Hi! I updated bibliography according to http://www.israelshamir.net/Books/Books.htm and updated biography quote from Shamir's site according to http://www.israelshamir.net/Biography.htm as per wiki reference. Please do not revert without discussing reasons. I propose to re-write Russia-related part of the item. In present form, it is very confusing. Right is described as left, and vice versa. In Russia, as everywhere, Right is Neoliberal, as represented by Union of Right-wing Forces (Chubais and suchlike). Zavtra is anti-neoliberal, anti-Right; and probably could be described as pro-Soviet and Communist-leaning. The present write-up presumes that Russian liberals belong to the Left - but they do not, as they stand for privatisation and for pro-US policy in general. I would re-write it unless there are objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingfisher12 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on the editor, Alexander Prokhanov, Zavtra is an "ultra-nationalist newspaper". According to the Moscow Times, Zavtra is an "extreme rightist newspaper"[1], a "rabid opposition newspaper" which "respectable people do not buy" [2], an "extremist weekly" which "openly praises the Waffen SS" [3] and an "anti-Semitic nationalist newspaper" http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/looking-for-reds-in-the-communist-party/323939.html]. Hardly left-wing by any stretch of the imagination. RolandR (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Times is a Russian Fox News, if you quote such sources you can claim that Obama is a communist. In today's paper see http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/it-is-time-to-declare-the-soviet-union-illegal/411087.html an extremely anti-communist item calling to ban communism. Amazing that Rance, supposedly a Trot, relies upon rabidly anti-communist paper! Probably because he has zero integrity. But historically the confusion of Right for Left and vice-versa in Russia is a remainder of 1990, when the anti-soviet right-wingers (pro-privatisation) described themselves as "left-wingers". Pro-soviet communists were described as right-wingers. Now this thing is over.

Kingfisher12 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence of Rance disbelief. Who is Rance at all? My internet search found no reason for his mentioning at all, but his obsession with Shamir. He is not a known personality, a claim he did is POW and COI, and this is certainly out of place. I hope Rance will keep himself away from restoring this dubious quote of himself. Kingfisher12 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected what was clearly an apologetic remark. The previous editor claimed that "Shamir maintains that these (blood-consuming) deviants have been protected by other Jews who automatically believed in their innocence". If you check with Shamir's text, you'll see that his view is much more harsh, and he considers that other Jews covered up for the criminals or "defended their own, right or wrong" without any belief in their innocence. Another apologetic claim is that "Shamir believes that Jesus as Jew unites Christians, Muslims and Jews". This claim had no refrence, and I could not find it either. Shamir made it clear that he wants to put Christians and Muslims against Jews. Kingfisher12 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR, read the article before reverting. The article says: The following account comes from Shamir's home page:[6] and [6] refers us to a page on www.israelshamir.net site. Now, the page has been changed, accordingly we have to update this para. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingfisher12 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update definition I edited the beginning of the article in wiki spirit. The previous version was rather a polemic article against Shamir than objective and impartial description. Now probably it is nearer to what it should be. I plan to provide references to every word and statement. Please write here in the Talk if something bothers you before changing the text. I also collected together the Swedish stuff. I found it very dubious: a copy of passport application CAN NOT be obtained in Sweden by LEGITIMATE means. So it is a forgery, or misapropriated by an accomplice of Monitor and Expo. Now I follow Wiki guidelines for biography of living persons and remove contentious or libellous material, though keeping the main items. Kingfisher12 (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. All citizenship records in Sweden are publicly available through the internet, and I have myself looked up and verified the details in the article, as provided by Expo. This was neither a forgery nor theft, but a perfectly legitimate use of public records. I don't have time at present, but as soon as I do I will check this, provide full details, and restore the information to the article. RolandR (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us be specific. A Swedish passport application form can be available for the Mossad or for its agents. It is definitely not available publicly in Sweden. More important,re policy on biographies of living persons. This is Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced - said so by a politically motivated enemies of the subject we discuss. About part one: we need a proper description of Shamir, who is he and why people will look him up at all. As it stands now, it is indeed almost meaningless. Can you say what seems to you erroneous in the present writeup of the first part as I offer below: is a controversial writer and journalist. He is bilingual and writes in English and his native Russian. His major books (see Bibliography) are dealing mainly with Palestine and Israel. Shamir defies easy placing: he supported Communists, had close dealings with far right, defended Church, wrote apology for Stalin. In his writing he attempts to combine the anti-bourgeois ideas of the Left, conservative tradition of the Right, Christian spirituality and Soil and Roots ideas of nationalists, all of these in a radical vein. He frequently refers to Simone Weil, TS Eliot, V Lenin, Rene Guenon and Carl Schmitt. He is a proponent of One Democratic State solution for the Jewish-Palestinian conflict, and has been described as “Christian anti-Zionist”. Shamir wrote positively about North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Russia, negatively about British and American empires. Since his baptism in 2003, he adopted the baptismal name Adam and often styles himself as “Israel Adam Shamir”. This name is always used in his French, Spanish and Italian publications. He runs a site and publishes an email letter list dealing mainly, but not exclusively with Middle East. Shamir is radical anti-Judaist, and in his writing one can find anti-Judaic quotations from Carl Marx, Abram Leon, Israel Shahak, Kevin MacDonald and Church Fathers. He is often accused of antisemitism. I am ready to provide references, but I do not want to bother if there are people who for deeply personal reasons (of vendetta?) intend to keep this article in present shape. So I ask once again, what is wrong or POV in the proposed writeup? Kingfisher12 (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere, as far as I recall, did I mention a passport application. I referred to the population register, which is a publicly available document. According to the official state brochure, "Information in the population register is public, i.e. each person is entitled to obtain information registered in it."[4]. Let's have an end to this smear of Mossad connections; the information is publicly available. RolandR (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too lazy to look through the history to confirm this, but someone has sanitized this page, and it is presumably Kingfisher12, yes? "Shamir" claims to be an Israeli Jew, but has been credibly accused of being neither Israeli nor Jewish. This information is obviously relevant but it has been removed. That is not acceptable. 174.91.172.118 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher12 is clearly Shamir himself - or one of his designated lackies such as Joh Domingo who attempted to vandalize this entry several years ago. He should be banned for his POV violations as well as clear conflicts of interest on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.72.162 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a recognized Dispute resolution process if you have material evidence, making allegations against other editors on this article talk page is unhelpful and may be interpreted as an inappropriate personal attack. Fæ (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have taken this article to ANI after a complaint through WP:OTRS. See here Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood the decision right, I can begin to reassemble the article in question?

Kingfisher12 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll unlock the article now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I'll upload part one, yet without references, and will add references as we go. Kingfisher12 (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add any unreferenced information that may be interpreted as controversial. Find sources and draft in your userspace in advance if needed. Fæ (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NONENG, please ensure non-English citations include English translations. Without translations such material will be considered unsourced. Fæ (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this controversial article has been re-reverted to a stub due to experienced editors seeing that the same sort of destructive debate/revert cycle was starting again, perhaps the most involved editors (such as RolandR and Kingfisher12) could put forward some practical proposals of how to re-create the article without re-sparking what appears to be an edit-war? A quick straw-poll would then be sufficient to have it applied by local consensus. Some obvious options spring to mind such as:

1. Users involved in the debate agree to not contribute the article for the next four weeks in order to let less involved editors work it out (new Single-purpose accounts would probably have to be monitored).
2. Apart from trivial corrections and additional citations, all new sections or major text additions to be drafted in userspace first and get agreement on this talk page as neutral before adding to the article.

PS, happy to have any such consensus apply to myself if that helps at all. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with contentious articles is that it is always best to start with the sources. I would strongly suggest that the first step is to list here all the reliable sources on which this article might based. Once there is an agreed upon core (and neutral editors from the WP:RSN might be involved where there is a dispute), the writing of the article becomes much simpler. I'm going to think this is start this off, as a list, below, with some articles from the original article that I think might be useful, as well as some others that I have found. --Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent addition of a bibliography the regular issue of citation style is apparent as the format is inconsistent and though easily fixed will remain a maintenance issue. I propose that all citations follow the same format and suggest we apply the style defined by ((citation)) so that future editors can maintain the article in an easily understood style using the same template. Fæ (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the removal of this information:

Lord Ahmed's decision to host the book launch was criticized by columnist Stephen Pollard in The Sunday Times.

It is factual and was sourced (the same source as the information about the book launch) and is needed for balance since simply stating there was a book launch in the House of Lords suggests that Shamir and his views are mainstream and non-controversial. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a book launch, that is a simple fact. Some people didn't like it, is nothing more than a partisan irrelevance. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not worth adding, millions of people has likely criticized him, so what about this guy, it simply not worth of individual note and we have the link to the whole opinionated editorial which is plenty. Actually the pollock editorial is so opinionated and attacking I would prefer to remove it. The reason we had complaints about and trouble with the article was that it was an attack, one side hates him and the other side doesn't so what, lets just keep to the simple facts about the guy. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Pollard, as editor of the Jewish Chronicle, is hardly the best source for a NPOV critique. Perhaps you could suggest a news citation that summarizes the issue by a rather more neutral journalist and which is not just an opinion piece? Fæ (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This kind of squabbling is what is going to happen endlessly if we don't start by discussing the reliable sources to be used. In fact there's a news source (that I listed above, in my view a clearly reliable source) that makes the same point, more strongly in fact. "Lord Ahmed was much criticised when he hosted a reception at the House of Lords for the anti-Semitic writer Israel Shamir, who used the occasion to accuse Jews of wanting to set up a world empire." --Slp1 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats equally opinionated and dramatic, what we want are quality NPOV reports about this person. The excessive labeling from opinionated sources was a previous problem which should not be continued. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a straight news story from a mainstream source. It doesn't really matter if you find it "dramatic". The fact is the article needs balance and right now there's none. If you're not willing to balance out the reference to Shamir having a book launch in the House of Lords with the fact that there was intense criticism of that event occurring then the book launch line needs to be removed entirely. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this line from the Guardian report isn't factual? "[he] was much criticised when he hosted a reception at the House of Lords for the anti-Semitic writer Israel Shamir, who used the occasion to accuse Jews of wanting to set up a world empire." Dramedy Tonight (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we know where we're heading, Off2riorob do you intend to allow *any* reference to Shamir's anti-Semitism to appear in the article? If not then we have a fundamental problem. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, present NPOV reliable reports of his anti Semite statements, what kind of an anti Semite is he? Why is he an anti Semite? Lets have a look at it. Does he himself accept that he is an anti semite? Has he responded to these accusations? Has he been charged with any anti semite charges? Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let's not deal with this now. It's something to focus on later once some trust has developed and we have figured out the reliable sources to use and how to use them. --Slp1 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Yes, it sounds opinionated and dramatic but it is in fact a straight news report, from the Guardian, which is about as high quality as you are going to get. And it is also confirmed in several respects by other clearly reliable sources listed above.

