Talk:Israel Shahak/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

WP:SELFPUB violations

Removed self-published materials.

Werner Cohn is not a established expert on the field (sociology prof), nor has he been published in any relevant and reliable 3rd party publications. Use of his review is no more WP:RS than any random blog one might find. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

the reference is to Israel Horizons, vo. 42, no. 3 of 4, Autumn 1994, pp. 28-9. - how is this self-published? Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So quote/link the source, not his version of it. Self-published sources aren't trustworthy. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

what is self-published here? the ref is to the source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The link refers to a self-published site, not the publisher. There is no way of verifying the accuracy of the reprint. Additionally, the web page is a coatrack of complaints. Where the "review" begins and ends is unclear - there is no way of telling what actually appeared in the publication. The web link has to go, at the very least.

I really don't think it's a WP:RS - Israel Horizons seems to be a tiny magazine with very limited readership and exposure. Nearly all magazines trumpet their circulation - if it's not there, generally it's a good indication that it's unimpressive.

WP:WEIGHT - taking a 2-line quote from an inflammatory and derogatory article seems to me to attribute undue weight to the relative prominence of the review. If it were from a notable book reviewer, sure - but this isn't. I think the inclusion in the form of a 2-line quotation crosses the border from "presenting a contrary opinion" to a WP:NPOV violation.

As a personal view, the review is terribly unprofessional. He uses his nephew (not named or credited) as an expert to discredit Shahak's work. Surely this is a red flag that it shouldn't be used as a reliable source?GrizzledOldMan (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Israel Horizons is published by Meretz USA, and has been published since 1952. You can subscribe to their magazine here, if you wish. Meretz is a left-wing social democratic Zionist movement. Cohn's publication in the magazine in no way, shape, or form, qualifies as "self-published". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Have you actually bothered to read the article in question? Did you actually stop to examine it before you restored it? The author uses his nephew (no name or qualifications) to discredit Shahak's work. "My nephew doesn't know, so it's rubbish" - is essentially what he says.You're seriously telling me that you consider such a poorly written piece of mental diarrhea is a WP:RS? I couldn't get away with that sort of writing style back in grade 5. Sorry, but "mommy told me she hasn't heard of it so it's wrong" didn't pull weight for a kid, but you're accepting it as a "reliable source"? Are you _SERIOUS_? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to challenge the material on the basis of it being unreliable, then you should have started there, rather than claiming it was self-published. The fact that you're now moving the goalposts seriously detracts from your argument. Additionally, the level of verification Cohn uses is pretty much identical to that which Shahak uses in his own books; most of what Shahak claims is not footnoted, or footnoted to Shahak's own unique interpretations of primary sources. Keep in mind, Shahak was a chemist, who was writing polemical works on Judaism and socio-historical analyses of Israeli society; Cohn was likely more qualified to respond to Shahak's book than Shahak was to write it in the first place. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Goalposts? This isn't a tax form where pre-defined boxes are filled in and added up. It's SUPPOSED to be editing as a group by consensus. It seems that doesn't agree with you, and anything you object to, you call up vaguely defined Wiki guidelines and ignore any objections - or just ignore and revert till everyone goes away. If there's a "goalpost", it should be "improving the article" - which apparently is in contradiction to your view; that being "making the article say what I want". All you've done is whine and object, without a single constructive comment on how BETTER we should proceed. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's supposed to be editing in line with policy. Throwing a bunch of policies and guidelines at a source in the hopes that one will somehow, eventually, disqualify it, isn't editing in line with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Neuwirth crap

Why quote extensively a patent lie and foul piece of maliciously fabricated agitprop, that of Rachel Neuwirth who asserts that Shahak justified pogroms like the Chmielnicki revolt against Jews?

Shahak even justifies the notorious Chmeilnitsky pogroms in the 17th century Ukraine, which may have killed up to 100,000 Jews, on the grounds that the Jews had exploited the Ukrainian peasantry and deserved what they got.

There is no justification or 'apology' for anti-semitism in Shahak. There is only an attempt to form a general rule to account for pogroms. The key passage is as follows:-

'It must be pointed out that in all the worst anti-Jewish persecutions, that is, where Jews were killed, the ruling elite - the emperor and the pope, the kings, the higher aristocracy and the upper clergy, as well as the rich bourgeoisie in the autonomous cities - were always on the side of the Jews. The latter’s enemies belonged to the more oppressed and exploited classes and those close to them in daily life and interests, such as the friars of the mendicant orders.18 It is true that in most (but I think not in all) cases members of the elite defended the Jews neither out of considerations of humanity nor because of sympathy to the Jews as such, but for the type of reason used generally by rulers in justification of their interests - the fact that the Jews were useful and profitable (to them), defense of ‘law and order’, hatred of the lower classes and fear that anti-Jewish riots might develop into general popular rebellion. Still, the fact remains that they did defend the Jews. For this reason all the massacres of Jews during the classical period were part of a peasant rebellion or other popular movements at times when the government was for some reason especially weak. This is true even in the partly exceptional case of Tsarist Russia. The Tsarist government, acting surreptitiously through its secret police, did promote pogroms; but it did so only when it was particularly weak (after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, and in the period immediately before and after the 1905 revolution) and even then took care to contain the break~down of ‘law and order’. During the time of its greatest strength - for example, under Nicholas I or in the latter part of the reign of Alexander III, when the opposition had been smashed - pogroms were not tolerated by the Tsarist regime, although legal discrimination against Jews was intensified.

The general rule can be observed in all the major massacres of Jews in Christian Europe. During the first crusade, it was not the proper armies of the knights, commanded by famous dukes and counts, which molested the Jews, but the spontaneous popular hosts composed almost exclusively of peasants and paupers in the wake of Peter the Hermit. In each city the bishop or the emperor’s representative opposed them and tried, often in vain, to protect the Jews.19 The anti-Jewish riots in England which accompanied the third crusade were part of a popular movement directed also against royal officials, and some rioters were punished by Richard I. The massacres of Jews during the outbreaks of the Black Death occurred against the strict orders of the pope, the emperor, the bishops and the German princes. In the free towns, for example in Strasbourg, they were usually preceded by a local revolution in which the oligarchic town council, which protected the Jews, was overthrown and replaced by a more popular one. The great 1391 massacres of Jews in Spain took place under a feeble regency government and at a time when the papacy, weakened by the Great Schism between competing popes, was unable to control the mendicant friars.

Perhaps the most outstanding example is the great massacre of Jews during the Chmielnicki revolt in the Ukraine (1648), which started as a mutiny of Cossack officers but soon turned into a widespread popular movement of the oppressed serfs: ‘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, an uprising accompanied not only by massacres committed by the rebels but also by even more horrible atrocities and ‘counter-terror’ of the Polish magnates’ private armies,21 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. In fact, the voting of the Ukrainian delegation at the UN and, more generally, Soviet policies on the Middle East, are often ‘explained’ in the Israeli press as ‘a heritage of Chmielnicki’ or of his ‘descendants’ (Shahak, Jewish History)

If this is the passage she is alluding to, those remarks constitute the kind of distortion of facts and texts CAMERA and co otherwise insistently complain of.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am tempted to dig through some tabloids or flagrant pro-arab web sites for some nice inflammatory work, since there doesn't seem to be any solid policy for dealing with these sources that consistently twist facts and distort the issues. Is it really necessary to shoot down each and every article they come out with? Or is the only way to fight this, to dig out flagrantly biased articles on the other side - and hope they see the absurdity of their position? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mirror what you disapprove of. It is the quickest short-cut to losing one's self-respect. Of course, I think your point, more than legitimate, was rhetorical.Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be little in the way of official decisions regarding CAMERA as a WP:RS - so a simple wholesale sweep of them seems to be out of the question - however marking each of them with , however, seems more than reasonable. Not optimal, but it should do in the meantime while they're ripped apart one-by-one.

On the issue of this specific reference, I believe it's a strong enough argument to show it's not credible as a source. I am all for removing it.GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Paul Bogdanor and Rachel Neuwirth's opinions are worthless. Neither is a RS, since Bogdanor WP:BLP violation removed, while Neuwirth does not appear to have any relevant qualifications to judge, other than being a polemicist, at least from the baker's dozen of articles I read by her yesterday. All I have so far found on her background is the following.

Rachel Neuwirth is a Los Angeles-based analyst on the board of directors of the West Coast Region of the American Jewish Congress and the chairperson of the organization’s Middle East committee. She is an internationally recognized, political commentator and analyst. She specializes in Middle Eastern Affairs with particular emphasis on Militant Islam and Israeli foreign policy.

My general view is that wiki should endeavour esp. in areas where controversy is rife, to hew closely to book sources from academics, or people with a strong academic background, subject to peer review, with some proven area competence. I don't mind therefore Werner whatshisname, being here, though I think he too falsifies the record egregiously. I dislike trivia from hacks: the net is full of it, and if anyone wants this rabid stuff, all they have to do is lend an ear over the fence to washerwomen, or go to a pub. In any case, one should not act in haste, but work closely on each text, or point in dispute, conscientiously, examing the evidence collegially, even with fatuous rubbish, as here.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Neuwirth and Bogdanor, unlike Shahak, are living people, and WP:BLP apply to them. I've redacted the WP:BLP violations you placed on the talk page, but don't do it again. Your other comments don't really appear to be relevant; Shahak himself was an "activist" and "non-expert" in the areas in which he published, and he, to quote you, "does not appear to have any relevant qualifications to judge, other than being a polemicist". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bogdanor is a totally non-RS source - see this from his web-site - re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?) seeking to deny what everyone accepts, that Kastner defended a known Jew-killing Nazi from trial at Nuremberg with an affadavit - and to deny what almost everyone thinks, late in the war, Kastner collaborated with the Nazis and tricked some 450,000 of his fellows to go quietly to the ovens. PR^talk 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, as has been pointed out before, the historical view on Kastner is mixed, with most reliable sources, including recent award-winning books on him, considering him rather more of a hero who saved thousands of Jews than a collaborator who "tricked them" etc. You've been warned about this kind of polemical nonsense many times in the past: stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA

CAMERA is not a reliable source, as anyone who has followed their scandalous lobbying efforts on Wikipedia will already know. Dynablaster (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what CAMERA was attempting to do was to bring some of the more egregiously anti-Israel articles in line with Wikipedia policy. That doesn't make them an "unreliable source". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me - CAMERA is attempting to, "bring some of the more egregiously anti-Israel articles in line with Wikipedia policy"? Say what? Don't they have a rather interesting history with Wikipedia for trying to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, and bring Wikipedia in line with their policies? Your statement flies in the face of facts and documented history. Please explain this fantasy world you're living in? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just the spin that Electronic Intifada, an anti-Israel polemical website put on their activities. The fact that you've adopted their spin is neither here nor there. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

EI spin???? It's the "official" documented story, as reported here in Wikipedia and here in the Boston Globe. Spin from EI? You're saying I have problems with reliable sources, and you completely ignore both our own results, and those reported in the Boston Globe? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, EI spin. The Boston Globe link doesn't work, but as the Wikipedia article states:

The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors". Electronic Intifada accused CAMERA of "orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged"

Unsurprisingly, you seem to have swallowed the spin of EI holus bolus, despite the fact that EI is itself is an unreliable polemical website. The CAMERA e-mails, at least as published by EI, never claimed that they wanted to anything of the sort; pure spin. And we can rest assured, that if EI actually had any CAMERA related e-mails that stated they wanted to do any of those things, they would have published them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA, a proponent of the "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity" style of propaganda, were caught attempting to subvert the workings of Wikipedia by creating admins who would do its bidding. EI saved us from this attempt. Here's one of the articles they were going to target: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - be carefull as this will get you in direct fight with all the muslims there. for now I don't touch this any more until we have maybe 20 editors who can fight and two "uninvolved" admins on our side..." It's a little disturbing to hear the enemies of WP championed against its friends. PR^talk 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, stop soapboxing. It's more than enough. No-one is defending CAMERA's actions; on the other hand, no-one should be defending EI's propaganda spin either. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't take "statement of purpose" as a valid representation of the group.

For example, the KKK states their purpose to be:

"We seek to advance the Southern Cultural, social, economic and political well-being, with a greater awareness of the true history of the War of Northern Aggression so that the people of the South can become more acquainted with the Southern political tradition from the 18th century to the present with special emphasis on State's Rights and Sovereignty, local control, while supporting like-minded individuals in all elections, State and National who are dedicated to the Restoration and Liberation of the Confederate States of America as a free and independent nation by all honourable means."

Sounds pretty innocent and politically respectable - if you're suggesting that we should accept CAMERA's statement of purpose, then you are saying that we should accept the KKK's equally?

You really need to go and read the history of CAMERA, and not rely on the propoganda you've been fed. The facts, as reported and accepted by the vast majority of readers - are in conflict with your angelic view of CAMERA.

I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about what sources I use in the formation of my opinions. It comes across as quite paranoid, that you label anyone who disagrees with you as "buying into EI's spin". Not only paranoid, but a bit insulting that I don't read the accounts from multiple sources before deciding where the truth lies. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions of CAMERA's motives are not relevant. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If Shahak spoke of "Jewish Duplicity" we could treat him with only the same respect as we give CAMERA, which speaks of "Palestinian duplicity" (and carries out other serious falsification, when not trying to subvert Wikipedia). Meanwhile, there are editors indeed defending CAMERA, and trying to make out that the parties to the dispute were CAMERA and EI, not CAMERA and WP. PR^talk 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, please stop going on about incomprehensible irrelevancies. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's just get back to basics. CAMERA was involved in a well-documented campaign to recruit meat puppet administrators of Wikipedia, in clear violation of WP policy, for which several admins (five editors) were censured, and as reported in several reliable sources. All of the WP discussion is still available. The fact that the original existence of the campaign was reported in EI does not detract from its veracity, as subsequent investigations confirmed their legitimacy. CAMERA is not a reliable source. cojoco (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC) fixed little boo-boo cojoco (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins were censured? Really? who were they? Please read from the top of this thread: that this was a 'well-documented campaign to recruit meat puppet administrators of Wikipedia, in clear violation of WP policy' is EI's spin, nothing more, which has nothing to do with CAMERA's status as a reliable source. The latter depends only on its reputation for fact checking, which is good. NoCal100 (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you go - right here in a Wikipedia article. CAMERA also has a reputation for twisting facts, and most editors agree (aside from those with partisan views who will accept anything that is consistent with their views) that CAMERA has to be treated like a double-edged sword with no grip. You might as well take a neo-Nazi magazine article for impartiality, where CAMERA is concerned - they're about the same. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The wiki article you linked to clearly says s "Electronic Intifada accused CAMERA of "orchestrating a secret,..." - IOW, this is an unproven accusation, by a partisan group, which is itself a non-reliable source. Which reliable sources say 'CAMERA also has a reputation for twisting facts'? You comparison of CAMERA with a neo-NAZI publication is not only distasteful, but shows what little you know of the topics you write about. NoCal100 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the rather important fact that 5 editors were sanctioned, and the Gni account was strongly suspected to belong to Gilead Ini, and that account was permanently blocked. Unless you're suggesting that the actions of the Wikipedia admins was completely unrelated to EI's report - it presents a rather strong causal link.

As for EI, I think their record speaks for itself. They've received numerous positive reviews from journalists, and continue to be a source of information on the Palestinian plight, when Israel bans the international media from covering the atrocities they commit.

Neo-nazi publications - well, perhaps you just don't understand that lowering oneself to the tactics of the enemy erodes one's moral high ground. If you examine the reaction to the use of torture at Gitmo, perhaps you'll understand. If not - then there's no point in my wasting bytes explaining it to you. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the five accounts which were sanctioned had nothing to do with CAMERA - the editors sanctioned were found to have violated policy, but no connection between them and CAMERA was ever established, let alone proof of an orchestrated campaign by CAMERA produced.

EI is unabashedly partisan. You may like their reports, but that does not change the facts - it is a partisan in this dispute, and it is not a reliable source.

And I fully understand the tactic of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, and pro-Israeli groups to neo-Nazis. It speaks volumes about you. NoCal100 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - it shows that I'm very distrustful of any organization whose argument is so weak that it has to resort to twisting facts and attempts to subvert their opponents. It shows I'm not prejudiced by race, religion or politics - I'm equally distrustful of them all. Funnily enough, if you're suggesting that EI isn't WP:RS because it's partisan, you're invalidating CAMERA as a WP:RS as well. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it shows you can't discern between political partisanship, which one may agree or disagree with (e.g: EI, or CAMERA), and an attempt to resurrect a racist genocidal regime. You are 'equally distrustful of them all' - that's your problem. NoCal100 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis, etc

May I draw your attention to the following passage:

Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers...

Apart from academics and highly respectable literary critics (Christopher Hitchens, et al.) who commend Israel Shahak and find his work praiseworthy, we find that Shahak's output is also cited by neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers. Fine. But we have nine quotes -- nine! -- from critical sources who use this fact to smear his reputation and to imply some kind of personal connection:

It's a truism that you can tell a man by the company he keeps, and if you go to just about any neo-Nazi or fundamentalist Islamic website you'll see the company that keeps Shahak. (Jason Maoz, "Media Monitor", The Jewish Press, September 19, 2001)

This is worse than Guilt by association (which Wikipedia strictly disqualifies on BLP articles) because Israel Shahak was not an associate of any of these people. Only if Shahak was on friendly speaking terms with said neo-Nazis would this information be pertinent, therefore Undue weight is the least of this articles problems. It should be enough simply to point out that several unsavoury individuals/groups cited his work, supplying a neutral reference. Dynablaster (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Shahak is dead, unhappily, and we cannot invoke therefore WP:BLP. That this vicious trashing by activist provocateurs has found a place here is deeply problematical. It is rather like blaming, Nietzsche, one of the great pro-Jewish voices in Germany after the upsurge of antisemitism began in the wake of the crisis of 1871, for Nazism, because of the way his work was twisted by Wagner and his circle and a vast mass of far-right louts, thugs and Nazis. Joachim Kahl once wrote a book Das Elend des Christentums (1968) which did for the negative side of Christianity what Shahak did for the problematical side of rabbinical and Talmudic traditions. The polemics that ensued did not muck with his private life, or smear the use of his work by 'pagans' 'atheists' etc. It analysed the lacunae, superficiality, and errors, while admitting that indeed much of what he said was true. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I've found that most of the references are quite irrelevant to the subject matter. I've removed some of the more obvious material which is irrelevant, redundant or completely misrepresented. Clearing these out may take some time....

Um, forgive my noobishness, but why is the reference section filled with articles that criticize him? I don't see how it helps with readability or content of the article. As it stands, it seems to be little more than a section for his critics to fill up more space, and throw the article WP:WEIGHT off even more. I'll sharpen up the old boning knife and just gut out anything that isn't directly related to the Shahak, and isn't already covered. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, don't remove sources just because you disagree with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice how bad the problem was before today. Dynablaster (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit - I checked around, and there's no source to back up Jakobovits, aside from his own assertions. No witness, no reliable 3rd party source. Nothing. I'm not sure it's even worthy of mentioning Jakobovits' claim of fraud. Wording of the statement has to be evaluated to check if it accurately reflects the fact that it's an unsupported claim.

Also, removed the book review reference and quotation on WP:WEIGHT - the critic lacks distinction, credibility, exposure and professional background to be worthy of inclusion. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In what way was Shahak himself qualified to write the book in the first place? You invocation of WP:WEIGHT is spurious, it's actually an invocation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jakobovits did make that claim, from memory. It has been showcased to undermine Shahak's credibility. I think it should be retained (Shahak, again from memory, merely noted in a footnote that Jakobovitz must have been perfectly aware of such Talmudic rules since his own textbook on Ethics in 1962 cites in its bibliography a study of the problem of conflict between observing the Sabbath and saving non-Jewish lives in pre-Risorgimento Italy). Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jakobovits does seem to have made that claim - in this edit, I simply clarified that it hasn't been substantiated. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "clarification" is pure original research, which is, of course, forbidden on Wikipedia. Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR doesn't say, "switch off your brain" - I made a perfectly reasonable clarification, since the sentence doesn't reflect the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims of Jakobovits. If anything, without proof, we shouldn't even giving those sorts of claims any space in Wikipedia. I can say I'm Elvis' love child, but unless I can PROVE it, do you think I deserve a spot in Elvis' article as one of his offspring? No - it's a claim that while bandied about, isn't substantiated. Or do you think that's a minor detail that's not worth mentioning? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR doesn't allow Wikipedia editors to insert their own arguments, even if they think they are "perfectly reasonable clarifications". Please review WP:NOR again. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR doesn't allow for research - it doesn't stop editors from drawing attention to specific facts. I didn't use weasel words, nor make any interpretations of the facts. I simply drew attention to the FACTS AS THEY ARE. That is not original research. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOR does indeed "stop editors from drawing attention to specific facts" when secondary sources have not done so. It's in the very first paragraph:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

You've inserted your own analysis of Jackobovits's writing into the article. It isn't a "FACT", it's your OPINION. Stop violating policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant soapboxing removed.

Policy isn't strictly defined. Reading policy strictly, if some magazine claims "Shahak is a space alien", there's no rule which specifically states it shouldn't go into an article. No, crackpot doesn't apply - show me a strict definition of "crackpot", and I'll show you a hundred ways of wriggling around it. Use some common sense. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy is strictly enough defined in this area. Find me a reliable source that says "Shahak is a space alien" and you'll have an actual argument. I defy you to. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD - "...and accusations of antisemitism."

I'm not sure I agree with this edit.

