This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Seven Jewish Children article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Found this out on Google News: http://news.google.com/news?q=Anti-Semitism . My only issue, besides the lack of a more involved plot summary (no doubt the downloadable script is being processed right now), is the rather high placement of "[Churchill]...who is one of patrons of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign." Its notable certainly, but its more of a second-paragraph concept, rather than a second-sentence one. Its placement there seems to echo how, in news reports, her support for that organization is directly equated with antisemitism; hence it seems to be POV pushing a bit.- Ste vertigo 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the reviews and analysis section should be combined. What does everyone think? Wodge ( talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Below is the version of the Churchill's defence of play section that I have rolled back. I think it unbalances the article by removing NPOV and making things heavilly anti- the play. WHat do others think?
Writing in response to an article by Howard Jacobson which sought to place Seven Jewish Children and other criticism of Israel in the context of a rise in anti-Semitism,[27]
He later wrote:
The problem with Seven Jewish Children is that it isn't drama. Jacqueline Rose praises it for being "precised and focused in its criticisms of Israeli policy". I agree. And that's what makes it not art. Art would be imprecise and free-flowing, open to the corrections of what will not stay still, attentive to voices that unsettle certainty. The difference between art and propaganda is that the latter closes its mind to the appeals and surprises of otherness. Seven Jewish Children is imaginatively starved; no orchestration of voices vexes or otherwise complicates its depiction of a Jewish people fulfilling the logic of its own intolerant theology, boastful and separatist, deaf to reason and humanity, knee-high in blood and revelling in it. A theatrical as well as a racial crudity, which any number of critics, by no means all Jewish, have remarked on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/26/carylchurchill-antisemitism-jacqueline-rose
Against which Churchill defended herself thus:"Howard Jacobson seems to see the play from a very particular perspective so that everything is twisted. The characters are “covert and deceitful”, they are constructing a “parallel hell” to Hitler’s Europe, they are “monsters who kill babies by design”. I don’t recognise the play from that description.
Throughout the play, families try to protect children. Finally, one of the parents explodes, saying, “No, stop preventing her from knowing what’s on the TV news”. His outburst is meant, in a small way, to shock during a shocking situation. Is it worse than a picture of Israelis dancing for joy as smoke rises over Gaza? Or the text of Rabbi Shloyo Aviner’s booklet distributed to soldiers saying cruelty is sometimes a good attribute?
...
Finally, the blood libel. I find it extraordinary that, because the play talks about the killing of children in Gaza, I am accused of reviving the medieval blood libel that Jews killed Christian children and consumed their blood. The character is not “rejoicing in the murder of little children”. He sees dead children on television and feels numb and defiant in his relief that his own child is safe. He believes that what has happened is justified as self-defence. Howard Jacobson may agree. I don’t, but it doesn’t make either of them a monster, or me anti-Semitic. [28] To which Jacobson responded:
Coincidentally, or not, a 10-minute play by Caryl Churchill -- accusing Jews of the same addiction to blood-spilling -- has recently enjoyed a two-week run at the Royal Court Theatre in London and three performances at Dublin's Abbey Theatre. Seven Jewish Children declares itself to be a fundraiser for Gazans. Anyone can produce it without paying its author a fee, so long as the seats are free and there is a collection for the beleaguered population of Gaza after the performance.
Think of it as 1960s agitprop -- the buckets await you in the foyer and you make your contribution or you don't -- and it is no more than the persuaded speaking to the persuaded. But propaganda turns sinister when it pretends to be art. Offering insight into how Jews have got to this murderous pass -- the answer is the Holocaust: we do to others what others did to us -- Seven Jewish Children finishes almost before it begins in a grotesque tableau of blood-soaked triumphalism: Jews reveling in the deaths of Palestinians, laughing at dying Palestinian policemen, rejoicing in the slaughter of Palestinian babies.
Churchill has expressed surprise that anyone should accuse her of invoking the blood libel, but, even if one takes her surprise at face value, it only demonstrates how unquestioningly integral to English leftist thinking the bloodlust of the Israeli has become. Add to this Churchill's decision to have her murder-mad Israelis justify their actions in the name of "the chosen people" -- as though any Jew ever yet interpreted the burden of "chosenness" as an injunction to kill--and we are back on old and terrifying territory. And this not in the brute hinterland of English life, where swastikas are drawn the wrong way round and "Jew" is not always spelled correctly, but at the highest level of English culture.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 28 April 2009
The amount of space which some are trying to devote to this verges on WP:SPAM. The event does not merit mention in the lead of the article nor des it merit is own section. I feel that mention that the original cast are giving a repeat peformance for the event may be justifiable, but no more.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Could editors who keep reverting the lead (who have not been banned), say why they think WP:LEAD does not apply here, or why I may have misconstrued it? IronDuke 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
As described in the edit history, WP:UNDUE applies. DionysosProteus ( talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which part you object, except Patrick Healy [I don't know anything about him], all criticizing parties in the article are Jewish and at least 1 is citizen of Israel.
