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.)

	Israel Portal Steven Plaut is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu): edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit: Yossi Sarid, Havlagah, Palestinian views of the peace process Cleanup: Israel Export Institute, Agricultural Research In Israel, Israel lobby in the United States Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Secular Jewish culture#Dance, Carmel Winery, Goldstar, List of Egged bus lines, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv Stubs: Israel stubs Update: National Religious Party NPOV: Israel and the UN, Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Other: update WP Israel banner to include rating scale Translate from Hebrew: Yuval Steinitz, Women in governments of Israel [1] Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 NPOV Issues with recent legal issues 2 Ma'ariv Article 3 Consistent Misrepresentation 4 edit war 5 Tikkun magazine 6 BLP 7 Footnotes 8 Anti-Plaut soapbox? 9 Admin assistance needed

[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: [2] --Deodar 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a dead link.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Try here: [3]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)

[edit] BLP

I've sprotected the article because the anon edits here may be related to the vandalism and abuse elsewhere directed at one of the editors. I don't know what the issues are exactly, but having glanced at the diff, it seems one bone of contention may be that articles from Counterpunch are used as sources. It's important to source any criticism of a living person from the best sources possible, and for that reason, publications such as Counterpunch and Frontpagemag are best avoided. Anything negative about a living person must be impeccably sourced and written very neutrally, or else should be removed. Basically, if in doubt, remove it. See WP:BLP, which applies to talk pages too.

It's quite common for living persons and their friends and family, if they feel they're being treated unfairly on Wikipedia, to resort to tactics that end up seeing them blocked. The ArbCom is very sympathetic to this, because the priority is to be as fair as possible to living persons, within the policies. Perhaps the regular editors here could try to go the extra mile in the interests of fairness, because that might put a stop to the vandalism, which is becoming quite extensive. Not that I'm excusing it, but sometimes people feel they have no other way to express themselves. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the sprotect, and I've done the same a few times myself for this article. However, the problem is not what you identify. It is the anon/new editors (almost surely socks of the same individual) who repeatedly and egregiously violate BLP. Such as "Norman Finkelstein, widely regarded as a Holocaust Denier", "Israeli writer Alon Dahan has denounced Gordon as a neo-nazi", "Judge Rim Naddaf, an Arab woman with radical anti-Israel views" (add racism to the charge), etc. Not to mention the unsourced repetition of claims that the Israeli court ruled to be libelous. I'm not saying the article is perfect, of course. --Zero^talk 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the sprotect. It seems that it isn't just anons though. In the case of the Finkelstein libel at least, it's being added by a registered user.--G-Dett 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to me there, I added the libel inadvertently, by reverting to the wrong version. Some other "registered users" may as well be anonymous, since the accounts seem to be established purely in order to repeat Plaut's original libel in Wikipedia. It would be interesting to see where these edits are being posted from. Anyway, semi-protection will mean that accounts can't be established and immediately used to vandalise this article; and if they vandalise others in the mean time, they won't remain users long enough to be able to edit this one. RolandR 16:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies Roland, and thanks for the explanation. --G-Dett 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Isarig is constantly removing the article by Norman Finkelstein in which he comprehensively rebuts every one of Plaut's allegations against him. Despite my insistence that the article is thoroughly footnoted, Isarig insists that "there are no footnotes there", and demands that I detail them in talk. So, despite having several better things to do, I have gone through the article, eliminated duplicates, and come up with footnotes to no less than 32 separate articles ([4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]; [34]; [35]),in which Finkelstein deals with all of Plaut's assertions.

I have also reinserted the reference and link to this thoroughly researched and documented challenge to Plaut's mélange of half-truths, lies and smears. RolandR 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What you are deceptively calling "footnotes" are nothing of the kind. They are nearly random links, where F has underlined a certain term used by Plaut, and linked that term to a nearly random article on his web site. The articles linked to do not address, neither directly nor indirectly, any of the arguments made by Plaut. Taking just the first link you provided, as an example of the nonsensical nature of calling these "footnotes" - Plaut writes "Finkelstein has called Dershowitz a nazi". F links this statement to an article titled "Should Alan Dershowitz Target Himself for Assassination?" , written 10.8.2006, a full 3 months AFTER Plaut wrote his article, so obviosuly the article F linked to can't be what Plaut is reffering to, and of course, it isn't, it's just a random article in which F smears Dershowitz. These are not footbnotes, they are not responses to Plaut, and this article is not a soapbox for F's rantings. If he has responded to Plaut - produce such a source. This doesn't cut it. Isarig 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

These are not "random links"; they are Finkelstein's responses to Plaut's lies and smears against him. In the specific article you mention, if you read Dershowitz's own complaint in Front Page Magazine, it is clear that Dershowitz is referring to the comments in the article Finkelstein cites.

