Talk:Israel Shahak/archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Controversial text

RK's version:

He has been accused of misrepresenting Jewish law to the extent of effectively promoting a bllod libel. (See the article A Modern Blood Libel, linked below)
In the first chapter of Jewish History, Shahak described an incident that his detractors claim is a fabrication.
"...I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem neighbourhood. Instead of simply publishing the incident in the press, I asked for a meeting which is composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel. I asked them whether such behavior was consistent with their interpretation of the Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by referring me to a passage in an authoritative compendium of Talmudic laws, written in this century. I reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Ha'aretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal. The results of the scandal were, for me, rather negative. Neither the Israeli, nor the diaspora, rabbinical authorities ever reversed their ruling that a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile. They added much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequence of such an act puts Jews in danger, the violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake...
Orthodox Jewish groups denied that the event had ever occured, and pointed out that Shahak was unable to give the names of the rabbis he met with. The Anti-Defamation League's report on The Talmud and Anti-Semitism, which cites Shahak's Jewish History as one of its sources of anti-Semitic texts, states "In distorting the normative meaning of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers frequently remove passages from their textual and historical context....Those who attack the Talmud frequently cit ancient rabbinic sources without noting subsequent developments in Jewish thought....Are the polemicists Anti-Semites? This is a charged term that should not be used lightly, but the answer, by and large, is yes. Now and then a polemicist of this type may have been bon Jewish, but their systematic distortion of the ancient texts, always in the direction of portrarying Judaism negatively, their lack of interest in good-faith efforts to understand contemporary Judaism from contemporary Jews, and their dimissal of any voices opposing their own, suggests that their goal in reading ancient rabbinic literature is to produce the Frankenstein version of Judaism that they invariable claim to have uncovered." (See report linked below)
A number of rabbis from all the Jewish denominations (Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism) have stated that Shahak's claims about Jewish law are merely the opinions of a handful of fanatics.
His writings have become very popular among critics of Israeli policy such as Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and Christopher Hitchens; they are widely used in anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi websites (e.g. JewWatch.)

Current version:

Rabbis from all the Jewish denominations (Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism) have stated that Shahak's claims about Jewish law are merely the opinions of a handful of fanatics.
His writings have become very popular among critics of Israeli policy such as Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and Christopher Hitchens.

I'm going to propose some compromises here. Jayjg 22:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Compromise attempt 1

His critics have accused him of fabricating incidents, "blaming the victim", distorting the normative meaning of Jewish texts, and misrepresenting Jewish belief and law.[1] The Anti-Defamation League has listed him as one of four authors of polemics in its paper The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics [2]
His writings have become very popular among critics of Israeli policy such as Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and Christopher Hitchens, and have also been widely promoted on anti-Semitic websites.

Thoughts? Jayjg 22:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article you link is very appropriate, though a link to the original would be even better. But there are at least two separate questions we're addressing here: 1) How accuirate is Israel Shahak's text? and 2) What was the motivation behind his writing it? I think it's important that we should separate out these two questions. The Mathis article says Shahak is wrong, but doesn't discuss Shahak's motivation. We can't use that article as support for an assertion that Shahak 'misrepresents' or 'distorts', both of which connote intent in addition to accuracy. So, for me, a better lead-in would be:

His critics have accused him of misunderstanding or selectively quoting Jewish law and history. [3]

I would like to discuss the "blaming the victim" (I don't know what that means in this context), the alleged incident-fabrication, the ADL article, and the thesis that Shahak is motivated by anti-Semitism later, but I want to get your reaction to the idea of separating these two questions. DanKeshet 07:01, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I gave the link I did because I couldn't get to the author's site, so I thought it was down; I prefer to link to the author's site as well. Regarding "misrepresents" and "distorts", I don't agree that they connote intent. I can see many situations where someone might "misrepresent and distort" something out of ignorance or POV, for example, without implying willful intent to do so. Don't forget, Shahak was a chemistry professor, not an expert in Jewish law or a historian; he may well have honestly believed he was telling the truth, and yet still have misrepresented and distorted Jewish law and history. Moreoever, I don't think that "misunderstand" and "selectively quoting" captures the nuances I was trying to present; "misunderstanding" seems a pretty passive act, whereas "misrepresents" captures the very active campaign he carried out to promote his viewpoint (via books, articles, interviews). Similarly, "selective quoting" implies that all he did was cull Jewish law and history for quotes he preferred, and presented them. While I believe he did do this, he also presented his own editorial comment on what he believed they meant; as such, his critics say he "distorted" them, which implies both quoting them, and inaccurately presenting their content, meaning and/or intent.
Regarding your last paragraph, in general I would prefer to entirely avoid the question of Shahak's own intentions, as I believe is a blind alley for pointless and ultimately unresolvable disputes; only Shahak knew what his true intentions were (perhaps even he didn't). Jayjg 09:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "misrepresents" and "distorts" don't necessarily imply willful intention, but that is the meaning that most readers will take from those words. If issues of motivation are to be omitted, there should be some way for his critics to "merely" say that he was wrong. His critics, such as ..., allege that his presentation of Jewish law and history contains a large number of serious errors. Or something like that, perhaps expanded. --Zero 11:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Zero that that is what the reader will take. I also prefer his formulation. DanKeshet 19:33, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can speak for what "most readers" will take from an article; language should be used accurately, not modified to accomodate what we paternalistically believe are the failings of "most readers". As for "contain a large number of serious errors", that isn't what his critics accuse him of; rather, they accuse him of misrepresenting and distorting. You can't NPOV the claims of the critics. Jayjg 02:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Mathis, it's a pity that we can't cite something more scholarly. It's a very weak article, in places quite incompetent. On the other hand, at least it addresses things that Shahak actually wrote, which puts it ahead of the ADL masterpiece. --Zero 11:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Motivation

Regarding the second sentence, the only purposes I believe the reference to the ADL serves is to discuss whether he's anti-Semitic and what his motivations for writing were. If we are to include that, I think we must include some of Shahak's own writing about his purpose, of which there's plenty. I am not decided right now about whether the article is stronger with both or neither, but I'm leaning toward both. (Example motivation included below, though for symmetry we should include something from the preface to JH.) DanKeshet 19:33, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

"...we want Jews, together with other people, to recognize and strive for the highest ideals, even as we fall short of them...[A] perversion of these valus in the name of Jewish fundamentalism stands as an impediment to peace, to the development of Israeli democracy, and even to civilized discourse...[P]eace in the Middle East cannot be achieved until the currents and cross-currents of contemporary life are understood." Shahak and Mezvinsky in preface to Jewish fundamentalism in Israel.
The ADL is a high profile organization which has at least critiqued Shahak's work, if only as an example of a genre of writing; that is why it is included. Shahak's description of his own motivation can certainly be included, though I think it is better to summarize long quotes such as the one you have listed above. Jayjg 02:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Links

An anonymous editor dumped a number of links, mainly to news sites, in the external links section. Whether the material is helpful or not, it is more often than not a veiled POV insertion. The anon should come back and write in the article body instead of hiding behind links. PS this is not a political revert, see this page for an explanation why I remove external links. JFW | T@lk 18:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi JFW,
I understand and appreciate your reasons for reverting. Indeed, following and reading the links I found two sets to be identical. However, I am reincluding two links now. Both contain factual information that is not in our page: for example, Shahak's history with the Israeli League for Human Rights or the Shahak Papers. If and when that information is in our article, I would agree that external links are useless. For now, they do aid the reader attempting to learn more about Israel Shahak. DanKeshet 19:48, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Very well. Dr Linkslasher is simply allergic to anonymous IPs dumping lists of links... JFW | T@lk 19:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where his works are found

"His writings and books can be found verbatim on websites such as "Radio Islam" and "Bible Believers", which have been described by a number of anti-Racism groups as anti-Semitic, Holocaust Denial, and neo-Nazi hate sites. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]"

