Jump to content

Talk:Steven Plaut

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.110.212.254 (talk) at 12:32, 18 February 2009 (→Update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Threat to Academic Freedom in Israel-Palestine by David Newman Tikkun Magazine July/August 2004

http://www.tikkun.org/archive/backissues/xtik0407/israel/040725.html/view?searchterm=Threat%20to%20Academic%20Freedom

(text refactored, but available here.[1])—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.233.226 (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored potential copyvio. --Elonka 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Due to Haaretz's archiving practices, some of the urls in the article now lead to "Page not found" errors. Please note that Footnotes 7, 8 and 9, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/724857.html should be replaced by http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=724857 RolandR (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done! --Haemo (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the overlap is with other EL's, but how about: http://www.newyorkmonthlyherald.com/column_of_professor_steven_plaut.htm ? Andyvphil (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Update

Steven Plaut is no longer involved with Israel Academia Monitor due to his extreme views and speech.


Appeals court overturns earlier verdict. Plaut beats Gordon on almost all counts. Breaking News: The "Steven Plaut" entry is out of date - please add the updated information from this http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 --- Borisyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.51.71 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a more objective account than FrontPage Magazine, see the report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Israeli Appeals Court Upholds Libel Judgment Against Academic but Reduces Damages. The bottom line is that, even following this ruling which Plaut describes a "near-complete victory", he is still a convicted libeller. RolandR (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the bottom line is that Plaut is NOT a libeler. The court ruled that Plaut was factually correct in reporting Gordon's pro-terror illegal "human shield" sedition, but opposed attaching to it the adjective "judenrat-wannabe." But that adjective is not only accurate but would be protected speech in any other democratic legal system. I suggest that RolandR take off his anti-Israel blinders and admit that an anti-Israel radical got creamed well deservedly for attempting to suppress freedom of speech! Or maybe RolandR just is opposed to freedom of speech for non-communists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisyy (talk • contribs) 07:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply quoting the reputable and authoritative Chronicle of Higher Education, which writes "In a 2-to-1 ruling last week, a three-judge panel of the appeals court, also in Nazareth, upheld the trial court's ruling, but found that Mr. Gordon had exaggerated Mr. Plaut's alleged libels". So I am correct; an Israeli Appeals Court has upheld the veerdict of the District Court; Steven Plaut is a convicted libeller. RolandR (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to be convicted in a civil action. Conviction is a term reserved for criminal offenses. Steven Plaut is not a convicted "libeller" - he paid some damages in a civil suit. Hardly a big deal. Amoruso (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with Haaretz, which writes "Haifa University economist Steven Plaut was convicted last week of libeling a fellow academic, Neve Gordon". I am quoting a reliable source; you are making it up as you go. RolandR (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to all of the above, I wonder whether excessive attention is paid to the suit in the article. It now consumes one-third of the space and I think that raises WEIGHT issues.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's not what you're doing. You're proving that you don't speak English very well... Conviction (see article or open up a dictionary) is a term reserved for criminal procedure. It is not a term used anywhere in the world for a civil action. Whoever used that word for a civil action either (a) doesn't speak English well, and Haaretz is not Abba Even. or (b) made a grave mistake without realising it. Furthermore, Haaretz is not a reliable source for your false assertion. A layman is not a reliable source - a jurist is. Ira Moskowitz is not a jurist. [2] . Sorry. Amoruso (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It shouldn't be more than a paragraph. Amoruso (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about a paragraph, as it has received substantial attention, some generated by Plaut himself. However, six seems like overkill. Maybe half the size, or thereabouts. On "convicted": in Israel and in most places, that word is legitimately used only for criminal libel. Unless this is a criminal libel case, the term should not be used.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if you don't like the term, take it up with Haaretz. That is a reliable source; your OR is not. RolandR (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to replicate every term used casually by a newspaper in reference to this case. I'd like to see more sources refer to Plaut as "convicted" or other use of that terminology with regard to Israeli libel cases. Barring that, I'd err on the side of caution in this BLP.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example 1) Counterpunch "Haifa University economist Steven Plaut was convicted last week of libeling a fellow academic [and CounterPuncher], Neve Gordon of Ben-Gurion University's Department of Politics and Government"; 2) Peter N. Kirstein "Professor Plaut was convicted of libel in ISRAEL for calling Israeli academic Neve Gordon an anti-semite"; 30 Jerusalem Post "The United States Supreme Court recognized long ago in New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964) that private libel actions can be employed to stifle free speech. Plaut’s conviction is a case in point"
And note, by the way, Plaut's own usage of the term: "Chamish had previously been repeatedly convicted in Israel of libeling other people"; "Sheleg's honey Amira has already been convicted of libel"Since he uses this term when discussing others, he can hardly protest when it is used in exactly the same context in describing him. RolandR (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(restoring indent)In the only two online law journal articles I could find that specifically discussed an Israeli libel case, both referred to the defendant as being "found liable" not "convicted." In C 032986/03 Moshe Boshmitz v. Anat Aronowitz, Magistrates Court of Tel-Aviv Jaffa, Israeli Judge Shoshana Almagor held that the manager of an online forum may be liable for the content published by the forum users on a theory of negligence. etc.[3][4] I think that IBLS has greater authority on the proper terminology than casual journalistic usage or Plaut talking about a guy he doesn't like.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our job to assess "greater authority", but to cite reliable sources. As far as legal and political developments in Israel are concerned, two of the most frequently-used sources in Wikipedia are Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. Both refer to Plaut being convicted of libel. That's good enough for me, and good enough for Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with the English dictionary and also edit the article Conviction. You're embarrassing yourself. Mantanmoreland is of course correct. Also, you should refrain from editing subjects which you're not familiar with, i.e. legal issues. Amoruso (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article still protected after seven months?? Of course, I can almost see why, given the depths of animosity over "convicted of" vs. "liable for". Roland, it strikes me that you might be able to extract more cooperation from your opponents on this article by giving in on this one. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected not because of a dispute, however bitter, over the precise term for the outcome of the libel action. And in any case, that dispute related only to the term to be used on this talk page; it did not relate to the article itself. It was protected because several editors -- most now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets -- were introducing into the article the precise allegations found by an Israeli court to be libellous. They were also making racist and defamatory accusations against the judge in the case. This is absolutely unacceptable, under any circumstances. RolandR (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock needed

