Talk:Michael Neumann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Note do not link the Michael Hoffman in this article to the wikipedia article about the director, they are different people! Jbolden1517 17:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Notes for next person (from author of 4/25/06 version)

I'm throwing in the towel on this edit war. If anyone cares I've archived the old talk Talk:Michael Neumann/4-25-06, but it amounts to an "is so" "is not" discussion so any admin should feel free to delete.

OK hopefully at some point in the future someone decides to do something useful with this article. If so here is where you stand (all dates refer to the main article):

  1. The 06:33, 25 April 2006 contains links to Neumann's articles and links to articles about him which are NPOV. That version of the article lacks any real analysis but it does provide a lot of useful non controversial information. Its being censored without being read, but hopefully that won't happen to (or you are an admin and could do something about it)
  1. The 13:58, 24 April 2006 is highly POV. However it has a lot more information than the later edit
    1. It provides some explanation about what specifically got him into the New anti-Semitism article
    2. It ties this in with the Zionology article
    3. It discussses his advocacy of political violence. The links are pretty easy if you just do a websearch. A Neumann and violence piece is going to end up bordering on original research
    4. It explains what the "council for peace and security" link is for. Without it the link in the main article makes no sense
    5. It provides the context of the CTR debate which obviously has to get covered.
  1. I have the start of a text version of a thesis tieing "What's Left" (1988) into the positions he takes a decade later Israel Palestine. We can discuss by email if you want.
  1. To real do this guy justice requires a POV piece. I think I may write it on wikiinfo so check there assuming you are coming back by say 5/31/06 or later.

Good luck with your work. Jbolden1517 19:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

(moved from SV's talk page) In this edit of yours: [1] you removed the qualifiers on the categories which prevents them from appearing in the correct order. Without the qualifiers, Michael Neumann will appear under the M category -- all the other individuals in that category only have last names that start with M. I am adding them back, if you remove them please explain why Michael Neumann is being treated differently that most others. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Grasshopper. I noticed someone had removed an external link so I went into an older version and copied it from there. In so doing, I must have inadvertently copied the old cats too. My apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section

I didn't remove anything. We had an edit conflict. It was your edit that failed to take. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teaches philosophy

I removed that he is a professor of philosophy, because there's no indication on the faculty website that he's a professor, apart from in the North American sense of "teacher." Many, if not most, people use professor to mean someone who holds a chair. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple references in articles to him having students, both from him and from the CJC and from campus newspaper. He teaches. jbolden1517Talk 02:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That's what I wrote. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What? Check out his department made faculty page: [2] -- it clearly lists him as "Professor of Philosophy". Can you point me to which website you were examining? Could you add it back in. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (Somehow his comment was deleted)
(yet another edit conflict) Grasshopper reverted me, saying "see talkm" but then didn't leave anything on talk. This is not a North American website. We don't use terms according only to their North American meaning. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

(moved from SV's talk page) What's up with removing this claim? It states so on his faculty maintained page - look at the title "Professor of Philosphy": [3] --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

LLG, could you please stop leaving notes about articles on my talk page? Article talk pages are for comments about articles. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I did leave a comment on talk but jbolden1517 removed it -- check the history: [4]. Anyways, check out the Wikipedia article on Professor and please explain why Neumann doesn't fit the category. If this continued to be a problem, we should take this to RfC because I really can't see where you are coming from. Thanks. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I should add that if you go through the faculty pages some faculty are only described as "Associate Professor of Philosophy" [5] [6]. Thus this indicates the faculty is using the proper disambiguating form of professor to indicate tenure appointments. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] replacing controversy section

[edit] Controversy

He has attracted controversy with his opinion essays about the Israel-Palestine conflict and anti-Semitism, published by the CounterPunch website/newsletter. [1] [2]

His position is that anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic acts are given too much attention and that they are "particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict" [3] and that "the definition of 'anti-Semitism' has been manipulated for political ends." [2] He has written that "[w]e should almost never take anti-Semitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it." [3] He has also written that he grew up in Jewish culture (he says his parents were German-Jewish refugees) and that "like many people growing up in a culture, I have come to dislike it. But it is unwise to count my dislike as antisemitic, not because I am Jewish, but because it is harmless." [1]

