Talk:Israel Shamir

Shamir and SPS

User:Avaya1, per WP:ABOUTSELF, Shamir can be used for statements about his own life. That they arent in any secondary source is reason to attribute it explicitly, but you are removing material that is explicitly allowed by policy and leaving zero information about Shamir's life in a supposed biography of Shamir. nableezy - 20:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond that, Shamir's claims have been reported in secondary sites such as The Times of Israel and Tablet. nableezy - 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

While some such use can be justified in most biographies if uncontroversial, in this case this may be controversial - particularly when we have this quote reported - "He has invented his entire personal history. Nothing he says about himself is true."[1] - please see WP:ABOUTSELF(4). Furthermore - WP:FRIND applies as well, and would preclude using material by Shamir. Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thats why we attribute it to him. The material, beyond being the only biographical detail we have at all in a supposed biography of a living person, is also quoted in secondary sources. nableezy - 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering it's not cited to any WP:RS, then surely it requires us to say that it is notable (that they are perhaps statements from a important primary source). However, where is the evidence these claims are notable? They seem to be just claims from his personal website. Moreover, searching in Hebrew, there is no mention of any of these claims (so it really seems like we are just reprinting random, self-promotional claims from the website here, without WP:RS, notability or secondary coverage, and with the knowledge that it is an unreliable source). Avaya1 (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh I just gave you two reliable sources, and notability has nothing to do with the content within articles. And, again, WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly shows the claim about RS being irrelevant here. nableezy - 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

And actually Icewhiz, I agree with removing his self-published views on other topics here (so long as you arent leaving an accusation unanswered as you are here). But for material about himself he can be included. Obviously so as both the TOI and Tablet report his claims. Rendering moot that other claim about RS. nableezy - 15:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The content is not WP:DUE unless there is some indication that it not just false, trivia claims made for self-promotion on a personal website. In this case, these paragraphs in the article were originally written by Shamir himself when he was editing here (both with an account in his name and IPs which seem to overlap with it), and originate from a website which is not a reliable or verified source. Originally Shamir was editing/writing this article himself and he was making false claims back when he was editing this article (i.e. removing the fact he was a Swedish citizen) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_Shamir&type=revision&diff=14921315&oldid=14921028 Avaya1 (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

All material here needs a source other than Shamir - if have TOI or Tablet reporting something - then use them as a source. Per WP:ABOUTSELF clause 4 and WP:FRIND - self sources can't be used in this particular bio.Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So you include Stephen Pollard in an op-ed calling a living person an anti-semite but remove his response? You think WP:BLP somehow doesnt apply to you? Im taking this to BLPN and not AE just because Id like to maintain my sunny disposition today. nableezy - 16:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed what was clearly a SPS. There is quite a bit of other content that should be examined carefully and possibly removed - the sourcing in this article is in a sad state.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

All this (his promotion of antisemitism and Holocaust denial) is described in WP:RS and widespread non Op-ed coverage - for example, in news articles in the Guardian about Wikileaks. This is also DUE as it is almost the only coverage of him in WP:RS.Avaya1 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yall are not allowed to turn this into the case against Israel Shamir. I am going to be restoring several parts of this and removing several parts of this. nableezy - 19:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SPS use here is not acceptable. We cover such subjects as they are covered by independent reliable sources - not WP:FRINGE websites.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Including attacks on a living person based on editorials and removing the response should result in a BLP ban. Claiming that you are doing so with "reliable sources" should result in something wider. nableezy - 20:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Avaya1: your edit is both unsupported by any policy (two reliable sources are cited reporting on Shamir's claims) and a violation of the 1RR. Please self-revert. nableezy - 18:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no reliable source for the claims, the source is rather mentioning his website again. The website itself was inserted into this article, which is the likely source for the article reporting itself. In other words, it is likely Wikipedia now reporting on Wikipedia (based on edits to this article made by Shamir adding them to Wikipedia himself). There is a policy against this, as it seems to be Circular reporting. There is even a template for this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Circular_reporting The question is simply whether we should include these claims. To what extent is it WP:DUE to report unverified claims from a personal website, and for which no evidence has been presented? If Shamir e.g. worked for the BBC, was a paratrooper in the Paratroopers Brigade who would be some kind of war hero in Israel, etc, we should expect there to be some evidence or source for this, for it to be DUE to reprint it in an encyclopedia. Simple circular reporting from the Wikipedia page, that Shamir originally wrote, and which was sourced to his personal website, is not sufficient for inclusion.

