Talk:Tikun Olam (blog)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source that credits Silverstein for the story: [2]. רדיומן (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No, a news article about the dispute would be a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

The evidence here is to compare some of Silverstein's comments to others and note the discrepancies. He claims another blogger (IsraellyCool.com) revealed Silverstein's personal information; but is unable to prove it. "...he’d published my home address, phone number and my wife’s employer name and work phone at his blog."

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/12/28/aussie-dave-exposed/

Silverstein has "outed" the real life identity of his fellow blogger (IsraellyCool) with different names twice within as many days. In his second attempt, linked below, he gives what he thinks is this man's real name, neighborhood and a family photograph showing two young children. This seems to be a new low in contemptible online journalistic ethics, and is as indecent as what Silverstein complained he had suffered.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/12/30/aussie-dave-anonymous-no-longer/ Labellesanslebete (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors must keep the whining, soapboxing and drama off the talk page. The talk page is for discussing article content based on policy. If people want to voice opinions they must do it elsewhere or expect to have their comments deleted. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for your help. I had a look at your removals and they look fine - most of the statements included analysis that should really be sourced to more reliable sources. I also think it would be a good policy to only include "scoops" that have been covered in the mainstream media - this will stop the article from including too much detail that is not really of historical relevance. I took out a couple more statements and cleaned up the formatting as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks of Israel

I've removed this material from the article for now for discussion and consensus before it is returned.

• In comparison, Guy Lehrer of Israel's Channel 10 rejects Silverstein self-entitled role as the Israeli Julian Assange and his blog as the Wikileaks of Israel. Lehrer argues that the difference between Wikileaks and Silverstein is that Wikileaks brought to light new information that their team had gathered, whereas Silverstein reveals information that is already known to a large group of people but cannot be revealed in Israel due to publication bans.

My understanding is that in January 2011, Channel 10 Israel news journalist Nitay Elboym said something like some have described the blog as the 'Wikileaks of Israel'. The Seattle Times reported this as An Israeli TV commentator dubbed him "the WikiLeaks of Israel."[3] Here is how Silverstein reported it.[4] So, it's not Silverstein's self-entitled role as the Israeli Julian Assange and his blog as the Wikileaks of Israel. That is the first problem. The second problem is that the current content doesn't comply with WP:NONENG which is part of WP:V, a mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

References

"Bibi's Iran Attack Plan"

I noticed a section describing the "Iran attack plan" affair was added and then removed.

In this affair Silverstein published a document he claimed was leaked to him by his high level Israeli source and which later turned out to be a near-verbatim copy of a fan-fiction post in an Israeli discussion board. This casts a serious shadow on Silverstein's reliability, as that is the same source he claims to provide him with many of his stories. The section was deleted because "a blog is not a source" (?) - I added a link to an image comparing the two texts. I also wanted to add a link to this: hurryupharry.org/2012/08/15/everything-silverstein-and-the-bbc-think-is-gold-is-st/ - but was unable, as Harry's Place seems to be in the blacklist for some reason...

In general it seems this entry lists Silverstein's successes and ignores stories that were proved false or dismissed outright - surely an enviable position for every blogger/journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.200.219 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You are missing a crucial word. The reason given for removal was that "a blog is not a reliable source". Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. This article, like all articles, must be based on what reliable sources have reported. Whether those are successes or failures from someone's perspective doesn't come into it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not using the blog as a source in any case since it's blacklisted. What I posted is a comparison of both texts. The comparison itself can be verified in Fresh.co.il and Silverstein's site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.200.219 (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Found and added source in Walla!News - subsidiary of Haaretz, article written by Yossi Melman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.200.219 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Walla!'s fine as a source for this. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that richardsilverstein.com itself is being used as a source in Wikipedia articles, including Iran–Israel relations. Surely the policy should be the same both cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.202.12 (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The policy is the same in both cases. It doesn't mean people follow it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gideon Sa'ar sex scandal

The content on the page on this alleged scandal fails to satisfy WP:RS, since it is based on Silverstein's self-published blog (WP:SPS). And given the source's weakness, it is also clearly a violation of WP:BLP. Please remove. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The claims Silverstein makes that prove false

The page focuses on a number of instances in which Silverstein made an assertion that later proved accurate. But since his great claim to notability is that he reveals secret intelligence information, it would make readers better able to understand his activities and role in covering Israel if the page gave some attention to his sourcing and to the instances where he makes a claim to be unearthing clandestine information that later proves untrue.FinchleyRd (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why report only half the story? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I added the stuff that pertains to Silverstein on Silverstein's page. More to the point is that this page is unbalanced, mere promotion for a minor blogger.FinchleyRd (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chloe Valdary

