Talk:Seven Jewish Children

Anti-semitism

Found this out on Google News: http://news.google.com/news?q=Anti-Semitism . My only issue, besides the lack of a more involved plot summary (no doubt the downloadable script is being processed right now), is the rather high placement of "[Churchill]...who is one of patrons of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign." Its notable certainly, but its more of a second-paragraph concept, rather than a second-sentence one. Its placement there seems to echo how, in news reports, her support for that organization is directly equated with antisemitism; hence it seems to be POV pushing a bit.-Stevertigo 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a new article. It will get expanded soon enough by visitors. The Squicks (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the reference to her connection with the PSC. I feel it was appropriate to place it as context to her describing the play as political and the special treatment of performance rights. In a similar way I added Janner's history with the Board of Deputies as context to his action. We don't describe support for the PSC as antisemitic and those who do so are writing propaganda.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the PSC issue can be dealt with in a separate sentence. Expand the "successful playwright" sentence to deal with her literary career, and follow that up with a sentence dealing with her politics. That allows each aspect to be developed a little bit - to the degree appropriate for this non-bio article. -Stevertigo 12:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the reviews and analysis section should be combined. What does everyone think? Wodge (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some reorganisation may be useful. The reviews section is rather bitty and some of it addresses the allegations of anti-Semitism that appear below. A fresh pair of eyes might help produce a better structure. Or maybe we need to wait for an analysis of the initial reaction to appear in the academic press.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just renamed the 'Analysis' to 'Controversy' for the moment, It seemed more apt given its content. I'll have a think about further reorganisation. Wodge (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted version from page

Below is the version of the Churchill's defence of play section that I have rolled back. I think it unbalances the article by removing NPOV and making things heavilly anti- the play. WHat do others think?

Writing in response to an article by Howard Jacobson which sought to place Seven Jewish Children and other criticism of Israel in the context of a rise in anti-Semitism,[27]

He later wrote:

The problem with Seven Jewish Children is that it isn't drama. Jacqueline Rose praises it for being "precised and focused in its criticisms of Israeli policy". I agree. And that's what makes it not art. Art would be imprecise and free-flowing, open to the corrections of what will not stay still, attentive to voices that unsettle certainty. The difference between art and propaganda is that the latter closes its mind to the appeals and surprises of otherness. Seven Jewish Children is imaginatively starved; no orchestration of voices vexes or otherwise complicates its depiction of a Jewish people fulfilling the logic of its own intolerant theology, boastful and separatist, deaf to reason and humanity, knee-high in blood and revelling in it. A theatrical as well as a racial crudity, which any number of critics, by no means all Jewish, have remarked on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/26/carylchurchill-antisemitism-jacqueline-rose

Against which Churchill defended herself thus:

"Howard Jacobson seems to see the play from a very particular perspective so that everything is twisted. The characters are “covert and deceitful”, they are constructing a “parallel hell” to Hitler’s Europe, they are “monsters who kill babies by design”. I don’t recognise the play from that description.

Throughout the play, families try to protect children. Finally, one of the parents explodes, saying, “No, stop preventing her from knowing what’s on the TV news”. His outburst is meant, in a small way, to shock during a shocking situation. Is it worse than a picture of Israelis dancing for joy as smoke rises over Gaza? Or the text of Rabbi Shloyo Aviner’s booklet distributed to soldiers saying cruelty is sometimes a good attribute?

...

Finally, the blood libel. I find it extraordinary that, because the play talks about the killing of children in Gaza, I am accused of reviving the medieval blood libel that Jews killed Christian children and consumed their blood. The character is not “rejoicing in the murder of little children”. He sees dead children on television and feels numb and defiant in his relief that his own child is safe. He believes that what has happened is justified as self-defence. Howard Jacobson may agree. I don’t, but it doesn’t make either of them a monster, or me anti-Semitic. [28] To which Jacobson responded:

Coincidentally, or not, a 10-minute play by Caryl Churchill -- accusing Jews of the same addiction to blood-spilling -- has recently enjoyed a two-week run at the Royal Court Theatre in London and three performances at Dublin's Abbey Theatre. Seven Jewish Children declares itself to be a fundraiser for Gazans. Anyone can produce it without paying its author a fee, so long as the seats are free and there is a collection for the beleaguered population of Gaza after the performance.

Think of it as 1960s agitprop -- the buckets await you in the foyer and you make your contribution or you don't -- and it is no more than the persuaded speaking to the persuaded. But propaganda turns sinister when it pretends to be art. Offering insight into how Jews have got to this murderous pass -- the answer is the Holocaust: we do to others what others did to us -- Seven Jewish Children finishes almost before it begins in a grotesque tableau of blood-soaked triumphalism: Jews reveling in the deaths of Palestinians, laughing at dying Palestinian policemen, rejoicing in the slaughter of Palestinian babies.

