Talk:Giulio Meotti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

Para on accusation of plagiarism[edit]

As the edit history shows, the passage removed by IPs and Danishalom was restored as invalidly cancelled by 5 editors

This is a clear consensus for retaining it. If one disagrees, make an argument here to alter this consensus.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a BLP and NPOV issue here. Meotti's response should be included, and we should avoid stating this in wiki's voice. The Tablet source cited for instace, has ynet saying apparant conduct (of an outside contributor). Also, relying on a single source (Tablet's Marc Tracy in two closely published pieces) is a bit weak. Note that plagiarism is a serious ethical and possibly legal (civil/criminal) matter - you are in BLPCRIME's vicinity.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
So you didn't read my edit. Meotti's response is included, and three sources, not one, were used to document the charges. Consult the page. As to the rest, that is sheer nonsense, for it would technically mean that no controversy or accusations against a living person could be written into the encyclopedia, which is contrafactual. Meotti did not challenge the evidence given, and according to one journalist, apologized (though I can't see that in his words). Not much of an issue was made of it because Meotti's talking and writing circles are a closed world, not really taken notice of in the mainstream press. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I read the edit from last night (and now the new one which at least adds a response) - as you posted here prior to the new edit. Max Blumenthal on opednews quoting Tracy does not add anything source wise. iMediaEthics (is this a RS?) also attributes this to Tracy (with the exception of Meotti's response). Further note that the source used has been published on The Scroll which is a WP:NEWSBLOG. Tracy was a staff writer at the time (though it seems that at the present he covers college sports) - so this is usable - BUT with great care as we can not assume this has gone through Tablet's usual fact checking. In short - all you have here is a single NEWSBLOG source from a writer who primarily does sports - this is not enough for BLP content such as this.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Even worse. You haven't read Blumenthal's article, which has several examples found by that author of Meotti's plagiarism. I don't known why you question iMediaEthics as RS (it has to be since a BLP article allows an accused author to be quoted from any site where he choses to reply) when most of the outlets Meotti is also quoted from are dubious RS. He's published by crank outlets, one source here is also a hedge fund page, etc. Marc Tracy covers sports for the New York Times, and Jewish culture for the Tablet and New Republic etc. Meotti somehow got a Phd on George Steiner, one of the most sophisticated literary minds alive today, and then went to write for the fringe trash outlets like the Gatestone Institute and Arutz Sheva, a much lower mainstream profile than Tracy's. The plagiarism charge is multiply sourced. Don't be silly.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I am fairly certain opEdNews is not a RS. I did not check iMediaEthics - however it attributes its reporting back to Tracy on a MEWSBLOG - so I don't have to. Find some other RS covering this independently (not repeating Tracy, attributed to him).Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The sources I have introduced are superior to the sources used to document Meotti's page, which almost invariably come from his own writings in third-rate news outlets. You accept the latter, with a wide interpretation of RS, and try to hold to hostage any independent third party views hostile to Meotti. You are ignoring my replies, so I will ignore your repetitiveness. 5 editors examined the material and found nothing wrong with it content or source-wise. You are not the final arbiter here. You are ignoring, also, my replies, so I will ignore your repetitiveness if you keep it up.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES - contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing 'contentious' here. Meotti according to sources admitted or did not challenge the evidence produced against him. To the contrary, he virtually admitted the truth of the evidence by saying (lamely) he sometimes loses track of his sources. Five editors of experience see nothing of this in the edit. On your own whimsical reading, you jumped at that to overthrow an established consensus. It is only your contention that the Tablet, Max Blumenthal, Tracy and the other sources are poorly sourced. Neither Tracy, the Tablet, Max Blumenthal or the other are 'poor sources'. If you believe that, and think it entitles you to unilaterally overthrow a consensus and back IP removalists, you'd better go to the appropriate board and argue your case. Here you are in a minority of one against editors with longer experience of this place than you. Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not Tracy and the Tablet - it is Tracy writing in the Tablet's NEWSBLOG - the Scroll. Blumenthal is writing opeds in non-RS and is attributing back to Tracy.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
If you believe this nonsense, get confirmation from other sources. As soon as I made edits to this page on Meotti, IPs reverted it, IPs attacked my page with smears as if I condoned genocidal behaviour in the Middle East, and some of the 'noise' came just down the road from me in, yeah, Rome. where the subject of the article lives. You are effectively editing to ensure that a journalist whose every other article attacks Jews for not being 'Jewish' enough,(he's so profoundly ignorant that he believes contrafactually that all Jews are by definition welded to Zioniost ideology) who weeps buckets of tears for the imminent destruction of Western civilisation by Arabs, who accuses the Pope of selling out Europe to Islam, wno says Europe ignores the Jewish victims of Arab terrorism when it does nothing but regularly reportevery incident against Jews while keeping mum about the daily toll on Palestinians, etc.etc.etc., should not have his hype page marred by criticism. That is to defy NPOV. Meotti's lucky to have a wiki page because he is all but ignored by the mainstream profession of journalism. I'm not challenging that right, but he can't use wikipedia to promote a glowingly onesided portrait of his epochal struggles to save Europe from itself by coopting them in some reverse jihad to stay silent at the ethnocide of Palestinians which horrifies the conscience of some of the finest Jewish minds alive, people he, a Catholic, deplores because of their fidelity to a very ancient tradition of justice.Nishidani (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I got involved after you posted to RS/n. Note, I opened a thread at BLP/n. Meotti is a BLP, and to include a plagiarism section you need to meet BLPSOURCES, and show this is not UNDUE (which from what I see per scope of initial report lack of any continuing mentions of this by anyone, is lacking as well). Also note some of the editors you note above were reverting IPs yesterday (yes Wikipedia:IPs are human too, but...).Icewhiz (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Naaaah...IPs are only human if they do something constructively....;P (something which cannot be said about yesterdays IP on this page) Huldra (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 March 2018[edit]

