Jump to content

Talk:Neve Gordon

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

Changes required proposed

[edit]

Some corrections I am entering in the article:

(1) There is no "conviction" in civil cases. See discussion here: [1] I understand that this what the Haaretz source said, but it's faulty. I'm correcting that.

(2) "upheld the trial court's ruling" - this is incorrect. I understand this is what the source said, although it's not working [2] but other sources say for example:

"The appeals court completely rejected every single demand made by Gordon and his lawyer, Fareed Ghanam, in their appeal. It accepted every single point except one made by Plaut in his appeal, overturning the Naddaf ruling, but ruled by a two-to-one majority that Plaut’s description of Gordon and his comrades as “Judenrat wannabes” was not permissible speech, even though Plaut was criticizing criminal behavior on the part of Gordon." [3]

Since neither are probably objective or completely WP:NPOV the right thing is to quote from the actual verdict:

ע"א (נצרת) 1184/06 - פרופ' סטיבן פלאוט נ' ד"ר ניב גורדון . תק-מח 2008(1), 11886.

============================
[edit]

התוצאה הסופית של ההתדיינות שבפנינו הינה כדלהלן: על דעת כל חברי המותב נדחה הערעור שהוגש על ידי גורדון בע"א 1184/06. על דעת כל חברי המותב מתקבל הערעור שהוגש על ידי פלאוט בע"א 1196/06, למעט בקשר לפרסום שהוגדר בפסק הדין "כפרסום השלישי". אשר לפרסום אחרון זה נדחה הערעור ברוב דעות חברי המותב. הפיצוי שנקבע כאן יהיה כאמור בחוות דעתו של הנשיא וכך גם מוכרע הדין בשאלת ההוצאות, הן בהליך שהתנהל בבית משפט קמא והן בהתדיינות שהתנהלה בפנינו.

Translation: "The final result is - by the opinion of all the panel, the appeal by Gordon is rejected. By the opinion of all the panel members the appeal by Plaut is accepted, except for the publication depicted in the verdict as the "third publication". In regards to this publication, the appeal was rejected by a majority". Then the explanation what this third publication is.

(3) Finally, I'm adding to extrenal links a criticism article, the one by Alan Dershowitz - [4] fron reliable source The Jerusalem Post.

Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (I know there are some strong feelings here, for example it seems that Steven Plaut is blocked for editing, but I'm assuming WP:AGF, and please remember WP:OWN).[reply]

Whether to use the words from the verdict

[edit]

Even though user:RolandR chose not to engage in the talk page, from his summary it seems he believes that we should not use the words from the verdict. I'm open to other opinions. user:RolandR prefers to use Source #1 which says that the court upheld the ruling while I showed that there is another source, Source #2 which says that the court overturned the ruling. This is a terminology issue because the court both upheld and overturned the ruling. However, it overturned 90% of the ruling, and upheld only a small part. Therefore, I proposed to use the words from the verdict - which explain exactly that. Is it not the most logical and WP:NPOV solution? Amoruso (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Third opinion: Could you provide the words from the verdict you propose to use in this section? Hobit (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I see it above. That language is more technical than ideal in this situation (I can follow it I think). I thought the case was 2-1 (per source 1) but this makes it sound otherwise. Perhaps you can propose a less literal translation and see if RolandR has no objection? Hobit (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Hobit. I can propose: "The verdict was overturned for the most part and upheld with regard to one of the publications"... ? Anything along these lines will be accurate. Amoruso (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'd suggest dropping the "Eye of the storm" part but otherwise leaving things as they are in the current version of the article. I can't find any better way to write it. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also the comment by another editor at the biographies of living persons noticeboard: "I must say I think RolandR's summary does a decent job, while the Amoruso version seems to dwell rather too heavily on the details. The verdict was upheld on appeal but the damages were reduced because the appeal court found that Gordon had exaggerated Plaut's libels. The rest just seems like undue weight."[5] The bottom line is, both the magistrates court and the district court found that Plaut had libelled Gordon. Anything else is mere verbiage, designed to obscure this central point. RolandR (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hobit. The Eye of the Storm quotation is directly from the verdict, and it explains why the damages were so small. But if you think it should be removed, I guess it can be. Bottom line is that the verdict says explicitly that the verdict is overturned. Amoruso (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I suggested the removal is that it is, IMO, not the entire reason the verdict was largely overturned and the exact quote doesn't translate perfectly. Again, I'm just making suggestions...Hobit (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestions are very helpful. Amoruso (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of sources

[edit]

Overturned

[edit]

4-1 in favor of overturned.

