User:Viajero/Leumi

Please respond on: User_Talk:Viajero/Leumi. Thank you.

Overview

Since arriving at Wikipedia on November 28, User:Leumi has edited nearly exclusively topics related to the Israel-Palestine question, namely:

among others. See further: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Leumi&limit=1000&offset=0

I have been involved primarily in two of the above articles, The Holocaust Industry and Palestinian refugee and observe following:

Leumi is unfailing curteous, diplomatic, and responsive on discussions the Talk pages.

He relentless, obssessive and utterly intractable about inserting pro-Israel/anti-Palestine bias into articles.

Questionable edits

Here is follows a small selection of questionable edits:

From: The Holocaust Industry:

Page history overview: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Holocaust_Industry&action=history&limit=250&offset=0

http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Holocaust_Industry&diff=1886003&oldid=1885902

Leumi repeated this edit dozens of times; it was continually reverted by me and others.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Holocaust_Industry&diff=1875244&oldid=1875220

http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Holocaust_Industry&diff=1879532&oldid=1879525

http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Holocaust_Industry&diff=1879366&oldid=1879359

http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=The_Holocaust_Industry&diff=1879579&oldid=1879532

From Palestinian refugee:

Page history overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_refugee&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_refugee&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_refugee&diff=1908477&oldid=1908418

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_refugee&diff=1907676&oldid=1906957

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_refugee&diff=1874332&oldid=1874317

Further explanation

As can be seen above, In The Holocaust Industry, I others have insisted that

His book has been criticised by some other scholars as being exaggerated. Some people claim his book represents Holocaust Revisionism and anti-semitism.

be supported by documentary proof of genuine, widespread concern in the form of a neutral, mainstream news article. Leumi responds by offering http://israel.georgetown.edu/ADL-letter.pdf as "proof". This is a letter received by Georgetown University in which the ADL lambasts it for inviting Finkelstein to speak. The ADL is not mainstream media; it is a notoriously rabid pro-Israel advocacy group. Our own article on the group has this comment by Chomsky on it:

"The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on....These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement."

This letter, IMO, is therefore in no way, shape, or form suitable as a reference for this encylopedia article. Reumi insists otherwise. In an edit summary to an edit on Norman Finkelstein [[1]], he writes:

Removed non-neutral phrasing. ADL is not a pro-israel advocacy group.

As can also be seen above, in Palestinian refugee, I others have insisted on two things:

1. Removal of reference to the book Since Time Immemorial

Since Time Immemorial is a book which has been discredited by Middle East scholars for its faulty data. It is not suitable as a reference for this encylopedia article. Leumi argues otherwise. To butress my claim, I present a reference to an excerpt from a review in the respected US center-left The New York Review of Books [2]:

I am reluctant to bore the reader and myself with further examples of Mrs. Peters's highly tendentious use—or neglect—of the available source material. Much more important is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements. Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky's Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life.

Leumi insists this is but one "opinion" and no less nor more valid than any other. I say that the burden is now on him to provide more compelling proof of the veracity of the books claims. He offers an article by Danie Pipes [3]. I take a look at the site, and find an another article from a center-right Dutch newspaper, Trouw on his own site that makes it abundantly clear that he is an extremely controversial individual, anything but impartial about Israel. This article says for example:

Het Amerikaans-Arabisch Anti-Discriminatie Comité noemde hem zelfs 'de voornaamste islamofoob van de natie'.

The Arab-AmericanAnti Discrimination League says he is "the leading islamophobe in the country

Daniel Pipes is een van de oprichters van de website campus-watch.org, dat de Midden-Oostenstudies 'kritisch wil evalueren met het doel ze te verbeteren'. Notoir onderdeel van de site is de afdeling 'Keep Us Informed', waarin studenten worden uitgenodigd, eventueel anoniem, verslag te doen van colleges, lezingen, artikelen in studentenbladen of demonstraties.

It further notes that he founded the McCarthyite campus-watch.org which encourages college students to spy and (anonymously) report on campus activities and anti-Israel curricula in Middle East studies.

Het was de Washington Post die na verschillende moslimorganisaties gehoord te hebben, Pipes' benoeming door Bush een 'wrede grap' noemde.

and that even that the Washington Post found his apppointment by Bush to United States Institute of Peace, a Middle East peace thinktank, a "cruel joke".

