to authority to advance the opinion, that Shahak was a person of high intellectual and moral merit. It is therefore in violation of the NPOV policy. It is also in violation of the no original research policy, since it uses the quotations not for their direct informative value - i assume Vidal's quote is not used as a reliable secondary source to support the claim that Shahak had prophetic capabilities and that, moreover, there will never be another with these capabilities - but as primary sources serving to imply the above mentioned opinion.

The same goes to all that's attributed to David Duke. Duke's book dedication, as i've already explained above, has no informative value, and only serves to advance the point of view, that Shahak's writings were anti-Semitic. As for Duke's quote, since its content is purely informative, it should be regarded as a secondary source stating, that Shahak exposed many Judaic laws permitting Jews to cheat, steal, kill, etc. However, it may be regarded by some as controversial to regard David Duke as a reliable source of information on Jewish law.

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advertising. The only encyclopedic value that can be extracted from this section - and it's an important value, but it can and should be presented quite differently than presently - is its contribution to establishing Shahak's notability. Itayb 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The information in the Praise and Criticism sections comes from reliable third party sources and fully complies with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Most biographical articles have similar information. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. Plese see the recent changes I made to try to begin to address that issue and my comments to Jayjg above. Tiamut 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your changes were completely unrelated to Itayb's suggestions; they didn't remove any of the material he found objectionable, they merely re-organized it to make it more POV and less readable, and introduced original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You claims are false. Please see my comments in the RfC below. Tiamut 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Itayb removed the stuff you added as well, and continue to try to add; see, for example, this: [35]. So please don't pretend that you and Itayb agree on this, or that you are addressing his issues. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't made an addition to the article since this at 18:20pm[36], before I asked for the RfC, so I don't know what you're talking about. As for Itayb's removal of the material, he is as at least being consistent which makes it much easier to respect his edits. From what I understand, where we differ primarily is in approach in bringing WP:NPOV balance to the article. He wants to do it by removing the slanderous sources that don't meet WP:RS and WP:ATT, whereas I have chosen to do it via rebuttal and contextualization via the use of reliable sources until agreement can be met on whether to keep them or not. Tiamut 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You re-added the stuff Itayb deleted, so you couldn't possibly be agreeing with him on this subject. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This is superfluous arugmentation and beating of a long dead horse. 'If you read my comment, you would have seen that the apparent contradiction you have raised is explained therein. Tiamut 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] analysis of a non-compliant statement: Duke's "mourning" of Shahak

In my opinion, the following statement, taken from the Praise section, is not compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia:

David Duke mourned Shahak, stating he had exposed "numerous examples of hateful Judaic laws... that permit Jews to cheat, to steal, to rob, to kill, to rape, to lie, even to enslave Christians"

To be compliant, an article must be written from a neutral point of view, must be attributable to reliable sources, free of original research, and must be encyclopedic. In my opinion, this statement does not meet these criteria.

I see two reasonable ways to interpret this statement:

1. Shahak exposed Jewish laws that permit Jews to cheat, steal, rob, etc. (source: David Duke)
2. David Duke made the claim, that Shahak had exposed Jewish laws that permit Jews to cheat, steal, rob, etc.

In the first case, David Duke, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, is cited as a source with respect to the appraisal of Jewish laws. Such usage is questionable: as far as i know, the Ku Klux Klan's views are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist. (Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources) Hence, under this interpretation, the statement violates the Attribution policy. I tried to put this interpretation to work (([37]), but it was rejected ([38]).

In the latter case, the statement is about Duke, not Shahak. Hence,

a) It is either irrelevant to the current article, or
b) It is used to suggest some information about Shahak, but not that he exposed Jewish laws that permit Jews to cheat, steal, rob, etc. (because i've already covered this case above).

In case a, the statement is not encyclopedic. I tried to delete it a couple of times([39], [40]), but each time it was restored ([41] [42]).

In case b, the statement uses Duke's quote as a primary source, advancing the point, that Shahak's writings are themselves anti-Semitic. This usage violates the Attribution policy with respect to primary sources, since it does not make a descriptive claim, but rather suggests an implied claim. It also violates the NPOV policy, in that it does not simply assert facts about opinions, but asserts the opinions themselves, in an indirect manner.

Itayb 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Very sound argument. I support your deletion of this material. Others? Tiamut 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please look at the footnote. The source used is Bogdanov, not Duke. Since Bogdanov is used, we are not relying on a primary source. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the only reasonable interpretation of the statement is exactly what it says; Bogdanov says that Duke claimed that Shahak had done these things, which is completely in line with WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's in a "Praise" section: Bogdanov is quoted for quoting Duke's praise of Shahak. The cite to Bogdanov is accurate, and no one claims Bogdanov's quote is not accurate, so the dubious tag does not belong. I detect a double-standard: Itayb is singling out this well-sourced quote, and not, say, the opening quote of the praise section, which quotes Gore Vidal without any reference, much less the secondary source that Itayb demands; the Mezvinsky quote is from a primary source; so is the Hitchens. Indeed, if one goes by Itayb's putative standards, the entire Praise section must be deleted except for the Duke quote, yet the only quote Itayb attacks is the one that a reliable secondary source found notable because it praised Shahak for his antisemitic writings. -- TedFrank 07:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, a source does not need to be self-published, to be considered a primary source. For instance, an eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper is a primary source, even though journalists and the papers they produce are generally considered secondary sources.
TedFrank, firstly, i agree with you, that the Dubious template was mischosen. I didn't look at the page it linked to; i picked it up from this table, where it is described as going next to "Disputed statements in-line". However, i'm happy you've noticed the insppropriateness of this tag in that context and deleted it. Thanks. :) I've replaced it with a more suitable one: Template:POV-statement.
Secondly, it appears from your comments, you haven't noticed my previous comment, "an analysis of the "Praise" section in light of Wikipedia's policies as a representative of the whole article". I think much of your criticism is answered by that comment. However, you did get (almost) right my opinion, that almost the entire Praise section should be deleted. And that's just for starters... Itayb 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] convenience break 1: POV-statement tag inappropriate also

WP:NPOV states that it is a simple formulation: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. The challenged sentence meets that formulation; Itayb even quotes that simple formulation above, so it's not that he's not aware of it. But nothing in Itayb's talk-page explanation makes any reference to the WP:NPOV policy in explaining why he feels this statement violates NPOV. That explanation needs to be given, complete with quotes to the portion of WP:NPOV ostensibly being violated. So far, Itayb has falsely claimed WP:RS, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Disputed statement, and has not been willing to defend any of these once it's pointed out that the statement complies with each of these rules. One expects WP:KITCHEN SINK next. These persistently false claims of Wikipedia policy violations are bordering on disruptive editing. -- TedFrank 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Itayb has responded on the talk page, but has not justified his use of the NPOV tag with reference to specific language in the NPOV policy. I thus remove the tag. -- TedFrank 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] analysis of a non-compliant statement: Duke's dedication

In my opinion, the following statement, taken from the Praise section, is not compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia:

David Duke [...] dedicated his book Jewish Supremacism to him.

To be compliant, an article must be written from a neutral point of view, must be attributable to reliable sources, free of original research, and must be encyclopedic. In my opinion, this statement does not meet these criteria.

Since the dedication's wording is not given, it might have been, for all we know, "This book is dedicated to Israel Shahak". Let's say it was, and suppose we've never heard of Duke or Shahak. What could we learned from this dedication?

We could possibly learn something about Duke: that at some point he decided to dedicate his book to Shahak, that at some point he set down and wrote the sentence: "This book is dedicated to Israel Shahak" on one of the first pages of his manuscript, and that he had this statement published along with the rest of his manuscript.

But what could have we learned about Shahak? Nothing. We would be none the wiser about him after reading this dedication. We couldn't tell whether he was even aware of the dedication; he was possibly already dead when Duke's book saw light. In any case, lacking further information, Shahak is neither directly, nor intentionally, responsible for the dedication. The fact that we do know who Duke and who Shahak are, does not disturb this argument.