First off, from my limited readings of his works and criticisms, he doesn't seem to have gotten much accusations of antisemitism, aside from extremist sources. Is it really balanced to have it in the introductory sentence? It's my feeling that it's distorted by the pro-Zionist groups that regularly bash everyone who disagrees with them. Is this really following with WP:NPOV that the article presentation keeps to "representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias"? Is it a fair view of his work of how the majority see his writings? Or is it serving to trumpet the claims of CAMERA and their ilk?

Second, WP:LEAD states, "the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article" - the term controversy seems to me to provide enough references to generate interest.

Third, the "charges of antisemitism" statement is misleading. It needs, if it really has a place in the introduction, qualification that the charges have come from a loud extremist section. "charges of antisemitism from extremist pro-Zionist sources" - at the very least.

Finally, the wording, "even if you disagree, the controversy over his antisemitism belongs in the lead" is rather hinting of POV pushing. Consensus is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. "it doesn't matter" sounds to me more like an attempt to bulldoze people with one's POV, than any interest in discussion. I for one, am not the type to bend over and lube up quite so easily.

I'm rather against the change. I've removed it until it can be discussed and some sort of consensus reached. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, an anti-Semite who lived his whole life in Israel, as a secular jew, as a Uni professor. Had he been an antisemite, people who knew him, like Christopher Hitchens and many others, themselves vigorous denouncers of anti-Semitism, would have said so. The fact is, all those who charge him with anti-Semitism did not apparently know him, cannot quote accurately his texts, have no literature to cite indicating where in his many writings anti-Semitic statements are made, and therefore haven't a leg to stand on. The problem therefore is, while a smear campaign against him by fringe polemicists and pseuds from pseuds' corner has had some effect, mainly on this wiki page, to what degree should it be noted? I think one or two lines listing, all 3 Werner whatshisname, Bogdanbor and even Neuwirth and where they made these remarks, could be included (a wiki rigourist would probably chuck the lot out as trivial smears). Nothing, however, from their cranky pastiches should be cited, not only because it is spurious, and false (not our job) but because it is fringe stuff, and doesn't deserve magnification. To sneak in patches of this nonsense is to give prevaricators more attention that their unfounded assertions warrant, i.e. violate undue weight.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Describing a source you don't like as "extremist" doesn't make it so. I'm restoring this WP:NPOV information. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether I or anyone else like it or not, at all, despite you endeavour to personalize this. Much of that smearing is just that a miscreant hatcket job, from the fringes. It has no basis in fact, is mere unfounded and scurrilous innuendo by a few hacks. The presence of detailed quotes from farty sources and hacks in the quarterbaked commentariat on the page of a scholar and gentleman is simply not on. It's about time the complaints throughout the archives about this trash be dealt with, preferably by rational dialogue, instead of by cheap revert battles. So, one asks, by what criteria are unfounded smears and opinionizing by militant journos from the polemical fringe to be justified on this or any other page dedicated to the life of a public figure? Who's Rachel Neuwirth, for example, and why is she a Reliable Source on the person of Shahak?Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, could you please restrict your comments to non-emotional discussions of relevant policy? That way I'll be able to get to the end of them. Did you want to try re-stating? Jayjg ^(talk) 8:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Emotional? Who me? Cool as the proverbial cucumber, chum. Shahak was a distinguished scholar (in chemistry) and public intellectual, treated as such by scholars and public institutions, like American policy boards. I am simply asking what non-scholars like Rachel Neuwirth and Bogdanor, who did not know Shahak, and visibly twist beyond recognition his words, are doing here? I've no problem with Talmudic specialists being cited in the critical response to his work. I do not think one should cite trash. When I use the words 'trash' 'smear', I don't do so while hot under the collar. To the contrary. It's like saying 'the water has boiled' when the kettle's steaming, an objective observation. So, who's Rachel Neuwirth, and what in her background justifies us treating her obiter dicta on a scholar as worthy of note?Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, Shahak was likely knowledgeable about chemistry, but he was a non-expert when it came to the works for which he is most famous, his polemics on Judaism. The terms you use to describe the writing of his critics would be equally, and perhaps more appropriately, applied to Shahak's works vis-à-vis Judaism. The people commenting on his works are qualified as he was to write them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And as has been noted before, on the RS archives you will find a list written by me of 20 eminent scholars who are regarded as reliable though they never qualified in the discipline where they excelled as scholars.(Lévi-Strauss, Needham etc.) Shahak was a close reader of Karl Popper, who wrote an influential interpretation of Plato, and yet never qualified with a doctorate in classical Greek. Classical scholars do not regard his work as invalid because of his lack of formal qualifications in that area. I don't know why I have to point this out to you. It is wholly irrelevant that Shahak was no qualified in the area of Judaism. He is notable for his influential polemic on certain strains of thought within Judaism, which he studied intensely, from the perspective of secular humanism. Your last remark is, well, patent nonsense. Lévi-Strauss wrote of the Nambikwara Indians, having only a degree in law and philosophy. By your logic, therefore, someone with a background in tabloid journalism or activist smear agencies is equally qualified to judge the quality of this piece of his ethnography. Rubbish. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

None of which, of course, makes Shahak, the chemist, a reliable source on Judaism. Was his "study" of Judaism academic in any sense? Was his work on Judaism published by an academic press? Did he submit his papers on Judaism to peer-reviewed journals? Your assertions that Shahak's polemic, as you yourself describe it, is "reliable", flies completely in the face of WP:V and WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually neither are you a reliable source on Judaism, or on Shahak's interpretation of it, and yet notwithstanding, you just reverted an edit mentioning his book, dismissing it as a non-notable screed. That is your personal (uninformed) judgement, but the intimation is you know more about Judaism than Shahak. We are not discussing whether Shahak is a RS about Judaism. I'd appreciate your not repeating this mantra.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, I believe, has fallen victim to the disproportional number of web sites deriding his work. Number of web sites doesn't make for proportional representation. Otherwise, you'd have to assume 99.999% of people use the Internet exclusively to access material about sweaty women with self-destructing clothes. OK, forget that example - it's closer to the truth than I want to admit. But the fact remains that counting the sites which declare "Israel Shahak is the Son of Satan", isn't a fair reflection of what people, who actually recognize the name, actually think.

I'm sure I can find a lot of neo-nazi and such sites, so it's only fair that Hitler and Himmler's articles be noted that some people consider them to be prophets or messiahs. Fair's fair, right? THF gets that passed off on their web sites, and I'll accept including the anti-semitism claims put in a nice, equally prominent place here. Can't ask for a fairer compromise than that. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite notable that Shahak's works have been reproduced verbatim on multiple neo-Nazi websites; however, we don't quote the neo-Nazi websites themselves on that point, but rather reliable third-parties on the subject. And that, of course, is the critical difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable that neo-Nazis quite Shahak's work??? They also quote the Bible - so you're going to say that's notable as well? Seriously, you need to examine your arguments with more care.

As for the proposal, you've misread it...

a. extremist Zionists say Shahak is anti-Semitist, so it's worth including it - thus,

b. neo-Nazis praise Hitler and Himmler - so their praise should also be in Hitler and Himmler's article

Fair, isn't it? Go ahead and get that praise into those articles, and I'll happily include a relative amount of extremist Zionist sources in Shahak's article.

You've completely failed to understand what I wrote. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, you've completely failed to understand what I wrote. It is notable that neo-Nazi website reproduce Shahak's works, verbatim, on their websites. How do I know it is notable? Because reliable secondary sources note this fact. You can certainly add other things that reliable secondary sources say about Shahak and his works, but not your own personal observations. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant soapboxing removed

Needless to say, the fact that Shahak is quoted in this fashion is completely non-notable, and amounts to well-poisoning. PR^talk 20:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, please stop inserting irrelevant conspiracy theories and soapboxing comments onto this page. As I said I would, I've removed them, and will continue to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant soapboxing removed PR^talk 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's quite rude to delete someone's posting from the talk page when it isn't spam, advertisements or such. That's bad form at the very least, and while I have to check, a direct violation of Wikipedia policies. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments that are polemics unrelated to the topic of the article are often removed from Talk: pages - exactly as these were. PR has been warned about this many times. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the messages removed were addressed to you, so nobody else had any business removing them. Furthermore, they were highly relevant and helpful to your editing of this article (two concerned the seriously non-RS status of CAMERA and the well-poisoning that this article is saturated in). But there's a lot more I could tell you about OWNERSHIP going on at this article. And I'd want to compare this article with biographies which express quite serious hatred, and yet the person gets approving quotations presented in their articles. Why would articles get such dramatically different treatment? PR^talk 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down everyone. This is notoriously one of the worst pages in the Wiki bio, and I/P area, and the nonsense is there because of a long defence of it by Jayjg. It's useless getting hot under the collar. What will happen is a series of edit-wars, the usual drift in of partisans, and the article will then seize up. To remove this nonsense, you simply have to argue the case, point by point. It will be tiresome. It has to be argued according to wiki principles. Soapboxing or expostulation is a waste of breath. Jayjg is irremovable on this trash, but he is required to justify it by specific explanations as to why trash should stay up. He is, moreover, correct, that neo-Nazi or antisemitic sites do cite Shahak, which is no argument against Shahak anymore than neo-nazis citing Nietzsche is an argument against Nietzsche. It is to be noted, nothing more, but with none of the tendentiousness and innuendoes that mar the page. Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere - referring to WP:ANI. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see us getting anywhere with the constant deletions of other people's comments. User talk guidelines specifically state - "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.". There are some exceptions, but I fail to see how any are relevant to his removals. No personal attacks, no interruptions (all comments were on topic), no incivility, noting that I can see which justifies removal of PalestineRemembered's comments.

This comment from PalestineRemembered seems to be entirely on-topic and it's removal was completely unwarranted.

I really think we need an administrator's intervention before we can do anything to clean up this article. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You really think that comment of PR's was "entirely on-topic"? Can you explain how a reference to a 2 1/2 year old discussion that doesn't mention Shahak is "entirely on-topic"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If it was true and worth saying it 2.5 years ago, then it must still be true today. If, of course, people read all 15,000 words and come away without clearly understanding how to avoid "Original Research" then we'll need an admin at this article to explain it to us properly this time. PR^talk 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

We should address the key issues one by one. Might we begin with Werner Cohn? As Nishidani noted earlier, (diff) he appears to be an acceptable source, though we must be mindful of UNDUEWEIGHT, which is the main concern of several different editors. Dynablaster (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is an accdeptable source. The article is quite laughable actually, since Cohn is so badly informed about wellknown matters Shahak mentions that he has to consult his local rabbi, takes his word for it, and then hits out. The Lemberg affair is controversial, but Shahak's position reflects that of the progressive liberal community in Lemberg at the time, to note one of several examples. I simply said Cohn was an academic, and therefore, one could accept that he might be used, if sparingly. Buecause his article has no pretensions to being a review. It is simply prof. Cohn's personal reaction to a book on a subject he knows little about, a 'screed'. But at least he had some academic qualifications (in sociology).Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't understand why you have added a (reference needed-tag. The source is at the end of the line where you added this. this is an assertion or a claim of the guy. No more, no less. On the other way, it should be sourced Shahak never deign to answer.

About Werner Cohn, he is wp:rs : [1]. What is the information that is / would be wp:undue ?

Ok. I see. This is the words : "and accusation of antisemitism" in the lead.

In fact, personnaly, I only know Shahak due to that :-)

But how to analyse this a neutral way ? Ceedjee (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion :

• Shahak antisemitsm : +17,000 google hits
• Shahak chemistry : +7000 google hits

Ceedjee (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a review of Shahak's book by a scholar : [web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200105/download/Massad.doc]. I didn't find the word antisemite inside this but this could be a good material to develop the article. Ceedjee (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That antisemites use Shahak's work is one thing. No reliable source exists that he was an antisemite. Unreliable POVwarriors assert he was, in tabloid smear articles. The argument is, should these insinuations, undocumented by Reliable Sources, be used. I think not. It's just the usual bitchy kvetching, for lack of an adequate analysis.Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) Can you kindly produce a diff? I do not recall adding a 'reference needed' tag.

(2) Shahak was a holocaust survivor. Low quality sources that attack his character aside, the fact his name and the word anti-semitism both share the same page should come as no surprise. Dynablaster (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he was referring to my tag. I was noting that a ref was needed for the admission (telephone incident), to which I can find no supporting evidence. I can claim to be Elvis' love child, but that doesn't make it so. Even if I push the claim and get it into the newspapers - unless it has some proof, does it really belong in Elvis' article?

As to Werner Cohn's review, my concerns are thus:

Issue:

[1] Web link is supposedly of his review published in Israel Horizons, but it seems to have been edited extensively. Postscripts, addendums - what else was changed?

[2] No way of telling whether or not this publication is widespread or respected enough to be considered reliable. The publisher Meretz does not give any circulation information, which sets off alarm bells for me. In my experience, any publication that doesn't trumpet its circulation numbers is usually very limited. Reputation is part of WP:RS - with few publications referring to the magazine (that I can find), should it really qualify, as is required by WP:RS, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?

[3] Amateurish writing style - for example, "I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find...". No identified expert referred to? His nephew? I couldn't get away with using my mommy as a reference back in grade 5. Should one really consider such a poorly written article to be WP:RS? Doesn't the amateurish writing indicate that it's not up to quality for use as a reliable source?

[4] The article completely misrepresents the facts - he states, "Gore Vidal tells us that an (unnamed) "American Zionist" brought Harry Truman two million dollars", where the actual introduction has it as a humorous anecdote - or in his words, "a funny story". Yes, yes - no original research. But the misrepresentation of facts seems to be enough grounds for it to bring into question it's applicability for use as a WP:RS, aside from use as a source of colorful and inflammatory language to use to discredit Israel Shahak, hopefully misleading any reader who doesn't take the time to check the actual material being referred to.

In a nutshell, my opinion is that it's an incredibly poor WP:RS, and really doesn't deserve mention in a Wikipedia article. More professional, informed sources are surely available; written by people who actually take their time to check with experts and present arguments which don't completely misrepresent the facts. (feel free to move this to a new section if you feel like debating it - preferably the WP:SELFPUB section, since that's where it sort of stalled due to Jayjg's stonewalling and edit-warring.)GrizzledOldMan (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The citation was provided, it was the article by Jackobovits. That's the only citation that is required here. Regarding Cohn's citations, they appear to be at least as good as Shahak's; why do the former bother you, but the latter not? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Shahak, if you have read the book, cites numerous passages from rabbinical sources, allowing anyone to check, challenge, controvert his accuracy of citation and presentation. Cohn cites his own opinions, no other text, and the major authority he invokes is his nephew, a Rabbi. To confuse these levels, of scholarly reference, and self-authenticated family opinion, is to fudge the obvious difference. The points made by GOM stand. You are once again setting yourself up as a judge of Shahak's book, which has been cited extensively by academics. Werner Cohn's conversation with himself is not. Find an incisive review of Shahak's opinions by an informed adversary. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The former, Jackobovits claim - no, the article itself doesn't bother me. It's the clear potential for misunderstanding from the casual reader, that it is a proved and accepted fact, as opposed to an unsubstantiated claim that has no evidence, no witnesses, no corroborating accounts. A casual reader can easily mistake Jackobovits' account as "accepted fact".

The latter, Cohn's article, does indeed bother me for the reasons I have clearly pointed out. Perhaps you could be bothered to read the text before asking a question that has been answered in detail in the text directly above? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to understand why you now say the Jackobovits claims "doesn't bother you". If it doesn't, then why did you put spurious citation tags on already cited material, and insert original research in an attempt to refute Jackobovits's statements? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be right - I'll concede that. There is nothing in Wikipedia, oddly as it might be, which advises against unsubstantiated claims being presented as fact. Weird, but true.

However, in searching for what I thought was there, it does seem that the issue is addressed indirectly - WP:RS - "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". Considering it's Jackobovits' claim, printed in an article written by him - it's a primary source. It can't go in, as a result. If you can provide a 3rd party article that is accepted by consensus as WP:RS - then that will be a suitable replacement.

I assume that you agree with me, from your silence on Cohn's article, that it fails to meet the same guidelines? Neither the author nor the publisher have any reputation that anyone has acknowledged - they're both unknowns - and I see nowhere in WP:RS that the default state is "reliable till proved otherwise". Lack of a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" on the part of the publisher or the author, seems to disqualify it as being acceptable as a WP:RS by the dictated guidelines. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, Jackobovits's article is not "self-published". In fact, it was published in Tradition, an academic journal published quarterly since 1958. What's your next objection? Regarding your other comments, I only make the statements I make; do not attempt to "infer" anything from statements which I have not made. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this again, shall we? To save you the effort of scrolling up, I said, "Jackobovits' claim, printed in an article written by him - it's a primary source" I didn't say Jackobovits was self-published. "Primary source". Not "self-published". See the difference? I would appreciate it if you'd not try to misquote me. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see, but since your argument was that the article was written by him, rather than in "reliable, third-party, published sources", it was quite obviously a claim that he was self-published. But I'm certainly willing to discuss this new objection. In what way is Jackobovits a "primary source"? Was he a participant in the alleged incident? A witness of it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Getting this back on track, I have a few concerns still about Jackobovits' article -
1. Primary or secondary source is unclear - the source states that Shahak's telephone incident story was challenged and he admitted it was a lie - but fails to mention to whom the admission was made. If the admission was made to someone else than Jackobovits, then it is a secondary source - which makes it a valid WP:RS. However, if it was made to Jackobovits, then it's a primary source, and therefore has no place in the article without supporting sources. These sorts of allegations of fraud are pretty serious, and it seems odd to me that it happened in 1966, but wasn't brought up again till, as far as I can tell, 1995. Surely if it was as important as some make it out to be, there should be supporting sources to support the claim in the intervening time. Yes, yes - no original research - but I don't see any Wikipedia guidelines against using common sense to evaluate the veracity of sources (see fringe theories) and whether or not they really should go in an article. Is it unreasonable to ask whether Jackobovits is a primary or secondary source? If it's a secondary source, why is there a lack of any mention of the primary source? Is it unreasonable to question why, for a rather serious allegation of fraud, there is are no supporting sources or even mention in the intervening 29 years? (ya, I changed my mind - this article does bother me. With all the incessant bickering, talk deletion and wikilawyering, I've had time to think it through more carefully. Show me the wiki guideline where it says I can't.)
2. WP:WEIGHT - the issue came up in 1966, but laid dormant till 1995, after Shahak was dead. WP:WEIGHT states:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

What weight should the allegation carry in the article? Is it his equivalent of Lewinsky? Or is it an insignificant event. Do we count up Google hits to determine its appropriate weight in the article, or give it weight relative to the body of work in Shahak's lifetime?

I'm not asking this in the context of wikilawyering, which I have no interest in (far too vague and ambiguous to argue coherently either way) - but as questions of common sense.

Side note:
Jayjg seems oddly silent on the Cohn article - dunno - with no opposition, is it fair to take his silence as "abstaining" on the issue of the criticism and allowing others to decide? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. And, as I've said before, I only say what I say, so don't try to infer anything from my "silence". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Say what? Where'd I make a comment about you? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you see the sentence that starts "Jayjg seems..."? That would be a comment about me. It's not hard to find, it's just a few lines up from here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You're whining because I noted you're silent on the issue? That's your complaint, is it? Considering your initial complaint was Comment on content, not on the contributor, I fail to see how it's relevant - I didn't disparage you or make any personal attack. Since the question was obviously directed at people other than yourself, to how we might proceed in the absence of your comment - please explain the basis of your objection to my noting that you're silent. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your statement, which started with "you're whining", was an uncivil abuse of this talk page. I didn't bother to read any further. Stop being uncivil, and comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to level a charge of incivility against me for using "whining", then please do so. If you don't like people being uncivil with you, perhaps you should extend the same courtesy. And as usual, you've run off topic when you can't defend your position. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. It's that simple. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you find my comment that you're silent on a subject, then you have my most sincere apology. I'm terribly sorry over any offence I may have caused by saying you're silent on a subject. It was clearly a scathing remark that did deep personal injury. To be considered silent on a subject is just... wretched. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable screed

Since Jayjg has on last count repeated several times his view that Shahak is not a reliable source on Judaism (who cares. This is about Shahak's intepretation of a strain in Judaism, not about Judaism), I think we have to examine this. Jayjg, you appear to me to be, with this repetitive comment, confusing functions. You are not an expert on Judaism, nor on Shahak. You're an editor here, and yet you think, and it is your right, that a book Shahak is famous for is a non-notable screed. What's this got to do with the price of fish. You appear to be confusing your personal judgement, with the judgement of reliable sources, many of which cite Shahak for precisely that book. I'd like you to clarify this, for the apparent confusion appears to be inflecting your judgement on this page. Nishidani (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the work which you yourself just accurately described as a "polemic"? In any event, we can certainly examine the reliability of the source. Was Judaism Shahak's area of academic expertise? Did he publish his works on Judaism in peer-reviewed journals? Were his works on Judaism published by academic presses? Did he have degrees in the subject? Perhaps you can explain exactly what makes you think Shahak is a reliable source on Judaism, in Wikipedia terms. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Answering a question with a question? You were asked for clarification, yet you once again try to cloud the issue and avoid it. Nishidani quite clearly stated, "who cares". He asked you a quite clearly for clarification. If you're unable to articulate your prejudice against Shahak's work, just say so. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been quite clear why Shahak is not a reliable source on Judaism; his academic expertise was chemistry, and the book was published by a non-academic press - Pluto Press, to be exact, which, according to its own website, "has always had a radical political agenda." Now you, or Nishidani, needs to be equally exact on why you think Shahak is a reliable source on Judaism. Please review WP:SOURCES before doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about him - he isn't subject to WP:RS. It's quite irrelevant. But in any case, he meets all the WP:RS standards. His writings appear in reliable, third-party, published sources. In fact, he exceeds the minimum requirement since his articles have appeared in newspapers on the high end of the quality spectrum. If he weren't reliable, his writings surely wouldn't have been printed, read and debated over so many years. Now, as for your complaint that his books were published by a "politically radical" non-academic press, by WP:RS it's irrelevant. As you can surely understand, given your blind acceptance of CAMERA articles - radicalism has nothing to do with WP:RS. Feel free to debate this, however. I can't speak for Nishidani, of course.