The problem with the previous version was it was sourced unreliable, often primary, sources. If we identify high quality sources, then stick to them, then we can't go far wrong. That's not to say that I agree with the proposed sentence about Lord Ahmed. We don't want information about Ahmed and subtly slur Shamir. We want information highly quality sources with information about Shamir. They are out there. And they don't make an entirely pretty picture, sadly. Someone will need to do some careful editing to make sure a NPOV, BLP compliant is created. But NPOV means that some of the more unpalatable information (very well-sourced of course) will likely need to be included, based on the sources I've seen. --Slp1 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian op ed is not about Shamir its really about slaggin off the lord, the content about Shamir is a simple tag on unexplained claim at the end, valueless here. I want this article to be a simple neutral report about this person, not an opinionated attack. I welcome the presentation of quality NPOV articles and citations about Shamir here to help create that. I myself am also looking a bit adding what I can find. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of what you say, as above. I don't think the sentence is helpful or necessary, particularly at the moment, in such a short article. But the source I proposed is not a Guardian OpEd but a Guardian article, and as I said there are other similarly reliable sources out there, making the same points. Which is why I keep trying to steer interested editors to finding, reading and discussing the sources available and then writing the article, rather than rushing into proposing unsourced texts (Kingfisher did above) or edits for/against the guy. Per policy these need to be reliable sources, not necessarily NPOV, though I agree that Pollard column and the other opinion columns need to be used with great caution. --Slp1 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of your comments there, we can take a little time and discussion to create and report this person as best we can. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guardian article you present does look a bit opinionated to me , the bit about Shamir at the end, who used the occasion to accuse Jews of wanting to set up a world empire. .. was he there or is that something he has heard, it seems like a simple attack type POV summary to me, I imagine he used his book promo primarily to publicize his book, there are no quotes the writer is presenting so it is his opinion or his summary of the whole event. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seek unopinionated (NPOV) sources. We seek high quality reliable sources. If enough high quality sources about David Irving call him an anti-semite so do we. If enough high-quality sources call Shamir anti-semitic this article will need to say so too. I should point out that I have absolutely no opinion about whether this is the case or not. --Slp1 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No me neither but I think I will after a couple of week working here, the case with Irving is quite different, there are lots of Neutrals that agree he is anti semite and irving has been in jail and taken to court for those issues, I want to investigate these claims about Shamir, as I have seen Shamir has not been charges or imprisoned for holocaust denial or anti sematism..if 12 opinionated people say he is anti semite that is completely different to Irving. I found on Shamirs site the whole detail of his speech at the Lords which the guardian writer summed up in a few words and I will read it tomorrow to see what he actually said http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Westminster.htm Off2riorob (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. But note that Shamir is likely not "neutral" about himself, and it is possible that the speech he has posted on his website is modified, sanitized or whatever, which is why we are cautious about self-published sources of course. And as a project we do, like it or not, rely on the editorial control of organizations such as the Guardian, Jerusalem Post, etc etc to do the requisite fact checking before publication. You still seem to be talking about neutrality, when that really is not an issue. We want high quality (which generally implies accurate and unbiased, I would agree) reporting. It's best to stick to that kind of terminology, I believe. --Slp1 (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes SPS are taken as such. I think we can safely assume that a writer writes his speeches and that in good faith he has posted it complete. Also in all these years no one has claimed that it is not an accurate reflection of his speech that day. I mention neutrality as I think we should look for that in an article and use such as we can find as much as possible, yes reliable sources are needed to add content but we have editorial control of how much to include from opinionated locations and writers, attribution is important there also.Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is certainly an excellent idea. However, engaging critical faculties is also good. Some high quality reliable sources suggest that this chappy has been accused of lying about his identity and has pseudonyms, so that needs to be taken into account when you consider the evidence. I agree that we should look for high quality sources that don't appear to have an axe to grind. However, a reliable source may have an opinion (such as that someone is anti-semitic, a holocaust denier etc) without being "opinionated". --Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slp1's point about agreeing the sources first is tricky as I doubt there is an more obvious process than listing the sources (as above) but to fully expect that when using them someone may still object, as is the case here ('squabbling' seems a slightly unfair description). Even if we do lock the article and have a lengthy advance debate about all the potential sources, we can't ignore later objections from latecomers; though hopefully we will be able to point to a solid bank of well established sources and point to the archived discussions. As the article slowly grows I guess we are stuck with small BOLD, revert, discuss cycles, tedious as they may seem but necessary for these reasons of maintainability (always open to a really smart, agile alternative). Fæ (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly wiki works through its open ness and I support that, but if we have a few editors that appreciate we need to report this person using quality citations and as NPOV as possible and attribute what is opinion and keep excessive partisan opinion out of the article then we will have a decent base with which to improve and expand the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree in general. But I had hoped that editors would engage in looking at and considering the sources proposed, helping determine whether they would generally be considered reliable (since I am not the final word at this), and adding others for consideration. To be honest when I started off the list, for some reason I thought the page was full-protected and conversation was going to be forced. Obviously it isn't, but I still think it is important to get general agreement on sourcing. For example, it is very, very important if Searchlight is considered a reliable source or not. Slp1 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight is a very opinionated source for any detail about this person. I would not object to small attributed content, but it would need looking at. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Perhaps you could add this and other 2 cents to the list of potential sources listed above, so we can keep it all together --Slp1 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There are a lot of sources listed which rather put me off doing anything more than glancing at a couple. I would have no objection to the article being protected for a longer cooling off period (like a week) for all interested parties, even slow-coaches like me, to give opinions on possible sources and suggest any others. Would such a move be possible or seem overly bureaucratic when the BRD option is workable? Fæ (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support any more protection than the pending we have now. Editors seem to be respecting the situation and lots of workable discussion is breaking out on the talkpage. I support slow consensus expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wanting to add these details. From the old content, he was something and changed to something, have we got some good sources that verify this and the dates and is it important to him and is there comments from him about it as well? if it is important to him now, where/does he attend church. He says this himself on his website - In 2004 he was received in the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem and Holy Land (Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem), being baptized Adam by Archbishop Theodosios (Atallah) Hanna of Sabastia - do we have any details about his religious position previous to 2004 ? Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone dispute these details about his life from the subject? Does anyone object to me adding it as a simple undisputed uncontroversial personal detail cited to his own website? Personally I would prefer it in an independent citation but if there isn't one then I am fine with this. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it hardly seems self-serving (IAW SELFPUB) and no other sources (as far as I know) say he made this up, so I don't see how this would be controversial. Fæ (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added, and a cat. Anyone objecting is free to remove. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why we are presented with a cut version of bibliography as available on http://www.israelshamir.net/Books/Books.htm - now that we have green light from Fae confirming that copyright disclaimer on Shamir's site allows us to use it in full. The cut is not clear. I propose to return full version of bibliography which seems to be coherent and up-to-date, fully referenced at that. Actually it also answers the question of Shamir as translator of Hertzog: he translated his main and most important book. I do not see a claim that he was his interpreter, as apparently that is what was implied by RolandR. Kingfisher12 (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland didn't claim anything, I read in some cites that he is claimed to be interpreter, Roland said he thought it was just a book, imo we do not need a long list of all the articles and phanflets the subject has written simply bloating filing upo the page, if you are considering expanding it more than is there now then I would rather remove them all and link to the list on the subjects personal website as an external. Off2riorob (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the list is NOT a list of articles and pamphlets but of full sized books only. List of articles indeed is obtainable from his site. I think it is relevant - otherwise our subject was already so denigrated that even the existence of this wiki article will appear a mystery. It is relevant that it is chronological, too. Every book has its full ISBN etc. As we see there is a spirit of utmost suspicion regarding Shamir, so with bibliography we are on a safe ground. Kingfisher12 (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright may be okay but it is an irrelevancy as we do not need a copyright release to list a bibliography. Any expansion of the bibliography I would like to see verified with ISBNs, ISSNs, etc. so that the sources can be confirmed on an independent source such as WorldCat or Google Scholar. Fæ (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have we got a reliable citation for this? Off2riorob (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the back cover in his own book here, though this is SPS and appears to be a vanity publisher. Fæ (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think a living person is a good source for their birth year and as long as there are no other cites that support radically different years I have no problem with accepting their statements, are there any citations that claim other years? Does anyone object to 1947, self published as a year of birth? Off2riorob (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across an Israel Shamir article listed in the contents of the Barnes Review while responding to this RSN question about a completely unconnected issue. Not sure if it helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnes Review is an historical revisionist journal noted for its Holocaust denial. ~ Dramedy Tonight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Exactly, I didn't feel the need to spell it out. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shamir wrote and published in many papers, from Jerusalem Post to London Times to South China Morning Post. Why a little-important Barnes Review should be referred to? for smear reasons? Kingfisher12 (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Shamir published material in a publication it can be mentioned if there is consensus to do so. It would add information to the article. Saying that X published material in Y is not smearing X when X did in fact publish material in Y. Perhaps you misunderstand the BLP policy. I don't consider wiki editor/readers personal media source importance rankings and feelings about sources relevant to content decisions. No doubt there are many people out there that would consider mentioning that he published for JPost and South China Morning Post as a smear based on their personal views of those papers. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions..

