Talk:Naomi Ragen

COI question rasied.

I posted this on the editor's talkpage. The edit history of the article made me wonder about this.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As I have said already in two edit summaries ([1] and [2]), I think there is too much detail about the court cases, which are added by User:Sarah Shapiro. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I just moved most of it intact out of the lede, all of that certainly does not belong there.And agreed too much detail about legal issues, although it probably is notable and does not violate BLP except it does seem to give undue weight. I have concerns about possible COI, but also do not want to violate "outing" rules either. But if it is a COI, the editor would need to find other topics.TeeVeeed (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I am not sure. I think that might depend on who the person is. If it were one of the parties, they would have a POV. If it were the judge, perhaps there is no real problem. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

TeeVeeed, you reverted the last edit by this editor, with the edit summary asking to react to the COI question. The edit also added a few thousand characters to the text, which already suffers from extensive detail IMHO. But if not for that latter argument, I would have reverted you. Not answering a question is not in itself reason for a revert yet on Wikipedia, and even a proven COI is not necessarily reason for a revert. Please keep this in mind. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you, yeah I am not sure how to proceed there, but I am trying to work out that COI question and hoping the editor would notice. Also thinking either way that a big cut of the legal material would bring the article into better balance? I was unable to translate the refs that led to publications which were written in Hebrew language, and I can't quite figure-out the legal issues,especially since the author was explicitly charged, (in Israel), with "transformative"-use, (to disparage the original works),which, I thought was not considered plagiarism in the US at least...........I was trying to look for the author's side to try and sum it up. If you would like to change it back, have at it! But I remain convinced with your opinion that it is too weighty anyways.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Some possible information which might help understand the lawsuits section. IANAL, but I have heard from one that Israeli IP law is different from US IP law in that it also includes "plagiarism" (use of material, even fair use, without attribution) as a punishable offense. Interesting how just a change of jurisdiction can be so significant, which would seem to contradict the cognitive conflation of law and ethics as seen in most of the references. Even more interesting is the fact that, in general, Israeli copyright law is more lenient than US law, and also much less widely enforced. One wonders where the judicial vitriol in these cases came from. Just shows that the court system, while the best we have, is quite stochastic. (Oh, and as an aside, two of the three references from Cross-Currents, which are incidentally rather judgemental, were authored by Jonathan Rosenblum, a Haredi Jew who might well have a slanted POV.) 192.118.27.253 (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

So just to be clear than, you can be sued for plagiarism in Israeli courts even if it isn't copyright infrigement? As far as I know (and this is what our article mentions) this isn't the case in many other countries. People may talk about plagiarism when discussing the case, but you can only sue for copyright infrigement. The question of what is copyright infringement is of course complicated, e.g. not all countries have a generous concept of exemptions as US fair use (which I believe Israel adopted. (You could probably also be sued for fraud or something of that sort if for example you used a plagiarised work to help you get a job. And I guess you could come up with fairly theoretical things you could sue for, which probably aren't going to work, but the problem wouldn't be plagiarism per se.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to get more information about this, and am continuing, but post an update here. It seems that the terminology in Israeli law is different, and what I was attributing to the extra requirement for citing sources is not connected. My current understanding is that all of the proceedings against Ragen have been on the basis of what would be considered in the US as copyright infringement. The lawyer from whom I heard about this originally has subsequently told me that the requirement to cite sources is not part of the Israeli (2007) copyright act, and the most anyone could reasonably expect from suing on that basis (except in extraordinary cases) would be to get an injunction requiring that the infringer cite the source, not to get monetary damages. He also admits to not be an expert in copyright law. So, this case is probably not quite as interesting as I originally thought. Sorry! 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

English-language Wikipedia

What does " a total of 25 phases " mean? Perhaps notorious edit-warrior Debresser could clarify.  pablo 20:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That was uncalled for.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh really, brave IP editor? Here are just a few examples of Debresser edit-warring to include a piece of text, the meaning of which he is unable or unwilling to explain (see below) pablo 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the meaning is clear. Perhaps somebody would be willing to remove part of that offensive post? Debresser (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it comic or tragic to accuse an editor of introducing a phrase which was introduced by someone else (presumably) and later reinstated by a third person, namely me? And, more to the point, whose origin is clearly direct from a referenced source? 192.118.27.253 (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

that depends on your sense of comedy, or tragedy. But what I said is "Here are just a few examples of Debresser edit-warring to include a piece of text, the meaning of which he is unable or unwilling to explain". That he did do this neither comic nor tragic; it is a fact.
There is norhing in the source to support Debresser's/your chosen text pablo 08:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Norhing (sic) except, perhaps, for the first sentence of the article: "the Court upheld the decision of the District Court and ordered Ragen to remove some 25 phrases of questionable originality from future editions of Sotah" ? Have a good day, pablo! 192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could explain to Debresser where he is going wrong; if he is going to edit-war he should at least read the words that he is so desperate to include, and the source to ensure that they agree. Maybe you could too. Have a nice life. pablo 08:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

seems not though pablo 11:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Still wrong. But at least you won the edit war, eh?  pablo 07:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Changes to legal section

