Talk:Israel Shamir

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
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
Israel Shamir is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
An individual covered in this article, Israel Shamir, has edited Wikipedia as
Israel shamir (talk • contribs).

Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Jewish-Christian relations

The Following Passage:

Shamir is a strong believer that Jews must abandon Judaism and convert to Christianity. In his April 15, 2001 Take Two Easter greetings he writes "The Jewish supremacy forces and the greed worshippers united again to crucify Christ... Two thousand years ago, the spirit of brotherhood rose again, to give hope for the second joust. If he is defeated again, we all shall become forever slaves to our faceless masters. They will destroy the Mother Earth herself, turn her into waste lands of Mordor."
In his 2003 Christmas Greetings to Hellenes he writes: "The Jews are forever fighting Christ and the Church; there is no chance for peace in the Holy Land unless the position of the Synagogue is undermined and the Jews saved by the Church... only the Orthodox Church can offer true salvation to the Jews escaping their supremacist creed".

Has edited because the language is so obscure so as to be vitually meaningless. If we are quoting passages, we should at least read the text, if it is short enough. I gather that the intent is to demonstrate Shamir's use of anti-Semitic imagery, so I have retained the pertinent quotes as they form an intergral part of the narrative. JohD 16:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish/Zionist/Israeli conspiracies

This section has been edited. This:

Shamir has advanced a number of conspiracy theories regarding Jews and Israel; for example, in an article entitled The Shadow of Zog, he promotes the notion of a "Zionist Occupied Government" (or ZOG) ruling the United States. In his view, ZOG is a "slave of Mammon, a servant of the Shadow, he is helping the Dark force fulfill its metaphysical task, to blot out the Light of Christ and to turn our world into Godless desert. That is why he sends bulldozers to wipe out flowers in Palestine, sends troops to sack Baghdad and Damascus, threatens Paris and Moscow, perverts Christianity."
In "The Marxists and the Lobby", Shamir writes "the families of the revolutionaries often utilised the prominent status of their relatives and displayed certain ‘Jewish behaviour‘ (clannishness, Jewish supremacy, financial criminality, disregard of Russian culture) and they were indeed attended to by Joseph Stalin, while properly behaving Jews mainly retained their position".
In an article titled Bloodcurdling Libel, Shamir advances the blood libel that Jews sacrificed Christian children for their blood, perhaps for use in Passover matzos or Purim hamantaschen.
In a September 2004 article titled [2]The Spider Web, he describes Sunday Times articles as "part of a Judaic conspiracy to besmirch Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims", and suggested that the Beslan school massacre, genocide in Sudan, the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the terror attacks on Istanbul synagogues, and the August 31, 2004 suicide bombings on buses in Beersheba (for which Hamas claimed responsibility), were all "False flag" operations carried out by the "Judaic conspiracy". Another article titled Poisoning Wells recycles the medieval belief that Jews were responsible for causing outbreaks of bubonic plague by poisoning the wells .


Contains a mishmash of opinion, unclarified quotes and made up material. Quotes of others are attributed to Shamir, and some of the links don't work. It is apparent that the writer either did not read the pieces, or did not understand them I have made sure that each example has been included in the re-write. Some examples don't make sense. What does

"the families of the revolutionaries often utilised the prominent status of their relatives and displayed certain ‘Jewish behaviour‘ (clannishness, Jewish supremacy, financial criminality, disregard of Russian culture) and they were indeed attended to by Joseph Stalin, while properly behaving Jews mainly retained their position".

signify? If you can explain why it belongs in this section, I will include it. I have tried to draw from the pieces referenced, relevant material that applies to a section entitled 'Conspiracy'.JohD 16:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Shamir is an unashamed critic of disproportionate Jewish influence in the public affairs of the United States of America and the Western World."
As written, this sentence is highly POV, and echoes rank antisemitic conspiracism.--Cberlet 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

<blocquote>Shamir makes frequent use of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Here are some examples:

Is a valid enough observation, but you need to clarify; how does he 'use' it?144.138.85.30 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of consensus, I think we should leave it, for now. No sense lighting another firestorm about such a minute issue.JohD 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other information about Shamir

Diderot,

"The biographical information given by Shamir has been questioned by others. Roland Rance, a British anti-Zionist Jew, has written that "his CV ... reads like a work of fantasy -... I don't believe a word of it." Rance mentions a number of other anti-Zionists who have expressed similar doubts about Shamir's story and concludes that "Shamir is apparently a right-wing Russian journalist, who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist.""

You are going to have to show where in the article Rance mentions a 'number of anti-Zionist who have expressed similar views" as "reads like a work of fantasy ... I don't believe a word of it." This seems to me to be reading between the lines to justify a POV, and then re-arranging the logic to present an argument as a conclusion. I am not disagreeing that the inclusion of the passage is problemic. Why not wait for Roland Rance's response?JohD 05:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Michel Warshawski, Moshe Machover, Tikva Honig-Parnass and Eli Aminov have all expressed their suspicions of Shamir, his past and his motives, and refused to work with him." Similar doubts about his past. "Refused to work with him" implies not some minor disagreement. --Denis Diderot 05:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is highly interpretive. These people have all expressed their suspicions about Shamirs past, they don't express similar doubts as does Roland Rance; ie "they don't believe a word of it". You 'similar' is independent research, POV interpretation and use of tenuous implication to form your argument. It is moot at this point; until Rance comes back to verify his arguments. If he does not, I will be moving to relegate his accusations to a footnote; they wouldn't deserve much more than that. JohD (on Holiday)144.139.195.178 04:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I give you marks for trying Dedirot, but it simply tried to paper over the cracks in this entry. Remember the punchline of this passage is the conclusion. to wit: "Shamir is apparently a right-wing Russian journalist, who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist."
Not only has Roland Rance denied, on record, that he implies that Shamir is not an Israeli or not a Jew, but rather that he is not a leftist (whatever THAT means). Disregarding this verifiable fact, we now have a new twist to to this piece of disinformation, it is being directly linked to a completely unrelated segment of the piece, where Rance is presenting his opinion about Shamir's writing, and claims others have simlar views about it. He does not claim that others have similar views about Shamir 'pretending' to be an Israeli, as this passage attempts to imply. It is probably a textbook example of misinformation being mutilated to provide further misinformation. The whole passage is meant to bolster an already dubious assertion that Shamir is a 'Swedish Writer', 'Jöran Jermas' in actual 'fact', and a 'wolf in Sheeps Clothing'. Please bear in mind that Rance's essay is replete with weasel words: 'Seems to', 'as if', 'it was clear to those who can read criticaly', 'I am sure', 'I think that' ... etc. etc. It is OK for a political hit-piece; but totally inappropriate for wikipedia to adopt Roland Rance's 'I think' as fact. I suggest you get onto Roland Rance and get him to provide evidence of 'facts' that you stake your entire reputation on.JohD 16:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The commissariat’s Propaganda Machine.

Clearly Roland Rance has no intention of putting his evidence on the table. He has had more than a week to do so, has visited the page to edit in some more of what he believes it is Shamir has said, but still no reply.

Perhaps it should be made clear to him that wikipedia is not an organ of the Third Socialist International ministry of propaganda such as his dearly beloved Socialist Viewpoint. Why is it important that you put your cards on the table, Roland? Because the entire tone of this article in Wikipedia revolves around your accusations.

"Israel Shamir is a writer and journalist who is opposed to Zionism and supports Palestinian rights. He is a citizen of Sweden, where his legal name is Jöran Jermas. Critics accuse Shamir of anti-Semitism and of misrepresenting his background and career. [3] [4]"

Do you get that?

1. He is a citizen of Sweden.

2. His legal name is Jöran Jermas.

3. He misrepresents his background and career.

Entirely based on your accusations. Not a representation of your opinion; not an indication of your speculations; but a statement of fact, contained within the introductory paragraph, with not one iota of evidence to verify it with.

If you don't come up with evidence that establishes, beyond mere speculation, that your accusations are backed up with hard evidence, this intro not only gets edited, it gets junked in its entirety.

You cannot rely on Manfred Ropshitz' 'investigation', because it is junk.

1. It is published in an open and uncontrolled website like Indymedia - a purveyor of unadulterated trash; not a wikipedia source - even if we use a literary bargepole.

2. Contains clear misrepresentation - that 'anyone' can access the Swedish Population Registry.

3. Is accompanied with what appears to be a forged copy of Jöran Jermas' passport, complete with an unsealed likeness Shamir, in another age and another era. This on a passport that is supposed to date from 2001.

4. That contains no evidence that Shamir changed his name to Jöran Jermas', an unlikely occurance since Swedish Law requires that you keep at least ONE of your given names when changing it. So which is Shamir's given name that was retained when he supposedly changed it to Jöran Jermas?

The entire article category is based on the lie that he is not an Israeli Writer, a charge that is implicit in your article.

” Shamir is apparently a right-wing Russian journalist, who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist.”

There are four accusations in this one sentence that varies from Shamir’s account of himself.

1. That Shamir is ‘Right-Wing’

2. He pretends to be an Israeli.

3. He pretend to be Jewish.

4. He pretends to be a leftist.

Which of these are true or false? Which did you not intend to imply? You have already stated that you never implied that he was not Israeli, but it is difficult to believe this when the rest of the paragraph sets out your reasons for assuming the opposite. Why do you not edit and correct the line attributed to you, and the lie that others have expressed 'similar' opinions, when it is not even your opinion that he is 'pretending' to be an Israeli? Are you here trying to edit in the truth, or to perpetuate a lie?

What are the titles of the pieces written by Jermas that you allude to?

“who also writes under the names of Schmerlin, Robert David, Vassili Krasevsky and Jöran Jermas”

Give us examples of work by Vassili Krasevsky? Schmerlin?

Two can play this game. Why don’t I just edit in a line that says:

”In September 2004, non-Israeli Atheist Jew and anti-Christian activist, Roland Rance, denounced Israel Shamir as a ‘Christian Evangelist’ in the premier American communist Magazine ‘Socialist Review’. The denunciation carried across the worldwide web of regimented wall-to-wall Zionist apologia – from www.littlegreenfootballs.com to the ADL.”

Wait, perhaps we can expand on that little stub you’ve been working on at wikipedia; Roland Rance – anti-Christian Crusader who pretends to be an anti-Zionist Jew. I have the primary source to back it up. It will provide excellent Sayanim credentials. Hang-on, are you 100% Jewish? Might just screw up your chances there if you aren’t.

Just a tip; if you insist on creating sub-categories such as ‘Opposition to Migration’, you might remember to convey what the source says, not what your interpretation of it is. Editing the passages with extensive use of eclipses is not our idea of NPOV reporting. This is not the Commissariat’s propaganda machine.

Just a reminder, if you refuse to provide your evidence, it does not mean you don’t have it; but there is a world of difference between your refusal to provide evidence of your accusations, and Israel Shamir’s refusal to deny it. It might be true only in some respects, but absolutely false in others. and he could easily be taking the view that you evidently don’t have backup for you more outrageous claims; that he is not an Israeli, as he claims. Clearly you are hastily backing away from that one. Obviously he has a Swedish ex-wife, and a family by her; but your ‘Swedish citizen, Jöran Jermas'’ story is a load of tripe, and I think you know it.

Evidence Please!JohD 14:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manfred Ropshitz

The phrase 'anybody can start a website and publish their junk' does not even apply to Ropshitz, he simply goes onto an open website like indymedia, and posts on their open facility, he cannot even start his own website, or get somebody to publish for him on theirs. I have detailed the problems with this guys work, made note of the source, and hoped editors here would be sufficiently embarrassed to remove it themselves. Alas, embarrassment is not even an issue for some. JohD 14:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On a solution to the Palestine Conflict

Shamir poses a religious rather than a political solution to the Palestine conflict. In The Marxists and the Lobby -- Part II [5] he writes

"There is no ‘tainted blood‘ - acceptance of Christ is the Final Solution of the Jewish Question, while assimilation and intermarriage is the way to undo the vestiges of Jewish separatism. While the Jewish supremacists try to turn the descendents of Jews into their tools, certain caution can’t be dismissed, but we should not play into hands of the adversary by accepting his claim. Indeed, the foremost fighters against the Jewish paradigm were St Paul and Torquemada, both of Jewish origin; for the Jewish problem is an ideological, not a biological problem



... the Palestinians are fighting not only for their homes; they are keeping at bay the antichristian forces from their age-long dream of subjugating Edom and Ishmael."[6]

This is so bad, I am at a loss as to how it can be retained. Shamir proposes to solve the 'Palestine Conflict' using religion? What kind of mind can read the referenced source and come to that conclusion? Shamir is on record as repeatedly calling for the various people in Israel/Palestine to become one nation. Even the quotes do not suggest what the title implies. Surely a basic literacy test should be a requirement before edits are accepted? Otherwise we can simply edit in headlines and pretend to provide quotes to back it up. Who knows, perhaps people won't read the fine print?JohD 16:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus and other Regulatory Guidelines.

[edit] Criticism by User:JohD

Diderot,

While I appreciate your desire for consensus, and promise to uphold this principle with anyone seriously working to improve this article, I must protest the use of this regulatory tool to enforce a version that violates other important principles - viz. the NPOV, Verifiability & OR guidelines.

The effect of maintaining the status quo until consensus is achieved amounts to belligerent, unverified accusations being accorded the status of verified fact. I have detailed repeatedly the problematic nature of these accusations and their sources. We now have the spectacle of the primary accuser refusing to respond when directly challenged for evidence of his accusations on this discussion page. What is more, he himself comments negatively about about the suitability of including this material in wikipedia. I don't agree fully with this, and agree that the accusations themselves should be noted, as well as a note concerning the belligerency of the accusers towards the subject.

Nevertheless, it is scuttlebutt, and as such does not deserve repetitive headlining every time someone sees fit to repeat it.

Manfred Ropshitz.

I have detailed extensively the problem of including this material. It is untrue that this information is freely available. Sweden has a comprehensive population registry, but also counterbalancing comprehensive privacy regulations. Private and non-governmental entities do not have access to it without authorization. The individual, not the government, provides this authorization. IOW, if an individual seeks finance or some other service that requires proper identification, he agrees in writing that his files can be accessed for this purpose. Only then are they granted access, and for this purpose only. It seems highly unlikely that Shamir, if it is true that he changed his name to Jermas, consented to his files being accessed by the likes of Ropshitz. Either Ropshitz is lying, or he broke the law to access this information. Either way, it cannot be verified.

Also suspect is the claim that Shamir changed his name to Jöran Jermas. The resource information you provided makes it quite clear that in order to change your name in Sweden, you must retain at least ONE of your given names. 'Jöran Jermas' does not contain even ONE of the various names attributed by his accusers to Shamir.

These points of fact do not require consensus, they are either verifiable or not. If you have proof, then present it. If not, let us move on.

Unproven allegations:

That Shamir changed his name to 'Jöran Jermas'
That Shamir is a 'Swedish citizen'.
That Shamir is a 'Swedish Writer'
That the biographical information included here is disputed.
That Shamir is not an Israeli Citizen.

These allegations cannot be included as fact, pending consensus.

Please note, not one of my edits contain the insertion of material favorable to Shamir; they all revolve around clarifying evident misinformation regarding his views, the contents of material cited, and POV insertions while purportedly reporting on the content of Shamir's writing. I am committed to the pursuit of consensus regarding this article, and am equally determined to prevent the malicious misrepresentation of what, admittedly, are controversial views. If they are that controversial, it should not be necessary to misrepresent them. JohD

[edit] Reply by User:Denis Diderot

JohD, I appreciate that you feel very strongly about this and that you feel you are defending Shamir's reputation. But unfortunately you're a bit mistaken about how Wikipedia works. The WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies imply that Wikipedia articles simply report the arguments of accusers and defenders without joining in the debate. If Wikipedians wish to join the debate, they are free to do so in another forum. If such an intervention is sufficiently notable, it may then be quoted and discussed in the Wikipedia article. At the same time we may and should report immediately verifiable facts that have a bearing on the discussion. So if, for example, you were right about the Swedish Population Registry and there were solid references to document that, then you could add the information as a fact that "data from the Swedish population registry may only be obtained after authorization by the concerned individual". Then readers could draw their own conclusions from that. But of course this claim about the population register is entirely untrue.
According to the Swedish Tax Agency, which is the authority in charge of the population register, "[a]s far as population registration is concerned, the principle of public access means that anybody normally has the right to obtain information from the population registers."[7] There are of course exceptions to this rule and procedures for excluding information from public access, but normally it's extremely easy for a journalist or any private citizen to obtain this information. As for your other argument, that he couldn't change his name to Jöran Jermas because he would need to keep one name, this is also wrong. To change all names, he would just need to apply to the Patent and Registration Office [8]
It is a fact that Shamir's CV has been questioned. By the journalists writing in Expo, Monitor and Searchlight, by Roland Rance, Manfred Ropschitz, Charlie Pottins and many others.
There is no discussion of any Israeli citizenship in the article.
--Denis Diderot 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply by User:JohD

Diderot,

I fail to understand why it is you misrepresent my position – I am not disputing that the accusations of Shamir’s detractors should be reported, I am challenging the adoption of THEIR unverified accusations as fact – ie.

That Shamir changed his name to 'Jöran Jermas' – included as a verifiable fact in the intro
That Shamir is a 'Swedish citizen'. – incl. as a verifiable fact in the intro
That Shamir is a 'Swedish Writer' - - incl. as a verifiable fact in the Article Category metadata
That Shamir is not an Israeli Citizen. – deliberately ommitted in the intro.
The biographical information is disputed. – by who, how, and what information specifically is disputed?


You consistently fail to address this issue, but instead erect straw man arguments revolving around a NPOV and OR smokescreen. I have no issue with including the accusations of his detractors; but the adoption of their unverified accusations as fact is problematic and the gratuitous repetition of them represents pushing the POV of his critics.

The Stephen Pollard article is not only appears in a sufficiently reputable newspaper, it is quite a hatchet job as well, so I don’t see the problem with using it. See Wikipedia:No original research#What counts as a reputable publication?

It does however mandate style guidlines. If you want to say, ‘Shamir is in fact, a Swedish domiciled anti-Semite also known as Joran Jermas”, you cannot do so unless you can verify what Stephen Pollard states, as fact. You can say ‘In an opinion piece published in the London Times on April 7th 2005, Stephen Pollard alleges that “Shamir is in fact, a Swedish domiciled anti-Semite also known as Joran Jermas”.Verifiability#Dubious_sources

This is NPOV editing and complies with the Verifiability- Dubious sources Rules of wikipedia. If Stephen Pollard had been published in the Mirror, then we would say:

“In an opinion piece, published in the London Tabloid, the Mirror … Etc. etc.”

You cannot say, “Shamir is in fact a Swedish Domiciled anti-Semite”, and then provide the Stephen Pollard article as a source, as if it were gospel. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires reputable verification. Even if the name change to Joran Jermas were not questionable, and it was true, the fact that it was included in the population registry could have resulted from the simple process of it being used as a maildrop, since a citizen is not required to provide any information other than a death of a relative, and birth of a child, or a change of address within Sweden. The information is collected from the various agencies including the Post Office and Tax office. This discussion is unneccesary, but you are mistaken on all counts - you cannot change both your names in Sweden, not just 'anybody' can easily access the population registry, and the inclusion of a name on the registry does not neccesarily mean the person is 'domiciled in Sweden'. But I have made this argument before. It does not change the fact that his bio is disputed by some, but it does impose some restrictions about how this information can be included. It certainly can't be used to poison the well of a passage taken from Shamir's bio on his webpage that you insist on retaining in its present form. It is so obviously a technique being used to prevent clarity on the subject.

Roland Rance's is generally known to be a virulent critic of Shamir, and as such we require more than just an ‘it appears’ and ‘apparently’ as proof from him. Which brings us to Ropshotz’s investigation, which you seem to be convinced is proof, even though you leave the door open by suggesting it does not matter if it is true or not – it does, it makes a difference as to how it can be legitimately presented.


I have read ‘The Swedish System for Population Registration”[[9], issued by the Swedish Tax Agency thoroughly, and nowhere does it suggest that "anybody normally has the right to obtain information from the Public Registry”, nor is the 'Principle of Public Access'(which deals with Freedom of the Press and freedom of expression issues) mentioned in the document. The quote must come from another document. It says that "Members of the public are entitled to sit at a terminal with authorization and access names and addresses of individuals" (emphasis added). I have checked with the Swedish Consulate in Brisbane. I have read the Personal Data act 1998[10], read the Personal Data Act Fact Sheet [11] issued by the Swedish Data Inspection Board[12], and this is what they say:


Recipients of information from the Swedish Population Registry (Page 11 graph)[13] . 1. National Defense & Rescue Board 2. Swedish Immigration Board 3. National Maritime Agency 4. Elections 5. Tax registration 6. Church of Sweden 7. Municipal Authorities 8. National Insurance Board 9. National Police Board 10. Central Property Data Committee 11. National Road Administration 12. Statistics Sweden 13. Swedish Population and Address Register (SPAR) – Used by Companies and Organizations for commercial and other non official needs. The reference you make regarding the Principle of Public Access comes from the Swedish Constitution, and not from the document cited and does not mean that anybody has access to private information about individuals, which is covered by the Personal Data Act[14].
“Personal data may only be processed if the person who is registered (data subject) has given his/her consent to this. … personal data may be processed without consent when prescribed by statute” – Information on the personal data act[15] – the "authorization" is provided by the subject.

As to your assertion that you can change both your first name and surname by applying to PRV[16], the cited link contains no facility for doing so. Is it your preferred practice to make assertions and cite cooroborating sources that contradict the assertion?

I am well aware of wikipedia's NPOV & OR policies and that along with the Verifiability policy, form the core policies of wiki, unless there is a secret handshake I have missed. I recognize that these assertions can be legitimately included in the article. My objections relate to style, and the deliberate presentation of material as fact, when it is patently not so. I object to your insistence on retaining Shamir’s biography from his website for the sole purpose of highlighting that it is ‘disputed’, in the face of hard evidence in the form of a verifiable bibliography, historical verification from mainstream sources, and confirmation from his political adversaries. Instead we give more weight to the accusations contained in sensationalized reports from belligerent and partisan reporters and commentators, which are here presented as gospel.

Reverting every attempt to normalize the intro & bio is deliberate stonewalling. My edit is not meant to be the end of it, but is being done to provide us with a clean pallette in order to properly sort out these issues without this constant and unneccesary debate over every nuance. Clearly there will be a section detailing the suspicions of Shamir's detractors, but we can do it without the overbearing presence of a poisoning the well exercise. You need to explain what you find so objectionable about my intro and bio edit, that is causing you to constantly revert it.