He was a reporter for Haraaz, and reportedly sacked after supporting the return of Palestinian refugees and the rebuilding of their villages.^[1] (new strait times)

He has been vocally critical of Zionism, leading some to accuse him of anti semetism.^[2](expo, in Swedish)

Thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be robust, perhaps a minimum of two independent sources each rather than one as both items are non-neutral information? Fæ (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is clearly and repeatedly critical of Zionism isn't he? The basic detail is fair though? We could use one of his one website articles to support he is critical of Zionism? Does he himself mention anywhere his time at Harraz? Do you know the dates he worked at Harraz? Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is Haaretz, not Harraz. We have only Shamir's own word that he worked there; I have been unable to find any independent corroboration of this. Since other points in his online biography are also disputed, this cannot be considered a reliable source on its own. RolandR (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a dozen of his articles in Haaretz. I can provide dates and pages. Would that satisfy editors to have his work in Haaretz included without reservations? Kingfisher12 (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, this one? another source for it? He has been vocally critical of Zionism, leading some to accuse him of anti semetism.^[3](expo, in Swedish)

See no.22 in sources. Fæ (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this interview he critisizes Zionism http://www.silviacattori.net/article78.html Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is also available at http://www.voltairenet.org/article150341.html rather than the journalist's personal website. Please add this potential source to the source list section. Fæ (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He also says .. I wrote for Haaretz, an Israeli paper of large circulation, and I did it in “the proper way” even when this journal publishes articles written by Israeli extremist Nazis.^[4]

He has been vocally critical of Zionism, leading some to accuse him of anti semetism.<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.voltairenet.org/article128748.html|title=Israel Shamir: “Equal rights in Palestine/Israel is no utopia”|publisher=voltairenet.org|September 27, 2005|accessdate=August 22, 2010))</ref> Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - are there any objections to this simple statement that is covered in the discussion in the interview? Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have we got any reliable sources for these what appear to be notable points in his life, former spokesperson of MAPAM (the Socialist Party of Israel) and former translator of president Herzog. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like many other claims about Shamir's life, the only evidence I have ever been able to find for these "facts" is his own statement. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they are repeated without doubting, if someone was going around asserting he was former translator of president Herzog, I think if it was false then Herzog would have complained about it. (whoever he is)....Aura_Herzog - ah thats his wife Chaim_Herzog - Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I ever seen a claim that he was Herzog's translator; merely that he translated one of Herzog's books into Russian. It should be easy enough to verify that. RolandR (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that claim at his website and another link and it is in the voltaire from today . His detractors present this former spokesperson of MAPAM (the Socialist Party of Israel) and former translator of president Herzog, as a “Self-hating Jew” whereas his supporters believe he is “one of the greatest Israeli intellectuals.” .. if this claim is really that he translated one book for him that wouldn't be very notable.Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are dubious and require independent verification. For all we know Herzog and MAPAM have denied this in the Hebrew language press which we don't have access to. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just performed a Hebrew Google search for this. The only reference I can find is this, a 1994 essay on Shamir's website by Shamir himself in which he writes: "I translated into Russian Haim Herzog's book The Arab-Israeli Wars", with no further details. His English website gives ISBNs for two editions of this (London 1986, and Moscow 2004); but when I looked these up on ISBN databases, the ISBNs were not found. Possibly someone with a greater knowledge of Russian could find some evidence. There does not seem to be any in Hebrew. RolandR (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence if the translation is authorised or unauthorised? Dramedy Tonight (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How could it be authorised? Authorised translation is a translation checked by the author personally.Is there any evidence that Hertzog knew Russian? And further on, I can get a copy of Hertzog in Russian. Would you like me to upload a photo of it, or would you like to touch it? Kingfisher12 (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand about copyright all translations would have to be authorized. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"He has been critical of Zionism, leading some to accuse him of anti-Semitism."

That's a whitewash. He's been accused of anti-Semitism for engaging in Holocaust denial and arguing that the blood libel against Jews may have an historical basis in fact. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dramedy, are you impartial? Do you think you are chairing a trial in Nes Tsiona? Can you prove your assertion? Not at all. Shamir was accused of a-s long before he wrote about blood libel and holocaust. Kingfisher12 (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dramedy, could you suggest some of the sources agreed as suitable above to support a more precise and accurate text? In particular a source that is not an opinion piece but details a quote from Shamir where he denies the Holocaust or explains how Jews made human sacrifices. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, what I say is something else. Surely he was called a-s for H and for blood libel, but he was called that well before, as well. He was called that when his critique of zionism was quite mild by his later standard. Kingfisher12 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher, it appears that there is little disagreement then. All that is needed is to pick out sources from the list discussed above to support an accurate re-wording. Fæ (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, what I try to say, that everybody is accused of antisemitism, a Jew or not. Wolfovitz was accused of antisemitism. Yitzhak Rabin was. It is like being accused of being a male chauvinist. Being charged is different. Antisemitism is a crime in Israel, and he was not charged with antisemitism in Tel Aviv, as far as we know. Kingfisher12 (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that antisemitism is a crime in Israel. Under what law could an alleged antisemite be charged? Does this offence relate to words alone, or to acts as well? As far as I know, the allegations against Shamir relate only to words, not to any purported acts. So I really don't think he could be charged. RolandR (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Israel. I think antisemitism is usually tried under general racism incitement laws and suchlike. Shamir has not as I can see been charged with any such issues. The anti semite claims are opinionated and in general partisan as I can see from the presented citations. Is there some disagreement as to wording in the article? Is there a desired addition for consideration? Shamir himself denies he is anti Semite and perhaps we should add a small comment from him to that effect?Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the qualifier "His website autobiography states" in the article. We are doing a sort of encyclopedic article. If we think that this living person was not born in Novosibirsk, Siberia and did not serve as a paratrooper etc we should say so. If we have doubts let us express reasons for doubts. So I would remove this four words. And by the way there are hundreds of references for Shamir - Novosibirsk, in Russian. Kingfisher12 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are hundreds of references. We prefer not to rely on the untranslated Russian references for the reasons discussed in the review of sources above. If you wish to add to that list then please do so above in order to avoid confusion. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no doubt at all that he was born in Novo- or that he served in the army then we can happily remove the qualifier. Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) So please do - even the hostile feature in the Maariv calls him "Israeli paratrooper turned antisemite" and refers to his birthplace as Novo.. Kingfisher12 (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the qualifier. Off2riorob (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6 could it be incorporated into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.42.149 (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is source #14 already considered above. Please raise your comments there. Fæ (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is good at finding up to date pics, is there anything suitable for commons out there? Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest follow a more formalized process and separate the two issues (well, they are two in my mind), firstly of which quotations to include that illustrate Shamir's views on the Holocaust and secondly the label of "Holocaust denier" (i.e. potential categorization). If we start the first part by gaining consensus on a couple of quotes (before making any changes to the article), there might then be grounds to then discuss whether any such labels are appropriate, helpful or should be ruled out. My expectation is that this discussion might take several days of elapsed time rather than several hours, so I suggest a break in the thread to make this clear; so I'm starting that below... If there are alternative processes to follow (or you just have an objection to this format) then please suggest them in this main thread, I would be happy to change to a better format or discuss issues with this process. Fæ (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - I don't see your breaking the discussion as beneficial at all, your comment is a large step to issues dealt with and a simple repeating. Quote seven ...bla bla... quote eight...bla bla .. all of it is self published and , I don't see any benefit in your position at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you suggest an alternative process? At the moment you appear to be locked into the rationale that Shamir should never be quoted as a source for his own opinions in a BLP about him. I would be more comfortable with such a viewpoint if you could point to a stable BLP where such a consensus or outcome exists. Fæ (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this process and also see no need for it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit is quite clear. Let us first consense on what Shamir's stance on the history of the Holocaust is, based on Shamir's own statements. Surely that can't be objectionable? Then, using the definitions found in the WP entry for Holocaust denial, see whether it is therefore justified to call Shamir a Holocaust denier. Deal with facts first, and then the label will take care of itself. I support Fæ's suggestion. Spaceclerk (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fæ's approach makes sense, separating the two issues. I don't really see the relevance of the meaning of Holocaust denial to content decisions because it's not our business to generate information about Shamir that isn't present in reliable sources about or by Shamir. We can't generate content, labels, membership of sets of things etc ourselves no matter how obvious they might appear with respect to a particular definition. It's like applying an ethnicity or a sexuality label without a source. If there are reliable secondary sources that classify him as a Holocaust denier and explain why, we can say something about those views but Shamir's own words should be left to speak for themselves without us applying a layer of interpretation that doesn't come from a reliable source. Readers should be able to make their own minds up. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, seems a reasonable position. My position is that from quotes I have seen and the articles I have read he is not a denier, he really doesn't like Zionism and that is a strong thread running through everything I have seen and read. I do know he has a lot of opponents and I see the allegations of H denial as an attempt to slur him and an attempt to detract from his actual main issues, the Zionist and the one man one state solution, which has plenty of opponents on both sides, he has no convictions for H denial and as I can see has never even been charged with such, and it is illegal in plenty of places.Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been accused of antisemitism by many anti-Zionist supporters of a one-state solution. For instance, Ali Abunimah[5], Ilan Halevi[6], Jeff Halper[7], Uri Davis, Lea Tsemel, Michel Warschawski and several more. My own aryticle in this vein was added to the article many years ago (long before I ever edited anything on Wikipedia). So the accusation (whether you accept it or not) cannot really be seen as an attempt to silence his views on Zionism and one state; rather, a determination by anti-Zionists to distance themselves from Shamir's toxic comments. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR makes an essential point: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a Holocaust denier is called a Holocaust denier, not because of Zionist machinations, but because he is a Holocaust denier. The fact that Shamir is accused of Holocaust denial not only by Zionists but by anti-Zionists as well is a very telling point, as it seriously weakens Shamir's claims that only the charges of antisemitism against him are merely some kind of Zionist plot. As we know from the case of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, being an anti-Zionist doesn't guarantee you are aren't also a Holocaust denier. Zionism and Holocaust denial are two very different topics, and Shamir likes to invoke his stance on the first whenever possible to forestall and complicate any serious discussion of his deeply troubling stance on the latter. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to recommend an alternative structured consensus building process compared to the open discussion above? Perhaps a neutrally worded RFC might attract fresh views? Fæ (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me this "discussion" is a parody of WP process or something?! How utterly absurd! It's published ON HIS OWN WEBSITE! AzadZardost (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - This user is blocked and was a sockpuppet of User:Ledenierhomme - Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome an RfC on this case but also addressing the more general topic of what does and doesn't constitute Holocaust denial; there seem to be at least some editors who edit under the principle that only those who have directly said "The Holocaust didn't happen, period" are actually Holocaust deniers - despite being strongly contradicted by WP's own Holocaust denial entry. It would be useful to address this issue on its own grounds. Spaceclerk (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AzadZardost - please take some time to check WP:SELFPUB which is specifically applied to these situations of taking material about the subject of a BLP from the subject's own writing or statements. Fæ (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at my proposal in the previous section. AzadZardost missed the point. Kingfisher12 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that a BLP is supposed to be a selection of cherry picked quotes from a subject, I imagine if a person is a prolific commentator then we could add all sorts of stuff he has said, I am only fearful for misrepresenting the subject through the selection of isolated comments and nervous that undiscussed additions will lead to the mess that we had previously. We already are a bit primary cited in the content. As usual, if a discussion and overview of the desired additions has a consensus support then that is fine. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled why this edit [8] was reverted within three minutes of its posting. As we have previously discussed, Shamir's own site is WP:RS for his own writings, and I have gathered, on request from another editor, a section containing considerably more context showing that the quotes demonstrate a consistent point of view. Spaceclerk (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A persons own site is reliable but in a minimal usage manner. If users agree that you addition is representative of the subjects views we can perhaps add it, one of my main objections is the level of primary quotes and cites, none of which creates a balanced Bio. IMO. I can choose quotes that represent him in another way, I would like some more input from other contributors about your desired addition, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why in your opinion its ok to quote from his books, but not ok to quote from his website? Drsmoo (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - desired addition.