Churchill has expressed surprise that anyone should accuse her of invoking the blood libel, but, even if one takes her surprise at face value, it only demonstrates how unquestioningly integral to English leftist thinking the bloodlust of the Israeli has become. Add to this Churchill's decision to have her murder-mad Israelis justify their actions in the name of "the chosen people" -- as though any Jew ever yet interpreted the burden of "chosenness" as an injunction to kill--and we are back on old and terrifying territory. And this not in the brute hinterland of English life, where swastikas are drawn the wrong way round and "Jew" is not always spelled correctly, but at the highest level of English culture.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/20/pox-britannica-anti-semitism-on-the-march.aspx

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 09:34, 28 April 2009

I agree with Peter, and was considering making a similar edit myself. Unless we want to significantly expand the critical responses section, and include also lengthy extracts from the more favourable responses of Michael Billington, Tony Kushner and others, we should not include so much hostile criticism from Jacobson. As it is, I think the article is unbalanced and focusses too much on the negative response and the smears against Churchill. RolandR (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Two plays for Gaza spam

The amount of space which some are trying to devote to this verges on WP:SPAM. The event does not merit mention in the lead of the article nor des it merit is own section. I feel that mention that the original cast are giving a repeat peformance for the event may be justifiable, but no more.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE

Could editors who keep reverting the lead (who have not been banned), say why they think WP:LEAD does not apply here, or why I may have misconstrued it? IronDuke 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I neutralized the lead if all agrees, much more neutral after I edited. Kasaalan (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As described in the edit history, WP:UNDUE applies. DionysosProteus (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, yes, you did indeed say that in your edit summary. What you did not say, there or here, is why this is undue, or why WP:LEAD doesn't apply. Have you in fact read WP:LEAD? If so, what are your thoughts? Thanks for coming to talk. IronDuke 18:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which part you object, except Patrick Healy [I don't know anything about him], all criticizing parties in the article are Jewish and at least 1 is citizen of Israel.

• Board of Deputies of British Jews
• Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland
• Jeffrey Goldberg
• Melanie Phillips
• 60 leading British Jews
  • Professor Geoffrey Alderman, the Michael Gross Professor of Modern History at the University of Buckingham
  • Greville Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone, the Labour peer and former president of the Board of Deputies
  • Maureen Lipman, the actress
  • Ronald Harwood, the Oscar-winning screenwriter
  • Tracy-Ann Oberman, the actress who starred in EastEnders
• Israel Horovitz
• Howard Jacobson
• Bret Stephens

If you will have undue lead, you should include critical sources origin. Kasaalan (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand your post, though I believe I well understand your edits. Most of the critics are men, too, but we aren't mentioning that. Please stop yellow-badging this article; it is extraordinarily distasteful. IronDuke 13:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Being man is not a conflicting side of the play, since it doesn't depict man-woman relations.

The play depicts Israel-Jewish conflict with Palestine-Arabs so, any of the 2 commenting parties should be noted.

If Hamas would praise the play, I could only include their comments by Hamas' political stance.

COI parties should be noted. Israel citizens-Jews and Palestinians-Arabs-Muslims have conflict of interest to the case, so Jewish community's harsh critics as anti-semitism should be noted properly, like any other conflict case. If a Nazi or anti-Semitist would argue there was no Holocoust, I could only include his comments with a note of his political thoughts. If Edward Said would have commented on the issue, I would note he is a Palestinian first. Other way, the comments would be presented as 3rd party independent views, which are highly misleading. Kasaalan (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And the gentile John Nathan and Richard Stirling areis one of the critics while the Jews Tony Kushner and Miriam Margolyes defend the play and the original cast was Jewish. Of course once the allegation of anti-Semitism has been made Jews are disproportionally going to weigh in with their opinions, but there isn't a state of apartheid in who has what opinion.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If the cast are Jewish, we should also note that.

Noting commenting parties' COI to the case is essential, whether critisize or defense, most of the commenting parties has some pre-determined stance on the issue. We are noting the defensing Jewish parties are also critical of Israel, whithout noting that the text would be highly non-neutral. Kasaalan (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, your remarks are coming far closer to being unacceptable and offensive than you may have meant. Having a Jewish heritage deosn't constitute a COI, as demonstrated by Jews on both sides of this issue. Please stop. IronDuke 21:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you ask the Jews who have edited this page, (though I don't think it would be appropriate to do so,) you would find a diversity of opinions on whether the play is anti-Semitic. Jewish critics of Israel do not have uniform opinions. I've disagreed with others about the use of the Nazi analogy for Israel and whether the people using it tend to be anti-Semitic or not. Supporters also have their disagreements. I don't often agree with IronDuke but I'm inclined to take his side in this.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I too find myself in the uncommon position of agreeing with Iron Duke. Some critics of the play are Jewish, some are not. Some supporters are Jewish, some are not. As a Jew, I have absolutely no conflict of interest here, and to imply that I do is, in my opinion, a racist attitude, suggesting that I reach a decision (whether correct or incorrect) by virtue of my ethnic origin rather than by my analysis of the situation. The repeated insertion of the (probably mistaken, but I need to check this) statement that most critics of the play are Jews, who have a conflict of interest, serves to discredit their view, and implies that they can therefore be dismissed. I happen to disagree with them -- but I do so because I think they are wrong, not because they are Jews.

The clear consensus here is that the phrase is superfluous and inappropriate. Please do not re-insert it. RolandR 08:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Peter and Roland agree with me? Is it too late to change my position? <Disclaimer: this is a joke, in no way intended to denigrate or antagonize anyone for any reason.> IronDuke 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Some critics of the play are Jewish, some are not." You are clearly wrong, all of the critics who alleges the play is anti-semitic and demonising Israel are Jewish, which is an extremely harsh criticism and misintpret is as coming from 3rd party non involved rewievers are utterly wrong

Board of Deputies of British Jews "In 2003, the Board, on its web site, accused the aid organisation Palestinian Relief and Development Fund (Interpal) of being a terrorist organisation. Interpal threatened to sue for libel, whereupon the Board retracted and apologized for its comments On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organization called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticizing particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews."

Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland "was established in 1899 to campaign for a permanent homeland for the Jewish people. The Zionist Federation is an umbrella organisation for the Zionist movement in the United Kingdom, representing more than 120 organisations, and over 50,000 affiliated members. Aims: Support, co-ordinate and facilitate the work of all its affiliates nationwide, and to continue its commitment to the Zionist youth movements. Encourage the participation of Jews in Zionist activities including education, culture, Hebrew language and Israel information, underpinned by the belief that the main goal of Zionism is Aliyah."

• Jeffrey Goldberg

Melanie Phillips "has called the Palestinians "a terrorist population", and argued that while "individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project". She has also stated that certain examples of footage that supposedly shows people injured by Israeli attacks on Palestinian areas has been "fabricated/faked". She argues that many critics of the state of Israel's military policies, including many Jews, are motivated by anti-Semitism. She described the paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, as a "particularly ripe example of the 'global Zionist conspiracy' libel", and she expressed her astonishment at what she called "the fundamental misrepresentations and distortions in the paper". Phillips vocally supported Operation Cast Lead. In December 2008, Phillips wrote that ongoing Hamas attacks on Israel constituted an attempt at "genocide". She further referred to the United Nations as the "Club of Terror UN" (sic) and argued that "[t]hose who scream ‘disproportionate’ think — grotesquely — that not enough Israelis have been killed"."

• 60 leading British Jews
  • Professor Geoffrey Alderman, the Michael Gross Professor of Modern History at the University of Buckingham
  • Greville Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone, the Labour peer and former president of the Board of Deputies
  • Maureen Lipman, the actress
  • Ronald Harwood, the Oscar-winning screenwriter
  • Tracy-Ann Oberman, the actress who starred in EastEnders
• Israel Horovitz
• Howard Jacobson
• Bret Stephens

"As a Jew, I have absolutely no conflict of interest here, and to imply that I do is, in my opinion, a racist attitude, suggesting that I reach a decision (whether correct or incorrect) by virtue of my ethnic origin rather than by my analysis of the situation." You are wrong. I did not refer to wiki editors, yet refer to commentors in the article. Jewish-Israel and Palestinian-Arab parties are both involved per race and religion to the case. In the article, we mention both defending and criticising parties origin. We did not label every critic one by one, yet stated the anti-semitic and Israel demonising "criticism" mainly come from Jewish parties which is a fact. As I explained before, we mention all parties relevant stance.

"The repeated insertion of the (probably mistaken, but I need to check this) statement that most critics of the play are Jews." this is a fact as I proved above, anti-semitism and demonising Israel allegations only comes from Jewish parties.

"I happen to disagree with them -- but I do so because I think they are wrong, not because they are Jews." same here. Yet in any conflict, I state both parties origin which is essential. Yet if you gather 12 (+56) harsh critics from involved parties (per race and religion), you should also note their origin of political stance.

The thing is all anti-Semitic and demonising Israel labellers are Jewish in the article except Patrick Healy (who doesn't label as such anyway), while most of the actors and director and some supporters are Jewish themselves. I cannot reach same consensus. The fact is the anti-semitic labellers are not only mainly but totally Jewish leaders and writers [possibly pro-right wing]. Kasaalan (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yet you people are wrong on the issue.

• First not only about Jewish or Palestinians. If the issue is IRA, British and Irish even Scots have COI to the case. [that doesn't mean your ideas are always sided, yet we should note the parties origin] Any race, citizen of a country or religion has possible COI to his own country-religious issues. Pope has COI for the Catholic sex abuse cases or some Catholic journalists in the article
• Second, in any conflict article, my method is noting conflicting parties' relevant stance. Which applies:
  • "Caryl Churchill, a co-patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign" where we note her stance to the case in the lead, I would note if she was Arab or Palestinian too which interestingly you didn't object
  • "It has been criticized as antisemitic and one-sided anti-Israel propaganda by some parties, mainly Jewish community leaders and Jewish journalists." extreme criticism in the lead which is limited to COI parties which you object, therefore I proved above and which you can't deny
    • Yes being Jewish-Israeli or Palestinian-Arab makes you directly involved the the case since the play is a criticism of Jewish-Israeli settlers' stance againt-with Israel politics
• The thing with "mainly by" is, only 1 critical source in the article is not Jew, and the criticism section is unbalanced, they not only criticize, some basically insult the writer with extreme criticism [if you read full articles] as anti-semitist, anti-Israel and so on. I keep their harsh criticism, yet we should note the criticism and "labelling" as "anti-semitist" mainly came from Jewish community leaders. [again which you didn't object]

"Many of Israel’s supporters are enraged by the play, which was written by Caryl Churchill in response to the Gaza war. Churchill, now 70, is one of Britain’s leading politically-engaged dramatists and is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC)... It seems that most, if not all, the actors are Jewish." Saudi Gazette Susannah Tarbush

• Yes of course there are praising Jew journalists of the play. We not only note they are Jewish too, for NPOV I noted they are also critics of Israel to note their political stance too in the lead. [again which you didn't object] Also if all goes well I will meet Jewish family friends who will visit my country. [of course any religion or race or even political thought has diversity]
• Susannah Tarbush wrote at Saudi Gazette that "it seems that most, if not all, the actors are Jewish." most of the premiere actors are Jewish too.
• "The play was directed by Dominic Cooke who is Jewish himself." Just like the the director is Jewish.