In the paragraph on Jewish critics, there is a spelling error.'intellectuasl treason.' which of course should be 'intellectual . .' I would appreciate an admin correcting my illiteracy. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 March 2018 - 2[edit]

Remove "Charges of plagiarism" section per WP:BLPSOURCES. The entire section is sourced to Marc Tracy writing in a WP:NEWSBLOG (The Scroll news blog of Tablet magazine) - with other cited sources (iMediaEthics) attributing their reporting back to Tracy in the NEWSBLOG or in the case of Max Blumenthal's opinion pieces - published in non-RS, opinion pieces, and also largely attributed back to Tracy.Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be to ask an admin to side with a minority view that is contradicted by the consensus of editors for inclusion. Marc Tracy wrote his piece for the Tablet's news blog, which however has editorial oversight, and is a different kettle of fish from what we say about the use of blogs, which may be used if the authors are professionals in their field, as are both Tracy and Max Blumenthal. Mainstream papers like Ynet, with fact checking, accepted that evidence and the verdict. iMediaEthics gave voice to both the charges and Meotti's right of reply. So five professional sources, Tract who works for the New York Times (strict on fact checking), Max Blumenthal,iMediaEthics, a peer-review internet organ to check the quality of reportage, Ynet and Commentary's John Podhoretz all reviewed Meotti's record, published Meotti's responses to the accusations in fairness to his right of defending himself, and concluded, with Meotti, that he admittedly was careless in using published work by other journalists and printing it under his own name. The consensus here is that the sources are adequate to policy. Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
To be clear - Blumenthal mentioned this in opinion pieces. Commentary's John Podhoretz's e-mail to Tracy is reported by Tracy in the The Scroll NEWSBLOG. Ynet printed a 2-line correction on the bottom of one of Meotti's opeds in Ynet. WP:BLPSOURCES supersedes editor consensus (nor does it seem clear there is such a consensus on this very recently added material).Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
To be clear - you are showing a persistent misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies.Nishidani (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reinstatement of full article protection[edit]

