Talk:Steven Plaut

Tikkun magazine

Several editors (or possibly one editor using several ids) have been removing a quote from Tikkun magazine on the grounds that it is "not a serious source". On the contrary, Tikkun is an extremely serious and influential magazine. It is worthy of its own entry in Wikipedia, and many other articles link to or cite it. I do not believe that this is a "good faith" edit, rather that the editors do not wish Wikipedia readers to know that "Writing under assumed names, Plaut has a long history of attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel" I have accordingly reinstated the quote. --RolandR 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing material that provides a more balanced perspective on the matter (material from Tikkun, by David Newman, reproduced in other places as well). This is unacceptable. It is particularly ironic that the person who removed the material from Tikkun, under the excuse that it is a 'smear', has no problems with other claims that appear in the same section: that some academics are 'self-hating' Jews who are 'apologists' for terrorism. Why is that not a 'smear' or a 'libellous' claim? You cannot be selective here.Rangreen 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Threat to Academic Freedom in Israel-Palestine by David Newman Tikkun Magazine July/August 2004

http://www.tikkun.org/archive/backissues/xtik0407/israel/040725.html/view?searchterm=Threat%20to%20Academic%20Freedom

(text refactored, but available here.[1])—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.233.226 (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Refactored potential copyvio. --Elonka 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

External links

{{editprotected}}

Due to Haaretz's archiving practices, some of the urls in the article now lead to "Page not found" errors. Please note that Footnotes 7, 8 and 9, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/724857.html should be replaced by http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=724857 RolandR (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

done! --Haemo (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the overlap is with other EL's, but how about: http://www.newyorkmonthlyherald.com/column_of_professor_steven_plaut.htm ? Andyvphil (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

Steven Plaut is no longer involved with Israel Academia Monitor due to his extreme views and speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.212.254 (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Appeals court overturns earlier verdict. Plaut beats Gordon on almost all counts. Breaking News: The "Steven Plaut" entry is out of date - please add the updated information from this http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 --- Borisyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.51.71 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For a more objective account than FrontPage Magazine, see the report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Israeli Appeals Court Upholds Libel Judgment Against Academic but Reduces Damages. The bottom line is that, even following this ruling which Plaut describes a "near-complete victory", he is still a convicted libeller. RolandR (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the bottom line is that Plaut is NOT a libeler. The court ruled that Plaut was factually correct in reporting Gordon's pro-terror illegal "human shield" sedition, but opposed attaching to it the adjective "judenrat-wannabe." But that adjective is not only accurate but would be protected speech in any other democratic legal system. I suggest that RolandR take off his anti-Israel blinders and admit that an anti-Israel radical got creamed well deservedly for attempting to suppress freedom of speech! Or maybe RolandR just is opposed to freedom of speech for non-communists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisyy (talk • contribs) 07:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am simply quoting the reputable and authoritative Chronicle of Higher Education, which writes "In a 2-to-1 ruling last week, a three-judge panel of the appeals court, also in Nazareth, upheld the trial court's ruling, but found that Mr. Gordon had exaggerated Mr. Plaut's alleged libels". So I am correct; an Israeli Appeals Court has upheld the veerdict of the District Court; Steven Plaut is a convicted libeller. RolandR (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to be convicted in a civil action. Conviction is a term reserved for criminal offenses. Steven Plaut is not a convicted "libeller" - he paid some damages in a civil suit. Hardly a big deal. Amoruso (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with Haaretz, which writes "Haifa University economist Steven Plaut was convicted last week of libeling a fellow academic, Neve Gordon". I am quoting a reliable source; you are making it up as you go. RolandR (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to all of the above, I wonder whether excessive attention is paid to the suit in the article. It now consumes one-third of the space and I think that raises WEIGHT issues.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not what you're doing. You're proving that you don't speak English very well... Conviction (see article or open up a dictionary) is a term reserved for criminal procedure. It is not a term used anywhere in the world for a civil action. Whoever used that word for a civil action either (a) doesn't speak English well, and Haaretz is not Abba Even. or (b) made a grave mistake without realising it. Furthermore, Haaretz is not a reliable source for your false assertion. A layman is not a reliable source - a jurist is. Ira Moskowitz is not a jurist. [2] . Sorry. Amoruso (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It shouldn't be more than a paragraph. Amoruso (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about a paragraph, as it has received substantial attention, some generated by Plaut himself. However, six seems like overkill. Maybe half the size, or thereabouts. On "convicted": in Israel and in most places, that word is legitimately used only for criminal libel. Unless this is a criminal libel case, the term should not be used.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, if you don't like the term, take it up with Haaretz. That is a reliable source; your OR is not. RolandR (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to replicate every term used casually by a newspaper in reference to this case. I'd like to see more sources refer to Plaut as "convicted" or other use of that terminology with regard to Israeli libel cases. Barring that, I'd err on the side of caution in this BLP.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For example 1) Counterpunch "Haifa University economist Steven Plaut was convicted last week of libeling a fellow academic [and CounterPuncher], Neve Gordon of Ben-Gurion University's Department of Politics and Government"; 2) Peter N. Kirstein "Professor Plaut was convicted of libel in ISRAEL for calling Israeli academic Neve Gordon an anti-semite"; 30 Jerusalem Post "The United States Supreme Court recognized long ago in New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964) that private libel actions can be employed to stifle free speech. Plaut’s conviction is a case in point"

