Talk:Israel Shahak/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Professor" so-and-so

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your changes were completely unrelated to Itayb's suggestions; they didn't remove any of the material he found objectionable, they merely re-organized it to make it more POV and less readable, and introduced original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You claims are false. Please see my comments in the RfC below. Tiamut 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Itayb removed the stuff you added as well, and continue to try to add; see, for example, this: [1]. So please don't pretend that you and Itayb agree on this, or that you are addressing his issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made an addition to the article since this at 18:20pm[2], before I asked for the RfC, so I don't know what you're talking about. As for Itayb's removal of the material, he is as at least being consistent which makes it much easier to respect his edits. From what I understand, where we differ primarily is in approach in bringing WP:NPOV balance to the article. He wants to do it by removing the slanderous sources that don't meet WP:RS and WP:ATT, whereas I have chosen to do it via rebuttal and contextualization via the use of reliable sources until agreement can be met on whether to keep them or not. Tiamut 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You re-added the stuff Itayb deleted, so you couldn't possibly be agreeing with him on this subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is superfluous arugmentation and beating of a long dead horse. 'If you read my comment, you would have seen that the apparent contradiction you have raised is explained therein. Tiamut 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

analysis of a non-compliant statement: Duke's "mourning" of Shahak=

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

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

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

I see two reasonable ways to interpret this statement:

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

In the first case, David Duke, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, is cited as a source with respect to the appraisal of Jewish laws. Such usage is questionable: as far as i know, the Ku Klux Klan's views are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist. (Wikipedia:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources) Hence, under this interpretation, the statement violates the Attribution policy. I tried to put this interpretation to work (([3]), but it was rejected ([4]).

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

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

In case a, the statement is not encyclopedic. I tried to delete it a couple of times([5], [6]), but each time it was restored ([7] [8]).

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

Itayb 22:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Very sound argument. I support your deletion of this material. Others? Tiamut 23:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the footnote. The source used is Bogdanov, not Duke. Since Bogdanov is used, we are not relying on a primary source. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the only reasonable interpretation of the statement is exactly what it says; Bogdanov says that Duke claimed that Shahak had done these things, which is completely in line with WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in a "Praise" section: Bogdanov is quoted for quoting Duke's praise of Shahak. The cite to Bogdanov is accurate, and no one claims Bogdanov's quote is not accurate, so the dubious tag does not belong. I detect a double-standard: Itayb is singling out this well-sourced quote, and not, say, the opening quote of the praise section, which quotes Gore Vidal without any reference, much less the secondary source that Itayb demands; the Mezvinsky quote is from a primary source; so is the Hitchens. Indeed, if one goes by Itayb's putative standards, the entire Praise section must be deleted except for the Duke quote, yet the only quote Itayb attacks is the one that a reliable secondary source found notable because it praised Shahak for his antisemitic writings. -- TedFrank 07:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, a source does not need to be self-published, to be considered a primary source. For instance, an eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper is a primary source, even though journalists and the papers they produce are generally considered secondary sources.

TedFrank, firstly, i agree with you, that the Dubious template was mischosen. I didn't look at the page it linked to; i picked it up from this table, where it is described as going next to "Disputed statements in-line". However, i'm happy you've noticed the insppropriateness of this tag in that context and deleted it. Thanks. :) I've replaced it with a more suitable one: Template:POV-statement.

Secondly, it appears from your comments, you haven't noticed my previous comment, "an analysis of the "Praise" section in light of Wikipedia's policies as a representative of the whole article". I think much of your criticism is answered by that comment. However, you did get (almost) right my opinion, that almost the entire Praise section should be deleted. And that's just for starters... Itayb 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 1: POV-statement tag inappropriate also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence, mentioning this dedication in the article is not encyclopedic. I tried to delete this phrase,([9]) but it was restored.([10]). Since this statement holds no informative value, it is used as a way to associate Shahak with Duke, implying Shahak was himself an anti-Semite. Such usage falls under the umbrella of original research, since interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. It also violates the NPOV policy, in that it does not simply assert facts about opinions, but asserts the opinions themselves, albeit in an indirect manner. Itayb 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Itayb, you're repeating yourself, and all of this has been addressed already, and you're not acknowledging that it's been addressed. Plus you're being disruptive: your argument proves too much, because it means that no biography should have a praise or a criticism section, and no one believes that. But you're disingenuously applying this idiosyncratic standard solely to the Duke quote argument. Please acknowledge the consensus that no one on other side of the Duke debate agrees with your view of NPOV and stop disrupting this discussion. -- TedFrank 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Itayb, you say the sentence "asserts an opinion". What opinion does it assert? By "indirectly", do you mean that readers will draw conclusions from the facts? That's precisely how NPOV is supposed to work.
2. The "not encyclopedic" claim doesn't fly either. Duke's endorsement of Shahak is notable and controversial. Duke has used Shahak in an attempt to legitimize similarly antisemitic opinions he holds (see the al-Jazeera interviews of David Duke). It's not a trivial list of information.
3. You keep falsely raising the "primary source" OR claim when it is plain from the cite that it is from a secondary source quoting Duke. -- TedFrank 07:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Duke reference is not primary in any way, but obviously secondary. It is mentioned at length in secondary sources. That's about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank, and Jayjg, i value your input, and i appreciate your enthusiasm. I'm not always in agreement with your edit choices and interpretation of the policies and guidelines, but i acknowledge that you, like me, are just striving to mold what you conceive of as a good article.

I appologize in advance i won't be responding to all the points you've raised. I simply don't have time for it. Perhaps in my next comment i'll take up the other issues.

As for the Wagner article, all i've got to say is: i'm dealing now with the Israel Shahak article. There may well be many other articles needing review, but please don't drop it all on my shoulders. Please also keep in mind, that the percentage of featured articles is almost negligible. That means that there are many, many more imperfect articles, than there are good ones, so the fact that some practice is common, does not necessarily make it desireable.

I'd like to partly refer to TedFrank's statement that "your argument proves too much, because it means that no biography should have a praise or a criticism section". There's more i'd like to say about it, but i'll have to settle for the following in the meantime.

In my opinion, "praise" is not the opposite of "criticism"; "defense" and "interpretation" are two possible opposites of "criticism"; "disapproval" is the opposite of "praise". I'll explain myself.

When you praise someone's character or work, you don't necessarily add any new information about them; you add new information only about yourself. Suppose i read some book, and then you came and told me: "I think this book is delightful." Would i have learned anything new about the book that i hadn't already known? No, i wouldn't, but i would learn something new about you, namely, that you think the book is delightful. That's a peek into your mind that was deprived of me beforehand. Now suppose you told me the same praise about the book only i hadn't read it previously. Would i know anything about it now? No, i wouldn't. I would only know something new about you. Depending on how much i value your opinion, i might also deduce from this the possible merit of the book. The same argument would hold if, instead of praising the book, you had expressed your disapproval of it, saying "I think this book is dreadful."