--JohD 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continued discussion

1) The statements of fact about Shamir/Jermas. The information about his citizenship and name is sufficiently well sourced. The information comes from 3 articles written by 5 journalists. None of these journalists are known to be unreliable. The information comes from official sources, and is therefore easily verifiable, and it has never been denied by Shamir. This should be sufficient.
--Denis Diderot 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No it isn’t; it comes from 5 individuals; ‘anti-facist’ partisans, who consider Shamir to be a fascist, and who write in self-declared, narrow-interest, anti-fascist mazagines. Stephen Pollard is a neo-Conservative commetator. All of them are excessively sensitive to anti-Jewish critism. Their information is not easily verifiable, contrary to your claim.
--JohD 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
First 3 articles by 5 journalists in 3 magazines [[17][18][19]
The journalists who wrote these articles are (in alphabetic order) Lise Apfelblum, Tor Bach, Sven Johansen, Stieg Larsson, and Daniel Poohl. None of them are known to unreliable. Tor Bach was the editor of Monitor Magazine from 2001 to 2004. He is generally considered an authority on Norwegian racism. he has testified as an expert witness in Norwegian courts and has been quoted in mainstream media [20] [[Stieg Larsson was a very well respected journalist who worked for 20 years for the main Swedish news agency TT. He was one of the founders of Expo and the Expo foundation. Poohl is widely regarded as an authority on right-wing movements in Sweden and has been quoted in main-stream publications like Time Magazine[21] He is currently one of the main editors of Expo
Then there's the additional article by Manfred Ropschitz [[22]]. And Stephen Pollard wrote about it in his column in The Times[23]
And yes the claims are eaily verifiable. You simply check with the Swedish authorities. Trust me, they know whether or not someone is a Swedish citizen.
--Denis Diderot 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
2) You claim that Shamir is an Israeli citizen. Sources?
--Denis Diderot 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
“His identity is well known. As Israel Shamir (Shmerling), he came to Israel in the late 1960s from Novosibirsk and soon became an extreme leftist.” – [24] extensively reproduced and relevant quote available cost free via a google search.
--JohD 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an excellent example of a misleading way of quoting. "His" in "His identity is well known" does not refer to Israel Shamir but to "Robert David". It should be quoted like this "His [Robert David's] identity is well known", but even this is slightly misleading, because "well known" in this case refers to the identity of an alias. It would be as if you wrote "The identity of the Wikipedian who calls himself Denis Diderot is well known". It doesn't mean that I'm famous, just that my real identity is well known. As for it's use as a source, it obviously doesn't prove that Shamir is or has been an Israeli citizen. It does make it highly probable that Shamir came to Israel in the late 1960s. But this information has already been added to the article long ago.
--Denis Diderot 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
3) That the information is disputed. I've already answered that question. "By the journalists writing in Expo, Monitor and Searchlight, by Roland Rance, Manfred Ropschitz, Charlie Pottins and many others." We don't know exactly what part of the CV each person questions, so we can't be more specific. Pottins, for example, writes " Among some of us here there is debate as to whether Shamir is a "genuine" antisemite, who has pretended to be a Jew (before converting to Orthodox Christian), a clever but crazy person, or a really determined agent provocateur deliberately infiltrating pro-Palestinian circles with the aim of discrediting them." "Dispute" means "to call into question" according to a standard dictionary. Shamir's account has been called into question by numerous people.
--Denis Diderot 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
So what is the problem with noting that it is called into question by prominent anti-Zionist Jews? It is not deemed an important enough dispute that his far-more numerous anti-Zionist non-Jews readers have seen fit to echo. The Jews against Zionism group that Rance, Charlie Potting, Brenner and ‘others’ belong to number exactly 29 members.[ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JAZ/] They obviously are influencial within an extremely narrow circle on some issues, more generally on others. They are activists, not journalist. The dispute is particularistic, and motivated by narrow concerns about Shamir’s anti-Jewish views. Their ‘expose’ has failed to gain traction, except within a narrow band of people with extreme sensitivities towards anti-Jewish sentiment. Or are we to conceal that it is a paticularly jewish ‘dispute’, and avoid drawing attention to that fact?
--JohD 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that it's false. And even if true it would still be a clear example of "poisoning the well". A huge number of people have questioned Shamir's background, his motives, his sanity, you name it. Only some of them are Jews.
--Denis Diderot 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
4) The notion that the information in the "population registry could have resulted from the simple process of it being used as a maildrop" is, I'm sorry to say, completely absurd. You don't become a Swedish citizen by using a maildrop, nor do you get a legal name change in accordance with the Name Act by using a maildrop.
--Denis Diderot 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, your argument is premised on the unproven allegations that he is indeed Joran Jermas.
--JohD 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It's premised on your idea that people become Swedish citizens by using maildrops
--Denis Diderot 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
5) Rance's opinions are presented as Rance's opinions. The fact is that Rance has (or had) these opinions. Nothing else.
--Denis Diderot 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
So? Include Rance’s opinion.
--JohD 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It's already included. But you suggested that it's inclusion represented an endorsement of his opinions and worldview by Wikipedia.
--Denis Diderot 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
6) The quote from the Tax Agency brochure occurs on page 7, column 1 (page 8 of the pdf document): "An important principle, known as the principle of public access to official records, is contained in one of Sweden's constitutional laws, the Freedom of the Press Act. [---] [As far as population registration is concerned, the principle of public access means that anybody normally has the right to obtain information from the population registers."[25] No ambiguity at all. Similarly, another brochure states simply "Information in the population register is public, i.e. each person is entitled to obtain information registered in it." (page 3, column 2)[26]
--Denis Diderot 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No ambiquity? How about “However, in certain cases exception must be made to the right of access with regard to particularly sensitive information. These exceptions are stated in the official Secrets act.”
“However, the Official Secrets Act stipulates certain exceptions to this principle, for example in order to protect the privacy of individuals or business secrets.”[27]
--JohD 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
The statements are not ambiguous. The other statements you quote refer to something I've already said. Of course it's possible for someone who lives under threat to request a protected identity. The question was whether or not the information was normally public. You said no. I said yes.
--Denis Diderot 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


7) On the ability to change all names, I gave a direct link to information from the relevant goverment agency. [28] I quote from information on these pages:
Forenames
If you want to make changes other than changing, removing or adding one or more forenames, you must apply to PRV and state why you want to make the change. You must also apply to PRV if you want to change all of your forenames.
Surnames
You can change or modify your surname in several ways at PRV:
Take back the name you had when unmarried
Change your surname to an old family name
Take a surname created from your father or mother's forename
Change the spelling of your surname
Take an entirely new (invented) surname [29]
"You must also apply to PRV if you want to change all of your forenames." "There are three kinds of names: forenames, additional surnames and surnames. Your forename is the name your parents gave you when you were born or perhaps when you were christened."[30]
--Denis Diderot 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
“For example one is allowed once to delete or change all given names
except one or to change one's surname to another surname borne by a parent.,”[31] - page 15. (Emphasis added)
--JohD 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No, you can't change all names simply by applying to the Tax Agency, you need to apply to PRV (The Patent and Registration Office). That's exactly what I've said several times now.
--Denis Diderot 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


8) (finally) Perhaps you can explain a bit more why you wish to exclude Shamir's claims about his background from the article. I don't think I'm able to follow your argument.
--Denis Diderot 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not excluding his claims, the intro and bio edit contains verifiable claims from his bio. We can detail the disputed sections in a separate section where the reader can make their own judgements as their validity and importance. As far as I can tell, the dispute revolves around Shamir’s ommission of any Swedish nationality or name-change in his bio. I suggest that this is relevant or irrelevant depending on the stance the reader takes towards such occurances. Some might view it as evidence of deceit, others would examine it in the context of a writer employing non-de-plume/s; not an unccomon occurance amongst authors. Presenting it as the most significant issue concerning Israel Shamir is a distortion and pushing what is evidently the view of a a narrow segment of the population – Jews against Zionism; anti-Facists as it relates specifically to anti-Jewish rhtetoric, and zionists. Hardly readers of Shamir material or potential readers. The presentation, as it stands, is geared towards publicizing the cause of anti-Shamir activists, and derails a balnced presentation of his views. IOW, in poisons the well using by presenting the apparent use of a non-de-plume as the most significant issue about Shamir. It is a partisan approach, and obstructs the improvement of this article.
I have openly identified myself, and clearly stated that my pupose is to clean up what IMV is an extremely biased article. I have not resorted to sockpupettry in an attempt to change it. I have avoided where posiible revert wars. I have committed myself to the fair treatment of all POV. I have attempted in all instances to adhere to wiki policies regarding NPOV, OR and Verifiabilty. I am treating my intervention here as a test of wiki’s processes, which I hope will pass the FIRST benchmark test – consensus amongst editors of differring views. I am well aware that there are other processes that can be resorted to in the event of a dispute abouts edits and the stylistic approach to controversial topics. I hope that explains clearly why I am editing the intro & bio, and that I am treating it as a work-in-progress rather than an attempt to whitewash anything. I am hoping that you, at least, can commit yourself to consensus, not with like-minded individuals, but to proponents of the opposing view. The alternative, as I see it, is anarchy and vandalism.
--JohD 03:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
We've already been through this. You have not at all followed Wikipedia policies. To the contrary. I will explain this further in a later, longer reply.
--Denis Diderot 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you have a good explanation, this is a an extremely provocative revert. I have taken your suggestions on board, maintained all the relevant parts you insist should be included, accepted your insistence that the Jermas debate be aired in full; yet you still revert. I don't think I am the one making partisan edits here. You keep justifying your reverts on the basis that it violates Wikipedia policies, but fail to show how.JohD 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And I might add, you have made no attempt yourself to edit or improve the article intro, since your self-satisfied comment that as long as Shamir's biography is preceeded by a note that many facts in it are disputed, you were happy with it, for the time being. Since then, you have resisted any and all attempts to edit it. I think you are the partisan editor Diderot. By that I mean, you are happy, as long as the edits make Israel Shamir appear to be worst than the last version.JohD 15:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have re-instated my previous edit with the following changes:

1. I have included ALL the material - in spades, that you insist must remain on the page. You are welcome to add more if you want. When you find a source that confirms that Manfred Ropshitz is a journalist and broadcaster, and not simply a poster on the open newservice Indymedia, you can include that as well.JohD 15:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

The last two edits were done by user:JohD 3:14 & 3:26 on 03/01/06

I have re-instated these edits.

It is not clear how Shamir maintains ties with 'Facist' if these people are only alleged to be Facists. I believe that the David Duke article has had an extensive discussion about this and concluded that he is not be classified as a facist or a neo-Nazi. Ditto Horst Mahler. I don't know too much about the other gentleman. The David Irving link is tenuous at best. He does not have any links to him, and it is unclear that they communicate at all, except for one brief episode when Shamir attempted to act as agent for some people selling Nazi Memorabilia. Does the salesman who sold Irving his Rolls-Royce also have ties to him?

The 'Religion and Palestine" is a direct duplication of the Jewish/Christian Relations section. The same material is used, the same quotes and the same spin is put on it as the original. ie. That Shamir believes all Jews must convert to Christianity and it will solve the Israel/Palestine question. It is a lot of crock and was edited for clarityJohD 15:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Far Right links list was not well-written, so I have tried to make the description more NPOV. As for the section deleted, it is substantially different and far more detailed than the other section. It looks at a different aspect. It should not be deleted.--Cberlet 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Cberlet, it is junk. Shamir makes no suggestion that the Religion of Palestine should be Christianity and that Jews should convert. In the source article he makes but makes a general comment: "There is no ‘tainted blood‘ - acceptance of Christ is the Final Solution of the Jewish Question". He makes no suggestion about the State Religion of a combined Jewish/Palestine State in either source at all. It is a complete invention and a violation of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy and should be deleted. It is quite amazing how editors here revert Neutral editing as POV, when negative material is edited to reflect a more neutral reporting style, but re-instate POV additions because it adds to the vague negative allegations about Shamir. The passage is beyond redemption. If you want, you can add a bit about Shamir's disregard for separation of Church and State, but don't add what is not in the source material - your POV.JohD 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The edits of 'Links with the Far-Right' is a big improvement; but is it accurate to suggest that Shamir 'interacts' with Irving? The impression I get is that Irving is quite narky towards Shamir, and that they have had no communication since this brief encounter, which seems to be an up-and-down business proposition, and noting to do with Shamir's views or politics. Or is it considered to be interacting with the devil? Philp Adams in Australia, and certified left commentator, had an extensive and quite civil and respectable radio interview with Irving. Does he now have 'links' to Irving? I think this goes too far.

And is the depiction of Shamir's essay "Rock of Dissent" not a little inaccurate? A simple reading of the article reveals it is not as straightforward as all that JohD 16:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JohD's edits and Wikipedia policies

JohD,

Let me first give some general background. You are one of Israel Shamir's most ardent supporters. Your writings have been published on Shamir's site and distributed through his mailing list.

In your view, Shamir is "an extremely talented writer" and his words "are inspirational". You find ant-Zionist Jews "extremely annoying" when they complain about his antisemitism. As you see it whether Shamir is "an anti-Semite canard is a tenth order issue for both Israeli Jews and Palestinians". The tenth order issue is not whether he promotes anti-Semitism. You know he does. In your opinion, his "use of anti-Semitic imagery" is "is a valid posture buster and certainly more effective than an AK47".[32] The tenth order issue is whether he his a canard or not.

On Nov 26 Shamir sent out a request on his mailing list: "Dear friend, if you have time, you may help to fight a small internet war over Wikipedia, a popular website with many links. Obviously it is as dominated by philosemites as any other media[...]"[33] (The same message contained a piece written by you.)

You clearly came to Wikipedia with an agenda. (This is something you didn't deny, mereley stating your false belief that all editors have agendas apart from trying to improve the articles.[34]) You were basically interested in editing one article only, this one. [35] [36] Your first edit was on Nov 27.

This background by itself is no reason why you couldn't make useful contributions to the Wikipedia article. As one of Shamir's supporters and associates, you could be expected to have a lot of useful knowledge about Shamir. It only became a problem because you were more concerned with presenting Shamir in a favorable light than with improving the article according to Wikipedia standards.

You first tried to give more weight to Shamir's own account of his background, changing "account" to "biography" and adding "although he provides no substantiation for this claim" to a summary of some criticism. To a long quote from another critic, Ropschitz, you added some strawman argument that had no bearing on that actual quote. You claimed contrary to fact that Searchlight and Expo were "pro-Israel" magazines. You also added some general defense of Shamir's ideas based on your personal analysis.[37]

These changes were subsequently reverted by another editor as unsourced (WP:V) apologetics (WP:NPOV).[38]. You reinstated your changes once more some hours later, writing absurdly in your edit summary that "no claims are made and all material is sourced" and that "[c]laims about Shamirs citizenship are unverified". You also complain that criticism of Shamir by notable critics has been "included without verification or substantiation", thus betraying a complete lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia policies (WP:NPOV and WP:NOR).[39]

Your changes were reverted once more with links to the relevant Wikipedia policies.[40]

Despite of this, you reinstated your changes once again, writing to the other editor, who happens to be one of the most experienced and respected Wikipedians: "Please don't lecture on NPOV when clearly you don't understand the concept." You kept reinserting the same changes when removed by other editors and broke the three revert rule.

Over the next few days some other anonymous Shamir supporters inserted one of your rants wholesale into this article and vandalized various related Wikipedia pages.[41][42]

Then you returned yourself on Dec 6, having now become User:JohD. You removed criticism by Roland Rance, one of Shamir's best known anti-Zionist critics, giving as reason that it "contains wild allegations published in a disreputable source". You also removed all information about Shamir's Swedish citizenship and name, despite these facts clearly being the best documented in the entire article.[43]

Going through your subsequent edits one by one would be rather pointless, since most of them amount to the same thing. Removing, obscuring, or calling into question everything that Shamir and his supporters dislike, as well as giving more weight and space to Shamir's views. This has clearly been done without much regard for Wikipedia policies or the facts. See for example our rather absurd discussion here. Some of the relevant policies once more are WP:NPOV WP:V WP:NOR WP:CITE WP:AGF WP:CIV

Let me make something absolutely clear. There is obviously nothing that prevents you from adding information that presents Shamir in a more favorable light. But all edits should be done in accordance with the NPOV and NOR policies and according to encyclopedia standards. Therefore, rather than removing or obscuring notable criticism, you could add responses by Shamir and statements of support by notable supporters. If you can find good sources to support Shamir's claims in his CV, they may of course also be included in the article. On the other hand, if there are no good sources to support Shamir's claims or if you can't find notable supporters, than the article will have to reflect that situation. Denis Diderot 07:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the article does reflect that situation. All the information provided is suitably documented. The bio information reflects the fact that his critics question his account, without endorsing either one way or the other. The verifiable information from his bio is noted as such, and portions that are not verifiable are also noted as such. If you feel that the non-verifiable information should not be included, then edit it out; don't revert all the work that has been done.JohD 07:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It is rather difficult following your detailed account of my supposed involvement. Much of has absolutely nothing to do with me at all, but rather refer to some anonymous user. I have not worked in cahoots with any anonymous user, and cannot recall, except for one instance, where a user reverted to my previous edit. I have not posted anonymously myself either, even before I created an account, which is also not anonymous.
As to your accusation that I am only interested in presenting Shamir in a favorable light, I have not introduced any material that presents him in a favorable light, that is still to come, and I expect it will be religiously scrutinized. To date, I have only edited material that misstates quoted text (bloodcurdling libel etc), misrepresents issues (links with Facist), Presents a false picture (that Shamir is not a Jew, does not live in Israel because of the Jermas controversy), and details his own account of his bio, then in effect calls it a lie, not one word of it can be believed. All violations of the NPOV policy of wiki; but who is listening to me, I am the only one left here whose identity is in the open, and who is a newbie.
What you call 'favorable', most people would call fair and neutral. Why else would you object to it, if you did not bring a prejudice to the piece? The difference between my prejudice and yours, is that I have demonstrated an ability to incorporate issues that others find pertinent in a NPOV manner. You seem to regard NPOV presentation of criticism as 'favorable'.
Clearly I was a new editor, and not across all of wiki's policies and guidelines, so I will plead ignorance on some of the earlier edits. However, it does not mean that I am a total imbecile and cannot get my head around policies and procedures. Whatever my motivation, and I was open and clear about them, I do believe that we have an infinitely improved article as a result. To my mind, we have cleaned up much of the openly antagonistic aspects of the article that existed before. It is basically still extremely negative, but at least it is fair; presenting the criticisms in a factual manner and representing the material quoted accurately. It is what is expected from an encyclopedia. I am still of the opinion that Searchlight and Expo are not suitable sources for people they falsely regard as fascist. But, I could be wrong and have let it slide.
Clearly, even this completely one-sided article is not good enough for you. You seem confident that no reliably sourced material exists in support of Shamir's agenda; that it will consist entriely of far-right sources or primary material. But, in view of the antagonism demonstrated towards Shamir here previously, it is prudent to let the prosecution make its case first in the wikipedian tradition - in a Neutral and un-biased manner. But it would appear that we are not even there yet.JohD 10:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Shamir adds: EXPO and Monitor are open about being on the payroll of ADL. None denies this fact. Searchlight describes itself as 'a Jewish magazine'. Roland Rance was described by the well known writer Gilad Atzmon as 'Jewish ethnic activist'. These facts are relevant.


The gratuitous comment by Gilad Atzmon was in fact about my friend, the anti-fascist and anti-Zionist activist Tony Greenstein, not about me. Shamir certainly knows this, since he himself wrote an introduction and posted the essay on his own discussion list[44]. This deliberate misrepresentation is characteristic of Shamir's cavalier attitude towards facts and evidence.
The comment is in any case irrelevant. It would be equally relevant, and at least true, for me to note that, according to US anti-Zionist historian and activist Lenni Brenner, Shamir is ""a political fool and a libeler. Or, if you prefer, a libeler and a political fool". Or that according to Ilan Halevi, the first Israeli Jew to hold an official position in the PLO, Shamir "seems to have simultaneously switched from the most radical anti-Zionism to the most banal Christian anti-Judaism". Or that Lea Tsemel, Israel's leading anti-Zionist and human rights lawyer, describes him as a "racist".
These, of course, are opinions, and one's attitude towards them depends to a large extent on one's attitude towards those who made the comments. I regard them as friends, and agree with them. RolandR 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem with this Roland, as the piece you link to seems to be referring to both Tony Greestein and Jews Against Ziomism as ethnic activists:

T: I note that in the tirade below, (The Elders of London*) you accuse Jews Against Zionism and myself of being 'undercover Zionist agents of influence'.
G: As it seems, you are calling for Jews to act under their ethnic/racial banner. i.e. Jewishness. I was sure that as a Marxist you should aim to let Jews become ordinary human beings i.e. equal comrades, rather than an isolated and segregated ethnic group.

Last I heard, you are a self-described activist belonging to the Jews Against Zionism Group. As for Brenner and fellow ethnic activists you cite, I am glad to include it in full, it is ample evidence that you are indeed ethnic activists. Why do you think it is removed every time I include it? Are we to assume that this misrepresentation of cited material is characteristic of your attitude towards facts and evidence?JohD 16:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I is becoming clear that I am being bullied using some very heavyweight tactics. I have scrupulously tried to comply with every detail of the rulebook that is thrown at me, even when it is clear to me that the rules cited for reverting my edits say exactly the opposite of what is implied. Today, both Diderot and Jayjg have cited soapbox for reverting my edit work.

Diderot launched a highly personal attack on me to justify his revertion of my work. His argument is along the lines that, because I identified myself from the onset, and did not seek anonymity, I therefore lack credibilty and everything I do is 'soapboxing'. This is a curious notion; not that someone who openly declares their goals should be scrutinized, but that it follows that whatever they do is 'soapboxing', or 'whitewashing' or 'apologetics', or lacks integrity.

He bolsters his argument with the fact that I seem to only edit this article, and nothing else. It is true that my purpose for being here in the first place is the nature of the article that was extant when I came, but I would guess a sizable proportion of existing editors arrived on some mission or other, then stayed to pursue other interests. There is after all a beginning for everything.

When I arrived, I found Jayjg presiding over what can only be described as a disgrace. Every one of Shamir's quotes were misrepresented to indicate something other than what was clearly contained in quoted source material. Often Shamir's views were invented out of whole cloth, in order to push a certain POV about him. The discussion consisted of anonymous editors ragaling against the bias in a haphazard fashion, and often with great vitriol. They could have come because of Shamir's appeal, or not, I don't know. Shamir himself was outraged at the blatant misrepresentation, and participated to no great effect. I decided to follow the rules, and argue the case using them. I have been doing so ever since.

It is true that I on occasion mis-interpreted the rules and guidelines, but I corrected these faults as soon as I became aware of them. Throughout I have appealed for co-operation, but have been met by a wall of hostile reverts and what appeared to be smug silence as I floundered on some issues.

There are a mountain of rules and regulation that can be utilized to stonewall edits, and intimidate a newcomer. It seems one is trotted out when occasion demands; such as when the edited results does not comply with your preferred slant, and they are suitably documented and neutral.

Clearly Jayjg had no intention of improving the article regarding the accusations of bias, and has yet to edit any offending passage that confirms his opinion, even if they break the rules. He does not hesitate to bring the rulebook to bear if edits are done to eliminate bias. This is a serious accusation to make against an Administrator, and I don't make it lightly. He displays nothing but contempt for the rules, if he refuses to police it when it confirms his interests and bias, yet applies them extremely liberally, as is the case of his 'soapbox'and 'whitewashing' accusations against me, when he percieves it as against his bias. I realize that we should assume good faith, and Jayjg is supposed to an editor of standing; but we can't be stupid in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I would prefer less emphasis on the entirely irrelevant material about the Jermas identity, but the evidence is there, and can be legitimately included. I would question why, if eight different people or groups believe the same thing, they should all be sequentially quoted, but that is the environment we have here. They have a point, and they are sticking ... sticking ... sticking to it. So 50% of the article consists of this issue alone. A personal attack against an Author. Character assasination, against a man of words. Hemmingway was a drunk, but it is a clear indication something was wrong with you, if you insisted it was the most important thing about him. Balance is clearly lacking.