  • The actual verdict which says it was overturned except one publication.[6]
  • This source here says בית המשפט המחוזי בנצרת קבל חלקית את ערעורו של פרופ' סטיבן פלאוט - PARTIALLY ACCEPTED. [7] it's from psakdin, major israeli legal site, like Westlaw.
  • English source that says overturned:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 (i think campus watch used this one).

  • This is another one that says it was overturned: isracampus.org.il [8]

quote: "Prof Steven Plaut’s Appeal Reverses Earlier Ruling: Israeli Court Almost Defends Freedom of Speech By Susan L. Rosenbluth"

Upheld

[edit]

Compromise

[edit]

I will list the different publications, and explain that some were overturned, and one was upheld. I'm doing this to avoid further RV fight. And user:RolandR, do not remove WP:RS again, that is serious offense. Amoruso (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation by administrator

[edit]

Thank you user:SarekOfVulcan for mediating in this article. Amoruso (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, but that wasn't a mediation, just a THIRD opinion. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

third publication "typo"

[edit]

Nudve, indeed they said third publication which was defined as the condolences letter, but it's a mistake. they meant the second publication, as in the content itself, they ruled (all of them) that the letter wasn't libel, but that the judenrat expression was (2:1). It's a sort of a typo mistake. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times Article

[edit]

Your phraseology, especially since you mention the anti-Semitic portion immediately after the Palestinian group, can be said to be textbook "taking it out of context". It is also not fair to the reader. Why not just leave it for the reader to read the article and reach his/her own conclusions, instead of editorializing Gordon's letter?

What you're doing is making a connection that's not there.

That's not objective. It may seem as factual because it's in the article, but facts, too, can be taken out of context and used to convey a different message altogether.

And finally, the gist of the article should not be focusing on Antisemitism or the Palestinian movement. If the purpose of the article here on Wikipedia is to be impartial and informative, then the description should focus on the reasoning Gordon gives for his conclusion and the ensuing criticism.

Gordon wrote in an Los Angeles Times editorial on August 20, 2009 that he had decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel movement. He described his change of views as "painful" given that, in his opinion, the boycott movement contains "echoes of anti-Semitism" and has a moral double standard.
Your claim that this implies that the Palestinian movement is anti-Semitic is false. The Boycott Movement is anti-semitic (according to Gordon). The Squicks (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not taken out of context. It is a matter of objective fact that Gordon views it as anti-Semitic. I'm more than tired of your vandalism of this article. The Squicks (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention your lie (which is so completely blatant) that Gordon never called the decision painful. The article says: ""Boycott Israel: An Israeli comes to the painful conclusion that it's the only way to save his country." The Squicks (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon did not describe the decision as "painful". That word appears only in the sub-heading, not in his own words. Nor did he describe the boycott movement as antisemitic; he wrote "A global boycott can't help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism", which is a very different sentiment. Accordingly, I am reverting your misleading POV edits. RolandR 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which is a very different sentiment. No its not. It's a matter of fact that he said that the boycott movement has "echoes of anti-Semitism". And that word, painful, appears in the subheading. That's a matter of fact. The Squicks (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added He also said, "A global boycott can't help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism". I'm okay with just having this in the article as a compromise. The Squicks (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited article, yet you were possibly into an edit-war. I didn't read the article, what is your main dispute for the case. "He described his change of views as "painful" given that, in his opinion, the boycott movement contains "echoes of anti-Semitism" and has a moral double standard.'" is a bit hard to understand sentence. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gordon20-2009aug20,0,1126906.story?track=rss Kasaalan (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough transparency on Wikipedia to allow for fair and neutral contributions.

Moderators on certain topics seem to have more bias in favor of one side or another.

That is in direct contradiction in terminology with what this so-called 'open source' website seeks to promote. - Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.202.31 (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neve Gordon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neve_Gordon&oldid=1207337552"