Talk:Gilad Atzmon

Allegations section - restructure?

There are over 20 allegations in the eponymous section. Some are listed chronologically; others according to their allegator’s categorisation. The categorisation is patchy i.e. there are entries in the timeline that should be in the categories if they were applied consistently. Some allegations are very general; some are verbal snippets; quite a few are duplicates of each other. There are further allegations in other sections. This could be communicated more clearly and appear more encyclopaedic.

One way to improve the section would be to list the principal allegators, with their sources but without detailing the individual allegations, followed by a list of the more significant allegations, again sourced. This would communicate much more quickly and clearly the main points. I can show a dummy of what that might look like. Other editors might have other suggestions for a better structure. Thoughts? Jontel (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC) We should probably add a consequences subsesection to this to cover loss of contracts, venue refusal etc. Jontel (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Aren't we encouraged to integrate criticisms within the text rather than including them in a dedicated section? So, for example, allegations related to what Atzmon said in a particular book would be included within a section about the book. I have given the article a brief look. Here are some issues that I found:

• The lead consists of only two sentences, one of which is about allegations of anti-semitism and holocaust denial.

• "He feels "people should be able to air Holocaust-denying views so they can be challenged and engaged in dialogue” " : Using quote marks here implies that Atzmon said this. In fact, the quoted text was written by the Islington Gazette journalist.

• "These views have affected his self-identity, saying ..." - The introductory part is an editorial comment, not contained in the source. It is not a well constructed sentence since it means that "these views" are doing the "saying".

• "Marc H. Ellis likened Atzmon's rhetorical extremism and harsh censure of Jews ... ". Why are we saying in wikipedia’s voice that Atzmon uses "rhetorical extremism" and has censured Jews harshly? Did Ellis say that? If so, we should be attributing this claim to Ellis.

• "In Ellis's view, there may be, in the perceived anxiety in these repeated attacks, a reflection of the same anxiety Atzmon himself arguably embodies". What does this mean?

• "In a 2006 opinion piece, David Hirsh criticised ... ". We haven’t included Atzmon’s direct response to this and the story behind it. After Hirsh’s article was published, Atzmon asked the Guardian to publish his response in its Comment is Free section - the same section in which Hirsh’s article was published. After initially denying his request, the Guardian readers’ editor agreed. His response contains some clear statements of his views and responses to some criticisms. Some interesting points are:

His description of Hirsh as an "ultra-Zionist academic".

His view on the symbiotic relationship between Zionism and anti-semitism.

"as long as Hirsh and his kind manage to maintain that the Jesus-killer libel is alive and well, the Jewish people may be doomed forever to view favourably the idea of a Jewish national shelter".

"Unlike Nazism that belongs to the past, Zionism's wickedness is a crime which is still unfolding and worsening".

• "In 2006, arguing that, because Atzmon believed the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax from the early 20th century, was a valid reflection of contemporary America ... ". Why are we using Wikipedia’s voice to say that "Atzmon believed the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a valid reflection of contemporary America"? If this is Kamm’s interpretation of Atzmon’s belief, we should be attributing it to Kamm. Atzmon discusses this in his oped in The Guardian where he quotes himself "American Jewry makes any debate on whether the "Protocols of the elder of Zion" are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world". He explains the reason why he added the bracketed reference to Zionists and says his point is consistent with the work of "John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who have exposed the vast influence of the Israel Lobby in America".

Burrobert (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

References

In answer to a valid point, yes, we are encouraged to integrate criticisms within the text in relation to actual actions by the subject that prompted the criticisms. WP:CRIT says "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." As an alternative or addition to my previous suggestion, perhaps if we make this a section about his activism activities, incorporating the criticisms, that would resolve the issue. It would address the issue of the duplication of allegations and help address the issue of linking allegations to the precise subject of them. Jontel (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. Burrobert (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Ellis point on anxiety needs clarifying. Jontel (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

An an example of this change of emphasis, I've reordered the Andy Newman critique such that the criticised Atzmon material is clearly identified, followed by the criticism. It is, in fact, the same information, slightly expanded for clarity, but feels more enclycopaedic and is closer to the spirit of WP:CRIT. Jontel (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• The recent changes have been wholly tendentious and have used Atzmon's self-published material extensively. In diff, Jontel prefixed reliable sources by: "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively", which is absurdly pejorative. The key here is using reliable sources, Atzmon's own writings are a wholly inappropriate source.--Hippeus (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The article was tendentious; my changes make it more balanced. The subject of a BLP is an appropriate source WP:BLPSELFPUB. How is "A number of Jewish commentators responded negatively" pejorative? I don't follow you. Jontel (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Making coverage of Atzmon's engagement with Palestine solidarity campaigners event led

In the spirit of the text being led by events, as per WP:CRIT, is the following a reasonable description of Atzmon's engagement with Palestine solidarity campaigners?

In 2006, Atzmon, criticised for his views within the Palestinian solidarity movement, argued that Jews should participate only as individuals rather than as exclusively Jewish organised groups.

In 2012, a number of individuals were expelled from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign due to allegations of Holocaust denial. Atzmon regrouped with some of these around the short lived Deliberation website. Thanks, Jontel (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there a quote related to the phrase "argued that Jews should participate only as individuals rather than as exclusively Jewish organised groups"? It didn't appear in the excerpt from google books that was used as the source. Burrobert (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The link from the citation in this article to the Hirsh book on Google Books uses the purge phrase. If you search the book using "Atzmon", you get different results. What Hirsh does on the page before the one with this phrase is quote Atzmon as saying, inter alia, "I would use this opportunity and appeal to our friends amongst the Jewish socialists and other Jewish solidarity groups. I would ask them to clear the stage willingly, and re-join as ordinary human beings." Jontel (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason to change here, and it is unclear what text Jontel is attempting to change. "allegations of Holocaust denial" reads like a whitewash of the sources.--Hippeus (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason for change is to move from a potentially endless list of criticisms, with critics echoing each other, to an account of actual acts by Atzmon or significant concrete responses to them. This is in line with WP:CRIT "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." The proposed text would replaces the first paragraphs in the the scholarship section but, being dated, be placed in the time line so that one can see how events develop. Jontel (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. I didn’t see that quote when I looked through the book. Perhaps you could add it to the reference when you make the edit. Btw it has become very hard to work out what is happening on the page with the latest mass reversion by editors who haven’t previously engaged on the talk page. Burrobert (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The place of birth of Gilad Atzmon should appear.

Gilad Atzmon was born in Tel Aviv, State of Israel. It is an important information that should appear in the beginning of the article

Institute for Historical Review

Please consider the following for inclusion in this entry.

Institute for Historical Review

On 1 October 2016, Atzmon addressed a meeting of the Holocaust denial organization Institute for Historical Review. Also addressing the event were the Holocaust denier Mark Weber and the white supremacist Kevin B. MacDonald.

Atzmon returned to the Institute for Historical Review for similar event on May 6, 2017 where he again shared a podium with Mark Weber.

WhinyGramps (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC) WhinyGramps (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That is indeed extremely relevant info that belongs in this article, perhaps towards the end. Dissident socialist (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely relevant, but these are primary sources - are there secondary sources for this? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

References