On the other hand, when you criticize someone's character or work, you inevitably have to describe them, and that may add new information about them. If you said: "The book misleads the readers, because in fact there are no unicorns.", then i would know, that the book mentions unicorns. As a side effect, i would also learn something extra: that there are no unicorns. Similarly, when you defend or interpret a piece of work, you have to describe it.

The relevancy of a piece of praise to an article depends on the subject matter of the article. If the subject is the praising person, than the praise may be appropriate, since it adds information about him/her. Also if the praising person is notable in his/her own right, but not notable enough to deserve his/her own article, then it may be a good idea to mention him/her in this context. Finally, even if the praising person does have a special article dedicated to him/her, it may still be a good idea to mention him/her in the current context in order to enrich the interlinked-ness of Wikipedia. Itayb 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Israel Shahak#Request for Comment

• Am trying to introduce changes to the Israel Shahak article [11] to address comments on the talk page by other editors indicating deep concerns with the anti-Shahak bias throughout the article that stands in possible violation of WP:BIO. The edits do not delete any of the most contentious information, but rather reframe to be more in line with WP:NPOV while the issue of whether some of the information should be included at all can be dealt with. Would appreciate the comments of others. Thank you. 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Tiamut 18:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the re-org you made did the exact opposite; it included all sorts of things that were not criticism in a "Criticism" section, for example. Also, you're claiming a violation of WP:BP, the Blocking policy? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• What is a violation of WP:BP? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:BIO. I fixed it above and will do that at the RfC page. Thanks for pointing it out. Tiamut 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO? Are you saying Shahak is not notable enough to have an article about him? That's what WP:BIO deals with. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant this part of WP:BIO: "a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies)." But you are right int hat the thrust of WP:BIO deals with notability. Tiamut 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If your issues are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, then you should specify which parts of the article violate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article as a whole as you are trying to defend it [12] holds a 3:2 ratio of negative:positive ainformation about Shahak. Putting this paragraph: Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers, and his articles and the full texts of his works can be found on websites such as Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press".[13] David Duke mourned Shahak, stating he had exposed "numerous examples of hateful Judaic laws... that permit Jews to cheat, to steal, to rob, to kill, to rape, to lie, even to enslave Christians,"[14] and dedicated his book Jewish Supremacism to him.[15][16] under a sub-heading entitled "Praise" is wholly inappropriate, particularly since these sources have still not been proven to actually meet the thresholds WP:RS or WP:ATT. Further, L’Affaire Shahak is not the most significant example from Shahak’s body of work. It belongs in the criticism section because it is used by opponents of Shahak to impugn his credibility. This is all just for starters. More information should be added on his actual body of work and its content, rather than outlining all the criticism without letting him state his theses. I would further note that none of my edits delete any of the disputed information. Nor do they introduce WP:OR as you claim. Everything is reliably sourced and imminently relevant to the information that was already in the article and which required some balance if it is not to be removed altogether. Does that answer your question? Tiamut 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Taking out-of-context quotations from material Shahak wrote in 1989 to attempt to address accusations made about him decades later is the very definition of WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not out-of context. You separated it from the other comment by reviewer Sheldon Richman that gave it its context. Further, it's an article about Shahak. Most things from books of his pass the bar for reliable source. Now, if you prefer that it be juxtaposed without commentary, I am fine with that. Tiamut 20:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's out of context. In 1989 Shahak stated that anti-Zionism was a mirror image of antisemitism. Then in the late 1990s and early 2000s various authors accused Shahak of antisemitism. You then brought a third author who in the 2000s claimed that Shahak was called an anti-Zionist because of his antisemitic views. You then brought in that ancient quote from Shahak, and tried to tie it in as well, arguing that his critics called him an antisemite because of his anti-Zionist views, and that therefore his ancient claim was a relevant rebuttal. In other words, your insertion "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Who says that statement by Shahak is a rebuttal to claims he was an antisemite? Only User:Tiamut. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm neither mocking nor ranting, and the latter is definitely a violations of WP:CIVIL, which certainly don't help. In addition, you keep claiming the article fails WP:ATT, for example, but fail to state how. What is not properly attributed? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in your own edit! [13] And it's part of why I conceded the point to Itayb on anti-Zionist quote, Because his arugment was strongly based in a consistent application of the policy? If David Duke is not a reliable source to summarize Shahak's work, then why is his opinion on Shahak even relevant to this article at all? Why are we giving David Duke undue notability? Just so we can allege Israel Shahak is an anti-Semite based on guilt-by-association? Tiamut 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But we aren't quoting Duke, were quoting a third-party who quotes Duke in the context of Shahak. I've already removed all the direct quotations of Duke. The quote is attributed to Bogdanor, not Duke. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break

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

TedFrank, you described this edit you just made here [14] as a revert to a "consensus jayjg edit"? What consensus? Do you mean Jayjg's opinion and your own? There is no consensus even on the relevancy of Duke's opinion having any value at all to this article. How is this consensus? Tiamut 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, any look at the edit history and this page will find six different editors, not just me and Jayjg: SlimVirgin, Urthogie, Humus sapiens, and Mike Rosoft. These are also the only editors who are applying the NPOV policy properly. The editors who oppose the quote about Duke (which you misdescribe as the "Duke quote") oppose any mention of the antisemitism controversy at all, which is plainly inappropriate POV-pushing whitewashing; such disruptive editing practices don't get counted towards consensus, because collaborative editing doesn't include the opinions of editors who are not applying Wikipedia policies, otherwise, Wikipdia policies would not get applied. -- TedFrank 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add: Itayb does support the removal of the quote about Duke but does believe the antisemitism controversy should be mentioned. If Itayb would reference a specific WP policy being violated, it would be helpful. -- TedFrank 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Some of the specific accusations are actually important, and if you shorten too much, you run the risk of filling the article with weasel words. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So keep those and delete the rest. I think the praise and criticism sections dont have anything useful to say other than some people love him and some hate him, most of the antisemitism part should stay though. --Calibas 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Calibas, specifically with their offered summary. Itayb 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Making opening paragraph comply with NPOV