I therefore call on Diderot and Jayjg to submit to mediation. I am here to stay, unless they can argue I should be kicked out. We should agree on an acceptable solution to this nonsense. As it stands, it is impossible for me to contribute to any other article, without abandoning this one entirely.JohD 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you haven't removed bias, you've only added it. You are an admitted supporter of Shamir, published on his website, whose every edit here appears to be a violation of one of the many policies listed above by Dennis Diderot. If you had any real intention of adding NPOV material to this article, and proposed it here, it would have no difficulty in getting into the article. However, you have done none of that. If you want to propose individual changes, one at a time, and ensure that they actually meet policy, then I'm willing to start again. However, if you continue to try to use this article as a soapbox for Shamir's views, then I don't see any way we can come to a meeting of the minds. Jayjg (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer independent verification of your assertions, as regretably, I cannot take your word for it with confidence. Are you open to mediation?JohD 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I already had my answer, so much for assuming good faith.
Jayjg and Diderot, you are violating several policies here at wiki, as far as I can tell. WPA states that personal attacks includes:
“Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affiliations are mainstream or extreme.”
You have both cited Soapbox when reverting my last edit. Diderot makes the claim that because I am aligned with Shamir, my edits represents an advertisement for Shamir. Jayjg goes further and says it whitewashes Shamir.
The first claim is rather easily dealt with. Any examination of my edits will reveal that the vast bulk of them deal with negative material about Shamir. In many cases, this material had overstated the case, or plainly misrepresented the views of Shamir. Little positive information about Shamir is included at all. In almost all cases, the issues that are included were included with a view to presenting Shamir in the worst possible light, and are not originally issues introduced by me. They are hardly issues that one would use in an advertisement, or for propaganda purposes. I have borne in mind while editing these passages, that deleting them was not an option, since I would then be accused of deleting negative information about Shamir. So I edited them to represent the critical sections fairly. My edits are detailed on this discussion page, and since the bulk of them remain unchallenged, I assume they were done correctly and in compliance with the NPOV policies of Wiki.
The introduction was patently highly biased against Shamir. I believe that it could have been done differently, and still included pertinent information. For instance, the first line could have complied wiki’s naming policy and stated Shamir’s birth name, and them his aliases, if it was desirable. Obviously, many editors here considered this information pertinent. But the way it was done, and in a version that is still consistently reverted to, amounted to a Poisoning the Well exercise. I brought this issue up several times but was it was Either ignored, or I was told to bring suitably referenced material to debunk it. In other words, Shamir was to prove his innocence of a crime that remains obscure, and for which he did not care to offer a defense. The issue seemed to be reports that Shamir had changed his name to Joran Jermas and acquired Swedish Nationality. This was to be the overriding consideration. I attempted to show that those making these allegations comprised of Shamir’s sworn political adversaries, and that they were not suitable sources for this material in wiki. I based this on the passages in wiki’s Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_secondary_sources that says:
” Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.”
Diderot made the assertion that these sources have no history of unreliability and are reputable. For goodness sake, the editorial proprietor of Searchlight, and some of the Journalist have convictions for political crimes against their political adversaries![45][46]. He pooh-poohs this accusation on the basis the writer is an adversary of searchlight, yet wants us to include information of adversaries of Shamir. A clear double standard.
On a number of grounds all the sources cited fail this test. They all are narrow interest extremist groups and/or newspapers and collumnist. They all falsely considered Israel Shamir to be either a fascist, an anti-Semite or a Right –Wing nationalist – views, if they were true, diametrically opposed to their own. I argued along these lines for a considerable amount of time – time wasted as I belatedly realized that it was merely a guideline, and not policy. If I had been made aware of this fact (I did quote the relevant passage when I challenged the material, but it was ignored) I would not have persisted. None of this legitimates the use of this material to ensure a storm-in-the-teacup controversy dominated this article.
I thereafter sought the resolve the issue by having the allegations included, but adjusting the introduction to reflect a more neutral tone. But Diderot had stymied even this approach, with the support of Jayjg, utilizing numerous obscure rulings, and in many cases, simply reverting the material I edited.
Ironically, they have used the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_Soapbox policy to justify retaining wikipedia as a soapbox for marginal, narrow-interest groups such as Jews Against Zionism, anti-Fascist activists, and extreme Zionist apologists.
Which brings me to the Whitewashing allegations; an allegation that is not new, and has been repeatedly cited against me here at Wikipedia. Typical of this allegation is a “you did this and you did that” sequential review of my edits. One can only presume that it is intended to serve as a useful synopsis in the event we refer this page for arbitration. But clearly, older hands have a responsibility to point out just where newer editors are going wrong. From time to time, Diderot has attempted to do just this, and I acknowledge his help in this regard; but more often than not, he has utilized his knowledge of the rules to tactical advantage. There are plenty of rules that prohibit his and Jayjg’s conduct throughout this episode; not least of which is that the bulk of their edits here have consisted of reverts, particularly of my work. Seldom, if ever, have they helpfully utilized their superior knowledge of wikiqeuete (or whatever it is called), and wiki Policies and Guidlines, to edit the pieces into something resembling NPOV, since that is their primary concern. Their last reverts are absent even the pretense of policing style, and is merely a naked display of raw numerical power. If I enlist the support of attack dogs, it seems that they can marshal even greater troops to overwhelm the threat. So what is the point?
The point is this; one cannot publish lies and expect to get away with it. Someone is bound to challenge it. If that someone cannot do it here, on wikipedia, then the entire concept of wikipedia is illegitimate and unworthy of consideration. One cannot take what is considered by some to be an unpleasant fact about someone; that they are homosexual for instance, or Jewish, or Black, or Swedish for that matter; if it is marginally relevant, and use it as a tool with which to bludgeon that person. That is exactly what has occurred here; Shamir had apparently changed his name, and acquired Swedish nationality, and that information is being used against him as if he had committed a faux-pax, and that his every word is now to be disbelieved. Clearly it is of interest to some: Racists and bigots; who clearly are people too, and deserving of attention. But you cannot hide from that implication; if you consider it to be so vitally important to prove that Shamir is not a Jew, or an Israeli. I can’t see why it is so hard to understand why someone would be upset at such a below-the-belt personal attack.
I don’t know just what is the next step, presumably I have to lodge a compliant with the arbitration committee, since mediation requires the consent of all parties. I will do so if this behavior persist, and I will do so immediately my revert/edit is rolled back, and not edited; since I have no knowledge of how else I can get someone to intervene.JohD
Rather than making huge changes unilateral changes to the article, and long speeches on the talk page, can you try making small changes one at a time? I'm open to mediation, but what kind of mediation are you referring to, and with whom? Jayjg (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't revert entire passages and simply call it 'soapboxing' and 'whitewashing'. The material is included because you want it included. It is gratuitously negative material. I simply want to have a straightforward intro that allows us to then set out the claims of the various parties, including the Jermas controversy. The intro can conform to the naming policy of wiki, I don't mind. So the Jermas identity can legitimately be included in it. I have on several occasions made clear that the intro and bio to date has constituted a poisoning the well exercise. You seem to believe it is of no consequence and have blithely ignored my remarks. The intro I introduced is designed to conform to a more NPOV approach to article. As it stands it is unacceptable as it pushes a POV that Shamir's Jermas identity and Swedish nationality is of overriding importance. I realize that it gives more prominence to the views of Shamir's critics, but it is included in order to ensure you cannot complain that I am trying to eliminate all reference to them. You have to date not made a constructive contribution to this article except to bolster the Jermas/Swedish controversy.

I had in mind approaching a member of the mediation committee to arbitrate an approach we can both adopt. He can read the history, we can set out our arguments, and he can propose an acceptable approach that suits both parties. Any impartial member of the mediation committee, who has a history of having an overriding concern with maintaining wiki standards should do. I can accept that I have made mistakes, but you cannot rely on my lack of familiarity with wiki in order to stonewall changing obviously biased material.JohD 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Who would you want mediation between? You, Dennis Diderot, Cberlet, and me? Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have mind these people. I want to confirm just why it is I am breaking the rules as I feel I cannot rely on your opinion, and it seems Diderot's. I suppose then L'Omnivore should be involved since she appears to be the only one that seems to substantially supports my edits. But I did not have in mind a conference though, just someone that can review the history and report on what is legit, and what is not, so behavior can be modified and work on the article continue with as little disruption as possible.JohD 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly free to request mediation on the article, and I'd be willing to go along with it. You should probably find out if the others here are willing to as well. Jayjg (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
OK with me, I will cooperate.--Cberlet 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was otherwise occupied. That leaves Diderot, and I suppose L'Omnivore. Lets keep this simple and focus on wiki rules and how we proceed with the relevant details. It just makes it too dificult for the mediator otherwise. Once the others agree, can we get some suggestions and possible candidates to approach? Let us not turn that into a controversy as well; a couple of names of editors/administrators that obviously don't show bias on Jewish issues, and whose history is easily checked will be OK by me.JohD 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to the implication that our mediator has to pass some litmus test established by JohD, and I especially object to the assertion that some editors on this page have shown a "bias on Jewish issues." We should ask for a list of mediators available then agree on one.--Cberlet 13:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I object to the implication and assertion as well. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well it will be a litmus test for me, or are you proposing to prescribe my criteria? I would say a mediator should be acceptable to all, don't you? I did not say the mediator should not come from a list of mediators available. But an obviously biased mediator would defeat the purpose, would it not? Otherwise, I would have chosen you, since nothing indicates you would not be fair, just biased. I am even happy to try a private mediation with you as mediator first, and am quite prepared to be pleasantly suprised. It would be a feather in your cap, and for that matter in all our caps, if we could effect an amicable resolutionJohD 14:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, democratic methods certainly can be annnoying to some, but the habit here in Wiki-land is to ask for formal mediation, the admins present a list, we agree on one, and we move forward. How would you like it if I stated that I would only accept apologists for proto-Nazi antisemitism as a mediator?--Cberlet 02:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let us move on, how do we request formal mediation? Who you want to choose is a matter for you, but certainly we would all have to agree; I can't imagine it can be 'democratic', as the numbers alone would ensure that such a method might be, not neccessarily so, unacceptable to me. Diderot has been silent, so I cannot vouch that he is willing. But we can proceed without him, if he is too busy.JohD 02:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
If mediation is the preferred Wikipedia way of dealing with this kind of situation, I'm perfectly willing to take part.
Denis Diderot 19:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, would you mind initiating it? I am not as familiar with this proceedure as you probably are.JohD 19:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obstruction by wiki-admins

[edit] Criticism by User:L'Omnivore Sobriquet

Ladies and Gentlemen, It appears necessary to highlight behaviours of some regular Administrators occuring repeatedly here in this page and article, as recent days’ words and edits from them are now verging on personnal attacks, while the Wikipedia process appears of little value, if not a nuisance, by those very people in charge to let it flourish. I will just answer to one quote from one of these permanent administrators of yesterday 6th of January, attacking a personnal editor, always the same, then will review the implications. I shall in the future concentrate more an the article itself’s edition.


Here in this ‘Mediation’ section, Jayjg (talk) began his post of 6 January2006 with the words : “Unfortunately, you haven't removed bias, you've only added it. You are an admitted supporter of Shamir, published on his website, whose every edit here appears to be a violation of one of the many policies listed above by Dennis Diderot.”

These are grave accusations, let us check: About the would-be argument of being ‘a supporter’, against a – clearly - most valuable editor JohD; there is strictly no point here. Many excellent articles in various respectable encyclopedias have been written by admirers of their subjects. It is only verifiable facts and their reasonnable presentations that make encyclopedias, the rest comes as consequences, and the penner’s CV is of no importance, strictly so.

The main point to me is the rest of those two sentences. My remarks apply to both Jayjg an (ill-named) Denis Diderot. Editor JohD has made remarkable contributions, on the contrary, and I’ll point to the two main ones. But before, I must stress out the sheer amount of work provided by this person: not that it would increase in any way the validity of his edits, but it measures the consequences of yours. In other words, the difference between malevolence and vandalism.

Specifics : To me, the first main contribution of his was the intro of the article he rewrote on 11th of December 2005 (read it here : [47],) which was violently reverted by Ddiderot 30 minutes afterwards (see relevant history page of article [48],) with no justification whatsoever; only a “rv to Diderot” in the comment line, and nothing at all in the discussion-page. (see relevant history page of discussion [49].) Then, a full 34 hours after having reverted it once and then in-between a second time (“rv as per talk”, the said talk appearing then 16 hours later…), provoking a pair of well justified reverts/edits (as DDiderot’s ones where ‘coming out of the blue’ then, unjustified) during such a lengthy time (one action from JohD, and one from the appearing me, shocked by what I had read, article+talkpage), on 12th of december 18:34, we see the explanation attempt dropping in:

“I've already expained why your edits were unacceptable above.”

Now, this was the first time this edit of his was posted... (the introduction of the article then, at issue, proposed by JohD in the talk page some 24hours before he put it in the article page – no Diderot intervention then or after, nothing between 9th and 12th of December - , in fine behaviour, clear logics, and declarations of good will; simply read the same ‘Replacement Bio’ paragraph in this (or the historical) talk-page that he created for the purpose.) Denis Diderot could not have explained already why such edit was so-called unacceptable. The edit didn’t exist before. He then pulled this mistaking sentence. Glaring dishonnesty. Neither was there a justification “above” as to why, and how, any of his edits should have been deemed unacceptable then, including any of his future unknown ones… and, today, after that 11th of December, he’s still waiting. Let’s repeat, mister JohD could very well be a Martian with a mobile phone and a violet axe to grind, as long as his edits are meeting encyclopedic standards, they’re acceptable. Denis Diderot could not have adressed the fresh proposal of JohD, already.

The ‘explanation’ follows : “In that version almost all information about Jermas,Shamir, Smerling,David etc, was taken from the homepage, which obviously wasn't a good solution.” No it wasn’t. In that version (referenced above, the one Denis‘s talking about), like in any other proposal by JohD to date let’s insist, the sources that DDiderot and Jayjg (who are not users BTW, but admins) maintain they want included were indeed included, left in place. Another falsety. And, talking about that point, the reader keeps in mind that one of such sources (“The Socialist Review”) falls very close to being actually named (“The Brtitish Socialist Workers Party”) in wiki guidelines reliable sources itself has an example of unreliable sourcing ! As exposed in this talk page, still valid despite minor corrections; one may read the end of this present post of mine, exposing a possible dishonesty in the making and addressing this point. With other said-sources being like-minded, likewise rejectable, probably. But not the point here.

“It's impossible to respond to sweeping judgements like "sewer" or "tabloid".” Yes it is. Tabloïds and sewer papers typically carry anything a capricious management sees fit to print on them : to display encyclopedic manners is an easy way to respond to this. Let the wiki rules apply to all and let the wiki process move on, simply.

“Useful criticism must be more specific.” The wiki guideline reliable sources is indeed. All edits I’ve read from JohD (more are discussed below, this is important as this mister JohD is apparently the only user to act constructively on this article: as for I, I’m too impressed by the procedural effets de manches, not wishing to poorly reinstate already well presented arguments either… and just got blocked ‘accidentally’ without warning during about 3 weeks…)(by Jayjg) are certainly bearing specifics to support them, while I’m just having here a tiny exposure of ill-named Diderot’s.

“You also have an obvious credibility problem” This is totally hollow. Adressed already here. As an argument of course. As a so-called “fact” (“First you say that your credibility problem isn't an argument. It was obviously not intented as an argument, but a statement of fact.” DDiderot 15th December), I see nothing but desperate insult here, highly laughable : the present talk-page certainly establishes the contrary regarding credibility ! Let’s keep positive and qualify this gently as hollow; just like repeated attempts at grandiloquent appreciations of ‘wiki-community membership’, of no value at all concerning edits.

And then, I’m sorry but this is required to close-up my review, the squad of stormtrupers now comes-in to finish the ‘explanation’ (which was out-dated anyway, already, when posted: the damage had been done in absence.)

“since you … [have] published many things on [Shamir’s] homepage, including for example
Anyone with half a brain will read the searchlight archives and realize that it is Jewish National Socialist Site masquerading as an anti-Fascist magazine.
Therefore it's easy to suspect that you have an agenda apart from trying to improve this article for Wikipedia .--Denis Diderot 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)”

Well I’m at pain to suspect anything there, I’m no good at that, especially at how could one imagine “an agenda apart from trying to improve this article for Wikipedia.” from it. Nothing at all. Let’s relax ! and think.

So here we have this lengthy review about one of the main contribution of mister JohD. A carefully penned article intro, forcibly respecting adverse point of views for the sake of some wiki-balance, proposed in advance with an explanation text… that gets reverted-against within 30 minutes after its first appearance on the article page (after all the minor modifications, or 8 hours from first ever post there) without an explanation, then put back by the ‘lucky’ me (Yes ! the truth ! Don’t ‘suspect’ too much), bettered still by JohD as he deleted a google-nullified unsupported claim (that Joran Jermas wrote anything), reverted in full by -attempting to draw upon other people’s respectability- Dennis Diderot again after his first vandal-like revert, promissing this time an explanation (“as per talk”) that came only 16 hours after that second revert, 34 hours after the first one. All this time without an explantion inciting for direct action (that was to ‘cause’ – another suspicion mistake – me a three weeks block, see my perso wikitalkpage). And you’ve just read what the ‘explanation’ amounted to.

After such violent revert of his, letting hours and days go by before he writes anything about them, obviously inciting reverts as an apparent vandal would, it is that same Diderot that now, 6th of january, anounces JohD that he has broken the three reverts rule... Glaring dishonnesty.


Before moving to JohD’s second main contribution, only to adress this last threatening sentence of Jayjg, (“Unfortunately, you haven't removed bias, you've only added it.”) a little recess. It’s still here, on this page ; there’s even a section/paragraph devoted to it : JohD is Israel Shamir… ah ! “His edits on the Lord Ahmed page confirmed my strong suspicion that User:JonD is a sock-puppet of Israel Shamir.” begins sharp-eyed jucifer 16:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC), in a evidence-building piece, probably, for the eviction of the usurpateur. Another brilliant outburst of suspicion we can see, “strong suspicion” here. Oh dear. By the time of that sub-Fouché prose I was, as well, ‘suspected’, of being a ‘revert sockpuppett of JohD’, to my pleased flattery, and held in wiki-confinement, without a warning, with a sentence based on a truncated protest of mine, arguing upon the truncated part, for weeks, by un-professional Jayjg, while randomly passing-by admins obviously freed me upon first read (scroll my posts in the wikiEN-l newsgroup,) only to disvover that the block was still surprisingly on. “He has only edited Israel Shamir and related articles, his style is strongly reminiscent of Shamirs style.” goes on wikipedian jucifer and fingers, and so forth… Another glaring display of a failed attempt at malevolence of yours, still on record. And so today, following the thread, are we to be inflicted with the easy-to-guess Hungary1949-style conclusion of it all : “JohD has been so strongly suspected in numerous times before, therefore is no longer part of the wiki-community” ? ah ! End of recess.

The second main contribution of JohD will be discussed, in a second post of mine.

However, yesterday the 6th of december, l’esprit de l’encyclopédie wrote in this talk page :

“You claimed contrary to fact that Searchlight and Expo were "pro-Israel" magazines.”

Shamir replies [in the same page]: "EXPO and Monitor are open about being on the payroll of ADL. None denies this fact. Searchlight describes itself as 'a Jewish magazine'. Roland Rance was described by the well known writer Gilad Atzmon as 'Jewish ethnic activist'. These facts are relevant."

Now monsieur Diderot, You have to politely withdraw this falsety of yours (i.e “contrary to fact”), or call for some more comprehensive evidences from Shamir’s claim, or perhaps try to argue about relevancy, or, short of any of the first three options, obviously withdraw yourself entirely from both this article and the discussion-page.

l’Omnivore Sobriquet (l'Omnivore Sobriquet 13:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] User:Jayjg and User:Cberlet response

In this incredibly long diatribe I didn't see much content that dealt with the actual article itself. However, a claim by Shamir and that EXPO and Monitor are on the payroll of the ADL is hardly evidence that this is true; indeed, one could argue that it is evidence that it is not true. Jayjg (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It is very important that this page stick to reliable information sources, and not be distracted from thoroughly probing the controversy. I think the last edit by Jayjg is more NPOV and accurate.[50] --Cberlet 15:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:L'Omnivore Sobriquet rejoinder

This incredibly long exposé of unethical obstructions by wiki-admins was written for the sole purpose of exposing obstructions from wiki-admins under a paragraph/section titled “Obstruction from wiki-admins”, that I created to document, in fact summerize, it. That’s the only point the incredibly long exposé is dealing with, clearly so, and it bears consequences. To hope that “I didn’t see much content that dealt with the actual article itself” may respond to the point is childish.
One admin’s repeated glaring dishonnesty has been documented, so the archaïc version of the article he has kept reverting to so many times should be regarded with identical disdain, I think.
The very important point that actual (permanent?) obstruction has been on, and so violent, for such a very long time from (permanent?) wiki-admins is best handled by creating a dedicated section/paragraph in this page. It is a good method to avoid distraction from more direct information-sources discussions, which may enjoy the rest of this page’s room. (l'Omnivore Sobriquet 11:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] User:Jayjg reply

The fact is, the Talk: page is for discussion of article content, and I see little of that in your lengthy statements; rather, they appear to be mostly violations of WP:CIVIL. Please use the Talk: page for its intended purpose. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by User:JohD

An on what basis do you make this remark?

" ... indeed, one could argue that it is evidence that it is not true."

It is remarks like this that indicate that something ugly is leaking from your radiator as far as Shamir is concerned. We can accept bigotry abainst someone, but try not to put a cloak on it by pretending that your edits are NPOV.JohD 15:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion between User:Jayjg and User:JohD

The plain fact is the Shamir has made so many radical statements over the years that even anti-Zionist groups have repudiated him, and claims that "so-and-so" are on the payroll of the ADL are dime-a-dozen smears commonly made by conspiracy theorists and other unsavoury types. Thus one could certainly at least make this argument, and claiming that stating so is "something ugly leaking from your radiator" is insulting hyperbole. Shamir's writings on this subject are, at best, highly suspect, and in any event do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

So it seems your antipathy towards Shamir stems from your opinion that he is an "unsavoury type". Good, because for awhile there I thought it might be because you falsely felt he was actually a criminal, instead of having the false belief he was merely "unsavoury".JohD 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no "antipathy towards Shamir", nor have I opined that he is an "unsavoury type", nor do I have any idea why you are making bizarre suppositions regarding my feelings. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to User:L'Omnivore Sobriquet from User:Denis Diderot

Reply to User:L'Omnivore Sobriquet
No one has ever said that JohD or other supporters of Shamir can't edit this article. To the contrary, I wrote: "This background by itself is no reason why you couldn't make useful contributions to the Wikipedia article. As one of Shamir's supporters and associates, you could be expected to have a lot of useful knowledge about Shamir."[51]
The edits you give as examples of JohD's "remarkable contributions" contained factual errors, misleading statements, glaring omissions, and grammatical errors. They also contained major changes clearly opposed by other editors as violating basic Wikipedia policies.
You are of course free to call anything written by JohD "the first main contribution", but in reality, his first major edit was on Nov 27 [52]
About my supposedly "violent" or "vandal-like" revert. JohD's reverted edits included major changes that were clearly opposed by other editors and had already been discussed on the talk page. Other editors (including me) had already explained why. JohD was well aware of this . There was no reason for me to state the obvious. [53] [54] [55][56] [57] [58] [59]
About reliable sources. The Socialist Viewpoint isn't used as a source for anything except that the article actually contains the opinions of Roland Rance. We report Rance's opinions. We don't make any claim about these opinions except that they are the opinions of Roland Rance. We also state that Rance questions Shamir's story, which he clearly does.
About the credibility problem. JohD stated: "I am editing this page beacuse I think it is a sewer." I decided to try to point out the obvious, even at the risk of being misunderstood. Perhaps I was misunderstood, or perhaps you are just trying to construct an argument. In any case, as would be expected, pointing out the obvious turned out to be pointless.
About my comment on an old version. Not really relevant, but to get the facts straight... In the old version almost all info on Shamir's background came from his homepage. [60]
Searchlight and Monitor are fairly similar in scope, dedicated to the exposure of fascism and racism. Expo has a broader platorm in favor of democracy and freedom of speech and opposed to totalitarian tendencies in general.
--Denis Diderot 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks by Tor Bach

<-----Remarks from Tor Bach: First of all: Searchlight does not claim to be "a Jewish magazine", unless the editor, Mr. Gable has made one of his famous ironic remarks. Second: Neither Monitor nor Expo co-operates with the ADL, and have no intentions of doing so, and that is based on political reasons. Third: I find it absurd that people discuss, on a very theoretical basis, wheter information that ANY Swedish journalist know to be public, is publicly available or not. The legal exceptions from public access do not affect things like names, adresses etc, only very private issues like health, social security etc. Fourth: The information on Jermas`Swedish citicenship comes from Monitor, and we gave it to Mr. Rance. A copy of the Swedish passport rregistration can be downloaded at: http://www.magasinet-monitor.net/jermas.jpg Fifth: A discussion about the Jermas name is outdated. According to the Swedish Cencus registry mr. Jöran Jermas changed his name to Adam Ermash in May 2005. This information can very easily be checked by a telephone to the Swedish cencus registry.

Yours sincerelly: Tor Bach

[edit] Further discussion between User:JohD and User:Jayjg

To Jayjg,

I think it is apparent from your previous message that you possess an antipathy towards Shamir: "and other unsavoury types". It is hardly a bizarrre conclusion at all. Why else would you consider my edits as 'whitewashing', unless you also consider that Shamir has repugnant flaws in his character and views? That is one of my queries; what exactly is it that Shamir has done, said or advocates that requires that it be whitewashed? Clearly no case has been made here that suggest anything that is repugnant. Even the attempts at negative commentary of his views falls flat upon examination. One would have to enter the discourse with a profound bias to think otherwise.JohD 12:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read my comments more carefully; I never expressed any antipathy towards Shamir, nor did I describe him as an "unsavoury type". I consider your edits whitewashing because they attempt to show Shamir in the best possible light, and downplay, misrepresent, or remove anything that could possibly be seen as negative. This is the exact opposite of our WP:NPOV policy. Now let's focus on the article content, not on your suppositions about the beliefs of other editors. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Again you are being obscure. What is about this edit that has caused you and Diderot to revert it four times?[61]? What information is presented without attribution, what information is being removed, and what information is 'whitewashing' and 'soapboxing'? I cannot respond to vague, generalized criticisms of my edits. JohD 00:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a complete POV re-write, and used section heading more suited to a pulp novel than to an encyclopedia article. Why don't you work on things slowly? Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Gawd! This is less vague? You have edited the entire article within a few hours, added POV, OR and deleted a whole host of information that has existed for weeks, and was edited over a period of days and weeks, on the grounds of style; and you ask ME to move slowly?JohD

Actually, you completely re-wrote a section a few weeks ago, one that had existed untouched for a lengthy period. I've now tried to clean up your edits, creating a more factual and NPOV compromise between the two. Jayjg (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have requested a RfcWikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy on whether this entire section represents Original Research since you seem to miss the point entirely. It is pointless arguing 'your version' vs 'my version' until it is clarified.JohD 06:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism from User:L'Omnivore Sobriquet

“I consider your edits whitewashing because they attempt to show Shamir in the best possible light, and downplay, misrepresent, or remove anything that could possibly be seen as negative.” By Jayjg, 11th January, 20:08, mere inches above the present post.