He has also had an e-mail exchange with the Jewish Tribal Review, an antisemitic website. In his e-mail correspondance, he said “I should perhaps have said I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.” [7] This has led some to remark that he may encouraging antisemitism [8]

He was a contributor to Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's 2003 collection The Politics of Anti-Semitism. [4] ISBN 1902593774

I would like to replace this section with the proposed section below, for the following reasons: (1) We should be allowed to gradually include a full spectrum of Neumann's views on anti-Semitism and the Israel-Palestine conflict, instead of just views that have generated controversy. (2) The writeup above too often refers to secondary sources which quote Neumann. We should instead refer to Neumann's original pieces. (3) Neumann's thoughts on anti-Semitism should be placed in more context. (4) We should give more references to criticism in the press, as well as to Neumann's defense.

[edit] Israel-Palestine conflict and anti-Semitism

Neumann is a contributor to Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's 2003 collection The Politics of Anti-Semitism. [5] ISBN 1902593774

He has written on anti-Semitism and the Israel-Palestine conflict in several opinion essays published by the CounterPunch website/newsletter. [1] [2] [6] Neumann argues [1] that "we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues." He then states that Israel's goal is the extinction of the Palestinian people, adding "True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims." Thus Neumann views Arab antisemitism as trivial in the larger context of the Israel-Palestine conflict: "Undoubtedly there is genuine antisemitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee's last letter." He brings his argument to a conclusion as follows: "In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn't, but who cares?"

In 2002, Neumann had an e-mail exchange with the Jewish Tribal Review, an anti-Semitic website. In his correspondence, he said “I should perhaps have said I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.” [9] After the resulting outcry in the National Post and elsewhere, [10] [11] Neumann explained and defended these remarks on his Israel-Palestinian page [12].

In the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Neumann opines [2] that it is dangerous to label as anti-Semitic the conclusion that "Jews, generally, had some responsibility for war crimes and human rights violations." He writes: "The best way to reserve "anti-Semitism" as a term of condemnation is to define it as hatred of Jews, not for what they do but for what they are. It is to hate them just because they belong to a certain ethnic group. Foxman is right to suggest that you can be an anti-Semite without expressing any racist sentiments: Many anti-Semites confine themselves to expounding false claims about Jewish control. But you can also, without harboring anti-Semitic hate, criticize Israel and even the Jewish community for its failures."

Neumann takes the position [6] that support of Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is against US interests: "Just imagine if the US stopped backing Israel and gave even moderate support to the Palestinians. Suddenly Islam and America would be on the same side. The war on terror would become a cakewalk. The credibility of American democracy would skyrocket in the Middle East." 204.210.35.48 23:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Tribal Review