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." It's plain that the accusations of Shahak's antisemitism are a notable controversy that belong in the introductory sentence pursuant to WP:NPOV and WP:Lead section. To date, the only argument against doing so is a claim that the accusations aren't true, though making that claim in the article would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV: whether the accusations are true is irrelevant to whether they are notable and reliably sourced. I propose: Critics have argued that Shahak's controversial writings on Judaism are inaccurate and anti-Semitic. but am open to a different formulation. -- TedFrank 12:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion has not changed about this point. The leade should represent the article in its current state, whatever it be. The controversy surrounding Shahak's writings is notable and well-documented. That's why it deserves adequate mention in the article, and this should be reflected in the lead. Itayb 07:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've been discussing this for weeks days without any input from Abu Ali, and he simply reverts the edit without participating in the discussion or explaining why WP:Lead section does not apply. Why is this violation of WP:DE permitted? -- TedFrank 09:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been fairly busy over the last week and haven't been able to contribute here as much as I wanted. But regarding your accusations against me: How many weeks has this been discussed here? Is it really true that I have not had any input in the talk page for weeks? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, having no defense for his improper edit and violation of WP:NPOV, instead tries to change the subject with a personal attack, which I have deleted pursuant to WP:NPA. This is a page for discussion of the Israel Shahak article, not for discussion of me. Please stop these disruptive edits. -- TedFrank 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Handwashing" quote

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

The quote is controversial. The claim that he doesn't mean what he says is WP:OR. That said, I don't see a need for the quote in the article; including it would just lead to WP:OR tit-for-tatting and an article buried in Shahak quotes, and the section written by Jayjg does a sufficient job of conveying the criticism of Shahak's antisemitic writings. -- TedFrank 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim that "he doesn't mean what he says"; I am noting that the quote, as cited in the article, has been extracted from a longer paragraph, in which it is clear that Shahak is discussing the interpretation by cabbalists of a religious practice. Since he goes on to write about "some few Jews performing a given religious ritual believing it to be an act of worship of God, while others do exactly the same thing with the intention of propitiating Satan", it is obvious that he is not cite this as evidence of Jewish belief, but of one interpretation.

If it is WP:OR to go back and check a quoted source, and to correct a quote taken out of context, then we may as well all give up editing Wikipedia! RolandR 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See, my position is that it's you who's taking the larger quote out of context of a still larger quote where Shahak goes on to say that this "one interpretation", as you put it, is part of classical Judaism. (Shahak never says "this is just one interpretation." He says it's part of kabbalism and that is part of classical Judaism.) So, in fact, it's the shorter quote that's less misleading of Shahak's meaning vis-a-vis modern Jews. Which is where the WP:OR problem comes in, even aside from the fact that the quote is controversial because Shahak is objectively wrong under either your interpretation of his meaning or my interpretation. -- TedFrank 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The larger quote isn't controversial, though. That's the key fact to be remembered here in this discussion. This specific quote is what's caused trouble to some as being seen as anti-Semitic. We're not allowed as Wikipedia editors to add more the quote just to "add context". We are, however, allowed to quote him responding to criticism for this quote. For these reasons, I feel the quote will not lead to some slippery slope of original research and context/quote wars.--Urthogie 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A datapoint

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

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

Indeed so.--NSH001 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

original research removed

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

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

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

primary and secondary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

index of Shahak writings

This link [15] contains pointers to some of his work and a chronological treatment of his bio. This includes a link an important article Oslo Agreement Makes PLO Israel's Enforcer which is notable not only for its scathing criticism of the PLO leadership but also for the clear analysis of the Oslo Agreement. Some of this material should be referred to in the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Opinions about Israel Shahak have been extremely bipolar ranging from "the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets" to "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism". Because of his views on Zionism, he is often accused of antisemitism.

• Yes. Wikipedia is not a platform for propoganda or advocacy. The only value in these sections is in estabilshing Shahak's notability and controversiality. The summary does that fine. A couple of footnotes can be added in support of its content. Itayb 08:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this would also address some of the Well poisening concerns above. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The concerns were unwarranted, and fully addressed. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, please clarify your position with respect to Calibas' second version (below). Itayb 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

2nd version looks fine to me ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Itayb 11:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• No I think that quoting praise or criticism, without giving a source or context, is meaningless. I don't at all agree with the second sentence, which implies an equivalence, which I certainly do not accept, between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. This should say something like "Because of his views on Zionism, he has sometimes been accused by Zionists of antisemitism" -- but even this should be sourced, rather than left vague. And I would also remove the word "bipolar", which as far as I am aware usually relates to manic-depressive illness, and is liable to be mnisunderstood in this context. RolandR 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the statement should be well-attributed, like all statements in Wikipedia. The exact wording is open to negotiation, but it has one distinct advantage, that it was formulated by a fresh, independent voice in this discussion: Calibas. Please reconsider. Itayb 17:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything RolandR says. I intended that paragraph as only a rough example. Here's a better one:

Israel Shahak has sparked feirce controversy during his life which has made him numerous friends and enemies. Comments about him range from "the latest, if not the last, of the great prophets" by Gore Vidal to "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League. Professor Irfan Khawaja disagrees with these accusations and explains that his detractors falsely associate his anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

I support either version. Itayb 07:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, if we use my 2nd version. Could use a little more info but I wanna be careful not to tip the scales. --Calibas 04:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes to Calibas' second version. Minor changes -- first sentence should say "sparked", not "has sparked", and "made", not "has made" -- past perfect is more appropriate here. Also, "fierce" not "feirce". I assume that the names will be Wikilinked, and the sources added. RolandR 08:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RolandR, please consider striking a line through your first vote (at least through the first word), like this. This way, the balance of votes would be clear even at a superficial glance. Itayb 11:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Itayb 11:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes to Calibas' second version, with the small changes by RolandR. (Also: the whole section "L'Affaire Shahak" is now both in the Shahak article and then, ecactly the same, in the Jewish History, Jewish Religion article. I think it should only be in one place.) Regards, Huldra 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's not exactly the same, it's a shortened version. I see it was copied there from here. It should probably be just here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Everything in the Jewish History, Jewish Religion article is either (1) original research/original synthesis or (2) redundant with this article. Maybe that article should be merged into this one? JH, JR has next to no wikilinks. -- TedFrank 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, of course not. The shortened version significantly misrepresents the views of his detractors and of his supporters, and Ottolenghi's point (which differs from all the rest) is not captured at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I should add that it's rather astonishing the lengths people are going here to try to hide the fact that Shahak is adored by neo-Nazis and antisemites. Nine footnotes attesting to the notability of that fact are not enough. His co-author even commented on the fact in the introduction to one of their books, but that's still not enough! At least people have stopped trying to remove the information based on the claim that it violates WP:BLP [16] [17] I guess somebody finally realized he's been dead for almost 6 years, so they had to invent new reasons to remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To me what's astonishing is the lengths people are going to inject into a Wikipedia article the opinions of neo-Nazis and antisemites. Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No per Jayjg. Plus: The misrepresentation is an especially egregious whitewash: Shahak is called an anti-Semite because of his writings against Judaism, not his writings against Zionism. Criticism of Shahak is notable, and NPOV requires its inclusion, not a paring down to a watered-down half-sentence. Again, the most notable thing about Shahak is that he is the House Jew for the worst anti-Semites of today because of his appalling anti-Jewish writings. -- TedFrank 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly so. Those who accuse him of antisemitism do so because of his writings about Judaism, not about Israel/Zionism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash indeed: "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League."