If you will have undue lead, you should include critical sources origin. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"Some critics of the play are Jewish, some are not." You are clearly wrong, all of the critics who alleges the play is anti-semitic and demonising Israel are Jewish, which is an extremely harsh criticism and misintpret is as coming from 3rd party non involved rewievers are utterly wrong
Board of Deputies of British Jews "In 2003, the Board, on its web site, accused the aid organisation Palestinian Relief and Development Fund (Interpal) of being a terrorist organisation. Interpal threatened to sue for libel, whereupon the Board retracted and apologized for its comments [1] [2] On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organization called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticizing particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews. [3]"
Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland "was established in 1899 to campaign for a permanent homeland for the Jewish people. The Zionist Federation is an umbrella organisation for the Zionist movement in the United Kingdom, representing more than 120 organisations, and over 50,000 affiliated members. [4] Aims: Support, co-ordinate and facilitate the work of all its affiliates nationwide, and to continue its commitment to the Zionist youth movements. Encourage the participation of Jews in Zionist activities including education, culture, Hebrew language and Israel information, underpinned by the belief that the main goal of Zionism is Aliyah."
Melanie Phillips "has called the Palestinians "a terrorist population", and argued that while "individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project". [5] She has also stated that certain examples of footage that supposedly shows people injured by Israeli attacks on Palestinian areas has been "fabricated/faked". [6] [7] She argues that many critics of the state of Israel's military policies, including many Jews, are motivated by anti-Semitism. She described the paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, as a "particularly ripe example of the 'global Zionist conspiracy' libel", and she expressed her astonishment at what she called "the fundamental misrepresentations and distortions in the paper". [8] Phillips vocally supported Operation Cast Lead. In December 2008, Phillips wrote that ongoing Hamas attacks on Israel constituted an attempt at " genocide". She further referred to the United Nations as the "Club of Terror UN" ( sic) and argued that "[t]hose who scream ‘disproportionate’ think — grotesquely — that not enough Israelis have been killed". [9]"
"As a Jew, I have absolutely no conflict of interest here, and to imply that I do is, in my opinion, a racist attitude, suggesting that I reach a decision (whether correct or incorrect) by virtue of my ethnic origin rather than by my analysis of the situation." You are wrong. I did not refer to wiki editors, yet refer to commentors in the article. Jewish-Israel and Palestinian-Arab parties are both involved per race and religion to the case. In the article, we mention both defending and criticising parties origin. We did not label every critic one by one, yet stated the anti-semitic and Israel demonising "criticism" mainly come from Jewish parties which is a fact. As I explained before, we mention all parties relevant stance.
"The repeated insertion of the (probably mistaken, but I need to check this) statement that most critics of the play are Jews." this is a fact as I proved above, anti-semitism and demonising Israel allegations only comes from Jewish parties.
"I happen to disagree with them -- but I do so because I think they are wrong, not because they are Jews." same here. Yet in any conflict, I state both parties origin which is essential. Yet if you gather 12 (+56) harsh critics from involved parties (per race and religion), you should also note their origin of political stance.
The thing is all anti-Semitic and demonising Israel labellers are Jewish in the article except Patrick Healy (who doesn't label as such anyway), while most of the actors and director and some supporters are Jewish themselves. I cannot reach same consensus. The fact is the anti-semitic labellers are not only mainly but totally Jewish leaders and writers [possibly pro-right wing]. Kasaalan ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yet you people are wrong on the issue.