Thoughts? Jayjg 21:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition to those websites, you can also find them in countless bookstores and libraries around the world. DanKeshet 00:21, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'm proposing this as an inserted sentence. Thoughts? Jayjg 02:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If the point of the sentence above is to help the reader understand Shahak or his works, it is worthless. The fact that anti-Semites read particular things into his work does not help the reader know anything about Shahak.
But if the point of the sentence is to give a better understanding of how his works have been read and appreciated, I think it's highly skewed and gives an undue emphasis on anti-Semites. Shahak's writings are a staple of left-wing bookstores, right next to Amira Hass and Edward Said. They can be found in libraries and bookstores without particular political bents, either. These facts are just as important, if not more so, toward gaining an understanding of the influence of his works. DanKeshet 03:43, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
That may be true, but his works about Judaism are, in fact, widely quoted and promoted by anti-Semites, to the extent that they are reproduced in their entirety on those sites; you can't say that for the works of many other authors (Koestler is the only I've seen). If the emphasis is "undue", then documented evidence of other "fans" should be produced, but I think this is a significant phenomenon that can't be ignored or swept under the rug. Jayjg 16:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't have time to go out and document evidence right now, but I can give a short outline of the influence his work has had: many tributes to Shahak written by leftists--on his book jackets, upon his death, in book reviews, etc., he co-authored many papers and had joint speaking engagements with people like Chomsky at lefty venues. I think it would be highly misinformative to suggest through omission that some anti-Semites' habit of infringing his copyright is the only part of his influence worth noting. DanKeshet 18:40, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
But the article already mentions who he influenced, including Chomsky. I think the other people he influenced should also be mentioned, it is a significant phenomenon. Jayjg 19:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you add the "Bible Believers" copyright infringement stuff to the article, I'll wait to edit it until I have added more biographical material. The exact text of that part isn't as important to me as that it doesn't dominate the story of his life. DanKeshet 02:26, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, what do you mean when you say If you add the "Bible Believers" copyright infringement stuff to the article, I'll wait to edit it until I have added more biographical material.? What copyright infringement stuff? Jayjg 03:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being obscure. I meant, "If you add the sentence above [which talks about how Shahak's works are copied verbatim on the internet in violation of his copyright], I will leave it there and not edit it until there is a significant body of biographical material in other sections of the article".  :) DanKeshet

Something like this?

"His writings and books can be found verbatim (and in violation of his copyright) on websites such as "Radio Islam" and "Bible Believers", which have been described by a number of anti-Racism groups as anti-Semitic, Holocaust Denial, and neo-Nazi hate sites. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]"

And just to be careful, are we sure that it is in violation of his copyright? We might be libelling Radio Islam and Bible Believers if not. Jayjg 03:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks who's poisoning the well now! Hypocrite. --Alberuni 05:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi Alberuni, I've left a short note on your talk page regarding this comment. DanKeshet 18:53, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Jay: I'm not going to work on this sentence until I've added some more background on his life. You can add it and I won't change it or be upset. My major problem with this sentence is the effect it has on the emphasis of the article and the way to remedy that problem is not to rephrase the sentence but add to the missing parts of the article. DanKeshet 18:53, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, the changes have been agreed to here. If you had any substantive objections, you should have raised them at the time. Jayjg 15:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

His army service

The linked articles make repeated reference to Shahak serving in an "elite" unit of the IDF during the Suez War. Does anybody know which unit this is? DanKeshet 03:43, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Dispute

Who is disputing what, and why? [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 01:13, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there is a dispute; why do you think there is one? Jayjg 02:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
mmmaybe the {{TotallyDisputed}} header? I removed it, since I didn't find your reply particularly convincing as to the need for it ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 02:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice that. There was a dispute on this page a couple of months ago between RK, Zero, and DanKeshet. RK is now banned, Zero is semi-retired, and DanKeshet is busy in real life. I guess there's no-one left to fight. :-) Jayjg 02:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article looks NPOV to me too, so I suppose thats the important thing. Anybody creative enough to come up w something for us to argue about, maybe my formatting changes? ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 16:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

particularly in what he perceived as institutionalized racism and human rights abuses against Palestinians.

"particularly in what he perceived as institutionalized racism and human rights abuses against Palestinians"; do we have any sources for that being what was particularly controversial? Jayjg 21:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about it being particularly controversial. The quote from the article describes the book as one "in which he argued that traditional Orthodox Judaism was a chauvinistic religion, and that this chauvinism had been carried over into many aspects of contemporary Israeli society," I added "particularly in what he perceived as institutionalized racism and human rights abuses against Palestinians" because that is the main subject of the book. The chauvinism Shahak describes is his explanation for the cause. The sources are the book itself. Gore Vidal in teh Foreward writes, "Unfortunately, the hurried recognition of Israel as a state has resulted in forty-five years of murderous confusion, and the destruction of what Zionist fellow travellers thought would be a pluralistic state - home to its native population of Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as a future home to peaceful European and American Jewish immigrants, even the ones who affected to believe that the great realtor in the sky had given them, in perpetuity, the lands of Judea and Samaria. Since many of the immigrants were good socialists in Europe, we assumed that they would not allow the new state to become a theocracy, and that the native Palestinians could live with them as equals. This was not meant to be. I shall not rehearse the wars and alarms of that unhappy region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel has poisoned the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel's unlikely patron.". In Chapter 1 paragraph 2, Shahak writes, "It became apparent to me, as drawing on Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of those laws, and the worldview which they both create and express is taken into account. The actual policies Israel pursued after the Six Day War, and in particular the apartheid character of the Israeli regime in the Occupied Territories and the attitude of the majority of Jews to the issue of the rights of the Palestinians, even in the abstract, have merely strengthened this conviction." By the way, the book was published in late 1994, not 1993 as the Wikipedia article incorrectly states. You know what's funny? On your User page, you complain about editors who demand references for every edit you make (and you make many without citation), yet you do the same thing to harass editors you don't like. But enough commenting on your well-established hypocrisy. It's endless. No personal attacks. Just another observation. --Alberuni 22:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg insists on poisoning the well despite Talk discussion

Jayjg insists on poisoning the well by trying to associate Shahak's publications with anti-semitic websites despite the rejection of this approach in the section above, "Where his works are found". Shahak did not publish his work on these websites and the fact that these webistes cite his work does not reflect on the merits of his writing. Anti-semitic websites also quote from the Torah. Should we mention on the Torah page that its words are published on anti-Semitic websites? --Alberuni 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What discussion? Where did you state that the sentence shouldn't be included? Jayjg 16:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As for your arguments, Shahak has become a mainstay of anti-Semitic groups, which is not a specific reflection on the merits of his writing (nor does the sentence present it as such), but rather an unavoidable fact about the way they are used by some groups. And please recall that this is not just individual quotes, but rather whole works reproduced verbatim, introductions and all. Jayjg 16:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I protested your hypocrisy above. It is incredible that you insist that adding Dore Gold's name as the publisher of NGO Monitor is poisoning the well on Medical Aid for Palestinians yet you defend smearing Israel Shahak's work by poisoning the well with mention of anti-semitic websites that reproduce his work without authorization. Your duplicity is astounding. --Alberuni 16:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Protesting what you view as "hypocrisy" is not the same thing as protesting article content. And what is even more "incredible" is that you insisted that adding Gold's name was important information despite objections that it was obviously poisoning the well, proceeded to do so on half a dozen web pages, and then complained here about "poisoning the well" regarding Shahak and my "hypocrisy" and "duplicity". Jayjg 17:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, at least you admit it. The difference, of course, is that Dore Gold actually is the publisher of the POV material you were inserting onto Palestinian pages whereas the anti-Semitic websites publishing Shahak's material are not related to Shahak in any way. --Alberuni 02:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I "admit it"? This doesn't really make sense, since I have done no such thing. On the other hand, though you admitted that you were trying to poison the well regarding Gold (though not using those exact words), I certainly am not poisoning the well here. Jayjg 05:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth again, with your usual twisted and manipulative method. You are obviously trying to poison the well here and continue to push your despicable Zionist POV, smearing Israel Shahak with anti-semitism accusations because you disagree with the anti-Zionist political content of his publications. Should we also publish a list of all the Borders, Barnes and Nobles, and Amazon booksellers that carry Shahak's work? Should we point out that anti-semitic websites also quote the Talmud and Herzl's writings? Let's take a vote and see if Israel Shahak page needs to be smeared with your reference to the allegedly anti-semitic websites that have published his work. --Alberuni 16:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When a book is carried by major American book retailers, it is not notable. When a book is reprinted verbatim on a variety of anti-Semitic websites, it is notable. Anti-Semitic websites rarely carry actual Talmud quotes, and in any event brief quotes of the Talmud or Herzl are not the same as re-printing the entire book. If anti-Semitic websites carried Herzl's work verbatim, that would be notable as well. Jayjg 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, you guys seem pretty upset, I suggest you look into mediation. As far as the article, I think your both at least 1/2 right. It is noteworthy the sorts of people who promote this guy and his works, but it isn't fair to faill to clarify that he doesn't support nor actively agree with these people on anything, and that their motivation in making use of his writings is likely different from his own in writing them (if we can present that in an impartial manner, of course). Sam [Spade] 15:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is clear that he didn't promote these views, but it's also clear that they are used by these groups. Jayjg 05:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think thats whats important. Perhaps its just a matter of subtle refinement? Sam [Spade] 16:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's been "subtly refined", I don't know what else would be required. Jayjg 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requesting Consensus Vote on Jayjg Edits

