Jump to content

Talk:Meir Weinstein

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

Copy and Paste

[edit]

Please do not copy and paste newspaper articles. If you want to add these articles you need to rewrite them into your own words as per the guidelines of Wikipedia and almost be sure that they are not a potential POV source.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've misread policy re: POV. NPOV doesn't mean you can't include any opinion, just that you cannot include your personal opinion and that any opinion cited has to be from a published source (and not a blog). Editorials in newspapers are fine.

According to WP:NPOV: "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling up articles on Lexis/Nexis amd comparing them to the portions Eternalsleeper says are Cut and Paste. First the Toronto Star article: Freed, Dale Anne, "Newmarket mosque meeting 'one-sided'; Executive member says leadership not invited to meeting, adding they don't share controversial imam's views", Toronto Star, February 26, 2007

These are the parts of the WP article which ES says are "cut and pasted":

In 2007, Weinstein helped put on the "town hall" session to raise questions about the Newmarket mosque's connections with Zafar Bangash. The controversial imam has promoted sharia law and vigorously defended Iran's fundamentalist regime and Lebanon's Hezbollah movement. The mosque spokesperson denied that Bangash will have anything to do with the day-to-day running of the mosque.[1]

The meeting was criticized as "one-sided" because no officials from the mosque were invited. John Thompson, president of the Mackenzie Institute, was one of the featured speakers at the town hall. He told the Star that he was invited by Ron Banerjee, one of the organizers, but would have "called in with the flu" had he known Weinstein would be there because of his association with the JDL.[2]

I have the Star article in front of me and I don't see how ES's complaint is valid. The only phrases that are "cut and paste" from the article are the short parts in quotes and that's perfectly allowable. Therefore, I'm putting these paragraphs back into the article. If ES wants to remove them he has to show line by line where the "cutting and pasting" is. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his arguments against the mosque, Weinstein told the audience of about 30 "If, God forbid, an Islamic state ever came to fruition in this country, we would be doomed. Is that what you want in this country?"[3]

Above is a short quote from the National Post. You can't call including a short quote "cut and pasting". There's nothing wrong with having a quote as long as it's sourced and verifaible and this one is. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through about half the material ES removed and so far I've only found one line that isn't a direct quote that looks like it was "cut and pasted". "Weinstein began attending synagogue regularly, studying Jewish writings and supporting Jewish causes". I've reworded the sentence and I think it's ok now. I don't think though that that sentece alone justifies ES removing all the material he excised. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Freed, Dale Anne, "Newmarket mosque meeting 'one-sided'; Executive member says leadership not invited to meeting, adding they don't share controversial imam's views", Toronto Star, February 26, 2007
  2. ^ Freed, Dale Anne, "Newmarket mosque meeting 'one-sided'; Executive member says leadership not invited to meeting, adding they don't share controversial imam's views", Toronto Star, February 26, 2007
  3. ^ Tom Blackwell, "'Town hall' targets Newmarket mosque: Jewish group leading protest has checkered past of its own", National Post, February 26, 2007

Fromm

[edit]

I've rewritten the paragraph on the Paul Fromm protest to accurately reflect the source which does not claim that Weinstein personally organized the protest, was involved in the fracas with Fromm or was even present. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine House

[edit]

The section on the Palestine House demo seemed a bit one sided against the JDL so I balanced it out. Also removed the reference to the LA bombing as that was a non-sequitor and there was nothing to back up the inference that that's why Weinstein was taking a break from the JDL. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Goldstein

[edit]

I've restored the section on Baruch Goldstein but added some more material from the source article that balances things out (ie Weinstein saying Kach did not encourage terrorism and wanted all terrorists expelled from Israel) Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

[edit]

I've rewritten the section on Alberta in order to give Weinstein's organizing more context (ie the Aryan Nations were there). There was also one line that seems to have been lifted from the source material ie "Rabbi Kemelman called Mr. Halevi a "carpetbagger" railing against an anti-Semitic outbreak which does not exist." I've rewritten it accordingly. Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

I've restored material that wasn't "cut and pasted" from source material but have also tried to add context and balance where necessary. I found two or three lines that looked like they might have been direct lifts and have removed or reworded them.

One thing I haven't restored is the following - I'd like a bit of feedback on whether a) it adds something to the article b) shoud be reworded:

In 1989, he was ridiculed in the Toronto Star after claiming that the JDL had an Ontario membership of 5,500. According to the Star "Contacts in the Jewish community say the figure is closer to 5 than 5,500." )Rod Goodman, "Mishaps that made Star readers angry", March 4, 1989 Stolen Glances‎ (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with the material you've restored. I fully support the current edit. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone who was ridiculed in a newspaper was mentioned it would be a waste of wikipedia. I don't know where the JDL is releasing it's current members? I do not support this quote at all and I think it's a good idea to leave it out. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion

[edit]
I think the page is pretty good now since you revised it. But I would like to ask we remove the opinion piece of John Thompson in regards to his comment that, "he would have called in with the flu.." is this really necessary? Who is John Thompson and what makes his comment notable.

