Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Subpage

Problems with version and last sentence

Well, I guess you want comments in here, not just in the edit summary. Or do you want on Atzmon talk? In any case as I said there, and Untwirl agreed, too many quotes taken too far out of context.

• You complained about too many quotes in your first comment on this topic, but then you have a short section with a lot of largely out of context quotes.
• This sentence: He has referred to Jewishness as "very much a supremacist, racist tendency", and said that he is "anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews".
  • First, you have clearly expressed in talk you think he's a notable antisemite which makes one have to question how you put quotes together
  • You should make it clear you are using two different sources and not one statement of his, by making separate sentences, the second starting something like "He also says..."
  • You have to say that the WP:RS says he says "Jewishness" is "very much a supremacist, racist tendency" just because the WP:RS's word in that sentence and should be described as such. CarolMooreDC (talk)

DRsmoo continues his POV pushing in usual fashion

• I don't know what admins have said there aren't any POVs or BLP problems, but that's not their job anyway. Their job is to encourage collaboration, including by having editors listen when others point out that out of context and/or primary source quotations like you insist on putting in to prove your POV point is against NPOV and WP:OR and WP:Synthesis, the latter depending on how you do it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

These are Atzmon's own quotes from his own articles, he approves of them, he wrote them and submitted them, and they are the main reason for his notoriety, as they have come up in debates, been cited by others etc, they must be included. The only POV pushing is to censor from the article the main brunt of Atzmon's writings. It is POV to say that some of his quotes may be included, while other more notable quotes which have been cited by notable people(such as award winning journalists)may not be. Drsmoo (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific what big award winner quoted what. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't cherry-pick quotes from Atzmon's articles. It's much better to find quotes from secondary sources, such as interviews. If you think your quotes are "typical" of Atzmon's views, finding them in interviews shouldn't be hard. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now all of the quotes are from interviews Drsmoo (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so. "He has written that "antisemitism is a spin, it is a myth... there is no such a thing as antisemitism."[7]" is sourced to an article by Atzmon. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification please

Can somebody explain what these sentences mean, and why they belong in the text:

• "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."
• He holds that the holocaust must be treated as historical fact rather that what he described as "religious myth".

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to educate the reader, not leave her/him baffled. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They belong in the text for the same reason that his quotes on Zionism belong in the text and for the same reason any articles have quotes, they are relevant, having been cited by notable figures(at least the Jewish ideology catastrophe was.) Drsmoo (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotes should illuminate, not obfuscate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote is as illuminating as any of his other statements, what do you see as unclear about it? He believes Judaism is an ideology which has spread(he said Geroge W Bush was "acting Jewish" etc. And he believes this will lead to a catastrophe in the world, and that the world must stop acting Jewish. Very few of Atzmon's quotes makes rational sense, but they are noteworthy because they(like this quote) have been referenced by noteworthy people. Drsmoo (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Atzmon was called an antisemite by David Aaronovitch in a debate at Oxford University"

This isn't in the source cited at the end of the sentence. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Atzmon was called an antisemite by David Aaronovitch in a debate at Oxford University[6] over statements such as "I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop."[5]"

This is an example of WP:SYNTHESIS. Point A (Aaronovitch called Atzmon an antisemite) is from a WP:RS, point B is from a RS (Atzmon said "I think..."), but Point C (Point A is related to Point B; i.e., Aaronovitch called Atzmon an antisemite because of statements such as that) is synthesis unless a RS has connected the two. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaronovitch called Atzmon an antisemite at the same time as he listed those quotes from Atzmon(thereby giving them greater relavence) He read a list of controversial Atzmon quotes, Atzmon made a rebuttal about how Jews should keep track of the madoffs or be put at risk at which point Aaranovitch asked how members of the crowd could clap at that and told Atzmon he was an antisemite. Drsmoo (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just listened to the MP3 of Aaronovitch reading Atzmon's comments, and it included the quote cited in that sentence. In a separate MP3, Aaronovitch screamed that "you" are an antisemite. I assume he was referring to Atzmon, but it isn't clear—he may be referring to an audience member or somebody else. Unfortunately, I can't find a single news account of the debate.

