Talk:Amira Hass

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

Amira Hass and the libel case[edit]

There is little doubt that this libel case occurred and that Haaretz/Amira lost it. Nor can there be doubt about the sum awarded. However, our article only references "Jerusalem Post, June 8th, 2001" which is non-verifiable to "any reader" as required by WP verifiability policy.

And the details we have are suspicious - this was a magistrates court (according to CAMERA) and Haaretz didn't defend the case. Suggesting that either the court did not have the capacity to try this case, couldn't enforce the judgment or it was otherwise overthrown.

I think we need evidence that this case actually went to completion - I've added "It is not known whether this judgment was ever enforced or the money paid.". PalestineRemembered 10:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Post report on the libel case[edit]

This is the text of the Jerusalem Post report:

Ha’aretz Journalist Ordered To Pay Hebron Residents NIS 250,000
Jerusalem Post, June 8, 2001
The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court yesterday ordered Ha’aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents.
Hass reported a January 13 incident in which the Border Police killed Palestinian Shabber Hassouna al-Husseini during a hot pursuit in Hebron. Hass described the incident according to Palestinian reports, with a response from the IDF.
In her article, Hass reported that Palestinian eyewitnesses saw Beit Hadassah residents spit on Husseini’s body, kick it, and stomp on it, afterward whooping joyously and handing out candies in celebration.
The suit filed by the residents claimed that not only did such an event not take place, but that Hass recounted the story with malicious intent.
"All these things were complete lies whose purpose was to depict Beit Hadassah residents as inhuman monsters who abuse corpses," the brief stated.
Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents’ claim that the report – disproven by several televised accounts of the incident – damaged the community’s reputation.
Ha’aretz stated afterward that it did not have time to arrange a defense in the hearing, and said it will challenge the decision.

Ha'aretz never appealed the decision.

Hecht (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAMERA link[edit]

CAMERA is not a reliable source, and is not being quoted by a reliable source. WP:BLP is very clear on this: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", also, "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links." —Ashley Y 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, CAMERA has plenty of accurate, well documented, verifiably sourced information, and its rebuttals are in fact widely respected, even by many of Israel's critics. Though it may not necessarily conform to your point of view, that doesn't make it unreliable. By contrast, this article on Amira Hass reads as a poor, thinly veiled propagandistic piece on her behalf, ignoring legitimate criticism of her, and dismissing such criticism as 'verbal attacks'. Perhaps it did not occur to you that journalists who have a pre-determined political line with roots in militant Communism might have difficulty in simply reporting the facts objectively and preventing their ideology from clouding their judgment. Be that as it may, the contents of this article are in keeping with the general level of quality one has come to expect from 'The Free Encyclopedia'.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wording Edit[edit]

The wikipedia article states that Amira Hass "labeled" Israel an apartheid state, however in her own words she says some of its policies are "reminiscent" of South African Apartheid without actually saying it IS one. This is, I think, an important distinction, I changed the wording accordingly as it seemed to POV.--Mr Bucket (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Amira Hass actually fined for her comments about a settler community?[edit]

It seems that Wikipedia's article on Amira Hass has come up on The Daily Show's discussion board (http://forums.thedailyshow.com/?page=ThreadView&thread_id=26362&pg=87). One person on this forum has written:

Just goes to show that you cannot trust what you read on wikipedia. It is not, and should not be considered, an authoratitive source. The fine was imposed because Haaretz and Hass did not show up in court (due to a bureaucratic mixup.) The fine was later revoked. In out-of-court negotiations, Haaretz refused to cave in to the settlers' demand that they print an apology; they were prepared to defend themselves in court. The settlers withdrew their charge. To the best of my knowledge, no fines were ever paid by Haaretz and there was no final judgement of guilt against either them or Hass.

No source is provided, but this statement at least has the advantage of being plausible. Does anyone know what really happened?