Hence, mentioning this dedication in the article is not encyclopedic. I tried to delete this phrase,([43]) but it was restored.([44]). Since this statement holds no informative value, it is used as a way to associate Shahak with Duke, implying Shahak was himself an anti-Semite. Such usage falls under the umbrella of original research, since interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. It also violates the NPOV policy, in that it does not simply assert facts about opinions, but asserts the opinions themselves, albeit in an indirect manner. Itayb 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Itayb, you're repeating yourself, and all of this has been addressed already, and you're not acknowledging that it's been addressed. Plus you're being disruptive: your argument proves too much, because it means that no biography should have a praise or a criticism section, and no one believes that. But you're disingenuously applying this idiosyncratic standard solely to the Duke quote argument. Please acknowledge the consensus that no one on other side of the Duke debate agrees with your view of NPOV and stop disrupting this discussion. -- TedFrank 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Itayb, you say the sentence "asserts an opinion". What opinion does it assert? By "indirectly", do you mean that readers will draw conclusions from the facts? That's precisely how NPOV is supposed to work.
  2. The "not encyclopedic" claim doesn't fly either. Duke's endorsement of Shahak is notable and controversial. Duke has used Shahak in an attempt to legitimize similarly antisemitic opinions he holds (see the al-Jazeera interviews of David Duke). It's not a trivial list of information.
  3. You keep falsely raising the "primary source" OR claim when it is plain from the cite that it is from a secondary source quoting Duke. -- TedFrank 07:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The Duke reference is not primary in any way, but obviously secondary. It is mentioned at length in secondary sources. That's about it. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
TedFrank, and Jayjg, i value your input, and i appreciate your enthusiasm. I'm not always in agreement with your edit choices and interpretation of the policies and guidelines, but i acknowledge that you, like me, are just striving to mold what you conceive of as a good article.
I appologize in advance i won't be responding to all the points you've raised. I simply don't have time for it. Perhaps in my next comment i'll take up the other issues.
As for the Wagner article, all i've got to say is: i'm dealing now with the Israel Shahak article. There may well be many other articles needing review, but please don't drop it all on my shoulders. Please also keep in mind, that the percentage of featured articles is almost negligible. That means that there are many, many more imperfect articles, than there are good ones, so the fact that some practice is common, does not necessarily make it desireable.
I'd like to partly refer to TedFrank's statement that "your argument proves too much, because it means that no biography should have a praise or a criticism section". There's more i'd like to say about it, but i'll have to settle for the following in the meantime.
In my opinion, "praise" is not the opposite of "criticism"; "defense" and "interpretation" are two possible opposites of "criticism"; "disapproval" is the opposite of "praise". I'll explain myself.
When you praise someone's character or work, you don't necessarily add any new information about them; you add new information only about yourself. Suppose i read some book, and then you came and told me: "I think this book is delightful." Would i have learned anything new about the book that i hadn't already known? No, i wouldn't, but i would learn something new about you, namely, that you think the book is delightful. That's a peek into your mind that was deprived of me beforehand. Now suppose you told me the same praise about the book only i hadn't read it previously. Would i know anything about it now? No, i wouldn't. I would only know something new about you. Depending on how much i value your opinion, i might also deduce from this the possible merit of the book. The same argument would hold if, instead of praising the book, you had expressed your disapproval of it, saying "I think this book is dreadful."
On the other hand, when you criticize someone's character or work, you inevitably have to describe them, and that may add new information about them. If you said: "The book misleads the readers, because in fact there are no unicorns.", then i would know, that the book mentions unicorns. As a side effect, i would also learn something extra: that there are no unicorns. Similarly, when you defend or interpret a piece of work, you have to describe it.
The relevancy of a piece of praise to an article depends on the subject matter of the article. If the subject is the praising person, than the praise may be appropriate, since it adds information about him/her. Also if the praising person is notable in his/her own right, but not notable enough to deserve his/her own article, then it may be a good idea to mention him/her in this context. Finally, even if the praising person does have a special article dedicated to him/her, it may still be a good idea to mention him/her in the current context in order to enrich the interlinked-ness of Wikipedia. Itayb 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Israel Shahak#Request for Comment

  • Am trying to introduce changes to the Israel Shahak article [45] to address comments on the talk page by other editors indicating deep concerns with the anti-Shahak bias throughout the article that stands in possible violation of WP:BIO. The edits do not delete any of the most contentious information, but rather reframe to be more in line with WP:NPOV while the issue of whether some of the information should be included at all can be dealt with. Would appreciate the comments of others. Thank you. 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Tiamut 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, the re-org you made did the exact opposite; it included all sorts of things that were not criticism in a "Criticism" section, for example. Also, you're claiming a violation of WP:BP, the Blocking policy? Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant WP:BIO. I fixed it above and will do that at the RfC page. Thanks for pointing it out. Tiamut 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BIO? Are you saying Shahak is not notable enough to have an article about him? That's what WP:BIO deals with. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant this part of WP:BIO: "a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." But you are right int hat the thrust of WP:BIO deals with notability. Tiamut 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If your issues are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, then you should specify which parts of the article violate it. Jayjg (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole as you are trying to defend it [46] holds a 3:2 ratio of negative:positive ainformation about Shahak. Putting this paragraph: Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers, and his articles and the full texts of his works can be found on websites such as Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press".[13] David Duke mourned Shahak, stating he had exposed "numerous examples of hateful Judaic laws... that permit Jews to cheat, to steal, to rob, to kill, to rape, to lie, even to enslave Christians,"[14] and dedicated his book Jewish Supremacism to him.[15][16] under a sub-heading entitled "Praise" is wholly inappropriate, particularly since these sources have still not been proven to actually meet the thresholds WP:RS or WP:ATT. Further, L’Affaire Shahak is not the most significant example from Shahak’s body of work. It belongs in the criticism section because it is used by opponents of Shahak to impugn his credibility. This is all just for starters. More information should be added on his actual body of work and its content, rather than outlining all the criticism without letting him state his theses. I would further note that none of my edits delete any of the disputed information. Nor do they introduce WP:OR as you claim. Everything is reliably sourced and imminently relevant to the information that was already in the article and which required some balance if it is not to be removed altogether. Does that answer your question? Tiamut 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

These sources praise him and his work, and the many, many footnotes provided on the subject indicate that the inclusion meets WP:ATT. On the other hand, your insertion of "On the subject of anti-Zionism and its relationship to anti-Semitism, Shahak argued in a 1989 essay in the book Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections etc." to counter accusations of antisemitism is pure original research; it has nothing to do with accusations that Shahak was antisemitic, it's just quoting some stuff he said about anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the formulation could be improved to read as a simple statement of fact; however, the comment itself is relevant to section it was placed, the source is reliable (Shahak himself) and its nice to let dead people address slander against them by using their own writings when examples can be found, don't you think? Tiamut 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking out-of-context quotations from material Shahak wrote in 1989 to attempt to address accusations made about him decades later is the very definition of WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not out-of context. You separated it from the other comment by reviewer Sheldon Richman that gave it its context. Further, it's an article about Shahak. Most things from books of his pass the bar for reliable source. Now, if you prefer that it be juxtaposed without commentary, I am fine with that. Tiamut 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's out of context. In 1989 Shahak stated that anti-Zionism was a mirror image of antisemitism. Then in the late 1990s and early 2000s various authors accused Shahak of antisemitism. You then brought a third author who in the 2000s claimed that Shahak was called an anti-Zionist because of his antisemitic views. You then brought in that ancient quote from Shahak, and tried to tie it in as well, arguing that his critics called him an antisemite because of his anti-Zionist views, and that therefore his ancient claim was a relevant rebuttal. In other words, your insertion "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who says that statement by Shahak is a rebuttal to claims he was an antisemite? Only User:Tiamut. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find a reliable source and I have conceded the point on the anti-Zionist of Shahak's now both here and in the section above. I don't see how all the mockery and ranting helps the situation. Plus, once again you've made a straw man argument, picking the weakest point out of the edits I've made, and defeating it. Congratulations on your rhetorial skills! But the problem remains the same. This article fails WP:NPOV and WP:ATT in so many places. And you have proposed no resolutions to those problems raised by myself and Itayb now, and Huldra, Abu ali and others above. Tiamut 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm neither mocking nor ranting, and the latter is definitely a violations of WP:CIVIL, which certainly don't help. In addition, you keep claiming the article fails WP:ATT, for example, but fail to state how. What is not properly attributed? Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's in your own edit! [47] And it's part of why I conceded the point to Itayb on anti-Zionist quote, Because his arugment was strongly based in a consistent application of the policy? If David Duke is not a reliable source to summarize Shahak's work, then why is his opinion on Shahak even relevant to this article at all? Why are we giving David Duke undue notability? Just so we can allege Israel Shahak is an anti-Semite based on guilt-by-association? Tiamut 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
But we aren't quoting Duke, were quoting a third-party who quotes Duke in the context of Shahak. I've already removed all the direct quotations of Duke. The quote is attributed to Bogdanor, not Duke. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] convenience break