Your comments do seem a bit odd...

- "academic expertise was chemistry" - yet you happily accept the CAMERA articles, though the authors rarely, if ever, have any qualifications on the subject matter. Indeed, you happily ignore this issue with Cohn, who's a retired sociology prof who uses his unnamed nephew as an expert. How about Rachel Neuwirth - her bio reads:

Rachel Neuwirth, an internationally recognized, political commentator and analyst. She specializes in Middle Eastern Affairs with particular emphasis on Militant Islam and Israeli foreign policy. She has been published in prominent news papers of Europe, Asia and the US. She is frequently quoted by reputable Media.

No qualifications? No degree mentioned? Not even a BA in Film Studies? Nothing?

- "book was published by a non-academic press" - somehow this is an issue with your acceptance of Shahak, but it's not an issue with CAMERA and the other sources - none of which are academic in nature?

- "radical political agenda" - if the publisher's agenda is such an issue for you, why do you accept CAMERA as reliable? It is well known indeed for being partisan in its views.

Do you fail to see a double standard in how you're critical of Shahak as a WP:RS, but quite happy with those who are critical of him, who have the same "issues"? Doesn't it feel a little like... hypocrisy?

As a novel idea, perhaps you could offer some suggestions on how the article can be improved, instead of simply shooting down any proposed change on ill defined Wiki policies. Something constructive, perhaps?GrizzledOldMan (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GOM, you seem to have gotten confused about the topic of this thread. Nishidani was insisting that Shahak was a reliable source regarding Judaism, and could therefore be used in the Criticism of Judaism article. So far he (and you) have singularly and spectacularly failed to back that assertion up with any policy-based support. Still waiting. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg . You write:'Nishidani was insisting that Shahak was a reliable source regarding Judaism'. Is this deliberate misrepresentation on your part, or another slip? I'd appreciate you indicating where I said 'Shahak was a reliable source regarding Judaism'. Otherwise black out the remark. Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review loaded question. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please answer the question, or rather, do not attribute to editors words or ideas they never expressed, or if you do, and are told you have done so, be so kind as to cross out the misrepresentation. It is called good manners.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review your first post in this thread, and this comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights

Can someone give a source to verify this organization? As far as I can tell from a google search, it is just an alternate name for Shahak. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

About all I could find is this [2] book on Amazon. It is self published by Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, and the "organization" seem to consist of little, if anything, more than Israel Shahak himself. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I did read the sources. It establishes nothing. All I see is that Israel Shahak has represented to many people that there is such an organization, but there is nothing I have seen to establish that the "organization" consists of more than Israel Shahak. If you have something to establish that the organization exists, where are the members? What has it done? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter whether, googling, you found nothing or not. When the league was active Shahak presided over it as chairman. Its papers were published in a book, by that name. You didn't read the relevant sources. I'm not here to do your homework for you. Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidanie: There's no reason to get bitey. Let's start with step one. Right now the sentence "Shahak instead joined the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, was elected president of the League in 1970" is uncited. Is there a source for this statement?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable, Malcolm. The origin of the bitter dispute between Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz lies with a fraudulent claim by the latter about Shahak's role in the ILHCR, exposed by Chomsky. See here. NSH001 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the organization has ceased to exist, that could explain the lack of information to be found through a web search. But the article does not say that. Rather, it gives the impression it is an existing organization. Adding some dates were would help. The one book I checked on amazon was self published by the organization. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot NSH001! We now have a source that the organization existed. Now that we have the source we can also add Dershowitz's criticism of the organization and Chomsky's defense.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Write a page on the organization and link it. Dershowitz WP:BLP violation removed not a reliable source on anything outside of American criminal law and the innocence of O.J.Simpson.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

An article about the organization might not be a bad idea, but in any case there should still be mention in this article of the criticism he received during his time as the leader of the organization. Fighting about the use of Dershowitz as a source is unnecessary when we can use reliable sources that quote Dershowitz in this context.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, My understanding is that WP:BLP standards apply also to talk page content. Please refactor your BLP violation and insult to Dershowitz. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Nishidani, I've removed your BLP violation. That's the second time I've had to do that on this page in as many days. Don't let it happen again. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't retract anything. I did that quite consciously, aware of the inevitable request re BLP to illustrate, mechanically, a tacit principle here. One can pour bucket loads of pure shit and defamation on a recently deceased Jewish intellectual who happened to be critical of his country and fundamentalism, while one cannot remark on the obvious truth, well documented by Frank Menetrez and others, about Dershowitz. Thanks for illustrating my point.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is some more information on the history of the organisation - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_League_for_Human_Rights. Also, some information on Felicia Langer, who for many years was vice president of the organisation - http://www.felicia-langer.de/eng.html Logicman1966 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Felicia Langer link. However the ILHR whose sourcewatch article you link to is a completely different organisation --NSH001 (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you read the whole article you will find a section that talks specifically about the Israeli League. Yes they are 2 diferent organisations, however they were affiliated until about 1975. It's further evidence re the existence and activities of the Israeli League. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Uri Davis, who was Vice-Chair of the ILHCR when Shahak was Chair, refers to the organisation several times in his autobiography Crossing the Border, including a potted history on pages 103-4. Shahak's role in the League is also referred to by Noam Chomsky in The Fateful Triangle (p 142), by Edward Said in The Politics of Dispossession (p 250), by David Hirst in The Gun and the Olive Branch (p297), by Maxim Ghilan in How Israel Lost Its Soul (p162-3), by Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht in The Fate of the Jews (p245) -- and that's just to mention the first half-dozen books I took off my shelf. It's ridiculous to pretend that the ILHCR did not exist, was not well known, or had no connection to Shahak. RolandR (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Category anti-Semitism

Werner Cohn and Paul Bogdanor have made similar accusations against Pilger, Chomsky and Finkelstein (plus several other individuals who are fiercely critical of Israeli policy). It does appear that these two people have credibility problems and are located at the low-quality end of the spectrum when it comes to serious criticism. Their accusations are not deemed solid enough to include on any other page that I have examined, and none of the above BLP pages are accessible under category "anti-Semitism". Perhaps it is just as editor Nishidani says, and that Israel Shahak is dead, which allows these dubious sources to be cited here on this article. Christopher Hitchens does not hold back when he detects even a degree of anti-Semitism -- witness his treatment in Slate magazine of celebrities, clergymen, activists, etc. -- yet he and Israel Shahak were good friends. Where are the voices of moderation, like Hitchens, who would backup Cohn and Bogdanor, and if they really do exist, we should proceed to substitute them. If not, these two should be reduced to a mere few lines and the tag removed. Dynablaster (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources seem to be reliable. And the category does not mean he is antisemitic, it means the subject is discussed in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They are classed as reliable sources but not enough people take them at all seriously, therefore we should not afford them a great deal of space, as was the case before. I appreciate the tag in question does not mean to suggest that Israel Shahak was antisemitic, but if the accusation in the first place is not compelling enough, then I do not see why the tag should stay. It is not on the Noam Chomsky page despite Cohn and Bogdanor's criticism of him. What is done here does not set precedent elsewhere, in which case we should consider the argument on its own. Dynablaster (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If the category would be "antisemites" I would be inclined to agree with Dynablester, but as Malcolm points out, the article mentions antisemitism. Thus, the removal of category:antisemitism would be inconsistent with article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So do we include category:antisemitism on every named article these two critics accuse of being an antisemite, and/or of collaborating with antisemites? Surely it requires more than that? Dynablaster (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps we should add a sub category: antisemite/collaborator to page Christopher Hitchens. ;) Dynablaster (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think the allegations of antisemitism are not reliably sourced you should argue for the removal of the content from the main part of the article. The main part of the article is far more important then a vague category. Categories should be in-sync with the main part of the article. As long as there are prominent antisemitism allegations or any antisemitism issues in the main article the categories should be consistent. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the definition of Category:Antisemitism: "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic." It's in giant, bold script, it's hard to see how you missed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was already aware of this fact before today. It's beside the point. The gist of my comment above is, are these sources sufficiently credible to justify the section, and thus the category, as it stands? And nobody has addressed the point regarding Christopher Hitchens, in that high quality sources -- who have a history of exposing anti-Jewish sentiment -- don't even take them seriously. There are many reliable sources that have a proven track record of dealing fairly with the subject matter. Where are they? Dynablaster (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The ADL's raison-d'etre is to fight antisemitism. That's what it has been doing for over 95 years. Jayjg^(talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The ADL would be better calling itself the "Defamation League", since it specializes in accusing anyone who criticizes Israel of antisemitism. It was sued for defamation in 1994 and 6 years later lost the case, "Judge fines ADL $10.5 million in Colorado defamation suit". In 2004 a final appeal against this decision was rejected by the Supreme Court. In 1993 Arab American, Black and Native American groups filed a lawsuit, claiming the ADL paid a former San Francisco Police officer and a CIA agent to spy on them. In 1999 the ADL agreed to pay $175,000 for their court costs, promised to stop collecting protected personal information, removed sensitive information such as criminal records from its files, and spent $25,000 on efforts to improve it's relationships with these minority groups. Has the ADL learned anything about such relationships? It's web-site says: "black Americans remain considerably more likely than white Americans to hold anti-Semitic views". (More details at Antisemitism in the United States - and an editor claiming to be AA protesting it here).

And it's not just its ideological opponents and the courts who accuse the ADL of being unable to distinguish antisemitism from legitimate political activity - the top anti-Denialist web-site, Nizkor, hosts a list of cases such as this: "The Boston subway slogans cited by the ADL - presumably the most vicious examples of anti-Semitism - were "Victory to the Palestinian People's Struggle" and "Down With the Reactionary Israeli-Settler State and Their U.S. Masters."

And if smears and lies and racism were not enough, the ADL excluded itself from ever being considered an RS over the Armenian genocide of 1915, long denying it for entirely political reasons. Why did it do this? Well, Turkey didn't want to admit genocide and, as the Boston Globe said, Israel might lose its only Muslim ally. On August 17th 2007 the ADL fired one of its own regional organizers over the Armenian holocaust - Andrew H Tarsy publicly defended the ADL position on Tuesday, but on Thursday told Abraham Foxman that he found the ADL's stance "morally indefensible" and on Friday was sacked. 5 days later, on the 22nd, the ADL reversed its position, Foxman saying "So if that word [genocide] brings the community together, that's fine". Tarsy was re-hired but then left his job. This case allegedly led to Brian Camenker saying "The ADL gives Jews a bad name" in "The Jewish Advocate" of Boston, though the article is no longer available at their web-site. PR^talk 15:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As interesting as that might be, the ADL's history and methods aren't at issue here. It's about whether or not Shahak belongs in the category. Personally I think it's a useless category and could include thousands of articles - everything from the Bible to the Koran, to Teletubbies. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not SOAP-BOXING, honest, but just pointing out that the ADL, mentioned above, is discredited as a source for anything - but particularly allegations of antisemitsm. I'll not risk any disapproval by dating its slide into irrelevancy, interesting though it is. PR^talk 16:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are soapboxing. Honest. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask you to progress our understanding of WP:SOAP by examining this and determining whether it was SOAP-BOXING as defined by policy? It's a TalkPage contribution at an ANI that does not seem to concern the conduct under examination and does not concern the article where the conduct is under examination. It bears no relationship to the breaches of the 4 policies (WP:TALK, WP:EDITWAR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV) that the author is accused of breaching at the ANI. It adds no information concerning the biography that is the subject of the article and doesn't concern any source in use at the article - it concerns a different article and a content/RS dispute as would normally have no place at ANI. In fact, it doesn't even concern this other article, but appears to be a rhetorical question to another editor who refuses to be dragged into a pointless discussion! Was that edit SOAP-BOXING? Or is SOAP-BOXING only objectionable (and actionable) when people seek to improve articles and exclude bad sources? PR^talk 10:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let me help progress your understanding. This thread is about the Category:Antisemitism. Therefore, long filibusters about the ADL are soapboxing. Please don't do it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Very odd edits

Can User:Dynablaster explain why he is removing multiple secondary sources in favor of single, unreliable primary source?[3] This would totally contradict WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to. You are adding several lengthy quotations, all saying the same thing, that Shahak's work is cited by neo-Nazis. Three different editors have objected to the way in which the reference section is being turned into a secondary criticism section. I will strip the these references to the bare bones. Please do not restore this information until we all reach agreement. Dynablaster (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The quotations are all in footnotes, for purposes of verification, they are not in the body of the article. Never remove a quotation from a footnote. Please do not remove the material again until there is consensus to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, please stop arguing backwards. Not a single editor disputes the claim that this man's work turns up, and is abused, on Neo-Nazi websites, therefore there is no need to add hundreds of words of text, particularly when 3 different editors have expressed undue weight concerns. Dynablaster (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, you shouldn't remove quotes from footnotes, since they serve to verify that the material in the article is cited accurately. In addition, you've just violated WP:3RR. I strongly recommend you revert yourself, and work to reach consensus here instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources aside, Jayjg's format splits the Israel Shahak#Reception right down the middle between accolades and criticism, perfectly inline with WP:UNDUE requirements.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps User:GrizzledOldMan can explain why he too is removing multiple secondary sources in favor of single, unreliable primary source, along with violating WP:WEIGHT. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is truly bizarre. User:GrizzledOldMan has reverted again, with the edit summary Article is about Shahak - use of him as a primary source is acceptable. However, aside from the fact that his assertion is incorrect, the material Grizzled Old Man was reverting in doesn't use Shahak as a primary source, but rather uses David Duke as a primary source! GrizzledOldMan, can you explain this? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT does not say 50/50 for each side - it says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". The reception section is supposed to describe how his work has been received - how the public and his peers received it. Giving an entire paragraph to fringe/crackpot groups (neo-nazis, holocaust deniers) gives the issue far too much prominence, for example.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzledOldMan (talk • contribs)

Given the number of sources that have noted Shahak's appeal to neo-nazi's etc., how can you possibly claim noting that fact violates WP:WEIGHT? Also, can you explain why you reverted with the edit summary Article is about Shahak - use of him as a primary source is acceptable.? As is clear, the material you were reverting in wasn't from Shahak at all, but rather, from David Duke. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing my comments, Jayjg - I have every right to comment on a change which I made. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You have some nerve to ask me to stop removing your comments, pointing to a reversion of your removal of my comments. And since I had long since restored your comment, and even signed it for you, before you made this comment, I can only assume that your statement here is more pointy posturing. Now, please answer the question: can you explain why you reverted with the edit summary Article is about Shahak - use of him as a primary source is acceptable.? As is clear, the material you were reverting in wasn't from Shahak at all, but rather, from David Duke. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You had no right to remove my comment - period. This is a consistent action you take whenever someone disagrees with you. I fail to see how you have any right to comment on my refrigeration of your soapboxing comments, when you have done so in multiple cases, to the comments of others.

I used the neo-nazi et al section as an example - that means it's one of the reasons, not the exclusive reason as you imply.

Since you're the one defending the section, perhaps you would care to explain how it is WP:NPOV? It certainly seems to me, to present an overly negative view of his reception. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of my comment, and then restored your comment. Period. And I had every right to do so. Please desist from further pointy edits, and from "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". Now, how could you revert with the edit summary Article is about Shahak - use of him as a primary source is acceptable. as "one of the reasons", when the edit in question didn't use Shahak at all, but rather used David Duke? How could it be any sort of reason? As for WP:NPOV, it specifically requires a balance of views. The "Reception" section is 2/3 positive, 1/3 negative. Do you think it should be even more unbalanced than it already is? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there's the edit. So it was you who initially replaced the secondary sources with original research linked to David Duke's website. It was also you who tacked the "Phd" onto his name. Do you really think that was appropriate? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

David Duke has a PhD.

Perhaps you've missed the point - the article isn't about scoring points for positive/negative. It's about Shahak. This is not an account ledger. If it's accurate, that's the point. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he has a Kandidat Nauk, which is not quite a PhD, from a dubious Ukranian institution known for its antisemitism. More importantly, why would you add something approximating his degree after his name in a citation? Is that a common citation form? Do we do it for anyone else in this article? As for the rest, the article accurately presents both his supporters and detractors; do you think they have been misrepresented in some way? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, explain how exactly it's original research, to use as a reference, someone's own work? If you look at Mark Twain's article, it's replete with quotes of his, taken by books which are collections of his works. Using the author's own work as a source for a quote, for which there is no analysis or interpretation - is completely acceptable. If you can show me where this is against Wikipedia policies, it would be appreciated. If you can't show me that it's against policy, retract your spurious complaint. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you the person who just above (and wrongly, in that case), complained about using primary sources? To quote WP:SECONDARY:

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Glad I was able to assist. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, but it doesn't actually back up your allegation that it's original research. Neither does your supposed quote appear anywhere in WP:NPR. Once again, you're soapboxing and completely failing to answer a simple and direct request for you to explain your allegation. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding WP:NPR, I had already changed the link to go to WP:SECONDARY before you responded, yet you still commented as if I hadn't made the change: very odd. As for the rest of your comment, I can't understand what it means, or what its relevance is. Please re-read my previous comment, which fully explains the problem with creating Original Research by analyzing primary sources. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's advice on the use of sources - that still doesn't explain how it's original research. Since you clearly don't understand "original research", let's go back to the "nutshell" section of WP:NOR:

Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

Nope, I see no violation there - the use of the book as a reference is entirely reliable.

Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.

Considering that it's a direct quote, and a statement of fact (dedication of the book), again, it does not violate any WP:NOR. No analysis, synthesis, or advancing of position is being done. It's a quote and dedication - that's all. It is not in violation of original research. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read past "Since you clearly don't understand "original research"". Comment on content, not on the contributor - though I admit, that one made me chuckle. Anyway, don't remove reliable secondary sources again, and don't insert original research from unreliable primary sources again. This discussion thread is finished. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you've gone way off topic when you can't support your allegation. If you take this attitude, where you outright refuse to back up your claims, you're just provoking an edit-war. You've completely failed to identify where and how it's original research - I'll just go and stick it back in, since you've decided that you can't debate your position. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Curious edit

Can User:GrizzledOldMan explain this edit? The link in question specifically discusses Shahak's work, and the reference was used in the article, so the edit is somewhat mystifying. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The preceding statement was a quote from, and dedication of, the book. It seemed more appropriate to link the source of the quote and dedication, than a full article which discusses Shahak's work - which is not the topic to which it refers. No analysis, research or interpretation of Shahak's work is necessary, to show the quote and dedication.

If you think an ISBN reference would be more appropriate, then that would be fine as well. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It was a secondary source that discussed Shahak's work, and was used as a reference. What are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You're using the article as a coatrack of other complaints. All that is needed is a reference for the quotation (for which no analysis, interpretation, etc is done) and for the book's dedication. We don't need a whole slanderous article to verify those. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You're arguing we should be doing our own analysis of unreliable primary sources, rather than quoting the findings of reliable secondary sources? That would, of course, violate multiple policies. Please review WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Say what? You're alleging that it requires analysis to determine if the quote is in the book or not? You're saying it's an unreliable source for the book dedication? The citation is used to back up the dedication and a quote, to which there is no analysis or interpretation. You've still failed to justify how using an article that's a coatrack of complaints, is a preferable source. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, again, rather than using a reliable secondary source to define what is notable and relevant about Shahak vis-à-vis David Duke, you'd prefer to delete the reliable secondary source, and instead make your own decision about what is notable and relevant, and quote an unreliable primary source instead? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep stating that Duke's book is an unreliable source, yet you still fail to explain WHY it's unreliable as a source for the quote and dedication. The use of the antisemitism.org.il article goes way off topic, and serves only to detract the reader from the actual subject at hand - being Shahak - not Duke. It provides little or no insight into Shahak. As I said before, it's inclusion is turning Shahak's article into a coatrack of complaints. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, got it. You can't understand why David Duke's book on Jews is not a reliable source. That explains a lot. In any event, do not again replace material cited to reliable secondary sources with original research sourced to an unreliable primary source. You have been notified. This thread is also done. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You've completely failed to explain how it's WP:OR, much less the shifting goalposts you're now adding. Unless you can put your complaint into English rather than randomly rattling off guideline/policy pages, you're just provoking an edit-war in your removal. At the moment, since your goalposts shift around more than a snake on a frying pan:

• 1. WP:OR - quoting an author's own work for his own opinion - where no inferences or conclusions are drawn on it, is acceptable as far as I can see. You've failed to explain your complaint.
• 2. WP:RS - I really don't know where this one comes from. I believe Duke is quite qualified to comment on his book, and that his book is a perfectly reliable source to indicate its dedication. In what way is it unreliable?
• 3. Primary source - unfortunately, you haven't a leg to stand on. Quotes (not referring to interpretation of quotations) invariably come from primary sources. If you think you know better than this essay, please grace us with your knowledge.