"Many of Israel’s supporters are enraged by the play, which was written by Caryl Churchill in response to the Gaza war. Churchill, now 70, is one of Britain’s leading politically-engaged dramatists and is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC)... It seems that most, if not all, the actors are Jewish." Saudi Gazette Susannah Tarbush
The thing is you don't object when defending Jewish journalists' origin and their political stance against Israel or Churchill's relation with Palestine Solidarity Campaign, director's or actor's Jewish origin is noted, yet you object when I state the anti-semitist labelling parties are mainly Jewish community and journalists. [actually even more than mainly, near all since Patrick Healy only mentions 1 critical sentence about the play which is handpicked his article is not even a review of the play] By the way we can tell they are pro-Israel [right-wing] yet that pushes another discussion, first we have to prove it per RS 1 by 1, second that goes into boundaries of COATRACK and actual Yellow Badging, telling Jew is neutral yet notes possible relation of the parties' interest to the case. That is the part I can't understand. If the play is actually anti-semitic as argued [I have fully read the text by the way] how come all anti-semitist labelling critics are Jewish, while director and most of the players are Jewish themselves. If all praising parties would be Arab we should have noted that too, or the article would be misleading. Kasaalan ( talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of your arguments are clearly wrong.
First John Nathan is Jewish.
Second why we don't include his praising review on artistic side about Churchill, "As you’d expect from the Royal Court’s most revered living playwright, Seven Jewish Children — which Churchill wrote as a rushed response to Israel’s attack on Gaza — is an impressively distilled piece of writing. Its powerful premise is built upon the parental instinct to protect children from frightening realities. ... In dramatic terms, there is no doubting the power of Churchill’s message." and only quote "For the first time in my career as a critic, I am moved to say about a work at a major production house that this is an antisemitic play." removing "successful" from the lead. (she is apparently one of the most notable writers) [The Jewish Chronicle] Review That is where it becomes UNDUE I already proved all 12(+56) anti-semitist labelling critics are Jewish, you add John Nathan yet he is Jewish too, Of course there are Jewish critics that defends the play or non-Jewish critics, we already mentioned that and I even added their stance against Israel for NPOV even expanded criticism for anti-semitism claims, yet only Jewish parties in the article use the term "anti-semitic" and if we don't mention that the text would be misleading. There is nothing wrong to be Jewish, Arab, Christian or Muslim. Yet when a conflicting case is at present, the parties' interest of the area should be clearly noted, especially where extreme criticism and allegations occur. I can't add Edward Said's critics against Israel without mentioning his Palestinian origin, it would be misleading. Not sure why you insist on removing the anti-semitism allegations came from Jewish parties.
"Excerpt from: Living Carelessly in Tokyo and Elsewhere by John Nathan My roots are in New York's Lower East Side. My father's father, Nathan Stupniker, was a reporter at The JewishDaily Forward and a member of the Socialist coterie led by Forward editor Abraham Cahan that convened on Yom Kippur Eve to feed on pork in defiance of Adonai. You'll have to look around to find someone less likely to resonate with Japan's grim earnestness than a disaffected Jew. ... When I was eleven, the first year of our rude transplanting from the Jewish comfort of New York to Tucson, I felt invisible to my schoolmates except as a butt of ridicule for being a know-it-all, and decided a pet monkey was what I needed to distinguish myself. I begged my parents to buy me one, but they declined to indulge me. Japanese was my pet monkey. [1]"
"This is a series of chronological autobiographical vignettes by a distinguished translator of Japanese works and multi-purpose film maker. It's the story of how a 6'4" Jewish boy from New York City/Tuscon went to Harvard, became enthralled with the Japanese language, went to Japan, went native and returned to the US, often relying on his youthful Japanese immersion for employment and career." [2]
“Sometimes, by default, one feels very Jewish. Yet when I’m in a very Jewish situation, I feel decidedly un-Jewish.” Mike Leigh quoted by John Nathan in his review of Mike Leigh on Mike Leigh, edited by Amy Raphael http://www.thejc.com/articles/the-literary-year-our-own-words
Richard Stirling is not Jewish. http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.php?pg=207&story=E8831241787855 Extremely Harsh critic of seven other children by Gilad Atzmon, another Israeli born British, jazz musician, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086043.html Yet where did he called the play anti-Semitic. He advocates staging his play where seven jewish children played. I didn't read his script yet.
Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation.
So again praising and especially critisizing most parties are Jewish. Yet only Jewish parties in the article called the play "anti-semitic".