Leumi responds:

Mr. Pipes is by all means a mainstream source. He has been nominated to a prominent position on a federal think tank by the President of the United States of America. That president recieved approximately half of the votes of the US populace (the election controversy disputes whether it was a majority but half or almost half qualifies as more than mainstream) regardless of what you and I think on his policies (which may be closer than you think, I might add), thereby qualifying him and his appointments as mainstream. Just because someone is criticized does not disqualify them from all relevant matters. With respect, I ask you to recognize that other points of view have the same right to be included as your own. Leumi 00:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Further commentary superfluous.

2. That "claimed they" be removed from the following sentence:

Many fled of their own volition; others claimed they were driven from their homes, prior to and during the war.

I insist that refugees don't leave their homes because they want a holiday; they leave because they are FORCED to go. It is not a claim, it is a fact.

Leumi responds by referring to the Deir Yassin massacre, quoting from an article which wouldn't open in my browser, "Deir Yassin a casualty of guns and propaganda", by Paul Holmes (Reuters) [4] which suggests that news of the atrocities committed was "propganda spread by Arabs so that the Arab armies would invade." Fortunately, we have a good article on the subject, Deir Yassin massacre, which contradicts such racists nonsense.

I insist that it is irevevant whether one has a gun to one's head or one flees out of fear and that physical force and psychological fear amount to the same thing. I wrote:

Did all 750,000 Palestinian refugees flee because they had a gun to their heads. No. Did they leave because they were afraid of getting killed? Yes. Ergo, they were forced to go.

Leumi replies:

However by saying they were "forced" we present that picture of a gun to the head, misleading the reader. Also the word "fled" implies leaving because of some sort of fear. Forced implies actual physical confrontation. We have to represent it in a manner not only semantically correct, but also practically so as well.Leumi 23:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At this point the article was protected by Angela.

What others say

Some comments about Leumi from other users:

From Wikipedia:Conflicts between users, now move to User Talk: Viajero/Leumi I have come to know User:Leumi in a different sense. I have found him to be a voice of reason in talk page discussion, even while he is being trolled. Perhaps the regular attacks against him (see Talk:Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair for example) have gotten the better of him at times, but he is a new user, and considering his civil tone, deserves a great deal of accommodation. The impression I have gotten is that he has made a remarkably unfortunate choice in screen names (see Irgun for info) and thus has attracted heated opposition from the other side of these contentious issues. I have suggested he might want to try other pages in order to avoid the trolls, but these subjects are where his interests (and skills) lie. In conclusion, I argue that he brings a great deal of value to the wiki, not the least of which is a responsive attitude to polite and reasonable conversation. JackLynch 20:00, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

and I am not saying he is the perfect editor yet, but I think he has loads of potential. I havn't been here long, and I learned fast, but the first week or so I had very little idea of how things worked, or how best to handle a dispute over edits dear to my heart. Anyways, I think this is a very complicated situation, and a new user with lots to add, both intellectually and socially (a bit of polite discussion goes a long way, w me) JackLynch 20:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My curiosity finally got the better of me, and I looked at a bunch of Leumi's changes. I tell you, I just don't see the big POV problem. Conversely, Chomsky is known to be one of the most partisan authors on the subject, so it makes me suspicious when someone quotes him as if he were an objective authority. I also note that Viajero is saying things to Leumi like "you don't have the foggiest idea what neutrality is", which is really pushing it ad hominem-wise. So I'm more inclined to look sharply at Viajero than at Leumi in this dispute. Stan 01:28, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

One more thought for Viajero: maybe you didn't get anywhere with Leumi because he's right and you're wrong about the POV? A good scholar should always be willing to examine his/her own position skeptically, but you seem awfully convinced that it can't be you that's mistaken. Stan 01:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I don't claim to be impartial. My point of view might best be summed up as simple indignation over what Israel is doing in Palestine, but not only for the impact on its Arab neighbors but also for the dehumanizing effect on Israeli society itself. I am neither anti-Israel nor pro-Arab (both silly concepts); I am anti-state and pro-people. As an American citizen I am embarassed the US's actions in the Middle East; they are not only harming Arab culture, they are also dehumanizing American society. The only thing I assert here and now is my dedication to editorial impartiality. I defy you to find a biased statement in anything I have written here on the Middle East, but it won't be easy because there isn't a lot; this isn't a subject for which I feel a profound affinity. That being said, when I see someone like Leumi entering weasel language, and citing discredited scholarship and highly partisan actors, an alarm bell rings, just as it would if the topic were, say, Venzuela.