And note, by the way, Plaut's own usage of the term: "Chamish had previously been repeatedly convicted in Israel of libeling other people"; "Sheleg's honey Amira has already been convicted of libel"Since he uses this term when discussing others, he can hardly protest when it is used in exactly the same context in describing him. RolandR (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(restoring indent)In the only two online law journal articles I could find that specifically discussed an Israeli libel case, both referred to the defendant as being "found liable" not "convicted." In C 032986/03 Moshe Boshmitz v. Anat Aronowitz, Magistrates Court of Tel-Aviv Jaffa, Israeli Judge Shoshana Almagor held that the manager of an online forum may be liable for the content published by the forum users on a theory of negligence. etc.[3][4] I think that IBLS has greater authority on the proper terminology than casual journalistic usage or Plaut talking about a guy he doesn't like.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not our job to assess "greater authority", but to cite reliable sources. As far as legal and political developments in Israel are concerned, two of the most frequently-used sources in Wikipedia are Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. Both refer to Plaut being convicted of libel. That's good enough for me, and good enough for Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Take it up with the English dictionary and also edit the article Conviction. You're embarrassing yourself. Mantanmoreland is of course correct. Also, you should refrain from editing subjects which you're not familiar with, i.e. legal issues. Amoruso (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this article still protected after seven months?? Of course, I can almost see why, given the depths of animosity over "convicted of" vs. "liable for". Roland, it strikes me that you might be able to extract more cooperation from your opponents on this article by giving in on this one. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is protected not because of a dispute, however bitter, over the precise term for the outcome of the libel action. And in any case, that dispute related only to the term to be used on this talk page; it did not relate to the article itself. It was protected because several editors -- most now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets -- were introducing into the article the precise allegations found by an Israeli court to be libellous. They were also making racist and defamatory accusations against the judge in the case. This is absolutely unacceptable, under any circumstances. RolandR (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

unblock needed

to update the appeal... "Both sides appealed to the District Court in Nazareth and In March 2008, the court rejected the appeal by Gordon and accepted Plaut's appeal, except for one publication depicted in the verdict as the "third publication". In regards to this publication, the appeal by Plaut was rejected by a majority ruling. In this publiction, Plaut called Gordon a "Judenrat Wannabe". The court then reduced the damages to just 10,000 shekels, or about $2,700, with no payment of legal costs required, because "Gordon put himself in the eye of the storm of public discussion". There is an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court of Israel. [2] [3]" - also to shorten it all out. Amoruso (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and re-organize

Consequently, I cut down the whole section and used the paragraph from Neve Gordon article to review the issue. Amoruso (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the WP:WEIGHT issue, but it does concern me when I see multiple reliable sources deleted from an article. Usually it is better practice to thin out the information from the sources, but to keep the sources themselves intact. Or is there some other reason that they were removed? --Elonka 17:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources were all related to the trial. This article is not about the trial, but about Plaut. As part of the weight issue, I've removed the entire section of the trial and summarized it using the sources accepted in consensus, with the help of an administrator mediating, over the same issue on Neve Gordon article. If you feel that there are some very pertinent sources that need to be reinstated please do so, but please keep in mind the weight issue and that parties to the trial feel very strongly about it and it immediately spans in length representing the pov's. Amoruso (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help with a correction: I do not have an account but wish to see the schools at which Plaut has taught edited so that Athens Laboratory of Business Administration (ALBA) is correct and has a hyperlink to its web page. That web page can be found at: www.alba.edu.gr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.35.142 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Description of edit, 11Feb2010