Views on the Holocaust

Shamir regards mainstream historical views on the Holocaust to be the product of Jewish conspiracy, "the official version provided by Jewish organisations as the Holy Writ given to Moses on Mt Sinai," and he wrote that "holocaust dogma is a basic tenet in the great world-embracing brainwashing machine of mass media." [2] Shamir has stated in an interview, "I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust, to reject this belief, just as Abraham and Moses rejected the idols. Any person who confesses to God should deny the Holocaust." [1] He has argued for the post-war invention of the claim of industrial-scale extermination at Auschwitz: "This idea of 'bombing Auschwitz' makes sense only if one accepts the vision of 'industrial extermination factory', and it was formed only well after the war." [3]The wide-spread acceptance of the historicity of the Holocaust is, he argues, a result of Jewish media control of public discussion: "But its success and its integration show that the mass media machine is well integrated and concentrated in philosemitic, mostly Jewish hands. The occupation of Palestine by Jews is painful, but it is not more harmful than this captivity of free discourse."[2]

• - 1 http://www.israelshamir.net/Swedish/Interview_Omar.htm
• - 2 http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng6.htm
• - 3 http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Who_Needs.htm

comments

If you remove the primary quotes that have been chosen by the user, you are left with what looks like OR type claims .. Shamir regards mainstream historical views on the Holocaust to be the product of Jewish conspiracy, He has argued for the post-war invention of the claim of industrial-scale extermination at Auschwitz. The wide-spread acceptance of the historicity of the Holocaust is, he argues, a result of Jewish media control of public discussion - while some editors suggest a bit of WP:OR is fine as long as the conclusions drawn are fair and balanced, I have doubts that three cites linked to his own talks and a summary of his opinions derived from them is a fair representation his overall views. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be puzzled. If you have actual RS cites that show that Shamir rejects the tenets of Holocaust denial, e.g., accepts the historicity of the lethal gas chambers at Auschwitz, please produce them if you can. I think it's very unlikely you'll be able to do so, for the simple reason that his stance on Holocaust denial is in fact being presented fairly -- he is what entry portrays him as, using his own words. In the absence of any countervailing evidence, your 'doubts' he is being represented fairly are merely your own doubts, and insufficient reason to prevent their appearing in the entry. Barring specific evidence of misreprentation, rather than unsupported 'doubts', I think the proper thing to do is to reinstate this material. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can he be cited as a Russian-Jew and an anti-Zionist Jew if he converted to Greek Orthodoxy? These conversations are surreal; The perception given by the page for public view is that he is a mainstream figure. As even a quick glance at his website shows, this is wholly not the case. I hope that more active editors can ensure that a more complete picture is presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.102.154 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for this might include the supporting citations you are adding http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/At-the-centre-of-the-web this is opinionated and from searchlight and the hope not hate site is linked to wikipedia article about twelve and only a couple of those are BLP articles and this is not going to be the third, and simply accusatory as is the other German link. and the way you are reporting what is in the citations, in a opinionated way. The other citation you are trying to insert, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2262352,00.html entitled holocaust and by an unnamed writer, only says this about the subject "said it intended to invite academics such as German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler and the Israeli journalist and Christian convert Israel Shamir, both of whom are Holocaust deniers" .. nothing about the subject at all really in a lengthy article about holocaust denial, all it says is these people thought they might invite him , and as you said, the article doesn't make it clear whose opinion it is that he is a holocaust denier or why whoever it is thinks that, it is a simple unsupported accusation of no value. I remind you that Holocaust denial is illegal and we are not in the business of repeating unconfirmed accusations and spreading them to the whole world. Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinions. There is of course much to dispute in your reply. Please give us your alternative draft of the section for comparison, so that we as a group can decide on that basis. That would be an excellent demonstration of your good faith. Spaceclerk (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to do anything to demonstrate my good faith.I am not a WP:SPA with the single intention of asserting this living person is a holocaust denier using any opinionated citation I can find. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your opinion, Off2riorob. Spaceclerk (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob has removed material added by Philip Cross, using the edit summary "remove - searchlight attack article". The text was attributed to Searchlight, which -- as noted above -- has been repeatedly found to be a reliable source.[9], [10], [11]. This relevant and well-sourced material should be restored to the article. RolandR (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this living person the searchlight can be consider as an attack article and should not be used even if attributed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please explain, don't just assert. RolandR (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti fascist organization smear attack article, read it, you think we should add content from it to this BLP, I don't. Perhaps ask at the BLPN. If I wanted to attack this living persson I would use that article, it isn't even close to NPOV. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware outside sources need to be NPOV, we are simply required to avoid fringe sources. Apparently it is alright to cite Pollard's Times article about the book launch (thankfully still freely available), but not the reason why he referred to it. I can only find denials about Shamir's real background on dubious blogs, and his own conspiratorial assertions about Wikipedia is reproduced on David Duke's website. So we are allowing a very fringe source to dictate what is excluded here. Philip Cross (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Searchlight piece should be definitely added to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations we use as source material to describe Shamir are all to self-authored articles or cover blurb on one of his books, with a sole exception. As notability is dependent on third party sources this is not good enough. Philip Cross (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Either we call the things for what they really are or the article should be deleted.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight has a long and respected tradition of exposing racists and antisemites, and has been established as a reliable source at RS/N. We can certainly use it here as a source, with attribution if necessary. --NSH001 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I have reworked the material on Holocaust denial to meet objections of a certain editor, and once again that same editor has removed it from the page within mere minutes of my posting it. I presume he is acting in good faith. WP policy does not however require unanimity in forming editorial consensus. I am therefore seeking consensus among the majority of editors here that this material, substantially if not exactly in this form, be allowed to appear.

Here is the most recent version. I am now specifically asking for responses and reactions from other editors:

Holocaust denial controversy

The British anti-racist organization Hope not Hate has listed Shamir as a "notable Holocaust denier," citing the "rabid Holocaust denial material" on his website.^{[a 1]} In 2006, discussing the upcoming Iranian International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, Deutsche Welle wrote that the Iranian government "said it intended to invite academics such as German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler and the Israeli journalist and Christian convert Israel Shamir, both of whom are Holocaust deniers."^{[a 2]}

Shamir has stated in an interview, "I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust, to reject this belief, just as Abraham and Moses rejected the idols. Any person who confesses to God should deny the Holocaust."^{[a 3]} The wide-spread acceptance of the historicity of the Holocaust, he argues, shows "that the mass media machine is well integrated and concentrated in philosemitic, mostly Jewish hands. The occupation of Palestine by Jews is painful, but it is not more harmful than this captivity of free discourse."^{[a 4]}

The material was removed from the article with the edit summary "Primary content and origanal commentry, possible unreliable externals, eg hopenothate". In fact, the text you cited from Hope not Hate was linked by them as an article in the current Searchlight magazine. Several discussions on the Reliable Sources noticeboard have confirmed that this is indeed a reliable source.^[12][13][14] The home page of Searchlight confirms that this article appears this month, though it is not available online.^[15] This indicates that the material is indeed well-sourced and reliable, and can be reinstated. As soon as someone can check a printed copy of Searchlight, we should cite that rather than Hope not Hate. RolandR (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, all the article says is Shamir is a rabid anti semite, I think the rabid says it all and from a website that is itself rabid its its opinion itself. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case. The article states "Shamir claims to be a leading Russian-Israeli intellectual but is in fact an antisemite living in Sweden, who changed his name first to Jöran Jermas and then to Adam Ermash. Shamir has carved a niche for himself as a professional anti-Zionist, publishing rabid Holocaust denial material on his website." This appears to be a reliable source for some of the disputed content of our article. Your opinion that the site itself is "rabid" is of no value or interest, and says more about you than about Hope not Hate. RolandR (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are as rabid as the people they comment on, they are just a mirror image. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your opinion, Off2riorob. To correct your factual error, the article does not call Shamir "rabid"; it uses that word to describe the Holocaust denial material he posts on his website - from himself and others.

RolandR is correct in concluding that this material is in fact WP:RS. I believe that the most recent version of the material significantly addresses the bulk of Off2riorob's previous objections. I would however like to hear from at least one more editor before reinstating the material. Spaceclerk (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in concluding that the "debate" on this article is multiple editors on one side, and a single editor who is reverting their posts? There seems to be a clear majority consensus on most of these edits. If the requirement for something to be added is that Off2rionrob likes it, nothing will ever get done. Drsmoo (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am asking for reactions from other editors. Spaceclerk (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, maybe it would help to formalize this a little. For the text as proposed in this section, please indicate whether you approve, approve with suggested changes, or disapprove.

• Approve. The sources are all RS, the controversy is real. No persuasive NPOV argument has been made for its rejection. Spaceclerk (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Approve. Maybe I'm too late and something has changed here but I don't see any grounds for not including it. I hadn't heard of this guy until recently but the sources describing him as a Holocaust denier seem legit and even a cursory look through his writings yield a veritable trove of quotes backing it up. If you've got quotes like "We must deny the concept of Holocaust without doubt and hesitation, even if every story of Holocaust down to the most fantastic invention of Wiesel were absolutely true." and you've got RS backing it up, there doesn't seem to be any other conclusion. I understand BLP (I think!) and abhor the idea of slandering a writer but this doesn't even seem to rise to the level of slander; he's actively advocating the idea. Sol (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve The Holocaust denier it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve As detailed above, this is reliably sourced, and clearly notable. Indeed, in the course of this biography, it is one of the most significant features, and omission massively distorts the article. Indeed, to omit this would be a serious breach of NPOV. RolandR (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve Considering there was only one objector and the discussion seems to have died down, I'm going to put this back in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. In accordance with the obviously quite broad agreement that this material belongs here, I think the "Antisemitism" and "Holocaust denial" tags should also be returned, justified by the same material.