I'm not sure why Itayb is edit-warring after his earlier lectures, but let me add my voice in support of Jayjg's compromise edits and his deletion of material violating WP:OR, though I still believe that the first paragraph needs to include a reference to the antisemitism controversy. -- TedFrank 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank, you described this edit you just made here [48] as a revert to a "consensus jayjg edit"? What consensus? Do you mean Jayjg's opinion and your own? There is no consensus even on the relevancy of Duke's opinion having any value at all to this article. How is this consensus? Tiamut 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, any look at the edit history and this page will find six different editors, not just me and Jayjg: SlimVirgin, Urthogie, Humus sapiens, and Mike Rosoft. These are also the only editors who are applying the NPOV policy properly. The editors who oppose the quote about Duke (which you misdescribe as the "Duke quote") oppose any mention of the antisemitism controversy at all, which is plainly inappropriate POV-pushing whitewashing; such disruptive editing practices don't get counted towards consensus, because collaborative editing doesn't include the opinions of editors who are not applying Wikipedia policies, otherwise, Wikipdia policies would not get applied. -- TedFrank 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Edited to add: Itayb does support the removal of the quote about Duke but does believe the antisemitism controversy should be mentioned. If Itayb would reference a specific WP policy being violated, it would be helpful. -- TedFrank 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main problem with this article is everything after the "L'Affaire Shahak" section. NPOV doesn't mean balancing extrememly negative quotes with positive ones until half the article is quotes that dont really say anything new. My recommendation is to combine the Praise, Criticism and Accusations of antisemitism sections and to sum them up into about 4 sentences. I suggest something along the lines of:

Opinions about Israel Shahak have been extremely bipolar ranging from "the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets" to "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism". Because of his views on Zionism, he is often accused of antisemitism.... yada yada yada --Calibas 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the specific accusations are actually important, and if you shorten too much, you run the risk of filling the article with weasel words. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
So keep those and delete the rest. I think the praise and criticism sections dont have anything useful to say other than some people love him and some hate him, most of the antisemitism part should stay though. --Calibas 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Calibas, specifically with their offered summary. Itayb 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making opening paragraph comply with NPOV

"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." It's plain that the accusations of Shahak's antisemitism are a notable controversy that belong in the introductory sentence pursuant to WP:NPOV and WP:Lead section. To date, the only argument against doing so is a claim that the accusations aren't true, though making that claim in the article would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV: whether the accusations are true is irrelevant to whether they are notable and reliably sourced. I propose: Critics have argued that Shahak's controversial writings on Judaism are inaccurate and anti-Semitic. but am open to a different formulation. -- TedFrank 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed about this point. The leade should represent the article in its current state, whatever it be. The controversy surrounding Shahak's writings is notable and well-documented. That's why it deserves adequate mention in the article, and this should be reflected in the lead. Itayb 07:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we've been discussing this for weeks days without any input from Abu Ali, and he simply reverts the edit without participating in the discussion or explaining why WP:Lead section does not apply. Why is this violation of WP:DE permitted? -- TedFrank 09:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been fairly busy over the last week and haven't been able to contribute here as much as I wanted. But regarding your accusations against me: How many weeks has this been discussed here? Is it really true that I have not had any input in the talk page for weeks? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Abu ali, having no defense for his improper edit and violation of WP:NPOV, instead tries to change the subject with a personal attack, which I have deleted pursuant to WP:NPA. This is a page for discussion of the Israel Shahak article, not for discussion of me. Please stop these disruptive edits. -- TedFrank 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Handwashing" quote

As is clear from the full quote, which I pasted above, Shahak does not himself claim that pious Jews are worshipping Satan when they wash their hands. Rather, he is citing this as a cabbalistic interpretation of the act. To quote this, as a "Controversial quote", without the context, implied falsely that this was Shahak's own belief. I have removed this misleading section. RolandR 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is controversial. The claim that he doesn't mean what he says is WP:OR. That said, I don't see a need for the quote in the article; including it would just lead to WP:OR tit-for-tatting and an article buried in Shahak quotes, and the section written by Jayjg does a sufficient job of conveying the criticism of Shahak's antisemitic writings. -- TedFrank 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't claim that "he doesn't mean what he says"; I am noting that the quote, as cited in the article, has been extracted from a longer paragraph, in which it is clear that Shahak is discussing the interpretation by cabbalists of a religious practice. Since he goes on to write about "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", it is obvious that he is not cite this as evidence of Jewish belief, but of one interpretation.
If it is WP:OR to go back and check a quoted source, and to correct a quote taken out of context, then we may as well all give up editing Wikipedia! RolandR 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
See, my position is that it's you who's taking the larger quote out of context of a still larger quote where Shahak goes on to say that this "one interpretation", as you put it, is part of classical Judaism. (Shahak never says "this is just one interpretation." He says it's part of kabbalism and that is part of classical Judaism.) So, in fact, it's the shorter quote that's less misleading of Shahak's meaning vis-a-vis modern Jews. Which is where the WP:OR problem comes in, even aside from the fact that the quote is controversial because Shahak is objectively wrong under either your interpretation of his meaning or my interpretation. -- TedFrank 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The larger quote isn't controversial, though. That's the key fact to be remembered here in this discussion. This specific quote is what's caused trouble to some as being seen as anti-Semitic. We're not allowed as Wikipedia editors to add more the quote just to "add context". We are, however, allowed to quote him responding to criticism for this quote. For these reasons, I feel the quote will not lead to some slippery slope of original research and context/quote wars.--Urthogie 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A datapoint

There is an extensive section in the Richard Wagner article on "Racism and Nazi appropriation"--and this notable fact about Richard Wagner's life is, in the scheme of things, much less notable vis-a-vis Wagner than the similar point is for Shahak, for whom the most notable thing about him is that his writings have provided cover for neo-Nazis. -- TedFrank 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me his controversial writings are the most noteable thing about him, NOT that his writings may have been misused by neo-Nazis Nil Einne 13:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed so.--NSH001 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original research removed

I've removed this obvious original research from the article:

Shahak himself expressed a strong opposition to racism and anti-Semitism. [3]

  1. ^ Zündel, Ernst. Good morning from the Zundelsite, Zundelsite Zgram, July 7, 2001. Retrieved July 21, 2006.
  2. ^ Should Christians support Israel?, David Duke website, 1/11/2006. Retrieved July 21, 2006.
  3. ^ For example, he writes in Jewish History: "Modern racism (of which antisemitism is part) although caused by specific social conditions, becomes, when it gains strength, a force that in my opinion can only be described as demonic."

Quoting the primary source's claimed opposition to racism and antisemitism (without even a page number) to somehow "deflect" his approval by antisemites is the rankest sort of Original Research. The following statement by his co-author is also original research intended for the same purpose, but at least it's on topic (his approval by antisemites), so I've left it there for now. Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] primary and secondary sources

Jayjg and TedFrank have criticized me, that i misinterpret the Attribution policy regarding the use of primary and secondary sources. I have carefully reread the relevant segments of the policy, and i have come to the conclusion that they make a good point. I now believe that the policy is phrased unsatisfactorily. But until the policy is changed to correspond to my perspective, i am not justified in citing the policy, to support my attempts to apply this perspective.

As it stands, the policy categorizes documents as primary and secondary sources: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about", "Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material", "Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up secondary sources"

  • I, in contrast, categorize statements as primary and secondary sources. Thus, a single document can contain statements that are primary sources and others that are secondary sources.
  • Moreover, in my opinion, the "primary-ness" and "secondary-ness" of a statement depend on the way it is used; these traits are not intrinsic to a statement. The same statement can be a primary source in one context, and a secondary source in another one.