Should the following Jayjg edit to this article be accepted? Yes or No.

NO --Alberuni 16:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You have fundamentally misunderstood what consensus is, which is "General agreement or accord" Voting does not produce consensus. Jayjg 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Voting reflects consensus, a concept you frequently ignore. You have failed to vote but I assume that you are voting "'YES,' Jayjg should be allowed to insert anti-semitic smears wherever he wishes."--Alberuni 17:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Voting reflects voting, not consensus. And please avoid strawman arguments. Jayjg 17:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Voting reflects consensus, if one exists. Why are you afraid of an explicit expression of consensus? It makes it too difficult to ram your POV down everyone's throats? --Alberuni 22:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Voting reflects consensus only if everyone votes the same way. If anyone disagrees, then there is no consensus. Please restrict your comments to article content, not me. Jayjg 01:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • (I'm not here ;-). The proposed sentence is unacceptable because it is hardly at all about Israel Shahak. It is nearly all about the opinions held by various people or groups about a couple of websites that Shahak was not associated with. These opinions belong in articles about those websites. The fact that Shahak is quoted by unsavory people is not automatically forbidden from here, but it would have to be presented in a way that does not look like a smear-by-association. I don't believe it does that, because it actually adds no information except to associate Shahak with those groups. The reason that Shahak is quoted in those places is obvious; I'll repeat my previous remark: If person P makes a criticism of group X, then group Y (who are sworn enemies of X) are likely to quote P. If P is actually a member of group X, then group Y will quote P even more gleefully. In other words, once the general content of Shahak's writings is disclosed (which of course is essential), the fact that they are quoted by people who like them adds nothing. If a book by a famous critic of free-market capitalism appears on a communist website, is that newsworthy, and should links to lots of negative opinions about communism be attached to this information? --Zero 23:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, I understand you are not here. But if you were here, is there a way it could be presented so that it wouldn't be a smear by association? I've tried, obviously not successfully. Also, what do you think of Jrosenzwieg's comments below about Wagner's music being used by Nazis? Oh, and while you are still not here, could you not mosey over to the Dore Gold article and take a look at a controversial quote by a JAO representative regarding Israel that certain individuals keep trying to place on the Gold page? Jayjg 01:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't really want to be here either, for a number of reasons. I didn't think of a good answer to your first question (but might yet). However, your second question suggests a useful principle that could be applied in both instances. The JAO quote should stop at the point where it stops discussing Gold directly and starts generalising about other things, such as about Israeli behavior. (I gather that is your position too.) Can we apply the same principle here? Rather than posting links about some web sites over which Shahak had no control, find some cogent direct criticism of Shahak and post that. There has to be something more useful than "neo-Nazis like to quote him". Post some praise too. Two or three good quotations in each direction would suffice to inform our readers what the gamut of opinion is (and we should be reporting, not judging). --Zero 12:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Do any of the 5 external links in the first paragraph even mention Shahak? I didn't find any mentions. If true, that's a real disgrace. --Zero 12:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My position on Gold is the same as yours. The 5 links are about the nature of the websites themselves, not the Shahak material on them. And what I view as significant is not only that neo-Nazis quote Shahak, but that they reproduce his works verbatim on their websites; I'm not aware of any other mainstream authors (perhaps aside from Arthur Koestler) who have received this "honour". I consider this more than just a random list of falsifed Talmud quotes, but rather an notable (and as I've also said, ironic) phenomenon in relation to Shahak. Jayjg 16:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think it's important we stick to edits about Shahak. I've moved the comments to the Critics section but I'm having serious doubts as to whether or not this passage should be included, even though Jayjg makes a good argument for inclusion. I personally believe that it's best to stick to direct criticism, and not indirect criticism of some websites his material happens to appear. I think we should temporarily remove the passage until we can agree. --Viriditas 11:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not criticism of Shahak at all, and doesn't belong in that section. Rather, it is a notable and ironic use of his works. Jayjg 16:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you on the latter half, however, it could be viewed as indirect criticism by the groups which describe the websites that quote his work as "racist". It's almost an implicit criticism by those groups, and that doesn't belong in the biography. Perhaps a section devoted to influence, or use of his work is more accurate. Also, even though I reworded the passage (your original wording was more elegant) to avoid the guilt by association, I feel that Alberuni's comment regarding the "smearing" of Shahak does have some validity, even if it is unintentional. I wonder if there is a way we can all agree to keep your content but present it in a more neutral light. What do you think?--Viriditas 23:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a wording that satisfies everyone. Apparently some people view any reference to this phenomenon at all to be unacceptable, and yet I think it is a notable phenomenon. Jayjg 23:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. It is clearly poisoning the well to make unnecessary reference to neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic websites that Israel Shahak is NOT affiliated with in any way. If you go to the anti-Semitic Jew Watch homepage and click on Talmud Folder and then click on "Jewish Talmud" it will take you to this legitimate Talmud site. Using your logic for Israel Shahak, we should edit the Wikipedia Talmud page with a note about the ADL criticizing anti-Semitic Jew Watch where "ironically they host links to the full text of the Talmud"! --Alberuni 02:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, there is no need to post another tu quoque. I think the current incarnation of the passage in question should be removed. However, Jayjg makes a good point -- that the use of Shahak's work by extremists should be mentioned. Now, how would you reword it, Alberuni? --Viriditas 03:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have made clear my opinion that this section is an attempt to poison the well and should be deleted. It is the usual "anti-Semitism" smear used in a crude attempt to delegitimize valid anti-Zionist ctitique. --Alberuni 14:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think Alberuni has made it clear that he feels the phenomenon can never be mentioned in any way. However, I feel the reasoning used violates Wikipedia norms, as it is based on Alberuni's beliefs about the motives of the editors, rather than the factual nature and value of the content itself. Wikipedia should be about the content of the articles, not about the editors. Jayjg 14:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Haha. That is rich coming from you! See: Talk:Medical Aid for Palestinians --Alberuni 14:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please refer to the specific item you have in mind, and please also review tu quoque. Jayjg 15:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You spent hours accusing me of poisoning the well for wanting to include Dore Gold's name, the publisher of NGO Monitor, on the page Medical Aid for Palestinians where you insisted on inserting NGO Monitor accusations against the Palestinian human rights group. Now, when I point out that you are very clearly poisoning the well on Israel Shahak by citing Radio Islam and Bible Believers anti-semitic websites that are not affiliated with Israel Shahak in any way you accuse me of ad hominem attack. UNBELIEVABLE double standards! It appears that you can make any accusation you want against me but if I make the same accusation against you, it's ad hominem. What a hypocrite! --Alberuni 15:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You made it clear you wanted to include Gold's name so that the reader could discount the information NGO Monitor provided; a clearer case of poisoning the well could not exist. I, on the other hand, am attempting to include unique and relevant information about the use of Shahak's works, which does not reflect on Shahak himself, but rather on one of life's sad ironies. Please review false analogy and tu quoque. Jayjg 17:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are a manipulative liar. --Alberuni 17:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Jayjg 19:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would you 2 please take this to Wikipedia:requests for mediation? Sam [Spade] 20:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What do you think should be brought there? The dispute about this one sentence? Jayjg 20:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm talking about the personal antagonism, not anything to do w this article :) Sam [Spade] 21:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
An RfC was already attempted: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni. Despite promises to the contrary, the violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith continue unabated, as you see. Jayjg 21:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem is not a personal matter and has nothing to do with Jayjg. Alberuni keeps attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedians for weeks now, full-time. In regards to that RfC opened weeks ago, no action has been taken yet and that seems to only encouraged him/her. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Be that as it may, he is clearly more angry w Jayjg than anybody else I have noticed (like say.. me for example) and attempting mediation is the best advice I can offer. That said, I think its clear to everyone that excess of anger and incivility have no productive place in article talk pages. I think we would do well to resolve such frustrations via the Wikipedia:Dispute resoloution process, rather than by overheating already controversial talk page discussions. Sam [Spade] 12:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External links