I think there is serious problems with discussing this Jewish tribal review email as "Neumann said in an email" with regards to an email he has questioned the veracity of. Neumann has taken some pretty strong stances. On the issue of Jewish Tribal review he has been uniformly hostile. To present an email he may have written to a site he openly attacks on a subject he was written at length about based on comments from people would trust anything else they say strikes me as completely unfair. Neumann has a large public body of work you can analyze, why pick something in a private body whose authenticity is questionable? jbolden1517Talk 13:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jb, can you say where Neumann has said the e-mail is not from him? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't actually deny it he just isn't sure, here is the quote:
Take the material that has caused the most outrage, a private email correspondence allegedly reproduced on the Jewish Tribal Review site. I have never denied that such a correspondence occurred, but only said the truth: that the site is not to be trusted, and that, lacking the original emails, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I am distressed that the CJC has made so much of the material, not because it embarrasses me, but because it legitimates a truly poisonous, truly antisemitic site.
Later he goes on to explain where the quotes may have come from:
I am the first to admit, and regret, the disturbing and intemperate language of the paragraph, but in context its meaning is not alarming. My correspondent has reproached me for showing no interest in further investigations into Jewish power. Having failed to demonstrate that Jews control America, he nevertheless wants me to endorse open-ended, unsystematic investigations into Jewish ownership. He wants me, that is, to help him dig up dirt on the Jews, in the guise of pursuing The Truth. In this context, it could hardly be clearer that my reply concerns my political writing, not my academic work. My political writing has a political, not an academic purpose; it is to help the Palestinians. For reasons detailed in the "Jewish power' article under discussion, I believe that the myth of Jewish control of America - an antisemitic myth - harms and discredits the Palestinian cause. So I say that, even if it is true that Jews own this or that or the other thing, I am not *interested* in such truths.
You can verify the quote on his personal home page.
jbolden1517Talk 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
He's admitting he wrote the e-mails; he's just claiming not to have his own copies of them, so he can't check every single word. But he's not denying that he wrote them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously your call, if you want to put it back in. But IMHO his position is a little more subtle than that. He's agreeing he wrote some emails to JTR. He's agreeing they contained lines like the ones CJC quotes. He however indicates the CJC quotes are out of context (which means we would be quoting them out of context in the way Gilead had the quote). So as I see it:
  • We can quote the CJC but then we are asserting that JTR is a reliable source. Which I don't think anyone sane wants
  • We can quote the material from the Neumann letter (but then it doesn't have the punch) it has to do with Neumann he's not interested in exploring secret Jewish conspiracies
  • We can discuss the controversy (which is what I had in my old version).
I guess I don't see the reason to throw the quote out without context. I think its a smear (and remember I think the guy is a new anti-semitie so its not like I'm blinded to his over the line comments). Anyway just my $.02 I'll yield to your decision. jbolden1517Talk 02:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that reproducing a quote in the National Post entails asserting that JTR is a reliable source. If the Atlanta Constitution fingers the wrong Olympic bombing suspect based on faulty sources, that is a mistake. If Wikipedia then remarked "The Atlanta Constitution said its sources fingered so and so," that does not imply that Wikipedia is viewing the newspaper's sources as reliable. If Wikipedia ends up using the quote, I do think that we should point out that Neumann said it was taken out of context and we should give a link to his defense (as I did in Table of Contents item 7 above). Precis 14:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Read your passage. You present Neumann's quotes out of context the way the CJC presented them. For example if you frame the quote as:
Refusing to get involved in Jewish Tribal Review's open ended inquirery into "Jewish control" he indicated that his desire was to help the Palestinians not spread anti-semetic ideas for the own sake, “I should perhaps have said I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care."''
That's still pretty strong but I think it fairly represents his position on the quote. If we are going to source the quote then lets source the quote JTR's Neumann page and not pretend we are just quoting the CJC. The context the CJC pulled it from defends Neumann's explanation

If the National Post reports that Jesse Jackson called NYC "Hymietown", and Jackson responded that this was taken out of context, do you feel that Wikipedia would have to explain the context (according to Jackson) before using the National Post quote? I would think it would suffice to report just what happened: "The National Post reported abc and Jackson explained that the context was xyz." That being said, I think we can reach some sort of compromise here, but it will help if you clarify your position. First you suggest that it is wrong to quote the JTR page because JTR has no credibility (e.g., maybe they doctored the quotes). Then you turn around and suggest we rely on the JTR page to help provide the context for Neumann's case. Which is it? Precis 22:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Added note: For a comical illustration of how unreliable the JTR Neumann page site is, look at item 5, which claims that Jews are calling for censorship of Neumann. When you follow the link, you see that JTR confused the words "censor" and "censure". Precis 00:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my position (now remember you are asking for a position so I'm freely expressing POV here):
  1. Neumann has a large public record of his opinions on these issues. Are analysis of his opinions on Israel and Antisemitism can be done solely on the basis of these public undisputed documents and that's what we should use for any analysis
  2. The CJC was dishonest in their presentation and for all practical purposes lied. If I said, "Jack thinks that Darth Vadar is Han Solo's father" and you say, " jbolden1517 said 'Darth Vadar is Han Solo's father'" you are word for word quoting me correctly but by removing context lying. And that is what I think the CJC did.
  3. Wikipedia cannot take a stand as strong as I indicate in point 2. However providing a full context comes pretty close and is within our desecration. So in other words I consider the CJC untrustworthy I consider the JTR untrustworthy and I believe Neumann's story. All evidence points to Neumann's story being correct (more on this below)
  4. The discussion of this incident should be part of a controversy / historical section and not part of an ideological analysis since I think the quotes are out of context.
  5. As part of a historical discussion there is no problem in citing JTR since everyone agrees that's where these quotes originated from. Further the context on the JTR website supports Neumann.
Now why I do I believe Neumann? The purpose of JTR is to look into Jewish control (hidden and open) of American society and how this control undermines white america and christianity. Given that I find it plausible they asked the questions that Neumann claimed they asked. The early critique shows they saw Neumann as a possibly kindred soul sort of playing the same role for American antisemites that Israel Shamir does for Russian anti-semities but that this didn't work out. That essentially agrees with Neumann's position. The CJC doesn't claim to have an independent source. So here I see all the evidence available supporting Neumann.
Moreover unlike Jackson, Neumann is not a politician. He seems perfectly willing to take highly unpopular stances on a wide range of issues. So while I would believe that Jackson would lie I'm not as sure Neumann would. Further I don't see any evidence of him supporting the kinds of theories JTR he has explained his theory on the Jewish lobby and the American/Israeli alliance and he doesn't see it the same way JTR does. So there is your answer. I'd rather not have to discuss this, since I think its bad propaganda, but it comes up as some new revelation every single time his name gets mentioned. Wikipedia prides itself on honest assessment of facts, we should be treating this like flat earth claims not like republican vs. democratic claims. jbolden1517Talk 01:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I find your defense of Neumann unconvincing. Nevertheless, I've taken out the JTR stuff, because your idea of putting it into a separate section (called Controversy, e.g.) is a good one. I suggest you write that section from a npov. If it's good, perhaps we'll have consensus that the National Post quotes aren't needed. Precis 07:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] critique of Neumann removed