In addition to some very minor "clean-up" editing, I changed the "Apartheid Wall" reference to "Israeli West Bank Barrier". The latter is the title of the linked-to Wikipedia article, and the change reflects my understanding that Wikipedia articles are supposed to present factual information rather than editorializing. Whether one likes Steve Plaut or not (and, for the record, I do not like the man), a biographical article on him is not the place to express an opinion on the Barrier - or, for that matter, on any other Israeli security policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Radlauer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Involvement with websites

As an otherwise uninvolved editor I've seen (through pending changes review) several unsupported edits claiming Plaut's involvement with either Israel Monitor or Isracampus websites. In the end I deleted the contentious clause for the want of any cited source confirming or refuting either claim. The present version has the Isracampus claim reisntated, supported by a source which appears to be a personal opinion, claiming to be posted by a Ted Belman , the content of which claims to be a message from Plaut. This seems pretty weak to me and not up to the standard required by WP:BLP. The truth of the matter may be blatantly obvious to editors familiar with the subject, but as wiki's inclusion criteria is based on WP:V and WP:RS I would like to see a much stronger source to support this. I'm aware that Plaut has his critics and there may be attempts to harm his image by maliciosly associating him with websites whose views provoke offence or repugnance, and wiki should be sure that it's not inadvertantly being drawn into such tactics. Any offers -- Timberframe (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

The item I cited (an appeal for money for Isracampus) was on Israpundit, another website closely associated with Plaut. The appeal was widely circulated at the time. Plaut is also on record as praising Isracampus. See for instance, the 18 August 2010 entry on his personal blog, Imaginary vs Real McCarthyism, where he quotes a post he made to the "professors chat list": "The best web site that documents anti-Israel extremism and politicization in Israeli academia is here: http://www.isracampus.org.il" (the original post itself can be found at [5].)

Plaut's ongoing involvement in web activity is well-attested. I believe that, foillowing an OTRS report, we are not permitted to quote from David Newman's 2004 article The Threat to Academic Freedom in Israel-Palestine from Tikkun Magazine detailing this; for those interested, it can be found here. RolandR (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, RolandR, for your explanation. The trouble is that all you've cited in addition is more unsupported claims of "close association", "wide circulation" and "well attested", and a blog that could be by anyone. None of them comes close to being grounds for inclusion. Can you (or anyone) please offer some reliable sources? If none of the reputable news outlets have picked up his alleged association with particular websites then I have to ask whether the alleged association is even notable. -- Timberframe (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Plaut's involvement with Isracampus is no secret, and not even mildly controversial. I have now added a link to an interview with the 5 Towns Jewish Times, a community newspaper serving the Orthodox Jewish community of Nassau County, in which Plaut says "Today I am very active with a small group of similar-minded people in operating Isracampus".[6] There is more about Isracampus in the interview, which may be a useful source for expandoing our article. Really, I don't understand whu there is all this fuss about a non-contentious statement which nobody has ever challenged factually. RolandR (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thamks, RolandR, I appreciate the time you put in to that. I can't say - because I've no knowledge of the subject - what aspects are or aren't potentially controversial, but it's clear that the subject himself attracts controversy, not to mention lawsuits, so forgive me if on this occasion I'm making mountains out of molehills; all I can go by is the standard set by WP:BLP. -- Timberframe (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration remedies

I've just pointed out to two editors that there is a 1RR restriction on this article. The only exceptions are clear vandalism, which I don't think was the case, and IP edits. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Political Views of Plaut

Three important aspects of the political views of Plaut are missing - 1) the anti-Palestinian writings and comments. The following source published Plaut's own words: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11654 ("Op Ed: Happy Nakba Day"). It is at least as reliable a source as the source (Frontpagemag) of a lengthy citation of Plaut's writing in the present article, presenting his attitude to a different target of his sharp pen - the Palestinians. As this issue is "hidden" behind most of the writings of Plaut against "self hating Jews", as he defines them, It is appropriate to include the Palestinians specifically. There is currently only vague mention of his criticism of the "Israeli-Arab piece process", but not a single mention of Palestinians about which he writes much more than about "Israeli-Arab". Other sources for Plaut's writing about the Palestinians: http://www.terrorismawareness.org/news/162/how-nakba-proves-theres-no-palestinian-nation/ http://frontpagemag.com/2011/steven-plaut/the-%E2%80%9Cnakba%E2%80%9D-debunked/ http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/u-of-haifa-stops-nakba-commemoration-as-prof-writes-hate-post-calling-for-many-nakbas.html http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7964 But the "Happy nakba day" summarizes it all.