Your denigrating manner toward any challenges to your position isn't helping matters. If you feel you cannot explain your position in a civil manner - just leave. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem

The Reception section's second half is redoubled by the section on Antisemitism that follow. This is reduplication and the creation of an unnecessary heading. I suggest one either split it into 'positive' and 'negative' or include the antisemitic section crap in the second part of the Reception pastiche. Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just rename the whole merged section to, "Charges of anti-Semitism"? I fail to see how the current section title is applicable. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem, probably because I think of 'Reception' in terms of the German 'Rezeption', which is a specialists' term, used in the history of literature, to describe the way an author and his work were 'received', what sorts of reactions and consequences flowed from a book's publication.IUt covers everything, from positive reviews to sideswipes. Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Providing accompanying notes

I suggest strongly that editors consult, where his critics deride him by direct citation of apparently strange remarks, that on each occasion, a note be given allowing the wiki reader to readily peruse the original text. For example,(a) the point about ritual cursing (true in some communities, at least, I have been informed by a friend this was what his grandfather was taught in Genova in the 1920s) while passing cemetaries is raised in a context which examines the effect antisemitic pressures in Europe had on printing and editing the Talmud. It meant that controversial passages had to be altered. After the state of Israel was founded, the Talmudic texts as they were originally copied or printed down until the late medieval period, could be restored without the euphemisms. Therefore Shahak is saying that from the 16th century, throughout modernity, many Talmudic editions did not contain this kind of original language about goyim. He illustrates it with that anecdote.(b) In the 'washing the hands' the 'pious Jew' contextually, refers to those Jews who subscribe to the cabalistic tradition. It is not about all Jews, or all pious Jews, but, in context, a follower of a specific current of early modern Judaism. Notes allow readers to compare the decontextualized remark with the original, without comment. That is one way of restoring NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, your statements are of no use to the article because they are unsourced. What you have been informed by a "friend" is not usable in the article. This talk page is to improve the article, and is not the place for you to try to score points off Jews. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course my personal knowledge is of no use to you, and I have never aired my private knowledge on wiki articles. I have, again, no intention of scoring points off Jews as you put it in a foul innuendo. Here I am endeavouring to see that a Jewish intellectual not be smeared, and that editors here do not abuse wiki to score points off him, who was a Jew and an honourable man. Much of what he wrote can be found in numerous independent sources, like Joshua Trachtenberg's Jewish Magic and Superstition (Behrman's Jewish Book Home, 1939), which I have in the Meridian edition of 1961. So don't admonish me for what I never did, or would never do, or make out I am some twit who, in defence of a Jewish man's integrity, is trying to get at 'Jews'. Words like those you have used constitute poisoning the well, and character assassination, of the kind used on this article itself in abundance. Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for making your personal statements of belief. If you think a reliable source has been misrepresented, that is important to discuss. But, if you think a reliable source is wrong, that should be saved for your blog, because it does not belong here. Sorry, but that's how Wikipedia works. Everything is based on reliable, verifiable, sources. Anything else is considered WP:OR. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I made no personal statement of belief. I mentioned, en passant, that I have had a fact confirmed by a friend of jewish descent. It is not my belief that there are Jewish traditions about cursing Christians while passing graveyards. I note it as a fact studied, analysed and commented on by numerous historians, Jewish and otherwise, by professional historians, and not by Shahak alone. Do you really need references? Often, Irish children a century ago were told Christ was the only man in history who was exactly 6 feet tall. That books say this does not mean that I, born in later generations when this lore was forgotten, believe it. One is obliged to know one's own history, and not, as here, pretend it is not as complex as historians say it was. Ari Alexander makes the point re Shahak: he is remarking on a large amount of belief and superstition, a good deal of it from rabbinical sources (every religion has this stuff), that once existed, and, in so far as it is reprinted, lectured on, taken as sacred or purveyed in certain schools, may inflect politics in Israel. To remark this is not to hijack the talk page for a private blog, but simply to clarify what the author we are writing on says, for those who apparently know nothing of him, the subjects he dealt with and the context in which he wrote.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are continuing to make personal statements of belief, even while you say you are not. What you, or I, think is true about Shahak is irrelevant, and discussing that is a waste of time. The article must be written base only on reliable and verifiable sources. As for the books by Joshua Trachtenberg and Behrman, what they wrote can be used only to the extent that they refer directly to Israel Shahak. Trying to take what you think is related material from them and applying that to Shahak is WP:synthesis, which is not allowed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Coulkd I prevail on you to read what I say, and suspend your imagination. I have done nothing on the article of the matters you impute to me, and therefore suspect you have trouble construing plain English. I am quite aware of the distinctions you make. I have never violated them in editing the article.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, but I am not sure you understand my point. What I said is that discussion on the talk page of your personal views of Shahak, or about sources that are not admissible in the article, should not be on the talk page. This is not the Israel Shahak discussion forum, and it is not your blog. See WP:SOAP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not discussing my personal views. I am noting on the talk page things anyone with a little knowledge of the subject and of Israel Shahak should be aware of before jumping in to edit. You should know for example that there is no book by Behrman on Jewish Magic. It is a publishing house. There is no veto on explaining to other editors why a particular source is a bad source, and why that source gets facts wrong. Of course Werner Cohn can have his snippet on the page. Of course my note that his surprise at what Shahak wrote reflects his ignorance of the subject will remain on this talk page. Shahak could source his claim, his critic cannot. I think it worthwhile to notify on the talk page editors who can't distinguish between the two that this happens to be the case here. Knowing such things may help them to improve the quality of the sources they google for to get at Shahak. Several scholars have reviewed him critically, and yet no one has cited them. Perhaps because, as serious critics, they analyse what Shahak thought, and don't need distortions or caricatures to criticize him. Can we move on? Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody need to know that 'there is no book by Behrman on Jewish Magic' before editing this page. As Malcolm Schosha rightly notes, this page is for discussing improvement to the Israel Shahak article. "Jewish Magic" is irrelevant, as is the Behrman publishing house. If you want to move, please do so, and stop lecturing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Go back to the top of the section. I made a suggestion about how to edit. The suggestion was to provide a page full of innuendoes, smears and gross distortions of a text, with cross-references to that text, so that the reader could make up his own mind. In suggesting this I paraphrased what Shahak says in these controversial areas. Malcolm Schosha apparently hasn't read Shahak, for he immediately took my paraphrase of Shahak's own text as an exposition of my personal views. Had he been familiar with Shahak he would not have attributed to me ideas which Shahak wrote out. Since he is unfamiliar with the area, I added a reference, for his illumination, by a Jewish scholar, whose work covers much of the ground Shahak's book does. Result? Malcolm confused the name of the publisher with an imagined colleague of that scholar. Result? In correcting his mistake, I get dragged into accusations of soapboxing. Therefore, could you all, if you wish to edit this article, take some days off, read several books by Shahak, and the secondary literature, on the topics he dwells on, and get a focus on things. This niggling is a total waste of time.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It does help to check things

I began checking the antisemitic list (I admit I require an amphetamine-enema normally to read the David Dukes of this world), and have only now caught sight of Ari Alexander's name. This surprised me. I've read a monograph of his on the Jews of Iraq, and did not expect him, to judge from mmy impressions of his approach to history, to cock a snook at Shahak, which he certainly appears to be doing in the snippet cited here. In fact, he says the exact opposite of what that snippet would have us believe. Editors are welcome to harvest this for the text. In the meantime, I'm off to bed.

Ari Alexander Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions

<copyrighted text reproduced in its entirety removed>

I think it would be better if whoever wrote this (it is unsigned), not to use this talk page as though it is their personal blog. Please stay on the subject of improving the article, rather than advocating your perception of Israel Shahak's views. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Nishidani. Nishidani, please review Fair use. More on that below. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A niggle. A link accesses the same text, i.e. the difference is between clicking the link and copying its content. No harm done. I gather few people actually read links, since the use of Ari Alexander whose remarks are only harvested to give the impression he believes the opposite of what his article actually says was itself curious. Still, the links there, and Alexander's remarks will be used in the section dealing with reception.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference in copyright law between linking to a copyrighted work, and reproducing it in its entirety. This is not a niggle, but a serious violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. Please don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my practice to do it. But since it strikes me as evident that many are editing here without actually reading the material in the links, on that key review, I took the trouble to ensure that at least editors would read the link. Save me the 'serious violation' language. We are not in in a gulag, and Ari Alexander would be the last person to throw a loop at my insistence his complete statement on Shahak be read, instead of clipped to provide factitious evidence for Shahak's putative associations with Nazis and other fanatics.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your dismissive attitude toward copyright infringement is worrying. The "serious violation" language is not just mine, it is the language of wikipedia policy which says "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project". You may believe that 'Ari Alexander would be the last person' to make a claim against the project, but I find little comfort in your personal beliefs, especially since the copyright in question is held by MyJewishLearning, Inc., who specifically state that 'You may not use, copy, publish, upload, download, post to a bulletin board or otherwise transmit, distribute, or modify any contents of the site in any way'. Please do not violate policy in this manner again, or you may face serious consequences. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm grateful you went to the trouble to clarify this. I hadn't checked, and you are right. However, just on a legal point, my understanding is that 'otherwise transmit' could apply also to links?

In 10,000 edits you will find I did this once, and remonstratively, because, evidently, no one read the link in its entirety. I wish they would instead of googling for snippety remarks that suit their POV. Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential ArbCom sanctions

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved administrator. I have no opinion on the content of this article, but the recent revert wars are not acceptable. So please, I would like to remind all editors here that this article falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, which says, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

I am not currently placing any restrictions on this article or the editors here, but please do take this as an expression of concern about the recent disruption. To avoid any restrictions, all editors are encouraged to work harder at consensus-building. Review the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and try to get away from using "revert" as an editing tool. Instead, try to edit the article in a way that changes other editors' text, rather than removing it wholesale. And don't worry, even if disruption continues, it doesn't mean that bans and blocks will be issued immediately. Any editor at risk of further restrictions will still get a formal notice on their talkpage as a "warning shot across the bow" to let them know that their behavior needs to improve. Hopefully, however, further administrative warnings will not be necessary. The ideal outcome here, is that you can resolve your own disputes without requiring administrator intervention. So please, treat each other with respect, and try to keep in mind that the ultimate goal here is creating an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is intended not as a battleground, but as a provider of articles that are of use to our readers. Articles which reflect positively on our editors, and on Wikipedia as a whole. Good luck, --Elonka 22:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I myself have reverted edits which I made, and were erased by several editors, without due explanation or recourse to this talk page.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

The article seems to have gained a number of extremely lengthy, verbatim quotes, ranging from over 100 words to, in some cases, over 300 words. Lengthy quotations are copyright violations; as it says in Fair use:

In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article's quotation of approximately 300 words from former President Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir was sufficient to constitute an infringement of the exclusive publication right in the work. (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 105 S.Ct. 2218 (1985)

I'll let the quotations stay in for a day, so that those who added them can trim them to an acceptable length. If they are still in the article tomorrow, I will delete any that is over 250 words, and open a discussion on any that are 150-250 words. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd better argue that by 'thinking more precisely on th'event' than you have. You have pasted in numerous references to neo-Nazis sites and publishers who have violated Shahak's copyright by highjacking his text, to host it illegally, and now use a 'fair use' argument to disallow editors from simply citing the original remarks Shahak's critics distort in order to create the impression he is a friend of these same neo-Nazis. The strategy is obvious, violating WP:Undue weight to get an overload of muck and innuendo in: citing WP:Fair use to keep out material from the slandered author's work that gives balance and corrects the defamation and abuse of copyright from both Jewish critics and neo-Nazis/anti-Semites.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't posted any copyright violations. Please stay on topic. Now, regarding the lengthy quotes remaining in the article, the most egregious are

1. the Hitchens quote in the Biography section (193 words), and
2. the Segev quote in the alleged telephone incident section (238 words).

I'd like to see both of these reduced to under 175 words. The Segev quote in particular adds almost nothing to our understanding of the alleged incident. I'll come back tomorrow, and check on their length. If they're under 175 words by then, then I will accept that. If either exceeds 175 words, then I will reduce it myself to 150 words or fewer. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Segev account, contrary to what you say, balances Jakobowitz's account. In one Shahak is an active participant, in the other he is a mere witness. The Segev quote gives several importance details about contemporary reactions, naming newspapers and Israelis of distinction and their reactions to that event as it was publicized. That is most material to the section.

Your procedure is odd. You impose conditions, whereas you are just one of many editors. You implicitly assume a role of authority on the page in saying unless something is done to shorten these citations, you will remove them, and establish what appear to me to be arbitrary criteria. To cite 238 words from a very large book is not, in academia, unfair usage. Secondly, the criteria you have established out of the hat conflict with those you vigorously defended in conserving, against my own scepticism in the past, that large number of quotations in favour of the legality of Israeli settlement on the Israeli settlement page. Many of them exceed 200 words, and are clipped verbatim from short articles and books. In percentage terms (quote words vs article words) many of them exceed the percentage of text I have cited here. All editors, but particularly those with an administrative function, are required to cleave to coherence in their application of the rules. So, I see no grounds for you threat to remove these two texts, and pare them down to a limited no of words you alone so far think proper. Since you raise the issue, discuss it here and see what all other editors can adduce by way of wiki practice to support your position. Unilateral removal is only an invitation to edit-warring. Do not act by arbitrary fiats.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

While the Segev account may balance the Jakobowitz account, there's no need for such a lengthy verbatim quote, particularly of details already in the article. That's just lazy writing (on top of being a copyright violation); editors should say it in their own words. As for the Hitchens quote, it was 193 words out of a 1054 word article, or fully 18% of the article; contrast that with the Ford copyright violation mentioned earlier, 300 words out of 200,000, or 0.15% - that's 120 times as much as what the Supreme Court found to be a copyright violation. I was hoping you would fix these problems, to avoid any accusations of "cutting the most important bits", but since you haven't, I've fixed it. The next item to look at is the Fisk quote, which is 150 words out of a 1786 word article, or 8.4% of the article. Regarding the Israeli settlement article, I will note briefly that I saw no quotes in there exceeding 200 words - but more importantly, we are discussing this article, not that one; I will not refer to it again here, as I will not be drawn down rabbit holes. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I referred to your use of a dozen fringe sources, fully quoted in the notes, from mostly unreliable sources, to fix the impression that Shahak is a friend of antisemites or an antisemite. No man who knew him, as opposed to the many quarterbaked controversialists who hate him and never crossed his path, called him an antisemite, or believed these absurd charges which you have worked for several years to overdocument.

As a matter of detail, why 175 words? Where does the rule book say that? My impression is that you want to pare down anything complimentary about Shahak.Nishidani (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on the topic of this section, which is copyright violations. Regarding your "impression", it was my "impression" that the five longest quotations in the article, ranging from 150 words to over 300, were all "pro-Shahak", while the longest "anti-Shahak" quotation was 90 words, and the next longest 76 words. And it is my "impression" that the five longest quotations in the article (now ranging from 107 to 157 words) are still all "pro-Shahak" ones. And you know what? My "impression" is absolutely correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright objection is wiki-lawyering - our Fair Use article referenced above gives none of the context and doesn't even have a citation to the primary source, let alone reference to a secondary source (as demanded so often at this article and so many others). It is possible to discover that there used to be a reference (but it's to another Wikipedia article, not acceptable for our purpose) at the article, where we can find the context[4]. An unidentified person had shown Nation an illicitly "borrowed" copy and it published "300 to 400 words ... not appeared previously in other publications" concerning the decision of former President Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon. A District Court said "the totality of these facts and memoranda collected, together with Ford's reflections, that made them of value to The Nation, [and] this ... totality ... is protected by the copyright laws."

The SC ruled it was an infringement, noting that the right of first publication (granted to Time magazine at $25K for 7,500 words, half the money in advance and half unpaid due to the publication by Nation) is a particularly strong right and applied the "traditional four factor test", determining 1) The purpose or character of the use was commercial (to scoop a competitor) 2) The nature of the copyrighted work was informative 3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole was great, as it constituted a substantial portion of the infringer's work. (Apparently, the Court might have noted, but did not, that the infringer could not defend plagiarism by pointing to how much else they could have plagiarized) and 4) The effect of the use on the potential market for the value of the copyrighted work was also great, because there was an actual harm – the canceled contract. At the primary source US Supreme Court Center, HARPER & ROW V. NATION ENTERPRISES, 471 U. S. 539 (1985) I find that there was no punitive element, and the judgement was the unpaid half of the contract value, $12,500.

Now, we cannot put on the mantle of lawyers and decide what would or would not be counted as copyright infringement, but neither can one editor here (already publicly pilloried for OWNERSHIP of this article) use this case to claim there is a 300 word limit (and go further, putting a limit of 175 words on these quotes!) based on a case entirely concerning commercial value. If Wikipedia needs this protection, then maybe someone needs to put their mind to writing it up for us. What we don't need is highly selective abuse of non-existent policy, opening the door to enforcement for entirely POV purposes. PR^talk 11:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

PR, unless you are a respected copyright lawyer, and offering your services to the Wikimedia foundation gratis in the event of any copyright actions by various publishers, please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering usually means "Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions". It's unusual (not to say extreme) to see it applied to fabrication of policy. PR^talk 13:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed, particularly on this topic, where it hasn't happened at all. Now, please stop soapboxing and start making positive contributions. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'lengthy passage' NoCal removed

The reason given was that it has nothing to do with the incident. Not true. The incident is showcased, and Shahak in his note alludes to it by referring (ironically) to the fact that Jakobovitz, in his own book (1962 ed.) cites Cahana's study mentioning a case from 19th century Rome of a rabbinical ruling regarding the Sabbath and Jewish doctors which underlines precisely the original point Shahak made. Now anyone can check Responsa. All that we are getting in this gamesmanship is a fabricated impression that Shahak's use of Avodah Zarah 26a, and later commentaries on it, was incorrect. Do you, gentlemen, really want me to give the whole story here, and a selection of passages from reliable sources showing that the passages on which Shahak made his comments do exist in the Talmud. Of course not, that would be 'original research' even if only for a talk page. But don't tell me that the contrived impression here is truthful. 'Responsa vary in nuance from rabbi to rabbi, age to age Shahak is speaking of the original Talmud and numerous historical responsa. Jakobovitz and others are talking about modern responsa, which interpret the Talmudic points more broadly. Still, by way of compromise, I have paraphrased the point, instead of quoting it. Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Diff please? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about fact, not truth - if Shahak has been grossly misinterpreted, then reliable sources countering those claims, or at least contextualizing them, need to be cited. So long as the analysis is done by a WP:RS, it comes down to editorial discussion, what goes into the article. In this case, I've been unable to find much in the way of articles clarifying what he wrote (to be honest, there's little mileage for one to publish arguments against the rather aggressive opponents of Shahak) - so, malevolent and inaccurate as the sources are that disparage him - until they're challenged in a published source, there's little one can do to challenge them in Wikipedia. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources adduced to disparage and misrepresent him are not reliable. The content of Shahak's own books and life belie all the libels made against them and him. Frankly, as I've said, I don't really mind all that much this rubbish being hauled in here by the bucket load. It reflects only on those who write it, or push it in as though there were some truth to these bizarre assertions. The more in, the better, from one perspective. Any attentive reader will start to wonder why some much effort is being made to smear someone. And yet, no responsible and neutral editor would write an article, in the way this article has been written, for an encycloipedia. Fundamentally, this is just unencyclopedic, and in that sense, the muck from the sewers does violate the formal aspiration and objectives of Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The section is titled 'Alleged phone incident". The paragraph you added is not about this incident at all, and the point made in it (that a Jew may accept work in a place where work on a Saabbath might be required ,under certain circumstances) is different, and in fact contradicts Shahak's cliams made in the fabricated phone incident. Please cease your edit warring over this. NoCal100 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'Alleged phone incident' (The title itself is misleading) deals with the issue of whether there is a problem or not in lending succour to the ill on the Sabbath. If you actually read the section, instead of focusing on the title, you will see that Jakobovitz makes much ado, as did the newspapers of the day, about the more general issue of whether or not one is allowed to succour the ill on the Sabbath. More sources indeed have been added to say this is not indeed the case (it was). Since Shahak, three decades later, referred to Jakobovitz, and the Sabbath-doctor problem, by noting the former's book mentioned scholarship which shows that this was indeed a problem in Jewish law relating to succouring non-Jews, it is more than appropriate to cite that note from Shahak.

