Talk:Steven Plaut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 NPOV Issues with recent legal issues 2 Ma'ariv Article 3 Consistent Misrepresentation 4 edit war 5 Tikkun magazine

[edit] NPOV Issues with recent legal issues

Here is a Ha'aretz article that covers the side not present in the current version of the article: [1] --Deodar 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a dead link.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Try here: [2]RolandR 00:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has gone way beyond reasonable reporting and now amounts to a vicious and probably legally libellous attack on Neve Gordon and Rim Naddaf. I'm listing it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Zero^talk 13:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ma'ariv Article

I have removed the inaccurate summary of Ben-Dror Yemini's column on 23 June 23 2006. He did not "Attack judge Naddaf as a neo-nazi and a Holocaust denier". In fact, he did not even name her, nor even identify the trial. He was making a general point about the limits of free speech, and used the (unnamed) judge's words as an illustration. RolandR 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The section on the Gordon versus Plaut trial is so clearly biased, it looks like it was written by Plaut himself. For a decisive refutation of the charges raised by Alan Dershowitz against Gordon, see Gordon's response in an article titled, "Anti-Semitism? Mr. Dershowitz, You Just Don't Like What I Say" http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon11082006.html

Steady on, folks, we are supposed to give a fair report of what involved persons claim, not to argue the case ourselves. Opinions have to be in the name of people who gave them, not in straight narrative. --Zero^talk 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The article needs one more good example of an article supportive of Gordon against Plaut. At the moment there is only Gordon defending himself. --Zero^talk 05:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistent Misrepresentation

There have been consistent attempts to revert to an older and false version of the section on the Neve Gordon versus Plaut civil suit. This false version presents the person found by the court to have been a perpetrator of libel (Plaut) as the victim, while the plaintiff (Gordon) and the judge are portrayed as villains. This is compounded by demonstrably false claims, as if Israeli journalists accused the judge of being a neo-Nazi and holocaust denier. They did not. The nature and content of these allegations, raise the suspicion that Steven Plaut himself is behind these claims. It seems he is using this forum to 'win' what he lost in court. Can this be stopped?

[edit] edit war

I had a comment on my talk about edit warring here, and IMO it would be really cool were that to stop. Please don't add or remove any information on this article. If you disagree with something, discuss it here. Please read WP:3RR, and remember that any more than 3 reverts in any 24-hour period will result in a block. Thanks! ST47Talk 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you request that information not be removed. But why do you request that nothing be added? Surely new -- and properly cited -- information vcan only add to our understanding, and improve the article.--RolandR 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That may have been overgeneralizing for me to say that, just don't revert anything and don't add or remove the specific thing that was being warred over until it's been decided on, it isn't going to help the project. ST47Talk 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tikkun magazine

Several editors (or possibly one editor using several ids) have been removing a quote from Tikkun magazine on the grounds that it is "not a serious source". On the contrary, Tikkun is an extremely serious and influential magazine. It is worthy of its own entry in Wikipedia, and many other articles link to or cite it. I do not believe that this is a "good faith" edit, rather that the editors do not wish Wikipedia readers to know that "Writing under assumed names, Plaut has a long history of attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel" I have accordingly reinstated the quote. --RolandR 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing material that provides a more balanced perspective on the matter (material from Tikkun, by David Newman, reproduced in other places as well). This is unacceptable. It is particularly ironic that the person who removed the material from Tikkun, under the excuse that it is a 'smear', has no problems with other claims that appear in the same section: that some academics are 'self-hating' Jews who are 'apologists' for terrorism. Why is that not a 'smear' or a 'libellous' claim? You cannot be selective here.Rangreen 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)