Now, I'd like to know where you stand on the following: "refugees that claim they were driven" or "refugees that were driven"? -- Viajero 04:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) From Talk:Palestinian refugee:

Just to clarify, I will not work on this page any more as it is a waste of time. The first three paragraphs contain some salvagable material but the rest is rubbish. Leumi's long paragraph is just standard right-wing "bash the victims" stuff. He didn't even bother to put in the key part of the UNRWA definition despite proving above that he knows about it. Then follow two standard junk "quotations" from people who are so important that that the internet never heard of them except for endless regurgitation of these "quotations". (I bet nobody here can even prove they existed.) After that, childish apologetics that even includes citation of the notorious racist forgery "From Time Immemorial". Having it there brings shame on Wikipedia, but with people around who think it is "scholarly" what is the point of trying to do anything about it? So, Bye Bye. --Zero 06:33, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ed, you fell for it. What Leumi wrote as just a "claim" by the refugees themselves is in fact the majority opinion of specialist historians. It was even the opinion of the Israeli intelligence services of the time, as shown by Israeli archival documents. As I wrote above, with propagandists like Leumi around the prospect of making this into an accurate article is NIL, so I'm not going to try. --Zero 01:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From: Talk:The Holocaust Industry:

This page is inaccurate because of Leumi's continuing vandalism [...] My accusations are ridiculous? Do you deny that put the same 'Finkelstein has been accused of being a Holocaust Denier, Anti-Semite etc' in EVERY article related to Finkelstein. Do you deny calling Finkelstein a Holocaust Denier in the Palestinian Refugee revision history, Do you deny that you then claimed in the Norman Finkelstein talk page that ' I didn't say the accusations were true'.

Leumi, it appears that you are reverting entire edits without considering the changes. Viajero's edit looked good and the only part of it you have justified adequately is the shortening of the quote, which you could have done without a blanket reversion. Daniel Quinlan 01:05, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Do you think that means we shouldn't be allowed to add to the article? With respect, I note that the book "From Time Immemorial" By Joan Peters, which you called "a notorious racist forgery" and made edits on is probably not a book you own either. We have the same right to edit this article as you have Zero. Leumi 03:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that people who don't know anything about a subject should refrain from writing on it (thanks for your admission, by the way). As for FTI, not only do I have a copy but I spent weeks tracking down its sources and comparing them to what is in the book. That's why I can call it a racist forgery on the basis of my own research and don't have to rely on the work of others who have come to the same conclusions. --Zero 04:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I reverted Leumi's last edit. It was blatant POV. Daniel Quinlan 21:54, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Re: the controversial "Leumi's POV" bits: Named and attributed sources are always good; otherwise, it smacks of weaselry. --MIRV 21:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leumi, it would help if you could back up what you're saying with some supporting evidence. If it's just you that thinks this is the case, then we can't exactly document it in the article. In addition, your phrasing is somewhat inflamattory and not NPOV. Something like this would be more neutral phrasing, however, I'm not even sure it's true:

Some American Jewish groups have expressed concerns that Finkelstein's presentation of Holocaust reparations help feed anti-semitic sentiment.

Again, you can only say that in the article if it's true and verifiable. Daniel Quinlan 21:50, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think you anwered Viajero's question. If someone disagrees with you, it isn't a personal attack.. [anon]

I'm afraid you haven't answered it, you've avoided it. Not only that, but you've avoided my other points. Your idea of compromise is that everyone should agree with you, and if they don't it's a 'personal attack'. The Cry Wolf business is wearing a little thin. I'll repeat my arguments one by one The part of the quote: "I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results." [anon]

I'm sorry, but your attitude is totally unacceptable, and I'm very dissapointed, shocked, and appalled by your behavior. Rather than attempt to answer my questions, you have studiously avoided them (twice). You then try and say that I should compromise, when you haven't even attempted to answer my points. Please do not lecture me on compromise when you have not even entered into a debate.

From User talk:Viajero: [...]sometimes particular articles get so bloated with garbage supported by obsessive fanatics that any time spent on them is wasted. And [Leumi] is obsessive. Wouldn't be so bad if he actually knew some history. Cheers, --Zero 05:11, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leumi's own words

Leumi demonstrates courtesy and good will on the Talk pages:

From User talk:Ed Poor:

Thanks for the :). I definitely enjoy conversation much better with the positive atmosphere civil words and a good smiley can bring. I know that POV isn't "fighting words" and by no means am I ashamed of my views, but I resent the fact that people are classifying an opposing POV, which is phrased as you suggested in the form of "it is thought by some that", although some would have one believe that I make these statements as fact, as inherently "mine", implying that it is not legitimate and limited to me and my close followers, as if it was some sort of "cult" view and not respectable enough to be put in the encyclopedia. When that happens, I feel it takes on the connotations of an insult. :) I do think you for your advice and I have been phrasing my edits in the way you suggested and will continue to do so. :) Thanks again! Leumi

From Talk:Palestinian refugee:

Thankyou Angela, I appreciate your unprotecting of the page, and I would also like to apologize for the initially hostile tone of my words upon finding it protected. I had not as of yet experienced it, as I am new, and overreacted slightly. I look forward to debating on this topic and as you said, coming to a resolution instead of frequent reverts, which are quite pointless.

