In a message dated 1/28/2008 2:13:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, amir.aharoni@gmail.com writes:
On 28/01/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
That said, having looked at the current Hebrew article, and being
familiar
with the most of the incidents, the article is highly POV. That is to
say, it
may be sourced, but it is still POV. For any Israelis reading this list,
Shach
and Ovadiah Yoseph made no less outrageous comments in their time, but
their
articles seem to be far more balanced.
The current article also suffers from all the brouhaha around it. It has been edited by several new accounts, which are most probably operated by experienced users whose reaction to the situation is part encyclopedic, part tongue-in-cheek. Certainly not the right way to handle it.
Yes, the article is POV and Yitzhak is known for 1) being litigious, and 2) twisting facts. Rather than simply protecting it, the article should be stubbed first--I doubt he would have a problem with the current English version of the article at _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnon_Yitzhak_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnon_Yitzhak) . For people who want some sense of who this guy is, see _http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Israel%27s%20Tele-rabbi.htm_ (http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Israel%27s%20Tele-rabbi.htm) . Right now, the Hebrew version is essentially a two-line introduction, followed by a list of all the controversial statements he made.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
On 28/01/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The current article also suffers from all the brouhaha around it. It has been edited by several new accounts, which are most probably operated by experienced users whose reaction to the situation is part encyclopedic, part tongue-in-cheek. Certainly not the right way to handle it.
Yes, the article is POV and Yitzhak is known for 1) being litigious, and 2) twisting facts.
Wikipedians must not live in fear of litigation. As i stated on the Hebrew talk page - an encyclopedia writer must fear the lie itself, not the punishment for it.
Lawyers must not decide what encyclopedic truth is, but since lawyers are an unfortunate part of reality, unpleasant action sometimes must be taken. But what happened in this case was based on guesses and (understandable) fears and not on proper legal advice.
I'm sure that discussions of this kind already happened many times on the English Wikipedia and i don't need to add much more. Your experience on the matter can help. I really don't think that we in he.wiki should reinvent the wheel.
On Jan 28, 2008, at 12:21 AM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Yes, the article is POV and Yitzhak is known for 1) being litigious, and 2) twisting facts. Rather than simply protecting it, the article should be stubbed first--I doubt he would have a problem with the current English version of the article at _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnon_Yitzhak_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnon_Yitzhak) . For people who want some sense of who this guy is, see _http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Israel%27s%20Tele- rabbi.htm_
Try: <http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No2/Israel%27s%20Tele- rabbi.htm>
I dunno how much Israeli culture has dealt with his ilk, in the US, we have come to expect pederasty, prostitution, tearful confessions, litigation, and vast financial empires being built this way. It can be a tricky topic, dealing with the "savior of the day".
That being said, I can understand how other cultures, not used to frequent savior figures, have to wrestle with such issues, while at the same time, cultures *with* savior figures argue over their saviors of the day....
That being said, WP is not the target, as WP should not be the *source* of information. We repeat what others have said, and we try to repeat sources which *can be* targets.
If Yitzhak *wants* to be litigious, I suggest he look at the en [[WP:SCN]] team, where the crew works in the constant threat of litigation.
Put another way, we let the crazies hoist themselves with their own petards.
Less work for us that way.
-Bop
On 28/01/2008, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
If Yitzhak *wants* to be litigious, I suggest he look at the en [[WP:SCN]] team, where the crew works in the constant threat of litigation.
That's exactly the reason that it bothers me so much: I happen to be one of the main editors of the Hebrew article about Scientology. I received praise for it from sources that have nothing to do with Wikipedia.
I also received personal communication from Israeli Scientology employees. They weren't direct legal threats, but they included requests to change the article according to their sources. I politely refused, explaining that i cite sources which i believe to be fair, independent and correct (a lot of Roy Wallis and very little xenu.net, if you know what i mean.)
Now Scientology Israel will see that Amnon Yitzhak's lawyers succeeded very easily at removing an article with all its older versions, just by sending a _very_ vague letter. So they can do the same, flushing down the drain my integrity and the years that i invested in researching this subject.
Put another way, we let the crazies hoist themselves with their own petards.
Less work for us that way.
I agree about the PR value - but do we still have to delete the article and give up our integrity after just one feeble letter?
Now Scientology Israel will see that Amnon Yitzhak's lawyers succeeded very easily at removing an article with all its older versions, just by sending a _very_ vague letter. So they can do the same, flushing down the drain my integrity and the years that i invested in researching this subject.
Hopefully it's only removed temporarily pending Mike being able to make an assessment. While it's not the chapter's responsibility, it does make sense to remove articles completely upon receiving a legal threat until someone with the appropriate expertise can work out if it's really a problem.
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
On 28/01/2008, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The current article also suffers from all the brouhaha around it. It has been edited by several new accounts, which are most probably operated by experienced users whose reaction to the situation is part encyclopedic, part tongue-in-cheek. Certainly not the right way to handle it.
Yes, the article is POV and Yitzhak is known for 1) being litigious, and 2) twisting facts.
Wikipedians must not live in fear of litigation. As i stated on the Hebrew talk page - an encyclopedia writer must fear the lie itself, not the punishment for it.
Lawyers must not decide what encyclopedic truth is, but since lawyers are an unfortunate part of reality, unpleasant action sometimes must be taken. But what happened in this case was based on guesses and (understandable) fears and not on proper legal advice.
I'm sure that discussions of this kind already happened many times on the English Wikipedia and i don't need to add much more. Your experience on the matter can help. I really don't think that we in he.wiki should reinvent the wheel.
You wouldn't be the one reinventing the wheel; those purporting to sue would be. Cases involving someone trying to suppress information have already been beaten back in Germany and France. Why should it be any different in Israel? Wikimedia-Israel has no control over the web site, and unless it actually starts to host material directly there is no basis for prosecuting it. If individual Israelis want to post libellous material they need to accept personal responsibility for their own actions.
Ec
On 28/01/2008, Cary Bass cbass@wikimedia.org wrote:
Rather than make a big to-do about this on Wikipedia-l, I'd like to know who was involved and the rationale for deletion they used. This way I can better determine if we need to state something more firmly.
Your best bet is to ask the he.wiki bureaucrats.
On 28/01/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If individual Israelis want to post libellous material they need to accept personal responsibility for their own actions.
That's my point exactly, but the sysops say that they want to protect the authors of the article and because of that they won't restore the deleted versions. That's somewhat understandable, but i believe that that's a decision that should be made by the foundation, or by someone designated by the foundation.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org