The thing is you don't object when defending Jewish journalists' origin and their political stance against Israel or Churchill's relation with Palestine Solidarity Campaign, director's or actor's Jewish origin is noted, yet you object when I state the anti-semitist labelling parties are mainly Jewish community and journalists. [actually even more than mainly, near all since Patrick Healy only mentions 1 critical sentence about the play which is handpicked his article is not even a review of the play] By the way we can tell they are pro-Israel [right-wing] yet that pushes another discussion, first we have to prove it per RS 1 by 1, second that goes into boundaries of COATRACK and actual Yellow Badging, telling Jew is neutral yet notes possible relation of the parties' interest to the case. That is the part I can't understand. If the play is actually anti-semitic as argued [I have fully read the text by the way] how come all anti-semitist labelling critics are Jewish, while director and most of the players are Jewish themselves. If all praising parties would be Arab we should have noted that too, or the article would be misleading. Kasaalan (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually John Nathan, whom Tarbush identifies as the only newspaper critic to describe the play as anti-Semitic in its first week, is not Jewish. Similarly, Richard Stirling, the author of the play that was staged at the Hampstead Theatre in response to 7JC is not Jewish. I've already pointed this out above. I would expect that a disproportionate number of people who have gone into print saying that the play is not anti-Semitic are also Jewish. Miriam Margolyes and Tony Kushner are two such examples. If you look at the website of organisations like Jews for Justice for Palestinians, you're likely to find references to more. If something is claimed to be anti-Semitic, you would expect Jews to be more likely than most people to want to form their opinion on the claim, just like black people, moslems, women, gays etc would be more likely to check on claims of racism, Islamaphobia, sexism or homophobia than those who are not the target of discrimination. Attitude towards Israel does seem to be an influence on views of the play too. I'm sure that Jonathan Hoffman of the ZF relished the chance to sieze on the play's title and the reference to the Chosen People. Now, you seem to be the only person wanting to single out Jews as the main critics of the play in the title. Given there are other people arguing the other way, I'm going to remove that specific mention. If you still want to take this firtehr, there is the option of an RfC.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of your arguments are clearly wrong.

First John Nathan is Jewish.

Second why we don't include his praising review on artistic side about Churchill, "As you’d expect from the Royal Court’s most revered living playwright, Seven Jewish Children — which Churchill wrote as a rushed response to Israel’s attack on Gaza — is an impressively distilled piece of writing. Its powerful premise is built upon the parental instinct to protect children from frightening realities. ... In dramatic terms, there is no doubting the power of Churchill’s message." and only quote "For the first time in my career as a critic, I am moved to say about a work at a major production house that this is an antisemitic play." removing "successful" from the lead. (she is apparently one of the most notable writers) [The Jewish Chronicle] Review That is where it becomes UNDUE I already proved all 12(+56) anti-semitist labelling critics are Jewish, you add John Nathan yet he is Jewish too, Of course there are Jewish critics that defends the play or non-Jewish critics, we already mentioned that and I even added their stance against Israel for NPOV even expanded criticism for anti-semitism claims, yet only Jewish parties in the article use the term "anti-semitic" and if we don't mention that the text would be misleading. There is nothing wrong to be Jewish, Arab, Christian or Muslim. Yet when a conflicting case is at present, the parties' interest of the area should be clearly noted, especially where extreme criticism and allegations occur. I can't add Edward Said's critics against Israel without mentioning his Palestinian origin, it would be misleading. Not sure why you insist on removing the anti-semitism allegations came from Jewish parties.

"Excerpt from: Living Carelessly in Tokyo and Elsewhere by John Nathan My roots are in New York's Lower East Side. My father's father, Nathan Stupniker, was a reporter at The JewishDaily Forward and a member of the Socialist coterie led by Forward editor Abraham Cahan that convened on Yom Kippur Eve to feed on pork in defiance of Adonai. You'll have to look around to find someone less likely to resonate with Japan's grim earnestness than a disaffected Jew. ... When I was eleven, the first year of our rude transplanting from the Jewish comfort of New York to Tucson, I felt invisible to my schoolmates except as a butt of ridicule for being a know-it-all, and decided a pet monkey was what I needed to distinguish myself. I begged my parents to buy me one, but they declined to indulge me. Japanese was my pet monkey. [1]"

"This is a series of chronological autobiographical vignettes by a distinguished translator of Japanese works and multi-purpose film maker. It's the story of how a 6'4" Jewish boy from New York City/Tuscon went to Harvard, became enthralled with the Japanese language, went to Japan, went native and returned to the US, often relying on his youthful Japanese immersion for employment and career." [2]

“Sometimes, by default, one feels very Jewish. Yet when I’m in a very Jewish situation, I feel decidedly un-Jewish.” Mike Leigh quoted by John Nathan in his review of Mike Leigh on Mike Leigh, edited by Amy Raphael http://www.thejc.com/articles/the-literary-year-our-own-words

Richard Stirling is not Jewish. http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.php?pg=207&story=E8831241787855 Extremely Harsh critic of seven other children by Gilad Atzmon, another Israeli born British, jazz musician, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086043.html Yet where did he called the play anti-Semitic. He advocates staging his play where seven jewish children played. I didn't read his script yet.

Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation.

So again praising and especially critisizing most parties are Jewish. Yet only Jewish parties in the article called the play "anti-semitic".