You express your opinion, that "Shahak is called an anti-Semite because of his writings against Judaism, not his writings against Zionism." Wikipedia is very clear about forbidding Wikipedian to let their own personal opinions infiltrate the articles. Contrarywise, stating in that context Professor Khawaja's explanation for the accusations accusing Shahak of anti-Semitism, is an excellent example of an editor observing both the Attribution as well as the NPOV policies.

Again you claim the most notable thing about Shahak is his being accused of anti-Semitism. That might be the case, but can you back up this claim by evidence? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, this has nothing to do with Zionism. There is notable and sourced criticism of his antisemitic writings, and no reason that it should not appear in this entry. Tewfik^Talk 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No reason, except for Wikipedia's Attribution policy regarding the use of primary and secondary sources as well as Wikipedia's NPOV policy requiring the presentation of all subject matters from a neutral point of view (that applies to The German Fuehrer; surely it applies to Shahak as well). Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No - per TedFrank. Note attempts to disguise a typical antisemitism as "anti-Zionism". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Disguise? Please read the suggestion carefully: ..."a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League. Professor Irfan Khawaja disagrees with these accusations and explains that his detractors falsely associate his anti-Zionism with antisemitism." Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No -per Jay. It's also inaccurate to present the criticism as simply criticism of anti-Zionism when in fact it centres on his views of Judaism. <<-armon->> 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the suggestion carefully: ..."a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League. Professor Irfan Khawaja disagrees with these accusations and explains that his detractors falsely associate his anti-Zionism with antisemitism." Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No per Jay, Ted, and Humus. The criticism of Shahak is as notable as it is well sourced. --tickle me 00:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it? Is the criticism notable, or are those who uttered it? Is it well sourced, as required by Wikipedia's Attribution policy with regards to primary and secondary sources? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No - Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge, subject to its policies and guidelines. Often, this case included, much of what is notable about a person is the depth and breadth of those who oppose him or her. Wikipedia is not meant to evoke images of fuzzy bunnies and cotton candy; it is supposed to be encyclopedic. This information is essential to this man's place in history, and removing it ony does a disservice to wikipedia as a whole. -- Avi 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I liked the suggestion in your edit summary. Maybe we should replace this article with "Israel Shahak was a man. Some people liked him, others didn't." Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• So should we list every single positive or negative thing said about this man? There's a line between important facts and trivia. I do agree that my version neuters the subject too much but I think we have to draw a line somewhere. --Calibas 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• No one's suggesting that this article become a data dump. What precisely do you find trivial in the current version of the article? -- TedFrank 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• "Every single positive or negative thing said about this man"? That would indeed be too much. However, this is just a few short paragraphs of praise and criticism. We're nowhere near, say having an entire article devoted solely to criticism (e.g. Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of George W. Bush, Criticism of Sylvia Browne, Criticism of Hugo Chávez, Criticism of Tony Blair), or something like Support and criticism of Cindy Sheehan, or even something like the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair. Face it, Shahak was an extremely controversial individual, both adored and reviled; you're going to need at least a few sentences of praise and a few sentences of criticism to encompass that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

After checking all the people cited I see they're all notable. If I would have known my suggestion was going to stir up so much trouble I would have done a little more research. I think this article may want to note the large difference between religious antisemitism and racial antisemitism, though it's hard to tell which ones his detractors accuse him of. --Calibas 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a worthy distinction you make, and one that would clear up much confusion. Unfortunately, the problem is that the word "antisemitism" describes both, and it would violate WP:NOR or WP:SYN to put words in the critics' mouths, unless one can find a cite noting the distinction wrt Shahak. Of course, while Shahak was a religious antisemite, those that find him useful are also racial antisemites, who don't really distinguish. -- TedFrank 02:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Calibas, you've done a good job. You didn't stir any trouble. If anyone did, it was i, who put you're humble suggestion to vote. But even i haven't caused any trouble, unless one considers free discussion troublesome. I'd like to mention, that last night, having seen no one of the regular "critics" (HumusSapiens, Jayjg, TedFrank, SlimVirgin) had stated their stand with regards to the poll, i sent a message to each of them, encouraging them to opine (i sent a similar message to Tiamut, another active but unrepresented voice belonging to the other "camp"). So there was no attempt for a "coup d'etat" of any sort, simply an attempt to check the consensus relative to what i consider a good and balanced suggestion, surely a well-intentioned one, for the improvement of the article. Neither of your suggestions made any attempt to disguise or to downplay the accusations of antisemitism. Isn't saying the Anti-Defamation League accuses Shahak of antisemitism loud and clear enough? Every one of those who supported your suggestion, supported this statement as well. Itayb 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Avi, indeed Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge, and not a platform for propaganda and anti-propaganda. Indeed, all Wikipedia material should be subject to its policies and guidelines, such as strict restrictions on using primary sources and the obligation to present the subject matter from a Neutral Point of View. Indeed, sometimes much of what is notable about a person is the depth and breadth of those who oppose him or her. Can you demonstrate, that this is the case with Shahak? Are the outraged reactions have any significance on their own, say like Einstein's fierce criticism of classical Mechanics had? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes TedFrank has once again shown himself wrong. Israel Shahak should not be characterized as an anti-semite, because he was not an anti-semite. Did he hate people of Semitic blood (encompassing Jews, Chritians, and especially arabs) for their blood? If not, then he should not be described as an anti-semite. He is no more an anti-semite than any generally anti-religious person is an anti-semite. The social connotations of the term are misleading and as such should not be used to describe someone whose concern is, positively, anti-religious.Dean Sayers 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dean Sayers: you misunderstand the term, see Antisemitism#Etymology and usage or look it up in a good dictionary. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:04, 29 March 2007 (

