This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | 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.
|
"After a tweet was published" vs. "she published a tweet". Saying that "she published a tweet" implies intentionality, and it is an interpretation of the facts. The fact is that she did NOT publish it intentionally nor willingly. The tweet was published automatically through an automatic mechanism that links Berlin's facebook account to the Free Gaza Movement twitter account. Her intention was to post the video in a private group in the context of an ongoing discussion, but she made a mistake using the share feature of Facebook, with the consequence that the video was automatically published via the Free Gaza Movement Twitter account. There was no intentionality here, therefore it would be more objective to say that the tweet was published. Engelo ( talk) 09:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Removing the sentence: "the group discussion for which she’d intended the video never took place, so there’s no discussion to publish." - this sentence is taken out of context, it is NOT a quote of Berlin but a quote of what Derfner understood that Berlin was telling him, and contrary to the text in this section right now, is *not* related to Abunimah's allegations, which, according to the members of the group, are unwarranted by the evidence he brought to bear in his piece. Engelo ( talk) 12:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
There's still an issue with the following sentence: "In response to claims from those with access to the Facebook page that no such discussion was actually taking place,[23] Berlin stated in an interview that she could not publish a copy of the discussion.[24]". The point is, that those who claimed to have access to the facebook page, were not on the right page. They THOUGHT they had access to the page, but in fact looked at a different, semi-public page. The group Berlin was referring to is different, it is a closed and secret group. In addition, she was not responding to *that* allegation, she was merely responding to the demand asking her to show the relevant context, the discussion that the video was supposed to inform. She said that, since the video never made it to that group (it landed on her wall by mistake), the discussion emanating from the video never took place. That was what she was referring to Engelo ( talk) 15:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments by her step daughter saying she used antisemitic slurs has been removed. There is a lack of what would commonly be considered RS but Daniel Pipes (the guy who broke the story) is not a nobody. There seems to be a decent buzz around the net that includes academics. So although I am sure the sources would be acceptable if they were praising her, I doubt editors will accept it here (more since it is the Israel-Palestine topic area and not because it is a BLP even though BLP is the better reason). So if anyone finds anything that is a little bit closer to par please bring it up.07:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono ( talk • contribs)
First, let's not used self-published blogs, unless it's things she's actually written herself, but even then you have to be careful. I have a feeling there's probably more from WP:RS sources that can be used on her life and activism in general as well. Some of other refs also questionable, but left for now... CarolMooreDC 18:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If you're referring to the use of +972, I thoroughly agree that it is, in general a lousy source. But the source here is not the blogger at +972, but Greta Berlin herself, who was interviewed by the +972 blogger. Seems to me a pretty clear-cut case that it is "things she's actually [said] herself." If you look at the rest of the page, you will see that there are a number of places where Greta Berlin is the source, being interviewed by some pretty otherwise unreliable outfits. This is a breaking controversy, and by now it's moving in to more reliable news outfits. Much of it is covered here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/07/the-tortuous-history-of-the-greta-berlin-tweet-controversy.html if you want to take a crack at rewriting. At any rate, your edit was substantive, eliminating both her later inconsistent apology that she had forwarded the video due to its content because "it seemed like the kind of propaganda that our group was discussing" and the later controversy concerning the question of whether there had been any such discussion of propaganda. PS. Probably better in the future to take this first to talk page before making substantive deletions on claimed WP:BLP grounds. Also, a different tone would be appreciated; you'll excuse me if I took you to be a wee bit patronizing. Knowitall369 ( talk) 03:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This is certainly not much ado about nothing. Walter Russell Mead has asked Desmond Tutu (!) to withdraw support from Free Gaza and apologize as a result of the scandal. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/10/04/archbishop-tutu-please-apologize-to-the-jews/. I am glad, however, to see your actual agenda emerge, rather than hiding behind claims of sources. Your empathy for Berlin as a fellow sexagenarian is understandable, but really has no place in the entry. I appreciate as well that you believe Berlin's explanation, but it is a fact that others do not, and the entry cannot be restricted to your POV. The controversy consists of the accusations as well as Berlin's defenses of herself. I can't help but notice as well the agenda behind the editing and concern for sources. After the latest edits, the entry does not have the content of the the Derfner controversy but still has the response to the Derfner controversy (attributed to Qumsiyeh and others). Notably, the Qumsiyeh et al statments are not sourced, and the reason is that they come FROM THE SAME DERFNER ARTICLE that is supposed not to be a good source. I am sourcing the Qumsiyeh et al statements to that article, and will ask for a little consistency going forward on sourcing -- if it's not good for the goose, it's not good for the gander. Finally, the one-sided editing here is making the entry incomprehensible. It is impossible to understand Qumsiyeh et al's response, without knowing to what it was responding. It is bizarre that at the moment, the paragraph about a controversy consists almost entirely of one side -- Berlin's claims in response to criticisms that are no longer mentioned in the entry. I am restoring the controversy to which Qumsiyeh is responding, and will ask people to remember NPOV as they go forward. Knowitall369 ( talk) 10:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Greta_Berlin:_Gossip_and_Feedback_Loops_from_poor_WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think User:Nomoskedasticity did a good job getting rid of some of the worst problems. Here are the two big BLP/RS ones I see remaining:
Is there a consensus for the removal of their position on Berlin [1]? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The Foward mentions the organization withdrew their sponsorship of Berlin's book tour here (also on JTA here). It also has some other information regarding people cancelling her events as a result of the video that could be included. Althougn not dealing with JVP, The Jerusalem Post here has some responses by various organizations or people and resignments from the organization. -- Jethro B 00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, User:Soosim, at per this diff] putting back Ms. Wolf's attacks on Ms. Berlin, your edit summary partial revert since it is rs for this specific item only. You have it backwards, actually. Doing a quick of Wikipedia I see Mondoweiss HAS been used to say nastier things against individual Zionists than that. Which kills your theory about "rs for this specific item only."