Can I ask you: What makes Aaronovitch's accusation so notable? Is he known as an expert on antisemitism? Isn't it better to cite three or four secondary sources (i.e., news articles) that say that Atzmon has been accused of antisemitism, instead of saying that one person accused him? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps? I made my edit, and there has been good feedback on it. Feel free to make whatever changes you feel are neccesary and the same to Carol and everyone trying to make a good article. Drsmoo (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

These edits of Maliks were of course perfectly sensible as far as pointing out synthesis. Of course I think that whole paragraph is POV pushing WP:OR synthesis and misuse of primary sources - is there one tag for all that? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to tag it; it's just a draft. You can edit it if you'd like to fix it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility and solutions to that problem were created so editors would NOT have to go over and over and over the same points 100 times with editors who read other editors rational explanation of policy and just keep doing what they want. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I did a version that, as I wrote in edit summary, removes the kind of WP:OR, out of context, cherry picked primary source and POV-used statements that evidently led to Atzmon asking for removal of the article. I replaced with balanced WP:RS info that states same points made previously but not in stark, unnuanced form that made an educated Israeli Jew look like a Nazi skinhead high school dropout. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Using 3 recent WP:RS interviews in NPOV way without WP:OR

Since Malik missed this archived material the first time around. here it is again. I actually created a version from this which largely held for a few weeks. Note that Malik's edits just taking quotes from sentences from secondary sources have been just as WP:OR/Synth as DrSmoo doing it from primary/secondary sources. And obviously in these later versions I've started doing it myself. But basically you can't say things about him that the secondary sources don't say below.

I wrote back on March 29:
These WP:RS interviews are among other WP:RS I have found that describe his political views that I will be adding soon. The proper way to deal with these three most recent and detailed interviews is to only make the points the authors make, and illustrate them with Atzmon quotes, not to use them to build a POV and Coatrack case. Here are the main points made by the three interviewers, without Atzmon quotes. Obviously some can be added, especially where repeated in 2 interviews.

Jim Gilchrist interview

Direct quotes from: I thought music could heal the wounds of the past. I may have got that wrong, The Scotsman, 22 February 2008

• musician so passionately, not to mention controversially, preoccupied with the plight of the Palestinian people.

• if his eclectically inclusive music prompts rave reports, his stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his intensely anti-Zionist polemic have provoked outrage, not least among some other anti-Zionists, and he has been condemned as an anti-semite and even a Holocaust denier.

• Ask him about such claims and he sounds cheerfully, indeed pugilistically, unrepentant. He refutes accusations ETC Details

• His attitude stems from his period of national service with the Israeli army during the 1982 conflict in Lebanon:

• He agrees, however that he has, in effect renounced his Jewish identity,

• Is he disillusioned, then?

Martin Gibson interview

Direct quotes from: No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’, Gisborne Herald, 23 January 2009.

• He left Israel in 1994 after service in the Israeli military convinced him Israel had become a racist, militarised state that was a danger to world peace.

• While he believes people run a risk speaking out against Israel, Gilad Atzmon says he has no choice.

• There have been numerous attempts to silence Mr Atzmon, including inevitable charges that he is anti-Semitic, although he is Jewish himself.
• Mr Atzmon says the brutality we see in Israel, that is reminiscent of the Nazis, has arisen through a simple failure of logic.

• There is less excuse for our sitting idly by while the mess in the Middle East grows progressively more brutal than for Germans in World War 2, he says.

• Growing up, Mr Atzmon could never work out the anger of people towards Israel, but now he can - the actions of Israel are sowing seeds of hatred throughout the world, he says.

• Where a charge of anti-Semitism will not stick to Jewish people who criticise Zionism, it is replaced by the label of "self-hating Jew", but this does not bother Gilad Atzmon.

• The word Judeo-Christian is an artificial construct, he says.

• The rockets launched into Israel do not justify the killing of 1000 Palestinians in Gaza over the past few weeks, he says.

• Although newly-elected American President Barack Obama has had to proclaim his Zionist credentials, and his vice-president Joe Biden proclaimed "I am a Zionist", there is some cause for hope, he says.

• The financial meltdown is all just part of the programme, he says.

John Lewis interview

Direct quotes from: "Manic beat preacher" interview with, The Guardian, March 6, 2009.

• A few days before I meet Gilad Atzmon, he finds himself at the centre of an international storm. The prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoǧan, ETC

• It may come as a surprise to some that Atzmon is a saxophonist at all. His career as a musician has long been drowned out by the clatter of his extra-curricular activities: the furious attacks on Israel (he writes and edits for the website Palestine Think Tank); the philosophical texts on Jewish identity that get discussed by the likes of Noam Chomsky; the two comic novels that have been translated into 24 languages.