2) The [Palestinian] issue as well as many writings against Israeli academics are abundant on http://stevenplaut.blogspot.co.il/ which contains his current writings and comments as well as an archive.

3) It is a substantial understatement to mention just the figures of Michael Lerner and Norman Finkelstein as the only two "left wing" Jews targeted by Plaut. In his "Isracampus.org.il" (it can easily be proved that this site is under his full control...) he has more than 100 "academic leftists" from Israeli institutions whom he follows and "reports" about. Please comment on whether those three references should or should not be introduced into the Steven Plaut article Rastiniak (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

Much of this, and lots more about Plaut's controversial record, has been in earlier versions of the article, but has been removed in the course of prolonged edit wars, much of it conducted by blocked sockpuppeteer Truthprofessor and his many socks. RolandR (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should material written and signed by Plaut himself be a matter of controversy ? Does he not back his own words ? Rastiniak (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

Plaut is considered a reliable source for his own views, to the extent that these are notable. But he is not considered a reliable source for other matters; and emphatically not for his comments on other people. Indeed, since he has been involved in libel actions against more than one subject of Wikipedia articles, it would be unwise in the extreme to quote him uncritically. There have also been deletions of several references to Plaut's alleged extensive use of sockpuppets in a relentless cyber campaign against perceived opponents (including anti-Zionist Jews, Israeli anti-occupation activists, Marxists and even some right-wing dissidents). Although this is well attested, the reports by Ran HaCohen, Richard Silverstein, David Newman and others have not been accepted as reliable sources. I recommend that you take a careful look at the talk page (including archives) before attempting to add any of this to the article. RolandR (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Three very notable references were added to the Political views section of Steven Plaut from his own major activities: the anti-Palestinian writings (2 references - from israelnationalnews and frontpagemag) and the anti-Israeli leftists writings (Plaut's personal blog), including a mention of the "gallery of Rogues" with more than 120 Israeli academics presented on www.isracampus.org.il. The citation of Samuel Sokol to the criticism of Israeli academics is not reachable. There are other mentions of that activity in the Israeli newspapers which could replace it, such as http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/10-percent-of-israeli-academics-labeled-anti-zionist-by-campus-watchdogs-1.408535 in which Plaut is quoted by the journalist. I assume that Plaut is proud of all his own writings and quotes and will not attempt to reverse the citations from major venues of his own writings such as Frontpagemag and IsraelNationalNews, which may serve to advertise his work. All of these changes have been discussed in this section and it does not seem that any WP editors have mentioned opposition to the above suggested additions. Rastiniak (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

Did he write this : "Israel must re-occupy the Gaza Strip, subject it to martial law, and carry out a decades-long program of Denazification." ? I am not sure that "Nakba skeptical" and even "anti-Palestinian" is adapted for his writings. Is there no third party comment about these ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

He did indeed; and in the same article he called for the murder of journalists: "I personally am of the opinion that any journalist characterizing terrorists as “militants” or “activists” should be regarded as directly participating in aggression against Israel and treated as an enemy combatant."[7] RolandR (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. He doesn't call directly for the murder of journalists but this sentence should be added a way or the other in the article. He is clearly not just "anti-Palestinian". Pluto2012 (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any possibility to introduce this information ? It seems critical regarding Steven Plaut. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any other statement/claim, from Steven Plaut about the 2011-07-22 twin terrorist attacks, other than http://stevenplaut.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html#2515304115003346281 (including "the Norwegian attacks do not appear really to be terrorism.") and http://stevenplaut.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html#4331598175311482114 (including "The fact of the matter is that the Norwegian killings, horrific though they may be, were not acts of terrorism at all [but] murderous acts of the deranged, with no real ideological motivation."). Any guess? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The unreachable reference of a Samuel Sokol piece was replaced by one which conveys similar ideas, with the journalist quoting Plaut on the monitoring of Israeli academics Rastiniak (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Rastiniak