I agree with Dean Sayers. Shahak was a humanist, and opposed to all religions, not just the Jewish religion. But he was not a racist. It may be appropriate to describe him as anti-Judaic. As Antisemitism#Etymology and usage makes clear, the term "antisemitism" refers to hatred of or racism or discrimination Jews as people and a group, not opposition to, or even hatred of, the Jewish religion. Once we start creating a category of non-racist antisemitism, the term loses any value. We should of course include criticism of Shahak in the article, and record that some of his critics describe his views as antisemitic. But I would strenuously oppose any suggestion that the article itself should take a position on this by describing Shahak as an antisemite. RolandR 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To take the absurd position that anti-Jewish writings is not "antisemitism" is the epitome of tendentious editing, and I encourage both Sayers and RolandR to think carefully before engaging in this pointless and time-wasting path. All you're doing is destroying your own credibility. -- TedFrank 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not try to prove that Shahak was an anti-semite, nor to refute it. That's original research, and it's forbidden in Wikipedia. The truth is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is about attributability, not truth. If some reliable authority explicitly claims he was an anti-Semite, you may cite it. If some reliable authority explicitly claims he was not an anti-Semite, you may cite it, too. Otherwise, refrain from drawing any explicit or implied conclusions of your own, reasonable as they are. Consider, instead, turning to Wikinfo, starting a personal blog or submitting articles to academic journals, to give but a hint of the myriad options available to you. Itayb 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing TedFrank's thought. Not only you discredit yourself, but in the course you also confute the POV that this anti-Jewish "humanist" is merely an "anti-Zionist". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• No to this absurd suggestion. Shahak's writings on Judaism have nothing to do with Zionism. and to the writer above, who I assume is writing in good faith and not being disingenuous, "anti-Semitism" refers to various types of hatred of Jews. It has nothing to do with "Semites" (who are a linguistic group). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Semite also refers to a people of various middle eastern descent; the linguistic convention is simply a response to this fact. While I can't claim to know why it has come to mean a chiefly Jewish bigotry, this is disingenuous (ala anti-arabism vs islamophobia). see dictionary.com; while the convention of Jewish implication is clearly prevalent, it also clearly shows that it also refers to Semites in general. Also, I wouldn't link to Wikipedia as a reliable source.Dean Sayers 09:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the word "semite" is irrelevant here. See my post above: you are confused. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Briangotts, please read the suggestion carefully, "a disturbed mind who made a career out of recycling Nazi propaganda about Jews and Judaism" by Edward Alexander. He has been repeatedly accused of antisemitism by various individuals including the Anti-Defamation League. Professor Irfan Khawaja disagrees with these accusations and explains that his detractors falsely associate his anti-Zionism with antisemitism." Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, way too drastic to replace three entire sourced sections with two sentences. Too much would be left out and misrepresented. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, could you please give an example of a particular view, which would be left out or misrepresented? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No. Ignores this man's highly controversional stance in many areas. 194.176.105.40 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What would these areas be? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No as per TedFrank. Too much left out. As long as these claims are attributed to sources that represent a significant viewpoint, it should be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What's left out? Is the viewpoint significant, or are some of those who propone it? There's a world of difference between these two categories. Einstein's criticism on classical Mechanics is a significant viewpoint. So significant, it deserves an article all by itself. What is there in the accusations of Shahak of being an antisemite, that has such inherent merit, that it deserves a section (actually two) of their own? Itayb 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No per Jossi. The space is well-deserved.--Mantanmoreland 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• No per Briangotts, Avi and others. 6SJ7 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• No, the criticism section is small enough as it is, and outlines legitimate criticism of a very controversial figure. Other figures mostly known solely for controversies also have such sections. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not do to simply claim Shahak is known mostly for controversies. Can you back it up? Itayb 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• No I'm sure this was meant in good faith, but it's a terrible idea. Wikipedia should be information rich, espicially when it comes to controversy. IronDuke 00:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:Lead section

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

No one is suggesting that the article is bowdlerized. Only that it should be about Shahak himself and what he says, and not about a smear campaing against him by those who seek to descredit his devastating criticism of the Israeli government's actions.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RolandR and Itayb above explicitly suggested that the article be bowdlerized, and you've repeatedly suggested that the notable accusations of antisemitism be omitted.

As it is, WP:Lead section is still being violated by failing to acknowledge the main controversies related to Shahak. -- THF 04:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

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

Good point. The article is dominated by character assasination, i.e. the muck his opponents attempt to sling on him. The only detail left out is Shahak himself: who was he and what did he say. This question is marginalised in this article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Describing Shahak's work by quoting directly from it would amount to original research; the same sort of original research presently evidenced by the criticism against him being presented in the form of direct quotes from his critics and from his delirious supporters. Itayb 08:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Answering Calibas' question, no, i haven't read any of Shahak's books yet, but i have looked them up in the Israeli United Catalogue (of college and public libraries). I've found out a curious detail. Shahak's book "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" is catalogued in the library of the Tel-Aviv university under the subject "Self-hate (Psychology)" [18]. As i've written, i haven't read the book, but according to Amazon's abstract ([19]), it does not deal with the psychological phenomenon of self hatred. Other Israeli libraries, as well as the British Library, do not catalogue this book under this subject. So it appears the cataloguers of the Tel-Aviv library didn't catalogue this book according to its content, but rather according to their personal opinions about the psychological motives that drove Shahak to write this book. Itayb 08:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm the person who basically authored the entire "Biography" section; more could be added there. Regarding his views, I've also added some of that, but you should really take that from secondary sources, rather than from his works, in order to avoid original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that more could (and should) be added. By why is direct quotation from his works considered original research? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, i'd like to make it clear, that i find nothing wrong with original research. Quite on the contrary. In fact, there couldn't be any Wikipedia without original research - the research to which Wikipedia's editors are supposed to attribute their contributions. While i'm at it, i'd like to add i also find nothing wrong with writing from a non-neutral point of view. That's Wikinfo's premise, and at one time i strongly considered leaving Wikipedia for that project (until i found out their policy about censoring sexually explicit material was ambiguous, which made me very uncomfortable, since i can't bear censorship of any form.) (OR is also the premise of the Academic Publishing Wiki) There's also nothing wrong about writing about non-notable stuff; i find blogs a wonderful thing. And there's even nothing wrong about being uncivil. Although i try to uphold civility at all times, you'll find i never reprimand anyone for being uncivil. I enjoy vulgarity, obscenity and verbal abuse like the next guy, and also, as i've said, i detest censorship in all its forms.

So there's nothing superior in Wikipedia's choice of rules. But the point is, these are the rules of the game, and anyone who can't abide by them should not attempt to play it (as i've explained in a comment in Kelly Martin's blog). That having been said, Wikipedia's policies were not selected quite randomly. They make a lot of sense in the context of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that anyone should be able to tap for quick, reliable information without need for specialist knowledge.

More specifically with regards to your question, consider the following excerpt from the Attribution policy page: "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." In the same vain, Shahak cannot be used as a source for Shahak's claims, since, as this talk page demonstrates, people differ wildly as to how these claims should be interpreted. Itayb 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have no objections to violations of Wikipedia's WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:CIVIL policies, but Wikipedia takes them very seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In some cases yes. But most of Shahak's writings are quite unambiguos as to what he is saying. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali, you make a good point. The main rational for the no-primary-sources "edict" seems to be that words not be presented out-of-context, and that they can be easily verified without special expertise. However, a secondary source conceivably can be quoted out-of-context as well.

All i can say is that to the best of my judgment, the rules are clear: no primary sources under any but the most restricted of circumstances. The rules may be aiming way off the target, but that's the way they are currently formulated. In my opinion, Wikipedia is a complex game - with significant repercussions on real life, but a game nontheless - complete with a set of rules, and if you don't play by these rules - regardless of the way it would be accepted by the other players - you're simply missing the point. There's nothing wrong with the rules of football, except if you happen to be playing basketball.