As for the comments on Baruch Goldstein, is there an actual link or any proof that he said he blames the Israeli government for Baruch's actions? If so, can we insert it, and if not can we remove it as it's very controversial if it cannot adequately be backed up? Thanks

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


But I would like to ask we remove the opinion piece of John Thompson in regards to his comment that, "he would have called in with the flu.." is this really necessary? Who is John Thompson and what makes his comment notable.

First of all it's not an "opinion piece" but a quote from a straight news article in the National Post. Thompson is the head of the Mackenzie Institute which is Canada's leading think-tank on terrorism. He was also the featured speaker at the meeting organized by Weinstein. His comments in regards to Weinstein and the JDL are therefore significant and should stay.

As for the comments on Baruch Goldstein, is there an actual link or any proof that he said he blames the Israeli government for Baruch's actions?

The comment is sourced to a Canadian Press article and is therefore reliable and verifiable - CP is Canada's leading wire news agency, the equivalent of Associated Press or Reuters. There's no requirement in Wikipedia that sources have live internet links - if there were then we'd have to constantly be removing sources as their free web access expired and wouldn't be able to use books, many newspapers, magazines, academic journals etc which are either not on the web, are on the web temporarily, or are only available to subscribers. If you go to any good library you can get access to the article via Lexis/Nexis, Factiva or another news database. Or, if you have $3.95 you can get the article from here: [1] The Toronto Star archive carries the article under the title "Mosque attack threatens talks Arafat blames Rabin for massacre" Kitchener - Waterloo Record; Feb 26, 1994; pg. A.1 and "'Sorry not enough' Arafat tells Israel Islamic states want Security Council investigation The Hamilton Spectator; Feb 26, 1994; pg. A.3" - both versions of the article have the Weinstein quote as it appears in the Wikipedia article. This is the entire section of the article where it refers to Meir Halevi (Weinstein):

Arab and Jewish groups in Canada were quick to respond to the killings.
Meir Halevi, Canadian spokesman for Israel's Kach movement -- to which gunman Baruch Goldstein belonged -- said: "Our organization does not condemn the attack. It condemns the Israeli government for not providing adequate protection for settlers."
Halevi said the Kach movement does not encourage such attacks but wants all people who belong to "terrorist organizations," including the PLO, expelled from Israel.

Since this comment appears in a national wire service article and is available from both the Hamilton Spectator and the KW Record (and probably other newspapers not archived on Lexis/Nexis and Factiva) it quite clearly is "backed up" and should stay. A quote in a wire service article is significantly sourced. Stolen Glances‎ (talk)

user:Stolen Glances asked me to review the article. I don't see any significant problems with the sourcing or writing. The John Thompson comment does appear noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

frank pais

[edit]

I removed this users introduction statement. It was extremely POV.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intro statement was not POV. Check the source, it's all in there. Frank Pais (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is the director of the Canadian arm of JDL, not the anti-Islamic JDL.
--Eternalsleeper (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss something, rather then adding a highly POV edit, you should discuss it on here before making such a controversial edit. He is the leader of the JDL, nothing else before that- just JDL. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i must apologize. My computer froze up just as i was typing the message i wanted to include with my edit.

I agree that saying the "anti-Islam" JDL is a bit strong. However, the JDL is recognized as a terrorist group by at least two english-speaking countries (Canada and the U.S.), and if i'm not mistaken by Britain as well. Unfortunately, Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi and Ahmed Yassin both have "terrorist" prominently featured in the introductions to their pages. Hamas, however, is ostensibly a political party, removed from the militant organizations it represents. Yet on the pages of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, and Arthur Griffith we do not see the same sort of "terrorist" label applied.

Since it seems the Wikipedia precedent for parties involved in the Arab-Israeli-U.S. conflict is to put the word "terrorist" prominently in the intro -- and since the JDL is clearly considered a terrorist group -- then i see no reason not to include it in this page, just the same way as we find it prominently displayed on the pages for the leaders of Hamas.Stone put to sky (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No the JDL is not listed as a terror group in Canada whatsoever, nor have they ever engaged in illegal activity in Canada. I am not going to get into an edit war, it's not my interest nor do I have a passion for arguing about something so simplistic as this. You should remove this POV edit yourself as you and I both know this is a false accusation. Especially seeing that JDL Canada is not the same branch as JDL in the states and Meir Weinstein has never been accused of doing anything else then peaceful protesting. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that Stone is comparing the JDL to Hamas, and says "unfortunately" terrorist is put in front of Hamas's introduction. What an absurd accusation! This page is also not about the JDL but rather Meir Weinstein.
--Eternalsleeper (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meir Weinstein. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Meir Weinstein. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meir_Weinstein&oldid=1209477445"