We are obviously facing a permanent bias problem, from Jayjg.

I - JohD’s edits do not show Shamir in the best possible light. This goes without saying. (‘Most enlighting writer of our times’, ‘Expert analyser of today’s prominent collective mindset, all too important in this Age of Information’, etc., where are they ?)

II - They do not remove anything that could possibly be seen as negative: JohD has written at length about his commitment to include negative quotes, in so many instances. These quotes being personnal points of views – we have finally reached a consensus here on this issue - , published in disreputable smear and crime-inciting RedSkins’ community pamphlets – this point being still disputed here, at present. His edits have indeed followed this polite stance. In front of that, we have – how many ? one hundred ? fifty ? – annihilations by Jayjg based on such hollow sentences as the one above. Most if not all of them carefully responded to by JohD, to no (numerical) effect.

The reader is confronted with rich and balanced (and patient) craftwork by user JohD, and systematic eradications by button-pushing wikiadmin Jayjg, ‘Denis Diderot’ as well, simply throwing the whole to the dustbin with no other ‘explanations’ than irrelevent sleeve agitations, than just a list of wikirules, policies and lines that those edits in fact comply with. Despite repeated calls for precisions. (ok, some of their editions did fit their role as ‘wiki-cleaners’, but these were minor ones, and rare.) What I see is a point of view by a wiki-admin being shamelessly pushed forward, under misleading guises of WP:NPOV threats and against any contradictor. It is a personnal POV that the Shamir/Jermas administrative question should be given any primary relevence in an article about the world-famous Israeli writer Israel Adam Shamir, or that it would justify a poisoning the well exercice at the very entry of the article. As for I, I’ve only attempted to recify this obvious flaw, the POV introduction of the article, but got violently outed and then ‘accidentally’ locked away for weeks. I can now read “Actually, you completely re-wrote a section a few weeks ago, one that had existed untouched for a lengthy period.” from Jayjg 12th January (just above), as if it implied a consensus on that section : opponents were being jailed during that ‘lengthy period’!!!! This wikipedia article cannot be reduced down to a “Here’s the valid physical adress of the antisemitic right-winger’s familly ! Act now !”… RedSkins’ coded language. We’re dealing with a major thinker/writer, whose identity is established well enough, by his workmates for instance, and whose writings dwarf those police-file matters by a continent. It is now up to wikipedia to let it show, as users, not admins, state it in encyclopedic standards.

III - Nor do they “misrepresent anything that could possibly be seen as negative:” For instance JohD’s sentence, obviously lavishly sourced : “In 2004, a controversy erupted in anti-Zionist ranks when it was aledged that Shamir had concealed that he apparently had also lived in Sweden, acquirred Swedish nationality and changed his name to Jöran Jermas.” can not, AT ALL, be depicted as misrepresenting it, let alone being a POV of any kind. It was there http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Shamir&oldid=33582495, on 2nd of January at 10:00, yet, see history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Shamir&action=history , it got whitewashed as routine now shows, entirely deleted, by a misnomer called “Denis Diderot” at 15:11 same day, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Shamir&oldid=33582495 , with comment “rv partisan edits, see talk page for explanation”, whose explanation (on this point, others were more arguable, if possibly qualified as ‘obstructions on the wikipedia process’) then amounted to a void “A huge number of people have questioned Shamir's background, his motives, his sanity, you name it. Only some of them are Jews.” See ‘Continued discussion’ section in this page, at point 3). That section called into discussion whether the Jewness of these anti-Zionist guys obsessed with Shamir’s ‘lieu de résidence’ was to be given relevency, but JohD’s edit nevetheless remained mute on this arguable point: so we have a fair and balanced NPOV necessary line by JohD, a level-headed informative line about this (minor) point, and a total shattering by DD under unrelated ‘explanations’ again. ‘huge number’, ‘sanity’ etc. being pure inventions. It is fair presentation, not misrepresentation, that should be given the upper hand in wikipedia, an automatic result through time PROVIDED numeric admins do not intefere in malevolence, if not wild vandalism (as evidenced already, see the ‘Obstruction by wiki-admins’ section.)

IV - Johd’s edits do not downplay anything that could possibly be seen as negative: he has shown on the opposite remarkable efforts to include them, properly sourced.

Sorry for this lengthy post again; it is intended for fair-minded readers. (l'Omnivore Sobriquet 14:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] User:Denis Diderot replies to User:L'Omnivore Sobriquet

(I) Before attempting to criticize someone else, it may be a good idea to try to understand what they are saying. Take, for instance, the phrase "best possible light". What does "best possible" mean? In our imagination, everything is possible. Reality is more limited. And the meaning of that word "possible" is not always as clear as one may wish. Is it possible to write anything one likes in a Wikipedia article?
(II) You say: They [JohD's edits] do not remove anything that could possibly be seen as negative". Perhaps you forgot to add "by Shamir's devout supporters"? Because when JohD removed Rance's opinions, for example, surely at least some people would perceive Rance's opinions as a little bit on the negative side?[62]
(III) For some reason you pick out a single sentence from a sequence of major edits. But even that sentence is problematic. Isn't it a misrepresentation to use the word "alleged" about a well documented easily verifiable fact? And the rest of it is either unclear, irrelevant, insufficiently sourced, POV, wrong or misleading. Examples: "Israel Shamir is well known to his Russian Readers". What on earth is that supposed to mean? "Shamir was also a well known, if controversial figure, for his writing in the Russian daily Pravda[...]" Two references are given for this. One is not an acceptable source except for Shamir's opinions (his homepage). The other doesn't support the statement. "This follows another controversy in 2002, in which Arab American pro-Palestinian activist accused him of evoking anti-Semitic imagery" The controversy was in 2001, not 2002, and several pro-Palestinian activists refused to have anything to do with him, regarded him as an anti-Semite and were suspicious of his motives. False and misleading, in other words. I could go on, but I'm repeating myself too much already.
The comment by me that you've quoted was obviously a reply to JohD's attempt to claim that all or most criticism has a Jewish origin.
(IV) I've already given examples to prove you wrong on this point. Anyone can check the edit history to verify this. The criticism in anti-Fascist magazines, for example, was misrepresented as "Jewish anti-Fascists Join the Fray"[63]. Where did "Jewish" come from? And Monitor began to investigate Shamir in 2003. I could give scores of examples like this.
--Denis Diderot 17:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon Diderot, but you do seem to erect strawmen and avoid the question by convieniently selecting versions to address. If you have a problem with certain words and expressions, you can always edit them. For instance the offending words in (III) above could have been edited, instead the entire thing was reverted. The 'Jewish anti-Fascist join the fray' was long ago corrected.(IV)[64] The removal of Rance's opinion is ancient history; and was included in my Jan 2 edit (II). So please address the issue. Why was the intro reverted instead of edited, seeing that the only valid criticism seems to be the inclusion of the word “well known”. It can be found elsewhere than Shamir’s website, but I do honor the spirit of the concept of ‘verification’, which you seem to practice rather selectively. It is unacceptable for a minor detail like this (you insist it is for a person called 'Robert David even though the passage makes it clear Rovert David and Israel Shamir are one and the same), but acceptable for the dubious insertion of the heading ‘On Holocaust Revisionism’ into the body of the article.JohD 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shamir at revisionist conference

I really don't care a rodent's rectum about Wiki rules- Shamir is headlining a conference in Tehran with the top Holocaust Revisionists:

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.246551760&par=0#

This speaks world's of Mr. Shamir's worldview and writings. To stand with the likes of Arthur Butz, David Irving, Prof. Al Sindi and President Ahmadinejad is all anyone need know. (unsigned comment by User: 69.135.181.209 Jan 9 2006)

This article merely speculates about possible speakers. It is instructive that speculative association with the views of a large percentage of the world's population is considered enough to damn Shamir.JohD 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Tor Bach: And if a large percentage - how large by the way? - of the worlds population believed that little green men fro outer space had influence on the politics of world leaders, should it therefore not be concidered as utter nonsense? At present it is a speculation wether Ermash a.k.a. Shamir will participate at a conference in Teheran. However, Ermash offered himself as a speaker at the Holocost denier cconference, set up by nazis, in Sacramento in the spring 2004. They thanked no, because of Ermash` horrific payment claims. It is also a fact that Ermash, using the Shamir identity,presenting himself as " a leading Russian-Israeli intellectual and journalist" expressed his support for the views of the Iranian president concerning the Holocaust. See: http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0601048572152031.htm It should surprise nobody that he did this in company with people as Horst Mahler, Arthur Butz, Ahmed Rahmi (his name misspelled Ahmad in the linked article) and other well known deniers of the Holocaust. Tor Bach

Mr Tor Bach wears his heart on his sleeve. A large percentage could comprise of the only the population of Iran, but we know circumstantially that would be an understatement, so it is not really utter nonsense is it, as would be the belief that little Green men influence the politics of the World's leaders? Contrary to Mr. To Bach's assertion, many people who do not subscribe to Holocaust Revisionism speak at Revisionist Conferences. It is what they say at these conferences that determine whether they subscribe to it or not, not the mere fact that they speak there. They may have other aims in mind; such as countering the hysterical use of the Holocaust to justify atrocities against others. It is typical of the kind of guilt by association techniques emloyed by narrow interest magazines like Expo and Monitor, and ethnic activists like Rance & Co. Totalitarianism, it appears, is preferable to Fascism. The pox on both their houses, I say, there is nary a diference between them.JohD 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focus on controversy

I have been watching this for awhile now, and find the emphasis on the 'controversy' distracting. What exactly is the relevance of it? I prefer the intro introduced by JohD, but the rest is a bit much. So he has a secret identity, so what? David1001

The "controversy" is central to the claims of Shamir, which are called into question, and thus must be discussed in an encyclopedia entry which is not an promotional text for Shamir, but a detailed examination to assist readers. It would be irresponsible for an encyclopedia to whitewash the controversy.--Cberlet 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
What 'claims' are called into question? I am supposing you mean that his bio is called into question. These comments are obscure, surely you can say what you mean, because no version of this article can be described as a 'promotional text' for, or 'whitewashing' of, Shamir? And if anything is called into question, then surely a reader can decide that for themselves?JohD 23:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's up to the editors of the article to ensure that the information contained within it is balanced and accurate, not up to the readers to wade through misinformation. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.--Cberlet 03:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the suggestion that 'Many details about Shamir's background are disputed' is certainly misinformation - supported by many editors on this page. Because you don't know something, does not make it disputed, it simply means you are confounded.JohD 10:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Actually, the notice that the biography is 'disputed' is POV. Doubting an account is not 'disputing' it. I could doubt your motivations and suspect an agenda, but without clearcut evidence, it is not disputing your motivation, it is doubting it. I am going to change the notice to 'Many details about Shamir's Biography are disputed by some'. Unless somebody can come up with evidence that 'disputes' his claims in the bio it should be changed, pending another solution.JohD 12:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If Shamir says one thing, and various articles say he is not telling the truth, or dispute the accuracy of what he is saying, then it is obviously disputed. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the "balanced and accurate" bias of editors produces better results than investigative readers. David1001 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)David1001

Well, that's fine, but Wikipedia policy says that it's up to the editors. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course.David1001 11:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that adding "documented" to the "He is a citizen of Sweden" in the introduction does help focus on the controversy. We're dealing with paper nationality here, obviously. What this has to do in second sentence of the very introduction of the famous Israeli writer remains to be explained, and certainly changed. Shamir doesn't write at all about any Sweedish life, nor at all about his Sweedish wife, but yes, once, of his (Sweedish?)two children, in the Betheleem affair. So pending a better rewrite... l'Omnivore Sobriquet 02:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ropschitz material

JohD is now removing this material:

According to Manfred Ropschitz, an anti-Zionist journalist and broadcaster also located in the United Kingdom:

Israel Shamir first appeared on the Swedish census in 1984 (when he claims to have been in Israel). In 1989 he wrote from his Stockholm address trying to sell the original Himmler’s war service diary to the Holocaust revisionist, David Irving. Shamir said he was acting for unnamed Russian businessmen. It fell through, but the correspondence is still on Irving’s website. Publicly available Swedish government files show Shamir later became a citizen and is still registered as living in Stockholm, with his second wife – not in Jaffa. His first wife and their two sons also live in Stockholm. In 2001 Israel Shamir changed his name to Jöran Jermas. He was already a Swedish citizen, now he had the name to go with it. The National Passport Registry has provided a copy of Jöran Jermas’ passport file. It contains Israel Shamir’s photograph and his place and date of birth.[65]

Can he explain why? Jayjg (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all - you have not provided any evidence that Ropshitz is a journalist and broadcaster, so the claim in the first line is debatable.
Next - The link to the info is to the Indymedia website, an uncontrolled free media source where anybody can post anything purporting to be anybody they feel like. There are absolutely no checks and balances. The source is unsuitable for wiki for anything - period, because nothing about it can be independently verified.
Next - The subject is more than adequately covered from other sources here. I believe the Expo article mentions it.
Next - I have already stated that I am no longer challenging the Jermas identity (or any subsequent identity for that matter). The issue is already given full voice on the article page. Are we obliged to gratituously list the same accusation from every source, no matter how marginal?
Next - The information is speculative. For instance, it accuses Shamir of living in Sweden - "not in Jaffa", also in 1984 "when he claims to have been in Israel". It discounts simple possibilities - that Shamir could be complying with minimal requirements for inclusion in the Registry by visiting Sweden periodically, while actually living in Jaffa. Or it could be that nobody is checking whether he actually lives in Sweden, as reflected in the registry. We could speculate, as Ropshitz speculates. It accuses Shamir of lying based on specious argument. The source is questionable, so the accusations need to be examined more rigorously.JohD 18:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point about it being an Indymedia site is an interesting one. Your other argument, about the accuracy of Ropschitz's argument is irrelevant. Remember, WP:NPOV does not insist even attempt to find the "truth", but rather merely cites various sources on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This assertion is patently false. We may publish falsehoods, if they are suitably cited and attributed, but the more outlandish the claims, the more vital it is to ensure sources are reputable. We don't publish falsehoods and speculation from questionable sources - period.JohD 22:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, reliable sources are indeed a must, but, again, we don't attempt to discern the "truth" here; instead, we reproduce what reliable sources have said on a subject. Please see WP:NPOV Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly; he is not a reliable source, and neither is Indymedia; just as you prove not to be a reliable source regarding wiki rules & guidelines.JohD 03:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial views cleanup

I've cleaned up the controversial views section. It had become filled with information that had nothing to do with Shamir's controversial views, and was written in a completely non-standard format. For example, in a section on Shamir's controversial views, what value is there in quoting Shamir as stating that the place he was baptised was the "ancient cathedral of Mar Yakoub, the old see of St James, the brother of Lord and the first Bishop of Jerusalem.”? Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

These edits were done almost a month ago and were explained here[66] and here[67]

It seems you are happy to remove material that does not conform with your POV, if it can be shown they violate the slightest style guideline or exist in the wrong section, but ignore material that violates POV guidelines if they confirm your POV. You could have moved material that are in the wrong section, or at least discussed them over the past 4 weeks. As it stands, you have repeated many of the errors I pointed out then. One the most obvious is the construction of sentences in Shamir's articles to convey an opinion not actually expressed by the article itself.
The material was edited with the accusation that I was removing critical information in mind. I was careful to include every quote in the original; which sometimes neccessitated including unrelated material. I had in mind that you or another editor would edit it for style then, but I did not realize that you would stoop to this - waiting until the debate had moved on, to pounce. Once again using handy rationale of wiki style guidlines to justify wholesale edited reversion to previous POV presentation.
OK, who criticizes these things about Shamir's writing? Please feel free to cite chapter and verse, there is plenty of it. Or is it simply the opinion of you or another editor?JohD 18:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, please note WP:CIVIL, which would include not accusing people of "stooping" to various things; I finally had a chance to look at the text and clean it up. Second, the construction of the sentences now conforms exactly to Shamir's opinion in all instances - I challenge you to cite any sentences which do not. Third, the unrelated material was really, really unrelated - like, for example, the lyrical description of the place he was baptised. Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "who criticizes these things about Shamir's writing"? These are simply his opinions about things. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will 'clean it up' if it remains; only you call that 'whitewahing'. You 'clean', I 'whitewash'. Regardless, it is both OR. Perhaps you forgot about that little gem until you need it push your POV. Either somebody analyses Shamir's work, or you or I do it. If we report on somebody else's analysis, it is called editing; if we put our own analysis, it is called Original Research, however accurate we may think it is. yes, and next time don';t stoop to waiting until the debate has passed before making a blitz. I can appreciate that you know wiki markup, while I am still ignorant about it; but it is stooping (low-brow tactics), to push your weight around like this. It is indicative of your contempt for me and I am fast losing patience with your arroganceJohD 22:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Since your previous "cleanup" completely distorted the meaning, I strongly suggest instead that you explain what issues you have with the current text. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
My issues on the current text are :

1- It pushes the point of view that Shamir’s administrative tribulations in Sweden have central importance in presenting this main thinker/writer. This wrongful state of mind is based solely on a handful of papers that have been reckoned with already here as pure points of views, published in magazines which are being seriously disputed as fit for sourcing in wikipedia.

2- Another issue, yet related, is that the apparent cosmopolitism of such an obviously ethnic-Jew personnage is brandished as ‘raising problems’, as ‘casting doubts on his contributions’. “I wouldn’t believe one word of it” sitting in the middle of the current text glaringly, based only on this most infamous ‘creterion.’

3- That the very first lines of the current text constitute a ‘poisoning the well’ exercice, most un-welcome for a controversial figure, and of course damaging wikipedia’s fragile reputation. This list is not complete, but these three points must be given their due weight.

Of considerable concern however is the behaviour of wiki-admins displayed at length throughout the article’s history. Read details in the fitting section.

But to take just this precise post by Jayjg ; one has to admit that an administrator is not a user, and that it is not up to user Johd to explain in details what he finds wrong with ‘the current text’, but it is up to the admin to establish why the edits of user Johd should be, eventually, modified. As we now know with solidity increasing through time, administrators’ words accompagning their - close to one hundred – ruthless hackings of quality propositions by JohD amounted to sheer policy names, carefully avoiding any specifics. By ‘hackings’ I mean complete eradications. User JohD doesn’t have to be put on challenge to convince about ‘current version’s mediocrity, but to be let forward to put his own betterments, being, if required, corrected by a professional admin when basics are threatened. Preferably before the hatchett strikes, with well laid arguments, as time allows.

There is a problem going on with this article’s team of wiki-administrators. (l'Omnivore Sobriquet 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

L'Omnivore, could you please leave the section heading in the edit sumarry when you edit this page, it is difficult to find where you are posting to from the history. Also use four tildes at the end of your comments - it automatically inserts your user name , date an time, as you will be able to see in the 'preview' page.JohD 16:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The last two edits on the article page by 58.164.210.112 was me, I did not realize I was logged out.JohD 12:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
L'Omnivore, I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you are saying here. For example, you say that the apparent cosmopolitism of such an obviously ethnic-Jew personnage is brandished as ‘raising problems’, as ‘casting doubts on his contributions’. “I wouldn’t believe one word of it” sitting in the middle of the current text glaringly, based only on this most infamous ‘creterion.’ What does that mean? Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expo, Roland Rance, Monitor, Searchlight & Tor Bach

Clearly there exists an axis that conspires to produce material critical of Israel Shamir. Whatever the reasons for it, this fact needs to be noted. Roland produces an article, calling on the good graces of his friends at the Socialist Viewpoint . Soon an 'investigation' is launched, as if on the prowl for a Nazi fugitive, which produces another round of 'articles' in related magazines: Searchlight, Expo and Monitor. Editors here, posing as disinterested and uninvolved participants, impose a rigorous enforcement of a policy that forbids that any characterization of these publications be made - that they are narrow interest, partisan anti-Fascist magazines; which perforce means that anybody they consider to be a Fascist, is fair game. Quite clearly they are of the opinion that Shamir is a Fascist, or possesses the moral failing of communicating with people they consider to be hardcore fascists.

I challenge the characterization of Monitor, Searchlight and Expo as anything but partisan magazines, as if they were or par with Time magazine, or even Fair Lady for that matter. They are not media enterprises, beholden to conserving a reputation for fairness, and employing strict editorial controls against bias, smearing, and outright fabrication. It is inappropriate for wikipedia to be endorsing their vilification campaigns against what they falsely perceive to be a Fascist. It is clearly false, because even though an editor of one of these magazines, Tor Bach, chooses to make his presence here felt, he cannot justify a charge of Fascism except by utilizing 'guilt by association' techniques.

Jayjg, Diderot and Cberlet insist this is in accordance with wikipedia policies, and that the sources are suitably cited. I beg to differ. It is one thing to casually cite and mention a reputable Media source, quite another to pretend a source is not partisan and quote them as if they did not have a pony in this race. The presence here of Rance, and now Tor Bach, on this talk page is ample evidence that they do indeed carry ideological spears in a campaign to have Israel Shamir ostracized, and now, with Tor Bach to criminalize his views.

It is only in Canada, Europe and Australia that Holocaust revisionism is criminalized, but it is enough to pose a serious threat to the liberty of anyone who espouses any form of it, and could also conceivably be extended to anyone who appears to be sympathetic to the plight of Holocaust Revisionism. Without a doubt, by any yardstick, they are a persecuted and defenseless crowd. This is not only personal it is viciously personal.

Today Diderot cites a source. It is confirmation that Shamir is associated with the most hardcore revisionist, and shares their views. It is placed in a separate category called 'On Holocaust Revisionism'. Reading it, one would assume that

1. Israel Shamir sent a letter of support to the Iranian president.

2. Israel Shamir endorsed the remarks of the President of Iran.

I have corresponded with Shamir extensively on this subject, and he while he is opposed to the misuse of the Holocaust narrative to justify atrocities against the Palestinians, he does not share the fixation of Holocaust Revisionists to disprove the Holocaust. He is dismissive of the 'evidence' of Holocaust Revisionists, preferring to remain agnostic on the matter. He is also of the opinion that the Holocaust has assumed the status of a religion, and that Holocaust denial should not be banned. He bases this on his view that bad guys balance each other, and bad ideas balance each other also. Which is something entirely different to 'endorsing' anything.

I emailed him to ask about this article. This is the information the entire article in Mehr is based on - written by an obvious believer in the legitimacy of holocaust revisionism; one of the 'large percentage of the World's population' that believes the Holocaust is a fabrication to extract reparations and justify atrocity in Israel.

The Mehr article is premised entirely upon the following email. The Mehr Correspondents message is in italics and Shamir's responses in bold:

----- Original Message ----- From: hosein amiri To: info@israelshamir.net Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:17 PM Subject: Request for interview


I am a freelance correspondent now working for the the Iranian-based Mehr news agency and wish to conduct an interview about current nuclear crisis & US policy about it. Accordingly

I humbly ask you, if possible, answer the following questions. We do appreciate your cooperation in advance!

:1) Iranian president said that he think holocaust is a myth But said: "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent if you are right Give parts of your country to them" wasn't it illogic?

:2) Why they don’t want to discuss about holocaust? If they are right surely they will can prove it as an historical event?

:3) Today why holocaust has become a Dogma while other people across the world are killed but nobody doesn’t care them?

:4) you are a jew and an Israeli do you think that shouldn't discuss about the holocaust?

:5) Why Revisionists have been banned from discussing about holocaust and why those who express any doubts are treated like heretic?