I note you think the phone incident is 'fabricated'. You're entitled to believe that. But you began the edit-warring, something I do not engage in. In the sense that I made an edit, and you reverted it with a spurious justification without even troubling to inform the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What I believe with regards to the incident is irrelevant, as is what you believe. What is important is what reliable sources say, and we have impeccable sources saying not only that the incident was fabricated, but that Shahak himself has admitted this. The point of Shahak original allegation was that rabbinical sources forbid lending succor to the non-Jewish ill on the Sabbath. The section you added is not about the fabricated phone incident, and not about this point, but about a totally different issue - the permissibility of taking a job when it is known in advance that it will require work on the Sabbath. And as a side-note, the response given to this different question contradicts Shahak's earlier claim with regards to lending succor to the non-Jewish ill on the Sabbath. But this point was apparently lost not just on you, but also on Shahak. I've warned you about edit warring, further reverts will be dealt with on the appropriate administartor's forums. NoCal100 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Elonka is here. Please stop waving warnings and innuendoes, and just provide the diffs to show where I am edit-warring, and against whom? Once you have done so, I would ask Elonka to analyse your data, and make a call as to whether my recent involvement on this article is notable for edit-warring. In other words, document your accusation, or withdraw it.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, the whole phone incident thing is more than a little suspicious. An allegation, no supporting sources to back it up, 29 years of it being ignored, never addressed by either Shahak or Jakobovitz while they were alive. Impeccable? Hardly. WP:RS they it may be, but it can't be put forth as a statement of fact - it's an allegation. End of whinge.GrizzledOldMan (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100. Actually what you believe is apparently relevant, because you describe one secondary source, which has never been corroborated, as 'impeccable'. Actually you say we have more than one source, another mistake. We have only Jakobovitz's testimony. There was a significant scandal in the Israeli press over what Shahak reported. Editorials were written, letters to the editors printed. This all is documented by Segev. If what Jakobovitz asserts were true, there should surely be some extensive reporting in the press of the day that would corroborate his unique version, since it was after all a public scandal in Israel. No, despite 4 decades, no one has so far come up with an independent review of Jakobovitz's unique claim, or given corroborative data to back his several claims. We have, to date, nothing of the sort. We have one interested, indeede 'offended' party, a rabbi, telling us Shahak was 'forced' to recant, we are not told to whom, or when or why a man who had survived the Warsaw Ghetto, and WW2, and fought in an elite unit in the IDF, shrank and cringed under some hypothetical interrogation, which he was as a secularist under no obligation to submit to, which 'forced' him to recant. We have only, so far, Jakobovitz's word for it. No problem, that is his version of events, and we have cited them.

Now you take this as not an 'allegation' but rather say Shahak 'alleged'. Shahak alleged nothing. He stated as a fact, that rabbinical sources considered lending succour to Gentiles on the Sabbath was problematical. There are numerous responsa on this: look them up. The passage from Jakobovitz, please read the section, is not about a telephone incident. It is about an incident which raised the question of whether one was obliged to give succour to a Gentile if that meant violating the Sabbath. Most of the section deals with, not with a telephone call, but with the issue of the obligations of Jewish physicians on the Sabbath, precisely what Shahak's citation of Jakobovitz's book and its registration in the bibliography of Cahana's study, deals with. It is perfectly proper to note that in the very book where Shahak recalls his version of events, he concludes it with a note on Rabbi Jakobovitz and his undoubted knowledge of Cahana's study which dealt, inter alia with the contested issue of physicians and the Sabbath. I wholly fail to see why you think this is not material to the 'Telephone incident'. If you can persuade several others, I will reexamine it of course.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, in the last 24 hours, you have three times reverted NoCal’s edits to re-insert Shahak’s account of Hazan, here , here and here. It is very obvious that you are editing warring over this, and looking at some of your other recent edits, it is quite possible that you’ve already violated WP:3RR. Elonka has issued a general warning about edit warring subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, NoCal has specifically alerted you to the reverts you were making to his/her edits – and I have provided the diffs you requested. You are skating on extremely thin ice. You were bold, but have been reverted on this issue - the onus is now on you to "persuade several others" that this belongs. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in writing 'you have three times reverted NOCal's edits' you are saying (a) NoCal made three edits I reverted three times, which would logically mean NoCal was a party to my 'edit-warring'. In fact, I did not revert NoCal three times in 24 hours. (b) NoCal, yourself and Malcolm Schosha reverted my edit three times, precisely the inverse of what your statement implies. I know there is a theory that one does well to tie people up in a several-pronged war of attack and defence to waste an editor's time. The more time they spend defending themselves, the less time they have to actually edit. So, this is, I hope, the last we need say of this. Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, lest anyone think that your above wikilawyering has any merit: You have, within 24 hours, three times reverted an edit originally made by NoCal, and subsequently by Malcolm Schosha - here , here and here. That is more than enough to establish clear evidence of edit warring on your part, probably worthy of a block. You are very deep into a hole, and it is perhaps wise to stop digging. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, It looks bad doesn't it. Until you check the record from the 8th till today. Jayjg and I have long edited this page. In the edit war, where he and Dynablaster and GrizzledOldMan ran close to 3RR infractions on the 8th. I played no part.

Jayjg consistently restored the text I had contributed on the 8th, re Cahana. I supported his text as well. For once representatives of both sides agreed.

In comes NoCal100, on the 10th, and reverts me, then Malcolm Schosha and reverts me, and now you to do the same. Must be from all of you five reverts over the past few days, and none of you have condescended to talk this particular passage over here on the talk page. None of you have done much if any talk, except to make warnings to me about my behaviour. You have each given conflicting reasons in your edit summaries. In nother words, you have no justified your edits, you all make the same revert, and you don't work to consensus. Here's the whole record.

Background

(1) I, Nishidani originally posted the edit re Cahana and Rabbi Hazan at 17:53, 8 February 2009

(2) It was removed by Dynablaster, who was a editwarring with Jayjg, at 18:29, 8 February 2009 The reason he gave was that he agreed with GrizzledOldMan and Nishidani. Yet he deleted my own material.

(3) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Shahak&diff=next&oldid=269366045 Jayjg who then 19:47, 8 February 2009 restored the text here], my edit with Werner Cohn’s material, here giving as his reason. Material removed for non-policy reasons restored, original research by Wikipedia editors removed

(4) Jayjg’s restoration of my edit and other material, was reverted by Grizzled old Man at 20:06, 8 February 2009,

(5) Jayjg reverted GrizzledOldMan at Revision as of 20:33, 8 February 2009 , giving as his reason, I'm restoring the longstanding consensus version, pending talk consensus. Please review WP:BRD - you've made the Bold edits, they've been Reverted, now Discuss them

(6) Dynablaster reverted Jayjg again at 20:57, 8 February 2009 ,giving as his reason. (Stale and outdated consensus. Four different editors disagree with your version. Much better (indeed proper) to keep the new version and discuss what alterations/additions might be made.)

(7) [I, Nishidani] reverted Dynablaster’s edit back to the version by Jayjg at 22:55, 8 February 2009 Reason given Since Jakobovits is showcased, it is proper to note Shahak's mention of him, in the context of the laws on observing the Sabbath

Comment So while there was an intense edit war between Jayjg, Dynablaster and GrizzledOld Man in the 8th of February. I did not join in it. To the contrary, at the end of the war, when all had exhausted their 3RR ammo, I confirmed Jayjg’s edit, which in turn, indeed, had conserved my original edit.

(8) hours later, NoCal100 who has no history of editing the page as Jayjg and I have, and who also appears to wikihound me, enters at 02:23, 9 February 2009 and elides a text that both I and Jayjg had conserved. The reason given was ‘rm lenghty para which has nothing to do with the alleged phone incident)’

(9) I restored the text back to what it was with Jayjg’s editing at 15:35, 10 February 2009

(10) Within 8 minutes at 15:43, 10 February 2009 Malcolm Schosha reverts me. The reason given rv primary sourcing. needs secondary source.

Comment. This is, excuse me, silly. Shahak is quoted from his works all over the article, and only the passage I select is cancelled because, in quoting Shahak, I didn’t quote someone quoting him. Where is it written?

(11) at 21:10, 10 February 2009. I ‘Restored what MSchosha elided.. One does not need a secondary source to site the words of an author whose book is being cited.’

Comment Now Jayjg then makes 10 edits. None of them challenge or dispute my own. This is significant because we disagree with great frequency. So to this point, I have some confidence that, since the 8th down to the 10th, he has never challenged either the original edit contribution nor my restoral of it, while I restored also his material. Grizzly and Dynablaster who you all regard as ‘on my side’ elided it, NoCal and Schocha who all believe are on Jayjg’s side elide it. Neither Jayjg nor I, long term editors of the page, found this edit problematical in terms of wiki procedures.

(12) NoCal100 at 04:33, 11 February 2009 again erases it, giving as his reason ‘rm lenghty para which has nothing to do with the alleged phone incident’

(13) I at 09:32, 11 February 2009 restore it ‘to restore balance to the section’

(14) I changed the quote into a paraphrase. 12:22, 11 February 2009. This is not a revert. It remodelled the text in accordance with Jayjg’s advice this morning for shorter quotes.

(15) Canadian Monkey out of the blue comes in and deletes even my paraphrase of the passage at 19:49, 11 February 2009, giving as his reason. this is not related to the incident in question

I'm too bored and tired to check both the accusation, and my own evidence. But I thought I'd only reverted twice in 24 hours, a thing I dislike. Ah well. Whatever Elonka decides.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this game you are playing? First you demand that another editor provides diffs to a rather obvious edit war by you , and that he do so "immediately", no less. And when such evidence as you demand is produced, you declare yourself "too bored and tired to check" the evidence? Fine, next time I'll just report you directly at WP:AN3 an be done with it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I personally averted Elonka that I had reverted edits before either NoCal100 or Canadian Monkey raised the issue. I notified her of my own inclusion in her warning, out of scruple, out of a sense that I was being pushed with reluctance into a type of editing I deeply dislike, in what appears to be tagteaming opposition, and trust that she will look at all of this comprehensively, if called upon to make a judgement.

I edit on my own, but discuss collegially if there is some doubt. So I have not 'played' in whatever game has been played here. I called on a neutral administrator, and on NoCal100, and you busybody in to selectively attack my behaviour, while ignoring all context. Before the instance you cite, yet which NoCal1000 threatened me about, there was an edit-war, between Jayjg, Dynablaster and GrizzledOldMan. I didn't follow it. I made one edit, which happened to be caught up in their battle. I don't know why Dynablaster and GrizzledOldMan consistently cancelled that edit. I do know Jayjg consistently restored it. They all went close to the 3RR, and neither you, nor NoCal100, nor Michael Schosha warned them. I restored the edit I made from the havoc of that war, also because Jayjg had restored it. We are longterm editors of the page, who rarely agree. The fact he never challenged it, while challenging many other things, gave me a reasonable ground for believing my edit was consonant with his reading of the wiki rulebook.

Enter NoCal100, who has a record of stalking me and turning up to pages I have long edited, and, as I expected, began to challenge that edit. I restored it, and 'within 8 minutes Malcolm Schosha teamed to cancel the revert. Neither of them gave any solid argumentation for their teamed cancellation of that edit. Jayjg then returned to editing, and did not touch my contribution. Silence implies consent. I had substantial grounds therefore that he thought nothing wrong with that edit, since he never challenged it. You now turn up out of the blue, and both cancel the edit and join NoCal in threatening to bring me to administration. Were this a neutral call, you should have done so with Jayjg as well, whose record for restoring that edit parallels mine. I call it tagteaming. Of the worst kind, for not one of the three has even 'deigned' to explain on this page what is wrong with that edit, which I however have modified from a quote to a paraphrase, in accordance with Jayjg's general advice.. By all means keep up the threats, and the tagteaming directed uniquely at my work here. I'm too busy actually trying to improve the page to waste more time on them. Indeed I have come to see it as a default mode of engaging with me on many pages. You all know the rulebook, where it can be manipulated to advantage in tagteaming 'games', but I see no indication you know anything about the subject of this article. What are you doing here, by the way, other than reverting and threatening?Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, please review WP:SOAP. Particularly note: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.

I understand that you feel frustrated. But using talk pages as a soapbox is discourage by WP guidelines exactly because it is not helpful to the editing process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On a page where Elonka rightly posted a noticed on Arbcom sanctions, to warn editors from edit warring, three people reverted the same edit I had originally made, two warned me of administrative action if I challenged their tagteaming, and you repeat the Soapbox charge when I go to some trouble to lay out the reasons why this charge against me is selective. To split a revert into three people, and then warn the one editor who defends it because it has not been challenged by the editor with the longest experience on the page, does not have the appearance of propriety, neither in the edit (tagteaming) nor the substance. I see now that even my attempt to contextualise all this is subject to challenges, which hold also an implicit suggestion I am violating policy. Sorry, I won't be muzzled. By the way, why don't you edit the page, instead of waste time in this tactical gamesmanship of throwing suspicions on an editor? Why don't you study the subject? There are many things to correct that aren't controversial. I've been watching for months to see if anyone so taken by these character assassination texts will ever take the trouble over obvious errors by checking if Jakobovits was indeed, as the article fallaciously asserts, Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom. Lastly, you reverted me without taking any trouble to use the talk page to explain why you find a perfectly legitimate edit improper. Not using talk pages to explain why one reverts, when it looks like tagteaming, is not helpful to the editing process. Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two edits of mine, in this very section, where I am using the Talk page to explain my reverts. Your lies are not confusing anyone. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I first noticed NoCal100 when he started wiki-stalking me to articles (such as Shuafat, Mohammed Omer, Western Wall, USS Liberty incident) to confront or revert my edits, in many cases in articles he'd previously had nothing to do with. This smacks of the same thing I'm seeing on this page, an aggressive and decidedly uncollegiate attitude to what should be regular TalkPage discussion. The only editor I'd ever previously noticed this unpleasantly threatening was a notorious meat-puppet for Jayjg, "Isarig" (all records mysteriously renamed eg contributions of FormerUser 2) who took up on the "right to disappear" after being caught in abusive sock-puppetry. Another meat-puppet of Jayjg's was FeloniousMonk, eventually de-syssoped partly for the conduct described here where, of a total of 17 blocks of editors carried out by FM, 11 were done on the request of User:Jayjg (and 2 of the others by notorious Zeq now indef-blocked for subversion). I have no evidence or reason to think that NoCal100 is linked directly or by association with any known cheat, but I also know that all my edits are based on sources that I have some good reason to think are both well sourced and relevant. Reverts such as this and this from an editor never before seen at an article look like disruptive wiki-stalking. Rabbis for Human rights may not be at the upper end of "reliable sources", but they're they're hardly "of questionable reliability and notability" and the material I used them for was quite uncontentious and useful. PR^talk 12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of something? Please be very specific and provide evidence. NoCal100 (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you to strike out the insinuation that NoCal100 is a 'notorious meatpuppet of Jayjg'. Were that so, were there evidence for it, it would be before the appropriate Arbitration. It is your opinion, and one that is not conducive to bringing this article back to some wellneeded civility. Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

PR - I agree with Nishidani, that you would be best served by striking out that comment, and possibly extending some sort of apology. It's not stalking to go and check an editor's work on other articles if they have shown dubious prudence in one. It's hardly stalking, for example, to check the contribution list of an editor that tries to stick in partisan original research. Sorry man, but as much as I am opposed to Jayjg's attitude and behavior, he's not violating any rules in his "stalking". GrizzledOldMan (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Animal experiments

Unfortunately, I have as yet found no reliable source for this, other than my own testimony. Shahak once told me that, from a scientific point of view, he was opposed to pharmaceutical experiments on animals, since their physiology was too different from that of humans to be a reliable indicator. This was not a moral opposition -- his concern was human, not animal, rights -- but scientific observation and scepticism towards received wisdom. If anyone can find independent evidence for this, it should be added to the article. RolandR (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, if that were verifiable, there is no reason it should not be in the article, although it does not seem particularly important. If it were based on ethical reasons, it would something about the man that I could like. (Israel seems to have a particularly large vegetarian movement. That, combined with some Jewish religious dietary regulations, made getting a vegetarian meals in Israel particularly easy.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Alleged telephone incident

Since so many other editors are discussing stuff that can not go into the article, I would like to ask a question that probably has similar limitations.

If Shahak found a man unconscious on the ground, as is described ("Dr Israel Shahak . . once found a visiting student from Africa unconscious on a Jerusalem street"), how did he know the man was not Jewish? Did he zip open the guy's pants to check his dick for circumcision? There are, and always have been Jews who are very dark complexioned, and it is difficult to understand how he could have known the guy's religion or nationality by that. But assuming that he did know, what did he do? Apparently he run up to a house and and said: "there is a goy unconscious on the sidewalk who needs an ambulance!" Amazing, and unbelievable too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is of course amazing, and unbelievable, just one aspect which makes it obvious to anyone readng this description that the whole incident was fabricated out of thin air by Shahak, as he later admitted NoCal100 (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Where, when and to whom did he make this alleged admission? RolandR (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. NoCal100 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you would do well to read the article, NoCal100 . There is no reference to when, where or to whom Shahak made the 'forced' admission imjputed to him. We have only Jakobowits' word for it that 'later' to someone, somewhere, at some time, Shahak relented and owned up to lying. In any case, as footnotes 14 through to 37 of his book, written later, amply document, he was right in his assertions about the Sabbath in traditional rabbinical and talmudic lore, and Jakobowits was prevaricating. Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has explained away the irrationality of Shahak's claim, which I pointed out when I started this section. His claim is irrational, and is almost silly. I can not understand how anyone can believe such a ridiculous claim.

I live in one of the largest Chassidic communities in the US, which is served both by a secular ambulance service and by Hatzolah. As much as my Chassidic neighbors drive me nuts, I have complete confidence that Hatzolah would aid any person whatever the circumstances, whatever the day. I have seen it. I do not have the same confidence in the secular service. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As the article notes, Shahak repeated the account on the first page of his 1994 book, with no hint that he had ever retracted it since his first report nearly thirty years earlier. In the absence of any corroboration, we must assume that the unsupported statement that he retracted the claim was itself mistaken. RolandR (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, Shahak analysed the texts of a 2,000 year tradition. Those traditions have changed in many communities. Some instead, particularly in the West Bank, hew closely to them. Since you think Shahak was dishonest on this, why not, for your own instruction, photocopy the relevant pages (4 or so) with their 20 footnotes from Talmudic and rabbinical sources, and even modern textbooks on Jewish ethics, and ask a neighbour if Shahak made all those quotations and references up. Those guys know this stuff off by heart, and should enjoy the challenge. Of course this is irrelevant to editing the article. But one should note that if Shahak is a 'fabricator', his opponents have had 15 years to point out with great minuteness of scholarship that he got everything wrong in those sparse pages. To my knowledge no one has. We just get people citing Jakobovits's 1966 paper, to which Shahak replied in great detail.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to analyze the logic of the event he described, which -- by his account -- occurred on a Jerusalem street. Reading Talmud is not necessary for that. I am not saying that he is a liar, but the story as I have read it in this article does not add up. Perhaps with more information, or if he could explain it to me directly, the difficulties I have with the story could be resolved.

Also, the most successful liars I have know personally were very charming and likable personalities, with above average intelligence. Added to that was the improbability factor, ie thinking "why would such a likable, well intentioned, and intelligent person fabricate a lie about that?".

You wrote: "his opponents have had 15 years to point out with great minuteness of scholarship that he got everything wrong." Actually even the field of science has a long history of scientists that faked test data, and in some cases did not get caught for decades [5]. How much more difficult to verify a story like the telephone incident. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two points to the anecdote. (a) Its veracity (unknown, since there are two versions. Perhaps unknowable), and (b) the principle which this asserted event raised. I see intense focus by one side on the doubtedfulness that this ever happened, and, on the other, a focus on whether what in retrospect Shahak wrote to document the principle involved in the story was correct or not.

In our text, we are told (a) was fabricated by one solitary source (b) was fabricated by some bizarre mishandling of Talmudic sources. Shahak is thus both a liar about what happened, and a twister of texts concerning Judaism.

Now, we cannot ascertain the truth or not of the event reported (a). We thus provide two distinct account of events, Jakobovits's and Segev's, the former saying nothing like this occurred, the latter narrating the event as something that happened historically.

But we can, or rather scholars can, ascertain the truth of (b). My point about 15 years refers to this. Shahak wrote a book, documented his original thesis with a very large number of citations to Talmudic sources and rabbinical responsa, with pages numbers and editions. In 15 years, not only the Werner Cohns, Bogdanors and Neuwirths of this world apparently, but also serious students of the Talmud, have no troubled themselves to simply produce a comprehensive point by point refutation of his interpretations of those texts. We have amateurs, or people who put their concern for ethnic pride before their obligation to exercise an intellectual deontology, yelling 'liar! fabricator' and our text gives their screaming and mocking voice. We have, in fifteen years, (apparently) no scholar, of many readily available, who do what should be done to anchor in solid analysis their polemical smearing of Shahak. If one can only adduce a rather trivial subbelletristic form of journalese to raise doubts about (b), it looks poorly on the page. When Finkelstein goes for Dershowitz, he sure swings a heavy rhetorical hammer, like Cohn and co,. but he also cites texts, compares facts and interpretations, to give his rhetoric a credibility that, so far, the many sources we have cited against Shahak as a twister of the truth lack. I hope people search around to find informed articles, by rabbinical scholars, academics in the round, and talmudic experts, that can permit us to improve the article. If these exist, then one does not need this rather poor quality trashing to mar the page. One obtains quality. (Of course the obvious riposte is: what serious scholar would waste his time with a seedy pseud like Shahak? And the answer to that is, a huge amount of scholarship has been dedicated to the analysis of seedy ideologies and prejudices. It is the norm to take bad but influential scholarship to pieces in this area, as a prophylactic against the dissemination of dangerous ideas). If Shahak's ideas are dangerous (neoNazis etc) (though I think to the contrary they are a fine example of the haskalah tradition), one would expect precisely that serious scholarship in Israel and abroad would take issue with them critically.

By Jove, Malcolm, you took me to task for soaping this morning, and here we are, lathering up again, thankfully at your invitation! I'll leave it at that.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(<outdent<)I don't think you could find an outstanding Talmudic scholar who would consider Shahak a Talmudic scholar. Because, there is so much material in Talmud, and because the whole thing is such a difficult specialty, there few, even of those who have read the Talmud through several times, who could be considered true scholars in the subject. Additionally, Shahak approached the Talmud as a hostile reader. But the Talmud has so much diverse material, if the tradition is not known, or liked, the material will be misunderstood and misrepresented. For the most part people find what they are looking for when they read. Anyone who reads the texts of any religion starting with hostility to the tradition it represents (with a bias), will find what seems bad on virtually every page, as did Shahak.