Consider the following as an illustration of the first point. I've been recently involved in editing the Pearse Jordan article. Jordan was an IRA man shot dead by British police officers, while unarmed. His case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which made a landmark judgment, ruling the inquest of Jordan's death had been flawed. I cited the raw judgment transcript as a secondary source for describing the circumstances of Jordan's death, but i refrained from citing it as a source for describing the actual conclusion of the judges and their ruling in the case, because i considered the transcript a primary source with respect to these facts. Instead, i cited the court's press release of the judgment summary. In this case, i considered a single document to contain some statements that are secondary sources, and some that are primary sources.

As an illustration of the second point, consider my analysis of Duke's "mourning" of Shahak. I considered the very same statement to be either a primary or a secondary source, depending on the way it was used, i.e. the way it was meant to be interpreted. If the statement was to be taken for its direct informative value, then i considered it a secondary source. However, if this was not the intended interpretation, i considered it a primary source, since it was, in this case, equivalent to saying "Shahak's writings are antisemitic", citing Duke's words in support. That would be a logical argument of the following form: A is so-and-so, because B is so-and-so and B approves of A. Regardless of the validity of this argument, Duke's words are used as the "B approves of A" part, but they demonstrate the point, rather than by cite a reliable source to make this point. From this i concluded that, in this case, Duke's words were used as a primary source. So to me, a single statement is neither a primary source nor a secondary source on its own; its "primary-ness"/"secondary-ness" is determined by its usage.

As i said, the current phrasing of the Attribution policy does not unambiguously support my views. It certainly does not preclude them either. On the contrary: as i noted in my response of March 21 to Jayjg in the analysis of a non-compliant statement: Duke's "mourning" of Shahak section, an eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper is considered by the policy a primary source, even though journalists and the papers they produce are generally considered by the policy secondary sources. And there are other similar examples. The point is, the policy is currently, evidently, not sufficiently clear in defining primary and secondary sources, and therefore Jayjg's and TedFrank's view, that "primary-ness"/"secondary-ness" are inherent properties of documents - a view which seems to be implicitly shared by Abu Ali, RolandR and Tiamut as well (also suggested by TedFrank's 00:14 comment in the analysis of a non-compliant statement: Duke's dedication section) - cannot be currently effectively challenged, at least not by me.

I will try to present my arguments in the Attribution page. Itayb 12:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not getting your point. When a secondary source quotes someone, it's a secondary source. And when a secondary source notes something that a primary source did, it's obviously a secondary source. Please explain clearly why you think it is not "neutral" to list the secondary sources which say that Duke praised him and dedicated his book to him. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] index of Shahak writings

This link [49] contains pointers to some of his work and a chronological treatment of his bio. This includes a link an important article Oslo Agreement Makes PLO Israel's Enforcer which is notable not only for its scathing criticism of the PLO leadership but also for the clear analysis of the Oslo Agreement. Some of this material should be referred to in the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: Replacing the Praise, Criticism and Accusations sections with a short summary

Suggestion: To combine the Praise, Criticism and Accusations of antisemitism sections and to sum them up into a couple of sentences along these lines:

Opinions about Israel Shahak have been extremely bipolar ranging from "the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets" to "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism". Because of his views on Zionism, he is often accused of antisemitism.
  • Yes, this would also address some of the Well poisening concerns above. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The concerns were unwarranted, and fully addressed. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Abu Ali, please clarify your position with respect to Calibas' second version (below). Itayb 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
2nd version looks fine to me ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Itayb 11:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No I think that quoting praise or criticism, without giving a source or context, is meaningless. I don't at all agree with the second sentence, which implies an equivalence, which I certainly do not accept, between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. This should say something like "Because of his views on Zionism, he has sometimes been accused by Zionists of antisemitism" -- but even this should be sourced, rather than left vague. And I would also remove the word "bipolar", which as far as I am aware usually relates to manic-depressive illness, and is liable to be mnisunderstood in this context. RolandR 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the statement should be well-attributed, like all statements in Wikipedia. The exact wording is open to negotiation, but it has one distinct advantage, that it was formulated by a fresh, independent voice in this discussion: Calibas. Please reconsider. Itayb 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with everything RolandR says. I intended that paragraph as only a rough example. Here's a better one:
Israel Shahak has sparked feirce controversy during his life which has made him numerous friends and enemies. Comments about him range from "the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets" by Gore Vidal to "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League. Professor Irfan Khawaja disagrees with these accusations and explains that his detractors falsely associate his anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
I support either version. Itayb 07:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, if we use my 2nd version. Could use a little more info but I wanna be careful not to tip the scales. --Calibas 04:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes to Calibas' second version. Minor changes -- first sentence should say "sparked", not "has sparked", and "made", not "has made" -- past perfect is more appropriate here. Also, "fierce" not "feirce". I assume that the names will be Wikilinked, and the sources added. RolandR 08:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
RolandR, please consider striking a line through your first vote (at least through the first word), like this. This way, the balance of votes would be clear even at a superficial glance. Itayb 11:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Itayb 11:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes to Calibas' second version, with the small changes by RolandR. (Also: the whole section "L'Affaire Shahak" is now both in the Shahak article and then, ecactly the same, in the Jewish History, Jewish Religion article. I think it should only be in one place.) Regards, Huldra 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not exactly the same, it's a shortened version. I see it was copied there from here. It should probably be just here. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, of course not. The shortened version significantly misrepresents the views of his detractors and of his supporters, and Ottolenghi's point (which differs from all the rest) is not captured at all. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I should add that it's rather astonishing the lengths people are going here to try to hide the fact that Shahak is adored by neo-Nazis and antisemites. Nine footnotes attesting to the notability of that fact are not enough. His co-author even commented on the fact in the introduction to one of their books, but that's still not enough! At least people have stopped trying to remove the information based on the claim that it violates WP:BLP [50] [51] I guess somebody finally realized he's been dead for almost 6 years, so they had to invent new reasons to remove it. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To me what's astonishing is the lengths people are going to inject into a Wikipedia article the opinions of neo-Nazis and antisemites. Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No per Jayjg. Plus: The misrepresentation is an especially egregious whitewash: Shahak is called an anti-Semite because of his writings against Judaism, not his writings against Zionism. Criticism of Shahak is notable, and NPOV requires its inclusion, not a paring down to a watered-down half-sentence. Again, the most notable thing about Shahak is that he is the House Jew for the worst anti-Semites of today because of his appalling anti-Jewish writings. -- TedFrank 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly so. Those who accuse him of antisemitism do so because of his writings about Judaism, not about Israel/Zionism. Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Whitewash indeed: "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League."
You express your opinion, that "Shahak is called an anti-Semite because of his writings against Judaism, not his writings against Zionism." Wikipedia is very clear about forbidding Wikipedian to let their own personal opinions infiltrate the articles. Contrarywise, stating in that context Professor Khawaja's explanation for the accusations accusing Shahak of anti-Semitism, is an excellent example of an editor observing both the Attribution as well as the NPOV policies.
Again you claim the most notable thing about Shahak is his being accused of anti-Semitism. That might be the case, but can you back up this claim by evidence? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, this has nothing to do with Zionism. There is notable and sourced criticism of his antisemitic writings, and no reason that it should not appear in this entry. TewfikTalk 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No reason, except for Wikipedia's Attribution policy regarding the use of primary and secondary sources as well as Wikipedia's NPOV policy requiring the presentation of all subject matters from a neutral point of view (that applies to The German Fuehrer; surely it applies to Shahak as well). Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No - per TedFrank. Note attempts to disguise a typical antisemitism as "anti-Zionism". ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Disguise? Please read the suggestion carefully: ..."a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League. Professor Irfan Khawaja disagrees with these accusations and explains that his detractors falsely associate his anti-Zionism with antisemitism." Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No -per Jay. It's also inaccurate to present the criticism as simply criticism of anti-Zionism when in fact it centres on his views of Judaism. <<-armon->> 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the suggestion carefully: ..."a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League. Professor Irfan Khawaja disagrees with these accusations and explains that his detractors falsely associate his anti-Zionism with antisemitism." Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No per Jay, Ted, and Humus. The criticism of Shahak is as notable as it is well sourced. --tickle me 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it? Is the criticism notable, or are those who uttered it? Is it well sourced, as required by Wikipedia's Attribution policy with regards to primary and secondary sources? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No - Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge, subject to its policies and guidelines. Often, this case included, much of what is notable about a person is the depth and breadth of those who oppose him or her. Wikipedia is not meant to evoke images of fuzzy bunnies and cotton candy; it is supposed to be encyclopedic. This information is essential to this man's place in history, and removing it ony does a disservice to wikipedia as a whole. -- Avi 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I liked the suggestion in your edit summary. Maybe we should replace this article with "Israel Shahak was a man. Some people liked him, others didn't." Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So should we list every single positive or negative thing said about this man? There's a line between important facts and trivia. I do agree that my version neuters the subject too much but I think we have to draw a line somewhere. --Calibas 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
After checking all the people cited I see they're all notable. If I would have known my suggestion was going to stir up so much trouble I would have done a little more research. I think this article may want to note the large difference between religious antisemitism and racial antisemitism, though it's hard to tell which ones his detractors accuse him of. --Calibas 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a worthy distinction you make, and one that would clear up much confusion. Unfortunately, the problem is that the word "antisemitism" describes both, and it would violate WP:NOR or WP:SYN to put words in the critics' mouths, unless one can find a cite noting the distinction wrt Shahak. Of course, while Shahak was a religious antisemite, those that find him useful are also racial antisemites, who don't really distinguish. -- TedFrank 02:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Calibas, you've done a good job. You didn't stir any trouble. If anyone did, it was i, who put you're humble suggestion to vote. But even i haven't caused any trouble, unless one considers free discussion troublesome. I'd like to mention, that last night, having seen no one of the regular "critics" (HumusSapiens, Jayjg, TedFrank, SlimVirgin) had stated their stand with regards to the poll, i sent a message to each of them, encouraging them to opine (i sent a similar message to Tiamut, another active but unrepresented voice belonging to the other "camp"). So there was no attempt for a "coup d'etat" of any sort, simply an attempt to check the consensus relative to what i consider a good and balanced suggestion, surely a well-intentioned one, for the improvement of the article. Neither of your suggestions made any attempt to disguise or to downplay the accusations of antisemitism. Isn't saying the Anti-Defamation League accuses Shahak of antisemitism loud and clear enough? Every one of those who supported your suggestion, supported this statement as well. Itayb 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Avi, indeed Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge, and not a platform for propaganda and anti-propaganda. Indeed, all Wikipedia material should be subject to its policies and guidelines, such as strict restrictions on using primary sources and the obligation to present the subject matter from a Neutral Point of View. Indeed, sometimes much of what is notable about a person is the depth and breadth of those who oppose him or her. Can you demonstrate, that this is the case with Shahak? Are the outraged reactions have any significance on their own, say like Einstein's fierce criticism of classical Mechanics had? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes TedFrank has once again shown himself wrong. Israel Shahak should not be characterized as an anti-semite, because he was not an anti-semite. Did he hate people of Semitic blood (encompassing Jews, Chritians, and especially arabs) for their blood? If not, then he should not be described as an anti-semite. He is no more an anti-semite than any generally anti-religious person is an anti-semite. The social connotations of the term are misleading and as such should not be used to describe someone whose concern is, positively, anti-religious.Dean Sayers 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dean Sayers. Shahak was a humanist, and opposed to all religions, not just the Jewish religion. But he was not a racist. It may be appropriate to describe him as anti-Judaic. As Antisemitism#Etymology and usage makes clear, the term "antisemitism" refers to hatred of or racism or discrimination Jews as people and a group, not opposition to, or even hatred of, the Jewish religion. Once we start creating a category of non-racist antisemitism, the term loses any value. We should of course include criticism of Shahak in the article, and record that some of his critics describe his views as antisemitic. But I would strenuously oppose any suggestion that the article itself should take a position on this by describing Shahak as an antisemite. RolandR 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To take the absurd position that anti-Jewish writings is not "antisemitism" is the epitome of tendentious editing, and I encourage both Sayers and RolandR to think carefully before engaging in this pointless and time-wasting path. All you're doing is destroying your own credibility. -- TedFrank 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not try to prove that Shahak was an anti-semite, nor to refute it. That's original research, and it's forbidden in Wikipedia. The truth is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is about attributability, not truth. If some reliable authority explicitly claims he was an anti-Semite, you may cite it. If some reliable authority explicitly claims he was not an anti-Semite, you may cite it, too. Otherwise, refrain from drawing any explicit or implied conclusions of your own, reasonable as they are. Consider, instead, turning to Wikinfo, starting a personal blog or submitting articles to academic journals, to give but a hint of the myriad options available to you. Itayb 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Continuing TedFrank's thought. Not only you discredit yourself, but in the course you also confute the POV that this anti-Jewish "humanist" is merely an "anti-Zionist". ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No to this absurd suggestion. Shahak's writings on Judaism have nothing to do with Zionism. and to the writer above, who I assume is writing in good faith and not being disingenuous, "anti-Semitism" refers to various types of hatred of Jews. It has nothing to do with "Semites" (who are a linguistic group). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Semite also refers to a people of various middle eastern descent; the linguistic convention is simply a response to this fact. While I can't claim to know why it has come to mean a chiefly Jewish bigotry, this is disingenuous (ala anti-arabism vs islamophobia). see dictionary.com; while the convention of Jewish implication is clearly prevalent, it also clearly shows that it also refers to Semites in general. Also, I wouldn't link to Wikipedia as a reliable source.Dean Sayers 09:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the word "semite" is irrelevant here. See my post above: you are confused. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Briangotts, please read the suggestion carefully, "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League. Professor Irfan Khawaja disagrees with these accusations and explains that his detractors falsely associate his anti-Zionism with antisemitism." Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, way too drastic to replace three entire sourced sections with two sentences. Too much would be left out and misrepresented. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
MPerel, could you please give an example of a particular view, which would be left out or misrepresented? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Ignores this man's highly controversional stance in many areas. 194.176.105.40 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What would these areas be? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No as per TedFrank. Too much left out. As long as these claims are attributed to sources that represent a significant viewpoint, it should be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What's left out? Is the viewpoint significant, or are some of those who propone it? There's a world of difference between these two categories. Einstein's criticism on classical Mechanics is a significant viewpoint. So significant, it deserves an article all by itself. What is there in the accusations of Shahak of being an antisemite, that has such inherent merit, that it deserves a section (actually two) of their own? Itayb 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No per Jossi. The space is well-deserved.--Mantanmoreland 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No per Briangotts, Avi and others. 6SJ7 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the criticism section is small enough as it is, and outlines legitimate criticism of a very controversial figure. Other figures mostly known solely for controversies also have such sections. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It does not do to simply claim Shahak is known mostly for controversies. Can you back it up? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No I'm sure this was meant in good faith, but it's a terrible idea. Wikipedia should be information rich, espicially when it comes to controversy. IronDuke 00:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Lead section

Now that it's pretty clear that the article won't be bowdlerized, note also that we still have a severe NPOV problem because of the violation of WP:Lead section, which buries the antisemitism. -- TedFrank 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the article is bowdlerized. Only that it should be about Shahak himself and what he says, and not about a smear campaing against him by those who seek to descredit his devastating criticism of the Israeli government's actions.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
RolandR and Itayb above explicitly suggested that the article be bowdlerized, and you've repeatedly suggested that the notable accusations of antisemitism be omitted.
As it is, WP:Lead section is still being violated by failing to acknowledge the main controversies related to Shahak. -- THF 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another suggestion