An editor has been asked to stop editing this article User talk:Sarah Shapiro (Temporarily blocked from editing) . Also, since statements were made by that editor that other personally interested parties were being recruited to edit the legal aspects of this article, they should also not please, for reasons mentioned and others re: WP policies. I pretty much deleted most of it but left a subsection. Feel free to edit but let's not let the legal issue become problematic to the article again please. ThanksTeeVeeed (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your edit did more than pruning, and left out too many important and interesting details. I would also like to point out that the present version is not significantly longer or more detailed than it was before the COI editor started editing this article, nor does the present version show any bias, IMHO, and is well sourced. Please compare: [3]. I am not against some judicial pruning (pun intended), but see no reason to remove as much as you did. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but for me the intersection between the legal aspects and the social ones is by far the most interesting part of this article. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And what might those be, please inform us? Debresser (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(Reorganized the threading in this section due to TeeVeeed replying in the wrong place(?) 192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC))

The legal section is an example of what we don't want Wikipedia to be. Debresser-can't you see how allowing anything but basic mention just makes this contentious? WP:UNDUE WP:BLP and more. It is unbalanced for the article. Sure it is a little interesting, but I'm wondering if it is sooooo important-maybe the legal prob. should have it's own article? That much article space devoted to the legal thing, besides being contentious, just makes the article look petty and gossipy. I'm probably going to go ahead and fix it again.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia has a good term for what you propose: edit warring. Please review WP:BRD.

I agree that this section can be pruned, and have said so before. I have also said that you have overdone this, reducing the section to less than the minimum. So if you want to remove some details, fine, but with measure, please. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What is "less than minimum"? If there are criteria for that, bring-it, since I can tell just by looking at the article that it exceeds WP standards in "maximum" ie:too much. The sentence or so from the lede, with the refs is more than enough in my opinion. I'll ignore your accusations as nonsense.50.182.180.55 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And, in the interest in preservation, does anyone have any ideas about spinning-off the legal section to another article? A "legal case"-type article? I do think it is interesting especially in light of plagiarism in Israel vs US/Berne-convention © rules. Or maybe putting the info in a plagiarism topic? For this BLP of an author, it is just too much and the bickering and non-NPOV just looks ugly, BUT---really working with the facts of the charges and the cases could be encyclopedic, just not in this article. If it were done like that I would not object to a subscripted link in this article. 50.182.180.55 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, 50.182.180.55, who accused you, and of what? Debresser (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

tHAT,S ME tEEvEEEED, I'm having trouble logging-in. Yes I know my cap-lock is wanky but now it is forcing me to do a captcha and Im too blind for it50.182.180.55 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't accuse you of anything, since you haven't done anything yet. I am just pointing out to you that what you proposed to do above is called edit warring on Wikipedia. Listen, I agree there is some superfluous detail here, on the other hand, this kind of thing, court cases, is what brings publicity and is noteworthy, and that is why I disagree with your short version. I think that is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that the section should be pruned a little, but not too much. If you disagree, let's ask for a third opinion. I am sure an abbreviation like WP:3O should lead to something like "3rd opinion". :) Debresser (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I do not appreciate with being threatened with edit-warring when the only thing that I proposed here on the talk page was continued editing. I am really getting tired of this topic and I'd like to move-on to other things, but I'll agree to participate in a DRN, at your suggestion, under 2 conditions. 1)-you format it on the DRN board. 2) I make the fix that I suggested-(legal out of the lede, and moved with refs to legal-section with the rest of it (which I think is garbage to this article, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and contentious.) blanked.)....until a DRN resolves the issue? JFTR, this is not the exact same version that you undid. There was a ref added which makes it even better.50.182.180.55 (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)50.182.180.55 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Also. I am attempting to comply with this policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. So, we need to discuss before restoring previous material which was produced via WP:COI which is another reason why I blanked most of it50.182.180.55 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your conditions. Will make edit and will prepare post for WP:DR tonight. 08:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Thanks DB. I'm wondering if taking this prob to a BLP board would be a better venue than DRN? Full disclosure I am an occasional DRN volunteer. Not to be too meta, but one of my main probs with this are the BLP aspects, and I'd like to see 3rd party opinions on that specifically. I really am torn about the preservation of material as well, and I just noticed in article history that "legal" appears to be the most-edited part of the article. (I maintain that it is contentious but???)....so editor/user interest in this legal issue appears high which could have ramifications where even-if everything were scaled-back to just the basic facts that it could creep back into the bloated condition. But that just makes me think that the legal cases need their own article and get it out of this BLPTeeVeeed (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, can you please elaborate why you feel information about the final outcome in the Tal case is superfluous? If it's length which bothers you, maybe we should just edit it to state only final outcome? And actually, after making the "25 to 29" edit, I started to lean more to just using 29, since the main reference for 25 uses the language "some 25" which could well mean "approximately 25". Thanks, 192.118.27.253 (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said I fell "information about the final outcome in the Tal case is superfluous", nor was my undo of today a removal of such information. So I have no idea what this question is about.