By analogy, this is the equivalent of if I was a fringe claimant known mainly for fabrications, writing my own Wikipedia article, which is sourced to my personal website - in which I said I dated some supermodels and was a Topgun fighter pilot - would there any reason it would be DUE for Wikipedia to reprint these claims without evidence except that I added it to the article myself, and there was circular reprinting of that with wording which makes it likely it is copied from this very article? Avaya1 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Avaya1: two different reliable sources have been provided that say Shamir says this about himself. The article reports it just as those reliable sources does. There is zero basis for the claim that Times of Israel or Tablet relied on Wikipedia in reporting that Shamir's website says this about Shamir, given the very obvious fact that Shamir's website does in fact say this about Shamir. You do not get to decide that because you dislike something that the article not include it. It has weight because reliable sources have given it weight. If you simply self-revert until tomorrow you are still edit-warring. And in doing so you would be removing multiple reliable sources. Please do not continue to try to force in your changes to this article through revert-warring, it is very expressly forbidden by policy and beyond that your argument simply does not stand up to any scrutiny. nableezy - 02:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

They do not source the claims, but rather the fact they were published on his website. Shamir used his website to then write those claims on this Wikipedia article originally. Years later, these have been reprinted with the exactly same wording as used in this article, as filler in TOI. This is simply circular reporting whose origin is from Shamir himself, and not evidence that the claims are reliable or WP:DUE (especially considering their origin). The question is whether it is DUE to include the claims here. Is there any evidence these have any notability, beyond being sentences written on his website (that he used to cite himself for this article)? Unless there is any actual source for these claims, they are clearly fringe claims with no evidence for them, which are UNDUE and originate from his own self-sourcing and self-editing of this article. Avaya1 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean they do not source the claims? They say they are getting it from his website. They report it as the claims of his website. The claims are actually on his website. None of that is in dispute. Both the ToI and Tablet see fit to include that Shamir says this about himself. We are not reporting it as anything other than what Shamir says about himself. Your argument on WP:UNDUE seemingly ignores what WP:UNDUE actually says. Here, Ill quote in the hopes this gets the point across:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

This viewpoint has been published by reliable sources (multiple ones) and as such there is WP:DUE weight from the sources to include it here. You are making up policy here. What it actually says supports the retention of the material. Please read WP:N, notability has nothing to do with the content of articles. Not. One. Thing. And again, if you continue edit-warring it out then that is another problem beyond the poor content argument. nableezy - 03:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And we have academic sources detailing the issues with the website. Please read WP:FRIND and WP:PROFRINGE - quotes from the website are not independent of Shamir, particularly when the source merely quotes and does not analyze the claim (e.g. TOI).Icewhiz (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The cites are not to his website. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and WP:DUE. The citations here are to the Times of Israel and to Tablet. Are you seriously challenging either of those as reliable sources? They consider his website relevant to provide information about Shamir. They also see the need to explicitly attribute it to Shamir's website. And while you are at it, please read WP:FRIND yourself. See where it says

The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.

Are you seriously arguing that the Times of Israel or Tabler are not independent reliable sources? Are you seriously saying that Shamir saying he was a paratrooper is not discussed in said independent reliable sources? nableezy - 05:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

They are independent reliable sources - however all they say is that Shamir's website contains these claims - so yes, that passes V, however neither TOI nor Tablet endorse these claims. Per FRIND we should prefer a discussion analyzing Shamir's claims as opposed to merely quoting them. It is unclear that Shamir's claims regarding his biography are due, and we should prefer sources analyzing the claims and/or reporting in their own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

And who said anything about ToI or Tablet "endorsing" anything? Nothing in FRIND supports your view on this, nothing says anything about a source needed to analyze what somebody says about themselves. Yall objected to citing Shamir directly, and even if that is a bit silly fine, that is no longer the case. Independent reliable sources for what our article says (that Shamir says this about himself) have been provided. Multiple ones. And also, the source that youve argued is reliable and not editorial below (Yemini) seems to accept as fact that Shamir was a paratrooper. nableezy - 14:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence Shamir was a paratrooper in Paratrooper Brigade, or was a BBC journalist. These were simply inserted by himself into this article when he was editing it, and he linked to his own website. These are fringe claims (if he was a paratrooper, it would be easy to verify in Israel - the claim is prima facie absurd, and the other paratroopers would know him, while he has more or less zero trace of any life in Israel beyond the Wikipedia article he wrote, or had written, in several languages). So the issue is whether it is DUE or not to include his personal claims, that he added to this article for self-promotion, and sourced to a personal website. Avaya1 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I dont know why you seem to be insisting on replying to an argument nobody is making. The article does not say he was a paratrooper. It does not say he worked for BBC. It does say that he says this about himself. And that is not sourced to his personal website. That is sourced to the Times of Israel and Tablet. Reliable secondary sources cover Shamir's claims about himself. That makes it DUE weight to include those claims as his claims. I have zero interest in what Shamir did or did not do to this article, right now the material is not sourced to his website, it is sourced to ToI and Tablet, and if you continue to refuse to acknowledge that what is in the article is reliably sourced to secondary sources then I dont see how we are supposed to agree on anything when we cant agree on what is indisputably factually true. nableezy - 00:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