Second why we mention Churhcill is a Patron of Palestine Solidarity. And wouldn't we mention if she was Arab, Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish into the text. Why we mention origin of the Jewish actors or director, or defending Jewish parties. Because it is a conflicting case and we should mention the facts. So why can't we mention origin of the extreme critics. For not being racist, cool, yet I am not racist, you are not racist. Howcome telling a person's origin in a conflicting case is being racist when we keeping UNDUE criticism in the text. Kasaalan (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are others who criticise the play a anti-Israel who are not Jewish. I'd also note that most of the supporters of the play likely have a Christian heritage. Worth mentioning? Not at all. IronDuke 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are other parties criticizing the play yes, yet they are not labeling the play as anti-semitic. Christianity is not a directly involved party in Israel-Palestine conflict, so not worth mentioning at all. Kasaalan (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The question remains the same, wouldn't we mention if Churchill was Arab, Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that we would. I think, in fact, that Churchill has a Christian religious heritage. Christians have a long tradition of antisemitism. Therefore, under your logic, we could conclude her background was relevant. It isn't. IronDuke 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt she is Christian or religious in the first place. Second she is leftist which means she cannot support racism anyway. If she was supporter of Nazi, I would definitely noted it. Again we would mention in the article if Churchill was Arab, Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Yet there is a long tradition of telling someone's origin is equal to racism in wikipedia, why I am not sure, when someone is British we say British, when someone is born in Middle is and live in USA, we say American-Arab, yet it is interesting we can't say Israeli-American because it would be racist, especially when they alleges anti-semitic racism against non-racist parties. Kasaalan (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That her background is Christian, I am virtually certain. Same with some of her critics: their background may be Jewish, but that doesn't mean they are religious. IronDuke 15:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got the wrong John Nathan there. I was sure I had seen something in one of our linked articles saying that even though the John Nathan I'm talking about is theatre critic for the Jewish Chronicle, he isn't Jewish. Unfortunately, I've not been able to find the evidence and may therefore be wrong.

What we haven't mentioned is a key Wikipedia policy reason why we can't put your interpretation in the lead. That is WP:OR. Making a connection between the facts X has criticised the play as antisemitic and X is Jewish, Y has criticised the play as antisemitic and Y is Jewish is synthesis, Z has criticised the play as antisemitic and Z is Jewish to make one big fact all those who have accuse the play as being anti-Semitic are Jewish is WP:Synthesis. Unless you can find a WP:RS to support the conclusion.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly I am not wrong, I tried to search his birthday he is that John Nathan.

The thing is you add extreme criticism as play is anti-semitic, yet forget to mention all the sources in the article that alleges anti-semitism are Jewish [pro-Israel] community members, which are involved the case, again other Jewish [Israel-criticizing] parties become cast or defends the play. Is it a coincidence you gather 10 + 60 sources that claim anti-semitism in a section all from an involved side of the conflict.

And I didn't label sources 1 by 1. I just added the anti-semitism allegations mainly came from Jewish community, which is a fact according to the section quotes and references. Kasaalan (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:SYN. You need to find a reliable source that reports that the only authors who claim then the play is anti-Semitic are Jews.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All the anti-semitic claiming entries in the article section are belong to Jewish community. Do you have any argument against Board of Deputies of British Jews, Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, Jeffrey Goldberg, Melanie Phillips, Israel Horovitz, Howard Jacobson, Bret Stephens and 60 leading British Jews including Professor Geoffrey Alderman, Greville Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone, Maureen Lipman, Ronald Harwood, Tracy-Ann Oberman are Jewish, just like Richard Stirling. So what part is wrong with telling anti-semitic allegations mainly came from Jewish community leaders and journalists, while all (near 70) the anti-semitic claimers in the article section belong to Jewish community, which is a fact, while there is no non-Jewish commentor entry that claims anti-semitism for the play in the relevant article section [and if you push really hard maybe 2 people against 70], while we include an UNDUE lead claiming anti-semitism which misleads the reader as it is an worldwide critism. Kasaalan (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is against the long-standing Wikipedias policy WP:Original Research, specifically the section WP:SYN. Despite my telling you to read that you obviously haven't done so. Instead you want to ignore policy and push this particular po int which you are fixated with. If it is really so significant in the big wide world out there, then you should have no difficulty finding a WP:Reliable Source that makes that point. If you can't find one, then that suggests that the point you are makign isn't so important after all.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Longest standing policy is not gathering only WP:POV parties' extreme criticism into a section with other ethnically-religiously involved parties' comments and not even telling their origin of conflict and interest to the case. If the world is wide, it will be easier for anyone to find WP:RS over the play is anti-semitic. Currently all the section commenters are Jewish, and apparently the criticism mainly came from Jewish community. Why don't you provide lots of other sources (7-70 at least) to claim the anti-semitism criticism came from all around the world and not mainly by Jewish community. Kasaalan (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This comment of mine was correct. I've had am email exchange with another British theatre critic who is able to confirm that Nathan is a) British and b) Jewish and indeed is the son of David Nathan, his predecessor at the JC. My contact would be surprised if there were no gentiles we could identify who thought the play anti-Semitic. My contact himself does not think the text is anti-Semitic but thinks the title of the play "an unfortunate hostage to fortune". He's not himself seen 7JC as it wasn't shown on the first night of The Stone when he saw that play.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You claimed John Nathan was gentile and I said John Nathan is Jewish so I am not sure how your comment was correct. Thanks for researching and sharing though. What "an unfortunate hostage to fortune" means. I have fully read the seven jewish script myself. I read reviews about it. Listened part of the video. Actually I also read responsive plays' text too for a better comparison, yet didn't finish them fully. Especially Board of Deputies of British Jews and Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland are POV organisations, you may read details above. Kasaalan (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is Jewish voice about Gaza strike or Seven Jewish Children is not as Board of Deputies of British Jews and Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland or Melanie Phillips' uncritical support for Israel, yet it contains variable voices like Independent Jewish Voices as it praises the Seven Jewish Children [3] or criticizes Israel since they feel like some injustice is going on. So we should somehow differ 2 opposing parties at Jewish community, not sure the best words for it so you may propose. Kasaalan (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

