This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Neve Gordon 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 |
![]() | 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.
|
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. |
Some corrections I am entering in the article:
(1) There is no "conviction" in civil cases. See discussion here: [1] I understand that this what the Haaretz source said, but it's faulty. I'm correcting that.
(2) "upheld the trial court's ruling" - this is incorrect. I understand this is what the source said, although it's not working [2] but other sources say for example:
Since neither are probably objective or completely WP:NPOV the right thing is to quote from the actual verdict:
ע"א (נצרת) 1184/06 - פרופ' סטיבן פלאוט נ' ד"ר ניב גורדון . תק-מח 2008(1), 11886.
התוצאה הסופית של ההתדיינות שבפנינו הינה כדלהלן: על דעת כל חברי המותב נדחה הערעור שהוגש על ידי גורדון בע"א 1184/06. על דעת כל חברי המותב מתקבל הערעור שהוגש על ידי פלאוט בע"א 1196/06, למעט בקשר לפרסום שהוגדר בפסק הדין "כפרסום השלישי". אשר לפרסום אחרון זה נדחה הערעור ברוב דעות חברי המותב. הפיצוי שנקבע כאן יהיה כאמור בחוות דעתו של הנשיא וכך גם מוכרע הדין בשאלת ההוצאות, הן בהליך שהתנהל בבית משפט קמא והן בהתדיינות שהתנהלה בפנינו.
Translation: "The final result is - by the opinion of all the panel, the appeal by Gordon is rejected. By the opinion of all the panel members the appeal by Plaut is accepted, except for the publication depicted in the verdict as the "third publication". In regards to this publication, the appeal was rejected by a majority". Then the explanation what this third publication is.
(3) Finally, I'm adding to extrenal links a criticism article, the one by Alan Dershowitz - [4] fron reliable source The Jerusalem Post.
Cheers, Amoruso ( talk) 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (I know there are some strong feelings here, for example it seems that Steven Plaut is blocked for editing, but I'm assuming WP:AGF, and please remember WP:OWN).
Even though user:RolandR chose not to engage in the talk page, from his summary it seems he believes that we should not use the words from the verdict. I'm open to other opinions. user:RolandR prefers to use Source #1 which says that the court upheld the ruling while I showed that there is another source, Source #2 which says that the court overturned the ruling. This is a terminology issue because the court both upheld and overturned the ruling. However, it overturned 90% of the ruling, and upheld only a small part. Therefore, I proposed to use the words from the verdict - which explain exactly that. Is it not the most logical and WP:NPOV solution? Amoruso ( talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
4-1 in favor of overturned.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 (i think campus watch used this one).
quote: "Prof Steven Plaut’s Appeal Reverses Earlier Ruling: Israeli Court Almost Defends Freedom of Speech By Susan L. Rosenbluth"
I will list the different publications, and explain that some were overturned, and one was upheld. I'm doing this to avoid further RV fight. And user:RolandR, do not remove WP:RS again, that is serious offense. Amoruso ( talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you user:SarekOfVulcan for mediating in this article. Amoruso ( talk) 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Nudve, indeed they said third publication which was defined as the condolences letter, but it's a mistake. they meant the second publication, as in the content itself, they ruled (all of them) that the letter wasn't libel, but that the judenrat expression was (2:1). It's a sort of a typo mistake. Cheers, Amoruso ( talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Your phraseology, especially since you mention the anti-Semitic portion immediately after the Palestinian group, can be said to be textbook "taking it out of context". It is also not fair to the reader. Why not just leave it for the reader to read the article and reach his/her own conclusions, instead of editorializing Gordon's letter?
What you're doing is making a connection that's not there.
That's not objective. It may seem as factual because it's in the article, but facts, too, can be taken out of context and used to convey a different message altogether.
And finally, the gist of the article should not be focusing on Antisemitism or the Palestinian movement. If the purpose of the article here on Wikipedia is to be impartial and informative, then the description should focus on the reasoning Gordon gives for his conclusion and the ensuing criticism.
I edited article, yet you were possibly into an edit-war. I didn't read the article, what is your main dispute for the case. "He described his change of views as "painful" given that, in his opinion, the boycott movement contains "echoes of anti-Semitism" and has a moral double standard.'" is a bit hard to understand sentence. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gordon20-2009aug20,0,1126906.story?track=rss Kasaalan ( talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There isn't enough transparency on Wikipedia to allow for fair and neutral contributions.
Moderators on certain topics seem to have more bias in favor of one side or another.