And should we necessarily trust the Jerusalem Post's coverage of a trial involving a rival reporter? CJCurrie (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what you're point is. any coverage wikipedia can use for media articles will be coverage in other media outlets. media outlets' coverage of their own media would be a primary source. would your suggestion apply to all media sources or only Israel sources? at the end of the day, the Jerusalem Post if far more reliable then some rant on a comedy forum.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also the Jerusalem Post article is pasted right above us at Talk:Amira Hass#Jerusalem Post report on the libel case. It appears the concerns raised at the comedy forum are meritless. Kindly self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that a contributor to an online discussion forum has stated that Amira Hass's trial involving the Hebron settlers was resolved out of court and with no admission of wrongdoing. I have no idea if this statement is accurate, but it does seem plausible. That's why I am asking if anyone can confirm or refute it.
My (other) concern regarding the objectivity of the Jerusalem Post toward a rival journalist still stands. I believe that the revised wording is sufficient to address all concerns. CJCurrie (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
again, an anonymous contributor to an online comedy forum does not in any way trump reliable sources. this is quite simple. you removed from the article how Hass's report was contradicted by other media sources, based on an anonymous contributor to an online comedy forum. a reliable source has explicitly contradicted the anonymous contributor to an online comedy forum.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an anonymous contributor to an online forum (comedy or otherwise) does not trump a published article; that's why I didn't incorporate any of the anonymous contributor's observations into our article mainspace. As against which, this particular contributor's assertion is at least plausible and, if true, it would put an entirely different spin on the events described in the mainspace. That's why I'm asking if anyone knows anything else about the matter.
On the separate issue of the Jerusalem Post's statement, I'll note that I'm using the same compromise wording that I first brought forward two years ago, well before the online post appeared. I could add that the Post's ownership in 2001 was extremely tilted toward the Israeli right-wing and that there are plausible grounds to doubt their objectivity concerning Hass's case. CJCurrie (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

misleading edit summaries[edit]

Nableezy: kindly do not add misleading edit summaries as you did here You did not undo "my revision" because my revision removed unsourced BLP content and your revision readded the content with a source. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did undo your edit. I also added a source. Kindly do not make misleading attacks on others as you did in the comment above. nableezy - 19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great response. Just don't do it again. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that. nableezy - 19:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"published what she claimed"[edit]