I am looking forward to hear from you soon,

best regards,

Amiri

Dear Hosein, please receive my thanks for your letter and for your attention. I have a lot of respect for Iran, its people and its leaders. I have been in Iran in 1973 or 1974, in Shah's days, and was enchanted by the beauty of the land and noble character of the people. As for your questions, I wrote about it a piece called Vampire Killers. There you will find a full answer to your questions. My regards to you and to Iran! Shamir Jaffa

And a second email:

----- Original Message ----- From: hosein amiri To: Israel Shamir Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Request for interview


Dear Shamir, http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=12/25/2005&Cat=2&Num=009 http://www.tehrantimes.com/ See shamir In tehrantimes Regards

Thank you very much. If you wish you may publish my essay Vampire Killers, it is attached. Shamir

(Vampire Killers" attached)[68]

Information like this cannot be included in a wikipedia article, but it clearly shows the distortion and misinformation that can contained in an otherwise innocent looking report. Is it too much to ask that editors observe some degree of honor, and refrain form advancing clearly incorrect information simply because it is backed by a source, however dubious? Is it not clear to Jayjg, Diderot and Cberlet by now, that they cannot keep up a pretence of being non-biased, if they choose to present biased sources as 'reputable journalists', and prefer a spin on an article that contains clear misinformation, merely because it confirms their prejudice.JohD 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Expo

I'm Swedish, and I read both Expo and some of the main far-right newspapers of Sweden, out of pure interest. I'm not involved with the magazine (or with the far-right papers either, for that matter :-), but I'd like to defend it. The claims on this page that Expo is known as unreliable etc, are simply not true. I have never read or heard any criticism of Expo, neither in the Swedish media nor by anyone of any standing whatsoever. Neonazis will of course constantly complain that Expo is part of the Big Judeo-Bolshevik Plot, but that is not what I consider serious criticism.

Quite on the contrary, Expo is widely admired and considered the main Scandinavian authority on contemporary racist and right wing extremist movements. They are frequently used as a reliable source by major newspapers. In fact, when Expo's offices were attacked in 1996, and its printer cancelled the contract after having received death threats, the paper was instead published for free in both of Sweden's two largest tabloids. The chairman of the Expo foundation is a former top legal advisor to two Prime Ministers (Olof Palme and Torbjörn Fälldin), and has served as Sweden's Legal Ombudsman, a very senior political position.

Point being, this is no small-time fanzine for dreadlock anti-Fascists. It is a really respected paper, and an excellent source for any Wikipedia article on Shamir.

Shalom, Arre 12:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Comment from Tor Bach: It is a fact that all above mentioned magazines, Expo, Searchlight and Monitor are antifascists, actually most of Norwegian post-war society, including the press, was built on antifascism. It is also true that all three maagazines are built upon values such as defence of Democracy and respect for Human rights. So yes, Mea culpa, we can clearly be described as people with a clear political agenda. However, the important question is: Can the facts that we present be proven or not? As a card bearing member of the Norwegian Union of Journalists I am bound to certain ethical standards and have an obligation to present no more than I can prove. Personally I am not interested in whether Mr. Ermash was in Jaffa or Stockholm at a certain time. The interesting thing is wghat accounts he gives himself. Obviously it cannot be true that he lived in Stockholm and Jaffa at the same time, though both claims are made by him. Either he is lying about living in Israel, or if that is true, he has given false information to Swedish athorities, something that is actually illegal and also could be descissive for whether Mr. Ermash at all had the right to obtain his Swedish citicenship.

Tor Bach

Tor Bach - a notorious liar

Having followed Tor Bachs campaign to silence Israel Shamir, his norwegian translator and the papers that printed his articles in Norway, i must say that he lies systematically to smear his targets. As a board member of the miniscule zionist group "Norwegian association against antisemittism"(NFMA) he clearly is willing to use any means to stifle any serious debate with or about Israel Shamir. His method has been to spew out an endless stream of lies and half-truths. Together with Christine Mohn, the leader of the afore mentioned ADL-wannabe-group, he publicly called for berufsverbot for Shamirs Norwegian translator Hans Olav Brendberg. Their little ANTIFA-style-fanzine, which I've never come across outside the internett, is utterly unreliable as a source for any information on this topic. (Officially they keep their magazine independent of NFMA).

He is a proffesional smear-campaigner. Not to be trusted at all.

Asgeir Bjørkedal, Oslo, Norway

[edit] Jewish-Christian relations (2)

OK, let's start here. The article currently states:

Shamir is a strong believer that Jews must abandon Judaism and convert to Christianity. In The Marxists and the Lobby - Part II he states that "acceptance of Christ is the Final Solution of the Jewish Question."[69] In his essay of April 15, 2001 called Take Two, he claims that Jesus "was hated by the Supply-side bankers and economist of his day. They sentenced him to death and the Empire obliged and carried out the execution, in order to keep peace with these all-important forces." He concludes by stating "The Jewish supremacy forces and the greed worshippers united again to crucify Christ... Two thousand years ago, the spirit of brotherhood rose again, to give hope for the second joust. If he is defeated again, we all shall become forever slaves to our faceless masters. They will destroy the Mother Earth herself, turn her into waste lands of Mordor."[70]

In his "Christmas Greetings to the Hellenes", Shamir addresses the Greek Orthodox Christian Community, and reveals that he was baptized. He deplores the fact that Hebrew speaking Israelis converts join the Catholic Church and the growing Evangelical Churches rather than the Greek Orthodox churches, because "The Jews are forever fighting Christ and the Church; there is no chance for peace in the Holy Land unless the position of the Synagogue is undermined and the Jews saved by the Church." He also states that Vatican II and the Evangelical Churches "agreed to the idea of Two Covenants... Thus they came to the weird idea of Two Chosen Peoples - Israel of flesh and the Church. The Orthodox Church is still safe from this dangerous heresy. Only the Orthodox Church can offer true salvation to the Jews escaping their supremacist creed."[71]

What, if anything, do you think is inaccurate about this? It's mostly direct quotes from his articles. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is my version of it[72]. A basic perusal would show that it is as valid an analysis of the text as you claim yours is. But there is a problem with it too; it is my opinion, my analysis, and contains my spin on the same cited text. In other words they are both Original Research.

The entire section should be scrapped, and we should return to just reporting opinion, instead of writing opinion pieces. That way, we don't get into this battle about whose interpretation should be used; because our interpretation should not be used at all. Without getting into the pros & cons about your analysis viz a viz mine; the issue is as simple as that.JohD 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It seems that Rfc is a slow process and we might never get more than the comment we have received to date, and the feeling there is that it is primary source, and therefore acceptable. I will proceed on that basis unless we get opinion to the contrary. I have slowly edited the first passage from this section quoted above. As it is a 'criticism' section, I will observe the spirit of its intent.

To date I have concentrated on the first paragraph. Three important changes have been made to the first sentence.

1. The word 'must' has been changed to 'should'. If we are interpreting the text of primary source, we should stick to the script, and must not invent what is not there. Whatever we may think of Shamir, he is an Orthodox Christian and as such adheres to Orthodox canon that says non-Christians should convert to Christianity, but that it should be voluntary, not forced. "Must' is a decree, 'should' is a desire. Nowhere is Shamir advocating that Jews be forced to convert to his religion, as is implied by the use of the decree 'Must'.
2. The phrase: "acceptance of Christ is the Final Solution of the Jewish Question", has negative connotations related to the Holocaust, which is not the subject of the cited text and is nowhere mentioned, or alluded to, in it. I have added the missing fragment "There is no tainted blood..." and the phrase which gives context that appears in the same paragraph of the original; " ... for the Jewish problem is an ideological, not a biological problem". It ties in with the 'must' to 'should' edit - to wit: 'Shamir is a strong believer that the Jews should convert to Christianity, as it will solve the Jewish problem, which is an ideological rather than a biological (Racial) problem.' Which is a fair representation of the text, and not; 'Israel Shamir is a strong believer that Jews must convert to Christianity because we must effect a final solution to the Jewish Question.' which is a distortion of the text.
3. I have moved the last sentence to another paragraph immediately following and separated by eclipses, as the two phrases appear four paragraphs apart in the original. I am not sure how it relates to the point, but that it is not my intent to remove it. It is for the editor that put it there to clarify why it is included. In my earlier edit of this section I had expanded it to provide clarify and demonstrate the linkage with Judaism/Christianity, but that was deemed to be 'soapboxing', even though it was clear reference to the 'Blood Libel', a subject I would have thought to be controversial. It would seem Jayjg is now the one soapboxing for Shamir.JohD 13:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I can accept your edits, though I've had to clean up the grammar and formatting; again, please try to stop commenting about other editors, or we will get nowhere. Would you like to move on to the next section? Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this section back. Clearly the cired text does not say that Hebrew speaking converts do not go to the Orthodox Church because the "Jews are forever fighting Christ". The Tom White quote has been removed.JohD 11:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to restore my text, for grammatical, logical, and policy reasons. The article cannot assert that what Shamir says is true, it can only say what he claims to be true. As well, the current version does not state or imply that Hebrew speaking converts avoid the Orthodox Church because "Jews are forever fighting Christ". Rather, it makes clear that Shamir "regrets" that they don't join the Church, because he believes they are "forever fighting Christ". The meaning you intend to import is actually clearer in my version. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I had not noticed your previous change. It can stand as it is. I still think the 'promotes' angle is a bit of creative license, but it is a minor quibble.JohD 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Response:

Without going deeply into all of the cites, the entirety of the criticizm section appears adequately cited. Each paragraph appears to have a link to the subject's website that contains the quotes and paraphrases that are attributed to him in the paragraph, with the exception of "links to the far right", which appears to have some innapropriate sourcing. I was not asked to comment on NPOV, so I did not evaluate adherance to that policy. Hipocrite 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow of Zog

Here is the next section:

Shamir makes frequent use of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. In an article entitled The Shadow of Zog, Shamir promotes the notion of a "Zionist Occupied Government" (or ZOG) ruling the United States. In his view, ZOG is a "slave of Mammon, a servant of the Shadow, he is helping the Dark force fulfill its metaphysical task, to blot out the Light of Christ and to turn our world into Godless desert. That is why he sends bulldozers to wipe out flowers in Palestine, sends troops to sack Baghdad and Damascus, threatens Paris and Moscow, perverts Christianity."[73]

Can you please state what, if anything, you find inaccurate about it? Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the version that was reverted:
Shamir makes frequent use of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. Here are some examples:
Jews as Servants-of-Profit[74] - In Luc Besson's film, The Fifth Element there is (always) someone who is prepared, for personal profit, to ”assist the satanic Shadow in his quest to destroy our Mother Earth.” In the movie, he is ”given a scary name: Zog. … that kick(s) the fearsome Thought Police of ADL into action.”


ZOG is also zog, who is a "slave of Mammon, a servant of the Shadow, he is helping the Dark force fulfill its metaphysical task, to blot out the Light of Christ and to turn our world into Godless desert. That is why he sends bulldozers to wipe out flowers in Palestine, sends troops to sack Baghdad and Damascus, threatens Paris and Moscow, perverts Christianity."
I appreciate you are trying to demonstrate that Shamir has no compunction about utilizing conspiracy theory and anti-Semitic themes to drive home a point. Can't you at least reflect this reality without including a twist that is in effect fallacious? What conspiracy Theories? Are we supposed to know it from the text here presented? I had earlier sub-categorized this section to make it plain.
It is incorrect that the text claims ZOG is ruling the US. It is quite the opposite: it is a slave to Mammon. There is this contradiction in the made up analysis. It is clear a result was desired, and the text made up to conform to it. In the text, ZOG kicks the thought police into action; here, it kicks the wiki police into action.
Either Shamir is pushing a conspiracy theory, or he is utilizing its imagery to provoke. It is a reasonable proposition that the piece is provocative, totally false that it suggests that the US government is controlled by ZOG. If it is false, it should be removed. If it utilizes the imagery to provoke, you have been provoked into responding in an irrational manner.
I will leave it here, and let you decide how to amend it.JohD 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In the article Shamir is quite clear that he thinks that Zionists control the government of the United States: "The Occupation Regime in Iraq was installed by the US army in the interests of Zionists etc." Furthermore, your claim that it is truly "Mammon" who is in charge is a red-herring, since Shamir identifies "Mammon" with, you guessed it, Zionist Jews: "An ‘absolute Jew' is a Zionist (for himself and other Jews) and a Mammonite (towards non-Jews)." Nevertheless, I'll try to clean up the text to deal with your issues. Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with your revision of this passage, we can move on.JohD 08:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Lobby & the Blood Libel

I have no objections to the passage dealing with the ‘Jewish Lobby’. It is an accurate representation of Shamir’s views on this matter.

In Bloodcurdling Libel Shamir questions whether the claims that Jews sacrificed Christian children for their blood was merely a blood libel, or was in fact true. He argues that Jews assume that "a Jew has to be innocent", and claims that Jews slaughtered their own children to resist forced conversion during the First Crusade: "Whenever the ‘danger’ of baptism became imminent, many of them murdered their own children and committed suicide... The murder was performed as ritual slaughter followed by victim’s blood libation." Shamir suggests that is "reasonable" to think Jews may well have used Christian blood in various magical rites, but does allow that it is "possible" that "the connection of blood sacrifices and matzo of Passover or homentash of Purim is but a popular belief."[75]


The above passage, is not an accurate rendition of the cited text for the following reasons:

While an argument can be made that Shamir does indeed question whether the sacrifice of children can in fact be true, it is not necessarily his view, but is contained within a narrative within the text wherein Shamir describes the content of a Book by Israel Yuval Two Nations in Thy Womb’ or Perceptions of Jews and Christians’, published by Am oved, in Hebrew in Tel Aviv in 2000. The text has to reflect that fact because it leads to the wrong conclusion that he ‘claims’ what Yuval actually claims. He is citing the claims of another writer in support of his argument that the Blood Libel is a Jewish battle cry, which is really what this essay is about. As I read it, he actually rejects Yuval’s approach, arguing that the Yuval’s conclusion that Jew’s murdered their own children and not the children of others completely misses the point: The ritual murder of a child is the ritual murder of a child.

Shamir does make a number of controversial allegations in this piece, that does not seem to be of concern to editors here.

1. That the attitude of critics of the Jewish Blood libel, when their behavior asserting that a ‘Jew has to be innocent’ is contrasted with their attitude towards ritual slaughter performed by others (ie. Blacks) is an example of the practice of Racism.
2. That some Jews regularly, and without critical comment from other Jews who complain about the Blood Libel, evoke the Blood Libel against the Palestinians,
3. That he rejects an attitude that involves the study of the Talmud in order to turn the Blood Sacrifice into a cornerstone of Judaism.
4. That Jews behave in a manner that mimics the Omerta code of silence.
5. That the real crime behind the blood libel is the slaughter of Palestinian children.

While it can legitimately be the intent that only negative views are controversial; it is not necessarily the case. A negative view of accepted practices that violate common decency can also be controversial, as is the view that Israel, in practice, recklessly and deliberately kills innocent Palestinian civilians in the execution of its war against its enemies; as an example.JohD 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fully understanding which parts of the current version you consider to be inaccurate. Do you agree that these points are true:
  1. Shamir thinks Jews automatically assume that blood libel claims against Jews are a lie.
  2. Shamir thinks that Jews sacrificed their own children to avoid forced conversion.
  3. Shamir thinks that it is quite possible that Jews murdered other children to use their blood in magical rites.
  4. Shamir allows that it is "possible" that claims that Jews used blood in matzos and hamantasch are just "popular belief".
-- Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I think the list of statements by Jayjg accurately reflects the views of Shamir. As such, we should not shrink from describing them accurately. A number of pro-Palestinian activists agree that Shamir uses historic antisemitic language and claims. Most of this "discussion" is about the attempt to sanitize the views of Shamir. Let's start with the statements in the list above, and then find the proper language: "vicious bigotry?" "historic antisemitism?" "Blood Libel?" "echoes of fascist conspiracism about Jewish power?" Let's really focus on what this discussion is about.--Cberlet 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. True.
  2. Not his view, but a view cited from Yuval.
  3. Not his view, but a view cited from Yuval.
  4. Not his view, but a view cited from Yuval.

Shamir is simply providing us with Yuval's narrative to clarify that Yuval provides background on the blood libel wherein he presents a reasonable hypothosis of how the Libel evolved. We cannot present this as Shamir's hypothesis, he did not do the research, nor did he put it together. The most he does is provide us with a precis in trsnslation from the Hebrew.

I suggest that since this section does not claim that people have the opinions as described by Cberlet, but purports to be the expressed views of Shamir himself, derived directly from the primary source, we should be accurate. If it can be shown that Shamir's writing desplays 'vicious bigotry' then so be it. But if it can't, then we cannot make it up.JohD 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Shamir's view, not Yuval's
  2. Shamir's view, to some extent also Yuval's
  3. Shamir's view, not Yuval's
  4. shamir's view, not Yuval's
--Denis Diderot 06:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1. Shamir thinks Jews automatically assume that blood libel claims against Jews are a lie: - Shamir's view
2. "Yuval discovered actual irrefutable child murder beyond the Blood Libel ... Over the years, the actual circumstances of the child murders were forgotten, but the picture of a Jew slaughtering children remained imprinted in the European matrix. (Yuval uses the thesis of Robert Graves, who explained many traditions of the Church by its misreading of old images.)"
Yuval's view.
(again) "It is not deniable: Jewish and Christian chroniclers of the period describe these events at length, with Jews glorifying this Waco-like behaviour, and Christians condemning it. Did they murder the children in order to save them from Christ? Well, not exactly. That would be bad, but the reality was worse. The murder was performed as ritual slaughter followed by victim’s blood libation, ...." Shamir describing the allegations in Yuval's book. - Yuval's view
3."This was the source of the idea that Jews murder Christian children, while in fact, Jews murdered their own children, writes Professor Yuval.' - Yuval's view.
"If Yuval thinks that a Jew can use only Jewish blood for libation to wake up af Adonai (the fury of Yahweh), in some cases, the kidnapped child was circumcised before being murdered, i.e. ‘made a Jewish child’. And for atonement, even lamb’s blood will do." - Shamir's view of Yuval's assertion.
4. "On the other hand, it is possible that the connection of blood sacrifices and matzo of Passover or homentash of Purim is but a popular belief. The mystic idea of libation could be misunderstood by simple people. Yuval explains it by a combination of different traditions and their misinterpretation." - Yuval's view.JohD 08:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1. No further discussion necessary
2. Shamir presents Yuval's views and the related controversy in an extremely misleading manner. Shamir constructs a position X that a naive reader may believe to be Yuval's, whereas it's really only Shamir's own position, but there's no need to go into that here. Let's just consider position X and ask whether we're allowed to conclude that Shamir agrees with position X. The answer is obviously yes. "[X] discovered actual irrefutable"[...]". Can an endorsement be clearer than that? "It is not deniable". Again a very clear endorsement of position X.
3. Yuval has obviously not made the claim that "it is quite possible that Jews murdered other children to use their blood in magical rites." This is completely Shamir's invention. Yuval argued that some Jews probably killed themselves and their families. Not that they killed other children or used their blood in magical rites.
4. Yuval tries to give an historical account of the origins of the blood libel myth in medieval Europe. Shamir suggests that it's probably not a myth at all, but at the same time allows for the possibility that Yuval could be right. Shamir does this in such a thoroughly misleading manner that an unsuspecting reader may come away with the impression that Shamir's views are similar to Yuval's.
Denis Diderot 12:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well let us read your proposed edit, or Jayjg's, and let us decide if that is an accurate reflection of Shamir's views based on the text. Whatever you may think of Shamir's writing technique, he is trying to make a hypothetical point. Would one believe, based on the piece, that it is possible some Jews, depraved and twisted could have carried out ritual slaughter of Christians? Of course, it is possible, and even probable given that all religions have depraved followers. But that does not mean it is an endorsement, nor a belief that Jews practice ritual slaughter of gentiles, even uncommonly. An occurrence would be extremely rare, as Shamir makes clear in this piece. We need to get rid of the 'how dare he? Protocols' tone, because it is nothing of the sort. Controversial? - yes. Ludicrous and outrageous? No.JohD 13:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's note that these claims have circulated since the Middle Ages, and it does not take great intellect nor deep philosophical thinking to regurgitate them. Let's accurately report Shamir's views, and if appropriate, call them "historic antisemitic conspiracy theories." And we can note that these particular bigoted conspiracy theories have a name in social science literature: "Blood Libel."--Cberlet 13:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I challenge your premise that they are being 'regurgitated'. It is an extremely slanted and narrow view, and in particular, your point of view. You can note that some people consider the topic itself to be out of bounds, but you cannot characterize any discussion on the topic to be itself 'historic conspiracy theories' or a 'Blood Libel'. That is just a blatant smear and a misrepresentation of the text.JohD 14:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not understanding your objection here. Shamir states all four things I listed above, quite openly. That he incorrectly tries to attribute them to someone else is not important, given that Shamir himself believes they are true, and states as much. Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have already stated that it is not a true reflection of Shamir’s views. It is not at issue whether it can be surmised that the statements can be true if we really, really stretch the meaning of the text.

For starters the opening line: “In Bloodcurdling Libel Shamir questions whether the claims that Jews sacrificed Christian children for their blood was merely a blood libel, or was in fact true.” – is errant nonsense. Shamir does not at any point argue that ‘Jews’ sacrificed Christian children for their blood, which is the essence of the accusation of blood libel. He argues that "religious maniacs … Probably any religious community of similar size would produce similar amount of deviants” sacrificed children, for whatever reason. There is no reason to impute from this that he accuses ‘Jews'. It is really stretching it.

"He argues that Jews assume that 'a Jew has to be innocent'", - it is a reasonable enough statement reflecting Shamir's viewpoint.

But:

“and claims that Jews slaughtered their own children to resist forced conversion during the First Crusade: "Whenever the ‘danger’ of baptism became imminent, many of them murdered their own children and committed suicide... The murder was performed as ritual slaughter followed by victim’s blood libation." – is false, he is citing material from Yuval’s book. It is not his original research. If you want to use it, you have to mention the source for this claim. That Shamir agrees with it is of no consequence, he did not suck it out of his thumb.

“Shamir suggests that is "reasonable" to think Jews may well have used Christian blood in various magical rites,” – The only thing that Shamir considers reasonable is this:

:Is it reasonable to think that the Jews never ever produced magicians and sorcerers who would use human blood to wash off sins or to hasten Salvation? (emphasis mine)

It is deceptive and dishonest to present this as if Shamir believes it is reasonable that “Jews” used human blood to wash off sins. It would be true if it is shown that Jews commonly indulged in various magical rites, but I seriously doubt that is the case, and nor does Shamir suggest it is either.

but does allow that it is "possible" that "the connection of blood sacrifices and matzo of Passover or homentash of Purim is but a popular belief."[76]”
As we have shown, this is Yuval’s argument that Shamir agrees with. What is so controversial about stating that simple people easily misunderstand mystical religious practices of others? The only possible reason this sentence is reproduced would be in order to decouple it from its context, and introduce a theme in order to smear.