Second why we mention Churhcill is a Patron of Palestine Solidarity. And wouldn't we mention if she was Arab, Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish into the text. Why we mention origin of the Jewish actors or director, or defending Jewish parties. Because it is a conflicting case and we should mention the facts. So why can't we mention origin of the extreme critics. For not being racist, cool, yet I am not racist, you are not racist. Howcome telling a person's origin in a conflicting case is being racist when we keeping UNDUE criticism in the text. Kasaalan ( talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
While I don't support the labellings of critics who oppose the play as invariably Jewish, it does seem to merit mention that the the original director and cast for this allegedly anti-semitic play were themselves Jewish. This is sourced by the Nation article, and I have added that reference. Regarding labelling others involved, Churchill is clearly labelled up front as a "co-patron" of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. Saying that and not noting that the director and cast were Jewish (which is not to say "Zionist" or anything else like that) seems deliberately misleading. Iosefina ( talk) 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
POV parties like Melanie Philips even call Jews as anti-semitic, and while we cannot at least note their origin of conflict because it will be "racist", the readers have to click every link to learn that, is that what you propose. Kasaalan ( talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Melanie Phillips "has called the Palestinians "a terrorist population", and argued that while "individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project". [5] ... She argues that many critics of the state of Israel's military policies, including many Jews, are motivated by anti-Semitism.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
I was asked to comment here, though it's difficult at first glance to see from the above what the dispute's about. Peter Cohen has described it on my talk page as:
One editor User:Kasaalan wants to highlight in the lead that the accusations of anti-Semitism against the play all came from Jews. Three other editors, User:Iron Duke, User:RolandR and myself think that this is sailing rather close to the edge of anti-Semitism in itself. The three objectors are all Jewish but we have rather different political views including on the Israel-Palestine dispute and the play itself. There are additional issues such as Kasaalan's not having produced an RS that makes this point. For that reason I believe that a summary saying that all accusations of anti-Semitism against 7JC come from Jews would be a violation of WP:OR and in particular WP:SYN. [6]
It would be hard to know that all critics were Jews without an RS that explicitly says this, and I can't see that it really matters. The point is that some prominent people have said it crosses the line, and some other prominent people have said it doesn't. I've rewritten the lead a little to give an example from either side (British Board of Deputies versus the authors of The Nation article). I think that's enough to illustrate the basis of the debate. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The English prose style in the lead section was pretty awful. I cleaned it up a bit but it would help for this section to get some more attention from someone who likes doing this kind of thing. -- Richard ( talk) 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
IronDuke keeps removing edits by Iosefina, with the comment that this is a "banned user". However, there is nothing in Iosefina's user page, talk page or contributions record to indicate that this is the case. While I do not necessarily agree with the edits, I have restored them as I see no legitimate reason to remove them. I am loth to describe this as vandalism, but without some evidence for Iron Duke's claim it is difficult to understand his actions. RolandR 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Looks like IronDuke was correct in his surmise - Iosefina is a confirmed sock. No more of her posts will be appearing here. Beganlocal ( talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be well-written, or no one will want to read it, and if they do, they won't trust what it says.
Please look at the state of it on August 13. The lead is incoherent: grammar all over the place, at least one sentence that trails off halfway through, arguments that are "denied." The article itself consisted almost entirely of John Smith in the Times said, "It was awful," and Joe Blow in the Herald said, "No, it was worse than awful," while Jane Doe in the Post said, "It wasn't awful at all!" under headers consisting of ==Awful== ==Worse than awful== and ==Denials that it's awful==.
This is no way to write an article. Then when someone starts trying to fix it, you revert. Please allow it to be improved. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I see Kasaalan has reverted again. It's not going to be possible to clean this article up if people keep reverting, or restoring lists of quotes. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Speaking to me some months ago, Ramin Gray, the Associate Director at the Royal Court said that it was important for the arts not to be provocative for the sake of it, nor commit an act of self-censorship. But what if a play came to the theatre which in some ways was very critical of Islam, or depicted Mohammed? Would it be put on? It's a debate which he said the theatre was actively having. 'You would think twice, if you were honest,' he said. 'You'd have to take the play on its individual merits, but given the time we're in, it's very hard, because you'd worry that if you cause offence then the whole enterprise would become buried in a sea of controversy. It does make you tread carefully. It would seem that that is what the theatre has decided to do this time. [10]
Kasaalan, why did you take out the word "ostensible" from the lead? IronDuke 02:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Does John Nathan from The Jewish Chronicle is John Nathan or not. Do you have any confirmation on 2 cultural critic John Nathan coexist. Since according to his biography, John Nathan is a cultural critic [11], while John Nathan from The Jewish Chronicle is also a cultural [theatre] critic himself. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bredirectingat\.com\b
on the global blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Seven Jewish Children article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Found this out on Google News: http://news.google.com/news?q=Anti-Semitism . My only issue, besides the lack of a more involved plot summary (no doubt the downloadable script is being processed right now), is the rather high placement of "[Churchill]...who is one of patrons of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign." Its notable certainly, but its more of a second-paragraph concept, rather than a second-sentence one. Its placement there seems to echo how, in news reports, her support for that organization is directly equated with antisemitism; hence it seems to be POV pushing a bit.- Ste vertigo 16:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the reviews and analysis section should be combined. What does everyone think? Wodge ( talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Below is the version of the Churchill's defence of play section that I have rolled back. I think it unbalances the article by removing NPOV and making things heavilly anti- the play. WHat do others think?