It is my opinion that we can come to a compromise here, perhaps by having someone write another perspective in another paragraph. For the moment, I am adding these, and will also add that this page is disputed, and propose we debate the issue here to come to a final resolution.

Well PML, first I'd like to thank you for your civil tone, as I would think this issue is very important and emotional for you, given your personal connection to refugee matters. I know that many people here, including at times myself, have let themself lose the civil attitude that helps debate when dealing with issues of personal importance to them, and I think it's really very commendable that you can speak on this while still remaining polite.

From: Talk:The Holocaust Industry:

I feel that my edits have been, on the whole, consistent with the nature of neutrality. I have left in many cases the opposing view to be written by others who sympathize with it more in order so that they may have the right to express their views, but I don't feel that my language has been un-encyclopedic or non-neutral. However, I do thank you for your advice, and welcome you to follow any edits I make and contribute to them however you wish, as I doubt any of us will get it right the first time around, without help from our fellow Wikipedians. Also, I do take slight offense at the comment "my interest at this point is keeping Leumi from making it any worse". Even if you disagree with my edits, I think it unfair to single me out in the debate on the article. Even should I look at the matter from the eyes of someone who disagrees with my writing, I would hardly think I represent the only or even the most egregious example of non-neutral and un-encyclopedic writing. Having said that, I look forward to working with you on future articles and have no problem whatsoever with you monitering my edits. Thankyou. Leumi 21:07, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have entered into debate, repeatedly, and just because you refuse to recognize the validity of my remarks does not mean that I have not addressed them. I have made absolutely every effort to compromise, be accomodating and considerate, and now I even state that I will not press the issue further and concede the point on this issue and yet you persist in being needlessly critical, rude, and all in all lacking in the least semblances of tact and respect for concept format of debate and other people's perspectives. I have been civil and reasonable in every respect and you have answered this with attacks, insults and hostility at every turn, even when I am no longer contesting the issue.Leumi 00:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Although his bias can occasionaly be obvious:

Also, I removed the "son of holocaust survivors" because, while I think that should be there, I don't think it should be there without the mention that accusations of negationism and anti-semitism have been made against him. As you said Mirv both are necessary. Either both are included or none are [...]

Highly questionable linking

Leumi added the following link to the article Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair:

Article on Finkelstein

The article linked there is, in fact, about anti-Semitism, not Finkelstein. It mentions him once, as an "acolyte" of Noam Chomsky, on the tenth page, in one paragraph, which says nothing substantial about him or his views. I have tried to interpret this action charitably and cannot do so. This is a very simple and obvious insertion of prejudicial material. --MIRV 00:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As I stated on Talk:Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair I had meant to add that link to a different article (namely anti-semitism) and I apologize for the mistake in linking it to Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair. Leumi 00:46, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Conclusions

I have spent countless hours, as have other users (both on these two articles as well as others), patiently trying to help Leumi understand what editorial neutrality on Wikipedia means. He responds in good faith on the Talk pages, yet even after matters appear to have been settled, he obstinantly continues trying to insert pro-Israel/anti-Palestine bias in our articles. I call on the Wikipedia community for a concerted strategy for dealing with Leumi, before he inflicts further damage on the enclopedia.

As I, and others, have stated before, I am not attempting by any means to insert a pro-Israel/anti-Palestine bias. I am attempting to provide information on the opposing perspective. I, and others who agree with me, too have spent many hours working on these pages and have just as much right to edit them as you do. Furthermore, your insistence that only your perspective be included is inserting a anti-Israel/pro-Palestine bias into these articles. Why can't you allow perspectives other than yours to be represented? An encyclopedia can't support one point of view, it has to describe all perspectives, or else it fails in it's mission of neutrality. Leumi 00:46, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

-- Viajero 14:57, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See also my message to Leumi on his talk page: User talk:Leumi#On the nature of Wikipedia