These are problematic claims which are prima facie highly improbable, whose origin is this website and likely this Wikipedia article itself, which Shamir originally wrote. The question is whether it is DUE to include these claims. That's not resolved simply because a TOI article has almost word for word copied the original text here, which seems to be circular reporting. On Wikipedia articles project-wide, there is general consensus against including every wild claim made a person, unless there is some sense they are DUE (notable) or real. Here in particular it's a problem, as it seems Shamir edited into the article himself when he wrote it, and sourced to a website which is full of the wildest claims imaginable and fringe conspiracy theories. As for the discussion in general, if we can't resolve it, I guess we'll have to make a RFC about it later? Avaya1 (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are answering arguments nobody has made and are wholly irrelevant. The material is not sourced to Shamir's website, it is sourced to the Times of Israel and to Tablet. DUE weight is determined by whether or not sources consider the material to have weight, and you have now two reliable secondary sources cited for the material in the article. Please stop misrepresenting the situation here. Nothing being challenged here is sourced to Shamir's personal website. Tablet and the Times of Israel are the sources, and if you would like to challenge their reliability then by all means do that. Would be interesting to watch. nableezy - 16:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The material is from Shamir's personal website statements, via this article, where Shamir introduced it. It was reprinted as circular reporting with identical wording, but there is no indication that it is WP:DUE. The fact the claims are highly fringe and backed by nothing contribute to the discussion of whether it is DUE to include them, simply because they were written on his website, and then reprinted (including on here). IF there was some evidence for the claims themselves, they might be somehow notable enough to include. Avaya1 (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have said that same irrelevant nonsense repeatedly. It remains nonsense. The sources here are Times of Israel and Tablet. Not Shamir's website. DUE is shown by the citations to two reliable third party sources. Please actually read WP:DUE as it does not support what you repeatedly claim it does. Everything else you have written is entirely irrelevant. nableezy - 14:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC: should we include claims by Shamir that he was a paratrooper and worked for the BBC and Haaretz which originate from his personal website

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As an initial comment, the OP refers to an exchange of posts but does not provide a link/diff for this. Even though it was the preceding discussion, it would have been nice to make this clear. Also, to the statement: That Shamir claims to have been a paratrooper is reliably sourced to multiple secondary sources. Only two sources have been mentioned to that point and only one hyperlinked. As a participant in the discussion, it is easy to "assume" such things.

I have considered the arguements made, the evidence presented and the relevant policies, guidelines and advice. This is a case where there is little to no "life history" on the subject that is independent of the subject. Furthermore, there appears to be reason to doubt the credibility of same. Three of the sources I have been directed to by this discussion question the credibility, though one of these does so by a quote attributed to a third party. The comment by that party is not well substantiated. "Life history" from the sources (save one) is attributed to Shamir and his web page - two explicitly citing the web page as the source, while the Tablet does not delve into the subjects "life history" in detail. The final reference does not attribute the source for the "life history" given. As an aside, it would have been good form and would have facilitated discussion if a translation of the source had been provided. There appears little or no dispute as to the questionable veracity of the "life history" published on the subject's web page. The question is whether to omit such questionable "facts" or report them in the subjects own voice - while also reporting the "opinions" that these are questionable.

The material is derived (directly or indirectly) from the subject's web page. The web page "is" WP:QUESTIONABLE. There is no dispute as to this. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, such a source may be used for information about themselves but the material must be neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim ... and ... there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. This is similarly stated at WP:ABOUTSELF.

Also as an aside, I would indicate that the sources that "report" the questionable veracity of the subjects "life history" are reasonably biased against the subject and fall to WP:BIASED. As a BLP, it is therefore important to ensure the opinions of those sources are attributed and not expressed in a wiki voice - particularly as the objective basis for forming the opinion is not explicit in the articles.

