Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Subpage – Wikipedia

Problems with version and last sentence[edit]

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.

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

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

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)

This isn’t in the source cited at the end of the sentence. Malik Shabazz(talk contribs) 18:17, 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)

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.

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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?

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)

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.” [6] 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?” [7]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)

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)

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)

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

Read more:

Talk:Gilad Atzmon/Subpage – Wikipedia

Related Post

January 2, 2018   Posted in: Gilad Atzmon |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."