I think thats too many external links. 3 at most is my rule of thumb. Sam [Spade] 17:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3 links is fine. Jayjg 17:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is a really silly rule to have in all cases. Those external links have information in them that would be useful to readers. Eventually, that information will be incorporated into the article itself (I have already started) but until we do, there's no point in removing the path to that information. DanKeshet 18:47, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Well I didn't mean to suggest its an actual rule. Obviously different situations call for different usages (usually 1 link is best, actually). Sam [Spade] 19:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam, I disagree -- I think that on most issues, there are multiple perspectives. To offer only 1 link would be to offer only one avenue of exploration to a reader in search of more information. While I admit that link lists occasionally get out of hand here, I personally don't see why it is of any real concern, as long as each link is reasonably informative, on-topic, and not a self-promotion. As links come at the end of an article, the length of that section has an extremely low impact, I think. 3 can be your personal rule when you're writing an article, Sam, but I have never seen anything like community consensus for a cap on the number of links, and I don't see that it should be imposed here. Jwrosenzweig 19:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I ment within the article itself, not at the end in the ext. links section. Sam [Spade] 21:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ack, I completely misunderstood. I am much more in agreement with you -- while I don't know if there is any policy on it, I certainly dislike external links in the text of the article, and limit use of them wherever I can. Sorry for leaping to a conclusion. Jwrosenzweig 04:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yep, no prob, I also appreciate copious, diverse ext links in the ext links section. In the article itself tho (as in this case), my rule of thumb is a max of three in any one spot. Sam [Spade] 16:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Uf! I totally misunderstood you, too. I agree about in-line external links. DanKeshet 20:20, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Jwrosenzweig, since you're a new editor on the page, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the sentence listed above. Currently I'm for it, and as far as I can tell Sam and Dan have no objections to it, but Alberuni is against it. Jayjg 20:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jay, I don't know if I'm well up enough on the subject to comment too knowledgably -- the links question was more general. :-) But as my opinion has been solicited, I'll say that I think the sentence seems fair -- I think it makes it clear that, while the man himself does not seem to have any sympathies with these POVs, his work is often used by them. I think an article on Richard Wagner has to mention that his music was invoked by the Nazi party, even though it would need to clarify that Wagner himself was not a Nazi (in that he predated them). I'm open to having my mind changed, though, as this is a subject generally that I need to know more about. Jwrosenzweig 20:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps that is the solution, then? To invoke some kind of disclaimer in the text that negates the implicit guilt by association?--Viriditas 23:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

small comments; I don't want to edit the article so use these or ignore them as you like

The sources of Shahak's "Translations from the Hebrew Press", which was his main claim to fame for many years (he was a sort of one-man MEMRI in reverse), were mostly newpapers of which there was no English edition (and still isn't, in most cases). The article has that incorrectly.

Shahak's professional work was as a chemist specializing in organic fluorine compounds. He published quite a number of papers in that area (I'm guessing 100), so he wasn't just an "instructor".

--Zero 12:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Claims of Orthodox, Conservative, Reform Rabbis

An anonymous IP keeps trying to re-insert this section, but it is un-attributed and I don't think relevant either. How do others feel? Jayjg 18:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. Delete. --Alberuni 18:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg and Alberuni agreeing on something? Miracles do happen! (just joking y'all)--Josiah 03:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Two Wikipedians, four-and-a-half opinions. Figures. Rickyrab 03:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i think this article on israel shahak doesn't stress the fact that some of his claims on judaism are considered to be false: for instance in his book "jewish history, jewish religion" he claims that orthodox jews teach their children to make a curse when they walk next to a non-jewish cemetery. In the same book, he claims that the 16th century pogroms in ukraine where a progressive movement. israel shahak's studies on judaism can hardly be considered serious and scientific, but rather arising from a personal grudge against his own people. the article doesnt' present a balanced point of view

  • RE: "In the same book, he claims that the 16th century pogroms in ukraine where a progressive movement."

I can't find this claim anywhere in 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion'. Does anyone know what page it's on, please? It's not in Chapter 4, 'The Weight of History' were Shahak discusses the Ukrainian pogroms.

  • RE: "israel shahak's studies on judaism can hardly be considered serious and scientific, but rather arising from a personal grudge against his own people."

Could I bring your attention to part of a report that appeared on page 10 of 'The Jewish Chronicle' (London) on the 11 February 2005:

An Ethiopian-born Israeli has won bout £15,000 in compensation from Arad's religious council after she took them to court over racial discrimination. Leah Ishtar had found a job at a falefal stand in Arad. When Rabbi Rafael Bussi, the Kashrut supervisor for the local religious council, visited the stall he told her that her Judaism was in doubt and that she should not touch the food.

This passage clearly illustrates the chauvinism among some Jews that Shahak objects to. If a Jew was considered so 'unclean' that they were prohibited from touching food that was to be eaten by non-Jews then such an attittude would quite rightly be regarded as anti-semitic. It would also probably result in anti-Gentile feeling among Jews. Conversely Shahak's claim that Jewish chauvinism can be a partial cause of anti-semitism seems reasonable.--Conch Shell 14:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say "unclean"? That's a highly pejorative term. Non-Jews are not prohibited from touching all food eaten by Jews. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In the above case kosher ('clean') food would have become 'unclean' by being touched by a non-Jew. Conch Shell 09:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you can learn much about kosher from a Hebrew-Christian website. Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, in February 2005 'The Jewish Chronicle' ran an article on how the JNF were trying to stop the Israel Land Authority from selling land to non-Jews. If a British group tried to restrict the sale of English land to Anglo-Saxons then would you consider their actions racist?

And earlier this year 'The Jewish Chronicle' reported a speech by Edgar Bronfman (head of the WJC) in which he compared the belief in Jewish ethnic purity to nazism. This is far more offensive than anything that Israel Shahak ever said. Would you classify Edgar Bronfman as a self-hating Jew?