First of all, Amira Hass didnt publish anything. She filed a report with her employer, and they published that report. Second of all, see WP:CLAIM. We dont cast such aspersions, especially in the biographies of living people. nableezy - 07:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording makes it sound like what she wrote was true, and it was merely the settlers who argued she was wrong and the judge just sided with them. In reality, we have an opposing side denying it, another RS outlet saying it was false, and a judge ruling against it. What she wrote, therefore, can not be considered as true, and is more neutral to be written as a claim she wrote (note: That's not to say it wasn't true - I don't care what an editor wants to personally think or consider it as. But here on Wikipedia, we can't take it as a fact, and really this goes for many reports, not just those disproven in court. Claims can be true.). It's shocking to realize that journalists can sometimes not write the truth, I know. In addition, I'd like to note that I'd be happy to put aside all work and eagerly reply to your future response, but it is really late here and I must get off. Perhaps in the morning. Cheers. --Activism1234 07:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the current wording makes it sound like she filed a report. It says she reported Palestinian eyewitness accounts. That is exactly what she did, and writing that she published claimed reports is a straightforward BLP violation. No source disputes that those were Palestinian accounts. Implying that she was lying about those accounts by using "claimed" is not acceptable under either WP:V or WP:BLP. nableezy - 07:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She wrote/published Palestinian accounts. Does that make them true? China publishes a lot of propaganda in their newspapers, does that make them true? And here, we're dealing with a case in which a court ruled against it, as well as another reliable media outlet said it was false. --Activism1234 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, she did not publish anything, and repeating that word makes me doubt the good faith that this discussion is supposedly being held in. Where did the article say that what the Palestinians said was true? Answer, it didnt. And now we have another BLP violation added to the article. Awesome. nableezy - 16:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's a writer for a newspaper and sends articles to be published in her name. You want to change it to "wrote" or "reported?" Fine. Not the biggest deal in the world. The point is, we can't take "eyewitness accounts" as actually being true or being eyewitness accounts, and rather what they claimed, since obviously there's much evidence to the contrary. --Activism1234 16:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, she sends reports that the newspaper published in their name, naming her as the reporter. The article did not say the eyewitness accounts were true, what is so hard to understand about that? nableezy - 16:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wrote "palestinian eyewitness accounts that settlers had defiled a body..." The point here is that it's taking what Palestinians say and saying for a fact these are eyewitness accounts, and they are true. NO, rather they claimed these were eyewitness accounts and claimed this is what happened. --Activism1234 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argument by repetition isnt what passes as good faith. WHERE does it say that the accounts were true? nableezy - 16:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition? I wasn't repeating anything. I was explaining it in more detail. As of NOW it does not say that. Previously, when this section was made, it did. the end. --Activism1234 16:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean now, with the straightforward BLP violation it does not say it, a BLP violation I will be removing. How about you actually say how it did say that? That would be engaging in a good faith discussion, instead of hand-waving obfuscation. That would be splendid. nableezy - 16:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The version I edited to (not this one) is the best one. By reverting it after 24 hours expire, and using your argument that "re-reverting to remove long-standing material without discussion is edit-warring" you would seemingly be edit-warring, as we clearly haven't reached a decision here (and I doubt you will ever agree to anything I say, no matter how long this lasts, and I'm not paid to sit around here either and do this all day, I have other things). Here's what the article previously said - "Hass had reported Palestinian eyewitness accounts of Israeli settlers defiling the body of a Palestinian militant killed by Israeli police; the settlers argued that the event did not take place, and said that Hass reported the story with malicious intent." In other words, it's saying she reported eyewitness accounts. Yet a judge, JPost, and another side says that these eyewitness accounts are either not true or are completely made up. The wording made it sound like if it's an eyewitness account, it's true, and it's just a few other people who claimed it was false. We can't take what they said as true or as an eyewitness account either. We can't factually write that these are eyewitness accounts. Thus, even saying that she claimed it was Palestinian eyewitness accounts is true - because it's not saying she made up the accounts, but rather is saying that she claimed this is what happened and believed what these Palestinians told her. --Activism1234 17:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would seemingly be restoring the article to the stable state it had been before this obvious POV-push took place. The wording did not "make it sound like" that, and besides a personal opinion you havent offered any evidence for your claims. Finally, if the problem is "eyewitness", remove that word. Casting aspersions on Hass herself is not however acceptable per WP:BLP. nableezy - 17:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not BLP. It's not discussing her. It's discussing the claims made by these Palestinians that they were real eyewitness accounts. Just because the article was in a "state" before doesn't mean it's a good state. And just because you like it the way it was before doesn't mean that's how it should be, or that's how it's good. Your opinion isn't any more worthy than mine, and doesn't entitle you to make such decisions on your own. --Activism1234 17:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is a BLP violation, the article claims that a reporter made up material. Consensus is required to revert edits that are made on BLP grounds, and just saying no does not a consensus make. nableezy - 17:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see it isnt even the Jerusalem Post that says this, it is CAMERA director Andrea Levin. Ill be taking this to BLP/N and RS/N soonish. nableezy - 17:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that this reference isn't written by a CAMERA director? OK. Just checking. --Activism1234 18:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. I also realize that the article you brought says

Hass reported that Palestinian eyewitnesses saw Beit Hadassah residents spit on Husseini's body, kick it, and stomp on it, afterward whooping joyously and handing out candies in celebration.