However, those uses were Weiss or other journalists being that critical, not an activist writing an emotional personal "expose" which might be less than accurate and have some other agenda than doing journalism. That sort of thing would be considered an opinion piece at best even if it was in the Guardian and not something that can be used in WP:BLP.
So I'll delete it again per WP:BLP and if you can get NPOV editors at WP:RS or WP:BLP to say that that particular article on Mondoweiss is WP:RS we can keep it in. (FYI, The only real discussion on WP:RSN of Mondoweiss is if he could be used to say nice things about someone, and User:Biosketch didn't think so.) CarolMooreDC 05:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I have tagged this article and added a connected contributor tag, as it appears that Tecspk@aol.com has a relationship with the subject of this article. See here and here and most recently here. Jytdog ( talk) 02:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Theater of the Absurd corrected its original article and added an editor's note correcting the earlier assertion of the article that stated that Berlin claimed that Charlie Hebdo was a false flag… In fact, Berlin just re-posted the comment from an acquaintance. Reposting does not necessarily mean that Berlin endorses or believes this to be the case, so I think it is irrelevant here. Engelo ( talk) 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | 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.
|
"After a tweet was published" vs. "she published a tweet". Saying that "she published a tweet" implies intentionality, and it is an interpretation of the facts. The fact is that she did NOT publish it intentionally nor willingly. The tweet was published automatically through an automatic mechanism that links Berlin's facebook account to the Free Gaza Movement twitter account. Her intention was to post the video in a private group in the context of an ongoing discussion, but she made a mistake using the share feature of Facebook, with the consequence that the video was automatically published via the Free Gaza Movement Twitter account. There was no intentionality here, therefore it would be more objective to say that the tweet was published. Engelo ( talk) 09:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Removing the sentence: "the group discussion for which she’d intended the video never took place, so there’s no discussion to publish." - this sentence is taken out of context, it is NOT a quote of Berlin but a quote of what Derfner understood that Berlin was telling him, and contrary to the text in this section right now, is *not* related to Abunimah's allegations, which, according to the members of the group, are unwarranted by the evidence he brought to bear in his piece. Engelo ( talk) 12:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
There's still an issue with the following sentence: "In response to claims from those with access to the Facebook page that no such discussion was actually taking place,[23] Berlin stated in an interview that she could not publish a copy of the discussion.[24]". The point is, that those who claimed to have access to the facebook page, were not on the right page. They THOUGHT they had access to the page, but in fact looked at a different, semi-public page. The group Berlin was referring to is different, it is a closed and secret group. In addition, she was not responding to *that* allegation, she was merely responding to the demand asking her to show the relevant context, the discussion that the video was supposed to inform. She said that, since the video never made it to that group (it landed on her wall by mistake), the discussion emanating from the video never took place. That was what she was referring to Engelo ( talk) 15:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments by her step daughter saying she used antisemitic slurs has been removed. There is a lack of what would commonly be considered RS but Daniel Pipes (the guy who broke the story) is not a nobody. There seems to be a decent buzz around the net that includes academics. So although I am sure the sources would be acceptable if they were praising her, I doubt editors will accept it here (more since it is the Israel-Palestine topic area and not because it is a BLP even though BLP is the better reason). So if anyone finds anything that is a little bit closer to par please bring it up.07:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono ( talk • contribs)
First, let's not used self-published blogs, unless it's things she's actually written herself, but even then you have to be careful. I have a feeling there's probably more from WP:RS sources that can be used on her life and activism in general as well. Some of other refs also questionable, but left for now... CarolMooreDC 18:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If you're referring to the use of +972, I thoroughly agree that it is, in general a lousy source. But the source here is not the blogger at +972, but Greta Berlin herself, who was interviewed by the +972 blogger. Seems to me a pretty clear-cut case that it is "things she's actually [said] herself." If you look at the rest of the page, you will see that there are a number of places where Greta Berlin is the source, being interviewed by some pretty otherwise unreliable outfits. This is a breaking