It seems to me that Shahak has raised some pertinent issues regarding Jewish law and contemporary Israeli society. It's only when they're considered in isolation from the intollerances of other ethnic groups that they seem anti-Semitic. --Conch Shell 09:41, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What does this have to do with non-Jews making all food "unclean"? Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I didn't use the word 'all' in the original argument and 'not kosher' means 'unclean' (Re: Vayikra 11 in the KDH Link) --Conch Shell 14:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kosher means "fit", not "clean", and the Christian website you linked to knows nothing about the subject. Jayjg (talk) 06:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. "Kosher" has had the dietary meaning for so long that the original or literal meaning is hardly relevant, but it is "fit, proper, correct". The word "treif" commonly used for "non-kosher" literally means "torn". Neither of them means clean or unclean. --Zero 12:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by who said what above, but re: the Ukraine, what Shahak says:

'The unprivileged, the subjects, the Ukrainians, the Orthodox [persecuted by the Polish Catholic church] were rising against their Catholic Polish masters, particularly against their masters' bailiffs, clergy and Jews.20 This typical peasant uprising against extreme oppression...has remained emblazoned in the consciousness of east-European Jews to this very day - not, however, as a peasant uprising, a revolt of the oppressed, of the real wretched of the earth, nor even as a vengeance visited upon all the servants of the Polish nobility, but as an act of gratuitous antisemitism directed against Jews as such.

This is from the anti-semite's copy on the web; my books are in storage right now. But I think that evaluating the accuracy of Shahak's claims is beyond the scope of this article. The best we can do is discuss what reactions were to his writing, including negative reactions. On the article we have about the events in the Ukraine and Poland, we can have a longer discussion about the history and historiography of what happened. DanKeshet 02:04, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote - the key phrase is 'a vengeance visited upon all the servants of the Polish nobility.' I'll expand the paragraph on 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion' when I'm fully familiar the Wikipedia-acceptable format. --Conch Shell 10:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to find the paper copy of the book. I can't be sure that the text you quote is original to Shahak or whether that was somebody else he was quoting. DanKeshet 01:00, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
The quote is from Shahak, though there are quotes from others immediately preceding it. In the book (p66) the word 'all' is in italics.--Conch Shell 10:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

Charles Kennedy is President of the Liberal Democrats (the third biggest party in the UK) and was expounding their policies when he made this speech to the Liberal Democrats Friends of Israel, prominent members of Anglo-Jewry and the Israeli Ambassador to the UK.

In it he condemns all forms of racism and terrorism and states that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where human rights are underwritten by law. He also states that the creation of a Palestinian state must be linked to Israel's borders being recognized by it's neighbours and Israel's citizens being allowed to live in peace.

Consequently it seems reasonable to state that the Liberal Democrats condemn racism and express support for Israel. If you still object to me adding this phrase then please could we take the matter to mediation? Thank-you.

While it is clear that Kennedy made these statements to Jewish supporters of Israel, the issue with the description is that anti-racism and support for Israel do not appear to be significant parts of the Liberal Democrat party's platform. This is in contrast to the websites mentioned immediately above the Liberal Democrat sentence, whose sole purpose appears to be anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial. It seems clear that you are trying to build a case for Shahak by emphasizing near irrelevant (and possibly erroneous) details about the Liberal Democrats. I'll try to get more eyes on this issue. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've just read Kennedy's speech, and looked at the article, and I can't for the life of me see Jayjg's objection. The Lib. Dems are a publicly anti-racist party, and have publicly supported Israel. There seems to be something more going on here that I'm not seeing, but the actual point in question is clear enough. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mel, is this part of their party platform? If so, can you show me where? Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's quite clear that the Liberal Democrats are a strong voice against racism (do a search for "racism" on the official Liberal Democrat site, and you'll find much about that). Their support of Israel is simultaneously strong and nuanced; I'd say they're strong friends of the Jews as a people, and even-handed friends of Israel as a nation -- and no friends of Ariel Sharon at all. The real question is the relevance of that particular comment to the Israel Shahak article. I think we should let readers, if interested, click through to the LibDem article, and draw their own conclusions. I'm not even sure why the entire sentence is necessary; what importance is there to the fact that the LibDems sell Shahak's works? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that is the point I was trying to make about "building a case for Shahak"; even it true, why pick these particular details to emphasize? Also, it seems to confuse racism and anti-Semitism. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Lib Dems are the most strongly anti-racist of the three British parties, showing no signs even of the Tories' and Labour's flirtation with asylum-seeker bashing; this is well-known. Their position on Israel is rather less high-profile, but Jpgordon sums it up rather nicely, I would say. - Mustafaa 19:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the question is: 'is the sentence as a whole relevant to the article?' — well it expresses a fact about the subject of the article; how could it be irrelevant? You might think it unimportant, or even trivial, but that's another matter entirely; I don't think that mere triviality is a reason for deleting material from an article. In fact, though, Jayjg's objection seemed to involve questioning the Lib. Dems' political position with regard to racism and Israel, and the answer to that is that he's wrong on both counts, as jpgordon has made clear. If 'building case for' someone is a matter of reciting facts about them, then that seems fine to me, and certainly not against Wikipedia's NPoV rules. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:43, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I asked "what importance is there to the fact"; information being unimportant or trivial is exactly a reason for removing it from an article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've just looked in here having been asked to comment, and haven't read the whole page or the issues yet, but I don't agree with Mustafaa's, and I think Mel's, point about the Lib-Dems being the most anti-racist party in the UK. It's true that Kennedy has tried to clean up their act of late, but they used to be accused regularly of placying the race card (as the others have done too) at grass-roots level, especially when campaigning in working-class areas with high immigrant populations, where they're competing for votes with the British National Party. There have been several "support your local candidate" incidents, where "local" meant white. At grass-roots level (I don't know about the current leadership), they also tend to be extremely pro-Palestinian. It's true, however, that Kennedy is trying to ditch that reputation. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


I have been attracted here by the RFC. In my view the whole sentence ought to be removed as it is quite irrelevant. The sentence implies that the appearance of one of Israel Shahak's books on the Liberal Democrats bookshop website constitutes an endorsement of his views by the Liberal Democrats. Actually it implies nothing of the sort. The Liberal Democrats bookshop is run by Politico's, a political bookshop (now on the internet only, previously a physical shop in Westminster). Politico's used to run online bookshops for all three of the main parties in Britain, and still run a shop for the Conservatives. The items on the site are exactly the same as in Politico's itself. Yes, it is true that the deal offered to the parties was that they could remove any item if they disagreed with its politics, but in practice that amounts to a veto which would only be exercised if the item was strongly critical of them. If you look at the Conservative bookshop you find (not surprisingly) Israel Shahak's work is available there as well [19]. I bet it was available from the Labour Party bookshop when that was run by Politico's.

The sentence in the article is therefore almost meaningless. It only states that the Liberal Democrats declined to remove one of his works from their site. I should declare also that Politico's publishing arm published my book a few years ago, which was also available from all the party bookshop sites; no way would I include that as an endorsement by any of them. I also know the founder of Politico's quite well. So I think the sentence "Shahak's work is also sold on the website of the Liberal Democrats, a social liberal political party based in the United Kingdom, who condemn racism and express support for Israel" is a bit of a non sequitur in context. Dbiv 21:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough — that convinces me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Heh, just noticed (in my edit summary) that I came this close to calling the LDP LSD. Thank you, thank you very much! El_C 02:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current Politics section could lead to the fallacy of guilt by association - Shahak's work appears on racist websites therefore Shahak is a racist. I added the reference to the Liberal Democrats in order to counter this. However I think it would be better to just add a line that emphasises his belief in universal human ethics, which I have now done. The relevant quote from 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion' is

We must confront the Jewish past and those aspects of the present which are based simultaneously on lying about that past and worshiping it. The prerequisites for this are, first, total honesty about the facts and, secondly, the belief (leading to action, whenever possible) in universalist human principles of ethics and politics.