This passage needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner, that puts issues raised in the correct context and the perspective of the cited text. This section is not a license to selectively present passages in order to push an agenda.JohD 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Reading this whole section, the matter seems settled again, to allow for JohD’s proposed editions, clearly washing off misinterpretations.
Shamir is discussing a taboo subject, as so often, he is not endorsing nor pushing it. The article should not present medieval credences as his own ones, but name the sources instead. That Shamir relies , entirely perhaps, on the Yuval’s account to depict the blood libel, is clear enough, and indeed a regular method of Shamir. He then put his own perspectives, namely the incredibly unjust treatment this libel gets in ‘global media mind’ as compared to the same one against Blacks or Palestinians. This is typical of Shamir, so should be the core of the wiki-article on Shamir, if the issue ‘Shamir about the so-called ‘Blood Libel’’ is to be presented. The way contemporary writer Shamir deals with ‘traditional antisemitism’, used as a weapon of contemporary ‘Jewry’ (a spiritual entity) against rational discourse, annihilating criticisms and discussions; the way he, Shamir, overturns it. (somehow like a Judoka, but there are more knowledgeable rethorics’ descriptions.) Always, basing his texts on some interesting Jewish/Hebraïc/Talmudic/Biblical/Contemporary (well established) Jewish media loudpieces’ OWN words, then starting discussing about them. THIS should be the substantial information to be found on an encyclopaedic article on contemporary writer Israel Shamir. For instance as dealing with that infamous ‘Blood Libel’ mouth-shutter, here, but also on ‘Holocaust Denial’, the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, ‘The Jews’, ‘Jews at threat in Christendom/Islam’, ‘Christ Killers’ etc.
I am sorry, sad and discouraged again having to witness instead an article that merely brandishes “Blood Libel ! He wrote it !” disregards of the subject’s own writings, so careful and plain, and effective, that alone should constitute the core of the information about this writer’s world-wide, web-based, prominence.
(‘Respectable Sources Commentaries’ are glaringly missing about him, thanks no doubt to such “Linked with ultra right-wingers, writes on Holocaust Denial” misleading internal memos as those this wikipedia article has proved to be pushing forwards against all odds. (Expo, Searchlight etc.) But wikipedia is bound to its public policies, so should lift off. On 2nd of September 2005, I was sitting in the audience witnessing the Parisian trial of the little publisher of one of Shamir’s books; all the accusation amounted to was endless repetition that ‘He wrote on the ‘Protocols of the Elders…’, despite, as the defence established easily enough, that the essay was, just like our issue here, explaining brilliantly what was said to be interesting about this piece of writing, and who wrote these comments. Shamir’s own further considerations weren’t even considered. A few weeks afterwards, the publisher was heavily condemned, then, on the grounds that the book wrote repeatedly, explicitely, ‘The Jews’…. Appeal is on the way. This is no wiki-game, boys. (no slander, I’m talking for everybody) The present article’s “He writes on Blood Libel !” bias has been exposed, try something else.)
I am sorry, sad and discouraged again having to witness again inches of procedural discussion on this section about ‘Shamir said it – no it’s Yuval – no it’s Shamir’, when JohD again, established the correct evidence, having to repeat it about three times wasting valuable efforts (this COUNTS), the only one to present specifically Shamir’s words; only to see no change on the main page on this misleading, mis-presentation. Should I do it myself ? I’d rather not, I certainly miss the delicacy and the focus of the main contributors here.
Not counting the in-parenthesis remark, (superfluous?), the present text is short, clear, concise. Even the afternoon-TV-watching mind would get it. But for the comprehension impaired, let’s summarize :
1– The section “Jewish/Zionist/Israeli Conspiracy” is a propaganda exercise, not an encyclopaedic fair and informative section. In particular, here, the ‘Bloodcurling Libel’ paragraph. Picking sentences where Shamir exposes what this bloodcurling libel is, what is its traditional definition, is no information at all about Israeli writer Israel Shamir. (or web writer signing from Jaffa, from Israel where his Israeli mother lives too, if one prefers although I cannot imagine a Knesset member being a Swedish Skinhead... Not the point here.)
2- This description of the age-old Bloodcurling Libel has been carefully attributed by Shamir to a contemporary writer Israel Yuval, and this has been carefully evidenced here by JohD. This is primary source stuff. The article to this hour still hides this central truth. It must not.
3- The article to this hour still coarsely misrepresent Shamir as questioning whether it was just legendary libel, or in fact true. First sentence is shockingly coarse and inaccurate: “In Bloodcurdling Libel Shamir questions whether the claims that Jews sacrificed Christian children for their blood was merely a blood libel, or was in fact true.” The essay in fact discusses the place of such “Bloodcurling Libel” in today’s public mind. The wiki-paragraph totally misses the point. And it’s offensive, to say the least.
4- The way Shamir jumps at every ‘hot and touchy’ issues that bear strong ‘antisemitism terror’ potential; the caracteristic way he deals with them by always putting them first in very Jewish mouths before broadening the scope, is in itself main information about ‘phenomenom Israel Shamir’, glaringly missing in the present wikipedia article. All the sections “Jewish-Christian Relations”, “Jewish/Zionist/Israeli Conspiracies” and “On Holocaust Denial” should be re-written in this light, pointing out the novel and remarkable ‘Shamir treatment’ of these mainstream issues, that accounts to his fame and his respectability. Why have a wiki-file if it mutes this then ? (comments about this have been many, but ‘amateur web-based’, hélàs, although of clear academic standards.)
5- The discussion above is a dishonnest stonewalling. Simply read it. Again. (Who needs another ‘Omnivore regurgitation’of it, again ? - just kiddin’ alright)
6- I’m sorry, sad, and disappointed by the general wikipedia behaviour. (yes, it cannot be attributed to a single body.) I have evidenced in due length a few precise malevolences from wiki-admins, that, considering efforts espec. from JohD, surpasse mere vandalism.


also… to JohD... I am a ‘he’, not a ‘she’… (l'Omnivore Sobriquet 15:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
I am sorry L'Omnivore, I realized my mistake after, but thought it had been unnoticed.
Is anybody going to attempt a rewrite of this passage, or are we going to simply delete it?JohD 07:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted summary of discussion

I'm afraid I don't really understand what we disagree about here. Jayjg has attempted to summarize Shamir's controversial opinions about the blood libel. JohD replied that Jayjg's summary wasn't an "accurate rendition of the cited text ", because the text is about a book by Yuval, and that some opinions Jayjg has ascribed to Shamir were really Yuval's opinions. Also that the text was really about Shamir's "argument that the Blood Libel is a Jewish battle cry". Finally that Shamir made a number of other controversial claims that Jayjg had failed to mention.

Jayjg tried to resolve the question of accuracy first, and so listed 4 claims that he believes Shamir makes in the cited text. Cberlet agreed that all 4 claims were made by Shamir and proposed some ways to characterize them. JohD answered that only the first claim was actually made by Shamir, whereas the other 3 were really made by Yuval and only referred to by Shamir without actually supporting them. I replied that all 4 claims were made by Shamir, and there is also some limited agreement between claim 2 and what Yuval wrote.

JohD stated once more that only the first claim was Shamir's and the others Yuval's, and this time with relevant quotes from the text. Diderot replied that JohD is mistaken because of Shamir's deceiving manner of writing. Yuval has not made the claims he appears to have made when one reads Shamir's text.

JohD attempted to move forward, arguing that Shamir simply tried to discuss a taboo subject and made the claim that probably some Jews at some point in history have committed a ritual murder of non-Jews, but Jews (most Jews, all Jews?) always assume that they are innocent. Cberlet again tried to focus on the question of how Shamir's claims could be characterized and proposed ""historic antisemitic conspiracy theories" often called "blood libel". JohD strongly objected to Cberlet's description and called it a "blatant smear and a misrepresentation of the text".

Jayjg did not find the discussion so far particularly illuminating and asked his question to JohD once more, what specifically is inaccurate with the three remaining claims supposedly made by Shamir. JohD answer was not about these 3 claims but about the text of the Wikipedia article. He listed a number of statements that he believed were inaccurate and gave reasons why. Finally l'Omnivore Sobriquet joined the discussion. He discussed the article in general, Shamir in general, the French trial against Shamir's publisher and various other topics. I will try to summarize only the part that concerns the issues here. L'Omnivore apparently (it's very difficult to determine) argues that the 3 controversial claims only represent Shamir's attempt to explicate the "traditional definition" of the "bloodcurling libel". Further that this definition of a "blood curling libel" occurs in the works of Israel Yuval and that this has been proven on this talk page by JohD. Finally that the first sentence of the Wikipedia section is "shockingly coarse and inaccurate" since it doesn't describe what the cited essay is about ("the place of such “Bloodcurling Libel” in today’s public mind")

This is my attempt to give a summary of our discussion so far. I think it's obvious from this summary that the disagreement isn't really as large as one may first think. The Wikipedia article doesn't attempt and shouldn't attempt to describe or summarize every text ever written by Shamir. What we should do is to describe his opinions with a focus on those opinions that have evoked some notable commentary. When we discuss Shamir's opinions and cite his writings, the cited text is used merely as evidence that the opinion has actually been expressed by Shamir. Therefore the question whether the description of Shamir's opinions accurately reflects the cited text is entirely irrelevant. It's perfectly acceptable to use a text about some completely different subject Y in order to demonstrate that Shamir has expressed opinion X. What we should discuss here is therefore not if his writings are accurately represented in the Wikipedia article. We should discuss if there is sufficient evidence that Shamir has expressed the opinions listed in the article, and in this particular case, the opinions listed by Jayjg.

Denis Diderot 10:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the differences are not all that large. But important is the question of whether the material is to be presented as 'a Jewish battle cry' - or as L'Omnivore characterizes it - a 'mouth shutterer'. Clearly, if we are to accept this proposition, we are agreeing to nothing less than a smear, and a libel. It is one thing to use material Y, to demonstrate opinion X, quite another to misrepresent opinion X, by misusing material Y.
1. There is no dispute about point 1.
2. Shamir relies on the research of Prf. Israel Yuval on this point. You should find where Shamir independently makes this assertion before you can regard it as his opinion. He may tend to favor Yugal's research on this matter, but it does not make it his opinion. This is no small matter, since it can convey that 'ignorant' Shamir, who is not a scholar of medieval Jewish society, makes the totally unsubstantiated assertion that "Jews killed their own children to avoid conversion". It is dishonest, whatever slant is put on it. Point 2 is dishonetly false.
3. The article clearly conveys the view that it is the opinion of Shamir that 'it is possible that "Jews" sacrificed other children to use thier blood in magical rites" - which is a false variation of the opinion of Shamir which is: that it is possible that of the deviants that sacrificed children, would be some Jews. Point 3 of Jayjg's list is therefore false.
4. It is Shamir's opinion that Prof, Yuval,s assertion that Shamir allows 'that claims that Jews used blood in matzos and hamantasch are just "popular belief", is possible. Again, Shamir is not making an isolated statement, based on nothing more than his undeducated opinion, but commenting on an argumnent made by a professor of Jewish studies at Hebrew University. So the statement is falacious, and gives the wrong impression that it is the view of Shamir, rather than a comment about the view of another.
It would not be so important perhaps, if the subject was not for all intents and purposes, taboo, but since it is, it is vital Shamir's views be presented precisely, and we are not deliberately vague.
1. Shamir's takes great pains to stress that it is an extremely small deviant element he is talking about.
2. He stresses it is not perculiar to Judiasm, but that all religions are represented, and Jews would form a minute minority within any such category of people.
3.He points to Prof, Yugal's work to demonstrate that it is entirely possible that Jews did kill children in religious rites; "This was the source of the idea that Jews murder Christian children, while in fact, Jews murdered their own children, writes Professor Yuval."
4.Shamir does not think that it is "reasonable" to think Jews may well have used Christian blood in various magical rites," at all. It is the other way round. He does think it is unreasonable to believe that no Jews were ever Magicians and sorcerers who ever killed children for blood sacrifice.

The passage is deliberately vague and misleading, it should be rewritten or deleted. I am not in favor of deletion, but if we cannot say correctly what his opinion is, better not to say anything at all.JohD 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think the passage should be deleted until it can be rewritten in an acceptable manner. It contains false and misleading statements.JohD
Yes I think it could be deleted. We’re seeing at the time a mis-presentation of Shamir’s views on a nerve-scratching subject. It’s been on for such a long time, enough of it. JohD has repeatedly shown his ability to pen more accurate and well balanced entries in past months. As it is, it’s purely damaging and we’re certain to obtain a better one, both focused and neutral, soon enough. l'Omnivore Sobriquet 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion however would be to regroup all those ‘Jewish battle cries’ issues under, indeed, one single section that would present intelligently them as a whole, as one of Shamir’s main characteristics : his will and fashion to deal with all these harshest slurs, the mind and mouth-closing “Classics of the Antisemitism”, used as they are today to eradicate any criticism against either the “Judaic paradigm” as he phrases it, or Israel, or even the New World Order ((or Washingtonia-the-small, as I phrase it.)) The Shamir way to address all these heavyweights of the coarsest antisemitism, not denied by him (in their historical/sociological existence that is), not endorsed by him, but discussed and exposed, systematically, by him, as contemporary silencing heavyweights of any potent criticism against ‘Washingtonian’ interests. ((Not American, nor Israeli, nor Jewish per se)) Mind-closing monsters, in Occident, enrolled at the service of the ambitious mind controllers, instead of being fought against and easily done away with. It’s not that Shamir happens to write on some controversial antisemitic issue deserving some dedicated wikipedia section, it’s that he tours them all, depicting their newly consolidated stance, that makes the info. A comprehensive section that could be called “Anti-Semitism’s New Clothes”, or “Addressing anti-Semitic legends as contemporary monsters”, or “Touring anti-Semitism’s classics”, or like. In there we would have : ‘Holocaust Denial’, the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, ‘The Jews’, ‘Blood libel’, ‘Jews at threat in Christendom/Islam’, ‘Christ Killers’ etc. These are calling on the irrational, forcing subconscious ‘placements’, command wild-eyed and brain-dead reactions, all on the ‘taboo’ level. This is typical of Israel Shamir’s contribution, and he repeatedly explains it, in many occasions, a main theme.

Here is the idea and I will further it, but my remark here fits the present discussion by showing how ill-written the article presently is, simply listing variations on the “He wrote about ‘The Final Solution’ !!!” tune, here on “blood libel”, there on some hair-raising “historic antisemitic conspiracy theories”, bare name-calling lists of (distorted) accounts as if it bore the relevant information on Israel Shamir. It does not; it’s meaningless, it is imbecile, Pavlovian, and offensive. (to the writer, his readers, wikipedia readers, and wikipedia.) I certainly agree that it should be presented that he also writes on these issues, as they’re shockers anyway, and yes he addresses them all – he simply rushes at them - , but in a way that at the very least presents his line of thinking. These points of discourse are highly sensitive, trigger passionate reactions, are rovic hectic taboos, so, as stated before, mis-presentations cannot be tolerated here. Ill-presentation even worse. (and we remember that the introduction as it still stands – because of Brejnevian stonewallings there too – poisons the well so that his views are suspected outright; given such issues, another shame.)

Therefore, my remark/suggestion would fit in some other sections in this talkpage as well. What about the suggestion above ?

People who have some reading of Israel Shamir, apparently JohD and I, should be let a hand in the construction of an interesting article on I.S., concise, accurate and balanced (NPOV, OR, V, NOT etc.), just being let a hand as a necessary ‘knowledgeables’ part of the editing crew, with recorded amounts of fine editing proposals (I repeat, many entries in the most reputable encyclopaedias were penned by people who actually loved their subjects – think of some Shakespeare entry as a trivial case -, even if letting either critics pen opposite points of information or handling this themselves in ‘maximum fairness’), instead of six-months old stonewallings by hooliganic anti-editors sticking to copy&paste red-skins fanzines like Expo or Searchlight at first breath, sheer street-fighters’ papers ‘mostly filled’ with shoes, ‘Young Tsahal on leave’, Beer’n Ska and “Beat on the Brat” rally advertisements. No offence my friends, but there’s a record by now.

However, I still support the idea of withdrawing the “Bloodcurdling Libel” paragraph altogether, as some start. My suggestion should be right, I think, but of no priority now, as it calls in fact for a major rethink or rewrite. l'Omnivore Sobriquet 21:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand; Shamir indulges the entire range of 'anti-Semitic stereotypes'as the major theme/s in his writing. In this piece, he gives voice to a fair sample of them: Blood libel, Jews tend to harbor criminals, Jews hate Christianity, Jews are harbingers of capitalism & globalism, Jews are Usurers etc. etc. Yet, it is not brought up at all. Instead, we have this ridiculous perversion of the text, that will be defended until, well actually they just go quiet. I suggest the entire segment be rewritten and replaced as we go. Wiki is not a soapbox to spread misinformation about Shamir, however much you may hate the man. I have been extremely busy, yet still found the few minutes to respond. We can only assume the non-response to substantive objections must mean there is no response.JohD 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced the passage with a stub that contains the information we at least agree on.JohD 11:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shamir: Jews are ungrateful bloodsucking liars

<-----The current text about Shamir's essay "Bloodcurdling Libel" is not false, but it barely scratches the surface. This lengthy essay by Shamir is full of bigoted stereotypes and support for mythic claims about Jews and ritual murder. What else does Shamir write in his essay where he claims that Jews are lying about their actual past use of ritual murder?

  • "The system of cover-up was not created yesterday, it was inherited from the Middle Ages, when the Jewish communities were ruled by the omerta code of loyalty. A criminal is not supposed ever to surrender a fellow criminal to justice. This approach was integrated into the inner life of Jewish communities."

Shamir contends that European history is a history of Jews hating Christrians, but Christians loving Jews by offereing to convert them, even if they were guilty of ritual murder:

  • "one has to admit: the Christians were rather wonderful to this hateful group of my ancestors: they were always ready to receive them as equals, as beloved brothers and sisters. Just think of it: the Jews daily wished the Christians to drop dead, while the Christians wanted the Jews to join them and be saved. The generosity of the Church was fabulous - even Jews who committed cruel murder could save themselves through baptism."

Shamir also states:

  • "Gratitude is not a strong point within the system of Jewish moral values."

What else?

  • "Medieval Jews were harbingers of capitalism and globalisation, the tendencies that were to prove perilous for children and for the future of ordinary men. They were usurers, and usurers ‘suck the lifeblood’ of their debtors even in modern usage. Thus, an accusation of blood sacrifice was a powerful ‘scarecrow’, a metaphoric warning to potential borrowers to stay away from the usurers, and to be suspicious of burgeoning capitalism....Poor people of the pre-modern days had no teachings of Marx, and they used the language of myth. Indeed, all victims of ritual murder belonged to the working classes, and belief in the Jewish ritual murder was widespread among the poor who were the first to suffer from the advent of capitalism. On the other hand, the royalty and upper classes were usually supportive of Jews and punished those who complained of ritual murders. In some countries, the complainers were punished by death, while in Russia, the Tsar forbade even considering the possibility of ritual murder by a Statute of 1817 [18]. Indeed, the ruling classes were not afraid of capitalism and usury."

So indeed we can rewrite the text to make it clear that Shamir thinks that Jews have a culture of lying built around a lack of gratitude to Christian who offered to convert them, while developing an identity of usurous bloodsuckers that echoed their ritual murder of children and paved the way for the exploitation of modern capitalism.

Now that is an NPOV summary.--Cberlet 14:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You can rewrite the passage to show anything you feel can be supported by the text. That is after all what wiki is about. The passage as it stands is false and misleading. Nobody said Shamir was not unfriendly towards the Jewish paradigm, even if he is an ethnic Jew himself. You can certainly rail against his insolence on your blog, if you have one. But NPOV it is not, and it does not belong in an article in wiki.JohD 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shamir's deceptive writing

When reading any text by Shamir, it's necessary to understand that he regularly distorts the facts to suit his narrative. As Jayjg put it previously: if Shamir wrote someting, we could make the argument that it's probably false or misleding. His text about the blood libel is a typical example. I've already pointed out that he completely distorts the opinions of Israel Yuval and misrepresents the controversy. (Shamir absurdly suggests that it's a "taboo subject" and that Yuval's findings have been supressed by some powerful cabal. In fact, they have been discussed extensively, even in the popular press.)

In order to illustrate this further I'll go through Shamir's text from the top. Almost everything Shamir says is misleading or false.[77]

First he compares Aaronovich's commentary in the Observer with Japanese horror stories. In reality, Aaronovich's article is about the use of old anti-Semitic myths in the Middle East, especially with regard to Israel and Zionism. It's hardly a horror story in any sense. It ends on a hopeful note. Also, out of 1831 words, only 292 words refer directly or indirectly to the blood libel. That's 16% of the article.

A: " Take the example of what is called the 'blood libel'. This is the old medieval story of how Jews kidnap Christians, kill them and use their blood in arcane rituals."

S: " he turned to “Blood Libel”, recurring story of Jews kidnapping Christian children, killing them and “using their blood in arcane rituals. "

Note how Shamir adds "children" which doesn't occur in the original text. Why? In order to pretend that Aaronovich is ignorant:

S: "The priest murdered in Damascus was hardly a child, but it does not stop Aaronovitch. He knows nothing of the case, but it does not stop him either. He just KNOWS a Jew has to be innocent."

The first part is just a baseless smear. "He knows nothing of the case". Another baseless smear. "He just KNOWS a Jew has to be innocent." Everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. The only "evidence", as Shamir knows very well (he just wrote it) was confessions obtained under torture.

S: "If you ran an internet search, you would find this expression used extensively whenever a Jewish scribe is unhappy with an accusation levelled at a Jew: be it Marc Rich[...]". The only one making this association is Shamir himself.[78]

I searched the archives of Jerusalem Post from 1990 to 2005 and found only 9 articles referring to "blood libel" in a contemporary context. Example: "The 29-part series, Al-Shatat (Arabic for the diaspora), was produced in Syria and broadcast throughout the Middle East by Hizbullah. Based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it depicts among other scenes the killing of a Christian child on the orders of a rabbi so the blood can be baked into matzot for Passover."

I could continue like this through the whole article. Even his footnoted quotes are false. Maimonides never made any such a comment about "Chinese and Blacks" (note 2). [79]

--Denis Diderot 05:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Diderot, your little opinion piece is way off the mark. I can’t see what its purpose is, except to conjure up evidence of Shamir’s duplicity. Let us deal with your accusations one by one.
You do not state just how Shamir misrepresents the opinions of Yisrael Yugal. You merely state it is so. You also claim that Shamir ‘absurdly’ suggests that the Blood Libel is a taboo subject and that Yuval’s book was suppressed by ‘some powerful cabal’, but it really was widely discussed, even in the mainstream press. You don’t cite any examples, but certainly it is fairly widely cited in studies dealing with the subject, and historical period.
Interestingly, David Biale, in Blood Libels and Blood Vengeance [Tikkun - 1994] makes the observation on page 39 that; “The suggestion [by Yuval] that the Jews themselves, might have been responsible, even if indirectly, for the blood libel fell like a clap of thunder on the Israeli academic community”. He goes on; “[Yugal’s] opponents accused him of anti-Semitism and attempted to block his university promotion.” Further on page 40; “These intellectuals could not accept Yuval's implicit assumption that Jewish practice might have some influence, no matter how indirectly, on the formations of anti-Semitism. According to this view, anti-Semitism is a set of irrational paranoid fantasies that is utterly disconnected from the Jews."
Shamir merely mentions that the English translation was supposed to be published by the California University Press, some American Jewish Professors objected to it and called for it to be ‘erased from public conscience’. The weight of evidence suggests that Shamir is right on this score, and you are wrong.
To demonstrate that “everything Shamir says is misleading or false”, you quibble that Shamir has added ‘children’ to David Aaronovich’s quote. But it is not Shamir, but Aarononvich that is misleading the reader by pretending that the children’s blood is not the focus of the Blood libel against Jews, but that the Blood of any non-Jew would do. Aarononvich obviously does this to fit the example he wants to highlight - the murder of an adult priest in Damascus. The priest was hardly a child, but it did not stop Aarononvich from evoking this ‘blood chilling’ (or to use L’Omnivore’s unique phraseology ‘mouth shuttering’) tale anyway.
In the lead up to this quibble, you introduce another quibble: that Shamir employs literary devices to provide a frame of reference for his pieces. This time it is that Shamir compares tales of blood libel with horror stories. You fail completely to acknowledge irony, and its rhetorical effect. Preferring instead to represent it as ‘misleading and false’. The setting is quite fitting; both occurrences (horror stories and Blood libel tales) are designed to chill the bone, albeit in different ways.
Of course Aarononvich does not know anything about this crime, nobody does. Aaronovich is clearly ignorant because he gives no indication of knowledge about it at all, except that the accused were innocent and tortured. How does he know? Well Shamir suggests that all he knows is that a Jew is always innocent. He simply makes the case that nobody was interested in solving what was a despicable murder of another human being, in this and other instances. Instead the focus was on declaring (not acquitting), the accused to be innocent. There was tumult and furor, and instead of halting the torture, and holding a trial, the suspects were unconditionally freed due to political pressure. He is suggesting that this perpetual rule applies; it is not a simple issue of innocent until proven guilty at all, but that a Jew always has to be innocent.
Finally, if you did an internet search of ‘Blood Libel’ and ‘Marc Rich’, the first page would consist of accusations of ‘Blood Libel’ against Taki Theodoracopulos [80], who was sacked by arch-Zionist proprietor of the London Spectator, Conrad Black, who shortly thereafter sacked his ‘friend’ and ace columnist, accusing him of invoking a ‘blood Libel’ against Jews.[81] . It is not an invention of Shamir at all, as you try to imply. You may continue through the entire article if you wish, but is your erroneous opinion, is all.JohD 10:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh!! Although I did miss it at first, but Talmudic scholar that I am, it took me about 1.5 minutes to find the reference to 'blacks and Chinese are like monkeys" Maimonides comment that Shamir mentions in the footnotes' (He does after all provide the Section and chapter number):
LI
"Such are the extreme Turks (Chinese) that wander about in the north, the Kushites (Blacks) who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey." my parenthesis.[82]
Shamir is sounding more credible with every passing dayJohD 10:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


JohD,
You pretend to be greatly upset and offended by this Wikipedia article about Shamir and quibble over every sentence. At the same time you don't find any problem with the most obvious truth twisting and lying in Shamir's writings. It's easy for anyone to compare your complaints about Wikipedia sentences with the standard you apply to Shamir's writings.
There's no need for me to explain exactly how Shamir distorts Yuval's writings. Anyone interested can easily compare a summary of Yuval's position with Shamir's text to see that I'm right.
Of course Yuval's work was controversial, and much of what he says has been contested on good grounds. But that wasn't the point, was it? Shamir suggests very strongly that it was suppressed which it clearly was not. It was even discussed quite positively in English in Jerusalem Post. The thing about it being "erased from public conscience" obviously doesn't make sense. But this is not really important. (That's why I put it in parentheses.)
The phrase "blood libel", as you know since you refer to the Wikipedia article, may have different meanings. Aaronovich explained exactly in which sense he used the phrase. Shamir quoted that passage but added "children" for one purpose only. If that isn't dishonest, what is?
You defend Shamir's ridiculous smears with the following statement: "Aaronovich is clearly ignorant because he gives no indication of knowledge about it at all [...]" Are we supposed to laugh or cry? I won't even comment because it becomes too absurd.
What you write about Marc Rich is equally illuminating. First of all, the text you refer to does not connect "blood libel" to criticism of Marc Rich, but that's completely irrelevant. What did Shamir write? " If you ran an internet search, you would find this expression used extensively whenever a Jewish scribe is unhappy with an accusation levelled at a Jew" Not that one person used it about Rich or two about George Soros. "whenever a Jewish scribe is unhappy with an accusation levelled at a Jew". So anyone can easily check this and see for themselves how Shamir lies. Remember also 9 articles in Jerusalem Post between 1990 and 2005. Most of them simply informing about some reuse of the traditional blood libel as in the example I gave. Some "battle cry" indeed. This may also be easily checked by anyone with access to the archives.
Finally Shamir's false quote.
The point I made was that Shamir distorts even supposed quotes (note the quotation marks) to fit his narrative. We're talking about a medieval text written in Arabic. The link I provided goes to an old English translation by Michael Friedlander. You are right that the word rendered as Kushites by Friedlander may sometimes be translated as Blacks (The meaning was roughly "someone from south of Egypt". It's of course impossible to know exactly what Maimonides was referring to.) But the expression about northern Turks cannot be translated as "Chinese". So isn't this a minor "quibble". No because the point of Shamir's distortion is to portray Maimonides as a racist, and an obvious racist at that. But it's perfectly clear from the text that it's about people without religion regardless of nationality or race.("No tainted blood" remember?)
This is JohD's comment:

Oh!! Although I did miss it at first, but Talmudic scholar that I am, it took me about 1.5 minutes to find the reference to 'blacks and Chinese are like monkeys" Maimonides comment that Shamir mentions in the footnotes' (He does after all provide the Section and chapter number)

This is what Shamir wrote:

Oh no, if Palestinians were black (and only some are), slavery would be re-established in the United States, and the great Jewish sage Maimonides’ maxim [2] ‘Blacks are less than human’ would be embossed in gold on the US dollar.