I'm glad to see this has finally gotten to where it should have been all along. But what I have learned from this adventure is that Wikipedia is not for me. The amount of energy necessary to get this clearly significant and WP:RS material into the previously whitewashed entry over six repeated and arbitrary blankings from one sectarian shoot-from-the-hipster - who then threw in a bogus WP:SPI apparently purely for the bully factor - has convinced me that Wikipedia is deeply dysfunctional when it comes to anything more controversial than listing guest stars of 1970s crime dramas, and there are much more productive ways to spend my time than wrestling with self-appointed rajahs on power trips. Spaceclerk (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take an issue with this line: Shamir's son, a journalist named Johannes Wahlström, is a spokesperson for WikiLeaks in Sweden[20][23]. This is a living person and family members should not be brought in at all. There was an attempt to bring in Shamir's mother and father and grandparents, now a son: wikipedia is not a family chronic. Besides, Wikileaks has no "spokesman in Sweden". These claims in the Reason were discussed and rejected on that very site. So I propose to remove this line altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingfisher12 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the book section in acc with Shamir website bibliography. While doing it I noticed: somebody introduced a whole new concept of "self-published" books. I could not find it anywhere else in Wiki; it appears a put-down. Why a POD worse than any other publication? Because it provides income to a publisher? Because publishers are more discerning? Alas, it is not the case... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingfisher12 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not every editor is aware that H denial is not a point of view, but a crime in many countries. Shamir was never charged with this crime, though he lives from time to time in Israel, and they have such a law. Why so? Because H denial is denial of historicity which Shamir never did; he argued against its theological and ideological dimension. So I propose to keep this section to this clear statement, as wikipedia may not accuse a person of committing a crime if police does not think he should be charged. Kingfisher12 (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following:

Shamir has stated in an interview, "I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust, to reject this belief, just as Abraham and Moses rejected the idols. Any person who confesses to God should deny the Holocaust."^{[a 1]}

has been removed by an editor with the comment: 'self pub, in need of discussion, as it is isolated comment without clear context'

Please specify - what would constitute sufficiently clear context for what appears to be a quite direct and literal call for Holocaust denial? Spaceclerk (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is taken out of context and is unexplained and cherry picked from a lengthy interview, resulting imo in a comment that misrepresents the living subject. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the interview has been published in a reliable source it may be worth looking at and reviewing. Considering the nature of this article and the likelihood of sources being repeatedly challenged, we would want to apply high quality standards up front for any source. At the moment we have no background on the author or why his blog should be considered a quality and independent source. Consequently it would fail WP:SPS guidelines for use in a biographic article. Fæ (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this comment of Shamir has a religious meaning - he denies religious importance of Holocaust. Bear in mind: Holocaust is a form of sacrifice, a religious deed. By referring to religions, Shamir denies that massacres of Jews at the war have religious significance. This is not an offence in criminal meaning: no state orders people to attach religious significance to this event; people are just forbidden by law to deny such events took place. So despite this statement being very clear, it leads nowhere. If we need to have a line on this subject, I propose: "Shamir has denied religious significance of Jewish suffering during the World War Two, and it was interpreted by some critics as H-denial. However he did not discuss, justify, diminish or deny factual side of the events, and thus he never denied H in the criminal sense, and accordingly never was charged".

Kingfisher12 (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""Clearly"? That is imo quite an unsupportably strained and apologetic reading, quite different than the spirit of the simple meaning of his words, rather like asserting, "When Shamir said cat he actually meant dog". Let's let Shamir's own undisputed words speak for themselves rather than wrapping them in WP:POV apologia. Spaceclerk (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. The interview has been cited from Shamir's own website, not fpom a third-party blog. If it was something he would be likely to challenge, or a suspected forgery or hoax, he would not have posted it, without comment. There can be no doubt about the genuineness of this source, nor about the fact that it does indeed reflect Shamir's views, and that he wants this to be known publicly.

The argument about context and undue weight is more relevant, and worth considering. But let's not pretend that the source itself is in any way suspect, or that it misrepresents Shamir's words. RolandR (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR is correct. As the quote is being used to illustrate Shamir's own opinions and nothing more, the quote falls under WP:SELFPUB, not WP:SPS. The latter covers the case when X posts about Y; the former when X posts about X.

WP:SELFPUB says that such an article is acceptable as a WP source as long as some criteria are met: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field so long as"... followed by a list of five criteria. I address the criteria seriatim.

(1) Is the material unduly self-serving? If anything, it's the opposite, as it apparently aligns him quite directly with the Holocaust denial movement.

(2) Does the material involve claims about third parties? No, it is Shamir being asked his own opinions and then giving those opinions. That is established quite plainly with the introductory part of the first sentence: "I think that..." showing that he recognizes that he is offering his opinion. The quote is not being used to support any WP claim either way about whether the Holocaust actually happened, but it does show that Shamir says it didn't.

(3) Does it involve claims about events not directly related to the subject? Since Shamir's opinions *are* the subject, it is necessarily the case the Shamir is directly related to Shamir's opinions.

(4) Is there reasonable doubt about its authenticity? Given that it has appeared on Shamir's very own website, the answer must be no - this is Shamir's own website telling us what Shamir said in Shamir's own words.

(5) Is the article based primarily on such sources? No, as a quick look at the citations in the Shamir entry demonstrates, this is only one source among many different sources.

Therefore under WP:SELFPUB the quote is an acceptable source. I second RolandR's assessment: "There can be no doubt about the genuineness of this source, nor about the fact that it does indeed reflect Shamir's views, and that he wants this to be known publicly."

To the notion that it is "cherry picked" from an interview - it is not WP policy to publish interviews in their entirety, but rather to post extracts with citations to the whole interview. If its being "out of context" is the problem, I could increase the size of the extract. Please offer some guidance - how much of the interview should I present to establish sufficient context? Spaceclerk (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside details about how the information in the source should be sampled and presented, I agree that the source itself complies with WP:SELFPUB and is an acceptable source in this case. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SELFPUB only applies to a publication by the subject of a BLP. You appear to be claiming that the interview is published by Shamir, in which case you should be citing his website as the source rather than a third party blog (http://alazerius.wordpress.com). BTW, nice use of formal language, hardly ever see seriatim out of a legal context. Fæ (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite Shamir's own site[16], and not the third-party blog. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How confusing, could you re-propose this more clearly then. I was discussing the proposed text at the top of this thread with its associated footnoted citation. If you are proposing different sources to Spaceclerk, let's not mix up the discussions. Fæ (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history here is that Spaceclerk introduced the text, sourced to the third-party blog[17]; you reverted, stating "a Wordpress blog is not suitable here"[18]; I reinserted the same text, sourced this time to Shamir's own website[19]; and Off2riorob reverted, stating "it is isolated comment without clear context"[20]. The situation now seems to be that the source is accepted as reliable, and the content as inherently valid and acceptable; but the way in which it could be used in the article is in question. Since this article has been gutted of most content, and every addition is closely watched, it is difficult to make any additional edit without this appearing to be undue. Shamir's views, on the holocaust as on much else, are controversial, and do indeed need proper contextualisation, and I have no current proposals for such edits. But when such proposals are made, it seems clear that we have agreed a reliable source for Shamir's contention that "Any person who confesses to God should deny the Holocaust". RolandR (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Shamir's website is a suitable self published source (I hesitate to call it a reliable one) strictly for information about himself. If information is single-sourced to his website then I suggest it is used sparingly to avoid undue weight issues. A ten-word quote as you suggest would seem suitably constrained. The longer quote proposed by Spaceclerk I would have more of an issue with. Fæ (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That advice is completely at odds with Off2riorob's objection above to Spaceclerk's longer extract that it is "cherry picked from a lengthy interview". Such an objection would apply even more strongly to a shorter quote. So how do we proceed? RolandR (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are two different lengths of quote, they cover different material so our opinions are not necessarily at odds and there is no particular reason why I would always agree with Off2riorob... I suggest we ask for a bit of clarification. Perhaps Off2riorob could confirm which guidance (or policy) underpins the label of 'cherry-picking' (the shortcut WP:CHERRY does not seem to be what is intended here) and secondly confirm that his/her objection would apply to the ten-word quote alternative. I'll leave a talkback note on vis user page. Fæ (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am glad to see a decent discussion about this. My main issue regarding this is only that we do not misrepresent the subject and give undue weight to comments that in isolation are a poor reflection of the whole article or interview. I know some people consider him a holocaust denier and this quote in isolation is in effect supports that, but other opinions don't agree that he is a holocaust denier at all and he has also talked about the holocaust and not denied it at all. My comment about cherry picking is in relation to that, we need to report about him in a balanced way and not (as is my worry and as was the article previous to the OTRS complaint).. you see, to me this "Any person who confesses to God should deny the Holocaust"... doesn't really mean anything, it needs explaining. What does he mean? In what context did he say this, to whom did he say this, do users think this comment represents Shamir's total view on the holocaust. I will read the whole article in English and get back to you. Some feedback from you guys.. if this comment is added do you think it asserts he is a holocaust denier and that he should also be added to the relevant category? Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - the desired addition was in the complained about article and the holocaust denier cat was also there, you see, from what I have read he is not a denier at all and has discussed the issue at great length so there are isolated quotes that can be cherry picked to misrepresent him as I think this quote does. I think it is the duty of every Muslim and Christian to deny the Holocaust, to reject this belief, just like Abraham and Moses rejected idolatry. Every person who profess their faith to God should deny the Holocaust. I think it's much more serious that people deny God, isn't it?interview in english - Imo he is not a holocaust denier at all, he is against the type of Zionism that fixates on the holocaust and uses it as an excuse for all its actions.. or that is what I have understood from what I have read of his comments.Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. Considering there is now quite a lot of material available where Shamir puts forth his own views, would there be an alternative quotation from this interview or elsewhere that you think would better represent his view on the holocaust and (possibly) refute the direct label of "Holocaust denier" without the misrepresentation you are concerned about? My preference would be for a pithy quotation but I would be happy to see a longer paragraph or a couple of (even conflicting) shorter quotations if necessary so long as the article does not start to infringe on the "self-serving" part of SELFPUB.