However, i'm aware that for many people Wikipedia is not a game. These people have a lot going for their perspective. Wikipedia has come to play an outstanding role in spreading information on the web, and hence its important impact on real life. Additionally, Jimmy Wales made it very clear, that Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia; it's not (primarily) a social experiment, and "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." (original emphasis)

To sum up, my advice to you is this: act in good faith to make Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, make it evident that you're acting in good faith and be prepared to defend your actions. Itayb 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Latest changes

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

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

In addition:

• Wikipedia articles have "Praise" and "Criticism" sections, not "Public opinion" sections with "Approval" and "Disapproval" sub-sections.
• "Shahak vs. the Jewish law: criticism and counter-criticism" is an absurd section title. The section was about an incident he allegedly fabricated, not him vs. Jewish law, and it doesn't belong in a sub-section titled "Overview of Shahak's views ", since this wasn't a "view" of his, nor an "Overview" of the same, but rather was (as stated) an alleged incident. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jay. If you look at the diff you'll see that cites were removed and sections were renamed in a less clear way. Sorry but it wasn't an improvement. Also, I think Jay's point about WP not having obituary sections is also valid. <<-armon->> 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Before going any further, i'd like to say that, all-in-all, Jayjg did a good job on the Biography section, in my opinion. I'd also like to thank Abu Ali, who is always very protective of me. I draw strength from your words, and from your acknowledgment of my efforts. Please don't feel bad for inviting me to take part in editing this article, because i don't feel bad about it. If anything, i feel grateful to you, for introducing me to Shahak, whom i have never heard of before. I am also happy to have had the chance to collaborate on an article with such Wikipedians as Huldra, Jayjg, RolandR, TedFrank, Tiamut and, of course, yourself. Even when the discussion gets heated, these people make sure it stays intellectually (and socially...) challenging. A discussion such as this is precisely what makes Wikipedia so much more exciting than, say, writing a term paper.

Regarding the obituaries section: i can live with it, and i can live without it. I will not waste energy on debating this issue, nor will i engage in an edit war over it. There are other issues, such as the deleted Pallis quote, or the "mother payed the Catholic family" vs. "family payed the Catholic family", which i don't care to argue about, because the amount of energy i would have to expend in discussing them greatly overweigh the reward i would get in case my opinions are accepted. I will address four points, which i find most significant.

1) Firstly, the phrase "After Nazi Germany occupied Poland". I changed it to "After Germany occupied Poland". The time frame is known to be the 1930's, because Shahak's date of birth is given in the lead. Even if we consider a wider time frame: the whole 20th century, there was still only a single case of Germany occupying Poland in this period. This occupation was conducted by the Nazi administration of Germany during the Sanacja administration of Poland. Either both administrations are mentioned, or both are neglected. Otherwise, it seems to me, to be implying that "Nazi Germany" is distinct from Germany. It was not Germany that invaded Poland, it was Nazi Germany; akin to North Korea and South Korea.

2) Secondly, designating the approval section as "Praise", while designating the disapproval section as "Criticism" shows bias against the approving views. The word "Praise" connotes emotion (admiration) and ecstasy (as in "Praise the Lord!"), while the word "Criticism" connotes judgment and rationality (as in "literary criticism"). The opposite of "Praise" would be "Condemnation". Jayjg suggested it was common practice in Wikipedia to use the titles "Praise" and "Criticism" to designate these types of sections. Common or not, this naming convention violates NPOV, and shouldn't be employed.

3) Thirdly, regarding the "L'Affair Shahak" section. "L'Affair Shahak" is the title of a particular article critical of Shahak, written in English by an Orthodox Jew to an Orthodox public. The focus of the section is not - or, rather, should not be - this article, otherwise it is either irrelevant in this article, or else biased. The article was written in English, and its full title is "A Modern Blood Libel--L'Affair Shahak". Why was a French name used for an English article? I can't say for certain, because i'm not acquainted with the jargon spoken by the English speaking Jewish Orthodox community, to whom this article was intended, but i suspect, based on the full title, that "l'affair" is a term for an anti-Semitic blood-libel, perhaps echoing the Dreyfus affair, which took place in France. I find this title slanted.

Contrary to Jayjg's claim, the section is not about an incident Shahak allegedly fabricated. In its current form, it is a platform for an extensive (it's the longest section of the article!) Jewish orthodox apologia for the controversial Talmudic injunction, which Shahak put in the limelight in his Ha'aretz letter and in other writings. The various rabbis quoted do not try to directly contradict the physical occurences Shahak had described. This incident is significant for both Shahak and the rabbis because of what it says about the Jewish orthodox world-view. Israel Shahak described this event in order to argue that the Jewish orthodox system of values is fatally hostile towards gentiles (and heretic Jews). And the rabbis tried to discredit Shahak's account by arguing that the said system of values is so utterly the other way round, as to rule out the possibility that the described incident had actually occurred.

In my opinion, this section belongs in this article. I would not have it removed. The reason it belongs here, is that it gives stage to one of Shahak's important and original contributions, and to relevant, rational criticisms of it. That's on a par as describing some philosopher's theory, and the criticisms of this theory. That's why i gave this section the title "Shahak vs. the Jewish law: criticism and counter-criticism". Of course, the current presentation gives inordinate weight to the critics relative to Shahak, and is therefore in violation of the NPOV policy. The section needs to be balanced.

4) Finally, there is no need for two criticism sections: "Criticism" and "Accusations of anti-Semitism", just as there is no need for two appreciation sections, say: "Israel's militarism" and "Jewish fundamentalism".

Itayb 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments about Nazi Germany are fine with me, on removing the accusations of antisemitism title that's fine as well. Regarding the other titles, your argument about "Praise" and "Criticism" is nonsensical, and the title you have used "Shahak vs. Jewish law" misleading. Also, the section about his book is about his book. I'm restoring the more sensible titles and heading depths, but I'll try a new title for the alleged telephone incident. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Itayb, the Praise/Criticism complaint you have needs to be taken to WP:STYLE, because you're asking for an encyclopedia-wide change. Edit-warring over that issue on a single article about a particular antisemite is tendentious. -- THF 12:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV-section tag