While I don't support the labellings of critics who oppose the play as invariably Jewish, it does seem to merit mention that the the original director and cast for this allegedly anti-semitic play were themselves Jewish. This is sourced by the Nation article, and I have added that reference. Regarding labelling others involved, Churchill is clearly labelled up front as a "co-patron" of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. Saying that and not noting that the director and cast were Jewish (which is not to say "Zionist" or anything else like that) seems deliberately misleading. Iosefina (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The section about anti-semitism is only consisted of Jewish [pro-Israel] community members, which I find NPOV and UNDUE if we don't mention their origin. We mention all parties origin in the article [including defending Jewish writers and cast], except anti-semitism labellers which is not consistent. Kasaalan (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you that there Jews on both sides of the issue, and also that the section is about its being anti-Israel, which has non-Jewish proponents. Further, please stop adding the bit about the orginial cast containing Jewish members to the lead. I understand you believe it to be a powerful weapon to support your POV, but 1) It's a very minor point 2) The article is about the play in general, not one staging of it 3) It violates WP:LEAD. IronDuke 23:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Noone needs to explain "Jews on both sides of the issue" to me, since I not only claim that argument, but I proof that in the article myself. Yet the "anti-semitism" allegations section is full of WP:POV parties known for their "uncritical support for Israel" which is critisized by groups like Independent Jewish Voices in the first place. You are the one who tries to delete the cast and director is Jewish themselves, and anti-semitism labelling is mainly limited to some [uncritically pro-Israel] Jewish community members. Kasaalan (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes no difference what the POV of critical parties is -- people are free to click the links or read the articles themselves. It's not up to you to single-handedly fight what you perceive this POV to be -- indeed, it is entirely improper. And my last edit was to move the bit about the cast, not to remove it. I'm pretty much neutral as to whether it belongs in the article (though open-minded) but there is no conceivable way it should go in the lead. IronDuke 00:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding WP:POV parties like Melanie Phillips' extreme criticism without noting their stance really is the issue in the first place, especially in the LEAD misleadingly as if the criticism belong to 3rd parties. Sure everyone may click thousands of links each day, yet editors job is to make info easier to reach them.

Melanie Phillips "has called the Palestinians "a terrorist population", and argued that while "individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project". ... She argues that many critics of the state of Israel's military policies, including many Jews, are motivated by anti-Semitism.

POV parties like Melanie Philips even call Jews as anti-semitic, and while we cannot at least note their origin of conflict because it will be "racist", the readers have to click every link to learn that, is that what you propose. Kasaalan (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

POV parties like Howard Jacobson can always accuse any party they like as anti-semitic including Robert Fisk, Ken Loach or Churchill any way they like, what they find anti-semitic against themselves. [4] Some editors can cram the anti-semitism section fully with WP:POV parties UNBALANCED criticism even in the lead, yet it is not my job to at least note anti-semitism allegations mainly originated from pro-Israel wing of the British Jewish community, while Israel critical Jewish parties tend to not agree such allegations about the play. Kasaalan (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead isn't unbalanced. We note that some have accused Churchill of antisemitism, but that she and her supporters deny it. That's about as balanced as it gets. Above, you write, "it is not my job to at least note anti-semitism allegations mainly originated from pro-Israel wing of the British Jewish community..." etc. And, well, I quite agree. That is not your job... so why are you doing it? IronDuke 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a minor point (though I don't entirely agree with Kasaalan either). But could you say exactly what part of WP:LEAD it violates? It would appear that "Relative emphasis" requires it. Iosefina (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Iosefina is a banned account. [5] Kasaalan (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also note that two editors who tend to share your POV have stongly disagreed with you. Perhaps something to think about. IronDuke 4:31 pm, Today (UTC+1)

They are partly agree and partly not agree, which is a natural thing while we are independent editors who doesn't try to defend a certain POV point. Kasaalan (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Anti-semitism labelling parties

I was asked to comment here, though it's difficult at first glance to see from the above what the dispute's about. Peter Cohen has described it on my talk page as:

One editor User:Kasaalan wants to highlight in the lead that the accusations of anti-Semitism against the play all came from Jews. Three other editors, User:Iron Duke, User:RolandR and myself think that this is sailing rather close to the edge of anti-Semitism in itself. The three objectors are all Jewish but we have rather different political views including on the Israel-Palestine dispute and the play itself. There are additional issues such as Kasaalan's not having produced an RS that makes this point. For that reason I believe that a summary saying that all accusations of anti-Semitism against 7JC come from Jews would be a violation of WP:OR and in particular WP:SYN. [6]

It would be hard to know that all critics were Jews without an RS that explicitly says this, and I can't see that it really matters. The point is that some prominent people have said it crosses the line, and some other prominent people have said it doesn't. I've rewritten the lead a little to give an example from either side (British Board of Deputies versus the authors of The Nation article). I think that's enough to illustrate the basis of the debate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all critics are Jewish, nobody assert that anyway, I stated the anti-semitism allegations [which is not only a criticism yet an extreme accusation and a serious crime] mainly came from [a certain wing of] Jewish community, if not all from that wing, since all entries in the article section are mainly consists of pro-Israel Jewish commentors or organizations, which is proved above. Mispresenting POV parties as independent 3rd parties are not neutral at all. We certainly know all the entries under previous "Allegations of anti-Semitism and demonising Israel" section were belong to [a wing of] Jewish community, mainly pro-Israel."