The source says "Well-known author Naomi Ragen's appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court over allegations of plagiarism reached its conclusion today (Wednesday), as the Court upheld the decision of the District Court and ordered Ragen to remove some 25 phrases of questionable originality from future editions of Sotah." 29 is not "some 25", but would have been "some 30". In any case, stick to sources.

I would like to ask you, are you anyhow connected to this case in any personal way? Debresser (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit reverted two different edits. Judging from your reaction this was unintentional. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The source for 29 is in Hebrew (sorry). It directly specifies 29 ("להשמיט 29 משפטים") sentences without any equivocation. Ref #12 (at the time). 192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm just pedantic. I will admit to some personal POV against the current implementation of IP law in general. Its alleged use for censorship in this case is what originally brought me to the article. However, I try hard to stick to Wikipedia NPOV policy, and it irritates me when I perceive it as being violated by others. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My problem with keeping most of the legal info is also because of the contentiousness, like this 25/29 debate that you guys are having. That is the kind-of thing that caused this to mushroom and bloat into a problem. IP editor---I am kind-of seeing the same thing that you are, that this was in some ways a nuisance-suit/censorship/"punishment"-for her views and using other people's diarys/stories to illustrate her criticisms with their culture/religion, which in US copyright law is generally permitted but as we have discussed here "plagiarism" is different from copyright anyhow. But with the over-long explanations all of it gets lost and it was definitely not appropriate as a BLP article. That is why in my opinion it needs to be just the basic facts and refs in as NPOV as we can.

Also--I did find Ragen's comments about the 25 or 29 phrases on a blog in the comments section, which I would never want to use as a ref on WP, but she has a whole other side which is/was not getting heard on this article. To paraphrase, she said something like the phrases were common words like, "my little angels", but Shapiro has an entire different opinion, including all of that business about how Ragen obtained and used her story and/or words. Either way, the more details we edit this into this BLP article, the less appropriate it becomes for a BLP.

There is a lot of material, I agree and it is interesting, and may be a good article on it's own or another topic like plagiarism to be repetitive, but not in this BLP.
TeeVeeed (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)TeeVeeed (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@TeeVeeed I can understand your point about 25-29 leading to problems, but that can be solved by following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case it is possible to simply bring both sources. That is still no reason to remove the information altogether. In addition, I think that this piece of information is very important. If the plagiarism is not regarding the whole plot, or a major plot theme, but just 25-29 lines, then that is a quantitative difference which shows a qualitative difference as well, and must be mentioned, also per WP:BLP.

I don't really see the BLP problem. Virtually all statements in this section are well-sourced and neutrally worded. End of BLP issue. Debresser (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Again you have accused me of behavior in the edit summary-can we please stick to content and I will try to ignore your edit-warring and 3rr AFTER you generously agreed to my terms of not changing it pending 3rd party review? In an article that is "Page length (in bytes) 8,249"... to have a legal section, an already pared-down legal section that is apx. 3645 bytes.....well the number speaks for itself it is WP:UNDUE, and unbalanced. That is why I asked you earlier about why you said something about a "minimum". Do you have anything that explains what exactly a "minimum" s/b? Because just looking at it it is clearly over what a "maximum" should look like in a BLP. Yes I have issues with this article, and WP:BLP is at the heart of it, not a mere side-concern.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

3O

As agreed above, I have posted a request for a third opinion at WP:3O, saying:

Talk:Naomi Ragen#changes to legal section A dispute how to best prune the legal issue in the article about Naomi Ragen. Dispute includes 1. Whether this should be mentioned in the lead at all. 2. How much details should be removed from the Naomi_Ragen#Lawsuits section. There is no dispute that some details can be removed from that section. Important background information: 1. This article was recently extensive edited by an involved party, User:Sarah Shapiro, who was consequently blocked. The dispute might include the question whether as a result of those edits the article is still neutral or not, although I am not clear whether there is a dispute on this account. 2. User:50.182.180.55 is the same as User:TeeVeeed, just when he has problems logging in.