As a more general point for the improvement of this article (if any) it would seem odd* to keep rejecting quotations from Shamir to illustrate his opinions with the polarizing rationale that we must either encompass all his expressed opinions or none to avoid misrepresentation (this may be a parody of your concern but I hope you take the point in good faith). *By the word "odd" I have in mind keeping to the spirit of WP:5P#4. Fæ (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support that really, I agree, we either need to add a lot or a simple comment, or nothing, in that position I support nothing as a better position. He is much stronger placed as an anti Zionist. I would object to any attempt to categorize him as a holocaust denier. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I think Rob would be hard-pressed to find a quotation from Shamir recognising the holocaust; as far as I know, he has made no such statement. On the other hand, I could easily find several more in which he explicitly or implicitly denies it. He may reject the description of "holocaust denier" (though I don't think that he does); but that would not prove that he is not one.RolandR (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I have read, he does not deny the holocaust at all. He just seems to think the Zionist Jews use it as an excuse for their actions. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have we got any quotes where he clearly denies the holocaust happened? Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's essential to understand that Holocaust deniers do not say "I deny the Holocaust." That's a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be part of the Holocaust denial movement. Instead, they say "Yes, the Holocaust happened, just nothing like the way the historians tell you it did -- " after which they deny every key fact within the Holocaust. It's a bit like saying, "Sure, Watergate happened, but there's no evidence the White House was involved in any way, there's no evidence that it happened in Washington DC, and there's no evidence that it happened in 1972-74 rather than 1825-27. But no, I don't deny that Watergate happened." I **strongly** recommend that all editors involved read the entry on Holocaust denial in order not to fall into that simple semantic trap. Spaceclerk (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

simple semantic trap? Do you assert and want to add to this BLP that this living person is part of the holocaust denial movement? Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceclerk's comment above is correct. Shamir does not state explicitly state "I deny the holocaust". Instead, he writes "We must deny the concept of Holocaust without doubt and hesitation, even if every story of Holocaust down to the most fantastic invention of Wiesel were absolutely true."[21]; and "The camp (Auschwitz)was an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross"[22]; and "Indeed, the creed of holocaust competes with the Church: we believe that Christ suffered for us and came back to life. The H believers believe that the Jewish people suffered and came back by creating the Jewish state. In this competition, the Jews win: as opposed to H, you can deny Crucifixion and Resurrection and your career won’t suffer a bit. Thus the question of H denial is the question of apostasy: will our society stand on the rock planted by Christ, or will it worship the Jewish state."[23]. Most of his comments are more like sneers or inuendo, rather than direct denial; though he reproduces many statements by explicit deniers on his website. So yes, I would indeed describe Shamir as "part of the holocaust denial movement" RolandR (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already knew you did roland, you were a strong part of the contributions that added that previously, your involvement in the creation of an attack article against this living subject bring me to ask you to request you step back from attempting to replace the exact same BLP issues as before. As you say, he is not actually citable as a denier, he just doesn't like the Zionist claims and actions. and we already have him as a Jewish Anti Zionist so it's all good. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I will continue to edit as I see fit, using reliable sources and abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have not added material in violation of BLP, and I have no intention of doing so in future. I reject the suggestion above that I have been "involved in the creation of an attack article", I have not been banned from editing this article, and indeed there are no grounds for seeking or imposing such a ban. So when appropriate I will indeed edit this article. RolandR (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:You have not been banned but your additions were clearly part of the complaint. I would prefer it if you didn't edit the article at all and I will request administrative assistance and edit restrictions on you at this BLP article if I think it is needed. that is up is up to you. I will defend this living person from additions that are opinionated and attacking. Off2riorob (talk)

RolandR: Shamir does not state explicitly state "I deny the holocaust". Off2riorob: As you say, he is not actually citable as a denier. The latter does not follow from the former. I again encourage all editors involved in this discussion to read the WP entry on Holocaust_denial#Examination_of_claims in order to avoid a simple misunderstanding. Neither David Irving nor Ernst Zundel nor Paul Rassinier nor Germar Rudolf nor Robert Faurisson -- the leaders of the Holocaust denial movement -- say "there was no Holocaust," and it's wrong to presume that saying such a thing is the determining factor of whether one is or isn't a Holocaust denier. Spaceclerk (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to merge his views on the Holocaust with the already existant "Views" section. Then we can just repost his statements as he wrote them. Drsmoo (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that this used to be a good article, it has been severely whitewashed, including the removal of his bio, and the fact that he falsified his name etc.~

The discussion of the content you inserted is at the bottom of the page, please don't simply wander by and stuff it back in and then come here and make a comment, thanks. As for your whitewashing claims, please be aware there was a OTRS complaint, and that we are using a method of discussion and consensus for additions. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the OTRS complaint as well as the respective wikipedia policy, thanks. I find it very hard to believe that facts were removed from a biographical wiki page due to, well, anything. As far as I know that goes against Wiki policy. Drsmoo (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts..WP:THETRUTH - the article was a pig swill of bigoted biased attacks and misrepresentations against a living person and I know that is against wikipedia policy. If you want to ask about the complaint the person that dealt with it was User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry .. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be your opinion, please do no try to pass of your opinion as fact. And I'm new to this article so it would be helpful if you could link to the relavent OTRS discussions and put them on the discussion page.Drsmoo (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here. I tried to find the related talk page discussion, but something seems to be awry with the archiving of this page, and several months worth of discussion has gone astray. RolandR (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the wording of the description of the OTRS, it sounds almost identical (and is from the same time period) as this http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-united-against-knowledge.htmlDrsmoo (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a surprise....RolandR (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to discussion of the quotation, there are several points that I think have not been made here. One is with regard to the words of the "quote" itself. 1) This is a translation, but is not identified as such, and no citation is given for the translator. Without citation, how is it to be varified? 2) I have now seen the same "quotation" presented here in three forms. One included a preamble sentence, one presents one entire sentence, and one presents only the initial part of the sentence, but implies that it is the entire sentence. None actually included the questions asked. Now the partial sentence presented as complete, is patently misleading. When the sentence is viewed complete, two additional factors appear; the questioning of H being used as an icon, rather than questioning its historicity, and; the phrase "...to reject this belief,". The belief referred to is entirely unclear without the previous answer. With that inclusion, its meaning is entirely different. It should be included in its entirety or not at all. I find it embarrassing to have to point out that negotiation to eliminate context and truncate the passage is negotiating to change its meaning entirely. Note too, that It has become harder to find the context due to the inclusion of the truncated statement in Wikipedia. Our most damaging versions have been propagated through multiple web pages copied verbatim... or is it possible that our editors have copied it verbatim from other sites? StevePAbbott (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed copy the statement verbatim from another site. From Shamir's own website, to be precise. This was discussed above, and the consensus was that this was indeed an acceptable reliable source for the authenticity of the statement. The interview was in Swedish; as a Swedish citizen, Shamir presumably speaks and was interviewed in that language. I cited the Google translation of the statement, and included the Swedish original in the footnote. Please explain why you find my edit[24] to the article to be unacceptable. RolandR (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, yes I see that you have used a Google translation. I took the trouble to use the google program to translate the rest of the interview. It certainly makes clear how imperfect the translation program can be. I believe the supposed quote should be identified on the face of it, as an automated translation. The quote you inserted reads entirely differently when viewed in context of the question asked, and of his previous answer. The phrase, "to reject this belief" refers to his previous answer about belief that H makes Judaism special, and that only Jews were killed. The phrase "just as Abraham and Moses rejected the idols", refers to an iconic or idolatrous view of the Holocaust, which is expanded upon in his next answer, "There is only one God, the Holocaust is an idol." The original question, too, provides important context. "MO: Should it be allowed to criticize the Zionist version of the Holocaust?" Your entire "quotation" is an expansion upon his direct answer. "IS: More than that, I think it is a duty to do so." The entire interview may not present a flattering view of either Judaism or Zionism, but it is not Holocaust denial, unless you take it out of context. You will note, that your quote has become the citation for numerous repetitions throughout the web, of that "quote", as if he had said exactly those words, in English, and without context. Further circular citations complicate our work. Brown is used as a citation for the wikileaks connection, and yet the discussion of the antisemitism claims in Brown's article, on Brown's facebook page, cite your "quotation" from Wikipedia...never mentioning that all of this came from an illogically chopped portion of a google translation.StevePAbbott (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to including the whole statement, including the question. But in the discussion above, this was rejected as too long and undue. What I would not accept is including your interpretation of what Shamir meant, or of what the context is. That would be impermissible synthesis. I fail to see the relevance of your remarks about Brown. His article stands or falls on its own merits; readers comments are irrelevant. Discussions on the Reliable sources noticeboard have established that an original article on the Guardian Comment is Free site -- particularly one by a staff journalist -- is a reliable source, but the comments are not. Andrew Brown is a senior Guardian journalist, and editor of the CiF belief section. His statement is sufficient for our purposes; though, if you can find a reliable source challenging this, that too could be included in the article. RolandR (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion above, you have justified inclusion of the statement based upon the fact that you sourced it on Shamir's own web site, but this is in fact not true. You sourced an interview in a different language, processed it through a translation program, which is inherently faulty and incapable of nuance, cut away the context, and then presented it as his words from his own web site. Does the statement as you present it make sense to you without the context you cut away? The discussion above did not include the adjoining statements, as it should have. I do not expect you to include my interpretation of what he meant, but I do expect you to drop the entire "quote" if you can not present it in its original context. You do not have to rely upon my interpretation of what the context is. You have the entire interview. You are able to use the same imperfect software to translate the question before and the question after. No reasonable person would deny the the question asked is at least a part of the context of the answer. When you place the statement in context, other reasonable individuals will be able to judge for themselves whether the intended interpretation is clear, and you will not have to rely on mine. Of course including more than the one single sentence will also emphasise the imperfection of the Google translation. My position is that the passage should be removed entirely, as you admit that the context can not be included.StevePAbbott (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see here some misunderstanding: Shamir was accused by Latynina of having forged portions of a cable which allegedly quoted European Union diplomats' plans to walk out of the Durban II speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an accusation which was rejected by Shamir[21]. Let us put it right. Shamir quoted the cable later published as http://wikileaks.nl/cable/2009/09/09STOCKHOLM615.html Latynina who has very limited understanding of the subject supposed it is misrepresentation of Durban2.