Arguements made herein have cited and centred around WP:DUE (and WP:FRIND, which is a matter of WP:WEIGHT/WP:DUE). A POV is an opinion (judgement, theory or assessment of quality). The inclusion or exclusion of facts from an article can be done selectively to promote or undermine a POV (opinion etc). The material in question does not appear to promote or undermine a POV - except perhaps that it is "self promotional". However, that it is "self promotional" is not an arguement made in comments herein. I conclude that the cited policy links are not pertinent to determining the matter.

I would; however, point to WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING (reading these short sections in full). The threshold for inclusion is that content is encyclopedic and improves an article. I note the difference between verifiability and truth and that the wp policy perspective has slightly altered on this. The addition of questionable material does not "improve" an article. However, that the material "is" questionable is of relevance. However, articles are a summary of the sources written in summary style. Listing such "in detail" is not a summary.

To conclude, there is a consensus not to include the material identified in the RfC. This is reinforced by policy (per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF). More generally, limited reliance should be placed on anything contained within the subject's web page unless same is independently confirmed (ie at arms length from the subject). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Should we include claims by Shamir that he was a paratrooper and worked for the BBC and Haaretz, which originate from his personal website? Avaya1 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I argued that the claims were sourced to Shamir's own website, and were originally inserted by an editor (Charles Godwin) who likely could be Shamir himself given the account's editing history, similarity to Shamir's writing style, and shared interest/views, before an account called Israel Shamir continued to edit war to keep this content in the article.

I argued that inclusion of this content is WP:UNDUE, as there is no evidence for these claims, as well as reason to doubt they are true, and they are made by a source known for unreliability and self-promotion, according to reliable sources. For example, when Shamir was editing this article himself, he was removing the fact he was a Swedish citizen.

On the other hand, nableezy argued that inclusion of the claims is WP:DUE due to their being reprinted by Times of Israel here. Times of Israel/AP is a WP:RS, so, he argues this would fulfill the criteria for inclusion of the claims at least as claims (with the proviso "Shamir says" before them), under Wikipedia' policy's on WP:DUE. (In addition, Tablet has discussed some of these claims, although in an article which was concluding that Shamir has invented his biography.)

I counter-argued that this seems to be likely to be circular reporting from (likely) Shamir's original edits, as the wording is almost the same as the text in the version of Wikipedia at the time the article was written.

On the other hand, nableezy counter-argued that the text was likely directly from Shamir's website, and therefore wouldn't constitute circular reporting. Avaya1 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Include - That Shamir claims to have been a paratrooper is reliably sourced to multiple secondary sources. They are not presented as anything more than the claims of Shamir. The article does not present anything that is not in dispute in any way, Shamir in fact does claim such and such about himself and those claims have been noted by sources that cover him. The arguments to remove have been based on nothing resembling any Wikipedia policy. nableezy - 03:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ill also add, in addition to the Times of Israel and Tablet the Jerusalem Post as a source for Shamir claiming this. When sources discuss Shamir they include that he says this about himself and that there is no independent verification of it. That is exactly what is done here. nableezy - 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

JPOST prefaced with "Shamir has a shadowy past and present that is hard to pin down or confirm. His official biography on his website says..."Icewhiz (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Remove - this is sourced to Shamir's website and secondary sources that say Shamir's website says this. As such, this is not independent of Shamir, and fails WP:FRIND. We should stick to sources that have investigated this themselves. Shamir's personal history is very much a matter of contention and we should avoid repeating possible fringe claims.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please dont be dishonest here, it is not sourced to Shamir's website. The only sources used for this are Tablet Magazine and Times of Israel. Shamir's website is not cited and claims that it is are dishonest. Beyond that, you are fully aware that a source that you say is reliable says flat out as a fact that Shamir was in fact a paratrooper in Israel. The article doesnt even go that far, it only reports what ToI and Tablet report, and it does not use Shamir's website for those claims in any way. nableezy - 14:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack. RolandR raised serious doubts in regards to the rather dated Maariv piece. ToI is reporting on what the website says. Tablet is reporting on what Shamir says about himself prefacing it with "It is hard to pin down the truth, but Shamir said he was born.... As such ToI and Tablet are merely reporting on what Shamir said - and cast doubt on what he says. UNDUE and WP:FRIND concerns as well (as this is merely attributed reporting on what Shamir says if himself).Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Concerns you never addressed and until now you were on record saying that was a reliable source. So its only a reliable source when its used for saying negative things about Shamir? Okay ... What personal attack? Saying that the claim that this is sourced to Shamir's website is dishonest? It is dishonest, as the claims are not sourced to Shamir's website and claiming that they are is designed to distort the record for other commenters. WP:FRIND???? Have you even read that section? Here, Ill help