• However, since his arrival in London in 1994, Atzmon has also established himself as one of London's finest saxophonists.

• This month, Atzmon launches his latest project, the album In Loving Memory of America. It's what he calls "a very personal story, of how I fell in love with jazz and fell in love – and out of love – with America".

• Atzmon was born in Tel Aviv in 1963, into what he describes as "a conservative, secular Zionist family". ETC.

• It doesn't take long for Atzmon to ricochet from talking about music to talking about politics, and a lengthy, furious and often hilarious argument about Islamism ensues.
• It is Atzmon's blunt anti-Zionism rather than his music that has given him an international profile, particularly in the Arab world, where his essays are widely read. (He favours a one-state solution in Palestine; he concedes that it will probably be controlled by Islamists, but says, "That's their business.") It has also made him many enemies, even among some former allies.

End quotes CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC's edit

I like this edit overall

Some issues

1. Where on Wikipedia does it say that Audio can not be used as a source?

2. The article should not include the Swedish Social Democratic Party's response, this is not an article about the Swedish Social Democratic Party and their response is irrelevant. This is an article about Gilad Atzmon, the original criticism is relavent because it is related to him.

Drsmoo (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Audio can be used a source. In general, though, secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, so a news article about the debate would be preferable to a recording of the event. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I looked at WP:RS again and it seems to be looser than I remember it. However, I know in WP:RS noticeboard people often have opined that audio is best used when it backs up a written source because most people will not want to go through a lot of audio material to verify. And, as with everything else, this is especially true when defamatory remarks are made against a living person.

Malik may not know there were two articles about this event also, one self-published by Atzmon and one by someone else who attended and published at Palestine Think Tank. At least one of those should be used also, and the context of the relevant quote and Atzmon's responses should be included. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the latest draft

I have some questions about statements in the latest draft that don't seem to be supported by the sources:

1) "Atzmon extends his criticism of Israel to Zionism and Judaism." I don't see any basis in the source for this statement. Is it in another source? Am I missing it?

2) "In May 2005 the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticized Atzmon". I don't see that in the source. It says the Board of Deputies criticized the School of Oriental and African Studies for alleged antisemitism, and cited Atzmon as an example. That's not the same thing.

3) "Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer". He wasn't responding to the Board of Deputies, but clarifying his remarks, which he said The Observer quoted out of context. If we keep this section (see #2) I think we need to say "Atzmon clarified his remarks in a letter to The Observer".

4) I agree with Drsmoo that there's no need to quote the Swedish Social Democratic Party's response to the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism. If Atzmon had responded, his quote would be noteworthy, but why does the Party's response belong in his biography?

5) "Atzmon and others have characterized various charges of antisemitism as an attempt to silence his criticism". Who are the others and why are their opinions note-worthy? Where does it say that he describes the charges that way? I don't see it in any of the three sources cited.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you should just add the necessary edits, CarolmooreDC doesn't appear to have any objections. Drsmoo (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Give a few minutes to put it together. Some of that stuff has been around in article forever, some relatively new; and over time there has been some smudging of sources as people played with things and even originator starts to forget what came from where :-). CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Response 1) Malik wrote: "Atzmon extends his criticism of Israel to Zionism and Judaism." This is a summary of Gilchrist's statement: His attitude stems from his period of national service with the Israeli army during the 1982 conflict in Lebanon: "Watching my people destroying other people left a big scar. That was when I realised I was completely deluded about Zionism." Hence his condemnation of Jewishness as "very much a supremacist, racist tendency".

I don't have a problem with adding some relevant quote from that article that follows in same thread, adding something like: Atzmon says his latest work is very "self-reflective": "When I criticise the Jews, in many cases I'm criticising myself."

2) Malik wrote: "In May 2005 the Board of Deputies of British Jews criticized Atzmon". I don't see that in the source. It says the Board of Deputies criticized the School of Oriental and African Studies for alleged antisemitism, and cited Atzmon as an example. That's not the same thing. That's been in there for a long time. So you think it's not relevant at all, even if rewritten more accurately? I don't really care.