The main thing I think this article is lacking is citations from Israel Shahak himself. It would be greatly enhanced by more specifics on his political views and his criticisms of Israel and Judaism. I think this would also help explain to the reader why he's often accused of antisemitism. I've only skimmed through a couple of his articles, has anybody read his books? --Calibas 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The article is dominated by character assasination, i.e. the muck his opponents attempt to sling on him. The only detail left out is Shahak himself: who was he and what did he say. This question is marginalised in this article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Describing Shahak's work by quoting directly from it would amount to original research; the same sort of original research presently evidenced by the criticism against him being presented in the form of direct quotes from his critics and from his delirious supporters. Itayb 08:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Answering Calibas' question, no, i haven't read any of Shahak's books yet, but i have looked them up in the Israeli United Catalogue (of college and public libraries). I've found out a curious detail. Shahak's book "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" is catalogued in the library of the Tel-Aviv university under the subject "Self-hate (Psychology)" [52]. As i've written, i haven't read the book, but according to Amazon's abstract ([53]), it does not deal with the psychological phenomenon of self hatred. Other Israeli libraries, as well as the British Library, do not catalogue this book under this subject. So it appears the cataloguers of the Tel-Aviv library didn't catalogue this book according to its content, but rather according to their personal opinions about the psychological motives that drove Shahak to write this book. Itayb 08:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm the person who basically authored the entire "Biography" section; more could be added there. Regarding his views, I've also added some of that, but you should really take that from secondary sources, rather than from his works, in order to avoid original research. Jayjg (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that more could (and should) be added. By why is direct quotation from his works considered original research? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, i'd like to make it clear, that i find nothing wrong with original research. Quite on the contrary. In fact, there couldn't be any Wikipedia without original research - the research to which Wikipedia's editors are supposed to attribute their contributions. While i'm at it, i'd like to add i also find nothing wrong with writing from a non-neutral point of view. That's Wikinfo's premise, and at one time i strongly considered leaving Wikipedia for that project (until i found out their policy about censoring sexually explicit material was ambiguous, which made me very uncomfortable, since i can't bear censorship of any form.) (OR is also the premise of the Academic Publishing Wiki) There's also nothing wrong about writing about non-notable stuff; i find blogs a wonderful thing. And there's even nothing wrong about being uncivil. Although i try to uphold civility at all times, you'll find i never reprimand anyone for being uncivil. I enjoy vulgarity, obscenity and verbal abuse like the next guy, and also, as i've said, i detest censorship in all its forms.
So there's nothing superior in Wikipedia's choice of rules. But the point is, these are the rules of the game, and anyone who can't abide by them should not attempt to play it (as i've explained in a comment in Kelly Martin's blog). That having been said, Wikipedia's policies were not selected quite randomly. They make a lot of sense in the context of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that anyone should be able to tap for quick, reliable information without need for specialist knowledge.
More specifically with regards to your question, consider the following excerpt from the Attribution policy page: "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." In the same vain, Shahak cannot be used as a source for Shahak's claims, since, as this talk page demonstrates, people differ wildly as to how these claims should be interpreted. Itayb 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You may have no objections to violations of Wikipedia's WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:CIVIL policies, but Wikipedia takes them very seriously. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In some cases yes. But most of Shahak's writings are quite unambiguos as to what he is saying. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Abu Ali, you make a good point. The main rational for the no-primary-sources "edict" seems to be that words not be presented out-of-context, and that they can be easily verified without special expertise. However, a secondary source conceivably can be quoted out-of-context as well.
All i can say is that to the best of my judgment, the rules are clear: no primary sources under any but the most restricted of circumstances. The rules may be aiming way off the target, but that's the way they are currently formulated. In my opinion, Wikipedia is a complex game - with significant repercussions on real life, but a game nontheless - complete with a set of rules, and if you don't play by these rules - regardless of the way it would be accepted by the other players - you're simply missing the point. There's nothing wrong with the rules of football, except if you happen to be playing basketball.
However, i'm aware that for many people Wikipedia is not a game. These people have a lot going for their perspective. Wikipedia has come to play an outstanding role in spreading information on the web, and hence its important impact on real life. Additionally, Jimmy Wales made it very clear, that Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia; it's not (primarily) a social experiment, and "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." (original emphasis)
To sum up, my advice to you is this: act in good faith to make Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, make it evident that you're acting in good faith and be prepared to defend your actions. Itayb 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the Jewish History, Jewish Religion article into this one. Everything in that article was copied directly from this article, except for 1½ paragraphs, which are here now. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest changes

Itayb, it's rather disruptive to ask for citations for items that are already cited. Also, we don't need three separate references to articles, two are quite enough, and Wikipedia does not have "Obituaries" sections, just "External links" sections. Please review the manual of style. Your edits also destroyed citations; for example, the Pallis one. In addition, we don't need "accessed" information for articles that are in print, those are only required for information that is only found on the web. Also, please don't remove quotes from citations, they are very useful in showing exactly what the author said. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Itayb is working hard to improve the article. I must admit that I feel bad about inviting him to contribute in view of the abuse he has recieved for his efforts. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition:

  • Wikipedia articles have "Praise" and "Criticism" sections, not "Public opinion" sections with "Approval" and "Disapproval" sub-sections.
  • "Shahak vs. the Jewish law: criticism and counter-criticism" is an absurd section title. The section was about an incident he allegedly fabricated, not him vs. Jewish law, and it doesn't belong in a sub-section titled "Overview of Shahak's views ", since this wasn't a "view" of his, nor an "Overview" of the same, but rather was (as stated) an alleged incident. Jayjg (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jay. If you look at the diff you'll see that cites were removed and sections were renamed in a less clear way. Sorry but it wasn't an improvement. Also, I think Jay's point about WP not having obituary sections is also valid. <<-armon->> 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Before going any further, i'd like to say that, all-in-all, Jayjg did a good job on the Biography section, in my opinion. I'd also like to thank Abu Ali, who is always very protective of me. I draw strength from your words, and from your acknowledgment of my efforts. Please don't feel bad for inviting me to take part in editing this article, because i don't feel bad about it. If anything, i feel grateful to you, for introducing me to Shahak, whom i have never heard of before. I am also happy to have had the chance to collaborate on an article with such Wikipedians as Huldra, Jayjg, RolandR, TedFrank, Tiamut and, of course, yourself. Even when the discussion gets heated, these people make sure it stays intellectually (and socially...) challenging. A discussion such as this is precisely what makes Wikipedia so much more exciting than, say, writing a term paper.
Regarding the obituaries section: i can live with it, and i can live without it. I will not waste energy on debating this issue, nor will i engage in an edit war over it. There are other issues, such as the deleted Pallis quote, or the "mother payed the Catholic family" vs. "family payed the Catholic family", which i don't care to argue about, because the amount of energy i would have to expend in discussing them greatly overweigh the reward i would get in case my opinions are accepted. I will address four points, which i find most significant.
1) Firstly, the phrase "After Nazi Germany occupied Poland". I changed it to "After Germany occupied Poland". The time frame is known to be the 1930's, because Shahak's date of birth is given in the lead. Even if we consider a wider time frame: the whole 20th century, there was still only a single case of Germany occupying Poland in this period. This occupation was conducted by the Nazi administration of Germany during the Sanacja administration of Poland. Either both administrations are mentioned, or both are neglected. Otherwise, it seems to me, to be implying that "Nazi Germany" is distinct from Germany. It was not Germany that invaded Poland, it was Nazi Germany; akin to North Korea and South Korea.
2) Secondly, designating the approval section as "Praise", while designating the disapproval section as "Criticism" shows bias against the approving views. The word "Praise" connotes emotion (admiration) and ecstasy (as in "Praise the Lord!"), while the word "Criticism" connotes judgment and rationality (as in "literary criticism"). The opposite of "Praise" would be "Condemnation". Jayjg suggested it was common practice in Wikipedia to use the titles "Praise" and "Criticism" to designate these types of sections. Common or not, this naming convention violates NPOV, and shouldn't be employed.
3) Thirdly, regarding the "L'Affair Shahak" section. "L'Affair Shahak" is the title of a particular article critical of Shahak, written in English by an Orthodox Jew to an Orthodox public. The focus of the section is not - or, rather, should not be - this article, otherwise it is either irrelevant in this article, or else biased. The article was written in English, and its full title is "A Modern Blood Libel--L'Affair Shahak". Why was a French name used for an English article? I can't say for certain, because i'm not acquainted with the jargon spoken by the English speaking Jewish Orthodox community, to whom this article was intended, but i suspect, based on the full title, that "l'affair" is a term for an anti-Semitic blood-libel, perhaps echoing the Dreyfus affair, which took place in France. I find this title slanted.
Contrary to Jayjg's claim, the section is not about an incident Shahak allegedly fabricated. In its current form, it is a platform for an extensive (it's the longest section of the article!) Jewish orthodox apologia for the controversial Talmudic injunction, which Shahak put in the limelight in his Ha'aretz letter and in other writings. The various rabbis quoted do not try to directly contradict the physical occurences Shahak had described. This incident is significant for both Shahak and the rabbis because of what it says about the Jewish orthodox world-view. Israel Shahak described this event in order to argue that the Jewish orthodox system of values is fatally hostile towards gentiles (and heretic Jews). And the rabbis tried to discredit Shahak's account by arguing that the said system of values is so utterly the other way round, as to rule out the possibility that the described incident had actually occurred.
In my opinion, this section belongs in this article. I would not have it removed. The reason it belongs here, is that it gives stage to one of Shahak's important and original contributions, and to relevant, rational criticisms of it. That's on a par as describing some philosopher's theory, and the criticisms of this theory. That's why i gave this section the title "Shahak vs. the Jewish law: criticism and counter-criticism". Of course, the current presentation gives inordinate weight to the critics relative to Shahak, and is therefore in violation of the NPOV policy. The section needs to be balanced.
4) Finally, there is no need for two criticism sections: "Criticism" and "Accusations of anti-Semitism", just as there is no need for two appreciation sections, say: "Israel's militarism" and "Jewish fundamentalism".
Itayb 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments about Nazi Germany are fine with me, on removing the accusations of antisemitism title that's fine as well. Regarding the other titles, your argument about "Praise" and "Criticism" is nonsensical, and the title you have used "Shahak vs. Jewish law" misleading. Also, the section about his book is about his book. I'm restoring the more sensible titles and heading depths, but I'll try a new title for the alleged telephone incident. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Itayb, the Praise/Criticism complaint you have needs to be taken to WP:STYLE, because you're asking for an encyclopedia-wide change. Edit-warring over that issue on a single article about a particular antisemite is tendentious. -- THF 12:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV-section tag