I do not know if Shahak was a liar. Perhaps not. But I am sure that he was not a Talmudic scholar. I also know for sure that the Telephone Incident is not a credible story.

Could you please make your edits shorter by just getting to the point? I would appreciate that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That the telephone incident is not a credible story is key; real Talmud experts, Orthodox rabbis, and Orthodox lay-people cannot even understand what the prohibition in this case would be, as the article points out. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No. As editors all we have is two versions of the same incident. It is neither credible nor incredible. It is not our job to cast doubt by innuendo, or to assert our confidence in any one version, but simply to provide the reader with the varying versions. As to the latter point, Karl Popper was Shahak's conceptual master in this area. Shahak does exactly what Karl Popper did: he is an academic outsider, who invaded a field, read its literature, and made a critique, the former of Plato's influence on the formation of a totalitarian cast of thought in Western civilisation, the latter of the Biblical-Tamludic texts' influence on the formation of a totalitarian cast of thought within the bosom of Judaism, a subset of Western culture. Popper upset many Platonists and classical scholars, who attempted to rebut him: Shahak upset a large number of rabbinical scholars and jurists who . . .rely on Jakobovits' anecdote, and ignore the substance of his argument. One could go on. And Jayjg, Jakobovitz cited Unterman's responsum in paraphrase. Unterman's position is closer actually to Shahak's intepretation. According to Jakobovits, Shahak was forced to recant. According to Shahak, Unterman was put under considerable pressure to modify his original rigourist views.Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Shahak "invaded" Talmudic Scholarship? One could just as well say that Florence Foster Jenkins invaded opera. Both are jokes, although Shahak's efforts are not that funny a joke. No one but anti-Zionists and antisemites cite Shahak as a source of Talmudic scholarship. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I should have used a hunting metaphor like 'foray'. I would myself never cite Shahak as a 'source' o(f)n Talmudic scholarship. He never presumed to be so. He made a critique of the effect of a certain strong vein in rabbinical scholarship and the Talmud for its potential or real effects on the identity of both modern Jews and Israelis, the way this tradition inflected crucial political decisions. Popper, his mentor in these things, made a similar critique of Plato as the distant of father of Marxism, and worried over the influence of this powerful intellectual tradition from Plato to Hegel to Marx, part and parcel of our European world, and our European or Western identity. Unless one reads both Popper and Spinoza (and antiSemites and neo-Nazis, unlike Shahak, don't read them) one cannot really understand Shahak. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Shahak did not, apparently, understand the difference between rabbinic argumentation, and the normative views upon which actual rabbinical decisions are made. You could find an argument presented to support almost anything in the Talmud, which is somewhat demonstrated in this old, and well known story[6].

He was far better read in these sources than anyone who has ever edited this page. And, a mere glance at the rabbinical decisions he cites chapter and verse from indicates he was quite aware of the distinction. Even were that the case, Jakobovits or Unterman did not understand that to cite R. Menachem Meiri's views from the 13th century is a fudge, since his manuscript did not circulate, and with it, his minoritarian position was not widely known until modern times. Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, can you explain what makes you qualified to comment so authoritatively on both Shahak's knowledge of the Jewish sources in question and on that of "anyone who has ever edited this page"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Name

Roland, since you knew him, do you have any source for his original name? 'Shahak' (שחק) means, as in a verse of Isaiah, both 'heaven' and 'dust', I think I read somewhere a year ago. I think this was coined by him for his family name on his arrival in Israel, which would reflect Himmelstaub, in German. All I see in the bios is Shahak. Anyone? Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this help? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, that opens up a large source for Shahak, if one begins to follow Helmut Spehl's archive. Spehl is a physicist apparently. I'll begin checking to see what his relations with Shahak were. Thanks for this invaluable link.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Shahak seems also to have used the pseudonym "Ysmael Rubinstein" on at least one occasion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg's reduction of the quotes. An analysis

This will take some time. Here's some of the evidence I will base my analysis on.

(1) Hitchens quote:

'His home on Bartenura Street in Jerusalem was a library of information about the human rights of the oppressed. The families of prisoners, the staff of closed and censored publications, the victims of eviction and confiscation--none were ever turned away. I have met influential "civil society" Palestinians alive today who were protected as students when Israel was a professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University; from him they learned never to generalize about Jews. And they respected him not just for his consistent stand against discrimination but also because--he never condescended to them. He detested nationalism and religion and made no secret of his contempt for the grasping Arafat entourage. But, as he once put it to me, "I will now only meet with Palestinian spokesmen when we are out of the country. I have some severe criticisms to present to them. But I cannot do this while they are living under occupation and I can 'visit' them as a privileged citizen." This apparently small point of ethical etiquette contains almost the whole dimension of what is missing from our present discourse: the element of elementary dignity and genuine mutual recognition.'

191 words of 1048 = 18% of an obituary.

Jayjg’s reduction:

The families of prisoners, the staff of closed and censored publications, the victims of eviction and confiscation--none were ever turned away. I have met influential "civil society" Palestinians alive today who were protected as students when Israel was a professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University; from him they learned never to generalize about Jews. And they respected him not just for his consistent stand against discrimination but also because--he never condescended to them. He detested nationalism and religion and made no secret of his contempt for the grasping Arafat entourage. But, as he once put it to me, "I will now only meet with Palestinian spokesmen when we are out of the country. I have some severe criticisms to present to them. But I cannot do this while they are living under occupation and I can 'visit' them as a privileged citizen."

143 words

(2) Israeli historian Tom Segev describes both the incident and its aftermath in the following way:

'Dr Israel Shahak . . once found a visiting student from Africa unconscious on a Jerusalem street. It was on the Sabbath and a nearby resident refused to allow Dr.Shahak to use his telephone to call an ambulance, claiming that the sanctity of the Sabbath could not be violated to save the life of a non-Jew. Shahak went to the chief rabbinate, which confirmed this interpretation of the Sabbath laws. He sent letters to the newspapers about the incident, and one respondent was Israel’s ambassador to Austria, Michael Simon. “This is the most horrific and shocking thing I have ever read,” he wrote to Prime Minister Eshkol. He wondered how the story would affect the country’s standing in Africa or how Israel could continue to denounce discrimination against Jews in the Soviet Union. Maariv asked for the opinion of the minister of religious affairs, Dr. Zerah Warhaftig. The minister did not refute the rabbinical ruling, but quoted from traditional Jewish sources according to which Jewish doctors had saved the lives of non-Jews on the Sabbath, although they were not required to do so. Maariv was not satisfied. “The argument over this serious matter is only just beginning,” read its editorial, asserting that in the battle he had started, Shahak “would not remain alone.” People like Shahak and Ambassador Simon represented Israel as it was: a largely secular country, built on the foundations of secular democracy, despite its limitations.'

243 words from a from a 673 page long book, of which 586 pages are text, roughly at a conservative estimate 265,560 words = O.09%

Jayjg’s reduction

...sent letters to the newspapers about the incident, and one respondent was Israel’s ambassador to Austria, Michael Simon. “This is the most horrific and shocking thing I have ever read,” he wrote to Prime Minister Eshkol. He wondered how the story would affect the country’s standing in Africa or how Israel could continue to denounce discrimination against Jews in the Soviet Union. Maariv asked for the opinion of the minister of religious affairs, Dr. Zerah Warhaftig. The minister did not refute the rabbinical ruling, but quoted from traditional Jewish sources according to which Jewish doctors had saved the lives of non-Jews on the Sabbath, although they were not required to do so. Maariv was not satisfied. “The argument over this serious matter is only just beginning,” read its editorial, asserting that in the battle he had started, Shahak “would not remain alone.”

148 words.

So it appears that Jayjg’s principle is that anything above 150 words, or constituting (see below) a disproportionate part of a book or article, is not permissible as an abuse of fair use.

However, in an extremely wordy and lengthy series of quotations, mostly in defence of the legality of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied territories, Jayjg has consistently defended the presence in that wiki article of the following large quotes, which exceed that arbitrary interpretation of fair use advanced here.

(1)De Wet is cited on the nonbinding character of UN resolutions

Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterised by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the Namibia opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression.’

188 words from a book length study. Excluding footnotes (as I did with Segev), my calculation is that this represents 0.24% of her main text

(2) US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert J. Hansell

"[p]aragraph 1 of article 49 prohibits "forcible" transfers of protected persons out of the occupied territory; paragraph 6 is not so limited. The view has been advanced that a transfer is prohibited under paragraph 6 only to the extent that it involves the displacement of the local population. Although one respected authority, Lauterpacht, evidently took this view, it is otherwise unsupported in the literature, in the rules of international law or in the language and negotiating history of the Convention, and it seems clearly not correct. Displacement of protected persons is dealt with separately in the Convention and paragraph 6 would seem redundant if limited to cases of displacement. Another view of paragraph 6 is that it is directed against mass population transfers such as occurred in World War II for political, racial or colonization ends; but there is no apparent support or reason for limiting its application to such cases.

148 words

(3) Rostow and others further argue that UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which Rostow helped draft) mandates Israeli control of the territories,

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."

141 words of 1394, i.e. 10%

(4) Stone agrees with Lauterpacht's analysis, and his view that sovereignty was acquired through other means:

’Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed, operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?… In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means.

198 words from 41 page length extracts of Julius Stone’s book, amounting to 17099 of Stone’s words = 1.158%, far superior to the calculated percentage of the Segev book )

(5) Kim Beazley

"There is another characteristic of these resolutions which deserves a mention, and that is that they are under chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Chapter 7 has as its heading 'Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression'. This is the very serious chapter of United Nations rules, regulations, laws and principles, which the United Nations activates when they intend to do something about it. If the United Nations announces under chapter 7 that it intends to do something about a matter and it is not done, that will undermine the authority of the United Nations; that will render it ineffective. There are many other resolutions under other chapters. Resolution 242 gets a bit of a guernsey here every now and then. Resolution 242 is under chapter 6, not chapter 7. It does not carry the same mandate and authority that chapter 7 carries. Chapter 6 is the United Nations trying to put up resolutions which might help the process of peace and it states matters of principle that are important for the world to take into consideration. Resolution 242 says that Israel should withdraw from territories that it has occupied. It also says that Israel should withdraw to secure and recognised boundaries and that the one is dependent upon the other. Resolution 242 says that, but it is not a chapter 7 resolution."

232 words of 2389 = 9.7%

(6)

There are several types of resolutions: Chapter 6 resolutions are decisions pursing the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, and put forward Council proposals on negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies, and other peaceful means. Chapter 7 resolutions are decisions for Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, involving use of force and sanctions, complete or partial interruption of economic relations, rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic radio and other means of communication and the severance of diplomatic relations. Resolutions passed under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding on all UN members, who are required to give every assistance to any action taken by the Council, and refrain from giving any assistance to the country against which it is taking enforcement action."

123 words of 1308 = 9.4%

(7) Frowein, Jochen Abr.

The International Court of Justice took the position in the Namibia Advisory Opinion that Art. 25 of the Charter, according to which decisions of the Security Council have to be carried out, does not only apply in relation to chapter VII. Rather, the court is of the opinion that the language of a resolution should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be drawn as to its binding effect. The Court even seems to assume that Art. 25 may have given special powers to the Security Council. The Court speaks of "the powers under Art. 25". It is very doubtful, however, whether this position can be upheld. As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has pointed out in his dissenting opinion: "If, under the relevant chapter or article of the Charter, the decision is not binding, Article [69/70] 25 cannot make it so. If the effect of that Article were automatically to make al decisions of the Security Council binding, then the words 'in accordance with the present Charter' would be quite superfluous". In practice the Security Council does not act on the understanding that its decisions outside chapter VII are binding on the States concerned. Indeed, as the wording of chapter VI clearly shows, non-binding recommendations are the general rule here."

204 words from a book-length study.

Jayjg's avowed principles for editing down the quotes on this page. here I'll let the quotations stay in for a day, so that those who added them can trim them to an acceptable length. If they are still in the article tomorrow, I will delete any that is over 250 words, and open a discussion on any that are 150-250 words.

and here While the Segev account may balance the Jakobowitz account, there's no need for such a lengthy verbatim quote, particularly of details already in the article. That's just lazy writing (on top of being a copyright violation); editors should say it in their own words. As for the Hitchens quote, it was 193 words out of a 1054 word article, or fully 18% of the article; contrast that with the Ford copyright violation mentioned earlier, 300 words out of 200,000, or 0.15% - that's 120 times as much as what the Supreme Court found to be a copyright violation. I was hoping you would fix these problems, to avoid any accusations of "cutting the most important bits", but since you haven't, I've fixed it. The next item to look at is the Fisk quote, which is 150 words out of a 1786 word article, or 8.4% of the article. Regarding the Israeli settlement article, I will note briefly that I saw no quotes in there exceeding 200 words - but more importantly, we are discussing this article, not that one; I will not refer to it again here, as I will not be drawn down rabbit holes.

Analysis of the disparity between the quantity of quoted text he would allow here, and that which he allows on Israeli Settlement

(a) The US decision on Ford, that Jayjg says is the standard measure, unless I have miscalculated, (300 words out of 200,000), says anything above 0.15% of a text constitutes a violation of fair use.

(b)All quotations here, and on Israeli settlements, by this strict reading, violate fair use. Jayjg is therefore asking that the 'fair use' criterion in the US court case be applied here, but waived on the Israeli Settlement page, which he is protective about. Most of those quotations are adduced to back the legality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied territories. I'd like a preliminary answer from him as to why he apparently uses a double standard, severity in quotations that put Shahak in a more favourable light than the page first allowed, and laxness on a page where the evidence quoted reflects well on Israel.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(c). My calculations show that the Segev quote constitutes 0.09% of his text, and this would therefore appear to be consonant with the US decision. I obtained these figures by adding up the words on two pages, dividing the result by 2 to establish a rough indication of words per page, and then multiplying that by the number of pages in the body of the text. To make things difficult for myself, I excluded the huge volume of wordage in the extensive notes, which occupy a considerable percentage of the text. If these are included, then the proportion of the text O.O9% would be even lower.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Response/question

I'm not sure about all of these, but I just noticed reading through this article for the first time that at some point the Christopher Hitchens quote had clearly lost its meaning. Part of this was me, but part seems to be the removal of the initial sentence about his home (with this removed, "none were ever turned away" from where?). I notice the last sentence is also rather important to Hitchens' meaning. I haven't followed the discussion above, but it seems the initial sentence at least would need to be replaced. (Mackan79 (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the "house" material can be included without directly quoting. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Still, I will have to risk boring the board to have these edits rationally justified, since the alternative (were I to mirror the editing behaviour of others) would be an editwar. Pazienza.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg wanted the quotes shortened, but if they are shortened in a different way I doubt that there would be any objection as long as the sources are represented without distorting. You guys were asked to do the job yourselves, and now you are complaining about the way Jayjg did it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He's only one of many editors, and has no special privileges here. In his shortening of the Segev quote, please note, the fact which the full quote showed, that Segev, an historian narrated the incident as something that actually happened, in contrast to the fact that Jakobovits's version recounts it as a fabrication, is lost from view. His reduction deleted this difference which is crucial. Jayjg's précis gives the impression there is one version, and Segev merely supplements Jakobovits's account. To the contrary. There are two versions. For Segev Shahak was an agent. For Jakobovitz, he alleged he was a witness. The rule in wiki is to give, in such cases, both versions, impartially.

He can, secondly, argue a point, and suggest we follow his advice. We are not obliged to follow his advice, unless we agree with it collegially. I am not complaining either. I am noting an incongruency in his application of the rule on fair use, identical to an earlier incongruency between his application, on different pages, of the rule on reliable sources. I insist on coherence over articles. Still, no hurry. Nothing has been decided, except that he has one view, I another.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right, Malcolm. In addition, I said I wouldn't object if the quotes were shortened to 175 words, but that if I did it myself, I would shorten to 150 words. As for the Segev quote, the difference between his account and the account given in the article is minimal, and these accounts can be harmonized. To claim there is a significant difference or issue here is, to use Nishidani's term, "niggling". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation required

I asked for a citation to justify the remark 'Chief rabbi of Great Britain'. NoCal1000 provides one, which tells me only that, as I already knew, Jakobowits was 'Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth'. Perhaps Americans are not familiar with the distinction between Great Britain and Britain. Jakobowits was Chief Rabbi of Ireland. And then of the 'United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth'. So far I see no evidence to justify the text asserting he was simply chief Rabbi of Great Britain. One must be precise, and therefore either alter the language to what sources say, or finding a source which justifies the equation of 'Britain and the Commonwealth' with 'Great Britain'.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The ref is there: "Jakobovits, Immanuel. A Modern Blood Libel--L'Affaire Shahak, Tradition, Volume 8, Number 2, Summer 1966, p. 59". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, could I prevail on you as well to actually read things you reply to, or source? There is no reference in that article to 'Chief Rabbi of Great Britain' as opposed to Chief Rabbi of Ireland. At the time he was a rabbi in New York, and even so, the article we are writing says he became Chief Rabbi of Great Britain after 1966, when that article was published, and therefore, by logic, could hardly have worn the title before that date.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The only objection that would make any difference is if you have documentation to prove that Jakobovits did not write what the source says he wrote. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, read the question. As far as the sources say Jakobovits was Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth (in earlier times it was of the 'Empire' and recently Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Jakobovits's successor, has indeed be called 'Chief Rabbi of Great Britain'). That was his official title. And I fail to understand what harm is done by sticking to his official title rather than, at least as far as the documentation here goes, inventing one for which there is no source so far. There is nothing of ideological animus, or parti pris in trying to get the proper diction included. This is a simple issue of getting things of no partisan import right.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want both, that is ok. But my understanding is that the highest title should be recognized. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Jayjg knows more about this than any of us, and he can clarify. My understanding, purely from the secondary sources cited on this page, is that Jakobovits's formal title after 1967 was 'Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth', (though he also, if I recall, headed a European rabbinical council?)Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The two titles are used interchangeably - the official website describes the current Chief Rabbi alternatively as "Chief Rabbi of Great Britain Jonathan Sacks" [7], and as 'Sir Jonathan Sacks Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth".[8]. As you seem quite fond of the word "niggle", I'd point out this is perhaps a textbook case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, and I fail to understand the point. The title changed over the century, from Great Britain and the Empire to Britain and the Commonwealth to Great Britain etc. All I said was that one should stick to the actual words used in sources for the period in which Jakobovits was Chief Rabbi, and not invent titles, or use those of another period (Jonathan Sacks) to describe Jakobovits. This is very simple. The given sources in the article describe him as Chief Rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth. Therefore one uses that title, until of course a source describing him differently (Chief Rabbi of Great Britain) is forthcoming. This is not niggling. It is the application of a rule agreed to in historical writing and in wiki. One should not be slipshod, confusing or inventive. Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Alleged

The section is headed 'alleged telephone incident'. Shahak is said to have alleged that something occurred. Jakobovitz equally 'alleged' that Shahak recanted. We have only Shahak's words for the former, hence it is an allegation, and Jakobovitz's words for the latter. There is a perfect parallelism between the two. Therefore to say Shahak alleged, but his opponent only 'asserts' is to destabilize the formal parity between contrasting claims. They are both claims and identical language should be used to note those two claims. I have thus reverted Malcolm's alteration, and would ask he justify nuancing the two claims differently.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jakobovitz wrote that Shahak recanted. What is so hard to understand about that? He wrote it. Capice? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Shahak wrote that the incident occurred as he described it. He did not 'allege' that it occurred. What is so hard to understand about that? p.s. Capice should be capisci. Hai capito?:) Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If that is now "allege" I would change that, also, to "wrote," because I consider it more neutral. ("Capice" is correct [9]. Italian gives a few different ways of saying that. The meanings are slightly different.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bronx 'Italian', i.e. decanted sicilian dialect adopted into American idiom, but never in Italian. For an Italian could only pronounce that tranliterated form as capichey, which would sound like an invocation that Che Guervara become one of thecapi of the mafia.

In any case, to get back to the text: The sections 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion' and 'Reception' are a complete mess, in that comments favourable or unfavourable to Shahak and comments favourable or unfavourable to that book (one of many he wrote, and the others should be summarized) are intermingled. All this material should be ordered systematically. I hope we can approach this confusion collaboratively. I think one should distinguish a section on his books, all of them briefly described, from a section on the reception given his books, pro and contra. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you change "alleged" back to "wrote"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alleged is how the section is entitled, which means that suspicion is announced over Shahak's description of the incident. Therefore it is fair to use the same words of what his antagonist wrote, when he alleged Shahak had recanted under force.

I like collegiality, and usually don't rush edits that have been the object of disagreement until I find several people concurring on a general principle that decides the question. I think one does well to hang round and see what others think. This article has been in the works for several years, and is in a poor state. So, it, like many, should be edited slowly and patiently.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to be asking for cooperation. Perhaps I misunderstood because you are apparently unwilling to extend any cooperation...even on the most minor point. (NB: I did leave a letter out of what should have been "capisce".) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Capisce is correct Italian, but itself, in such contexts, in the sense you give it, smacks of dialect, and does not reflect proper usage. It means, 'he (/polite 'you' in the singular) understand(s)'. Properly '(lei cf. Spanish usted) capisce?' 'Do you understand'?. But in dialect 'capisce' in this sense is actually a 'second person singular'(equal to capisci in Italian), since the dialect usage ignores the formality of Italian. Whatever, though acceptable in the Bronx and American padrino movies and the films drawn from Mario Puzo's novels, capisce? has a derogatory nuance. Strictly speaking, in Italian, the sense intended would be conveyed by capisci? or hai capito?