The footnote [2]:

More Nevochim, or Guide to Perplexed, 3:51 “Chinese and Blacks are less than human but above monkeys”.

This is what Maimonides actually wrote in Friedlander's translation:

I will now explain the simile which I have made. The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental faculty above that of the monkey.

What does this tell you about Shamir's reliability? And what do your comments tell us about your ability to edit this article in an NPOV manner?
--Denis Diderot 22:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Diderot,
You made several assertions about Shamir’s writing, every single one of them was false.
1. Shamir wrote: … he turned to “Blood Libel”, recurring story of Jews kidnapping Christian children, killing them and “using their blood in arcane rituals.
Aaronovich had written:" Take the example of what is called the 'blood libel'. This is the old medieval story of how Jews kidnap Christians, kill them and use their blood in arcane rituals."
No it isn’t – The blood libel is much worse than that – it accuses Jews of murdering children, not adults. If you go through the list in the wiki article, you will find this is indeed the case. Shamir does not ‘quote’ Aaronovich but gives an accurate characterization of the blood libel – ‘recurring story of Jews kidnapping Christian children’. while Aaronovich had tried to slip it pass that that the ‘old medieval story’ was that adults were kidnapped for “using their blood in arcane rituals”. Aaronovich is the one being dishonest here, not Shamir. His explanation of the blood libel was deliberately deceptive. Shamir is not “quoting” Aaronovich and it is not deceptive in the least. Shamir is demonstrating that Aaronovich uses it as a battle cry, by invoking the horror image of children being sacrificed, in a case where an adult is murdered.
2. Shamir does not “very strongly” suggest Yuval’s work was suppressed, he simply mentions that “some American Jewish scholars objected to this book being published and called to ‘erase it from public conscience’” He notes that the English translation did not appear after, as was planned. Again, you make things up, and pretend books and other means of expression are not suppressed due to Jewish objections. It is routine for books to be banned and otherwise suppressed due to Jewish objections.
3. I suggest that ‘nobody’ knows the case in Damascus, including Aaronovich; because a Caliph unilaterally threw out the case after enormous political pressure, so no evidence was presented. You attempt to acquit them post facto – “innocent until proven guilty’. Shamir clearly and accurately puts forward his synopsis of the case; 'a Jew is always innocent'.
4. "In the process, I am afraid he uttered a blood libel on the Jewish people wherever they may be”[83]. [84] ‘Blood libel’ featured prominently in both my references to this issue. In the google search as Shamir suggests, and the article by Conrad Black. I cannot understand your assertion that it does not. The Jerusalem Post has nothing to do with what Shamir had written, and is a bogus construct.
5. Simply put, the Maimonides ‘quote’ is accurate whether one use English or Sanskrit. It is the essense of what the great scholar said. It is accepted that Kushites is a medieval reference to Africans (Blacks) and the ‘Extreme Turks’ is a mediaval reference to the Chinese, who lived to the extreme north of Turkey. The “quote” you refer to is a footnote, complete with referenced passage, which you did not even want to find, so suggested that Maimonides did not say it at all – a blatant accusation that it is made up by Shamir, and misrepresented. It clearly is not a misrepresentation, but quite evidently an accuarte condensation of the larger translation, so and your argument again falls flat.JohD 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"You made several assertions about Shamir’s writing, every single one of them was false."
Let's see...
The numbers (X) refer to the claims sequentially in my original posting [85]
(1)Horror stories (totally unimportant, but just for the record)
Who is telling horror stories, the people who claim that children are regularly kidnapped and used in ritual murders, or the people who say it's a myth? Who is telling horror stories, Shamir or Aaronovich? Aaronovich merely mentioned the blood libel in a detached manner (I gave the quote above), whereas Shamir speculates freely about blood, gore and "ritual slaughter". Aaronovich did not write about the blood libel, he just used it as one example. It's a minor part of a long article.
(2)Shamir's baseless smears of Aaronovich. Everything here should be completely obvious, including the fact that the "blood libel" against Jews hasn't only been about children. Since this last part apparently isn't, this quote comes from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Russian Orthodoxy was active as well in spreading the so-called blood libel, a superstitious belief in Jewish ritual murder which had reemerged even in the 19th century, in Damascus in 1840 (in which instance the French Consul in Syria initiated the accusation) and in Hungary in the Tiszaeszlár affair in 1882. In both cases torture was used to obtain false confessions but the accused were ultimately cleared." Of course according to Shamir and Joh Domingo, EB clearly "knows nothing of the case"(s). Am I not right?
(3)Shamir claims: "this expression [blood libel] is used extensively whenever a Jewish scribe is unhappy with an accusation levelled at a Jew". Shamir further claims that this can be seen by doing a simple internet search. He mentions specifically the names Marc Rich and George Soros. I said that this was a lie, and the only one who makes that kind of association is Shamir himself.
Googling "Marc Rich" yielded 273000 hits [86]. Combining with "blood libel" we're down to 216 hits and 111 unique.[87] Most of these 111 hits are simply pages where the name "Marc Rich" happens to be on the same page as "blood libel" without any relation. Of the rest, around 20 refer to a controversy between Conrad Black and Taki Theodoracopulos. About 10 refer to Shamir's bloodcurdling piece. So what's left? Actually I didn't find anything. So what did Conrad Black write? "I am afraid he [Taki] uttered a blood libel on the Jewish people wherever they may be. He wrote that the United States had intended to invade French air space to force down fugitive financier Marc Rich's aeroplane[...] The Jews, according to Taki, have suborned the US government, direct that country's military like a docile attack dog, and glory in the murder of innocent or mischievous children."
Although Black didn't connect his metaphorical use of the "blood libel" to criticism of Marc Rich, at least there was some kind of connection, because when Taki had written what Black called a "blood libel", he had also discussed Rich. So if we assume that all other Jewish scribes were perfectly happy with the accusations levelled at Rich, at least we have one Jewish scribe who almost used the expression blood libel extensively (once) and connected with accusation levelled at a Jew. But of course Black isn't Jewish (he's a Catholic), so not even that works. In fact it's very simple. Shamir lies.
(4) Even his footnoted qoutes are false. I've already proved this. I noted that in your last reply the quote (I assume you know what quotation marks mean) became an "accuarte condensation of the larger translation". You admit it wan't a quote and of course it's about as accurate as your Freudian spelling.
--Denis Diderot 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh this is just too silly. You argue that Shamir does not quote Maimonides' Arabic/Hebrew accurately by putting forward an English translation to compare it to; but the meaning is exactly the same. By that yardstick, neither is the English translation accurate. Shamir himself has also translated Maimonides, and had it published. Yet you want to set yourself up as the arbiter of whether a version contained in a footnote is accurate. The quote is an accurate translation of what Maimonides had written: That "Black people and Chinese were at a level below human, and above that of Monkeys." There, I have accurately quoted Maimonides. You cannot get more accurate than that. That is what he he said; in any language.
Then you want to nitpick about topical references that Shamir alludes to in his writing. Arguing that it is deceptive because only 200 or 16,000 google hits are produced from one of his examples. I am sorry, you are making a fool of yourself here, and it is patently a red-herring.JohD 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


It does get silly, doesn't it? The meaning is not exactly the same. If you can find any translation by any notable scholar to support your contention, then please provide it. Shamir deliberately distorted the quote to make it his fit his narrative. That was my point. Maimonides wrote about "northern Turks", which has a certain significance in the geography of the time. (With Maimonides, it was very likely connected to the theory about Sabeans at the four corners of the earth.) He did not write about "Chinese".
Shamir claimed that there would be lots of hits where "Jewish scribes" invoke the "blood libel" to deflect criticism against Jews. He apparently counted on all his readers being too lazy to check it. In fact there are 0 (zero) such hits. To put it differently: there are 0 (zero) instances where Jewish scribes do what Shamir claims. Very simple. Nothing to do with "topical references", whatever that's supposed to mean.
--Denis Diderot 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Expo is dishonest

The problem with Expo is that the organisation isn't as honest as it may appear. For instance, Expo has had (and perhaps still have) connections to the ADL, a pro-Israeli spyorganisation in the U.S. (see www.adlwatch.org). This is problemtic, to say the least.

As if this wasn't bad enough, Expo co-operates with Anti-Fa, a German "anti-Nationalist" left organisation which every year arrange demonstrations in memory of the bombings of Drezden. "Bomber Harris - do it again," they shout. How can they work with people who support the bombings of maybe 100,000 civilians?!

One of Expo's co-workers is Fredrik Malm, a fanatic Zionist who personally knew Zvi Mazel, Israel's former ambassador to Sweden who terrorised the art work of peace activist Dror Feiler. Malm sees "anti-Semitism" everywhere and, needless to say, is a friend of the most devoted Zionists in Sweden.

Expo believes in everything the Zionists tell them. They work with Henrik Bachner and other apologists for Jewish Apartheid, including Helene Lööw who claims that 10 per cent of the Swedish pupils questions the Holocaust. The lies about Shamir is just a part of their propaganda. Shamir doesn't live in Sweden, he lives in Israel. In their piece on Shamir they also claim that he is very marginalised, which makes me wonder: Why spend so much trouble on "exposing" him? Expo is an arm of the Zionist lobby and wants to destroy everyone who calls for equal rights for all in Palestine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krillarsson (talk • contribs) .

Expo is dishonest? Well, maybe so, but the fact that someone who has worked for Expo once was also a friend of some Zionist in Sweden is not quite the kind of proof we're looking for. Please read my post above on Expo, and then feel free to dispute that with a real and accessible source. All the best, Arre 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't based on "the fact that someone who has worked for Expo once", but these are the people who make up Expo. Fredrik Malm, who knows Zvi Mazel and is a ledaing member of Zionists organisations, belongs to Expo's staff.

Before Expo used to say "Thanks to..." to a number of organisations on the backpage of the magasine. ADL was indeed included - even several years after its spying had been exposed in the U.S. Look for yourself! As far as I know Expo has never denounced the ADL. If Shamir is a 'Nazi' through guilt-by-association, then Expo must be a fantic Zionists organisation. But in the later case there's more to it. We know for sure that the Swedish police uses Expo's archive on Swedish citizens. Does the Israeli embassy access it too? Maybe through a 'sayanim' (spy)? I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is 'yes'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krillarsson (talk • contribs) .

This is neither a case against Expo, nor a reply to what I wrote above. This is conspiratorial paranoia. Arre 02:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Denis Diderot (mainly about "Bloodcurdling Libel")

Diderot, I think it is a bit much that you want to criticize Shamir about his deceptive writing, when you insert that ridiculous edit under 'bloodcurdling libel'. I have to presume that you were tired, or under work pressure. So am I, but I chose to insert a stub instead, to which you are welcome to add. Please, try not to so obviously malign Shamir. You use the term ‘false’ three times to characterize the blood libel, and ‘conspiracy theory’ another time. Since you choose to argue about an accusation that Shamir does not once mention in his text: That Jews sacrifice Christian children for blood libation, it is a gratuitous and false reference in relation to this text. Do you have evidence that those accused were falsely accused, please set it that out. Otherwise, stick to the script; it is not about whether Jews are accused, falsely or otherwise, but whether some of the perpetrators of these murders could have been Jews.JohD 09:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm really tired and have a bad cold. But that doesn't prevent me from being right. The blood libel is characterized as false in all standard reference works. This is also the standard Wikipedia should abide by. The view that the blood libel claims didn't constitute false accusations is completely marginal and should therefore be treated as such in Wikipedia articles. Shamir clearly argues that a significant proportion of the accusations were correct:

Over a period of eight hundred years Jews were convicted in more than hundred cases of ritual murder and blood sacrifice Jews were found guilty of. It is a reasonable amount if we think in terms of religious maniacs. Probably any religious community of similar size would produce similar amount of deviants like [the 15th-century marshal of France] Gilles de Rais or Comorre the Cursed [a 6th-century Breton chief]. It would be strange if all the cases were ‘libel’. [---]On the other hand, it is possible that the connection of blood sacrifices and matzo of Passover or homentash of Purim is but a popular belief.

As for the general conspiracy theory. This is Shamir again:

For Israel Yuval, a believing Jew, any evidence given by a convert is ‘suspicious’ and ‘doubtful’, but it is part of longstanding Jewish tradition to discredit non-Jewish evidence.[---]The converts knew what they said, and Yuval confirms it.

The rest follows by obvious implication. If these converts' testimony was reliable, then the conspiracy theory would be true.
--Denis Diderot 09:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I repeat, nowhere in the text does Shamir accuse Jews of practicing sacrifice for Blood libation, he examines whether some of the thousands that were killed for blood sacrifice throughouts the ages in Europe, could have been killed by Jews. He concludes that "It is not inreasonable" to conclude that the limited number represents a proportionate number of accuse and convicted, given the relative demographic of the various religions, could have been guilty. You are inflating this into an issue of whether it is true that Jews practice blood libation or not; which is a false representation of the text. I have not even read the article text, and won't do so until tommorrow; but evidently you still don't 'get it', and insist that every Jew, on all occasions and for all time, is innocent; whether we want to accept it or not. It is self-evidently true as far as you are concerned, and you even insist it is an encyclopedic standard.JohD 13:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The issue is the obvious attempt by Shamir to lend credence to the historic canard of the "Blood Libel" in order to condemn Jews for their treatment of Palestinians. I read the text posted by Denis Diderot and find it to be accurate and fair. --Cberlet 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Johd,
Please don't accuse me of saying stupid things I've never said.
What we're talking about here is, to use Cberlet's phrase, a "historic canard". Think of the witch trials in the 17th century. Perhaps you and Shamir believe that the number of executed witches was reasonable given the probable number of female deviants in a population that size? Although it's possible that the connection with flying brooms may have been but a popular belief.
When you and Shamir call the spuriousness of such accusations an "assumption" or "self-evidently true", you only betray your ignorance. The blood libel myth and the various associated accusations have been studied meticulously by scores of researchers. (An early example would be Cardinal Lorenzo Ganganelli's 18th century report.)
--Denis Diderot 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


“In Bloodcurdling Libel Shamir discusses the blood libels against Jews, false accusations that Jews sacrifice Christians, especially children, and use their blood in religious rituals.”
False! Shamir does not discuss the ‘blood libel against Jews”, but the accusation from Jews, that others are invoking the ‘canard’ of the blood libel. As you, Jayjg and Cberlet are doing here. It is a false predicate, wherein people are falsely accused of saying something they have not said. Show where Shamir suggests that it is true that Jews sacrificed Christians and use their blood in religious rituals. You made it up.
“argues that many of these accusations were in fact true.”
False again!!! You are deliberately confusing specific people that have been accused, and Jews in general. Shamir does not examine any specific case at all. He merely discusses the Jewish perchant to raise this Battle cry whenever an individual Jew is accused of anything. This is an outright fabrication.
“According to Shamir, they are believed to be false mainly because Jews automatically assume that such accusations against other Jews are false.”
Wrong again. Shamir does not make any such suggestion. He is not talking about the specific charges, but the Jewish tendency to conflate an accusation against one Jew, into an accusation against an entire people.
“He also states that the phrase blood libel is a "Jewish battle cry", which is used by Jews as a group to further their agenda, and especially to stifle legitimate criticism of Jews.”
Yes he does. You got something right.
“Shamir suggests that the kidnappings and ritual murders of Christians are carried out by a small group of Jewish "deviants", "magicians and sorcerers who would use human blood to wash off sins or to hasten Salvation".
"No he doesn’t, he suggest that sacrificial murders are a fact of history, but it is a marginal phenomena perpetuated by practitioners of marginal religion, across all denominations and faiths. That sum total of Jews accused throughout history seems to be about proportionate representation of their demographics. So, an accusation against a Jew is not more noteworthy than an accusation against a Protestant, or a Muslim. So to say that ‘kidnappings and ritual murders of Christians are carried out by a small group of Jewish "deviants", is misleading and false. He does not ascribe all such murders to Jews.
“He maintains that these deviants have been protected by other Jews who automatically assumed their innocence.”
Marginally true, but completely false given the inaccurate and false statements that accompany this sentence.
“At one point Shamir appears to go even further, arguing that the testimony in medieval blood libel cases by Jews who had converted to Christianity has been unduly discarded.”
What he actually says is: “For Israel Yuval, a believing Jew, any evidence given by a convert is ‘suspicious’ and ‘doubtful’, but it is part of longstanding Jewish tradition to discredit non-Jewish evidence.”
“and implying that he believes in the entire conspiracy theory about Jews murdering Christian children in secret rituals (as some converts testified), and that the practice was secretly sanctioned by the Jewish leadership (and not just carried out by deviants).”
This is complete rubbish. What is said is this: “The converts knew what they said, and Yuval confirms it. For instance, a convert in Norwich explained that ‘Jews believe that without human blood shed they can’t regain their land and their freedom’. It is, according to Yuval, a correct interpretation of the Ashkenazi idea of Vengeance as the path to Salvation. “Jews actually believed that their Salvation depends on Extermination of Gentiles”, he writes. Yes, they hoped God and/or their Messiah will do the work, but does this caveat amounts to an alibi?”
“On the other hand, Shamir never makes these claims explicitly in his text, and he does allow that it is "possible" that "the connection of blood sacrifices and matzo of Passover or homentash of Purim is but a popular belief."”
It is neither implicit nor explicit, but you are intent on making it so, so you add your own POV. You can use primary tect material to demonstrate how Shamir’s views are controversial, but you cannot make things up, twist its meaning, or otherwise construct arguments in a manner they are not made. I have edited your work to accurately refalect the points you make. Please don't characterize an accurate reflection of the cited text as 'whitewashing'. We have to otherwise assume that without twisting its meaning, misleadingly presenting the arguments therein, and falsely attributing statements to it, you cannot substantiate any of your assertions.JohD 01:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

JohD,

We're dealing with a text by Shamir called "Bloodcurdling Libel"[88]

(1)You claim that Shamir doesn't talk about the blood libel against Jews: "Shamir does not discuss the ‘blood libel against Jews”.

It's impossible to respond to such an absurd claim. He discusses the blood libel against Jews in almost every paragraph. He discusses its political use, its history, the evidence, opinions about it, etc

(2) You claim that Shamir never argues that many accusations were true.

Shamir does exactly that. A large part of the text is devoted to make the accusations credible. Although all his texts are ambiguous, there is no doubt about this. This is from Shamir's text: "Jews were convicted in more than hundred cases of ritual murder and blood sacrifice Jews were found guilty of. It is a reasonable amount [...] It would be strange if all the cases were ‘libel’. [---]On the other hand, it is possible that [a minor detail in the accusations] is but a popular belief."

(3) You claim that this statement is wrong: “According to Shamir, they [the accusations] are believed to be false mainly because Jews automatically assume that such accusations against other Jews are false.”

We've already seen (point 2) that Shamir argues that many of the accusations were true.

Here are quotes from Shamir's text:

The priest murdered in Damascus [a case of blood libel] was hardly a child, but it does not stop Aaronovitch. He knows nothing of the case, but it does not stop him either. He just KNOWS a Jew has to be innocent."

‘Blood Libel’ is the Jewish battle cry, on a par with the ‘Montjoie St Denis’ of the French chevaliers and ‘St. George for merry England’, of the English knights. And whenever it is used, Jews are mobilised into action, and Gentiles are horrified by the accusation and silenced.

The frequent and tendentious use of the horrifying label (together with ‘antisemitism’ and ‘protocols of the Elders of Zion’) brought a certain depreciation of its value, but it is still going strong. You can’t ever-ever consider that there might be some truth to the Blood Libel, the accusation of ritual murder of children.

The last public discussion of blood sacrifice took place less than a hundred years ago.[---]Could the murderer have been driven by some peculiar misconceptions of the Jewish faith? We have seen that the answer is ‘yes’. However, 400 Rabbis wrote a letter to the authorities and to the court denying the very possibility of such a miscreant.[...]The Liberal media accepted philosemitic thesis

There is additional evidence, but this should suffice.

(4) You object to the following sentence in the Wikipedia article:

Shamir suggests that the kidnappings and ritual murders of Christians are carried out by a small group of Jewish "deviants", "magicians and sorcerers who would use human blood to wash off sins or to hasten Salvation".

This is his clearly his proposed explanation. He argues that all major religious groups have similar proportions of deviants,, and as you can see, the part about magicians and sorceres is an exact quote from his text.

(5)You object to the following sentence in the Wikipedia article:

At one point Shamir appears to go even further, arguing that the testimony in medieval blood libel cases by Jews who had converted to Christianity has been unduly discarded.

This is exactly what Shamir does. He criticizes Yuval for doubting the testimony. He accuses Yuval of discarding the testimony simply because they weren't Jewish. Shamir makes clear that he considers their testimony highly reliable.

(6) You claim that Shamir never implies that the general conspiracy theory was true.

As I've already pointed out, this follows logically from his claims that the converts were reliable witnesses. If they were reliable witnesses, then obviously the things they said under oath were true. If the things they said under oath were true, then the general conspiracy theory would be true.