I also realize that isnt the cited source, and further that it backs the old language that Hass reported what Palestinian eyewitnesses saw. nableezy - 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You realize the difference between "Hass reported Palestinian eyewitness accounts" and "Hass reported that Palestinian eyewitnesses saw..."??? --Activism1234 18:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the difference is the opposite of what you are arguing. Saying that Palestinian eyewitnesses saw implies that they actually saw something, and that is what JPost does. Saying Palestinian eyewitness accounts means that it is what Palestinian eyewitness say they saw. Do you realize the difference? And if you really want, you can mimic the JPost report. Note that it does not say that she falsely reported those accounts, or that they she claimed those were Palestinian accounts, or any other such nonsense. nableezy - 18:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original source said "The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court yesterday ordered Ha'aretz journalist Amira Hass to pay NIS 250,000, plus NIS 18,000 for court costs, to the Jewish community of Beit Hadassah in Hebron for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents...". This should be in the article and y is it being undone. Crystalfile (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt what you wrote, not even a little bit. nableezy - 18:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how do u think is good way to say this then? Toodles Crystalfile (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exact way it had been written before you violated WP:BLP by falsely accusing a living person of making up a report and further by violation WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content. And "toodles" is used to say bye to somebody. Mimicking others may seem like a smart idea, but it generally is not. You should probably understand the words you are using before you use them. nableezy - 18:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP/N#Amira Hass. nableezy - 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So then I agree with Nableezy. If you want to revert it to the edition before Crystalfile's edit (seemingly "you" refers to the person you responded to, Crystalfile), go ahead, I said before I felt my edit was the best format. Looks like problem solved. Cheers! --Activism1234 20:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The version before Crystalfile's edit was this. nableezy - 20:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, good point, didn't realize. I was referring to this, which only you seem to oppose. --Activism1234 21:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that edit was reverted on BLP grounds, and restoring that edit requires consensus. With consensus not meaning Activism1234 and Crystalfile agreeing that can cast such aspersions on a living person. nableezy - 21:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it's not making any claim about her. It's about the story. The story was disproven, and thus shouldn't be taken as a real eyewitness account. That's it. --Activism1234 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove the word eyewitness. To call a report by an internationally renowned journalist something that she "claims" happened is not going to fly. nableezy - 21:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet would be to just write something along the lines of "Hass had reported what Palestinians claimed were accounts Israeli settlers defiling the body of a Palestinian militant killed by Israeli police..." I think that clears up the BLP issue better. --Activism1234 21:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what Palestinians claimed were accounts .... You serious? They were Palestinian accounts, not Palestinian claimed accounts. Claimed account is meaningless, an account is what somebody says they saw, ie somebody's claim. Iff the word claim is necessary, and it isnt, the only place where it would make any sense at all would be reported Palestinian accounts that claimed Israeli settlers .... nableezy - 22:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is you can make up an account, and when you have a judge ruling that the report was false, JPost saying the same, and another side saying it never happened, that's more than likely. It may be true, as they claimed, it may not be true. This is what they claimed. Saying it as "accounts" makes it sound as though it's true. --Activism1234 22:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know that was a response to, because it wasnt responding to anything that I wrote in the preceding comment. If you want to actually respond to that post that would be fantastic. nableezy - 22:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, silly me of course had a hand spasm and random words that made sense just happened to reply to your comment... --Activism1234 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology. Now if you want to actually respond to what I wrote, that would be just great. nableezy - 23:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you know what sarcasm is?" --Activism1234 23:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, but you make being oblivious seem so fun I thought Id try. nableezy - 23:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts were false. The source is clear on this. " for publishing false accounts that vilified the residents. " The article should say the accounts are false. I have suggest at BLP that we write "Hass reported false Palestinian accounts..."Crystalfile (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Haaretz has said they are appealing that judgment. Saying that the statements made were in fact false violates WP:NPOV. And your BLP violation is still in the article. nableezy - 23:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point out the edit I made that violates BLP. I haven't touched the article since you reverted me. Don't try to slander me with such nonsense, unless you can actually provide a diff where the current wording of the article is what I wrote. And as Ed said, BLP violations are in the eyes of the beholder. --Activism1234 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand how replies on the internet, and specifically Wikipedia, work? If so, kindly take your righteous indignation elsewhere.