You are mistaken about the dates; these have been written using the US convention (month day year) rather than the British (day month year), so Plaut's essay was actually dated "October 05, 2006" when it originally appeared in American Thinker [36], ie almost two months after Finkelstein's original Counterpunch article of "August 12 / 13, 2006" [37].

Given this, I have once again restored the link, so that Plaut's lies and smears are not allowed to pass unchallenged. RolandR 23:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

again, these are not footnotes, and this article, which should be edited according to WP:BLP, is not a soapbox for Finkelstein's smears. If there is a direct response from F to Plaut's article - produce it. A page full of links to semi-relevant screeds that F penned at one time or another is not going to cut it. Isarig 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Plaut soapbox?

RolandR's latest edit amounts to this:

1. Restoring an unsourced allegation from a leftist magazine that Plaut wrote under the name "Solomon Socrates."

2. Deleting, without explanation, and without disputing the facts, a paragraph listing the points Plaut made to explain his claims about Gordon.

3. Deleting, without explanation, a quotation from the verdict that is interpreted by Plaut's supporters as advocacy of Holocaust denial.

4. Restoring a long reply from Gordon to Dershowitz, which is relevant to Gordon and Dershowitz, but not to an entry on Plaut.

5. Deleting the link to letters by Dershowitz and Plaut in reply to Gordon.

In effect, RolandR has deleted relevant and properly sourced material and restored irrelevant and/or unsourced material. All of these changes are hostile to Plaut and friendly to Gordon. Perhaps RolandR could explain how he reconciles this conduct with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX?

Truthprofessor 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir, an edit war is NOT going to solve this, and I am growing tired of having sockpuppets blocked. PLEASE DISCUSS your changes with other editors, or visit WP:RfC, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM. ST47Talk 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what do you think he was doing right above your post? He's discussing it. If you have something to add to the discussion, add it. If you have proof that he's a sockpuppet - please present it. If you have none of the above, kindly stay out of this discussion. Isarig 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I do not have proof, but i have reasonable evidence. The article has had this going on for months. That you choose to call the user who hasn't been blocked a vandal right after the page is protected is not proof of anything, at least not to me. ST47Talk 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Who have I called a vandal? What is your reasonable proof that Truthprofessor is a sockpuppet? Isarig 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim by ST47 that I'm a sockpuppet is false and disgraceful and I request that he withdraw it at once. Truthprofessor 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Replies to points from above: 1. It is not unsourced, it is sourced to Tikkun which is a highly respected magazine. 2. This is just an attack on Gordon which obviously violates WP:BLP, and anyway this is not an article on Neve Gordon. 3. Obviously violates WP:BLP in respect to Judge Nadaf. 4. The article is obviously relevant and its presence here is justified by the prominence given to Dershowitz's attack on Gordon. 5. I don't object to that link. --Zero^talk 13:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply:

1. I meant that the Tikkun allegation is unsourced. The Tikkun writer gave absolutely no evidence. Even a newspaper would be expected to give evidence for such a claim.

2. This is a summary PLAUT's attack on Gordon, which is why it should be included, along with Gordon's rebuttal (or the court's rebuttal).

3. Quoting the judge's official verdict can hardly violate WP:BLP!!!

4. The Gordon quotes defended himself against Dershowitz - his dispute with Plaut is not mentioned in those particular comments. So those quotes should be in the entries on Gordon or Dershowitz, not Plaut.

Truthprofessor 14:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin assistance needed

I am afraid that this item is not going to raise much controversy with my colleagues from both sides of this discussion. The article talks about "hisorical memory of the Holocaust" instead of "historical memory". Since editing is blocked, I would appreciate if an admin can fix the problem. In the meantime, I will think of something more shocking to say! ;-) gidonb 02:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)