Yet there are 8+60 anti-semitism claiming parties crammed in the criticism section, which are all belong to a wing of Jewish community [and most of them are also "uncritically" pro-Israel therefore WP:POV in the first place]. If the anti-semitism allegations not only came from [pro-Israel] Jewish community members, why there aren't any non-Jewish anti-semitism claiming parties provided in the section. We have near 70 Jewish anti-semitism arguers in the section [as an involved party of the conflict], yet we can't even say the anti-semitism allegations came mainly within Jewish community. Jewish and Palestinians are 2 sides of the conflict, stating Churchill is a co-patron of Palestine Solidarity Campaign which defines her stance is obligatory, just as stating anti-Semitism allegating parties origin and stance. And everybody knows if she was Palestinian or Arab we would have mention that fact in the lead for sure. The play is criticized and praised mainly by opposing [mainly by British and American] Jewish community members, one way or another. We have POV parties like Howard Jacobson who even accuse someone like Robert Fisk, Ken Loach or Churchill as anti-Semitic, with his opinion pieces. [7] On the other hand, commentators in the section like Melanie Phillips who calls "Palestinians "a terrorist population", "individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project"[8] and even argues "many critics of the state of Israel's military policies, including many Jews, are motivated by anti-Semitism." So we have some extremely WP:POV commentators who claim socialists or even Jewish are anti-Jewish. On the other hand against Board of Deputies of British Jews and Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland which labels the play as anti-Semitic, there is other Jewish views like Independent Jewish Voices which defends and stages the play. So it is obligatory that while some Jewish community wing tries to label the play as anti-Semitic [as they used to do for anything they don't like], there are other Jewish community members who supports and stages the play, like the cast, journalists, or Independent Jewish Voices. Kasaalan (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't review your edits yet, after I fully review we may discuss about the case. Kasaalan (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

cleanup tag

The English prose style in the lead section was pretty awful. I cleaned it up a bit but it would help for this section to get some more attention from someone who likes doing this kind of thing. --Richard (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned editor?

IronDuke keeps removing edits by Iosefina, with the comment that this is a "banned user". However, there is nothing in Iosefina's user page, talk page or contributions record to indicate that this is the case. While I do not necessarily agree with the edits, I have restored them as I see no legitimate reason to remove them. I am loth to describe this as vandalism, but without some evidence for Iron Duke's claim it is difficult to understand his actions. RolandR 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason there's no "case" against "her" is because there's no point in bringing a "case" against a sock: he's had millions of `em. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but acting as a meatpuppet for a banned user can expose you to the same remedies in effect for the banned user. While I appreciate the zeal with which you defend an obvious sockpuppet with fewer than a hundred edits against an editor in good standing who's been here for years, I wonder if that's really the best use of your time, or worth the risk. IronDuke 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you atr suggesting that I am acting as a meatpuppet for a bannred user, then please make a direct accusation against which I can defend myself. Otherwise, I will continue to act within Wikipedia rulees, by restoring comments deleted without apparent good reason. RolandR 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet or any kind of puppet. I can only think that IronDuke is throwing around these wild accusations as a way of gaining some advantage in the discussion going on here. Iosefina (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User apparently banned. [9] On the other hand why would Roland [or any other experienced editor] would bother to do so anyway. I can assert you that Roland would not expose to the same remedies with the banned user in any way because he restored the edits of a user he doesn't know and doesn't even agree with. That would be only possible by misinterpretation of WP, which would eventually be corrected. I will try reviewing user's edits if they worth keeping or not. Kasaalan (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no "apparently" about it. I'm removing the posts, and I strongly urge editors not to reinstate them, as they were created for the sole purpose of harassing me. IronDuke 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I refer to the AN/I discussion. The matter is being looked into. I would ask that users refrain from changing or removing edits made by others. Beganlocal (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Looks like IronDuke was correct in his surmise - Iosefina is a confirmed sock. No more of her posts will be appearing here. Beganlocal (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time please read the discussion here and familiarize yourself with the facts before you edit. IronDuke 18:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

State of this article

This article needs to be well-written, or no one will want to read it, and if they do, they won't trust what it says.

Please look at the state of it on August 13. The lead is incoherent: grammar all over the place, at least one sentence that trails off halfway through, arguments that are "denied." The article itself consisted almost entirely of John Smith in the Times said, "It was awful," and Joe Blow in the Herald said, "No, it was worse than awful," while Jane Doe in the Post said, "It wasn't awful at all!" under headers consisting of ==Awful== ==Worse than awful== and ==Denials that it's awful==.

This is no way to write an article. Then when someone starts trying to fix it, you revert. Please allow it to be improved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused... what were you referring to the August 13 version for? It's the current version you dislike, yes? IronDuke 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The current version is an improvement, though more is needed. But someone reverted it, which is why I referred to the version you'd all been working on before Richard started fixing it. What often happens with I/P articles is that people are so busy adding their POV, plus endless quotes from sources they think support them, that no one notices the article has become unreadable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. What would you like, specificaly, to be different? IronDuke 18:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My intention is to find more sources who talk about the play, rather than who does or doesn't like it, then to copy edit, and try to find some images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Images would be great... I think we can get a fair sense of what's going on in the play already, but I wouldn't necessarily object to more. IronDuke 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop adding quotes about who said it is/isn't a bad thing? There are more than enough in the article already. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to establish that people have found it anti-Jewish. That is, contrary to your edit summary, not a "that's a tiny-minority view." Could you please stop taking it out? IronDuke 23:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's already in the lead. What you added to the lead is that it's regarded as a blood libel, and that is a tiny minority view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that in the lead -- can you point it out to me? IronDuke 02:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see Kasaalan has reverted again. It's not going to be possible to clean this article up if people keep reverting, or restoring lists of quotes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You deleted some important parts, references and subtitles from both parties. First you deleted too much of defending parties that it become so short, while the criticizing parties become heavily unbalanced and long against them, second you delete some of the critical parties and references I readded them as a name, at least you should use hidden text feature not delete them, again you deleted subtitles, and mixed categorisation within sections, you mixed people within organisations and independent journalists, some of your edits were subtractory, my revert was progressively restored them, while keeping your additions. I kept your additions to lead, review my edit better.