Writing in response to an article by Howard Jacobson which sought to place Seven Jewish Children and other criticism of Israel in the context of a rise in anti-Semitism,[27]
He later wrote:
The problem with Seven Jewish Children is that it isn't drama. Jacqueline Rose praises it for being "precised and focused in its criticisms of Israeli policy". I agree. And that's what makes it not art. Art would be imprecise and free-flowing, open to the corrections of what will not stay still, attentive to voices that unsettle certainty. The difference between art and propaganda is that the latter closes its mind to the appeals and surprises of otherness. Seven Jewish Children is imaginatively starved; no orchestration of voices vexes or otherwise complicates its depiction of a Jewish people fulfilling the logic of its own intolerant theology, boastful and separatist, deaf to reason and humanity, knee-high in blood and revelling in it. A theatrical as well as a racial crudity, which any number of critics, by no means all Jewish, have remarked on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/26/carylchurchill-antisemitism-jacqueline-rose
Against which Churchill defended herself thus:"Howard Jacobson seems to see the play from a very particular perspective so that everything is twisted. The characters are “covert and deceitful”, they are constructing a “parallel hell” to Hitler’s Europe, they are “monsters who kill babies by design”. I don’t recognise the play from that description.
Throughout the play, families try to protect children. Finally, one of the parents explodes, saying, “No, stop preventing her from knowing what’s on the TV news”. His outburst is meant, in a small way, to shock during a shocking situation. Is it worse than a picture of Israelis dancing for joy as smoke rises over Gaza? Or the text of Rabbi Shloyo Aviner’s booklet distributed to soldiers saying cruelty is sometimes a good attribute?
...
Finally, the blood libel. I find it extraordinary that, because the play talks about the killing of children in Gaza, I am accused of reviving the medieval blood libel that Jews killed Christian children and consumed their blood. The character is not “rejoicing in the murder of little children”. He sees dead children on television and feels numb and defiant in his relief that his own child is safe. He believes that what has happened is justified as self-defence. Howard Jacobson may agree. I don’t, but it doesn’t make either of them a monster, or me anti-Semitic. [28] To which Jacobson responded:
Coincidentally, or not, a 10-minute play by Caryl Churchill -- accusing Jews of the same addiction to blood-spilling -- has recently enjoyed a two-week run at the Royal Court Theatre in London and three performances at Dublin's Abbey Theatre. Seven Jewish Children declares itself to be a fundraiser for Gazans. Anyone can produce it without paying its author a fee, so long as the seats are free and there is a collection for the beleaguered population of Gaza after the performance.
Think of it as 1960s agitprop -- the buckets await you in the foyer and you make your contribution or you don't -- and it is no more than the persuaded speaking to the persuaded. But propaganda turns sinister when it pretends to be art. Offering insight into how Jews have got to this murderous pass -- the answer is the Holocaust: we do to others what others did to us -- Seven Jewish Children finishes almost before it begins in a grotesque tableau of blood-soaked triumphalism: Jews reveling in the deaths of Palestinians, laughing at dying Palestinian policemen, rejoicing in the slaughter of Palestinian babies.
Churchill has expressed surprise that anyone should accuse her of invoking the blood libel, but, even if one takes her surprise at face value, it only demonstrates how unquestioningly integral to English leftist thinking the bloodlust of the Israeli has become. Add to this Churchill's decision to have her murder-mad Israelis justify their actions in the name of "the chosen people" -- as though any Jew ever yet interpreted the burden of "chosenness" as an injunction to kill--and we are back on old and terrifying territory. And this not in the brute hinterland of English life, where swastikas are drawn the wrong way round and "Jew" is not always spelled correctly, but at the highest level of English culture.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 28 April 2009
The amount of space which some are trying to devote to this verges on WP:SPAM. The event does not merit mention in the lead of the article nor des it merit is own section. I feel that mention that the original cast are giving a repeat peformance for the event may be justifiable, but no more.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Could editors who keep reverting the lead (who have not been banned), say why they think WP:LEAD does not apply here, or why I may have misconstrued it? IronDuke 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
As described in the edit history, WP:UNDUE applies. DionysosProteus ( talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure which part you object, except Patrick Healy [I don't know anything about him], all criticizing parties in the article are Jewish and at least 1 is citizen of Israel.