Cooperate? I'm happy to. You changed 'alleged' to 'asserted', and now suggest as a compromise 'wrote'. I challenged it, asking for coherence between the words used to describe two claims. If we are told Shahak 'alleged' that the telephone incident occurred, we should also write Jakobovits 'alleged' it was false, and alleged Shahak retracted, to achieve NPOV. You asked me if I would accept 'wrote' for Jakobovits, instead of 'asserted' as you originally edited. I pointed out that both 'wrote' and 'asserted' of Jakobovits, while retaining 'alleged'/'claimed' of Shahak implicitly creates an impression that Jakobovits' version is not, unlike Shahak's, simply an allegation. I am for parity of treatment, to secure NPOV. To state this is not to refute cooperation, but rather to ask for NPOV determinations in a collegial fashion.If one puts 'wrote/'asserted' then one automatically is asked to put 'wrote'/'asserted' for Shahak's description. One can do that. As long as both claims are described with the same words, NPOV is achieved. The problem would then remain however that we have an historian, Tom Segev, describing Shahak's version in a narrative voice that asserts his claim was factual. Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AVOID gives advice about "alleged". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Spooky. I suppose this is the passage allued to:-

Alleged (along with allegedly) can also be misused to cast doubt on statement and should not be used as a routine qualifier: consider alternatives such as apparent, ostensible or reputed. On the other hand, the use of "alleged" as a verb may be appropriate in a legal context, although care is needed particularly concerning allegations against living persons. Always make it clear in the article text (not just the footnotes) who is doing the alleging. In legal cases, this will usually be a prosecutor, state body or plaintiff. In other contexts, consider alternative forms of words such as "X asserted that Y" or "according to X, Y."

The first use of 'allege' is in the section header. Both Shahak, the primary source and Segev, a secondary source, narrate this as having happened. Jakobovits did allege during Shahak's lifetime that it didn't happen, and alleged Shahak had been forced to retract. Michael is not necessarily wrong therefore, technically, in suggesting 'asserted' or 'wrote' might be used of Jakobovits. The problem is opne of congruency, as I have repeatedly said, i.e., that if we use these words for Jakobovits, then we have to relook at the header and the use of words like 'claim' reflecting Jakobovitsìs POV. If what Shahak said of his experience is framed as a 'claim', and the incident is showcased as 'alleged', counterclaims can hardly be phrased as though they were different in kind by putting in 'wrote' or 'asserted'. I want the language with claim and counterclaim to be identical, to secure NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Nishidani. if anyone changed 'alleged' to 'asserted' it was not me.
2. I did make the change to 'wrote' as a completely neutral word.
3. You idea of cooperation appears one sided, ie that I should cooperate with you. Sorry I even asked.
4. There are very few words heard more frequently in Italy than capicse (or capicsi, which is the personal form, thou understand). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So use the same word throughout the document for these claims. "Alleged" seems to be normal for Wikipedia documents. Sounds fine to me. Keep it consistent, and I can't see anyone having a basis to complain. 12:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzledOldMan (talk • contribs)

In my view, the word "alleged" should almost always be avoided. In virtually every instance of its use there is POV being inserted. You lame excuse is a fine example of a sophism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. (1) Grizzled Old Man changed ‘asserted to alleged’.
2. (2) You changed his ‘alleged’ to ‘wrote’.

Comment. I approved (I intended addressing this anyway) GOM's change to 'allege' for the reasons given. (a) One cannot use in the header for the incident 'alleged', meaning what Shahak said was an allegation, when in fact it was Jakobovits who alleged that Shahak made it up (b) If 'alleged' is how we describe in the header Shahak's story, then Jakobovits' counter-story, containing clear 'allegations' has to be described in the same way, to maintain editorial neutrality, and NPOV. In two claims, one cannot be described as an 'allegation' and the other as something someone just 'wrote' or asserted'. It's called congruency of descriptive language between claims. If you want 'wrote' for Jakobovitz's claim, then you must accept 'wrote' for Shahak's claim. That's fine by me. As a principle, one should edit on specific words, with a close feel for the reverberations one's choice has for the neutrality of the other words used in that context or narrative environment. This is rarely observed, but it is fundamental to NPOV.

1. (3)Having lived on and off for four decades in Italy, with an Italian wife and numerous relatives who don't speak English, and having a professional background in philology, I stick by my analysis. Check any grammar of Italian, and any reference grammar on the influence of Sicilian dialects on that variety of 'Italian' used in New York, and what I said will, I should venture, be confirmed.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your lame arguments have not changed.

Concerning capicse, what I wrote is base on what I heard in conversation while living in Florence for seven years, many years ago. However, the information that you live in Italy, now very different from when I lived there, explains a lot to me about your attitude toward issues involving Jews. Apparently, in a university ambiente at that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The first thing you learn, in two days, in living in Italy is that 'capicse'(which after 7 years in Florence you insist on writing) would never be understood, but 'capisce/capisci' is. I have no 'attitude' concerning 'Jews', since I don't believe in collective identities, and take people of any background as individuals. I don't think words like 'Jews' 'Americans' 'Eskimoes' are anything but shorthand, referring to what an American writer 2 centuries ago called a 'convenient fiction'. Norman Finkelstein is not interchangeable with Alan Dershowitz, Israel Shahak with Avigdor Lieberman, Uri Avnery with Moshe Levinger, Daniel Barenboim with Ariel Sharon, Albert Einstein with Yuval Neeman, Amira Hass with Werner Cohn, Frank Kafka with Thomas Friedman. Third, your last personalised remark is not only silly, but uninformed.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, Nishidani, I understand. Your view is that anyone editing this article who does not agree with you is "uninformed." I understand your attitude quite well. As for the foolish idea that "collective identities" (ie groups) do not exist, one might then equally believe in H₂O molecules, but not in water. After all, molecules have their own little individualities too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I said your innuendo in your last words about me soaking up anti-Jewish attitudes from a university environment because of what you regard as recent changes in Italy, was 'uninformed'. You are not informed about me personally, nor for that matter Italy. That you disagree with me means we are in a sane environment. That you disagree with someone of similar ethnic or national background means you are an individual, and not a cypher or clone. Rabbis frequently disagreed among themselves, and people of Jewish descent justly pride themselves on the proverbial 'get three Jews together and you'll have at least four opinions'. If all members of a collectivity or even a 'group' were to share the same values, opinions, interpretations, outlook on the world ascribed to them in accounts of that collectivity, be it a society or a group, it would mean those within the group or collectivity were subject to a collectivist pattern of uprearing, indoctrination and thought control. North Korea, in short. Thomas Cooper, the first American free trader, called the nation a 'grammatical fiction' didn't he? Later thought extended this to the idea of ethnic identity, as with Benedict Anderson's highly influential book 'Imagined communities'. All this does not bear on editing this page, except for the fact that editors here should appreciate this distinction, which was made by Shahak. If Hans Kung attacks a conservative theological tradition, he is not offending Catholics. To the contrary. Like Shahak with Judaism, he is defending the right of Catholics not to be suffocated by a clerisy in power, ideologically and politically.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, will you please stop pontificating, and stay on the subject of the article. Why can't you manage to do what virtually every other editor can manage? I have no interest in what you think I do, or do, not know about Italy, life, Thomas Cooper, or anything else. The only reason I am communicating with you is to work on the article. This is not the place to parade out your all your pet ideas. Its about Shahak. Why can't you figure that out? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have. This section began with my making a general suggestion for a revision of the language used in the 'Alleged Telephone Incident', and was distracted by your insistence on an incorrect form of Italian, which was off-topic. You then made allusions to my personal identity and innuendoes about putative antiJewish views in my whole editing pattern, which naturally, I responded to. In the meantime, I had rephrased the whole issue between us below, and you have not replied. If provoked by off-topic comments, I do exercise my natural right to reply in defence.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, I don't understand your opposition to using the term, "alleged" for both Shahak and Jakobovitz. Using the same terminology for both seems to adhere to NPOV, than to use "alleged" for Shahak and "wrote" for Jakobovitz. What exactly is your complaint? GrizzledOldMan (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to [10], which is part of English Wikipedia style guideline. In my view, such words are better avoided. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Shahak wrote... Jakobovitz alleged..." would seem to be consistent with the OJ example. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reformulate. Malcolm, you dislike 'allege'. The only reason for our supporting 'allege' in a passage regarding what Jakobovits wrote, is that the text had Shahak 'alleging', while Jakobovits 'asserted' or 'wrote'. I see no problem in eliminating 'alleged' and restoring 'wrote/asserted/according to' if this diction is, consensually, applied equally to Shahak's account and Jakobovits' version. Can we agree on this principle?Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "allege" (like "claim") can be taken as implying it was false. I agree with Nishidani's suggestion, and suggest changing the section heading from "Alleged telephone incident" to "Telephone anecdote". I think "anecdote" may properly convey that it is something that is reported to have happened whether or not it actually did. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

While awaiting for Jayjg's reply on word length

I note to all that the source given for the passage

In 1965 Ha'aretz printed a letter from Shahak in which he claimed to have witnessed a Haredi Jewish man refusing to allow his telephone to be used to call an ambulance for a non-Jew as it was the Jewish Sabbath.

is Segev pp.99-100, and yet Segev does not say Shahak witnessed the event. He says Shahak was the person directly involved in the event, and secondly he does not say a Haredi was asked to lend his telephone. He says this was requested of a nearby resident of the area.

So, as it stands, this passage requires an independent source. That is why I have inserted a 'citation needed' tag. Whoever wrote it, please provide the source, since it conflicts with Segev's account, and cannot be sourced to that book. I might also note that Jakobovits, like Shahak, is a primary source. And Segev is a secondary source, and thus preferable. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Jakobovits, like Segev , is a secondary source, commenting on Shahak's primary source claims. NoCal100 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

'A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, a letter, an eyewitness account, an autobiography, or statistics compiled by an authoritative agency.'

Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That to me makes Jakobovits borderline. Since it contains his personal allegations, as an involved party, made at the time, about Shahak.

Secondly, Jakobovits or our text says Shahak claims he witnessed an event which Segev describes he actively participated in, i.e. that he was not a passive witness. Segev is writing, in historical hindsight, as an historian. They are two distinct types of narrative, and what has occurred is that someone has sourced statements from Jakobovits or some other unnamed source to Segev, whose version is quite distinct, and in conflict with that story.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that big bold box at the top of the page which says {{historical}} NoCal100 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you sticking to the point. I am waiting for Jayjg to explain his principle of 150 words and percentages, the principle underlying his edits, which, instead of engaging in the expected edit-war, I have had the courtesy to leave on the page, while waiting for him or anyone else to clarify. As I have asked you, him or anyone else to clarify (b) why we use 'allege' or 'claim' for what Shahak says, and 'assert' 'wrote' for what Jakobovits claims. (c) Why is the claim that the incident involved an Haredi sourced to Segev, who makes no such specification. So I'd appreciate you cutting the dramatics, and discussing these specific points, which have to be resolved if edits are to be made intelligently and collaboratively, and not by the usual reverts and squabbling.Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the points you made, to which I am responding, is that 'Jakobovits, like Shahak, is a primary source.". That is simply false. If you want to make that argument based on WP policy, try doing so while quoting from a page which is actually WP policy, not an historical, defunct page. NoCal100 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. My apologies. (I took the 'historical' as a ref. to this page, and couldn't find it here. Age, eheu) Could you do me the courtesy to link me to the correct policy page on primary sources? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary_sources. Note the definition "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event." - which precisely describes Jakobovits. NoCal100 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks indeed. It does indeed look, as you say, like the policy makes Jakobovitz's real time reportage look like a secondary source. Only much of what he says ('forced to retract' etc.) looks like it reflects this passage in policy:'The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on'. This still makes it look to me borderline, though I am not really taken by the matter. My real point is, why is material from an unknown source sourced to Segev? That it is, means the original juxtaposition I made, between Segev's historical narrative, where Shahak is the agent, and Jakobovits' contemporary version, where Shahak is merely a witness, is muddled.Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jakobovits is a secondary source. That is all we need to know. Your other question, even if you could figure it out, would be unusable because your personal deductions can't be used in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't take assertions as the last word. The attempt to say that the distinction I made is 'personal' meanis you are angling for anWP:OR complaint to remove an unwelcome observation. Segev did not report the event or the details in the way the text says he did. As it therefore stands, therefore, the opening paragraph is a violation of WP:OR. So those supporting it are obliged to justify why Segev should be cited for Haredi when he says no such thing. Stop avoiding the obvious problem.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani wrote: The attempt to say that the distinction I made is 'personal' meanis you are angling for anWP:OR complaint to remove an unwelcome observation.

Nishidani, please review WP:GOODFAITH. I am not "angling" for anything. I was pointing out, onec again, that you are continuing to fill up this talk page with stuff that can not be used in the article, which should be in your personal journal or blog, and which should not here. For a person who seems intelligent, you have been a very slow learner on that point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Read the wiki rulebook less, and the article and its sources more. You called a distinction I made between direct witness and personal participation, a 'personal' distinction. It is not personal. Jakobovitz calls Shahak a witness to the event, Shahak says (1994) he witnessed the event. Segev says he was an actor in the event. Segev of all three is the only qualified historian. These are not 'personal' observations. Our text attributes to Segev a wording not found in Segev. To note such things is not to 'blog'. To blog or blather is to keep refusing to control the evidence, and raise personal issues like putative anti-Jewish attitudes, rule infringement in the performance of one's editorial obligation to control what texts say, and their sources say. So answer the f***** question, and stop fribbling. Why does para 1 of the 'alleged incident' source to Segev several things that Segev's book does not mention. You won't understand this unless you review Jakobovits, Shahak, and Segev, the thre sources. Don't trust me, check it out for yourself. This is what we are supposed to do, and the fact that few of you do it involves me in absurd secondary arguments which are twisted to make out I am not interested primarily in editing the text to sources.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, you seem to have anger problems when you are contradicted. Please remember that different good faith editors can see the same thing very differently. A sense of proportion, and a a little perspective also, helps to keep things from getting too tense. It is good to get the article as good as possible for someone so controversial, but the fact is virtually no one reads this article because virtually no one is interested in Israel Shahak. We are not fighting the Battle of Thermopylae, its just a little WP article. No need to get over dramatic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer the question. (a) Why is an Haredi mentioned, when the source (Segev) mentions no Haredi (b) Why does the text describe Shahak 'witnessing' the episode when the source given (Segev) says Shahak personally was the person involved.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I note NOCal has provided Bogdanor as a source for the Haredi statement. Bogdanor is not an historian. He is not a reliable source. We have three sources, primary and secondary, for the incident, Jakobovits, Shahak and Segev. Bloggers and controversialists are not reliable sources for historical details. I have reverted. Also because, the problem is not resolved. The whole passage is sourced to Segev, and yet is not drawn fromn Segev. Patching pieces out of poor sources is not a a fix for the solution. It has to be written according to reliable sources, of which, so far there are three.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no requirement that reliable sources be historians. The source is a book published by a mainstream press, edited by an academic and a notable writer, and meets the requirements laid out in WP:RS. Feel free to take it to WP:RSN if you think otherwise. Your editing here has now crossed the line, and is bordering on the disruptive. Please do not remove relevant, cited material again. NoCal100 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is one of a contested historical truth. We have three reliable sources. Paul Bogdanor is a journalist and investor, writing for magazines that themselves have no status as Reliable Sources (fact checking etc., like FrontPage Magazine, notorious for their slipshod journalism and a rag not accepted as a RS except for itself). Feel free to to take it to WP:RSN. Both you and Malcolm have not addressed the problem. Three points in para one cannot be identified in the source given (Segev). You cannot solve this problem by googling for inferior sources from blogs that might justify each of the three points not in the original source, because para one was written as a synthesis from (a) Jakobovits (b) Shahak and, if you include now Bogdanor, Bogdanor, who says what neither Jakobovits nor Shahak says, but makes an interpretation of their texts. Not all 'orthodox Jews' are Haredi. This is obvious. Take your job here seriously. This is no place for gamesmanship, or playing a numbers game.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that reliable sources be historians, even on matters of a contested historical truth - which this is not. The source is not a blog, nor a rag, but a book published by a mainstream press, edited by an academic and a notable writer, which meets the requirements laid out in WP:RS. Feel free to take it to WP:RSN if you think otherwise. You asked for a cite for a fact - and you got one, from a reliable source, and your "problem" was addressed. Your editing here has now crossed the line, and is bordering on the disruptive. Please do not remove relevant, cited material again. NoCal100 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What disruption? You and Malcolm have tagteamed to revert 3 times.(b) you use a hack journalist notorious for his incompetent handling of facts to source an issue the three reliable sources dispute, one of them by an acclaimed historian (c)you don't even know the meaning of op.cit. which you use twice of a text that is not cited above the two refs. For your knowledge, opere citato means that one refers the reader to a text already cited. Bogdanor notes 8,9 have 'op.cit.', but there is no reference to Bogdanor in notes 1-7. (d)you ask me to prove what you are obliged to prove, that Bogdanor is a reliable source for resolving a conflict in sources regarding a disputed historical event. You can 'please' and 'do not' as often as you like. Yopu and Malcolm have 'won' on pure combination of numbers. I wonder why no administrator sees anything wrong with this patently disruptive behaviour, esp. since your scarce interventions on the talk page are monitory, ignore the evidence to the contrary, and exist only to ask others to do the legwork you, apparently, are to lazy to do. All of the information you would source is in the three known and accepted (by all) reliable sources, (a)Jakobovits (b) Shahak (c)Segev. What is the point of dragging in a twittish source of deplorable quality when you could redraft the passage according to uncontroversial sources we all accept? Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Twice removing well sourced material to a reliable source, when multiple editors have opposed you on the Talk page. Consider yourself warned, and we'll revisit your actions on AN/I if you do it again. NoCal100 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not a royal 'we' I suppose, but a collective agreement I assume to oppose my work here. Since 'we' means I am outnumbered, obviously, no edit I make can defy your collective animus. Paul Bogdanor is not a reliable source. He is one of the poorest possible sources imaginable for wikipedia I/P articles.

I've tried rather exhaustively to get you all to analyse the problems on this page. The response is complaints, a drift in of new editors coinciding with Jayjg's disappearance (this is a common pattern), and reverting my work, by people who do not know what even 'op.cit'. means. Okay. For the moment, you've won the numbers game. I'm not warned of anything, because you are just another editor, and have reverted as much as I have. Until the administrators decide to do something about this gaming of the system, it is obvious this page will be (as some wish it to be) unworkable. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To other editors, Jayjg has yet to justify his elision of texts according to a 150 word quota or 10% quota, since he supports longer quotes and percentages on the Israeli Settlement's page. Hitchens should be fully paraphrased, rather than quoted. Segev can be quoted fully (actually I've had his permission to use it for several days, in full. I have two emails in this regard that any neutral administrator can confirm), so I have his waiver about copyright. Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I did not say there was a "150 word quota", I said I'd like to see the quotations "reduced to under 175 words". Please make more accurate statements regarding other editors in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, if you've got permission to use copyrighted material (permission that should include the free release of whatever portion you intend to use) can you ask the grantor to send notice of that permission to the WP:OTRS team? I think there is an en-permissions queue for the purpose. Avruch ^T 02:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Neil told me the same on my page. Sounds terribly complicated. It was extremely gracious of Prof. Segev to correspond with me on this, esp. since I regard this kind of query as an intrusion on a person's valuable time. I gather I would now have to drag him directly into wikipedia verification processes, which would compound my rudeness. So though I have permission to quote him, I don't think I shall run it past the bureaucracy. There is a second scruple: Prof.Segev gave me permission to use the full quote, but were I to avail myself of it, using it would mean in consequence that anyone in the world could copy it off wiki, an implication we hadn't discussed. That would make my request and his courtesy a subject of abuse, even by those neoNazi hacks out there who jump at this stuff.

He did say, in a further exchange, that I was free to use our exchange as I thought best, since he thought Shahak deserved credit for his struggle to assist Israel out of its ideological difficulties. Given the crudeness of editing in here, in retrospect I will withhold this. In any case, I am still awaiting for Jayjg's response to my documentation of his double standards in using the rules. If that quote constitutes, as I calculate, only roughly 0.09 percent of Segev's book, it comes under the limit, and, secondly, is less than what he himself allows for the numerous quotes that constitute a greater percentage of copyright material on the Israeli Settlement page. Since I can't edit in here without an atmosphere of irrational adversity, I'll leave it at that for the moment, and come back to the page when some intelligent dialogue on the text is possible. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just been reading Bogdanor's rabid rantings here. It made me laugh. If editors of this article think he's WP:RS it says a lot about them. Cheer up, Nishidani, you may not have won the "game" but you've actually won the argument. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would note in closing that while NoCal1000 now admits (Elonka page) that he wrongly sourced Haredi Jew to Bogdanor, who says no such thing, and no source says this, he has still failed to correct the text. He made the false edit, he should remove it. Doing this would not constitute an improbable apology: it is simply a matter of cleaning up one's own acknowledged mess, instead of, apparently, hunkering down out of pride in a defiant refusal to do anything, while expecting the person who spotted the error to fix it. This is a weird place.Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The article now says Orthodox Jew, rather than Haredi Jew. Is there something else you wish to change regarding this phrase? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are we using a disreputable source, Bogdanor, a blogger, when he only bases his account on Jakobovits and Shahak? We have a consensus they are both sources closest to the event. Segev says Shahak was the person who requested the telephone. Jakobovits and Shahak recount it differently. So we have two versions, and the section must be written accordingly. Segev does not say Shahak 'witnessed' anything. It's simple: recompose the story according to the three relevant sources, Jakobovits, Shahak and Segev. Tinkering with a passage that suggests there is only one version won't get us anywhere. Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We are using a book published by a mainstream press, co-edited by an reputable academic and a well known writer. Enough of this nonsense- take it to WP:RSN and make a case there. NoCal100 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg elsewhere has said that controversial points (this is an account that is controversial historically) cannot be sourced to outsiders, but according to authoritative figures with professional qualifications in the field. He no doubt remembers the point. So I expect it to be applied here. Segev is an historian, Bogdanor is a London investor and blogger. He has no background in questions of historical reconstruction. Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm glad you are deferring to my expertise in the matter of sourcing. Going forward, I will make all decisions regarding sourcing for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, are you saying that Segev's account disagrees with Shahak's? Also, where did this "consensus" that Jakobovits was a "source close to the event" come from? I believe he was in England at the time, and didn't comment on it till a year later. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've said for several days, Jayjg, that Segev's account disagrees with both Shahak's and Jakobovits'. This is a card thrown your way, it's on the table, and no one has played it. Honesty demands precision. For Segev, Shahak was the man who ask an Orthodox Jew for the telephone. Segev in his notes cites from the newspapers of the period. The others don't. For Jakobovits and Shahak, it was a matter of Shahak witnessing an Orthodox Jew refuse the use of his telephone. It is not for us, according to Wiki rules, to question why Segev differs from both on this. But the existence of a secondary source that differs from a primary and a primary/secfondary source (Jakobovits) in this matter means the text must account for the variation, which constitutes a distinct version.