Malik Shabazz: This truly happened. Look at Silverstein's racist tweet. It's a fact. The Times of Israel is a reliable newspaper. This seems to be a case of I don't like it.--Veritnight (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a case of "I don't want to read WP:IRS or WP:V." The Times of Israel may be a reliable newspaper, but it has nothing to say about this alleged controversy. Neither does a photo that claims to be a tweet from Silverstein. If nobody writes about it in reliable sources, it might as well not have happened. That's what WP:V says, and it's a core policy of this encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, explain me why do you think that this is not a reliable source? It says everything what happened with Silverstein and Valdary, and it's not an "op-ed".--Veritnight (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You wrote that there was a controversy. I see that the Times of Israel article mentions the tweet, but doesn't mention any reaction to it (i.e., the alleged controversy). So what exactly is it a source about? It's a biography of Valdary, who possibly qualifies for a Wikipedia article of her own, but it doesn't mention any controversy about Silverstein's tweet. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. So what about writing "Silverstein referred to Chloé Valdary, an African-American woman who supports Israel, as a "house slave" and said the "Israel Lobby is her Master." He also posted on his Facebook page: "They finally did it: found a Negro Zionist: Uncle Tom is dancin’ for joy!"" (no mention of a controversy, just facts)--Veritnight (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously there was a controversy, Malik Shabazz; how can you not see that ToI's "has made her a controversial figure and a lightning rod for criticism" just before the quote does indicate controversy, and "There was a controversy" as paraphrasing? But, Veritnight, I think the addition is longer than it need be, and the ToI only has the last quote. I'm going to make a compromise edit that tightly connects the controversy claim with the quoted tweet. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. (PS, Shabazz: The quote is obviously verifiable. So why not AGF, rather than do a total revert when you know perfectly well the quote, at least, is verifiable; why not be collegial and seek compromise? Claiming there are no reliable sources for an obviously verifiable tweet seems like bad faith, and reverting non-vandalism without an edit summary on your THIRD REVERT is bad behavior too.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK. I see (post-edit) that this is under discussion here. I think that we can rely on this article [5] by the Democratic whip in the Pennsylvania state Senate, and cite him as writing what he wrote about what Silverstein said about Valdery. Citing a well-known politician as to what the man wrote for publication is not the same as citing "an opinion column" as a fact. Senator Anthony H. Williams can be cited when he speaks (writes).ShulMaven (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:IRS and WP:BLP. Frontpage is not a reliable source, and the New York Post editorial pages are only valid for citing people's opinions. Not suitable for writing about living people. Sorry. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz: The quote is obviously verifiable. So why not AGF, rather than do a total revert when you know perfectly well the quote, at least, is verifiable; why not be collegial and seek compromise? Claiming there are no reliable sources for an obviously verifiable tweet seems like bad faith, and reverting non-vandalism without an edit summary on your THIRD REVERT is bad behavior too.

"leftist blogger"

Leftist, rightist - this is the parochial language of Israeli politics. Wikipedia is not Israeli so it is probably best to avoid such terms. Also, "leftist blogger" (added here) is merely a label used in passing by Rabbi David Ellenson from the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (http://huc.edu/directory/david-ellenson) and Hannah Ellenson in the source cited, Muslims and Jews in America: Commonalities, Contentions, and Complexities. This is not something that qualifies as a useful and informative label that can be applied in the unattributed neutral narrative voice of the encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"leftist" and rightist" are terms used the world over- www.infowars.com/leftist-journalist-it-would-be-funny-if-all-gun-rights-people-got-shot-dead/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}[6][7], there's nothing specifically "Israeli" about them. Moreover, neither Rabbi David Ellenson nor Hannah Ellenson appear to be Israeli. So, this is perhaps a case of you projecting your own worldview . In any case, it is clearly wrong (not to mention irrelevant - we don't discount viewpoints based on the nationality of their authors), so I will discount that argument. That leaves us with two other arguments you make- one is that the opinion is not notable , and the second that it is not useful or informative. With regards to the first, we'll disagree. David Ellenson is the former president of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, quite a notable institution, and notable enough for his own wikipedia page. I would think that the opinion of a recognized authority on Judaism with regards to someone being accused of anti-semitism is quite relevant. As to the usefulness and informativeness - we can inspect wikipedia policy and practice. The NPOV Policy requires that we present all views - if Silverstein can be presented using his self description as a "progressive Zionist", it is not only appropriate but actually required to present the views of his critics, which describe him otherwise. In practice, most if not all of our articles about political blogs identify their author's political leanings, in the unattributed neutral narrative voice of the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no issue describing Power Line blogger Hinderaker as "a conservative" in that neutral narrative voice, or Daily Kos blogger Steve Gilliard as a ' left-wing political blogger'. In short, your arguments are without merit whatsoever. Epson Salts (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Are the Ellensons Silverstein's critics? Is their description of him as a "leftist" significantly at odds with his own self-description as a "progressive (critical) Zionist"? Is anybody's description of Silverstein as a "leftist" so important that it needs to precede the objective facts or result in this monstrosity of a sentence:

Richard Silverstein, the blog's creator, is a leftist blogger who writes as full time blogger and describes himself as a "progressive (critical) Zionist" who supports an "Israeli withdrawal to pre-67 borders and an internationally guaranteed peace agreement with the Palestinians".

What's that you say? He's a blogger? Who created a blog? Not once but three times? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentence could certainly use some wordsmithing to remove redundancy, and I will do that when I restore the properly sources description of him as a "leftist", as is common in articles about bloggers. Epson Salts (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't refer to any of my substantive questions. Please see WP:ONUS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don;t think the answers to those questions have any bearing on the matter, but here you go: "Leftist" is not the same as 'Progressive Zionist", so whether or not it is "significantly at odds' or just "different" is really not of any importance. I don;t know if the Elleenson are critics. does it matter? They are people who commented on him, and described him, in a manner differnt form his self-description, People's description of others are used all over Wikipedia, in every biography. Is there a reason this one should be different? Epson Salts (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edits hint that your goal here may be to impugn the reputation of this person. I hope not. Is that true and if so, why is that? Are you here to to build a neutral encyclopedia, or to paint some people in a negative light? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edits here hint that, at a minimum, you're a careless editor who doesn't bother to read what he is reverting, and at worst...well, at worst what you did is a banning/blocking offense. Kindly refrain from speculating about others' motives. Read my lengthy response above (carefully , this time)- the description of this blogger is no different from that found on multiple similar articles. Epson Salts (talk)

With 42,000 edits with no blocks over a period of seven years here, I estimate my chances of being banned or blocked in connection with this incident as zero. Of course, I could be wrong, and if you believe so, please feel free to pursue administrative action against me. In the mean time, please note that you have not achieved consensus for your disputed edit, Epson Salts, so desist until consensus in your favor emerges. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There's always a first time. What your expansion for this edit? Epson Salts (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

<- Epsom Salts, I don't find your arguments persuasive. I find them weak, a risk to the integrity of article and confrontational in a petulant wiki-lawyering way. Bear in mind that you are dealing with experienced Wikipedia editors rather than pliant victims of ethno-nationalist socialization, so the arguments need to be persuasive. Also, making a baseless threat against an experienced editor is not a viable method to achieve collaboration and consensus. Lastly, "There's always a first time. What your expansion for this edit?" was not the appropriate response above. The appropriate response would be "I will desist until consensus in my favor emerges" because that is what you are going to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate statement in section "Richard Silverstein"?

These two sentences seem to be covering the same territory, so should probably be merged:

He spent an undergraduate and graduate year in Israel, studying Hebrew literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

and:

Silverstein lived in Israel for two years, studying at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Misha Wolf (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Temp.msg npov

Section consist of one-sided statements, espousing biased views mostly form the pro-Israel side of the argument and point of view.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That's because few people are willing to defend Silverstein due to his unreliability. It has nothing to do with being pro or anti-Israel. Undue weight means we have to represent reality as it is, not make a false balance between two positions. If you have reliable sources defending Silverstein, feel free to add them.--Margie - remasked (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not a good argument, and your reply, as it is, does not come close in alleviating my concerns, so it can not be basis for your unilateral removal of NPOV template message - read Help:Maintenance template removal. So, it was not matter of (un)due weight, it is a matter of section neutrality, which further makes your assumption of attempted false balancing and reflection of reality dubious. Nor do I care if section neutrality is dependent to pro/contra Israel arguments - I made my observation of the obvious neutrality concern. Meanwhile, your "offer" to find more views with sources does not makes your case any stronger, only your response more inappropriate - I have made my edit by placing Template message, and you can check how and when to remove it by following above link.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)