Talk:Nurit Peled-Elhanan

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

"Occupation"[edit]

Why is this word repeatedly removed? Tidaress 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is why were you sockpuppeting? Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jay, I have not been "sockpuppeting", and I changed it to "occupation", because that is the word Peled-Elhanan uses (and, incidentally, so does most of the world). I think people should come up with a quote where Peled-Elhanan refers to the "control" over "disputed" territories ...or whatever... before they change it again. Regards, Huldra 23:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedia homage to the Pantheon of marginal fringe Israeli anti-Israel activists[edit]

Why the glorification with such a long entry? Please, Wikipedia, say whatever you like, and report whatever you like, but you are in no way "the Free Encyclopedia". You are a partisan propaganda mouthpiece. Do not tout yourself as a reliable and neutral source. For sure you are not. The central thesis of your entry, that PEled became a so-called "peace activist" only after the death of her daughter in a suicide bombing is based on misconception and falsehood. Both she and her family have a long history of Left wing politics and hostility to Zionism and Israel. Her anti-Israel views did not originate from her personal loss, and that is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't exist, doesn't exist: somebody who blames her government for the terroristic murder of her daughter makes the victim to the culprit.

Hard to believe that such a person gets any moral attention!! --77.117.187.129 (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non english sources[edit]

Wikipedia policy is that an english translation must be provided, otherwise he source and the text that is derived from it will be removed. Personal verification is no use, it does not meet wikipedia policy.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)<

What exact policy are you talking about? Certainly not WP:NONENG. Please provide a relevant wikipedia policy that justifies your recent tag bombing of this article or undo what appears to be classic BATTLEGROUND action before someone reports you to AE (again). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please read relevant wikipedia policy which I have extracted for you, as follows

When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.[7]

Then withdraw your BATTLEGROUND claim.

I require a translation, so please provide one, or find another source.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say you can remove or tag non-English sources?
Are you contesting the accuracy of the translation (I'm assuming you bothered to run it through google translate and aren't just requiring a translation for sport)? The original is in the footnotes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is irrelevant. A translation is required, so that anyone can see whether or not the text is supported. They can then also check if the source is reliable, and if the claim s fringe. Text with only a single Hebrew source may well be fringe, or from a non relable source. However i do not need to give a reason for asking for a translation.I do not understand your reference to sport, please explain.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)
Once again, where does it say you can remove or tag non-English sources?
On the other hand, it specifically says that translations should be provided "as a courtesy". Do you think your behavior encourages people to do you any courtesies? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Here: 

"היא גדלה בבית עם אופי שמאלי מובהק בשכונת רחביה. 'גדלתי בבית ציוני-שמאלני', היא מספרת."

She grew up in a house with a decidedly leftist character in the Rehavia neighborhood. "I grew up in a Zionist-leftist house," she says. 

"לפני כשנה התראיין הסופר א. ב. יהושע וטען כי ליהודים וערבים אין סיכוי לחיות יחד בגלל פערי תרבות. 'איזה כיף ליהושע שהוא מצא את התשובה', היא מגיבה בציניות גלויה, 'שהוא יכול לשבת בחיפה ולהרגיש ממש טוב. כיף להיות א. ב. יהושע. אני חושבת שזאת שטות ממדרגה ראשונה'."

A year ago the author A. B. Yehoshua gave an interview and argued that there's no chance the Jews and Arabs can live together owing to cultural gaps. "How delightful for Yehoshua that he found the answer," she replies with open cynicism, "that he can sit and Haifa and feel real good. It's fun being A. B. Yehoshua. I think it's utter nonsense." 

"אהוד אולמרט, אהוד ברק, אסמאעיל הניה, חזבאללה, הם בשבילי כולם אותו דבר. הם נהנים לראות ילדים

מתים."

"Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Ismail Haniyeh, Hezbollah, for me they're all the same. They enjoy seeing children die." 

"לאור הכיבוש האכזרי, לאור הרמיסה, לאור זה שבבית צפפא אין שום שירותים קהילתיים בכלל, זה יוצר שנאה, ושנאה יוצרת דברים כאלה."

"Considering the brutal occupation, considering the trampling, considering that Bayt Safafa has no neighborhood services at all, it creates hate, and hate creates things like that." 

"מי שנפגע זה אף פעם לא מי שמגיע לו. באסון התאומים ג'ורג' בוש נהרג? לא. הוא היה צריך להיהרג."

"The ones that are hurt are never the ones that deserve it. Was George Bush killed in the Twin Tower disaster? No. He ought to have been killed."—Biosketch (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this one from yesterday: 

"ההסלמה בקריאות חלה לאחר נאומה של פרופ' נורית פלד-אלחנן, חוקרת בבית הספר לחינוך באוניברסיטה העברית, הידועה בעמדותיה הקיצוניות."