3) Malike wrote: "Atzmon responded in a letter to The Observer". He wasn't responding to the Board of Deputies, but clarifying his remarks, which he said The Observer quoted out of context. If we keep this section (see #2) I think we need to say "Atzmon clarified his remarks in a letter to The Observer". Same comment as above.

4) Malike wrote: I agree with Drsmoo that there's no need to quote the Swedish Social Democratic Party's response to the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism. If Atzmon had responded, his quote would be noteworthy, but why does the Party's response belong in his biography? If we want a fair and NPOV bio shouldn't we put it in? If it is notable that one group think thinks he is, it is just as notable that another high or even higher? profile group thinks he is not, in direct response to the accusation. No one else has had a problem with it over 6-8 months, even those accusing Atzmon and other editors of antisemitism.

5) Malik wrote: "Atzmon and others have characterized various charges of antisemitism as an attempt to silence his criticism". Who are the others and why are their opinions note-worthy? Where does it say that he describes the charges that way? I don't see it in any of the three sources cited.
Did you check these sources at all?

• Oren Ben-Dor, 'The Silencing of Gilad Atzmon': I have recently signed a petition that condemns the constant attempts to silence Gilad Atzmon. The same petition also objects to the constant attempts to discredit and hinder the website that hosts, among others, Gilad's views--Peacepalestine--one of the more enlightening internet platforms on Palestine.
• Marry Rizzo, "The Gag Artists, Who's Afraid of Gilad Atzmon?": In the UK, Jews Against Zionism can't abide Gilad Atzmon, and they have demanded that the SWP renege his invitation. Tony Greenstein, together with others, has publicised his demands on the forum of Just Peace UK, a mainly, but not exclusively Jewish group. He has put forth an edict that Atzmon is an anti-semite (as well as anyone who supports him), that he is associated with anti-semites (because he, like thousands of others, reads material which Tony does not approve of), and that he is a Holocaust Denier or at the very least, an apologist for them....He has placed conditions upon Atzmon, as well has having placed demands upon the SWP even though Greenstein is not affiliated with this party...Those responsible for [circulating Paul Eisen's paper] should not have voice in the Palestinian solidarity movement, because they would contaminate it....Greenstein has written to the SWP demanding, not requesting, that they cancel Atzmon's appearance as well as a speaking event at the SWP's bookshop in London, which in lieu of cancellation, will be picketed. In other words, Greenstein decides who he likes or not, who has the right to speak or not, and when they do speak, he dictates what it is they talk about. He wants to be master of discourse; the most vocal, most pure, and official voice of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. Those who disagree with him and his agenda are in his mind on the "other side of the camp" and gone full circle, having fallen into anti-semitism. They are not good for the Palestinian people...but no one should be permitted to deny him the possibility to exercise his right of free speech. One might not like what he says, whether the critic be Zionist or anti-Zionist, but shutting him up seems to be very old school left, right out of Stalinism.
  Well, if all that is not a synonym for silencing, I don't know what is!
  
• Gibson, Martin "No choice but to speak out - Israeli musician ‘a proud self-hating Jew’".:There have been numerous attempts to silence Mr Atzmon, including inevitable charges that he is anti-Semitic, although he is Jewish himself.
  

This latter comment evidently is based on Atzmon's comments, rather than any independent research by Gibson; but I'm sure other sources where Gibson says pretty explicitly people are trying to silence him can be found if required.
Anything else? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires that biographies be written "conservatively". We shouldn't include statements that aren't 100% attributable to reliable sources. Here are my comments on Carol's responses.

1) In several interviews, Atzmon has denied he is a critic of Judaism. The quote you cite from Gilchrist mentions Jewishness, not Judaism. I think we need to make the same distinction Atzmon makes between Jewishness and Judaism.

2) We can re-write the sentence to clarify that the Board of Deputies criticized SOAS, but I'm not sure why we want to cite second-hand criticism of Atzmon. If you want to use this quote, find a source that directly criticizes him for saying it. Or try to find other direct criticism of him. As an alternative, we can write that he has been accused of antisemitism and have several sources, as we did with the allegation of anti-Zionism.

3) If we can find a better source for the first quotation (in #2), we can re-write #3. If we use a simple statement that he has been accused of antisemitism, we don't need this sentence.

4) Where does the Swedish Social Democratic Party say that Atzmon isn't an antisemite? It says that he is a Jew and the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism shouldn't call Jews antisemites. That's hardly a defense of Atzmon. Surely we can find a heartier defense than that.