The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

Hello? Times of Israel and Tablet are independent reliable sources. Those are the sources here, not Shamir's website as you continue to portray. Whats it called when somebody says something that is flat out not true? Yeah, not a personal attack. nableezy - 15:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ToI and Tablet quote Shamir for this. Tablet prefaces this with "It is hard to pin down the truth, but Shamir said he was born.... Tablet is an independent reliable secondary source - however quotes of Shamir within the Tablet interview - are not independent of Shamir. Given that Tablet chose to preface those claims with "It is hard to pin down the truth should give us pause - and affect our presentation of this (if we are to present this at all - Shamir is notable for his writings - not his early life).Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, and so what they quote Shamir for this? That establishes weight. And notability, once again, has literally zero to do with the content of articles. Our article does not say anything those sources do not directly support, namely that Shamir says this about himself. Please stop making up policy, Tablet and ToI are in fact independent of Shamir and by their giving weight to Shamir's claims, as Shamir's claims, necessitates our giving weight to those claims, as claims, here. nableezy - 16:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Interviews and/or website quotes are not independent. It is quite curious that while introducing these sources to replace the website you did not introduce what is independent of Shamir in them - e.g. "It is hard to pin down the truth, but Shamir said he was born... - which prefaces the claim.Icewhiz (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Remove not reliable (obviously), and no, that they quote Shamir says this does not establish weight.--Calthinus (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says exactly the opposite. The sources consider Shamir's claims about his own life relevant to discussing him. It would be helpful if people stopped asserting policy and started quoting it. Here's a quote for you

Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked.

We discuss views that are not widely held when they are discussed in reliable sources and we clarify that they are not confirmed. That is exactly what is happening here. People making vague waves to policies that explicitly contradict their arguments would do well to read the policies they claim to understand. nableezy - 20:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, Wikipedia should not be used to promote a professional antisemite and genocide denier's farcical (if not fantastical) claims about himself, claims for which no corroborating evidence exists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include (Summoned by bot) Include ATTRIBUTED as his claim, obviously not in WP:VOICE. The entire 'backstory' is explicitly stated as being highly unreliable. The unreliability of the claims appears to be part of the story and character of the man. Why exclude these elements when everything else about the backstory is questionable? Sources have reported these questionable claims and seemingly devoted more copy to them than to any 'reliable' accounts of his backstory. Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude from lead; WP:UNDUE given the weak sourcing and coverage (secondary sources do discuss it, but don't seem to give it much credence, which means it's not a very important part of his biography.) It could possibly be mentioned in the body using secondary sources, but that's a question for WP:DUE, and it would be important to make the skepticism of the secondary sources clear rather than just trusting his self-description on his website directly. --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• On a procedural note, please Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process - there is no need to respond to each !vote here with walls of text.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

If people are going to make bald assertions about our policies or the sources that are flatly contradicted by what the policies or the sources say then that should be pointed out. You still have not retracted the claim that Shamir's personal website is a source used for this. That straightforward factually untrue claim is still being used to influence people commenting on the topic. nableezy - 21:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again - "this is sourced to Shamir's website and secondary sources that say Shamir's website says this". Our article was indeed using the website directly - and these citations have been replaced by secondary sourcing reporting on the website - attributing these bio details to Shamir, and not in their own voice. Sources preface this attribited reporting with doubt on details (e.g. JPost "Shamir has a shadowy past and present that is hard to pin down or confirm. His official biography on his website says...". Icewhiz (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

is sourced to Shamir's website remains a straightforward untruth. nableezy - 09:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

September comments

We can leave this open longer. So far it seems 5 editors including myself are against inclusion of the claims of Shamir's personal/website (or at least Aquillion says claims need adequate skepticism to be included), and 2 editors including Nabeezy are in favour of inclusion so long as it is not written in the editorial voice.Avaya1 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

problematic sources

I dont really have a problem with most of what has been removed, but some of it is a problem, but Ill keep that discussion up a section. But beyond that, there are a number of substandard sources being used here to make fairly serious charges against Shamir. Regardless of what you think about Shamir, WP:BLP still applies to this and every other biography of a living person we have. I plan on removing the following, and what is cited to it:

• Manfred Ropschitz in IndyMedia - open publishing site, not a reliable source
• Ben Dror-Yemini in Makor Rishon - opinion piece
• Mikhail Agursky in Jerusalem Post - opinion piece
• James Ball in The Guardian - comment is free section
• Andrew Brown in The Guardian - comment is free section
• Socialist Viewpoint - editorial

nableezy - 20:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ben Dror 2003 is not an opinion piece AFAICT (reads as a full length feature, includes response by Shamir), and it is in Maariv - at the time a major newspaper (a decade+ later bought by Makor Rishon - which has the archive). Ball is in the Daily Beast, not the Guardian. Brown, Guardian staff, would seem to be a WP:NEWSBLOG.Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Yemini piece is written in the first person. Sorry for mixing up the publication on that. Im not removing Ball in the Daily Beast, I am removing this Comment is Free piece. Brown is writing in the comment is free section, and WP:BLPSPS requires News Blogs that are subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. nableezy - 21:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Socialist Viewpoint piece is quite definitely not an editorial. I can tell you, with absolute authority, that it was written as a letter from a reader who disagreed with the magazine's publication of articles by Shamir (subsequently removed), and was not originally intended for publication. RolandR (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, opinion from a non-reliable source then. nableezy - 18:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Mapam spokesman

That seems like something that should be more easily documented in Hebrew. Same for any actual employment by Haaretz. Is there any actual confirmation or denial of either of those facts that anybody can find? nableezy - 03:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There's little coverage in Hebrew (though the name makes this difficult). The only source (well - aside from a 1994 piece on Shamir's website in Hebrew) I see that treats this as factual (searching in Hebrew for "Israel Shamir"+Mapam (in two spelling variants)) - Ben-Dror Yemini - that you seem to think is an op-ed (I strongly disagree) which has " יאיר צבן, לשעבר שר ויו"ר מפ"ם, זוכר שהוא היה בתפקיד זמן קצר בלבד." and "כדי לבקר את אמו, נאלץ ישראל שמיר לחצות את הקו הירוק. והוא אכן עושה זאת. מפגש מוזר. האם פעילה ב"מולדת" - הבן מפיץ תעמולה אנטישמית. "אני שייכת לתנועת 'מולדת' מיום הקמתה", אומרת אסתר שמרלר-לומובסקי. "אני מתנחלת. העניין של ישראל קשה לי. בתור אמא, אני מעדיפה לא להוסיף. הוא קיבל חינוך ציוני. הוא היה פעיל ציוני. עשה דברים גדולים. מאוד כואב לי מה שקרה לו. הייתי רוצה להבין בעצמי. אני חושבת שזו מחלה. בעצם זו מחלה נפשית. הוא נראה שפוי. הוא לא מופרע. הוא כאילו חכם. אבל משהו לא בריא". היא מדברת על סף בכי." (op-eds don't generally interview former politicians and the subject's mother (+ the subject himself at the bottom, and a bunch of other stuff) - do they?). Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think its an opinion piece because it opens with a personal anecdote. News articles dont generally talk about conversations the author had with a Palestinian friend of theirs. nableezy - 06:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not an op-ed - it looks like it is in a weekend supplement/magazine section - a multi-page feature (as opposed to dry reporting in the main section - which are are short and terse) - these sections often have first person reporting and anecdotes (and not all the piece in first person) - but are generally treated as secondary sources. While I strongly disagree with you this is an op-ed - I'm not particularly inclined to discuss this further (as I think there are sufficient sources without this). Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I note that Yemini also claims that Shamir was a candidate for the Knesset for the Moked party in 1974 (ב-74' הוא היה גם מועמד לכנסת השמינית, במקום לא ריאלי, ברשימת "מוקד", שבראשה עמד מאיר פעיל). This is quite simply untrue, as can be easily found by looking at the list of candidates published by the Israel Democracy Institute.[2] I don't know whether the error was Yemini's own, or whether he was misinformed by Shamir; but this does raise serious question marks about the reliability of the article as a source for factual statements about Shamir's activity. RolandR (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz

I realize that nobody wants to be seen as "defending" an antisemite or Holocaust denier, but we still have to follow some basic standards here. The line from Dershowitz is accurate, but the context it is used for here is SYNTH, and the op-ed is about an entirely different subject (two academics endorsing a book by Gilad Atzmon), and it doesnt really accurately portray what Shamir wrote. Theres plenty of accurate criticisms to include here, you dont need to include the edge out-of-context things to get the point across. nableezy - 22:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)