If you will have undue lead, you should include critical sources origin. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"Some critics of the play are Jewish, some are not." You are clearly wrong, all of the critics who alleges the play is anti-semitic and demonising Israel are Jewish, which is an extremely harsh criticism and misintpret is as coming from 3rd party non involved rewievers are utterly wrong
Board of Deputies of British Jews "In 2003, the Board, on its web site, accused the aid organisation Palestinian Relief and Development Fund (Interpal) of being a terrorist organisation. Interpal threatened to sue for libel, whereupon the Board retracted and apologized for its comments [1] [2] On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organization called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticizing particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews. [3]"
Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland "was established in 1899 to campaign for a permanent homeland for the Jewish people. The Zionist Federation is an umbrella organisation for the Zionist movement in the United Kingdom, representing more than 120 organisations, and over 50,000 affiliated members. [4] Aims: Support, co-ordinate and facilitate the work of all its affiliates nationwide, and to continue its commitment to the Zionist youth movements. Encourage the participation of Jews in Zionist activities including education, culture, Hebrew language and Israel information, underpinned by the belief that the main goal of Zionism is Aliyah."
Melanie Phillips "has called the Palestinians "a terrorist population", and argued that while "individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project". [5] She has also stated that certain examples of footage that supposedly shows people injured by Israeli attacks on Palestinian areas has been "fabricated/faked". [6] [7] She argues that many critics of the state of Israel's military policies, including many Jews, are motivated by anti-Semitism. She described the paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, as a "particularly ripe example of the 'global Zionist conspiracy' libel", and she expressed her astonishment at what she called "the fundamental misrepresentations and distortions in the paper". [8] Phillips vocally supported Operation Cast Lead. In December 2008, Phillips wrote that ongoing Hamas attacks on Israel constituted an attempt at " genocide". She further referred to the United Nations as the "Club of Terror UN" ( sic) and argued that "[t]hose who scream ‘disproportionate’ think — grotesquely — that not enough Israelis have been killed". [9]"
"As a Jew, I have absolutely no conflict of interest here, and to imply that I do is, in my opinion, a racist attitude, suggesting that I reach a decision (whether correct or incorrect) by virtue of my ethnic origin rather than by my analysis of the situation." You are wrong. I did not refer to wiki editors, yet refer to commentors in the article. Jewish-Israel and Palestinian-Arab parties are both involved per race and religion to the case. In the article, we mention both defending and criticising parties origin. We did not label every critic one by one, yet stated the anti-semitic and Israel demonising "criticism" mainly come from Jewish parties which is a fact. As I explained before, we mention all parties relevant stance.
"The repeated insertion of the (probably mistaken, but I need to check this) statement that most critics of the play are Jews." this is a fact as I proved above, anti-semitism and demonising Israel allegations only comes from Jewish parties.
"I happen to disagree with them -- but I do so because I think they are wrong, not because they are Jews." same here. Yet in any conflict, I state both parties origin which is essential. Yet if you gather 12 (+56) harsh critics from involved parties (per race and religion), you should also note their origin of political stance.
The thing is all anti-Semitic and demonising Israel labellers are Jewish in the article except Patrick Healy (who doesn't label as such anyway), while most of the actors and director and some supporters are Jewish themselves. I cannot reach same consensus. The fact is the anti-semitic labellers are not only mainly but totally Jewish leaders and writers [possibly pro-right wing]. Kasaalan ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yet you people are wrong on the issue.