controversy, and by now it's moving in to more reliable news outfits. Much of it is covered here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/07/the-tortuous-history-of-the-greta-berlin-tweet-controversy.html if you want to take a crack at rewriting. At any rate, your edit was substantive, eliminating both her later inconsistent apology that she had forwarded the video due to its content because "it seemed like the kind of propaganda that our group was discussing" and the later controversy concerning the question of whether there had been any such discussion of propaganda. PS. Probably better in the future to take this first to talk page before making substantive deletions on claimed WP:BLP grounds. Also, a different tone would be appreciated; you'll excuse me if I took you to be a wee bit patronizing. Knowitall369 ( talk) 03:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This is certainly not much ado about nothing. Walter Russell Mead has asked Desmond Tutu (!) to withdraw support from Free Gaza and apologize as a result of the scandal. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/10/04/archbishop-tutu-please-apologize-to-the-jews/. I am glad, however, to see your actual agenda emerge, rather than hiding behind claims of sources. Your empathy for Berlin as a fellow sexagenarian is understandable, but really has no place in the entry. I appreciate as well that you believe Berlin's explanation, but it is a fact that others do not, and the entry cannot be restricted to your POV. The controversy consists of the accusations as well as Berlin's defenses of herself. I can't help but notice as well the agenda behind the editing and concern for sources. After the latest edits, the entry does not have the content of the the Derfner controversy but still has the response to the Derfner controversy (attributed to Qumsiyeh and others). Notably, the Qumsiyeh et al statments are not sourced, and the reason is that they come FROM THE SAME DERFNER ARTICLE that is supposed not to be a good source. I am sourcing the Qumsiyeh et al statements to that article, and will ask for a little consistency going forward on sourcing -- if it's not good for the goose, it's not good for the gander. Finally, the one-sided editing here is making the entry incomprehensible. It is impossible to understand Qumsiyeh et al's response, without knowing to what it was responding. It is bizarre that at the moment, the paragraph about a controversy consists almost entirely of one side -- Berlin's claims in response to criticisms that are no longer mentioned in the entry. I am restoring the controversy to which Qumsiyeh is responding, and will ask people to remember NPOV as they go forward. Knowitall369 ( talk) 10:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Greta_Berlin:_Gossip_and_Feedback_Loops_from_poor_WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think User:Nomoskedasticity did a good job getting rid of some of the worst problems. Here are the two big BLP/RS ones I see remaining:
Is there a consensus for the removal of their position on Berlin [1]? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The Foward mentions the organization withdrew their sponsorship of Berlin's book tour here (also on JTA here). It also has some other information regarding people cancelling her events as a result of the video that could be included. Althougn not dealing with JVP, The Jerusalem Post here has some responses by various organizations or people and resignments from the organization. -- Jethro B 00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, User:Soosim, at per this diff] putting back Ms. Wolf's attacks on Ms. Berlin, your edit summary partial revert since it is rs for this specific item only. You have it backwards, actually. Doing a quick of Wikipedia I see Mondoweiss HAS been used to say nastier things against individual Zionists than that. Which kills your theory about "rs for this specific item only."
However, those uses were Weiss or other journalists being that critical, not an activist writing an emotional personal "expose" which might be less than accurate and have some other agenda than doing journalism. That sort of thing would be considered an opinion piece at best even if it was in the Guardian and not something that can be used in WP:BLP.
So I'll delete it again per WP:BLP and if you can get NPOV editors at WP:RS or WP:BLP to say that that particular article on Mondoweiss is WP:RS we can keep it in. (FYI, The only real discussion on WP:RSN of Mondoweiss is if he could be used to say nice things about someone, and User:Biosketch didn't think so.) CarolMooreDC 05:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I have tagged this article and added a connected contributor tag, as it appears that Tecspk@aol.com has a relationship with the subject of this article. See here and here and most recently here. Jytdog ( talk) 02:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Theater of the Absurd corrected its original article and added an editor's note correcting the earlier assertion of the article that stated that Berlin claimed that Charlie Hebdo was a false flag… In fact, Berlin just re-posted the comment from an acquaintance. Reposting does not necessarily mean that Berlin endorses or believes this to be the case, so I think it is irrelevant here. Engelo ( talk) 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)