Over the very short amount of time between the expiration of the full protection applied to the article and now, the article continued to be the source of a large number of reverts back-and-fourth and by many users. Because of this, the full protection has been reinstated and the duration extended. Users who continue to edit war after this protection expires will be blocked for doing so. Nishidani, יניב_הורון, and Icewhiz - C'mon you guys... work things out... please? I don't want to be the bad guy and whip out edit war blocks (especially given the tenure of the majority of you), but I'm looking at you when I state the above... lets get this resolved so we can all move on and be happy, okay? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The history has been that this article is edit-warred over as soon as the protection block is lifted. On each occasion the material which has consensus, and is locked in, gets thrown out by edit-warriors on expiry. I do not think that I am edit-warring in restoring the consensual version. I insist that those who challenge it gain a consensus to overturn the consensus visible on the talk page and in the revert history of the article. There is no onus, as Icewhiz's edit summary tries to make out, to convince a minority that the majority consensus requires their approval.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Oshwah Thank you for protecting it again. Is to possible to get it under a permanent 30/500 limit? that IPs like this cannot edit? Huldra (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Huldra - Applying article protection simply to prevent editing by anonymous users would just require semi protection, not extended confirmed protection which requires 30 days tenure and 500 edits from accounts first ;-). However, edits made by anonymous users are definitely not contributing to the dispute in this situation - the issue driving the application of full protection is from an ongoing content dispute and edit war between accounts that have a long enough tenure that full protection is what's necessary to stop it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, WP:30/500 would also rule out יניב_הורון. As noted above, of us with long tenure, only Icewhiz wants to remove the stuff...while 5 of us want to keep it in. That is about as clear a consensus as you can get, IMO. Huldra (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see myself as edit warring to maintain a consensus predominantly challenged by IPS and people with a low edit count.I dislike the term when one is rule-respectgul, goes to the boards to get outside input, is told that reverting this material out requires consensus. These kinds of pages are subject to gaming by blow ins who don't give a rodent's rectum for the niceties of serious wikipedianship.Nishidani (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There are not 5 aupporters here (counting users who reverted nameless IPs while discounting IPs is dodgy. Seems there are 4 active users here). This is a 2 vs. 2 situation in a BLP situation with very poor sourcing (a NEWSBLOG, a blog, and 2 opinion pieces in non-RS) for very serious accusations (which the current text further overstates beyond what was in the NEWSBLOG). This should be excluded until there is consensus - which could be determined by running a RfC. Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Your tactic is willful attrition to war down the obvious. It's elementary math that you are in denial of.

You are basically alone. Even if one were generous and add Yod, that is 2 against 6 editors who examined the elisions wanting in judgement or rejected you unique request on the grounds you lacked consensus. You know this and pounced to revert the material out as soon as the protection was removed. That is patent editwarring against consensus. Don't do it again. Last warning.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It is only you and Huldra on talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@IdreamofJeanie:, @Shellwood: - you reversions of an IP editor who blanked a section with a scant edit summary is being cited as being in support of material that has been challenged on WP:BLPSOURCES grounds (single source from a WP:NEWSBLOG (Marc Tracy on the Scroll (Tablet's blog)), a media blog relying on Tracy's report for most of its contents, and 2 opinion pieces by Max Blumenthal published in non-RS) as well as WP:UNDUE (as this is all the reporting this has received). The text also misrepresents what Tracy wrote in the NEWSBLOG, as well as using inappropriate legal sounding language (charges, accused, in self-defence, etc) for an incident that did not involve a court of law or the police (said charges being Tracy's NEWSBLOG reporting). Could you please indicate whether you support inclusion of this text?Icewhiz (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment—I've looked at the Tablet source:
  • Meotti writes: “Gay men are sort of a ‘canary in a coal mine’ for what is happening to other minority groups in the entire Middle East.”
  • In a 2010 interview, Michael Luongo said: “The issues for gay men are sort of a ‘canary in a coal mine’ for what could happen to other minority groups.”
It's pretty cut & dry. What could be argued is WP:WEIGHT, but I believe it's met here as it's an article about a journalist who writes for a living. So it seems quite pertinent. (However, I would get rid of the language of in self-defence). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Note it is not the Tablet (despite being reffed that way) - it is their online blog - The Scroll (Tracy was staff at the time). There is also a WP:V here given the sourcing quality and BLP (though I agree that we may via OR verify some of these claims - which seem to be limited to a sentence or two) - but WP:WEIGHT and BLP policy are the main issue here. Icewhiz (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NEWSBLOG, these may be acceptable if written by staff, which was the case here. It was not an opinion piece, but reporting. Again, I believe that WEIGHT is met here, given the profession of the subject. BLP does not protect from any and all derogatory information. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)