5) I still don't see where Atzmon has said that his critics are trying to silence him.

These comments aren't just directed at Carol. Drsmoo and others, feel free to reply as well. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Judaism/Jewishness: I confess not really understanding there's a difference and if you want to go through those more recent sources and clarify it feel free. Or I'll do when get a chance. Here's what he says in Lexicon of Resistance, a dictionary of his "charged terminology, which might help understand what secondary sources are trying to say, though they might be confused too:

Judaism- one of the many religions practiced by the Jewish people (Jews for Jesus, Jews For Buddha, Jews For Allah and so on). Though Judaism contains some non-ethical aspects and teachings, the one and only peace-seeking collective amongst the Jewish people is actually a religious orthodox sect, namely Torah Jews. This fact is enough to make me very careful when criticising Judaism as a religion. When dealing with Judaism, I would restrict myself to criticism of interpretations of Talmudic racism and the biblically orientated Zionist genocidal plunder of Palestine.

Jewishness- Jewish ideology, the interpretations of the meaning of being a Jew by those who regard themselves as Jews. Jewishness is the core of Jewish identity, it is a dynamic notion. It is hard to pin down. While refraining from criticising Jews (the people) and Judaism (the religion), elaborating on Jewishness is a must, especially considering the crimes committed by the Jewish state in the name of Jewish people. As long as the Jewish state is shelling civilians with white phosphorous, it is our ethical duty to question: Who are the Jews? What does Judaism stand for? What is Jewishness all about?'

2-3-4. I agree on second hand criticism; get the point on swedish; I really don't find any of the accusations all that credible, mostly knee jerk responses with some political agenda; so just vaguely saying there are "accusations" with him denying them seems worse to me. After all it often has been a career ending accusation, so it should be more than politically motivated rants. However antizionism is NOT merely an allegation he disputes. He probably calls himself one, but that sentence was created using secondary sources.

5. First, if you don't think Atzmon says it, at least you agree Gibson says it. Second, I'll fill in the blank when I find him saying it - which probably would be a primary source. Meantime, here's a possible questionable WP:RS source since probably a translation of a Greek source; or maybe it's self published? Under his byline. Gilad Atzmon interviewed by “Eleftherotypia” (Greek Sunday Paper) 11 January, 2009: Anyhow, I have yet to come across any substantial argumentative criticism of my thought and writing. Instead all I see is a crude and banal attempt to silence me by spreading lies, slander and defamation. Yeah, that sums what I've seen so far. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1) Whether there's a real difference between Judaism and Jewishness is a matter of debate, but since Atzmon says there is and that he only criticizes Jewishness, I think we have to make the same distinction when we cite him or his interviews.

2-4) I see your point about the difference between allegations of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Let's try to find better sources, both of criticism and defense. I'll see what I can do.

5) Per WP:SELFPUB, I think we can use Atzmon as a primary source on this point. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't have a problem with that. Probably good to also link to the Lexicon to show that how the secondary sources interpretation jive with his interpretation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So have we gotten over the issue of not including Atzmon's quotes from his own articles? This is now permissible? Atzmon does seem to have a peculiar view of Judaism and Jewishness. He sees Jewishness as bad(including linking to and writing for an antisemitic holocaust denying site like biblebelievers(which hosts the Protocols of Zion etc)Bible Believers with articles like "Why is it that the Jews who repeatedly demand that the Christian world should apologise for its involvement in previous persecutions, have never thought that it is about time that they apologised for killing Jesus?". When he says he is a self hating Jew he is anti "Jewishness" as he calls it. I think we should also include regarding his denials of anti semitism that in his opinion antisemitism does not exist. Drsmoo (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A specific quote from Atzmon regarding Judaism and Jewishness "I do harshly criticise Jewishness, yet I avoid any form of criticism of Jewish people or of Judaism." whether that actually means anything or has anything to do with his other writings, that's what he says. Drsmoo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting becuase he says he criticizes "jewishness" not Jews. But he also says "To be a Jew is to see the 'other' as a threat rather than as a brother. To be a Jew is to be on a constant alert. To be a Jew is to internalise the message of the Book of Esther. It is to aim towards the most influential junctions of hegemony. To be a Jew is to collaborate with power." This is quite clearly anti-Jew. Or in his article "On Anti-Semitism" where he says "Let me assure you, in Clinton's administration the situation was even worse. Even though the Jews only make up 1.9 per cent of the country's population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were Jews. A coincidence? I don't think so. We have to ask ourselves what motivates American Jews to gain such political power. Is it a genuine care for American interests?" Drsmoo (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also why are those who defend Atzmon notable? This article is not about them. I don't believe they are more notable than those who point out Atzmon's Anti-Semitism. Drsmoo (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