If anybody disagrees with this description, please let me know. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this venue but a 3rd opinion is needed. In the 3o policy it says that it has to be between two editors and I disagree since this has been a slow-rolling bloat with many editors to a BLP in my opinion, but maybe we can get some opinions there.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

also. User:Sarah Shapiro was temporarily blocked and then asked not to edit the article directly due to WP:COI and being a party to the legal issues, BUT User:Sarah Shapiro was acting in good faith, and has been fully informed of the problem and is currently presumed to be an editor in good standing. Also-maybe add to the request my two main problems, that this is a BLP issue and therefore WP:UNDUE, and that I acknowledge interest in the legal topic and think that it should maybe be spun-off.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Good day! I have declined the request for a third opinion, as there are more than two editors discussing the issues here. Dispute resolution at the Noticeboard may be an option in this case. (Should the case be filed at DRN, I would recuse myself from moderating.) Thanks, /wiae /tlk 17:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

How about WP:BLPN? I'm looking-at it right now and I'll try to post there. Attention there should help me with my questions.50.182.180.55 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DRN

I posted the same content at WP:DRN. I hope they will reply here and not there. I have never understood the reason to split discussions over several pages. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OH, OK nevermind about WP:BLPN for now I guess.They usually post it right on DRN50.182.180.55 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You want to click the link above and add something? I added the BLP issue already. At least tell them that you agree with the request and that they should come here, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

yeah, done, but I think I was IP-oops. Notifying all editors I wonder if he means me and me as IP? So that would be myself, my IP, the other recent IPs who have edited, and maybe SS although I think she mentioned that she wanted to stay-away from this article for awhile and she is (voluntary?) topic-banned, so I don't know about that.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) edit to add, and user Nil Einne , and any others who have chimed-in here on the TP or on the article.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This higher-order WP procedural stuff is mainly unfamiliar to me, but after reading the volunteer comment at DRN, I post here so you can consider me notified. Personally, I am rather neutral, except that I feel that some of the Cross-Current references used in TeeVeeed's version are somewhat POV (with a probable reason I've already pointed out here), and Debresser's version should certainly include the final outcome of the Tal case, which was the only one of the three in which Ragen was cleared. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even realize that other editors were worried about that source but I am too. If the "basic" version prevails, I agree that we should use other reliable source refs and include the one that you recommend. A problem being using English-language reliable sources on the subject. TeeVeeed (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Legal needs to go

According to the BLP notice at the very top of this page, the legal info needs to go. And here is why, on the author's website, she says that she has been liabled. http://www.naomiragen.com/womens-issues/bleak-house-the-sordid-story-of-the-michal-tal-case-2/ . See what it says in the notice? Potentially libelous must be removed. I am making a bold-edit to conform with BLP and I hope that we can discuss this without warring on the article please.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

(1) I think you mean "libeled", not "liabled." (2) While the cross-currents reference in itself would not be sufficient as a source, there are plenty of of reliable sources (Haaretz, Post, etc) to support the basic facts of the legal cases and judegements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

TY-now I have to inform my spellcheck50.182.180.55 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I call upon TeeVeeed to stop removing information until the discussion is finished. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. If you will do the same. 50.182.180.55 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The legal "does not need to go," as the facts of the case are well documented in reliable sources. However, per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE we should stick to the simple facts and avoid editorializing. I've removed the cross-current ref as it probably does not meet WP:RS in this context, especially when better sources are available. I've also removed this sentence as unnecessary editorializing. I still question whether or not mention of the lawsuits belongs in the article's lede. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Perfectly fine with me. Debresser (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an improvement, but I am a little leery about Jerusalem Post as a source for this topic? Ragen I think had/or has a weekly column there.50.182.180.55 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Sued by members of the Haredi community" is (1) unnecessary POV spin and (2) redundant, because the article already notes that "Ragen maintained that she was being persecuted for her criticism of Haredi Judaism." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Again I concur. The present wording is neutral "Ragen Maintained". Adding the fact that those authors were also Orthodox almost suggests that there was some kind of organized effort. Debresser (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm done here for awhile

I'm tired of looking at this article. And I'm starting to feel like I'm being pushed into edit-warring since any and every of my edits to this article are rv and challenged. Maybe I'll take another look at it in a few months or so-best wishes I'm done with this for now50.182.180.55 (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)