Talk:Julius Stone

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

Repeated deletion of any mention of Julius Stone's passionate support of Israel[edit]

Being the single most quoted and relied upon jurist to support the extreme minority opinion that Israeli occupation, annexations and settlements are legal, which most of the rest of the world so overwhelmingly finds to be illegal, I find it curious that his own passionate devotion to the State of Israel, and the opinions of his colleagues regarding said passion, is repeatedly censored. To be sure, it would be far more credible for the image of his impartiality were these feelings unknown, but it remains fact stipulated by his own official biography; and his strong feelings have exited speculation and comment from his colleagues (plural), cited by a reliable source, the Sydney Law Review. WP:UNDUE does not apply. Jayjg specifically told me once before that if I found input by colleagues regarding his pro-Israeli devotion, he would drop opposition to this kind of inclusion. AladdinSE (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid civility violations such as false use of the term "censor"; going forward refer only to article content, not other editors. This biography devotes little space to his important and breakthrough thinking in the area of international law, and almost none to his many books. As such, reference to this minor fact violates WP:UNDUE. If the biography becomes long enough, then the material will be more balanced, and as such more appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe content about this man's achievements is underdeveloped, by all means add what you think is appropriate. What is not an appropriate remedy is to curtail or disallow credibly cited highly pertinent content on possible bias and highly emotional attitudes towards a particular state which is severely immured in international law controversies for which the subject of this article is held up as a champion. These are colleagues of Stone commenting in a peer-reviewed legal journal. WP:UNDUE does not apply in any way, shape or form. Moreover, some time ago when we had this same disagreement on mentioning Stone's devotion to the State of Israel, this kind of citation is what you personally assured me would make you drop you opposition to its inclusion. At the time I conceded and the material was removed. I invite you now to honor your word.--AladdinSE (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:UNDUE through? I'll quote the relevant bit:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Is it your personal opinion that this "cited highly pertinent content on possible bias", or is it merely an argument you are making to undermine his credibility? Have third-party, reliable sources stated that this material is relevant to his legal views? Finally, I'm not sure what you're referring to about my personal assurances. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my opinion, but the opinion of his colleagues as the Sydney Law review describes them. As to relevance to his legal views, I have made no statement on that. This is a biographical article on Julius Stone. His official biography and his colleagues deem it that his devotion to the State of Israel, and that some of his colleagues even feared to discuss Israel with him, is important and noteworthy. You have no right to delete this material. The very fact that you set forth the shortness of the article as rendering this material not appropriate, and that "If the biography becomes long enough, then the material will be more balanced, and as such more appropriate" proves that all your arguments about WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are worthless. I repeat, the remedy is to expound on what you think is underdeveloped, not to delete other material. As to your not recalling your assurances to me regarding the previous incarnation of this dispute, I can only express my disappointment, and move on. --AladdinSE (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall his colleagues stating that Stone's support of Israel introduced possible bias into his legal views; that seems to be a point that you alone wish to make. Regarding UNDUE weight, I'll quote the relevant bit of WP:UNDUE again:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

The point about the shortness of the article is that in an article this short the insertion is UNDUE weight on one aspect of the subject. UNDUE is a subset of NPOV, so of course the removal of the material is in in defense of NPOV. If this were a lengthy description of his views and achievements, then the material might fit, but it certainly violates WP:UNDUE right now. And it's not up to me to write a lengthy biography of Julius Stone solely for the purpose of facilitating your inserting one specific piece of information that you find important. When the article is a proper biography, come back and let me know, and then we'll see if the material you want to add is appropriate. And finally, regarding various "assurances" you claim I have made, Wikipedia is an open book; if I have made such statements in the past, I'm sure you can find them, and then we'll both be edified. Jayjg (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the policy carefully some time ago. Nevertheless, thank you for quoting the passage, as it proves my point. I added a simple 2 sentences without ceremony and without superfluity. How you can attempt to prove unreasonable "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement" would be very interesting to see. You are certainly not obligated to write a lengthy biography of anyone, but you were using the shortness of the article to justify your deletion of very simple and unadorned statements to be found in Stone's own official biography, in a biographical wikipedia article! Furthermore, you complained that "This biography devotes little space to his important and breakthrough thinking in the area of international law, and almost none to his many books" as if it were my fault. I know it would have been much more convenient for your case for deletion had I inserted some original research about his legal views, but I didn't. Neither did his official biography, I might ad. But they still deemed it an important aspect of this man's life, as did his colleagues as attested to by the Sydney Law Review. You have two verifyable sources that deem his devotion to the state of Israel to be notable. This information is mentioned simply and succinctly. You will not succeed in suppressing it. This is the man you personally have inserted and defended into articles relating to Israel and international law, why are you so determined that his passion for Israel be suppressed? Are you trying to conceal something? --AladdinSE (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18% of the description of his long and illustrious career is devoted to this topic, which you've managed to cherry-pick from various sources in order make a point of your own. That's WP:UNDUE by any stretch of the imagination. This is supposed to be a biography, not a vehicle for scoring political points. No, you are not "obligated to write a lengthy biography of anyone", but until there is one of reasonable length for Stone, these statements will remain WP:UNDUE. You have two options; actually attempt to improve the biography, rather than simply scoring political points, in which case the article might be long enough at some point to include this information, or leave it out. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your instructions as to my options are rejected. You accuse me of cherry-picking while refusing yourself to add material to a person you hold in such high regard, while deleting 2 succinct sentences stating what is true and what verifiable sources have deemed a notable aspect of Stone's life, and this is a biography of Stone. WP:UNDUE does not apply in any way, shape, or form. You are attempting to censor information to protect his image as an unbiased scholar. What you fail to realize is that no mention about bias, as related to this material or anything else, has been uttered by me. As many times as you have linked WP:NOR, you don't seem to have read it. The very fact that you cite elongating the article as allowing the material utterly disqualifies your use of WP:NOR as an argument, it's highly diverting that you keep linking it.--AladdinSE (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

You have two options; actually attempt to improve the biography, rather than simply scoring political points, in which case the article might be long enough at some point to include this information, or leave it out. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeating yourself virtually verbatim, so I will simply refer to my rebuttals of your flawed logic stated above.--AladdinSE (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by WP:UNDUE, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above. --AladdinSE (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have. You haven't justified your violation of WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments of how WP:UNDUE in no way applies or was violated are above. I will not repeat myself further. If you have anything new to ad, I will gladly debate.--AladdinSE (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18% of the description of his long and illustrious career is devoted to the topic, and rather hysterical comments are used to emphasize the point. That's WP:UNDUE by any standard. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the material, with a more detailed citation of the journal and the linked author. As stated at length in 2008, it is my considered opinion that WP:UNDUE in no way applies, and furthermore that this level of selective removal of relevant biographical material that has been cited by highly verifiable and reliable journals and authors, is in itself a violation of WP:censorship and WP:PRESERVE. If you persist in deleting this material, I would ask you, as an experienced administrator and editor, to guide us in proceeding in the steps available to place this matter before the consideration of our peers, up to and including arbitration. Thank you.--AladdinSE (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julius Stone. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julius Stone. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julius Stone. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julius_Stone&oldid=1210444287"