1. How many times do various editors have to make this point about primary sources: Secondary are preferable; primary ones can be used primarily to defend the subject vs accusations or where absolutely nothing similar has been brought up by a secondary source and/or it's very very important to clarify some secondary resource point, as all editors would agree. You keep just adding more coatrack of variations of things he's said on topics amply covered by secondary sources. Please respond if you get this point??

2. Actually the Lexicon is something that might actually be quoted only because it looks like he's sat down and thought about his views more carefully than other times when he's just (as he evidently believes) venting away his PTSD from IDF service. I should have read it more carefully myself and I'd be less confused. What does Malik think?

3. In any case, rather than just keep sticking more primary source quotes in the article helter skelter, let's make proposals of how things should go in. Start with a secondary source and if somehow something Atzmon says can clarify it, like the Lexicon, use that rather than looking for his most objectionable rant.

4. Under BLP it's important to have very notable people in notable sources "defaming" someone with accusations. However, when it comes to defending against defamation, the bar is not so high. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to Wikipedia guidelines backing up what you said. I also don't think your idea that Atzmon is defaming himself and therefore must be removed from his own article holds water. In addition, the articles on the debate were both written by Atzmon or his supporters, and do not mention the relevant quotes, which are found only in the audio. Issues related to convenience have no bearing on the content of an article. Anyway, I think your recent edit was good with just a few very small modifications. Drsmoo (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The first two sentences too vague for me to know what you are talking about.

I'd have to look at both articles to agree they aren't relevant and I'm sure I'll find relevant material.

Are you are referring to puttng back this version (no final ref in one I found):

In an interview with the Gisborn Herald Atzmon stated that he is a "proud self-hating Jew!" adding "I'm anti-Jewish, not anti-Jews. I think Jewish ideology is driving our planet into a catastrophe and we must stop" and that "Jewish ideology and Nazi ideology were very similar." [7] In 2009 at an Oxford University hosted debate entitled "Anti-Semitism - Alive and Well in Europe?", between Gilad Atzmon and David Aaronovitch Aaranovitch accused Atzmon of Anti-Semitism citing those quotes as examples.

The problem is this: if editors think Aaronvitch's opinion piece in the Times isn't WP:RS for criticizing Atzmon, why would they think that an audio would be any better? And you don't even bother to quote in a footnote what he says, which you would have to do, plus which specific audio on that page and what minutes it is located at. And I'm sure I could find Atzmon's response and that would have to be put in too. It seems like a lot of work for something that probably would be nixed. And I definitely will take that to WP:RSN(noticeboard) which I'm sure will agree with me if you insist it has to be in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to Aaronovitch's article in the times? Drsmoo (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see all the stuff that was taken out go, including the above, go to the history of the article, around the second to the last version before it was locked. Close to top of the list. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't explained why you feel the "others" who characterize Atzmon being called an antisemite as "silencing" are noteworthy. This is an article about Atzmon, not them. Both counterpunch articles contain no quotes, and are nothing more than position pieces by un-noteworthy authors. Drsmoo (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Above I wrote: Under BLP it's important to have very notable people in notable sources "defaming" someone with accusations. However, when it comes to defending against defamation, the bar is not so high. And this is particularly true in Category:Biography articles of living people who have requested removal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Length of section

I think it is worthwhile that we insure that the Politics section does not exceed its current length. The length is already more than sufficient considering Atzmon's limited notability. Drsmoo (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to replace less accurate statement "Atzmon extends his criticism of Israel to Zionism and Judaism.[2]" to something from 2 secondary sources on his views of Jewishness vs. Jews/Judaism so that finally will be clear. Busy today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have reached consensus

Time to unblock the article it seems. Drsmoo (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should a) run the fact by the larger list in case there is some big dissent and b) all agree not to go adding more stuff unless it is something brand new based on Secondary Sources or tweaks to nonpolitical section. Then we'll just have to deal with drive by editors doing their thing... :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No takers on my offer above?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)