Since the cable was published, and the subject was answered by Shamir in his reply http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Latynina.htm I propose to re-write this piece as follows:

Shamir was accused by Latynina of inventing a cable on the EU delegates walkout at Ahmadinejad's speech; however the allegedly invented cable was duly published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingfisher12 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the clarification, and it is necessary. Unfortunately the link to where it was published appears to be broken. Can we fix or replace the link, and add a word or two to explain how it has been verified?StevePAbbott (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really tedious. After the arbitration decided to keep this silly matter of "also known as Jöran Jermas" out of wiki, here it comes again. That was discussed on hundred pages! Instead of bringing this dead rat once more, can't they re-read the discussion? Yes, we all know that RolandR is keen on it, but can't he accept the verdict of the wiki editorial board? I ask RolandR, please produce us one page written by "a swedish antisemitic writer Jöran Jermas", as a link or as source, in print or in the web. Until you did it, let us keep this nonsense out! Kingfisher12 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into the arbitration case, but the fact that he is also known as Jöran Jermas is verifiable from reliable sources such as this article from The Times and more recently The Guardian. As this is the case, it is perfectly reasonable to include it in the article. Please also note that the arbitration committee are not an "editorial board" they deal only with behavioural issues and no editor has any more say over content than another. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not me, but another editor, who re-introduced the information about (one of) Shamir's alternative identities. Please do not make false allegations. Also, please do not refer to me by what you believe to be my real name. And please point us to the supposed "arbitration decision" on this article; I do not recall any such case. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the clause, "Shamir is actually a Swedish writer called Jöran Jermas.", though possibly technically correct, implies that Shamir is not Shamir. As there is no evidence that this is the case, I would suggest instead, "...Shamir has Swedish citizenship, and is known there as, Jöran Jermas."StevePAbbott (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What follows is a potential list of sources for the article. I will add my personal comments after each one. I encourage others to add their opinions and to list other sources as they find them.--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1-10

1. "Vocal critic of Israel". 1 April 2002 New Straits Times[25]

   -reliable source--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   ✓ Looks like a reasonable summary written in a neutral style, however this may be challenged more generally as a source as the New Straits Times has been accused of serving as a propaganda tool for the Malaysian government. Fæ (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. "Echoes of Ellsberg" Bret Stephens 6 December 2002 The Jerusalem Post [26]- I have a full copy of the article that I could forward if necessary.

   -an opinion column, therefore useable with caution for the opinion of the author--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   ✗ Shamir's name appears on a list in this Bret Stephens article. There is no other information about him or quotes from him, consequently it appears to add nothing of value for this BLP. Fæ (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It states that in Stephen's view, Shamir is a member of the far left, which might be something of value. Personally, I was hoping that we would just begin by agreeing on whether something is a reliable source, rather that analyzing whether the content adds anything or is partisan or whatever. But it looks like other editors have different ideas about how to approach rewriting this article, so that's fine. --Slp1 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. "Crisis Rekindles Anger in Arab Press" Nora Boustany 5 April 2002 The Washington Post [27] - I have a full copy of the article that I could forward if necessary.

   -reliable source--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   ✓ There is only one relevant paragraph - "The Arab News ran a column by the Israeli writer and journalist Israel Shamir in which he said he understood the motives of suicide bombers or martyrs but disagreed with their actions. "I salute their courage, but I deeply regret their deeds. They are counterproductive, inefficient, and blind," he wrote. " - Good source and a potentially useful quote. Fæ (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. "We mustn't shun the Russian right" Mikhail Agursky 15 August 1991 The Jerusalem Post[28] - I have a full copy of the article that I could forward if necessary.

   -an opinion column, therefore useable with caution for the opinion of the author --Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   ✓ The description of Shamir appears almost factual but this is an opinion piece with phrases such as "indirectly calls for the destruction of the State of Israel" without quoting Shamir directly. There is information about his original name with the rationale that "His identity is well known", as no other sources or rationale is given, this may be challenged. I think this is good as a source but it must be used in context. Fæ (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Iran's Holocaust Conference Plan Prompts Anger 6 December 2006 Deutsche Welle [29]

   reliable source, but needs to be supported by other sources for such a serious claim --Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   ✓ Reasonable source but only a passing mention. The only relevant quote is "It said it intended to invite academics such as German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler and the Israeli journalist and Christian convert Israel Shamir, both of whom are Holocaust deniers." This means the attribution is clear (an unnamed spokesperson from the Iranian government said this) but this is just repeating an opinion. Consequently this is a source for evidence of the Iranian government's opinion of Shamir but not actually evidence of him being a Holocaust denier. Fæ (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Wainwright, Martin (25 February 2009). "Lord Ahmed jailed for sending texts while driving before fatal crash". The Observer.

   -reliable source--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   ✓ The relevant line is: "He fiercely condemned the award of a knighthood to Sir Salman Rushdie and was much criticised when he hosted a reception at the House of Lords for the anti-Semitic writer Israel Shamir, who used the occasion to accuse Jews of wanting to set up a world empire." Not detailed but could be useful as another supporting source for how he is described. Fæ (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. British lord joins UK Islamists in praising Erdogan Jonny Paul Jerusalem Post 02/11/2009 [30]

   -reliable source -- (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The relevant two sentences are "Russian-born Israel Shamir claimed the blood libels against the Jews were in fact true and that all political parties were Zionist-infiltrated. Shamir is a citizen of Sweden, ..." I have left off his alleged legal name as there is no source or context given for the name given. There seems nothing particularly unique about this source, apart from the alleged name. I suggest using with caution and I think that these claims could be supported by Shamir's own publications either in addition of, or instead of, this source. Fæ (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. How did the far Left manage to slip into bed with the Jew-hating Right? David Aaronovitch June 28, 2005 The Times[31]

   -an opinion column, therefore useable with caution for the opinion of the author--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   ✗ Most of the opinion piece is not Aaronovitch's opinion but he is quoting the opinion of Gilad Atzmon and paraphrasing some of Shamir's writing. I suggest that Shamir's works can be quoted directly rather than via an opinion piece and second-hand paraphrased opinion is not worth quoting as a source. Facts mentioned such as Shamir being part of the Deir Yassin Remembered can also be directly sourced. I would say this source has little to benefit the article and is easily replaced by original sources and more factual reports. Fæ (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Rozett, Robert (2005), Approaching the Holocaust: texts and contexts, Vallentine Mitchell, ISBN 9780853035817

   -reliable source --Slp1 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   No access to this pricey book of essays, but GB seems to only match one page (p.136). Perhaps someone could verify and type the relevant section here (if not blatantly problematic)? Fæ (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Lord Ahmed's unwelcome guest Stephen Pollard April 7, 2005 The Times[32]

    -an opinion column, therefore useable with caution for the opinion of the author. If used, then Shamir's denial of the info [33]should be included too.

    ✗ This is very much opinion, as shown by describing Shamir as "a rabid anti-Semite". Unless Pollard's opinion is considered key to the BLP then it should not be used as a source and any specific claims from the piece should not be repeated without discussion and consensus as being beneficial for an encyclopaedic article in the long term. Fæ (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11-20

11. The Russian Protocols of Zion in Japan Yudayaka/Jewish peril propaganda and debates in the 1920s Jacob Kovalio Peter Lang 2009 [34]

    -reliable source--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ✗ The book certainly exists, but to include this specialist 113 page book just because of the line on p.78 "... at the Sweden based site of a Leftist, Jihadist, Russian/Swedish/Arab/Iranian individual who, among other aliases uses the Iraeli-sounding name Israel Shamir." would seem over the top and might provide undue weight to any description such as "Jihadist". Based on GBooks searching this seems to be the only reference. Fæ (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Wieviorka, Michel; Bataille, Philippe (2007), The lure of anti-Semitism: hatred of Jews in present-day France, BRILL, pp. 323–324, ISBN 9789004163379

    -reliable source--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on page 323 where the only reference is embedded in a quote from another person, this seems tangential. Unfortunately I can only go by the GBooks entry so cannot see the text of p.324. Verification and an explanation of what is on that page would be useful to make a recommendation. Fæ (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13. Neo-Conned! Again: Hypocrisy, Lawlessness, and the Rape of Iraq D. L. O'Huallachain, J. Forrest Sharpe 2005 [35] (more available on amazon if you have bought their stuff).

    -might be best described as opinion, and thus only use attributed and with care.--Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14. Israeli writer is Swedish anti-Semite Tor Bach, Sven Johansen and Lise Apfelblum May 2004 Searchlight Magazine [36]

    -I believe that this should be used with care if, at all, and certainly attributed to Searchlight if it is used. --Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks all I can find for the moment. Perhaps others can add other sources below. --Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Here's another one[reply]
15. British anti-Semitism finds focal point in East End Jerusalem Post, Apr 29, 2005 YAAKOV LAPPIN.[37]

    -reliable source.--Slp1 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ✗ Appears to add little as it only paraphrases, and appears based on, Stephen Pollard's editorial and uses phrases such as "toxic rant". I'd say use with caution. Fæ (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Side discussion, resulting sources added to list

    As for me, I have no reason to doubt that Shamir is what he says he is, namely a Russian Israeli. That is why I would go after reliable sources in Russian and Hebrew, as they were written by people who know the subject and the person. I propose the beginning: Israel Shamir (born Israel Shmerler, 1947, Novosibirsk, USSR, immigrated to Israel 1969) is a radical writer and journalist. He is bilingual and writes mainly in English and his native Russian. Some of his early articles appeared in Hebrew in Israeli newspapers Haaretz, Davar, Al Hamishmar. His major books (The Pine and the Olive, Galilee Flowers, see Bibliography) are dealing mainly with Palestine and Israel. Since his baptism in 2003, he adopted the baptismal name ‘Adam’ and often styles himself as “Israel Adam Shamir”. This name is always used in his French, Spanish and Italian publications. He runs a site www.israelshamir.net and publishes an email letter list shamireaders dealing mainly, but not exclusively with Middle East. That he was named Shmerler Israel son of Josef (Yusefovitch) and he was born in Novosibirsk in 1947 and immigrated in 1969 to Israel is attended by many sources, friendly, hostile and neutral to the subject. There are mild differences: some say he was born in 1948 or immigrated in 1968, but I'd rely upon Russian wikipedia as to these details. If we agree to use first class (reliable) sources, this first sentence of my proposal may be confirmed by ru.wikipedia saying Israel Shamir (Israel Yusefovich Shmerler) born 1947 Novosibirsk. http://www.eleven.co.il/article/15420 - electronnaya evreyskaya encyclopedia (Digital Jewish Encyclopedia) I. Shmerler (Shamir, born in 1948, in Israel since 1969) Printed source http://magazines.russ.ru/oz/2002/7/2002_07_32.html prestigious Russian magazine says: Shamir, previously Shmerler, first issue of the Academgorodok Fizmatschola now a radical left Israeli journalist. They refer to a printed source, a book by Weil and Genis, 1960s, Moscow 1998 page 337. In Russian: Шмерлер, городковский физматшкольник первого набора, а ныне леворадикальный израильский журналист (цитируется по: Вайль П., Генис А. 60-е. Мир советского человека. М., 1998. С. 337). His father Y B Shmerler is described as "zionist activist", and in Kostyrchenko book about Russian Jews (Secret Policy of Stalin, in Russian, available in full on the web http://krotov.me/libr_min/11_k/os/tyrchenko_6.html) it is said: A zionist activist Y B Shmerler wrote to the Jewish Antifascist Committee asking for help: he wanted to go to Israel to fight against the Arabs. There is the letter in full. His mother was interviewed by (hostile to Shamir) right-wing (he describes Goldstone as a criminal https://docs.google.com/View?id=dgpc4hc9_136d88g8fcg)Israeli journalist Ben Dror Yemini for Maariv newspaper http://www.israelshamir.net/Hebrew/Heb6.htm) His mother is described as "a settler, a member of Moledet (right-wing nationalist zionist movement". Yemini says Shamir ran for Knesset for Moked, a small leftist party in Israel, and was a spokesman for Mapam in Knesset. Yemini also says that Shamir was married to a Swede, a daughter of a Swedish Communist leader, has two children, and divorced her. So it seems to me pretty well established. As for the Swedish connection, I could not locate a single reference to Shamir writing under any Swedish name as suggested. Kingfisher12 (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Kingfisher, as I said, I think the place to start is to start with the sources and then write the text. Thanks for the sources you have provided. I have repeated them here so as to keep the same structure of source and comment. I think you might find it helpful to read our Verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline to help you know the sort of things we are looking for here.Slp1 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16. Shamir article ru.wikipedia