The escalation of the chants began after Prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan's speech, a researcher at the School for Education at Hebrew University, who is known for her extremist views.—Biosketch (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the translations. Vatan79 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

once again, no one is doing anyone a courtesy, the courtesy is to follow wikipedia policy when asked. If you can't do that, then don't use non english sources.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)I[reply]
Go read the wikipedia policy you quoted above in this section. See where it says "courtesy"? See where it doesn't say you may tag or remove non-English sources? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
go read it, and try to understand what the context of the reference to courtesy is. All sources not shown to be RS can be tagged, this has nothing to do with this topic.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21
17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice change of track. I read the policy. I also read what you said in the beginning of this section. Allow me to remind you: "Wikipedia policy is that an english translation must be provided, otherwise he source and the text that is derived from it will be removed". That is nothing less than misrepresentation of wikipedia policy.
If you couldn't be bothered to spend about 20 seconds to find out the nrg.co.il is Maariv's web site, you could have asked. But no, you tag bombed the article and made outlandish claims about non-English sources.
Anyway, now you have the translation you ostensibly needed but didn't remove the tags you added. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yep - noneng is ok, translation is fine. get it in, and keep it in the article. Soosim (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nice change of tack. I am correct in saying that an English translation is tequired as soon as anyone asks for it, and i do not understand why anyone would dispute that. I am correct in saying that all caims which lack a source will eventually be removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)
the wp:noneng is very short and clear (well, clearly not clear anymore):

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.

When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline. Soosim (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremist views?[edit]

See this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons   WP:BLPSOURCES

Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Therefore the material has been removed.

Four editors, at least implicitly, endorse that the Ma'ariv cite is sufficient for the content to which you alone object. That generally means you should stop reverting and consider pursuing other means of resolving the issue, such as RfC, RSN, BLPN, and so on.—Biosketch (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bio I suggest that you check  WP:BLP where you will find the following.

Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. The reference ti extremist views will not remain, unless a non tabloid source is found, and please note that revert rules do not apply to my removing it. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

which edit, which RS is being called a tabloid? Soosim (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DLDD wrote on my talk page that the BLP tabloid question is apparently about the maariv source. i answered "are you talking about maariv? it is one of israel's oldest and largest newspapers. it is not a tabloid (assuming you mean tabloid journalism and not the physical size of the newspaper?). RS all the way..." Soosim (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Wikipedia saying that someone is known for their extremist views is probably contentious even if there is a source and someone has objected, I think it should stay out until the issue is resolved. This sounds like something that really ought to go to BLPN. I know nothing at all about Nurit Peled-Elhanan so I'll leave it at that. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. The WP:LABELs used in Israel are local and in my view don't travel very well. They won't necessarily make sense to a global readership. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be true if she was not an Israeli but she is so I think it does relevant.--Shrike (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opening statement currently reads: Nurit Peled-Elhanan . . . and a political radical[1] known, in Israel, for her extremist views." Both radical and extremist are contentious labels, and the WP:Manual of Style states that contentious labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." One source calling her a radical does not constitute a widely held belief, nor does it give enough weight to be included in the lead. Vatan79 (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, what I meant was that labels mean different things in different places and we need to take that into account because the article isn't just written for Israelis to read using terminology that makes sense to Israelis. Soomsim added "known, in Israel, for..." which is much better in my view but I still think this material should probably be left out until its been discussed at WP:BLPN. To give you a specific example of a label that always baffles me, I sometimes see people and organizations referred to as "far left" in Israeli sources, but "far left" is a label I associate with the likes of the Communist Party of Kampuchea...and Peace Now are not at all like the Khmer Rouge. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for help at BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nurit_Peled-Elhanan). Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that either the "extremist views" lead or the current lead is acceptable. The opening sentence of the lead should say who she is. The lead should provide "a summary of its most important aspects" of the article. Thus, her views are not part of who she is and should not be in the opening sentence. At the same time, "peace activist" should not be in the lead at all because there's no mention of it in the body. In addition, the fact that she has received a prize should not be opening sentence for the same reasons as stated before. All that said, once you have an opening sentence, her views MUST be mentioned elsewhere in the lead. The article is almost entirely about her views. To omit a brief description of them in the lead makes no sense. However, I would not use charged terms like "extremist" but terms that are more descriptive of what she believes in. I would also stick the award in the lead but not in the opening sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly right. To emphasize a point: the fact that one newspaper used the word "extremist" is hardly justification for using that term in the lead, let alone in the first sentence. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not one newspaper there are other sources also [1] and there also sympathetic source that admit that she is consider extremist by some [2]--Shrike (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're resorting to Plaut here speaks volumes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Activist[edit]

I supplied a source supporting that Peled-Elhanan is a peace activist and removed the CN notation, but for those who aren't satisfied with one source, I've provided more below. Among the sources are Yale University Press, Calvin College, a rabbi, and the Sakharov Prize, which was granted to her for being a peace activist.

Those sources are probably fine for the term. But it's such a wooly term. I suppose that's not going to amount to a reason to keep it out, but I don't favor including it.
By the way, given the nature of the editing here and the history of some of the participants, I'd like to suggest that people be careful not to run afoul of 1RR restrictions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cleaning up the lede[edit]

The second sentence of the current lede seems to be more about name-checking that establishing how the subject rose to promenence. Using "accused" in the lede and "implied" in the body text does not result in a fair summary. The entire sentence should be either dropped or rewritten to talk about how she rose to prominence. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources establish how the subject rose to prominence? There's nothing in the article that talks about that, and special care needs to be taken when composing the lead to summarize or give a sample of what comes later in the article.—Biosketch (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source quality[edit]

What's up with source 11? A personal website? KahlilB (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nurit_Peled-Elhanan&oldid=1209686128"