Jump to content

Talk:Tikun Olam (blog)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Labellesanslebete (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 2 January 2012 (→some changes.: source for reliability of blogger). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criticism section

There is no problem with having a "Criticism" section in this article. However, the material added to this section was clearly added by someone affiliating either directly or indirectly with Daniel Pipes &/or CAMERA & thus has a built-in conflict. First, the text is poorly written. Second, the actual content is totally inaccurate and mischaracterizes what Tikun Olam wrote about the issues under discussion. Third, the creator of this section didn't use proper Wikipedia formatting.

I will update and correct the material in this section so that accurately characterizes the claims under consideration. I expect the author of the Criticism section to only add information that is fair and accurate, which he or she has not done so far. Richard Silverstein (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know Mr. Silverstein, you do not own this Wikipedia entry, right? This is meant to be an encyclopedic source of information that reflects all relevant information about your blog. As an interested party it is bad form for you to edit this entry extensively otherwise the entry will be partisan and biased. I already see evidence of such bias given that there is no mention of Neuwirth v. Silverstein. If time allows I will cover this and other issues that are absent and thus help craft an entry that is more reflective of your blog. Wrongtired18 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to edit their bios, they're just asked to be a bit carefull about it, & may be stopped if they overdo it. There don't seem to be huge problems along those lines here (tho i've removed that paragraph [1] as it's commentary). Please note anynthing you might want to add needs to be from a reliable source and with living subjects, as in this case, we do err on the side of caution (see WP:BLP).--Misarxist 15:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are absolutely correct Misarxist. I didn't say it was forbidden for interested parties, in this case the owner of the blog in question, to edit this entry. But Mr. Silverstein's comment above implies his control of the content of this Wikipedia entry, which isn't the case. That's all I was pointing out. You did well to delete the paragraph because it was in fact commentary of a particularly biased and exculpatory nature. I'm working on putting together a coherent review of Neuwirth v. Silverstein using properly sourced material, it's not easy, or fun. I imagine I will have to create a separate section for that? Controversy? Law suit? What should I call it? --Wrongtired18 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a biased and one sided

This article is one sided, and biased. It quotes an Israeli TV host (Guy Lehrer) of a 10 minutes show running at 24:00 like he is a real journalist or something like this. It's says that Rotter.net (a site that no one heard of) is "Israel most popular news site". He says that Israel law system gives no true justice, etc.

I thought Wikipedia should be neutral, but this page is neutral like Mr Silverstein's blog, which discusses "Essays on politics, culture and ideas about Israeli-Arab peace and world music". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.223.100 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some changes.

After carefully reading the article and reviewing the sources it seems most of the content comes from Silverstein's blog. For example this cite doesn't even mention Tikun Olam. It refers to Silverstein, and only in a passive manner. I also trimmed this section quite a bit. All info comes straight from the blog. Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as a portal for Tikun Olam. Third party RSs needed to support content. I don't want to alarm anyone about these changes because they are clearly major, but necessary. WikifanBe nice 10:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tikun Olam had a leading role in exposing Mister X (prisoner) case. Daily Telegraph confirms it, and I added a Hebrew source. רדיומן (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the DT cite that "confirms" it? The Daily Telegraph only says this: most notably Richard Silverstein, a US-based commentator who has played a leading role in forcing Israel to drop gagging orders in recent months.
I moved this to reception (some of it) because it does not belong in the lead. Your rationales of "vandalism" are completely absurd. Most of the article relies on primary sources. Please restore my edits. WikifanBe nice 22:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrarily depriving Tikun Olam of its leading role in bringing Mister X (prisoner) story to the outside world is vandalism. I added a source for Asgari. רדיומן (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew media also acknowledges the blog's scoop in Prisoner X's case. Example: Ha'ir, 6 August 2010. רדיומן (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph source did not mention Tikun blog. So no, removing information that is not supported by an RS is not "vandalism." The article seems like it was written by Silverstein himself. Wikipedia is not meant to be a portal for the blog. Please restore my original edits, especially the intro that I moved to reception. WikifanBe nice 23:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source that credits Silverstein for the story: [2]. רדיומן (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a translation of the relevant part from Ha'ir:

"Another case, whose details have not been made clear to this day, is that of “Prisoner X” – a detainee with no name or identification. An item about his was published on the Ynet [news portal] website on June 13th, but it was removed less than a day later, due to a gag order about the subject. Silverstein wrote a post about it in which he reported the gag order and also discussed the question of the man’s identity, and the background for his arrest." (originally appeared in Hebrew in Issue 1557, 6 August 2010 p. 42) רדיומן (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The claim that Richard Silverstein "is known to have good sources in Israel's military community" is attributed to journalist Richard Spencer. Not only is the comment merely Spencer's personal opinion, he follows it in the next paragraph with this disclaimer, "Although such reports are unverifiable". Silverstein's scoops seem to be inaccurate much of the time. Here is a link to a (lengthy) follow-up to a Silverstein story. http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/11/on-silversteins-implausible-drone-explosion-story.html

Still, there are people who trust the accuracy of his information. I suggest the sentence be changed to "is thought to have sources in Israel's military community" or "believed to have sources ...". It would be even more accurate to add "although their reliability has been questioned", and use the moonofalabama.org page as the footnote. Labellesanslebete (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant?

Richard Silverstein, who writes a blog on Israeli-Arab relations, told the Times he received about 200 pages from Leibowitz. He says they included transcripts of telephone calls and conversations from the Israeli Embassy, including one in which Israeli officials express concerns that they are being monitored. WikifanBe nice 05:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a primary source

According to primary source, such a source is "term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied." This is reflective of the Israellycool blog, which has posted its sources and its own investigation into how Richard Silverstein vets his own sources and has his own personal vendettas. Reversion of a post on this trap and vindictive exposure by Silverstein seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV. Thus, I am demanding an escalation to mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInPgh (talk • contribs) 07:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Wikipedia favors secondary sources over primary sources, and blogs aren't generally considered reliable sources at all. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So a blog citing Israellycool would be more reliable than Israellycool itself? Doesn't make much sense to me. As it is, it could be said that Israellycool is indeed citing Silverstein by going back to his blog, thus making his post a secondary source as well. Thus, your charges are specious, and I am demanding arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInPgh (talk • contribs) 07:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, a news article about the dispute would be a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you want WP:Dispute resolution, not "arbitration". Follow the instructions there for more information. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not going to happen, because no news source is going to report on this, and indeed none has. However, multiple other blogs have. Thus, I will attempt to post again, this time with the alternate source at http://www.jewlicious.com/2011/12/richard-silverstein-is-a-dolt/. If this site is also not allowed, I will at that point demand escalation to arbitration, as you will at that point have become uncooperative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInPgh (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, blogs aren't considered reliable sources. Try again with a new blog and you'll get the same result. I recommend you read the two links I provided above: WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I already told you, it's not going to happen. Nobody in the press is going to pay attention to Aussie Dave until he is killed because of Silverstein's reckless actions. That's it, I'm done. I'm ready for WP:Dispute resolution or WP:ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevilInPgh (talk • contribs) 08:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have referred this case to WP:Third opinion. It is clear Malik that we are going nowhere, as apparently no source short of an obituary will be good for you. DevilInPgh (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
The blogs are considered unreliable sources until the owner of the blog is a widely recognized expert in the field. That effectively means that unless the blog or its author are described as reliable sources in a devoted Wikipedia article and the identity of the blog author is undisputable, one should refrain from citing. I would also note that relying on blogs in the article on blog should be the last resort. As the matter of this discussion doesn't seem critical for the article, I would recommend leaving it out unless some undisputably reliable source covers its connection to this blog.—Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is critical to the article, as it speaks toward Silverstein's reliability, or lack thereof, as a journalist. Opinion not acceptable, try again. DevilInPgh (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered Your point before giving third opinion. But the problem is that You don't need third opinion, You need someone to confirm Yours. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't believe you again. What you said is that what really happened didn't happen, despite documentary evidence citing that it did. This is why I don't trust Wikipedia on political articles. DevilInPgh (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think You should read WP:V. To help You I'll cite the part most relevant for this context:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

— WP:V

Unreliable sourcing

Considering the editors of this page do not consider Israellycool or Jewlicious to be reliable sources, I have taken the liberty of removing all information linked exclusively back to Tikun Olam (blog) and the Alternative Information Center, as first and foremost they are not reliable sources, and second, these sources have serious WP:NPOV issues. Thirdly, none of the events mentioned in those links have been confirmed by the mainstream media or any other reliable source. DevilInPgh (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tikun_Olam_(blog)&oldid=469172238"