    -A wiki is not considered a reliable source. Check WP:RSSlp1 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ✗ Can't have open wikis, subject to change over time, potentially circular and challenge-able for lack of editorial control. Fæ (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17. http://www.eleven.co.il/article/15420 - electronnaya evreyskaya encyclopedia (Digital Jewish Encyclopedia)

    - I can't comment on this Russian language source, except to say that English WP prefers English-language sources. See WP:NONENG; we'd need the opinion of some experience russian-speaking editors Slp1 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18. http://magazines.russ.ru/oz/2002/7/2002_07_32.html prestigious Russian magazine

    -Russian language source, so as above.Slp1 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ✗ Unless this contains some highly valuable information, let's not go there. Fæ (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19. Weil and Genis, 1960s, Moscow 1998 page 337. In Russian: Шмерлер, городковский физматшкольник первого набора, а ныне леворадикальный израильский журналист (цитируется по: Вайль П., Генис А. 60-е. Мир советского человека. М., 1998. С. 337).

    -Russian language source, so as above.Slp1 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ✗ Tried searching about but no joy on English alternative for this one. Park? Fæ (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20. opinion column by Ben Dror Yemini for Maariv newspaper. [38]

    -A googledocs article is not appropriate, but assuming the original Maariv source for the article can be found, then as an opinion column, useable with caution for the opinion of the author. I note that Maariv is a considered a tabloid newspaper so additional caution may be required, since we prefer the highest quality sources, especially for a Bio of living person. Slp1 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ✗ I found this article on LexisNexis which gave me a link to the original at nrg.co.il (for comparison see GoogleTrans). Interestingly the "official" article gives the Google Doc as its English translation, so it can be used as a source, in particular it can be verified with the LexisNexis version as issued by Newstex though is just a capture at that time from the Solomonia blog. I'd say this is okay as a source document of the writings of Ben-Dror Yemini. However, after all this I don't see its relevance as a source, am I missing something? Fæ (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no reference to Shamir in either the Hebrew original or the translations. Did you mean to point to a different article? The only piece by Yemini that I am aware of is the article I note at 24) below. This is a feature article, not an op-ed. RolandR (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is just full of the opinions of the subject who is the opponant of the subject of this article, what exactly is it that you want to add from this citation? Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21-

21. Shamir's website.

    -A reliable source usable in moderation about Shamir only per WP:SELFPUB. Slp1 (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ✓ Agree that this is his official website so anything he has written about himself is possible source material for the article. Further, I notice that this website has been archived (see archive.org 2001 version of bio) so anything about himself stated on his website in the past and now archived is also source material. If one wanted to do a bit more digging then facts about the website registration record can be considered public domain. Lastly I note the website copyright states "COPYRIGHT NOTICE: All materials of this site may be freely transmitted and copied by electronic means, displayed on websites, sent by email. No permission is needed, except for hard copy (paper) publication." Consequently I suggest that any quotes of any length cannot be a copyright violation, though I am left slightly uncertain for images due to the hard copy constraint. Fæ (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22. Swedish article in Expo Magazine: Israel Shamir ljuger om sin historia (Israel Shamir is lying about his history) [39]

    ✗ Highly problematic source written by DP in 2004. The claims about Shamir's personal life are based on varied (unsourced) detective work supposedly based on Swedish public records. The facts given may well be true but my current opinion is that I do not consider them of particular value for this BLP as there is no claim here that Shamir's name changes or the contents of alleged email Shamir sent asking DP to desist were to cover anything up or mislead the public. Let me make it clear, if I am being mis-lead and the information can be demonstrated to have encyclopaedic value then I would have no qualms about arguing to include quotations from this source. Fæ (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23. Another Expo article: Alhambra ger ut antisemitisk författare (Alhambra publishes anti-Semitic writer) [40]

    Slightly problematic, I used this translation and the article is a useful book review and summary. Towards the end there is a good description of his marginalization from Palestinian groups. I suggest this could be used as a source for mention of his book and its reception but I would question any direct quote due to the problem of translation and potential challenges of bias as a result. Fæ (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24. A very long profile article (3000 words in Hebrew, equivalent to 4000-plus in English) by Ben-Dror Yemini in Maariv, 10 January 2003 The Enemy Within]. The article also appears on Shamir's own website.[41] Remarkably, this article, one of the few extended pieces about Shamir from a reliable (if arguably partisan) source, does not seem to have been translated into English. If I translate this, is there any way that I could make the translation available to other editors? I would want to translate the whole, to remove any suggestions of cherry-picking, and to enable others to verify my translation. But it is clearly too long to put in the talk page. Would it be acceptable for me to post this as a sub-page to my user page?RolandR (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no objection at all, just is it going to be worth your time is a question, we may only add a small comment from it (clearly I haven't seen it) but I think they are opponents by the fact that one supports the single state solution and the other supports the two state solution. If you think there is useful content I would appreciate it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure, the translation would not be official and I suspect there may be a copyright problem with such a translation if it were published in its complete form (rather than selected quotations). If all the factual information can be found in English sources (or existing translations of other sources) then I doubt there is great value in this as another source. BTW one can use the Google translated version (here) to verify the basics. Fæ (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a truly appalling machine translation! But I suppose it gives an idea of the main points. This is certainly a reliable source, which we can use in order to verify facts in our article. I am happy to supply a more accurate and readable translation of any passages that other editors would like clarified, or are considering citing. RolandR (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

25. A reliable source describing Shamir as "anti-Jewish": France: Racism is indivisible, by Dominique Vidal in Le Monde Diplomatique RolandR (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ✓ The quote is near the end of the article: "Nor can we accept that the anti-Jewish writings of Israel Shamir should be published on the grounds that Shamir, an Israeli, is a radical critic of his country." Not a lot said about Shamir, but useful extra source. Fæ (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims he served in IDF during Yom Kippur War, and sources this to his own website. I wonder, if this could be confirmed by an independent source? --Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is usually done in BLP when a subject makes a claim like this? Is it stated in a neutral voice or attributed to him?

Also, here's another source [42] that can be used in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article referred to above, as another source that can be used, is chock full of unreferenced statements incomplete inferrences, and accusations already shown to be false. What is its virtue that you think makes it a suitable source? It is in my opinion, another example of how a deluge of repeated accusations can be used to avoid verification by establishing a condition of "common knowledge".StevePAbbott (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which accusations in the article have been "shown to be false"? Please specify, don't just make vague assertions. RolandR (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation by Yulia Latynina has been shown to be false, as the cable she claimed did not exist, did indeed exist, and has now been published. See http://wikileaks.nl/cable/2009/09/09STOCKHOLM615.html. If you trace the claims that he is "the Russian distributor for Wikileaks", and that he is responsible for determining which documents will be released in Russia, in the first place, tracing through both Brown [43] and Moynihan [44] link Professor Lundgren [45], who writes a particularly raunchy article (I would like to see the explanation for the photo of the burning star of David), and in the end links the two above claims to Yulia Latynina, the exact same individual who made the false claim noted above. Meanwhile both Wikipedia Wikileaks and Shamir have denied that he is employed by or has an exclusive relationship with Wikipedia. Furthermore, Latynina's complaint appears to be that Wikileaks does not have a major parthner like the Guardian or the times in Russia. I can think of a few other countries in which it does not have such a partner. The releases approved by the major partners, dictate which documents are released in Canada, as in Russia. The rest of the Jewish Chronicle article recommended by No More Mr Nice Guy, consists of inferrences without conclusions, based upon various likes or dislikes. Above all, I would like to note that editors should be considerably more careful not to take any respectable looking article as a suitable citation, without first checking out the citations that they offer in turn. StevePAbbott (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cable you cite above does not appear to support Shamir's interpretation. Please point to the exacr words which you consider to bear this out. Most of the rest of your above comment is unallowable original research or synthesis. It is not enough to assert something, you must show this to be the case. RolandR (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which interpretation, that there was a pre-arranged signal planned for the walk out? That there was confusion because Sweden was left waiting for the signal? Did you read the cable through? Never mind, it is irrelevant. We are not here to judge his interpretation. The claim was that the cable did not exist. It did. My comment above deals with the quality of the source. I followed the citations through to the end. This is not called original research or synthesis. I pointed out that the originator of two additional claims is the same individual who has made the false claim that has already been dealt with. This is an atribution given in the documents cited. To have actually traced the citations we use is surely not forbidden under "original research or synthesis". To comment upon the quality of a proposed reference document is not original research or synthesis. Are you saying that it is not permitted to comment upon a source proposed in the discussion area? I find that I must study up considerably more on how Wikipedia works. I withdraw under protest.StevePAbbott (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No; according to Latynina, Shamir wrote in Russian Reporter that "the U.S. State Department sent a directive to all European countries indicating when their representatives should leave the hall".[46] This was the assertion which Shamir insisted was in an unpublished telegram; it is certainly not in the telegram you cite above, which does not even mention the US, let alone demonstrate that the state department organised a planned European walk out. Unless you can produce it, I repeat that the cable under discussion does not exist. RolandR (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]