There was no basis on the talk page for the tag. The section belongs in Shahak, because it's a notable controversy regarding Shahak: either he witnessed an event by a single person that he falsely generalized to an entire religion, or he invented an event to smear an entire religion. The telephone incident recounting is one of the main criticisms of Shahak. It was Shahak who made generalizations of Jewish ethics, and his libel created the controversy. The discussion is not a debate about Jewish ethics, it's a debate about Shahak's academic honesty. Itayb's counterargument is like saying the CBS allegations against William Westmoreland should be discussed in the libel article instead of the General Westmoreland article. -- THF 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The discussion listed there is not about Jewish ethics in general, but specifically about the alleged telephone incident, whether or not it actually happened, and whether or not Shahak's presentation of Jewish law was accurate. He did not "rouse ire of Jewish Orthodoxy"; rather, he made a claim which has been disputed on a number of grounds. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiosyncratic editing

This is a controversial topic, and Itayb continues to make idiosyncratic edits that delete sourced information contrary to talk-page consensus without addressing the critiques. This is disruptive editing. -- THF 13:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Obituaries" section

For some reason people here seem attached to having a unique "Obituaries" section in this article. I've never seen an Obituaries section in any other article. Moreover, the article listed in the "Obituaries" section are already listed in the Notes and References sections, so it's hard to see why they would need to be listed a third time. Can someone explain this strange editing? Jayjg (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections

  1. Jayjg, could you please list three Wikipedia articles with a "Praise" and a "Criticism" sections?
  2. TedFrank, could you please quote from the WP:STYLE guideline, or any other guideline, those passages dealing with the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections? Itayb 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Daniel Pipes, Robert D. Kaplan, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, NGO Monitor for the first question; there are undoubtably hundreds more: those just easily popped up in a ten-second Google search. If "praise" and "criticism" bother you so much, I have no trouble replacing it with a "Controversy" section. It's the substance I care about, as well as not misrepresenting the substance through misleading section titles, as well as fairly acknowledging the controversy in the lead section.
  2. WP:STYLE is the wrong cite, my apology. See the Wikipedia:Criticism essay. The point is that your complaint is an encyclopedia-wide complaint, and needs to be hashed out in the appropriate forum, and the talk page for a single article is not that forum. If you have a specific proposal for integrating the criticism into the entire article without losing substance, we're open to hashing it out on the talk page. -- THF 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
How about: "Controversy: acclaim and criticism", with or without two subsections: "Acclaim" and "Criticism"? Itayb 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The creation of a neutral "accusations of antisemitism" section where the argument pro and con was presented was not the cue to move everything Shahak supporters don't like to acknowledge about him into that section, even when it has nothing to do with antisemitism. You've persuaded me that there shouldn't be a separate criticism section and everything should be integrated into the article, and now you're trying to segregate it, Itayb? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. -- THF 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And Itayb continues to make wild edits to the article without discussion on the talk page, much less compliance with WP:NPOV, much less making sure that his cuts and pastes result in any coherence. He needs to stop edit-warring and self-revert. -- THF 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to balance out the article, attempting to come a bit closer to the NPOV ideal. I'm sure your aspirations are similar. Itayb 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No, sir. Misnaming a section "Shahak and the Jewish fundamentalists" and falsely claiming without any basis that it was only Jewish fundamentalists who had an issue with Shahak's misrepresentations of Jewish law is not "attempting to come a bit closer to the NPOV ideal." Nor is it "reflecting content", much less NPOV, to title a section with integrated criticism of Shahak's work "acclaim" as your 20:24 edit with its dishonest edit summary does. Please self-revert to the 1 April Jayjg edit and discuss your changes here before making them so it can be explained why your edits do not reflect reality or Wikipedia policy. The first factual error was previously explained to you, you have no new information, yet you persist in adding misinformation to the article. Your edits are disruptive. -- THF 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain (or at least tone down) your personal attacks on this pageابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I commented on edits, not the person. -- THF 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Describing Itay's edits "falsely without basis" "dishonest" "not reflecting reality" and "persist[ing] in adding misinformation" is not comments, it is slander and villification pure and simple. If you want to participate in the discussions here, please try to treat people with a minimal degree of civility and respect. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Abu, in the English language, "slander" means falsehood, so you're just as guilty of a violation of civility as I am by your strange idea that edits that agree with the POV you've been pushing are above criticism. The difference is that I am correct in pointing out that Itayb's edits are adding misinformation, and you are incorrect in accusing me of slander (as well as incorrect in accusing me of a personal attack). If you have a softer way to convey the idea "repeatedly adding misinformation after being corrected without any attempt to justify the misinformation or rebut the correction", I'm happy to use it in the future. The problem here is Itayb's edits; please don't try to change the subject. If you wish to falsely accuse me of a personal attack, please do so on my talk page, rather than burying this talk page, as your accusation has nothing to do with the Shahak article. And it is a dishonest edit summary to rename a section that includes praise and criticism "acclaim" and then claim that this "reflects content"; Itayb acknowledges that I am correct there. -- THF 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear sir, you're right. I've accidentally left some Jewish fundamentalist smear in the "Acclaim" section. I've transferred it to the "Accusations of anti-Semitism" section, where it properly belongs. Thanks for pointing my attention. Itayb 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Abu ali's double-standard on the talk page is revealed: I'm not a Jewish fundamentalist, yet Itayb makes this false personal attack. -- THF 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank, you have been consistently rude and hostile to Abu Ali and myself, and tendentious in your edits. Kindly stop. If you feel you can't be objective about this article, move somewhere else. There's plenty of work to be done in Wikipedia. Itayb 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Itay's accusation is utterly false. And his edit summaries falsely characterizing neutral assessments of Shahak's antisemitism as "ravings of Jewish fundamentalists" demonstrates who here suffers from rudeness and a lack of objectivity. -- THF 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
TedFrank, Jewish fundamentalist priests and neo-Nazis, whose views you are incessantly trying to push, are hardly objective sources of information about Jewish fundamentalism and anti-Semitism. Itayb 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:CALM, I'll permit this egregious and libelous violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to chase me from the page. I hope admins don't reward that sort of bullying, however, and it's ironic that I'm not the one trying to whitewash an article about David Duke's favorite Hausjuden, yet I'm the one who's being accused of pushing neo-Nazi views. -- THF 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit war

Itayb, please stop. Your edits are clearly against consensus on this page and you appear to have broken 3RR again. <<-armon->> 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Armon, please be careful with your accusations. The poll was around the question, whether the "Praise", "Criticism" and "Accusation of anti-Semitism" sections should be summarized in a few sentences. The consensus was against this proposal, and i've respected it in all my edits. Itayb 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Like TedFrank, i have decided to take some time off this article to calm down. Itayb 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Cohn's review of Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion"

Quoting from the "Alleged telephone incident" section:

Werner Cohn remarked in 1994 that, "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."< ref name=Cohn>Cohn, Werner. "The Jews are Bad! (review of 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion,' by Israel Shahak)", Israel Horizons, vo. 42, no. 3 of 4, Autumn 1994, pp. 28-9.</ref>

Mr. Cohn's quote is excerpted from his book review of Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion". The review, "The Jews are Bad !", is neither objective:

  • "His claims and opinions are so bizarre"
  • "Dr. Shahak is full of startling revelations"
  • "Some are just funny."
  • "Whom is Dr. Shahak kidding?"
  • "This is the very stuff of the paranoid approach to historiography."
  • "Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case"

, nor academic:

  • "Do decent English historians, even when noting the massacres of Englishmen by rebellious Irish peasant rising against their enslavement, condemn the latter as 'anti-English racists'? What is the attitude of progressive French historians towards the great slave revolution in Santo Domingo, where many French women and children were butchered? To ask the question is to answer it."
  • "I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find what might be behind such tall tales. He had no clue. If orthodox Jews were actually taught such hateful things, surely someone would have heard."
  • "In the Summer 1966 issue of Tradition, an orthodox Jewish journal, we have the much more credible account by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits" (of the "telephone incident")

Additionally, there is currently no Wikipedia article about Mr. Cohn, and there is no indication in the article why Mr. Cohn's opinions are superior to those of any other person's. But, surely, not just any person's statement of opinion should be admitted to a Wikipedia article. Itayb 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cohn is a sociologist who studies Jews, among other subjects, and is Professor Emeritus at Columbia University. If his opinion doesn't count, I'm not sure whose would. IronDuke 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
He also gets over 11,000 Google hits, and over 100 Google scholar hits. I might also point out that this article quotes the poet Fouzi El-Asmar, and various novelists, activists, etc. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The university of British Columbia, in Canada, to be precise. Itayb 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. IronDuke 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] convenience break 1

Cohn's statements about the "clamor" were regarding the articles in Haaretz, Jewish Chronicle, other public statements, etc. Please don't move his statements to a place where they make no sense. Also the criticism from his nephew was contextless; it was referring to various bizarre claims made in Jewish History, Jewish Religion, but not the telephone incident. I've moved it to where it makes sense, in the JHJR section, and made it mostly a footnote. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahak's book was written in 1994, 30 years after the "incident". Cohn's review of this book was written in the same year. The quotation is taken from this review. The quotation reads: "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." (my emphasis). Cohn's use of language suggests he is referring to Shahak's 1994 book, and to the way the "incident" is portrayed therein, rather than to the 1965 sources. Hence, the sensible place wherein to set this comment is in the context of the book, rather than the "incident".
You've written:
Also the criticism from his nephew was contextless; it was referring to various bizarre claims made in Jewish History, Jewish Religion, but not the telephone incident.
I agree with you. Sorry, i should have been more careful. Itayb 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
What is "this clamor"? Is it the publication of the book? No, it is the considerable publicity surrounding the original story's publication in Haaretz and The Jewish Chronicle- Cohn says so himself. Please make sure you provide proper context for statements so that they are comprehensible to the reader. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Cohn's quote is related to the "telephone incident". That's why it's in the "telephone incident" section, and i'm not suggesting to move it anywhere else. But this section breaks down to two segments:
(1) The "incident" + the immediate reactions to it.
(2) The book, wherein the "incident" was retold and wherein the reactions to the "incident" were mentioned + those reactions to the book focusing on this particular passage of the book.
Cohn's quote belongs to the second segment: it is taken from his review of the book. Moreover, Cohn specifically relates the quote to the book, when he writes just before the quote: "In Shahak's version, with which he begins this book, the Jew here followed the ruling the of orthodox rabbinate." (my emphasis) Finally, as i remarked, Cohn's persistent use of the present tense and the adverb "currently" strongly suggest that he is commenting on the way the incident is portrayed in the book. Cohn does not comment simply on the clamor; he comments on "this clamor, which he duly notes" (in the book).
  • Your edits also destroyed citations, namely the Pinocchio one. In the words of a Wikipedian, whom, i'm sure, we both hold in esteem, "please don't remove quotes from citations, they are very useful in showing exactly what the author said." [54]. Thanks. :) Itayb 12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What is this clamor? Is it Shahak's mentioning of the incident in the book, and saying the Rabbis "added much sanctimonious twaddle etc."? No, Cohn is referring to the initial publicity, its publication in Haaretz and The Jewish Chronicle and similar newspapers. Your placement moved Cohn's comment out of its context, and made it unintelligible. You've done this before, please stop doing so; slavish devotion to a chronological account makes the statements of the critics impossible to understand. As for my other edits, they didn't "destroy citations", but removed irrelevant ones. The "Pinocchio" comment was inserted as a straw man, so I removed it, as it was meant not to criticize Shahak, but rather to undermine Cohn. In any event, I've left it in this time, but I will continue to restore Cohn's comment regarding this clamor to its correct spot, regardless of how often you try to make it incomprehensible. I won't bother commenting on this specific issue again, unless you come up with some other explanation as to what this clamor might mean. Jayjg (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] convenience break 2

Consider the following excerpt ([55]):

In 1994 Werner Cohn, a sociologist studying Jewish issues, reviewing Shahak's then latest book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, where Shahak repeats his description of the alleged incident and the contemporary Jewish condemnation of it, remarked ...

1. The word "Jewish" is too inclusive in this context. As Cohn himself notes in his review, "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." (my emphasis) Isn't Ha'aretz written and read mainly by Jews? And what about the Jewish Chronicle? The circulations of these newspapers are not quite negligible: according to the Hebrew Wikipedia, Ha'aretz is Israel's 3rd most popular newspaper (הארץ), and the Jewish Chronicle's circulation during the '70 was over 50,000 (as of the present time, there are 283,000 Jews in the United Kingdom according to the Anglo Jewry article).

2. One assumes that when an encyclopedia cites a sociologist on some subject, the cite is taken from one of his/her academic publications. Since this is not the case here, the reader should be advised, that Cohn's review was not written in his academic capacity (i doubt that Prof. Cohn would like people to think this review is a faithful representative of his academic writings). It is important to note that by the time this review saw light, Cohn was long retired ([56]). Moreover, the venue, wherein the review was published, was not an academic journal of Sociology. It was a laymen's political periodical. There is no reason to suspect this article had gone any professional scientific scrutiny before its publication, as is customary in academic publications. Itayb 20:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't mention the bona fides of any of the other commentators in the article, nor do we mention where any of the other people who comment were published. For example, we say nothing about Sheldon Richman, nor do we mention the intensely political (and anti-Israel) nature of the place in which his review was published (the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs). Your attempts to poison the well regarding Cohn are becoming unseemly. I've been very patient with you, but it's time for you to move on from Cohn, and probably this article. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg wrote:
We don't mention the bona fides of any of the other commentators in the article, nor do we mention where any of the other people who comment were published.
Do you have any objections to my argument pertaining specifically to Cohn's quote? Your comment seems to imply that a common practice should be followed in all cases, whether it is right or wrong. I prefer to go by the moto "Our Wikipedia - when right, to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." Carl Schurz
As for patience, the constant exercising thereof is a good measure for securing a happier life: "Three ounces are necessary, first of Patience, Then, of Repose & Peace" (Recipe for a Happy Life, Margaret of Navarre, ca. 1500) Itayb 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
No, my comment indicates that we should use consistency within articles, and not attempt to poison the well. There's a reason his name is linked, and people can click on the link if they want more information. Please take my other advice. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you haven't yet addressed my concern that, seeing a quote attributed to a sociologist, a casual reader will erroneously but naturally enough assume that the quote is taken from an academic paper. This, in turn, implies it had been written to rigorous scientific standards, and had undergone scientific editorial scrutiny. After all, if it weren't for Cohn's title with its implied assumption that he is not merely stating his personal views, but giving a professional expert opinion, it would not be appropriate to cite his review in this article, would it? I'm not attached to the specific formulation i used to alert the reader to this caveat. Any equivalent alternative you suggest, would be just fine. Itayb 12:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you have given no reason to even imagine that someone would make that assumption. Since when do retired sociologists review books by chemists in peer-reviewed sociology journals? Jayjg (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Talk%7EIsrael_Shahak_7e91.html"