PS - there are other references to universal human principles and common humanity scattered throughout the book. Also, Shahak's criticism of Judaism is based in his belief (right or wrong) that it violates these principles.Conch Shell 10:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good addition. That bothered me, too, and I'm pleased to see it counterbalanced and qualified in such a clear way. When I removed the LDP line today, I did think of supplanting it with something better reflective of his professed views, but am just not familliar enough with his works to have been able to encapsulate it accurately rather than speculatively. The problem with the LDP line, as several here noted, was that this guilt by association –in the way this was formatted into the narrative– was also directed at them; which is just plain awekward, historically, in light of the party's position. El_C 12:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this type of apologetic, which is nothing more that original research. If you actually read the book, you will see that it has little to do with "universal human ethics"; frankly, it has little to do with Judaism as well, but that's a different issue. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg, you're beginning to give the doubtless false impression that you've something against this person, and are not prepared to allow anything to be said that might look even vaguely complimentary. Mind you, I'm inclined to delete the whole of the affected paragraph, on the grounds that (as was pointed out above) it has the affect of attacking Shahak by association (in the way that it was argued that the Lib. Dem. reference defended him by association). Is there any reason not to do so?
Incidentally, how is the claim that the book is concerned with universal human ethics original research while the claim that it isn't, isn't? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I want things said about this person and his work that are factual. Conch Shell is an admirer, of both the man, and the book[20], and wants to present both in the best possible light; as a result, he has been attempting in various ways to present the book as focussing on things which it barely mentions, if at all. The book itself is quite famous in anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi circles, where it is highly praised, widely quoted, and (as mentioned) even duplicated verbatim. That is notable. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, the Liberal Democrats are likely not even aware that it is for sale on their website. As for your question regarding "universal human ethics", there is no claim in the article that it is not concerned with "universal human ethics"; you can't claim something which doesn't exist in an article is "original research". Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. But the fact that x admires y's work isn't a fact about x, it's a fact about y. If Shahak says things that are anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi, then say so in the article — say what they are. I'd understood that to be at the heart of Wikpedia's NPoV policy.
  2. Are you saying that we should accept your rejection of the claim based on your original research? Indeed, that we should excise something from an article based on your original research? I'm puzzled; help me here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1) It's a fact about both. 2) I have no idea what you're talking about; Conch Shell included original research in the article, I excluded it, in part on the grounds that it was original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. It is not original research to recognize original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel, x's admiration for y's work might very well imply a fact about x too; simply to claim that it doesn't is to beg the question. And the edit: "These websites typically describe Shahak's work as an exposition of Judaism, while ignoring his belief in universal human ethics," is original research, particularly as it's not clear there's any such thing as "universal human ethics." If that is to stay, Sahak would have to be quoted as saying somewhere: "My critics ignore that I believe in universal human ethics." For us to point this out, and to offer it as a defense, is to build a case in favor of Shahak, which counts as original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea that we would use the presence of this book on the LDP (or conservatives') website as a counterweight to the idea that it's used by anti-Semites is silly; the truth is the book is widely popular in many places, and we should simply let *that* fact be known--you can find the book, for example, in most mainstream bookstores, in most leftist bookstores, etc. DanKeshet 21:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
While it may be widely available, it is particularly popular in some circles. That is notable. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dan, lots of books available in mainstream book shops are not made available on anti-Semitic websites. That his is, is a notable fact about him and his work. (But I agree that the reference to the Liberal Democrats is meaningless and non-notable.) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)
SlimVirgin: No, that's simply wrong I'm afraid. x might say that she admires y's work because of a misunderstanding, for example, or as a ploy of some kind. Simply to refer to the admiration, especially when it comes from such unpleasant sources, is to imply something about Shahak without actually stating it, much less demonstrating it. That's surely not acceptable here or anywhere. As for the comment about universal human ethics — they don't have to exist in order for Shahak to believe in them. And to demand that a dead man publicly criticise the people who are currently using or commenting on his work...

DanKeshet: I agree; let's just say that his work is widely read and admired. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I wrote: "x's admiration for y's work might very well imply a fact about x too; simply to claim that it doesn't is to beg the question." You're simply asserting that it doesn't imply anything about Shahak's work that it's featured on anti-Semitic websites. I say it implies that there's something in his work that they admire, and that this is a notable fact about that work, whether fair or not. Once a work is published, authorial intention is irrelevant. These websites don't feature Elie Wiesel. They admire writers like Shahak, Chomsky, and Finkelstein. This tells us something about those writers' views.

Regarding the second point, if the universal human ethics point is to be used, it should be attributed, though even doing that is to search through his work for a defense against the far-right interest in it, and that does count as original research: though if it was at least attributed, it wouldn't be so bad. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

“This tells us something about those writers' views.” But what does it tell us? That they're 'the kind of views' that appeal to nasty people? This is smearing, not presenting facts. If there's something about Shahak's views that should appeal to neo-Nazis, et al., because it's neo-Nazi straightforwardly or by implication then let's say so. if there's genuinely something about what he says that we're told about by its appeal to anti-Semites, then let's say what it is. Then we don't have to rely on this sly innuendo, which surely has no place here.
This is like the people who attack Beethoven because Hitler liked his music, or Nietzsche because the Nazis misused his writings to justify their insanity (I have no time for Nietzsche, incidentally, but that's a bad reason to attack him). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mel, I haven't attacked anyone. I've presented one simple factual sentence describing something about his works that is both ironic and highly notable. Anything else is something you have read into this that is simply not there. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we backtrack for a moment?

I did not know Chomsky to be especially available in neo-Nazi bookstores, but then again, I never seen or been to one. I certainly find that very, very odd.

I've never heard of this Shachak character before today, neither through Hebrew nor through English sources. The article, I find, fails to inform me the details of why he is so admired by the far right to such an extent (it would be instructive to place/explain his Jewish supremacism thesis in somewhat more detailed context/content viz. antisemitism – if this is the consensus upon which he is viewed in the scholarship and mainstream).

If he considers himself a universalist humanist or whatever (as was apperently quoted in his book above – someone said p.68 of one of his books, no? I can't find that comment now in a glance; bah), then clearly that needs to be mentioned. If the scholarship and mainstream nevertheless considers him and/or his views to be antisemitic, etc., then that clearly needs to be mentioned, too.

Fine, so let's backtarck and list or relist the sources in support/opposition of either of these claims/premises, and go from there. I don't really know what to think either way. My only knowledge of him is based on reading that article last night. Now I'm courious to learn though where this all stands. El_C 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'Me too' (yes, I do have an AOL account...). I have no axe to grind here, hold no brief for anyone. I'm looking at this article purely as a Wikipedia article that ought to be fair, straightforward, and open. I'd never heard of him before, and to a certain extent I don't want to find out about him; I want to read the article as someone who gets all his knowledge from here. (I agree, too, that the notion of Chomsky as a darling of the far-right is odd. Perhaps they like his theory of deep structure...) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They have AoL in Oxfordshire? That... dosen't inspire confidence. ;) All I'm saying is that I've never heard of him before either, and I do have some familiarity (certainly much more so than the average scholar) with famous Israelis. Am I missing something emberssaing yet pivotal here? El_C 22:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm missing the point of the AOL references. ;-) Chomsky is a darling of some sections of the far-right, particularly Stormfront. See here [21] where he's referred to as: "that rare jew who's actually sincere about truth and justice." That tells me something about Chomsky's work. Even if I had never read any Chomsky, the Stormfront validation would give me an indication of what to expect, though I do take your point about smearing, Mel. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Mel, in some ways, your wanting to read about Shahak here for the first time is the right approach, but it means you're missing a lot of background (which should probably be in the article). Shahak wrote a lot of things that, if you hadn't known the source, you'd have assumed came straight from Stormfront. I can't remember most of it (but I'm sure I've seen some examples somewhere on Wikipedia), but didn't he say that Jewish children (or Orthodox) are taught to curse when they walk past a non-Jewish cemetery? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter. The fact that these groups admire it and carry it verbatim is ironic and notable, and therefore this simple fact should be noted. That's about it; nothing more needs to be read into it, nor does any original research need to be created to "defend" against it. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel's point is that to do so would be to smear him by association, perhaps unfairly, so it's worth taking a look at his work. I found the cemetery quote (below), from chapter two of Jewish History, Jewish Religion, discussing certain talmudic passages: the way he uses this material is provocative and irresponsible, which is why he's criticized. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:29, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Needless to say ... following the establishment of the State of Israel, once the rabbis felt secure, all the offensive passages and expressions were restored without hesitation in all new editions ... So now one can read quite freely — and Jewish children are actually taught — passages such as that which commands every Jew, whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead if it is non-Jewish ... It is a fact which must be remembered, not least by Jews themselves, that for centuries our totalitarian society has employed barbaric and inhumane customs to poison the minds of its members, and it is still doing so. (These inhumane customs cannot be explained away as mere reaction to antisemitism or persecution of Jews: they are gratuitous barbarities directed against each and every human being. A pious Jew arriving for the first time in Australia, say, and chancing to pass near an Aboriginal graveyard, must — as an act of worship of "God "— curse the mothers of the dead buried there.)