to update the appeal... "Both sides appealed to the District Court in Nazareth and In March 2008, the court rejected the appeal by Gordon and accepted Plaut's appeal, except for one publication depicted in the verdict as the "third publication". In regards to this publication, the appeal by Plaut was rejected by a majority ruling. In this publiction, Plaut called Gordon a "Judenrat Wannabe". The court then reduced the damages to just 10,000 shekels, or about $2,700, with no payment of legal costs required, because "Gordon put himself in the eye of the storm of public discussion". There is an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel. [2] [3]" - also to shorten it all out. Amoruso (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT and re-organize

Consequently, I cut down the whole section and used the paragraph from Neve Gordon article to review the issue. Amoruso (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on the WP:WEIGHT issue, but it does concern me when I see multiple reliable sources deleted from an article. Usually it is better practice to thin out the information from the sources, but to keep the sources themselves intact. Or is there some other reason that they were removed? --Elonka 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were all related to the trial. This article is not about the trial, but about Plaut. As part of the weight issue, I've removed the entire section of the trial and summarized it using the sources accepted in consensus, with the help of an administrator mediating, over the same issue on Neve Gordon article. If you feel that there are some very pertinent sources that need to be reinstated please do so, but please keep in mind the weight issue and that parties to the trial feel very strongly about it and it immediately spans in length representing the pov's. Amoruso (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Plaut&oldid=271559319"