That is in direct contradiction in terminology with what this so-called 'open source' website seeks to promote. - Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.202.31 ( talk) 05:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Neve Gordon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Neve Gordon 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 |
![]() | 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.
|
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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some corrections I am entering in the article:
(1) There is no "conviction" in civil cases. See discussion here: [1] I understand that this what the Haaretz source said, but it's faulty. I'm correcting that.
(2) "upheld the trial court's ruling" - this is incorrect. I understand this is what the source said, although it's not working [2] but other sources say for example:
Since neither are probably objective or completely WP:NPOV the right thing is to quote from the actual verdict:
ע"א (נצרת) 1184/06 - פרופ' סטיבן פלאוט נ' ד"ר ניב גורדון . תק-מח 2008(1), 11886.
התוצאה הסופית של ההתדיינות שבפנינו הינה כדלהלן: על דעת כל חברי המותב נדחה הערעור שהוגש על ידי גורדון בע"א 1184/06. על דעת כל חברי המותב מתקבל הערעור שהוגש על ידי פלאוט בע"א 1196/06, למעט בקשר לפרסום שהוגדר בפסק הדין "כפרסום השלישי". אשר לפרסום אחרון זה נדחה הערעור ברוב דעות חברי המותב. הפיצוי שנקבע כאן יהיה כאמור בחוות דעתו של הנשיא וכך גם מוכרע הדין בשאלת ההוצאות, הן בהליך שהתנהל בבית משפט קמא והן בהתדיינות שהתנהלה בפנינו.
Translation: "The final result is - by the opinion of all the panel, the appeal by Gordon is rejected. By the opinion of all the panel members the appeal by Plaut is accepted, except for the publication depicted in the verdict as the "third publication". In regards to this publication, the appeal was rejected by a majority". Then the explanation what this third publication is.
(3) Finally, I'm adding to extrenal links a criticism article, the one by Alan Dershowitz - [4] fron reliable source The Jerusalem Post.
Cheers, Amoruso ( talk) 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (I know there are some strong feelings here, for example it seems that Steven Plaut is blocked for editing, but I'm assuming WP:AGF, and please remember WP:OWN).
Even though user:RolandR chose not to engage in the talk page, from his summary it seems he believes that we should not use the words from the verdict. I'm open to other opinions. user:RolandR prefers to use Source #1 which says that the court upheld the ruling while I showed that there is another source, Source #2 which says that the court overturned the ruling. This is a terminology issue because the court both upheld and overturned the ruling. However, it overturned 90% of the ruling, and upheld only a small part. Therefore, I proposed to use the words from the verdict - which explain exactly that. Is it not the most logical and WP:NPOV solution? Amoruso ( talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
4-1 in favor of overturned.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 (i think campus watch used this one).
quote: "Prof Steven Plaut’s Appeal Reverses Earlier Ruling: Israeli Court Almost Defends Freedom of Speech By Susan L. Rosenbluth"
I will list the different publications, and explain that some were overturned, and one was upheld. I'm doing this to avoid further RV fight. And user:RolandR, do not remove WP:RS again, that is serious offense. Amoruso ( talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you user:SarekOfVulcan for mediating in this article. Amoruso ( talk) 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Nudve, indeed they said third publication which was defined as the condolences letter, but it's a mistake. they meant the second publication, as in the content itself, they ruled (all of them) that the letter wasn't libel, but that the judenrat expression was (2:1). It's a sort of a typo mistake. Cheers, Amoruso ( talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Your phraseology, especially since you mention the anti-Semitic portion immediately after the Palestinian group, can be said to be textbook "taking it out of context". It is also not fair to the reader. Why not just leave it for the reader to read the article and reach his/her own conclusions, instead of editorializing Gordon's letter?
What you're doing is making a connection that's not there.
That's not objective. It may seem as factual because it's in the article, but facts, too, can be taken out of context and used to convey a different message altogether.
And finally, the gist of the article should not be focusing on Antisemitism or the Palestinian movement. If the purpose of the article here on Wikipedia is to be impartial and informative, then the description should focus on the reasoning Gordon gives for his conclusion and the ensuing criticism.
I edited article, yet you were possibly into an edit-war. I didn't read the article, what is your main dispute for the case. "He described his change of views as "painful" given that, in his opinion, the boycott movement contains "echoes of anti-Semitism" and has a moral double standard.'" is a bit hard to understand sentence. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gordon20-2009aug20,0,1126906.story?track=rss Kasaalan ( talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There isn't enough transparency on Wikipedia to allow for fair and neutral contributions.
Moderators on certain topics seem to have more bias in favor of one side or another.
That is in direct contradiction in terminology with what this so-called 'open source' website seeks to promote. - Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.202.31 ( talk) 05:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Neve Gordon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)