"Many of Israel’s supporters are enraged by the play, which was written by Caryl Churchill in response to the Gaza war. Churchill, now 70, is one of Britain’s leading politically-engaged dramatists and is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC)... It seems that most, if not all, the actors are Jewish." Saudi Gazette Susannah Tarbush
The thing is you don't object when defending Jewish journalists' origin and their political stance against Israel or Churchill's relation with Palestine Solidarity Campaign, director's or actor's Jewish origin is noted, yet you object when I state the anti-semitist labelling parties are mainly Jewish community and journalists. [actually even more than mainly, near all since Patrick Healy only mentions 1 critical sentence about the play which is handpicked his article is not even a review of the play] By the way we can tell they are pro-Israel [right-wing] yet that pushes another discussion, first we have to prove it per RS 1 by 1, second that goes into boundaries of COATRACK and actual Yellow Badging, telling Jew is neutral yet notes possible relation of the parties' interest to the case. That is the part I can't understand. If the play is actually anti-semitic as argued [I have fully read the text by the way] how come all anti-semitist labelling critics are Jewish, while director and most of the players are Jewish themselves. If all praising parties would be Arab we should have noted that too, or the article would be misleading. Kasaalan ( talk) 06:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of your arguments are clearly wrong.
First John Nathan is Jewish.
Second why we don't include his praising review on artistic side about Churchill, "As you’d expect from the Royal Court’s most revered living playwright, Seven Jewish Children — which Churchill wrote as a rushed response to Israel’s attack on Gaza — is an impressively distilled piece of writing. Its powerful premise is built upon the parental instinct to protect children from frightening realities. ... In dramatic terms, there is no doubting the power of Churchill’s message." and only quote "For the first time in my career as a critic, I am moved to say about a work at a major production house that this is an antisemitic play." removing "successful" from the lead. (she is apparently one of the most notable writers) [The Jewish Chronicle] Review That is where it becomes UNDUE I already proved all 12(+56) anti-semitist labelling critics are Jewish, you add John Nathan yet he is Jewish too, Of course there are Jewish critics that defends the play or non-Jewish critics, we already mentioned that and I even added their stance against Israel for NPOV even expanded criticism for anti-semitism claims, yet only Jewish parties in the article use the term "anti-semitic" and if we don't mention that the text would be misleading. There is nothing wrong to be Jewish, Arab, Christian or Muslim. Yet when a conflicting case is at present, the parties' interest of the area should be clearly noted, especially where extreme criticism and allegations occur. I can't add Edward Said's critics against Israel without mentioning his Palestinian origin, it would be misleading. Not sure why you insist on removing the anti-semitism allegations came from Jewish parties.
"Excerpt from: Living Carelessly in Tokyo and Elsewhere by John Nathan My roots are in New York's Lower East Side. My father's father, Nathan Stupniker, was a reporter at The JewishDaily Forward and a member of the Socialist coterie led by Forward editor Abraham Cahan that convened on Yom Kippur Eve to feed on pork in defiance of Adonai. You'll have to look around to find someone less likely to resonate with Japan's grim earnestness than a disaffected Jew. ... When I was eleven, the first year of our rude transplanting from the Jewish comfort of New York to Tucson, I felt invisible to my schoolmates except as a butt of ridicule for being a know-it-all, and decided a pet monkey was what I needed to distinguish myself. I begged my parents to buy me one, but they declined to indulge me. Japanese was my pet monkey. [1]"
"This is a series of chronological autobiographical vignettes by a distinguished translator of Japanese works and multi-purpose film maker. It's the story of how a 6'4" Jewish boy from New York City/Tuscon went to Harvard, became enthralled with the Japanese language, went to Japan, went native and returned to the US, often relying on his youthful Japanese immersion for employment and career." [2]
“Sometimes, by default, one feels very Jewish. Yet when I’m in a very Jewish situation, I feel decidedly un-Jewish.” Mike Leigh quoted by John Nathan in his review of Mike Leigh on Mike Leigh, edited by Amy Raphael http://www.thejc.com/articles/the-literary-year-our-own-words
Richard Stirling is not Jewish. http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.php?pg=207&story=E8831241787855 Extremely Harsh critic of seven other children by Gilad Atzmon, another Israeli born British, jazz musician, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1086043.html Yet where did he called the play anti-Semitic. He advocates staging his play where seven jewish children played. I didn't read his script yet.
Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation.
So again praising and especially critisizing most parties are Jewish. Yet only Jewish parties in the article called the play "anti-semitic".