I removed the following "critique of Neumann" section:

  • Ardeshir Mehta argues that Neumann fails 5 criteria of morality (like universality). The Spineless Left
  • Joseph Massad a well known Palestinian activist at Columbia argues that America's poor relations with the Arab world are primarily a result of anti democratic activities within individual countries, and thus would not be reversed by simply "changing sides" in the Jewish-Arab war for political control of Israeli territory.
  • Wikipedia's discussion of New anti-Semitism contains a section on Michael Neumann
  • Israel Shamir argues that Neumann's attempt to persuade American Jews will be unsuccessful and that the left should adopt a policy of orchestrating Jewish political isolation in the United states. Neumann does not seem to have either supported or repudiated this view.
  • Canadian Jews News reports on possible student intimidation http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=993


Here is the reason. First of all, it is not npov to have our own little critique section (do we have a praise section?). Secondly, here is my specific objection to each item above.
  1. The Mehta article is taken from an unpublished personal blog and is not a reputable source.
  2. Massad doesn't even mention Neumann, so this is not a critique of Neumann; rather it serves only to provide counterarguments.
  3. Reference to discussion of New anti-Semitism does not belong in a "critique of Neumann" section.
  4. The Shamir and CJC articles should be placed in the earlier section. I'll try to do this.

I'll comment on the JTR addition later. Precis 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

BTW I notice there are links to Neumann's stuff. I've organized Neumann's articles already. If you look at the [13] version of the article you'll see his articles organized. jbolden1517Talk 01:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revision of JTR section

I've revised this, keeping the spirit, while removing lots of irrelevant or trivial items and correcting a number of mistakes. Precis 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you changed the spirit. You've eliminated the context of his statement, that it was in response to a specific request on a specific topic. Do you see the difference? jbolden1517Talk 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of what the context is. What would you say to the following? "Responding to JTR email questioning his focus, Neumann explained his strategy: "My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose." Precis 03:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think its a reasonable compromise and I could live with it, however I'm not sure Neumann could and with good reason. Neumann has stated that this statement was not a strategy but an indication of his level of support. Its tough for us to call it a strategy when he's specifically indicated its not a strategy. I'm not sure how people feel about this and I don't know what his answer would be but I could ask him what he thinks is reasonable jbolden1517Talk 04:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I must be misunderstanding something. Here is a passage from Neumann's email: "My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it." Neumann also uses the term "strategy" in other emails. So could you clarify your point? Precis 04:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is his very first comment regarding this quote, When I said that I would do anything, including lie and obfuscate, to help the Palestinians, I meant the sort of thing that someone would mean who said he would do anything, including lie and obfuscate, to save the lives of his parents… It is a statement of commitment, not a strategic announcement… In fact, I do not lie or obfuscate in anything I write, because that would hurt the Palestinians.” I think that's pretty clear. jbolden1517Talk 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