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

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

Idiosyncratic editing

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

"Obituaries" section

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

the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections

1. Jayjg, could you please list three Wikipedia articles with a "Praise" and a "Criticism" sections?
2. TedFrank, could you please quote from the WP:STYLE guideline, or any other guideline, those passages dealing with the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections? Itayb 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Daniel Pipes, Robert D. Kaplan, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, NGO Monitor for the first question; there are undoubtably hundreds more: those just easily popped up in a ten-second Google search. If "praise" and "criticism" bother you so much, I have no trouble replacing it with a "Controversy" section. It's the substance I care about, as well as not misrepresenting the substance through misleading section titles, as well as fairly acknowledging the controversy in the lead section.
2. WP:STYLE is the wrong cite, my apology. See the Wikipedia:Criticism essay. The point is that your complaint is an encyclopedia-wide complaint, and needs to be hashed out in the appropriate forum, and the talk page for a single article is not that forum. If you have a specific proposal for integrating the criticism into the entire article without losing substance, we're open to hashing it out on the talk page. -- THF 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Controversy: acclaim and criticism", with or without two subsections: "Acclaim" and "Criticism"? Itayb 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The creation of a neutral "accusations of antisemitism" section where the argument pro and con was presented was not the cue to move everything Shahak supporters don't like to acknowledge about him into that section, even when it has nothing to do with antisemitism. You've persuaded me that there shouldn't be a separate criticism section and everything should be integrated into the article, and now you're trying to segregate it, Itayb? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. -- THF 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm just trying to balance out the article, attempting to come a bit closer to the NPOV ideal. I'm sure your aspirations are similar. Itayb 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, sir. Misnaming a section "Shahak and the Jewish fundamentalists" and falsely claiming without any basis that it was only Jewish fundamentalists who had an issue with Shahak's misrepresentations of Jewish law is not "attempting to come a bit closer to the NPOV ideal." Nor is it "reflecting content", much less NPOV, to title a section with integrated criticism of Shahak's work "acclaim" as your 20:24 edit with its dishonest edit summary does. Please self-revert to the 1 April Jayjg edit and discuss your changes here before making them so it can be explained why your edits do not reflect reality or Wikipedia policy. The first factual error was previously explained to you, you have no new information, yet you persist in adding misinformation to the article. Your edits are disruptive. -- THF 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain (or at least tone down) your personal attacks on this pageابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I commented on edits, not the person. -- THF 20:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Describing Itay's edits "falsely without basis" "dishonest" "not reflecting reality" and "persist[ing] in adding misinformation" is not comments, it is slander and villification pure and simple. If you want to participate in the discussions here, please try to treat people with a minimal degree of civility and respect. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Abu, in the English language, "slander" means falsehood, so you're just as guilty of a violation of civility as I am by your strange idea that edits that agree with the POV you've been pushing are above criticism. The difference is that I am correct in pointing out that Itayb's edits are adding misinformation, and you are incorrect in accusing me of slander (as well as incorrect in accusing me of a personal attack). If you have a softer way to convey the idea "repeatedly adding misinformation after being corrected without any attempt to justify the misinformation or rebut the correction", I'm happy to use it in the future. The problem here is Itayb's edits; please don't try to change the subject. If you wish to falsely accuse me of a personal attack, please do so on my talk page, rather than burying this talk page, as your accusation has nothing to do with the Shahak article. And it is a dishonest edit summary to rename a section that includes praise and criticism "acclaim" and then claim that this "reflects content"; Itayb acknowledges that I am correct there. -- THF 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir, you're right. I've accidentally left some Jewish fundamentalist smear in the "Acclaim" section. I've transferred it to the "Accusations of anti-Semitism" section, where it properly belongs. Thanks for pointing my attention. Itayb 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali's double-standard on the talk page is revealed: I'm not a Jewish fundamentalist, yet Itayb makes this false personal attack. -- THF 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Itay's accusation is utterly false. And his edit summaries falsely characterizing neutral assessments of Shahak's antisemitism as "ravings of Jewish fundamentalists" demonstrates who here suffers from rudeness and a lack of objectivity. -- THF 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank, Jewish fundamentalist priests and neo-Nazis, whose views you are incessantly trying to push, are hardly objective sources of information about Jewish fundamentalism and anti-Semitism. Itayb 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:CALM, I'll permit this egregious and libelous violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to chase me from the page. I hope admins don't reward that sort of bullying, however, and it's ironic that I'm not the one trying to whitewash an article about David Duke's favorite Hausjuden, yet I'm the one who's being accused of pushing neo-Nazi views. -- THF 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit war

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

Armon, please be careful with your accusations. The poll was around the question, whether the "Praise", "Criticism" and "Accusation of anti-Semitism" sections should be summarized in a few sentences. The consensus was against this proposal, and i've respected it in all my edits. Itayb 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Like TedFrank, i have decided to take some time off this article to calm down. Itayb 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Quoting from the "Alleged telephone incident" section:

Werner Cohn remarked in 1994 that, "Dr. Shahak does not seem to notice that this clamor, which he duly notes, is in itself a refutation of his charge that current Jewish life is dominated by orthodox inhumanity."< ref name=Cohn>Cohn, Werner. "The Jews are Bad! (review of 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion,' by Israel Shahak)", Israel Horizons, vo. 42, no. 3 of 4, Autumn 1994, pp. 28-9.</ref>

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

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

, nor academic:

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

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

Cohn is a sociologist who studies Jews, among other subjects, and is Professor Emeritus at Columbia University. If his opinion doesn't count, I'm not sure whose would. IronDuke 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He also gets over 11,000 Google hits, and over 100 Google scholar hits. I might also point out that this article quotes the poet Fouzi El-Asmar, and various novelists, activists, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The university of British Columbia, in Canada, to be precise. Itayb 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. IronDuke 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 1

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

Shahak's book was written in 1994, 30 years after the "incident". Cohn's review of this book was written in the same year. The quotation is taken from this review. The quotation reads: "Dr. Shahak does not seem to notice that this clamor, which he duly notes, is in itself a refutation of his charge that current Jewish life is dominated by orthodox inhumanity." (my emphasis). Cohn's use of language suggests he is referring to Shahak's 1994 book, and to the way the "incident" is portrayed therein, rather than to the 1965 sources. Hence, the sensible place wherein to set this comment is in the context of the book, rather than the "incident".

You've written:

Also the criticism from his nephew was contextless; it was referring to various bizarre claims made in Jewish History, Jewish Religion, but not the telephone incident.

I agree with you. Sorry, i should have been more careful. Itayb 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "this clamor"? Is it the publication of the book? No, it is the considerable publicity surrounding the original story's publication in Haaretz and The Jewish Chronicle- Cohn says so himself. Please make sure you provide proper context for statements so that they are comprehensible to the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Cohn's quote is related to the "telephone incident". That's why it's in the "telephone incident" section, and i'm not suggesting to move it anywhere else. But this section breaks down to two segments:

(1) The "incident" + the immediate reactions to it.

(2) The book, wherein the "incident" was retold and wherein the reactions to the "incident" were mentioned + those reactions to the book focusing on this particular passage of the book.