Okay. No consensus. Commonsense. Shahak reported the event to Haaretz in Dercember 1965 Jakobovits gave his version (with much otherwise anecdotal detail based on his personal contacts with the rabbinate in Jerusalem apparently), and it was published within 6 months (publication means a delay of at least a month or so) in the summer of 1966. If someone really wishes to argue for another few days that calling the two of them 'closest to the event' is questionable, well, I give up. Shahak's own version dates to 3 decades later.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, as soon as you described Jackobovits as a "primary/secondary source", you lost me. Jackobovits falls under no rational definition of "primary source". He was not there, and did not participate in any way in the events described by Shahak. Until you accept this fact, it will remain a sticking point that will make other progress extremely difficult. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on the RSN board, Jakobovits is 'close to the event' and, secondly, narrates things for which there is no independent documentary corroboration in secondary sources. His account is full of denials, undocumented, but evidently coming from his contacts in Jerusalem and the rabbinate, that there is no record of Shahak actually asking for a clarification from the rabbinate, etc. He is an insider to the 'affaire'. Thirdly, Shahak, who is a 'primary source' wrote his account 3 decades after Jakobovits' account, and took that account into his narrative, since in his notes he responds directly to both Jakobovits and to Jakobovits's prime evidence, the responsum of Unterman. So we have a 'primary source' responding to as 'secondary source', a pèrimary source that is further from the (putative) event than the secondary source. This stuffs up the wiki distinction, as I pointed out, and means we have a technical problem not forseen by WP:RS guide. That is why I asked for someone who has technical expertise on this unknown ground to clarify the issue. So far no result, but the problem remains.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You above account is incorrect, on at least two counts: First, you did not take it to the RSN board at all, but rather to the Talk page of NOR - Wikipedia talk:No original research . And the input there from uninvolved editors was very clear, and I quote: "Citing Jakobovitz for the content of Shahak's letter is a secondary source". Give it a rest. NoCal100 (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Telephone incident, further discussion

Look, it is pointless playing games. Avruch consulted the source, and restored the proper expression, 'Orthodox Jew', which has been admitted by those who kept putting 'Haredi' or refused to see the problem, which is extremely simple to resolve, over the past few days.

So the text now at last reflects the source.

It does not however resolve the problem.

In 1965 Ha'aretz printed a letter from Shahak in which he claimed to have witnessed an Orthodox Jewish man refusing to allow his telephone to be used to call an ambulance for a non-Jew as it was the Jewish Sabbath.

The problem, for the umpteenth time, was that (a) the passage was written using Jakobovits as a source, and perhaps Shahak, plus some creative interpretation by an editor who wrote 'Haredi' when all these sources speak of an orthodox Jew.(b) then the passage was sourced to Segev, who has a different version of the incident.

This silly and quite incomprehensible manoeuver then generated an edit-war, conducted by two editors who refused to confront the issue, and apparently while reverting, did not even check the sources. I wished to draw the editors' attention to the fact that you cannot write an account from Jakobovitz and source it to Segev. I expected that, by rereading both texts, commonsense would return to editing. Nothing doing.

NoCal100 introduced a new, fourth source (Bogdanor p.121), which worsened things. Because now we had (a) a text written from Jakobovits and Shahak (b) sourced to Segev at the end and(c) justified by a reference to a new source (unreliable) Bogdanor (d) who however makes his own account from Shahak and Jakobovits.

Now that Avruch has corrected at least the citation from Bogdanor, the basic problem I have been harping on remains. For Bogdanor cites Shahak and Jakobovits, but on page 121, he does not, as they do, quite mention Shahak's writing a letter to Haaretz (that phrasing is from Jakobovits and Shahak). We now have, thanks to NoCal's editing, Bogdanor sourced for the diction, 'Ha'aretz printed a letter from Shahak'. That is what Jakobovitz and Shahak note, and Bogdanor simply does not use that language: he casts doubt on even the idea, shared by Jakobovits and Shahak, that the latter 'wrote a letter to Haaretz'. In Bogdanor, 'Shahak professed that he had "reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Haaretz'."

If you cite Bogdanor, that 'profess' has to be there, since it implies a 'claim' and also 'a pretense'. Neither Jakobovits, nor Shahak, not to speak of Segev, suggest the letters to Haaretz were a matter of a claim made by Shahak. They exist. Bogdanor is not only an unreliable source, he is so keen to cast everything under suspicion he uses loose language like this, even to put in doubt what Jakobovits never doubted. One more reason not to use him.

This is the spiral of confusion that comes from not simply doing the obvious thing. Write the sentence according to the three RS accounts, Jakobovits, Shahak and Segev, and sourcing it to those three. Bogdanor is not a reliable source, being (a) a controversialist with no credentials other than those of shooting off his mouth on I/P issues (b) everything he says there comes from Shahak and Jakobovits, (c) and therefore his presence on the page only serves not to cite the versions of the event as they were recounted by both Jakobovits and Shahak.

Harold Pinter died a month ago. Of these absurd complications spiralling out of an elementary misprision, or a refusal to check what one's interlocutor is saying, he built a theatre of the absurd. I feel absurd even having to restate the obvious a dozen times, as if tyhis was a torture chamber where I am required to obtain consensus from people whose behaviour suggests a gusto for torment, rather than an ear for dialogue. Can editors therefore (a) read the sources (b) draft according to sources (c) cite each source according to the statement made and (d)use sources long agreed on, the primary and secondary ones on which every account draws, without messing up the clarity of Jakobovits, Shahak and Segev's accounts by trying to trump them with tertiary sources of poor quality.

There's just no end to the niggling, is there? We do not have to use the exact words of our sources, we are allowed and encouraged to rephrase them. If you really can't sleep at night because the word "professed" is missing, add it, instead of writing 715 word to complain about it. Bogdanor meets WP criteria for a reliable source. End of story. 15:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply if you do me the courtesy of signing your remarks. It is a violation of WP:OR to write 'Haredi Jew' when the source says 'Orthodox Jew'. If it is 'niggling' to insist that all obey the rules, then, yes, I have niggled. Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

the article currently says 'Orthodox Jew', not 'Haredi Jew', so you can let that particular niggle go. If you've got nothing better to comment on than a misplaced tilde, please move on. NoCal100 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bogdanor is a totally non-RS source - until very recently (was here on his web-site) he was re-publishing a 1962 pamphlet (?), that, amongst other things, sought to deny something proven in an Israeli court, Kastner defended a known Jew-killing Nazi from trial at Nuremberg. And there are lots of other things that would immediately count him out - comparing Vietnamese land reform to the Holocaust and Noam Chomsky to Holocaust deniers for starters. PR^talk 21:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bogdanor's personal website is not being used here- we're using a booked co-edited by a reputable academic and Bogdanor, a well-known professional writer. Take it it WP:RSN and make a case there. NoCal100 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the question. So I'll reprint it:

now we have (a) a text written from Jakobovits and Shahak (b) sourced to Segev at the end and(c) justified by a reference to a new source (unreliable) Bogdanor (d) who however makes his own account from Shahak and Jakobovits.

This is idiotic. Since sentences longer that several words are not understood, apparently, I'll rephrase it. Why are we sourcing an account available in Segev, Jakobovits and Shahak, all three with high qualifications, to a London blogger and investor who, in any case, only draws on Jakobovits and Shahak? This will evidently have to be dragged to a board for comment, holding up the editing of this simple sentence for another week in what is proving to be another piece of trench warfare, but before documenting the irrationality of this move, I'd prefer to see at least a gesture towards explaining the absurdity on this page. Sophomores are laughed at if they do this in their term papers, or at least used to be. Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know (and neither do you) what sources were originally used to write this section, but it is entirely irrelevant. One can introduce additional sources, which is what I have done. The claims are sourced to a booked published by a mainstream press, co-edited by a reputable academic and Bogdanor, a well-known professional writer. It meets WP requirements for reliable sources. If you believe otherwise, take it to WP:RSN and make a case there. NoCal100 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's move on from the recriminations. I realize that there is a history, and working with someone you've been at odds with in the past can be difficult because that history tends to intrude... But perhaps we can mitigate that by sticking to specific proposals for changing the text, and reasoning that hews to justifying the proposed text as opposed to the current text? Avruch ^T 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's perfect by me. I've been pressing all along for a simple revision.

In 1965 December something happened,which Shahak reported.

We have newspapers accounts, employed by Segev (professional historian).

We have Jakobovits' account, dated six months after.

We have Shahak's retrospective account published 29 years afterwards.

Can we all agree that these are the three fundamental sources to narrate and write the event up?

(Paul Bogdanor simply uses Shahak and Jakobovits, so he is useless. He is also questionable, since he is not an historian, nor a quality source (WP:RS, and since this incident is controversial, it requires either quality historians or direct participants in the affaire, primary or secondary documentation). Despite appearances, I am trying to get people to return to method, to avoid being forced, as we are now, to footnoting 'witnessed', which is idiotic, but now necessary, because Segev's account says Shahak was not a witness. Which means, now we have to add, according to Segev however, Shahak did not witness, but was the person to whom the use of a telephone was denied, etc. etc. etc, which is futile. The text was fudged up, missourced, and no amount of reannotating or multiple sourcing for bits and pieces can fix it. We have to therefore go back and rewrite it according to those three sources (Segev, Jakobovits, Shahak). This is extremely simply, there is nothing either party can find harmful in this. It can be done quickly.Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

a) The first verifiable proof we have of the "incident" is Shahak's letter to Haaretz. Whether or not it describes an actual event is something upon which secondary sources disagree.

b) The sources we have in this case are Jackobovits, Segev, Bogdanor, and Shahak himself. Shahak is a primary source. Other possible secondary sources include Boteach. How do you know that Bogdanor relies on Jackobovits and Shahak? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because notes 30, and 31 in Bogdanor's account source (a) Shahak's account, and (b)Jakobobits' account.

ìThe predictable nadir of Shahak’s political activities was the publication of his book, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. In this work-issued, as we shall see, to a chorus of acclaim from radical left-wing haters of Israel- Shahak dispensed, once and for all, with the pretense that Israelis or Zionists, rather than Jews as such, are the true source of the evils that beset the human race. He began as he meant to continue – with an antisemitic fabrication. In the 1960s, he related, he had “personally witnessed” an Orthodox Jew’s refusal to allow the use of his telephone on the Sabbath to call and ambulance for a non-Jew who had collapsed nearby. On seeking a ruling from the religious authorities, the outraged witness was instructed that according to rabbinical law, “a Jew should not violate the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile.” Shahak professed that he had “reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Haaretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal.”(note 30 Shahak p.1). What he did not tell his readers is that, challenged to substantiate his “eye-witness account,.” He had been forced to admit that it was a straightforward hoax and that the Orthodox Jew in question did not exist. He also neglected to disclose that the rabbinate, far from confirming his interpretation of Jewish law, had in fact ruled that it was mandatory for a Jew to violate the Sabbath in order to save a human life, whether Jewish or Gentile. In the words of one commentator, “The whole incident had been fabricated in true Protocols style” (note 31 Jakobovits) Bogdanor p.121, p.132

Note that Bogdanor a poor and unreliable secondary source, constructs his account from Shahak and Jakobovits in the narrative order we have from Shahak's own account. Tom Segev also adopts this same time-line for narrating the episode. Segev is an historian, Bogdanor isn't, but if you insist on Bogdanor, you only strengthen my case that two of three secondary accounts start with Shahak's account of the event. Boteach's is a newspaper article that draws on no further sources. Use Boteach, and you invite other people sources whioch follow Shahak's account, for example Brownfeld's With Israel Shahak’s Death, A Prophetic Voice Is Stilled who, like Bogdanor, follows Shahak's account, in which the event precedes the telephone call. By introducing Bogdanor, paradoxically, NoCal1000 lends weight to my approach, by adding a secondary source that narrates the sequence according to Shahak's primary account, and thus undermines the case of those who would prefer we narrate this according to Jakobovits' order. Yet I have rejected Bogdanor, despite that, because he does not fit WP:RS. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To illustrate why other things in that line are problematical, if one recalls simultaneously all three sources.

'In 1965 Shahak sent a letter to Ha'aretz.(this is sourced to the Jerusalem Post essay now)

This is Jakobovitz's version of the 'start' of the incident.

Both Segev and Shahak say the incident started before Shahak sent a letter to Haaretz.

They say Shahak witnessed/was involved in the incident, and then went to the rabbinate to ask for clarification. Only after this clarification was obtained, according to those two sources, did Shahak turn to the press, namely Haaretz.

Jakobovits does not believe Shahak, and therefore for him, this all began with the letters to Haaretz. Nothing occurred previously. Shahak has his version, which stresses that he did not use the incident to make a scandal, but only raised the issue after privately consulting with rabbinical authorities.

I don't know any wiki page where getting simple things like this, sourced, in chronological order, according to various versions, is questioned as niggling. Method eliminates squabbles.Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• It may be that you aren't that far apart on how you think the actual text should read; can you (Nishidani) propose what text you would like to add, and what it should replace/where it should go? Avruch ^T 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is anywhere as complex as our discussion, at a glance, would suggest. Certainly, we can't narrate a sentence with three or four separate footnotes from different sources, which however in minor details conflict with each other, esp. when all sources basically agree on the constitutive elements of the event (a) reported telephone incident (b)event said to precede the incident (c)letter to newspapers (d) scandal (e) rebuttal by Jakobovits.

I simply want some agreement on the primary evidence, on which all newspaper, blogger, tertiary sources draw. One can cite numerous sources, Bogdanor, Brownfeld, Cohn, Boteach, Sunil K. Sharma etc.etc. If we can agree on using only the sources that all tertiary commentators draw on, namely Jakobovitz, and Shahak, plus perhaps the one RS that shows independent study of the incident, and draws on contemporary records, done by a recognized authority and historian, Segev, there shouldn't be a problem. Use anything outside this manageable range and you get wording complications of the kind: did Shahak write to Haaretz or only (Bogdanor) profess writing to Haaretz, which casts doubts on what we know to be true, i.e., that Shahak wrote to Haaretz, as Jakobovits, Shahak and Segev agree. These extra sources use careless or slipshod language when deviating from these 3 straightforward accounts. Jakobovits has everything that Shahak's critics use to undermine his account, why quote therefore people who are only quoting Jakobovits? This is a matter of method. If I know what sources are agreed on, I'll write my version immediately. If we cannot agree on what sources should be used, I can't even venture to give a possible solution, because I'll just get caught up in another futile series of challenges. Occam's razor, gentlemen, should cut the Gordian knot.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I suggest that you write it based on the sources you suggest using, and post your suggested version on this talk page. I think that would be more likely to lead to some kind of progress, than expecting people to agree to using only certain sources before they see what you would do when those sources are used. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not delaying. The problem that lies before us is, as I have alluded to a dozen times, is that, laying aside the primary source, and using only the other sources that have real claims to be useful secondary sources, we have two versions. Segev, who says the event happened, and then mentions to Haaretz letter and Jakobovits who starts with the letter to Haaretz, and says the event preceding it did not happen. This means we have to have 'according to Jakobovits, according to Segev'. The rest is straightfoward. All the details coincide, so the text is not a problem. It is the narrative voice and order of events that is the problem, because these two sources disagree. That's why I want input from colleagues.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Two editors have already made this suggestion, and I'll third it: Stop delaying, and write the change you propose here, so we can discuss it. NoCal100 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me.NoCal100- I read this fresh from an afternoon stroll, working out a draft to satisfy both Avruch and Coppertwig's request. Turn on the computer to copy the article section I'd decided to rewrite, and note in passing this remark- You are consistently and unbelievable rude in tone. We're at a point where, I believe, it is generally acknowledged that the problem I have harped on, against disbelief, actually is real. I begin to work on it, asking in the meantime for input, collegially, and I get you again, the reverting tagteamer with the warning flags in hand, always at my heels, in a voice out of a film noir, with the third degree tone, grunting the innuendo, 'cut the bullshit, spill the beans. And we'll see if your version cuts the mustard or is just an alibi'. I don't write or collaborate under threats. So stuff it. Apologies, to Avruch particularly who was bringing some civil control among us, to Jayjg and Coppertwig. I don't want respect, but I won't work with rudeness kibitzing in the wings.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

receptive audiences

Let me start by thanking JoshuaZ for his recent constructive edits. Now it is looking a lot better than a few days ago. Next I want to highlight a sentence that for a long time I found offensive:

Shahak's works have also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers, and his articles can be found on websites such as Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press".

In a strict literal sense this sentence is true. Those people do repost Shahak's articles with a good deal of glee. But they also feature quotations from David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett, amongst many others, yet if anyone went to Moshe Sharett and inserted "Sharett's words have also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers" it wouldn't last 10 seconds (and rightly so). Yet that statement would also be literally true; Moshe Sharett's diary entries are a favorite grist for the antisemitic mill. So why is it ok here? The reason I find it offensive is that naive readers will not understand two very important things: (1) Shahak hated people like that with a passion, (2) there is no way he would have given them permission to publish his works. Zero^talk 01:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of flaws with this argument, and most prominently, the comparison of Shahak with Ben Gurion or Sharett and their works:

1. Yes, many of Ben Gurion's quotes appear on antisemitic websites. Same with quotes by Herzl, Weizmann, and a number of prominent Zionist leaders. However, by far the most things written by these people do not appear on any of these websites. The case is different with Shahak, whose entire unabridged books have been made accessible on certain antisemitic websites. A single quote or even essay can be taken out of context, but an entire book? AFAIK some antisemitic sites also praise Shahak for his work, which can't be said for the Zionist leaders.
2. You can't seriously compare Shahak to the likes of Ben Gurion or Sharett. A similar detail that might be notable about Shahak simply might not be notable about either Ben Gurion or Sharett, who are, how to put it... much bigger. If you were to take all the information you could about Ben Gurion from just my mini-library, you would end up with an article the size of a book. If you were to take it from all the available sources, you'd get an article the size of a small library. TL/DR: undue weight. Further evidence that the information belongs in this article is that Shahak's co-author made a comment on the antisemites using their materials phenomenon.
3. The information about Shahak's prominence on some antisemitic websites is taken from reliable secondary sources. Are there reliable secondary sources linking Ben Gurion's works to antisemitic websites? And I'm not talking about just one, but a number of reliable sources that all comment on Shahak in relation to antisemitic websites.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Rokeach's(sp?) book which is 90% quoted from Sharett's diary is also there.

2. It is a small detail about Shahak too, even if it is blown up by his opponents.

3. Some of them are "reliable" by wikipedia rules, but they aren't neutral. They are Shahak's sworn enemies, and I think that should be completely obvious. The enemies of Ben Gurion and Sharett choose different smears. Zero^talk 11:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ynhockey.

I would add that BG quotes are reported to attack him and/or support thesis antagonist to him (ie antiZionist, antisemite, ...). Here, Shahak's writing are reported by these people because they consider the writings are pertinent analysis.

I found at the time the full Sharett's diaries downloadable from a negationist website but it don't think it contredicts Ynhockey's argument. MS or BG are used by these negationists as primary sources proving something they claim ; Shahak is used by them as a secondary source and they praise his 'analysis'. That is a completely different context.

Maybe I would have followed Zero0000 more easily if he had compared Shahak and Pappé, who is also reported on controversed media or by controversed groups. Reporting this could be seen as pov-ed and a straw man argument -> "what Shahak (Pappé) says is wrong/bad given it is shared by negationnists..." 91.182.225.67 (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought for a moment that you had a point, but I changed my mind :). Shahak is not cited for his analysis, but for his exposé. Say Shahak wrote "Jews are taught to spit at churches", and Sharett wrote "We planned to annex Lebanon up to the Litani River." (I made those up, but both are close to that.) Both these are loved by the CODOH low-lifes because they have the form of Jews spilling the beans about the bad behaviour of Jews. They are posted for the same reason. Zero^talk 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the same thing really. One is cited as analysis and the other is cited as people more or less accidentally saying what they were really thinking. There's also a clear difference in that these websites are citing large sections (indeed in some cases entire articles) by Shahak. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)