I am not sure you read main sources about the play http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/is-a-play-about-gaza-anti-semitic-read-the-script/?ref=theater is a good guide, quoting from both praising and critical parties.

Why you upset, except some of your subtractive edits, yet your additions keep in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The way to write an article like this is roughly (a) a lead capable of standing alone, which means a detailed lead up to four paragraphs; (b) a section describing the contents of the play; (c) a section saying where performed, motivation for writing it, whatever is known about the writer (summary style if appropriate); (d) critical reception, which should focus on a small number of key reviews, and which should explain the criticism or praise, not just keep breathlessly listing "and x said and y said and z said," as though we're too stupid to summarize. And the subheads should be neutral, and each section internally balanced, not one section with good stuff, another with bad. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You may change the quotes with better ones, yet completely removing them will only lead unbalanced criticism and praise sections. Also after reading sources fully I find hard POV pushings in criticism sections. Ramin Gray say something different.

Speaking to me some months ago, Ramin Gray, the Associate Director at the Royal Court said that it was important for the arts not to be provocative for the sake of it, nor commit an act of self-censorship. But what if a play came to the theatre which in some ways was very critical of Islam, or depicted Mohammed? Would it be put on? It's a debate which he said the theatre was actively having. 'You would think twice, if you were honest,' he said. 'You'd have to take the play on its individual merits, but given the time we're in, it's very hard, because you'd worry that if you cause offence then the whole enterprise would become buried in a sea of controversy. It does make you tread carefully. It would seem that that is what the theatre has decided to do this time. [10]

Criticism is not coming from independent NPOV parties which is POV pushed greatly, that is the main issue. Kasaalan (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, why did you take out the word "ostensible" from the lead? IronDuke 02:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose because it would be odd to suggest there's no tension around how to frame these issues; to suggest that would be to imply that Israelis and Jews speak with one voice. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be odder still to suggest CC has a deep understanding of what those tensions are, how serious they are, and what form they take. It's her opinion, expressed in a play, and she's entitled to it. But that's all it is. IronDuke 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would she not have a deep understanding of them? And I'm not basing this on her opinion, but on that of the reliable sources, and not only sources about that play. To claim that there is no tension within Israel and the Jewish community over how to frame, describe, and judge events in the Israel-Palestinian conflict would be a strange claim indeed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

She wouldn't have an understanding because she is far oorm expert in the area -- AFAIK. And given that many have called her anti-Israel, I can't really see giving her views that much crdence absent some other evidence. "To claim that there is no tension within Israel and the Jewish community over how to frame, describe, and judge events in the Israel-Palestinian conflict would be a strange claim indeed." You're quite right, which is why I'm not making that claim. I'm taking issue with using a narrative voice to assert that her play reflects the tension. Whether she does or doesn't isn't for us to say. And you never answered my question above: where does "anti-Jewish appear in the lead?" IronDuke 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what ostensible means, I restored the article to pre revert state, while readding Slim's addition to lead, since she made a good effort so that part should either stay in lead or in description sections. What was the sentence with the word you refer. Deleting synopsis of Slim is wasting her efforts. Kasaalan (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, if you don't know what word means, you shouldn't be taking it out, or adding it. IronDuke 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the issue with Royal Court criticism section, balanced it with defense of the theatre found and added reference for it. Kasaalan (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I expanded 59 leading British Jews' letter for better insight, found and added reference for it. Kasaalan (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to support what SV has said above. WP:Reception discourages separate positive and negative sections. It is better to discuss the views on one issue together. I would tend to want themes kept together. Most writers including those who condemn Churchill's message seem to be agreed that she is a good technician and words such have "poetic" have been bandied around. Opinions on this could arguably go into the section on how the play is put together. There is then the issue of whether it is "agitprop" (we had two references that disagreed on that term and too one-sided to work as anything more than a propaganda piece. And finally there are the accusations of anti-Semitism. I would rather have thematic sections for these and keep related material together than separate points that are replying to each other. And, yes, I also agree with SV that there are too many short quotes.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

John Nathan

Does John Nathan from The Jewish Chronicle is John Nathan or not. Do you have any confirmation on 2 cultural critic John Nathan coexist. Since according to his biography, John Nathan is a cultural critic [11], while John Nathan from The Jewish Chronicle is also a cultural [theatre] critic himself. Kasaalan (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

While there might be a coincidence of both Jewish cultural critics under same name co-exist, they might also be the same person, can you also confirm if they are same person or not by your source from Jewish Chronicle to be sure. Kasaalan (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "cultural critic" and "theatre critic". If you look at the long thread above, you'll find that I checked with a fellow theatre critic who confirmed that the JC guy is British and indeed the second person in his family to hold the post. The eprson you linked is American and, according to the blurb of the book you linked, lives in the US. And I haven't got a source at the JC. The guy I emailed to writes for one of the broadsheets and some more specialist journals.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I couldn't interpret British was a proof of he is not American John Nathan, so the case is solved. Kasaalan (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://redirectingat.com/?id=486X779&url=http:%2F%2Fwww.thejc.com%2Farticles%2Four-gaza-dialogue

  Triggered by \bredirectingat\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, the article linked to a redirect site rather than the original Jewish Chronicle article. I have corrected this and inserted the proper url. RolandR (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)