As far as the last line, sure, that is true. However, policy specifically requires that consensus be obtained to revert an edit made under BLP grounds. Got it this time? Or do you think this was a reply to some other person? nableezy - 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a claim. The claim was that I made a BLP violation which STILL exists. PROVE IT. Show me the diff that I made, and how it compares to the current version. In reality, you can't. You outright lied. Here's my edit, which was not blp anyway. And here's your revert. Note the lack of my edit being in the current version. I understand how replies work - you made a false, unsubstantiated claim which I've disproven. Got it this time? Or do you think this was also a hand spasm? Bleat bleat, all animals are created equal. --Activism1234 23:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not make that "claim". As you apparently do not understand how replying on the internet works, here is a short primer. When Crystalfile makes a comment, and I reply directly beneath his comment with a single additional indentation, I am replying to Crystalfile, not you. Unless you are Crystalfile, I did not say that your BLP violating edit is still in the article. I do not have much patience for claims of lying based on abject ignorance, so if you want to modify the above rant (which I am replying to now, as you should be able to tell by the position and indentation of this comment) that would be great. nableezy - 23:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get it! I write on a talk page something incorrect or misinterpret something, I need to "modify" it. You write something false or make an assumption, and that's fine. Now, if you could please cross out your rant that "as you apparently do not understand how replying on the internet works." MAJOR FALSE assumption right there. BINGO! No animal shall kill another animal, isn't that what they say? --Activism1234 23:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write anything false or make an assumption. You called me a liar because you could not understand that I was replying to, hold the shock, the person who wrote a statement immediately above mine. Would you care to retract that asinine accusation? Or do you plan on leaving it as a lesson for future readers that they should not make asinine accusations without understanding what they are reading? nableezy - 23:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"You called me a liar" - that's a serious accusation. Please point out where exactly I wrote you are a liar. I don't recall that. --Activism1234 00:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we're discussing a compromise and have moved on from this. These edits are obstructive to colloboration and nonconstructive. --Activism1234 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit which I think should solve the problem. Let me know what you think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer Hass had published accounts, which the court found to be false and disproven by televised accounts of the alleged event... as the Jpost says later on "Judge Rachel Shalev-Gartel concluded in favor of the residents' claim that the report - disproven by several televised accounts of the incident - damaged the community's reputation. " Crystalfile (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC) This wasnt just Levin, this was official news report which said it is disproved. Crystalfile (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with NNMMNG's edit. Thanks. Although as Crystal notes, official news reports also disproved it, which should probably be mentioned as well (not just an op-ed). --Activism1234 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can add the televised part. It's in the JPost article on highbeam. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then we dont need to discussing Levin at all. Crystalfile (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that can go, but I first want to see if the BLP problem is solved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im fine with your edits, thanks. nableezy - 05:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And by all means, remove Levin. nableezy - 06:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claim—"To state a new fact, typically without providing evidence to prove it is true." What about that word is controversial?---o0o-DadaVinci-o0o- (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:CLAIM. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Amira Hass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amira Hass. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

outrageous text[edit]

It is totally unacceptable and outrageous to quote yellow text like "Perhaps the nadir of journalistic animosity -- and mendacity". Some guy's opinion of the incident is irrelevant, and this is a BLP. It cannot remain. Zerotalk 12:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And stop stalking me. Zerotalk 12:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have Hass watchlisted (definitely since RSN, I think prior as well). We aren't saying this in our voice - nor do we even have this as a quote in the text. This is not "some guy" - but Jerold Auerbach - a professional historian - writing in a book published by Rowman & Littlefield. WP:IDONTLIKE of the language in the book (regarding a very serious case of libel (contradicted by video footage of the incident itself) our BLP subject lost) - is not grounds to preclude use of what is quite clearly an WP:RS by an academic expert in the field. Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amira_Hass&oldid=1207584212"