Talk:Adam Shapiro (activist)

message: So BLP just goes out the window here? There's a boatload of highly contentious claims which are totally unsourced, and weasel-worded to boot. <eleland/talkedits> 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Improve the article then. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you qualify under that rule, be bold. Subject to everyone else's ruthless editing--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for informing me that "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit." I think everyone forgets that around their 5,000th edit or so. <eleland/talkedits> 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not totally unsourced, and worded with an eye towards neutrality. But by all means, let's improve it. -- Y not? 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK.... 

message: I'm somewhat concerned that what we have in the article is not supported even by the source CarolmooreDC put in for what she wrote. The article does not state that the Israelis were shooting at them, it just says they were being shot at. Probably Shapiro means to imply that the Israelis were doing it, but he has chosen not to say so. I've excised the relevant part of the article:
:The feeling, back in 2001, was that the presence of foreigners would deter the Israeli army from using lethal force and give ordinary Palestinians the confidence to take part in protests, a confidence that had been lost since the early days of the first intifada. A year later, as we reflect on that Easter, Huwaida says, "We had planned all kinds of direct action. We were going to be proactive, highlighting closures and planning on marches and dismantling roadblocks. And then the invasion happened. Even the international agencies were stopped cold." The ISM's work became chiefly humanitarian. "That's when we started putting people into ambulances and calling up the army directly to say, listen, there are foreign volunteers inside those ambulances," she says.
:"Our work changed because the UN and the Red Cross were failing the Palestinians," says Adam. "Their mode of operation is to liaise
with the Israeli army and if the army refuses to cooperate, there is nothing they can do."
:The invasion began on Good Friday, March 29 2002, in Ramallah. Adam and Huwaida had made their home in the city soon after the founding of the ISM and they woke, with the city lashed by storms, to find a tank parked outside their building. Adam and an Irish woman named Caoimhe Butterly volunteered to ride the ambulances. "The ambulances were being shot at," Adam recalls. "They were being stopped for long periods and ambulance drivers were being arrested. I remember we picked up corpses and took them to the morgue. We helped a pregnant woman and moved a kidney patient on dialysis from one hospital to another. But we were hearing that there were injured people in the presidential compound. So Caoimhe and I decided to go."
For lack of evidence, I'm going to redo that whole article section.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than retrace my steps through history where I am quite sure the allegation of Israelis firing on ambulances was supported by a couple sources, I'll just include relevant text from articles here and then there will be no future confusion. By whole section I assume you mean paragraph or two on the 2002 incident. Carol Moore 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you can provide links to those articles? As for "section", I just meant the part where firing on ambulances is spoken of. I did that already.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambulances 

message: * This source (for two reprints) - JAT: The "Jewish Action Taskforce" - would be considered extremist and fringe and only usable about its own activities per Wikipedia:Rs#Extremist_and_fringe_sources
:*According to a 2003 profile of ISM in the Jordanian newspaper "The Star," Shapiro "justifies the Palestinian armed resistance against Israel as long as it is targeting Israeli soldiers and Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."REF:"Adam Shapiro calls for Palestinian civil resistance: 'No peace can be achieved with occupation'", The Star, July 06, 2003; reprinted at JAT: The "Jewish Action Taskforce".
:*In an article published in the Palestine Chronicle, Shapiro and Arraf wrote: "What is needed is nonviolent direct action against the occupation.... Hamas claims it has many men ready to be suicide bombers – we advocate that these men offer themselves as martyrs by standing on a settler road and blocking it from traffic. This is no less of a jihad. This is no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation. And we are certain that if these men were killed during such an action, they would be considered shaheed Allah." They continued: "Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms..."REF:http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/ISM_essay_ref12.htm Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada: A Response to Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle, January 29, 2002; reprinted at JAT: The "Jewish Action Taskforce". Carol Moore 17:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not going to reinvent the wheel here, these sources must have been used in other articles and debated there. Can you find links to WP discussions about these sources? One man's extremist source is another's newspaper of record. As for it not existing on the web anymore doesn't mean it can't be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In WP:BLP the onus is on the person providing a source to prove it exists or is reliable - or to provide link to any wiki discussions saying it is reliable in WP:BLP. The "ISM: Support For Terrorism" article clearly is not WP:RS. The policy is if an extremist source is the only source reprinting an article, as with the Palestine Chronicle article, is usually debated on an individual basis. So I'll have to bring both issues to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and get others opinions. Per WP:BLP policy. Though I still feel I have a perfect right to revert dubious info. And again I don't have a problem with the content; even Gandhi supported violence against police and armies if there was no other means to stop mass murder by them. I just don't trust the sources. Carol Moore 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be the heat. I didn't realize both these articles are reprints and have changed above text refs and article text refs accordingly. I've struck irrelevant comment above. So the only issue is, is this a sufficiently reliable source to trust what it reprints as being the actual reprint? Carol Moore 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing about the "Hero" piece . . . One of the quotes can also be found here--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These issues frequently discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. NewsDay is a reputable publication that goes out of its way NOT to print libels. However, since it is an opinion piece, unless there is some factoid not found in a news story, I'm content for it to be an external link. The problem with http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/ is it is a fringe/extremist group and sometimes reprints from those groups are not allowed because the group might, for example, have removed or even rewritten important material. So I'd have to get others opinions on credibilty of this group, especially since it is WP:BLP related. Have you read WP:RS and WP:V? Carol Moore 13:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: As I said above, the credibility of these sources must have been debated in the endless I-P conflict saga. However, if you are not content to use them as sources, I'm fine with external links, handled identically as the Hero piece. It's "Newsday", by the way. I am a bit concerned that the Hero piece, incidently, is a reprint, and who knows, the group reprinting it might have removed or even rewritten important material.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: So, using words of three or less, or five or more letters, how do you justify deleting direct quotes from the New York Times?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, direct quotes that aren't in quotation marks and aren't attributed are generally known as "plagiarism" and/or "copyright infringement." But the NYT material isn't the issue, as you well know. The material from the "Jewish Action Taskforce" is the problem. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why don't you partially revert yourself and we'll discuss the point at issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Accede unilaterally to your demands, then you'll deign to negotiate? No thanks. <eleland/talkedits> 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not about me or you, it is the edits, and what I propose is common practice. If the New York Times material is unobjectionable, you should reinsert it. It's customary practice.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing questionably sourced paragraphs