Cohn's quote belongs to the second segment: it is taken from his review of the book. Moreover, Cohn specifically relates the quote to the book, when he writes just before the quote: "In Shahak's version, with which he begins this book, the Jew here followed the ruling the of orthodox rabbinate." (my emphasis) Finally, as i remarked, Cohn's persistent use of the present tense and the adverb "currently" strongly suggest that he is commenting on the way the incident is portrayed in the book. Cohn does not comment simply on the clamor; he comments on "this clamor, which he duly notes" (in the book).

• Your edits also destroyed citations, namely the Pinocchio one. In the words of a Wikipedian, whom, i'm sure, we both hold in esteem, "please don't remove quotes from citations, they are very useful in showing exactly what the author said." [20]. Thanks. :) Itayb 12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this clamor? Is it Shahak's mentioning of the incident in the book, and saying the Rabbis "added much sanctimonious twaddle etc."? No, Cohn is referring to the initial publicity, its publication in Haaretz and The Jewish Chronicle and similar newspapers. Your placement moved Cohn's comment out of its context, and made it unintelligible. You've done this before, please stop doing so; slavish devotion to a chronological account makes the statements of the critics impossible to understand. As for my other edits, they didn't "destroy citations", but removed irrelevant ones. The "Pinocchio" comment was inserted as a straw man, so I removed it, as it was meant not to criticize Shahak, but rather to undermine Cohn. In any event, I've left it in this time, but I will continue to restore Cohn's comment regarding this clamor to its correct spot, regardless of how often you try to make it incomprehensible. I won't bother commenting on this specific issue again, unless you come up with some other explanation as to what this clamor might mean. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How should Cohn and his review be described?

Consider the following excerpt ([21]):

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

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

2. One assumes that when an encyclopedia cites a sociologist on some subject, the cite is taken from one of his/her academic publications. Since this is not the case here, the reader should be advised, that Cohn's review was not written in his academic capacity (i doubt that Prof. Cohn would like people to think this review is a faithful representative of his academic writings). It is important to note that by the time this review saw light, Cohn was long retired ([22]). Moreover, the venue, wherein the review was published, was not an academic journal of Sociology. It was a laymen's political periodical. There is no reason to suspect this article had gone any professional scientific scrutiny before its publication, as is customary in academic publications. Itayb 20:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't mention the bona fides of any of the other commentators in the article, nor do we mention where any of the other people who comment were published. For example, we say nothing about Sheldon Richman, nor do we mention the intensely political (and anti-Israel) nature of the place in which his review was published (the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs). Your attempts to poison the well regarding Cohn are becoming unseemly. I've been very patient with you, but it's time for you to move on from Cohn, and probably this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg wrote:

We don't mention the bona fides of any of the other commentators in the article, nor do we mention where any of the other people who comment were published.

Do you have any objections to my argument pertaining specifically to Cohn's quote? Your comment seems to imply that a common practice should be followed in all cases, whether it is right or wrong. I prefer to go by the moto "Our Wikipedia - when right, to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." Carl Schurz

As for patience, the constant exercising thereof is a good measure for securing a happier life: "Three ounces are necessary, first of Patience, Then, of Repose & Peace" (Recipe for a Happy Life, Margaret of Navarre, ca. 1500) Itayb 09:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, my comment indicates that we should use consistency within articles, and not attempt to poison the well. There's a reason his name is linked, and people can click on the link if they want more information. Please take my other advice. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't yet addressed my concern that, seeing a quote attributed to a sociologist, a casual reader will erroneously but naturally enough assume that the quote is taken from an academic paper. This, in turn, implies it had been written to rigorous scientific standards, and had undergone scientific editorial scrutiny. After all, if it weren't for Cohn's title with its implied assumption that he is not merely stating his personal views, but giving a professional expert opinion, it would not be appropriate to cite his review in this article, would it? I'm not attached to the specific formulation i used to alert the reader to this caveat. Any equivalent alternative you suggest, would be just fine. Itayb 12:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you have given no reason to even imagine that someone would make that assumption. Since when do retired sociologists review books by chemists in peer-reviewed sociology journals? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Itayb, your point above has very little to do with how things are sourced on Wikipedia. If we made the sorts of artificial distinctions you advocate above, most commentary in articles having to do with current events would disappear. When a reputable scholar writes (or sometimes merely speaks) about something he knows, we use it where it applies. We don't add meritless caveats about when they retired. IronDuke 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head here, Iron Duke. Itayb seems to be inventing new policies that apply only to this article. Some of them include:

• Quoting people who praise or criticize a person is Original Research, but that really only applies to people who criticize Shahak.
• When a secondary source notes David Duke's praise of Shahak, that makes it a primary source.
• While any other article can have Praise and Criticism sections, articles about Shahak may not.
• All people who review Shahak's work, or praise or criticize him, may simply be quoted, except if they're Werner Cohn, in which case the article must contain long descriptions of what he did for a living, the fact that he was retired when he wrote the review, and the kind of magazine in which he wrote his review. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Student's commentary in the "Alleged telephone incident" section

Twice in the past ([23], [24]) i have made attempts to change the "L'Affair Shahak" section's title (now titled "Alleged telephone incident") to reflect the view, that the details of the story, or whether it even happened, are not relevant; what is important is the idea that Shahak tried to demonstrate, namely the place of the gentile in the Jewish law.

Both these attempts were thwarted by Jayjg and TedFrank. These editors insisted, that the section was in fact about this specific incident, and not about Shahak's criticism of the Jewish law:

• "Shahak vs. the Jewish law: criticism and counter-criticism" is an absurd section title. The section was about an incident he allegedly fabricated, not him vs. Jewish law (Jayjg)
• The section belongs in Shahak, because it's a notable controversy regarding Shahak: either he witnessed an event by a single person that he falsely generalized to an entire religion, or he invented an event to smear an entire religion. [...] The discussion is not a debate about Jewish ethics (TedFrank)

Although i still hope that they will change their minds about it, Jayjg's and TedFrank's position has prevailed. While this is the case, Mr. Student's commentary is out of place in that section, since it does not directly concern itself with the incident: it deals with Jewish ethics per se. This is not merely my interpretation of Student's commentary; Student actually states so himself in the introduction of his article:

The details of the story [i.e. the "telephone incident"], or whether it even happened, are not relevant right now. What is important is the idea that Shahak so maliciously tried to demonstrate. Let us, therefore, examine this issue. May we violate Shabbat in order to save someone's life and, if so, why and for whose life? ([25], end of section 1)

Itayb 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahak tried to claim Jewish law in the alleged telephone case was X, several Rabbis said "no, in the alleged telephone case Jewish law is actually Y". It's not about Jewish law in general, it's about Jewish law as it applied specifically to the telephone incident/affaire Shahak. Please don't remove it again. Also, please read the WP:MOS before editing further; Wikipedia articles don't have a "Categories" header for the categories. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)