I am not familliar with these practices among Jews. Does Shahak provide a source for this, I wonder? Anyway, my point is that neo-Nazi affiliation should'nt sum him up if there is also some scholarly consensus as to his works and position (esp. wrt to antisemitism and/or lack thereof on his part). For example, you go to the average university in the West, and Stromfronting notwithstanding, Chomsky is not considered an antisemite. Is the same true for Shachak is the question: is he notable enough for such a scholarly consensus (and/or lack thereof, too) to exist in any meaningful way seems to be rather pertinent. My cursory search in google.co.il (see Jayjg's talk page), however, reveals nothing to substantiate this authoritatively, either way (though that is no indication of anything aside from notability in il google, which isn't particularly comprehensive by any stretch). That's all I got for now on that front. I searched the haaretz.co.il directory and got nothing (though found an old article where he's mentioned in il google). El_C 23:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His footnote refers to Jeremiah 50:12: "Your mother shall be sore confounded; she that bare you shall be ashamed: behold, the hindermost of the nations [shall be] a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
That is only his footnote for the biblical passage, his footnote for the practice leads to "Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b.". Incidentally, that tract is on WikiBooks, but I don't know how to find p. 58b. DanKeshet
I haven't found it either, but there's an interesting discussion here [22] of Shahak's misuse of other passages. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This is in fact, already cited in the text in the criticism section. Personally, I found Mathis less than compelling. In the first example I opened to, Mathis agrees with Shahak that male Jews are asked to recite a prayer thanking god for not being a Gentile, but believes that their spirit is not anti-Gentile, but rather "pro-Jewish". But this is beyond the point. Shahak and Mathis disagree; our job is to describe that disagreement, not get involved with it. DanKeshet 00:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
More relevant is section 3, where Mathis points out exactly this kind of flaw in Shahak polemical claims; specifically, that he quotes from the Talmud, which is a series of discussions about what the law might be, and many other things, rather than from the actual codes of law themselves. The simple fact that he fails to quote from a book of Jewish law indicates that this is not, in fact, Jewish law. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Shahak is well-known, but not particularly chronicled on the internet. When he died, he had long obituaries in the Guardian, Nation, etc. Plus, he's well-known in his academic field. Not as famous as Chomsky, sure, but not obscure in the least. DanKeshet 23:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand what that passage means exactly, to be honest, Slim. Thanks, Dan, that appears to be a likely explanation, though it dosen't really help us wrt to scholarly (non-chemist-related) consensus of him in Israel. Yes, far from being as well-known as Chomsky. I'll refer Hebrew readres to the Hebrew Wikipedia's article on Chomsky. Also, compare Shahak's 34 google hits with נועם חומסקי who gets 891. Bah, without better research access, I have nothing really to build on as per the Israeli scholarship or mainstream. But at least I don't feel bad now having never heard of him until yesterday. El_C 00:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've (as so often) come back to the discussion to find that it's moved on quite a way over(my)night. I don't find Mathis very impressive; aside from his polemical language, he too often criticises Shahak for little more than not following rabbinical injunctions on how to interpret Biblical passages. Some of his points seem question-begging, too, and others rather nit-picking.

Still, none of that is relevant. I'm still concerned with the passage that I see as a propagandistic smear, and none of the above affects my position on that. SlimVirgin suggested that the fact that neo-Nazis admire Shahak tells us what to expect when we read his work, and cites Chomsky as a similar case; if someone read Chomsky having known only that he was admired by certain members of the far right, they'd be in for a severe shock, and their expectations would be subverted. Moreover, I've never seen in any account of Chomsky – and certainly not in any encyclopædic work – that he's a darling of the far right; even if true, it's irrelevant to his work.

It seems to me that the evidence offered so far of Shahak having written things that could be described as anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi is thin at best; in fact it's pretty tangential, and involves nothing more than the claim that Shahak is critical of some aspects of Jewish culture and tradition. In the same way, Soviet-era communists used to leap upon anything written in the West that was critical of capitalist society, no matter how little it had to do with communism.

Stormfront and other neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups are, not to put too fine a point on it, dishonest and stupid. I find nauseating the idea that we should present their views, their likes and dislikes, as significant in an article like this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the scholarly consensus is MacDonald-esque, this article should reflect that; if it is Chomsky-esque, it shoould reflect that – or a mixture of both if that ends up being the case. But there is simply a world of difference between the two — any cursory overview into their body of works reveals that in rather unequivocal terms, I think. Not to press this point so much as attempt to better encapsulate it. In this sense, it becomes pivotal to answer (and I myself do not know what it is at this point) as to (loosely-speaking) where Shahak stands on such a continuum. El_C 10:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revision 31 March 2005

I'm surprised the line
These websites typically describe Shahak's work as an exposition of Judaism, while ignoring his belief in universal human ethics.
constitutes original research and has been removed, especially since the page on Mein Kampf contains the unsubstantiated claim Conch Shell

Where is that 'universal human ethics' comes from though, again? I said it was a good edit because I felt it was representative as to how he viewed himself – there was a page number, was there not? So, the next step as per NOR, is a citation. El_C

A new Turkish edition was reported to be a bestseller in Turkey in 2005
and has been allowed to remain. Perhaps Jayjg, in your capacity as an Administrator, you would like to delete this line as well? Conch Shell

That is out of line, I take exception to that insinuation as I'm certain Jayjg does as well. Why did you not delete it yourself? Capacity as an Administrator, what does this even mean? What does it have to do with any of this? El_C

You confuse original research with an unsubstantiated claim. Anyway, I've never edited or even read the Mein Kampf article; why on earth would you imagine I should delete a line I've not seen? Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, I meant NOR wrt the universal ethics bit, I had no idea whether you read the MK article — that bit was just out there. El_C 21:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
O.K., I've gone to the page in question, found the claim, googled and found dozens of sources for it, and put a couple in. It took 2 minutes; why didn't you just do the same? Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Like I said before, Shahak's criticism of Judaism is based on his (possibly mistaken) belief that it is contrary to the principle of universal human ethics. In 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion' he condemns racism and anti-Semitism and so we need something to show that his work has been erroneously included on anti-Semetic websites. (I get the impression that these people have only read the chapter entitled 'The Laws Against Non-Jews', otherwise they would realize that his attacks on authoritarianism and exclusivism would equally apply to their ideologies.) I assume adding these direct quotes is acceptable?
"I strongly believe that antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism can only be fought simultaneously." Conch Shell

I would add, 'combined with a fight against all forms of racism and chauvinism, wherever.' I agree with it, but its exclusivism, in that sense, bothers me a bit (though it may be the context, I have no way to tell). I don't see a problem with the quotes, though others may – is this how he's seen scholarly-consensus wise is (again) the broader question this article needs to answer and related to how reprsentative his views are (as depicted in the quote section, for eg) by himself, yes, but also by the aforementioned consensus. This can all be made explicable, though I don't think I have the time to engage it intensively and extensively myself. El_C

"Modern racism (of which antisemitism is part) although caused by specific social conditions, becomes, when it gains strength, a force that in my opinion can only be described as demonic." Conch Shell 09:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very true. El_C 10:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE: That is out of line, I take exception to that insinuation as I'm certain Jayjg does as well. Why did you not delete it yourself? Capacity as an Administrator, what does this even mean?

