Talk:Nurit Peled-Elhanan

message: Why is this word repeatedly removed? Tidaress 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better question is why were you sockpuppeting? Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Occupation"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another Wikipedia homage to the Pantheon of marginal fringe Israeli anti-Israel activists 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: which edit, which RS is being called a tabloid? Soosim (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Thats not one newspaper there are other sources also  and there also sympathetic source that admit that she is consider extremist by some --Shrike (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you're resorting to Plaut here speaks volumes.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremist views? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  cleaning up the lede 

message: What's up with source 11? A personal website? KahlilB (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source quality