1) You say "this quote". Wrong. The quote we give in the JTR section does not mention the words "lying" and "obfuscation". Neumann is referring to a passage we didn't use. 2) The word strategy in the JTR section refers to strategy of helping Palestinians (not strategy of lying)--I'm using the word that Neumann himself used. 3) Although the defense Neumann gives above is not germane to the issue at hand, I'll comment on it anyway. First he indicates that he is so committed to Palestinians that he would do anything, including lying, to help them. Then he says he never lies in his writing because that would hurt the Palestinians. Does that make any sense? Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here? Precis 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. I think the " I am not interested in the truth" is what is meant by that reference to lying. The only passage quoted by the CJC is those 2 lines. Everybody is talking about the same thing. That's what makes this so obscene we have a guy with hundreds of pages of material and 2 lines out of context (which have never been verified for accuracy) are what everyone wants to discuss.
  2. My point is that he disagrees it is "his strategy". In other words you are asserting something is strategy which he specifically denies is his strategy. That's why I liked my timeline it was genuinely NPOV. Everything was undisputed in the timeline and everyone got to speak for themselves. Full explanation of context.
  3. I don't see any contradiction. I can believe that doing X is justified and that I would do X if it were purposeful without in fact thinking doing X is useful in a particular situation. For example in chess something like, "I would be willing to sacrifice a knight for a good king-side attack, but right now the knight sacrifice on f5 just wins me 2 pawns so I'm going to put my rook on the open file instead" where the analogy:
  1. knight sacrifice = lying
  2. winning the game = helping the palestinians
  3. rook move = writing editorials to challenge people's lack of concern
If you want to draw any conclusions from this quote then in the end you still have to make an argument why we should prefer a private email, written off the cuff to dismiss a neo-nazi group to a large volume of public writings in explaining his philosophy. That's a pretty tall order. Lets turn this around why do you have trouble seeing the CJC as just engaging in "negative campaigning" against an anti-zionists? jbolden1517Talk 03:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the " I am not interested in the truth" is what is meant by that reference to lying.

Wrong. The 2-line quote is: "My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose." The reference to lying was in a DIFFERENT email passage of Neumann where he spoke DIRECTLY of lying and obfuscation. Here it is: "I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable antisemitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious racist antisemitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care." Note that this passage has 5-lines, not 2.

The only passage quoted by the CJC is those 2 lines.

Why do you persist in saying things like this? CJC quoted the 5-line passage above; see [14]. This is much more inflammatory than the 2-line passage you keep harping on.

Everybody is talking about the same thing. That's what makes this so obscene we have a guy with hundreds of pages of material and 2 lines out of context (which have never been verified for accuracy) are what everyone wants to discuss.

I'd already explained yesterday that we are talking about different passages, but you persist in basing your argument on the 2-line passage. Why?

My point is that he disagrees it is "his strategy". In other words you are asserting something is strategy which he specifically denies is his strategy.

His denial referred to the 5-line quote, not the 2-line quote, as I explained yesterday. As I also explained yesterday, Neumann DOES use the term "strategy" in reference to the 2-line quote. By the way, your chess analogy is unconvincing, since Neumann didn't say imply anything situational like "I haven't done X so far." Rather, he said "I don't do X in ANYTHING I write." That doesn't sound very situational to me.

All that being said, in an attempt to be utterly fair, I've removed the 2-line quote entirely (but who knows, someone may put it back). The quote isn't really necessary--interested readers need only click on the links to find out what the fuss was all about. Precis 07:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I see your point regarding the 2 quotes. BTW I think someone will put them back in and I think we need both, since at least then it will be fair. You never addressed the issue of why you objected to the context / timeline? The timeline is undisputed which makes it NPOV. jbolden1517Talk 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jtr quotes

The easiest thing is to have no Neumann quotes in the JTR section--then we can avoid the endless discussions about whether the quotes taken from a white power website are authentic or not, as well as the tedious discussions about whether the quotes are smears or valid characterizations of Neumann's views. If someone puts the 5-line quote back in, then sure, a quote that Neumann used to directly defend against this 5-line passage can be placed back in for balance. Simply quote his defense and stop there, avoid paraphrasing it by describing what you think is the context, otherwise you may give the "context" more credibility than it deserves. My own opinion is that his defense is nonsensical, although of course you disagree. Precis 14:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMichael_Neumann_4dc6.html"