I haven't deleted the line A new Turkish edition was reported to be a bestseller in Turkey in 2005 on the Mein Kampf page because I'm not 100% sure what's acceptable on Wikipedia. Jayjg has deleted several of my edits that I could see no problem with. As an administrator he has a better knowledge of Wikipedia rules and should delete the line in question if it is unacceptable. Conch Shell 13:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS What's a NOR please? Conch Shell 14:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have factual information that demonstrates otherwise, you can delete it. All editors have the same editorial rights & freedoms (if not tools; those of admins primarily deal with maintnance, not so much edits). Your comment seemed like troll bait because it insinuated bias, and did so untopically (please stay focus on the article: querries can be directed to users talk pages, or better yet, that article's talk page, not this one). Lastly, NOR stands for the No original research policy and was used in extension to your claim of Shahak's self-professed views as per universal human ethics, wrt producing a citation where he states that (possibly someone else of him). See also: Cite sources, and Verifiability. El_C 19:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't have stated it more clearly. Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I still can't fathom how he just presumed you read the MK article. I thought maybe you two had collaborated together, or that he had seen you edit it at the very least. I didn't read it either, btw, nor do I have a particular desire to do so. User:Conch Shell, you do know there are 0.5 million articles and that not every editor you meet would have read the given article you bring up... Truly inexplicable presumptions. It boggles the mind. El_C 21:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg seems to edit pages that relate to Judaism or the Holocaust. It seemed reasonable to assume that he'd have scrutinized the MK page. Conch Shell 08:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, I discourage you from further such assumptions. El_C 08:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I hope my last edits provisionally address some the concerns that Mel and others expressed as per self-profession viz. being featured in hate sites. I think the quotes above wrt racism make his position clear, though a source for these is probably warranted. El_C 22:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't we simply add to the disputed paragraph that Shahak himself opposed anti-Semitism by quoting him, as follows:

Some of Shahak's writings and books can be found verbatim (and in violation of his copyright) on websites such as Radio Islam and "Bible Believers." The Anti-Defamation League, Stephen Roth Institute, American Jewish Committee, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, have described these websites as anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi hate sites that engage in Holocaust denial. However, Shahak himself professed a strong opposition to racism and anti-Semitism: "Modern racism (of which antisemitism is part) although caused by specific social conditions, becomes, when it gains strength, a force that in my opinion can only be described as demonic," (Shahak, year, page #). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. El_C 22:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

El C, I think you asked above where the univeralist principles reference came from. It's in chap 4 (though it's unclear what he means) but I don't have a page number. He says: "We must confront the Jewish past and those aspects of the present which are based simultaneously on lying about that past and worshiping it. The prerequisites for this are, first, total honesty about the facts and, secondly, the belief (leading to action, whenever possible) in universalist human principles of ethics and politics." (The Historical Review Press seems to be an anti-Semitic website. [23]) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed, it's unclear, I don't think the Journal of Historical Review or whoever thay are could care less what he means. El_C 22:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's the Historical Review Press, and British neo-Nazi and Holocaust Denial group. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, they don't do anything historical, nor review, though possibly press. El_C 03:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the bits of the above that relate to my concerns, I should stress that I'm not wedded to any view about Shahak's position. SlimVirgin's researches seem to show clearly enough that he was anti-racist, anti-anti-Semitic, etc., so clearly that needs to be said. If reference is made to the external fact that certain racist groups admire (or profess to admire) his work, something seems to need saying about why that should be, in the light of his actual views.
I'm still dubious about the propriety of mentioning it at all. In my fairly frequent confrontations with naive physicalists, I generally find that they're wedded to a vague sort of Logical Positivism, A.J. Ayer and Karl Popper being among their heroes; they're initially unbelieving, and then perplexed when I explain that both philosophers were dualists. It would be odd, at best, to include in the Ayer or Popper articles that their work was much admired by physicalists — at least without some explanation as to why the mistake was made, or at least to the fact that it was a mistake. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, Mel, there is certainly room for expansion to that end (such a context is important to establish). El_C 10:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I also agree - it's just finding a way to do it that doesn't constitute 'original research'. I suppose it is notable that work which was intended to promote tolerance is now being used to promote hate. Anyway, at least the article now acknowledges Shahak's anti-racist credentials. I'll look up and add the page numbers to the quotes that I included tomorrow, just in case anyone wants to rewrite the disputed paragraph in the format suggested by SlimVirgin. Conch Shell 11:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revision 2 April 2005

The quote from Norton Mezvinsky comes from his introduction to the 2002 reprint of 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion'. I've also removed the word 'verbatim' from the paragraph as it implies that these websites endorse Shahak's views verbatim. Neo-nazi websites would not endorse Shahak's view that racism has the power to become demonic (p69) or that belief in a pure Aryan race is bilge (p30) or that the existence of a separate Jewish race is a myth (p67). Islamic anti-Semites would not endorse Shahak's atheism (p47) and neither would endorse his belief in universal human ethics (p74). These page numbers come from the 2002 paperback reprint of his book (ISBN 0-7453-0819-8). Conch Shell 09:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you quote exactly what Mezvinksy said regarding anti-Semitic "misappropriation"? Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've only got access to the 1994 edition at the moment but I'll provide the exact quote tomorrow. Conch Shell 08:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg that the paragraph is more coherent with the Mezvinsky reference at the end rather than the beginning. El_C 00:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In addition, it's unclear why Conch Shell removed the statement that Mezvinsky is Shahak's co-author; if it weren't for that fact, I don't think his statement would be notable at all. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I neglected to notice that. I'm not really sure, in general, who Mezvinsky is to comment on that point specifically (i.e. Mezvinsky's claims to notability per se.), but certainly the co-authorship needs to be noted – I find it difficult to concieve why it should not. El_C 00:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I acknowledged Mezvinsky's co-authorship by placing my sentence immediately after one that explicitly stated it and using the word 'also', however this is a minor point. Conch Shell 08:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I based my sentence on Mezvinsky on the following text:

Soon after publication of the first edition some individual antisemites and antisemitic groups began to utilize unduly Shahak’s criticisms in trying to justify their hatred of Jews. They have continued to do this either by citing and/or using out-of-context some of Shahak’s points. They allege that what Shahak wrote confirms their generalizations about the ‘evil nature’ of Jews. This should not be surprising. Such individuals and groups commonly employ this same method when using statements made by numerous individuals who sometimes hold widely divergent views.

and

He was a rare intellectual giant and a superior humanist.

I also had a look at the Radio Islam 'book review' of 'Jewish History, Religion' (sic) for the first time last night and it's riddled with inaccuracies and fabrications, most notably:

Whereas the Jews around him take it for granted that the goyim on whom they depend for economic, military, and diplomatic support are too stupid ever to figure out what the Jews think about them and say about them behind their backs and plan to do to them when they can, and too sheeplike ever to take effective action if they do figure it out, he worries. He remembers that the Romans figured it out, and they consequently sacked Jerusalem and ended their cult in Palestine. He remembers that the Germans figured it out, and that's why he became an involuntary tenant in a concentration camp.

All three sentences are fabrications. Shahak doesn't even mention that he was in a concentration camp (Gore Vidal does) or that the Romans sacked Jerusalem, let alone the supposed reason for these events. In this case anti-Semites haven't distorted Shahak's claims, they've fabricated them.

I also had a look at the Bible Believers website who've reproduced 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion' in it's entirety, though they've forgotten to include a link to it from their review or anywhere else on their website! Like I said before, I doubt if Bible Believers would endorse Shahak's views on race (Jewish or 'Aryan') or ethnocentricity. They've also reproduced Koestler's 'The Thirteeenth Tribe' in their natural resources which unequivocally supports Israel's right to exist [24], so I don't think their includsion of a book means they endorse all its contents. Conch Shell 08:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS Bible Believers also attacks Star Trek for propagating humanist beliefs [25], which are also shared by Shahak. Conch Shell 08:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)