--Denis Diderot 09:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

But the Masters of discourse know better what people are supposed to say. ... They will wait for it like a passionate lover for consummation of his desires, like a brave soldier for the battle call, as they know how to reply. They will insist on it until until we say it, like in the joke.
A Jewish joke tells of a Jew who pestered a Chinese man in a New York subway, "Are you a Jew?" - "No," replied the Chinese. But the Jew asked again and again the same quetion, and the experated Chinese gave up - "yes, I am a Jew." The satisfied Jew smiled at him and said, "Isn't it strange? You do not look like a Jew." 'Our Lady of Sorrow' Page 81- The Collected Essays from the Holy Land - Mar 2005 - Israel Shamir.JohD 14:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Diderot, please do not put words into Shamir's mouth. If he does not say what you wish he had said, then it is too bad, and you have to look elsewhere for what it is you are trying to accuse him of. Please do not call your version NPOV, and mine a whitewash or accuse me of sanitizing it. I am simply rendering accurately what is in the cited text. It is not my choice to have it there in the first place, but if it has to be, then at least describe it accurately, not as you wish it was. Also stop claiming that your extremely biased edits are NPOV, it is far from it, and your animosity towards Shamir is patently evident.JohD 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because of the cold, but I feel really confused. I asked the Omnivore a question and you reply. But the reply is not a reply. It's a quote from Shamir's book. And then it's suddenly a reply from JohD. Perhaps I shouldn't write anything? Perhaps I'll simply add to the confusion in my feverish state.
But I think I'll have to say something. Because your reply takes the form of an accusation. And I don't particularly like accusations. At least not when they're directed at me.
I don't put words into other peoples mouth. That's like being a verbal dentist. It's what Shamir did to a dead guy (Maimonides). What I try to do is to report Shamir's opinions. What he says about things. What does he say about the blood libel against Jews for example? What are his opinions on this topic? I've tried to list his expressed opinions as fairly and accurately as possible. This is not easy, given the deceptive style of Shamir's writings and his affection for ambiguity. I've also listed, on this very talk page, which specific paragraphs and statements in Shamir's text my summary is based on. This way everyone can see that it's an acurate and NPOV summary.
Or that was the idea at least. But apparently you still object to something. I don't see why. To me it seems all very clear.
Why would I have any animosity towards Shamir? I've never met him. Have you? Perhaps he's a really nice guy.
--Denis Diderot 16:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by JohD

But the Masters of discourse know better what people are supposed to say. ... They will wait for it like a passionate lover for consummation of his desires, like a brave soldier for the battle call, as they know how to reply. They will insist on it until until we say it, like in the joke.
A Jewish joke tells of a Jew who pestered a Chinese man in a New York subway, "Are you a Jew?" - "No," replied the Chinese. But the Jew asked again and again the same quetion, and the experated Chinese gave up - "yes, I am a Jew." The satisfied Jew smiled at him and said, "Isn't it strange? You do not look like a Jew." 'Our Lady of Sorrow' Page 81- The Collected Essays from the Holy Land - Mar 2005 - Israel Shamir.JohD 14:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Diderot, please do not put words into Shamir's mouth. If he does not say what you wish he had said, then it is too bad, and you have to look elsewhere for what it is you are trying to accuse him of. Please do not call your version NPOV, and mine a whitewash or accuse me of sanitizing it. I am simply rendering accurately what is in the cited text. It is not my choice to have it there in the first place, but if it has to be, then at least describe it accurately, not as you wish it was. Also stop claiming that your extremely biased edits are NPOV, it is far from it, and your animosity towards Shamir is patently evident.JohD 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Stop moving my stuff around and address the issue. Why do you insist on revising what Shamir writes about? Are you clairvoiyant and can read minds? You stubbornly insist on placing the most ridiculous spin on the cited text, then declare it to be NPOV. It is not NPOV because yous say it is. If you feel my edit is incorrect, then point out why it is incorrect instead of reverting to your false interpretation of the article. If the truth is whitewashing, then obviously there is something wrong with the accusation. Deal with the issue and stop vandalizing the page.JohD 15:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
JohD, let me kindly refer you to the previous section of this talk page where your concerns have been addressed. Your comments were moved[89] since you're presumably not L'Omnivore Sobriquet and you didn't reply to the question I asked him.
--Denis Diderot 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well it is an accusation which you still avoid addressing. I have set out the falsifications in your edit above in some detail. But just in case you feel that you can dance around the issues, let me put them in stark terms:
  1. Why do you insist on writing that Shamir suggests that the blood libel is true? You do this by deliberately confusing the (false) belief that Jews practice Blood scarifice of Christian victims, and the specific accusations against individual Jews throughout history. You cannot possibly miss the major theme of this text - that Jews deliberately confuse accusations against individuals, with accusations against an entire people. It clearly demonstrates your bias on this issue. First you suggest that Shamir is discussing the (false) blood libel that Jews (plural, as in Jewish practice) practice blood sacrifice, then you go on to state that Shamir argues that many (singular cases) of these cases could be true. In this case, it cannot be but a deliberate and underhanded lie.
  2. You go on in this childishly deceptive manner by suggesting (again) that Shamir suggests that the (false) defamation of Jews is believed to be false because “Jews automatically assume that such accusations against other Jews are false.” This is a deliberate distortion of the text, wherein Shamir discusses the brohouha surrounding these cases, by suggesting it is a result of Jews automatically assuming an accused Jew is innocent. Nowhere does Shamir suggest the (false) blood libel against Jews (the Group) is true. This is another deliberate lie.
  3. Further on you suggest that Shamir believes the ‘conspiracy theory’. As far as I am aware, the only conspiracy theory attached to this issue is one that suggests that it is a secret Jewish practice to slaughter Christians for their blood. Nowhere in the text does Shamir suggest this or say it. It is another deliberate lie.
  4. To bolster your lies, you invent the conspiracy theory that converts testified that it was Jewish practice to ritually slaughter Christians. The truth is that Shamir examines evidence from Jewish converts in a specific instance; about Jewish religious belief that salvation will come from blood sacrifice, not that Jews believed they had to kill people in order to achieve salvation. Shamir makes absolutely plain that he understands this religious canon for what it is, not that he believes the (imagined) evidence you believe they gave. It is another lie.
  5. Then to make up for it all, you tell another fib lie; that Shamir does not make it explicit in the text, but that you can read between the lines. Presto, it is not all lies, you only have to demonstrate your powers of clairvoyance. We are waiting, demonstrate these powers you have to read minds, and determine what people are really saying, as opposed to the written record.
That you can falsely attempt to pin such morally reprehensible attitudes onto an individual with such abandon, utilizing a pack of lies, speaks volumes about your animosity towards Shamir. It is as stark a demonstration of pure hate as I have ever seen. Clearly you are the bigot here, as I cannot fathom that you would be so bereft of comprehension that you cannot understand a simple text, and have to pretend it is deceptive, to cover for your deception. You want to claim it is deceptive, so that you can claim it says whatever you think it says. Obviously, embarrasment is not even an issue for you.JohD 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question to L'Omnivore Sobriquet

M Sobriquet,

Would you please explain your specific objections to the section based on "Bloodcurdling Libel". When you reverted to JohD's version, you only provided the following explanation:

"Conspiracy theories soapbox, rv to JohD" [90]

What do you mean?

--Denis Diderot 11:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only are you ignoring my comments, you want to push me out of the way as well. That is simply rude and uncivil and reflects poorly on you, exposes your inability to back up your edits and reverts, and demonstrates bad faith.JohD 16:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


(here 'tis)

The discussion about the ‘Bloodcurdling Libel’ paragraph is getting a bit odd, and the editions of the article itself a bit harsh again. The fact is, JohD and DDiderot is hard opposition on the presentation of very similar fact – Shamir’s quotes - and again we’re all witnessing in the article page the “Don’t touch my version!” behaviour of le bel encyclopédiste we’re so familiar with. To me, there is not link between reading Shamir’s text, and soapboxin’ for conspiracy theory in hooliganic manners. I certainly reckon much of the quotes and topics pointed out by DDiderot are correct, just as JohD’s proposed entry is correct, in quotes, topics and presentation. So let’s detail:

From the discussion above:

1. Does Shamir talk about the blood libel against Jews ? Well, he does talk about it all along the text, of course. A good remark. But no, he doesn’t. I’ll just paste JohD’s sentence : “Shamir does not discuss the ‘blood libel against Jews”, but the accusation from Jews, that others are invoking the ‘canard’ of the blood libel.”, a point I had already highlighted too. It is unadressed still, and apparently will never be. It’s very important to underline that the 1st sentence of the archaïc version of the article: “In Bloodcurdling Libel Shamir discusses the blood libels against Jews, false accusations that Jews sacrifice Christians, especially children, and use their blood in religious rituals” misses the point entirely, and sets the tune for the rest of the paragraph.

2. Allright Shamir does write that some accusations were founded on truth, that “It would be strange if all the cases were ‘libel’”, but the text still isn’t about establishing that they were true. It discusses the “Bloodcurdling Libel” in its contemporary existence, quite thoroughly, so traces its ancient roots, checks on eventual truth, distortions, reviews usage. This is no deceiving writing to clamour a conspiracy theory, at all, and cannot be presented as such. It’s a fair minded exposure of a modern truth, the one of ‘blood libel’, alive and well in today’s central discourse. (Giving many exemples.) It is not at all a discussion on whether those medieval legends (or ‘ways of expressions’ as he notices) should be held as true. Only squeezed phantomesques white dreams about “Shamir’s deceiving way of writing” or “Although all his texts are ambiguous, …” could fuel those inventions : click on the appropriate website then, not here. Of course Shamir questions whether accusations were true, it’s a part of a well done job on the matter, just a part.

But it is false to write that he “argues that many of these accusations were in fact true.”, as put in the cberdiderot pamphlet, because his argumentations are on another matter, because he doesn’t give credence to MANY of the accusations – in fact he diminishes their potential number to about zero - , because he doesn’t allow the “true” label on THESE accusations which are the coarsest antisemitic legends, because he doesn’t write nor imply that the reader should endorse them, as the deceiving “in fact true” presents it. The quote presented by Denis simply yells it : there may have been true crimes and true culprits, yet the medieval legendary accusations are but thin air, as such. (later he proposes to read them as an ‘achaïc expression of resistance against capitalism’; not at all that they should be held as “in fact true”. The opposite : that they were burgeoning conscience. Fuzzy and coarse.) The text “BLOODCURDLING LIBEL (a summer story)” [91] isn’t about establishing that they were true: it is fondly opposed to reviving them, indeed, in a radical contestation of the modern status of these medieval caricatures. The wiki article’s section that cyber DD flies to revert ‘n rescue in a whoosh states exactly the contrary, so let’s dispose of it instead.

3. The sentence “According to Shamir, they are believed to be false mainly because Jews automatically assume that such accusations against other Jews are false.” Allright, not that wrong, but this phrasing shows Shamir, explicitely “according to Shamir”, as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist, with its “mainly because”, and “Jews automatically”. In fact, the lenthy quote proposed to support this version doesn’t evoke ‘main causes’ nor does it put general automation on Jews. JohD commented on the issue with “[Shamir] is not talking about the specific charges,” which is very true, “but the Jewish tendency to conflate an accusation against one Jew, into an accusation against an entire people.” which better describes the point. The Shamir quote supports JohD’s summary, not DenisD’s. However, no big difference on the bottom understanding, so let’s better the presentation.

4. The article sentence : “Shamir suggests that the kidnappings and ritual murders of Christians are carried out by a small group of Jewish "deviants", "magicians and sorcerers who would use human blood to wash off sins or to hasten Salvation.” ” is misleading. Clearly, Shamir states something close to it : it is not negating his thougths, but traversties it. I’ll just agree with JohD’s two sentences about that archaïc version : “he suggest that sacrificial murders are a fact of history, but it is a marginal phenomena perpetuated by practitioners of marginal religion, across all denominations and faiths.” “So, [following Shamir’s reasoning] an accusation against a Jew is not more noteworthy than an accusation against a Protestant, or a Muslim.”. And “He does not ascribe all such murders to Jews.” which is the key point, showing how mediocre and misleading the archaïc presentation was. Again, mr. DDiderot certainly can read well, but pushes an ambiguity. A newer phrasing is favored.

5. The article sentence : “At one point Shamir appears to go even further, arguing that the testimony in medieval blood libel cases by Jews who had converted to Christianity has been unduly discarded.” Well, JohD and DDiderot are basically agreed here. Let’s admit the phraseology of the article would fit better in a football supporters’ fanzine, though.

The article sentence : “and implying that he believes in the entire conspiracy theory about Jews murdering Christian children in secret rituals (as some converts testified), and that the practice was secretly sanctioned by the Jewish leadership (and not just carried out by deviants).” is indeed rubbish. This ‘implies conspiracy theories’ stuff is just what wikipedia strives against. It won’t last here. As for tiny points of dispute on Shamir’s presentation of Yuval’s works, I refuse to care, so will give a good grade to both if you will. This is a short article, and much here in the talkpage has been written already on this little problem.

The article sentence : “On the other hand, Shamir never makes these claims explicitly in his text, and he does allow that it is "possible" that "the connection of blood sacrifices and matzo of Passover or homentash of Purim is but a popular belief."” is a poor attempt at fake OTOH-based honnesty, not correcting but furthering the error that Shamir is intent in restoring those field-work stories as “in fact true”, while glaringly profiting on the occasion to slip-in a facile and gratuitious general warning that Shamir doesn’t write explicitely what he writes… I second every word of JohD’s comment on it, here. So we have a fake OTOH-based Neutral Point of View lookalike, ending the paragraph started with a first line that entirely misses the point, and would fit better a Sweedish skinhead than Israel Adam Shamir. The rest in between should be equally discarded.

6. Denis Diderot’s sentence : “As I've already pointed out, this follows logically from his claims that the converts were reliable witnesses. If they were reliable witnesses, then obviously the things they said under oath were true. If the things they said under oath were true, then the general conspiracy theory would be true.” has a flaw. A general conspiracy theory is precisely not a reliable deposition under oath; if the latter were true, the general conspiracy theory still would be disconnected to it. No logical link. (the GCT is independent from the precise tribunal hearings; if they were to stritcly match, by sheer luck, then they’d be no GCT anymore, they’d be Reliable Common Knowledge, already published by reputable sources)


The above calls for an establishment of JohD’s version, which has just been reverted off by Cberlet, Denis Diderot and Cberlet, without an attempt at edition, for a lack of mendatory soapboxing for conspiracy theory, I would guess. Enough of it. Take substantiated remarks and edits into account. Address the former ones, better the latter ones. l'Omnivore Sobriquet 17:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm afraid I still don't understand what you mean by "soapboxin’ for conspiracy theory in hooliganic manners", but never mind.
Why do you think that my attitude is "don't touch my version"? Jayjg made several changes to the text that I considered an improvement. I disagree with you about JohD's proposed changes They were not correct and not NPOV.
Many of your objections to the pre-JohD version appear to be based on a misunderstanding that we've already discussed. We're not writing a summary or review of Shamir's text. We're writing a summary of Shamir's opinions on a certain topic based on one or more of his writings. Therefore, any objections along the lines that "the text is not about this" or "the text is written from a different angle" are irrelevant. The issue is what Shamir says, not how or why he says it. The paragraph in question deals with Shamir's expressed opinions about the blood libel against Jews and the alleged associated misuse of references to "blood libel".
Only the very last part deals with the full-blown conspiracy theory. (Perhaps you prefer that wording to "general conspiracy theory"?) It's clear that Shamir doesn't reduce the potential number of guilty to 0 as you claim, except in the sense that he admits that his "evidence" is circumstantial at best. He does argue very strongly that many were guilty, which is clear from "On the other hand, it is possible". Thus it's not "possible" (meaning "extremely unlikely") that they were all innocent.
"the Jewish tendency to conflate an accusation against one Jew, into an accusation against an entire people". This is simply an opinion that you, JohD , and Shamir happen to share. It's clearly not NPOV.
Your objections concerning the "general conspiracy theory" seem to be more concerned with wording than substance. If a witness testifies under oath that he saw the suspect on numerous occasions flying on her broom and receiving money from the devil, then we have a choice. We may either say that the witness is reliable, in which case the suspect did fly on a broom and did receive money from the devil. Or we may say that the witness is unreliable, in which case it's possible that the accusations were false.
--Denis Diderot 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


(note : to me the username “Denis Diderot” is inappropriate. See WP:U [[92]]

("Fairly or unfairly, the line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is drawn by those who find the username inappropriate, not by the creator of the name."

(and

("Users have been blocked in the past for choosing usernames which were perceived as impersonation attempts on present users, or gave the impression of being "official"".

(“Denis Diderot” is indeed an impersonation attempt, of a most “official” encyclopedia editor… so, wild controversies ahead perhaps, on whether it’s actually a “present user” or “impressing” etc… with a neat Userblock at stance : Do you like sports ?) l'Omnivore Sobriquet 17:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't like my user name. Perhaps I should switch to someting more neutral like "Lecrique" or something. But I quite like it, and I think it fits the Wikipedia project very well. Also I should add that I'm quite a fan of Diderot and I've read most of his published works. Though of course I disagree with many of his opinions. I'm afraid I don't understand your question about sports. What has that got to do with anything?

--Denis Diderot 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you now resort to the use of meatpupets to enforce the lies. You cannot argue your case, but simply insist on lies. You revert until you cannot revert anymore, then you get one of your meatpupets to revert for you. Both yourself & Cbertlet are frauds, here pretending that you uphold wiki standards, but instead undermine every concept of fair play and intelligent debate. You insult our intelligence with grade school misinterpretation of text, deliberate falsehoods, unsupported allegations, and made up material about what you think the author was thinking. You spend an extrodinary amount of time editing the page of someone you obviously hate with a passion. You should not be allowed to edit this page at all, given your perchant for editing in complete falsehoods, and making up accusations against the subject as you go. I have accepted the concept of verifiable information, and verifiable information being of higher value than the truth, but when unverified falsehoods are propagated, I draw the line. You are an obvious bigot, with an animus towards the subject.JohD 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
JohD, I've already told you that I have no personal relationship to the man who calls himself Israel Shamir. You told Cberlet that he should lie down because he was too emotional.[93] Don't you think that you may infer too much about people's motives from their disagreement with you? And what's with all this "use of meatpuppets" stuff? What are you trying to say? That I control other Wikipedia users? Is this some kind of strange conspiracy theory? As for your objections, I think I've given sufficient answers. See also the reply to the Omnivore above, where I've explained some more.
--Denis Diderot 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Joh Domingo has accused everyone he disagrees with here of having "animus" towards Shamir; yet the plain truth is that the only editor here with a direct relationship with Shamir are Joh himself, a fervent supporter of Shamir's who is even published on Shamir's personal website, and "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", who came to edit this article in response to a direct appeal by Shamir himself on a fan board. Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Write what you want, I am tired of listening to garbage masqueradng as intelligent debate. Truth is not relevant, it is what we make of the words of Shamir, not what the words itself means. Up is down, right is wrong - all garbage!!! Write what you wantJohD 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

JohD,
Shamir likes to present his opinions in an ambiguous and emotionally colored (usually a sense of unfair prosecution or repression) setting. If I may use a metaphor, Shamir speaks in a dimly lit room to a supportive audience, telling them that the truth has been supressed, but that it's "out there", supported by a few brave souls such as himself. His speech is not very clear at all, in fact it's outright misleading, but that doesn't matter because it evokes an emotional sentiment that finds resonance with the audience. It brings about a sense of purpose and group solidarity. The ambiguity is necessary to bring about this group feeling. If the speech was clearer and more distinct, people would immediately start to argue and disagree. But when it primarily resonates on the emotional level, each listener may create his own interpretation and pretend that everyone agrees.
What we do in the Wikipedia article, when we give very brief summaries of Shamir's views, is to strip away much of the ambiguity and emotional setting. It's as if someone brought Shamir out into the naked light, so to speak. It creates a different emotional context for his statements. This may seem very brutal to some of Shamir's fans, but it's rather unavoidable, I'm afraid, if we're to present his opinions in a clear, accurate and NPOV manner.
Now to your specific objections:
(1) "Why do you insist on writing that Shamir suggests that the blood libel is true?"
I say that it at one point appears that Shamir supports the whole blood libel theory. Yuval, as all other scholars I've read, treats testimony from converts very cautiously because of what these converts said. (Compare what I said to the Omnivore above about suspects on brooms.) Shamir says that this is wrong, that the testimony of these converts needs to be taken seriously. More than that, he argues that Yuval discards their testimony merely because they weren't Jewish anymore. This would imply that there isn't any other good reason to doubt their testimony. Also he makes clear that he considers their testimony reliable in general.
(2) "Nowhere does Shamir suggest the (false) blood libel against Jews (the Group) is true. This is another deliberate lie."
This has already been partly answered above, but the first part of the paragraph doesn't refer to the blood libel myth as such ("one that suggests that it is a secret Jewish practice to slaughter Christians for their blood"). The first part refers to the actual accusations against individual Jews that constituted the tangible aspect of the blood libel. Shamir clearly argues that many of these accusations were bound to have been correct. He proposes, just as he says about the Damascus and Beilis cases, that Jews who reacted as a group, taking the suspects innocence for granted, in effect protected and helped the guilty in many cases.
(3)"Further on you suggest that Shamir believes the ‘conspiracy theory’."
This has already been answered under (1).
(4) "To bolster your lies, you invent the conspiracy theory that converts testified that it was Jewish practice to ritually slaughter Christians."
But that's exactly what they did. Perhaps you don't know so much about the history of the blood libel? It's a somewhat esoteric subject, I suppose.
(5) "Then to make up for it all, you tell another fib lie; that Shamir does not make it explicit in the text, but that you can read between the lines"
This has also been answered under (1) and explained in my reply to the Omnivore above.
--Denis Diderot 13:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The irony here is that the version of the paragraph that I created consisted mostly of direct quotes of Shamir's article; in fact, what Shamir did "make explicit in the text". Yet, that too was rejected as somehow presenting a false view. I suspect your point that when the text is brought out into the naked light it seems rather brutal to Shamir's fans is quite correct. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

At first glance, he looked intriguing, but then I read him in more detail and found that he seems to hold many dangerous view, amongst them seems to be his support for Joseph Stalin, which can be found in such articles as this Easter report (he seems to defend Joseph Stalin, while berrating Western democracies and even has a few derogatory things to say about the Fourth International). Can there be some mention of this? I think it is worth noting. -- 69.248.43.27 13:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rewrite?

This is a controversial page. Please do not do a major rewrite without discussing each paragraph one at a time.--Cberlet 13:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that another rewrite is underway, now by editor named Israel shamir (talk • contribs). Adding the OR tag for now. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a rewrite

This article needs rewrite. Quotes wbout himself that have been inserted long time ago are not anymore up to date as his website has been updated. Links are disfunctional, and IMHO, it is way to long. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Israel Shamir Notable?

I don't understand what makes him a notable figure. I haven't heard of him before, and this entire article seems to be solely about the fact that he is a liar and an anti semite. What makes him special? Guy Montag 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

He is clearly notable, and as much as I am a critic of Israel Shamir the above statement violates several Wiki policies. It is hard enough to balance this page without such statements aimed at garnering support for nominating for deletion--which would be innapropriate. Please avoid personal attacks. --Cberlet 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood his tone, he was saying that that seems to be the only thing that is suggested that makes him notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One sided article, solely oriented to dispute the person

This is not an article for an Encyclopedia. It is a one sided attack aimed at making people despise Israel Shamir. The article starts off and is solely oriented by the interest in rebuffing his sayings and thinking, even the facts of his life, instead of presenting the profile of the person, reviewing his main ideas from a scientific as possible ("encyclopedic") perspective, and then highlighting the controversial issues around his thinking and personality. The whole structure of the article is guided by the original purpose of disputing every single idea of the author. I am not defending Shamir, whose ideas I am not familiar with. I am criticizing the heavily biased orientation of the writer(s) of the article. Actually, after reading it, I will not dare to make an opinion about him, because the article is at least as radical as his views seem to be - and obviously this is not the purpose of Wikipedia, as stated in its webpage and as expected by readers.


SKIP WIKIPEDIA and go directly to his articles. If you read them you will get a far better idea of the man and his ideas than this overlong, biased attempt at character assasination - and save alot of time too.

  • I totally agree. This article definitely doesn't adhere to the NPOV. Keep the critisism of the man but don't make the article seem like it is written for the zionist encyclopedia. He is a literary figure as well not only an anti-zionist. Marwan123 08:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your correct in pointing out that we should take a neutral pov, but we also shouldn't avoid the mention of actual facts and controversies because it might "make people despise Shamir". The fact is he's a odd fringe figure who often makes claims that are either not true, or very unlikely to be true. I'll be the first person to point out that people make false claims to make themselves seem more important, more exciting, pick up women, etc all the time, but in Shamir's case the entire basis of his public statements and views are based on false pretenses of being someone he simply is not.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Regardless of who Shamir is, an article about a journalist who also cotributed to literature in an encyclopedia should not start with "Israel Shamir is a writer and journalist who is known as a controversial anti-Zionist" and "Many people have disputed Shamir's account of his career and background.[2][3][4]" His controvesies, questionable resume, anti-semitism, etc..can be discussed in a seperate section, which is already the largest section in the article, called controversies about shamir for example. You also don't have to mention a reference three times to make your point. Let us write on the wikipedia what we know not what we believe. Thanks for your response Moshe Marwan123 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/r/Talk%7EIsrael_Shamir_7975.html"