Second why we mention Churhcill is a Patron of Palestine Solidarity. And wouldn't we mention if she was Arab, Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish into the text. Why we mention origin of the Jewish actors or director, or defending Jewish parties. Because it is a conflicting case and we should mention the facts. So why can't we mention origin of the extreme critics. For not being racist, cool, yet I am not racist, you are not racist. Howcome telling a person's origin in a conflicting case is being racist when we keeping UNDUE criticism in the text. Kasaalan ( talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
While I don't support the labellings of critics who oppose the play as invariably Jewish, it does seem to merit mention that the the original director and cast for this allegedly anti-semitic play were themselves Jewish. This is sourced by the Nation article, and I have added that reference. Regarding labelling others involved, Churchill is clearly labelled up front as a "co-patron" of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. Saying that and not noting that the director and cast were Jewish (which is not to say "Zionist" or anything else like that) seems deliberately misleading. Iosefina ( talk) 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
POV parties like Melanie Philips even call Jews as anti-semitic, and while we cannot at least note their origin of conflict because it will be "racist", the readers have to click every link to learn that, is that what you propose. Kasaalan ( talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Melanie Phillips "has called the Palestinians "a terrorist population", and argued that while "individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project". [5] ... She argues that many critics of the state of Israel's military policies, including many Jews, are motivated by anti-Semitism.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
I was asked to comment here, though it's difficult at first glance to see from the above what the dispute's about. Peter Cohen has described it on my talk page as:
One editor User:Kasaalan wants to highlight in the lead that the accusations of anti-Semitism against the play all came from Jews. Three other editors, User:Iron Duke, User:RolandR and myself think that this is sailing rather close to the edge of anti-Semitism in itself. The three objectors are all Jewish but we have rather different political views including on the Israel-Palestine dispute and the play itself. There are additional issues such as Kasaalan's not having produced an RS that makes this point. For that reason I believe that a summary saying that all accusations of anti-Semitism against 7JC come from Jews would be a violation of WP:OR and in particular WP:SYN. [6]
It would be hard to know that all critics were Jews without an RS that explicitly says this, and I can't see that it really matters. The point is that some prominent people have said it crosses the line, and some other prominent people have said it doesn't. I've rewritten the lead a little to give an example from either side (British Board of Deputies versus the authors of The Nation article). I think that's enough to illustrate the basis of the debate. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The English prose style in the lead section was pretty awful. I cleaned it up a bit but it would help for this section to get some more attention from someone who likes doing this kind of thing. -- Richard ( talk) 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
IronDuke keeps removing edits by Iosefina, with the comment that this is a "banned user". However, there is nothing in Iosefina's user page, talk page or contributions record to indicate that this is the case. While I do not necessarily agree with the edits, I have restored them as I see no legitimate reason to remove them. I am loth to describe this as vandalism, but without some evidence for Iron Duke's claim it is difficult to understand his actions. RolandR 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Looks like IronDuke was correct in his surmise - Iosefina is a confirmed sock. No more of her posts will be appearing here. Beganlocal ( talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This article needs to be well-written, or no one will want to read it, and if they do, they won't trust what it says.
Please look at the state of it on August 13. The lead is incoherent: grammar all over the place, at least one sentence that trails off halfway through, arguments that are "denied." The article itself consisted almost entirely of John Smith in the Times said, "It was awful," and Joe Blow in the Herald said, "No, it was worse than awful," while Jane Doe in the Post said, "It wasn't awful at all!" under headers consisting of ==Awful== ==Worse than awful== and ==Denials that it's awful==.
This is no way to write an article. Then when someone starts trying to fix it, you revert. Please allow it to be improved. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I see Kasaalan has reverted again. It's not going to be possible to clean this article up if people keep reverting, or restoring lists of quotes. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Speaking to me some months ago, Ramin Gray, the Associate Director at the Royal Court said that it was important for the arts not to be provocative for the sake of it, nor commit an act of self-censorship. But what if a play came to the theatre which in some ways was very critical of Islam, or depicted Mohammed? Would it be put on? It's a debate which he said the theatre was actively having. 'You would think twice, if you were honest,' he said. 'You'd have to take the play on its individual merits, but given the time we're in, it's very hard, because you'd worry that if you cause offence then the whole enterprise would become buried in a sea of controversy. It does make you tread carefully. It would seem that that is what the theatre has decided to do this time. [10]
Kasaalan, why did you take out the word "ostensible" from the lead? IronDuke 02:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Does John Nathan from The Jewish Chronicle is John Nathan or not. Do you have any confirmation on 2 cultural critic John Nathan coexist. Since according to his biography, John Nathan is a cultural critic [11], while John Nathan from The Jewish Chronicle is also a cultural [theatre] critic himself. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bredirectingat\.com\b
on the global blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)