Talk:Adam Shapiro (activist)

Untitled
this is a poorly written extremely pov article - I've tried to give it some npov additions, but frankly the man isn't that interesting (other than as a certain kind of breed of self hating jew to spend much time or effort. Incorrect 06:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And a word about sourcing: to say the NYPost called AS an American Taliban, linking to the NYPost site, BUT not to the actual article so declaring him, is not sourcing at all and is completely worthless - we all know the NYPost exists and is a paper in NY, there is no need to source that for any reason whatsoever - a link to the actual article is what sourcing is all about. Incorrect 06:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And how do you suggest I source it? I go into Lexis and find the dozens of NYPost articles on this guy, but they're not available on the internet, so how's giving an exact reference any better than just naming the paper? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë  14:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, do you think my POV is pro-ISM or contra-ISM?? I don't get it. Here all the vandals wrote that I was hopelessly biased against the guy, and you went ahead and changed character assassinations to purported character assassinations? They were real, even if they were right to assassinate his character. There was nothing purported about it. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë  14:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually on the whole I think your article is now fairly well written (other than the sourcing issue, I'm not sure what to do there, you do what many others do, but I still am not sure it makes a great deal of sense to site a general source to authenticate a point not made in that site); I think your article is on the whole pro - ISM, I put in the word "purportedly" since I don't think the sited article was a character assasination, rather, it was an accurate assessment of the man. Incorrect 03:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow... that's awesome. No, I personally think they should rot in hell in a serious way. But I tried to be fair and balanced ;) in writing the article. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë  04:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've modified the description of the homes destryed by the IDF to those homes of terrorists since those are the homes being destroyed - not to present that modifying word would leave the impression that the IDF is going around willy nilly destroying homes in general, a charge that has not been made.Incorrect 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to make it less POV as there have definetly been a lot of cases were the Israeli army have demolished homes of non-suicide bomber families, otherwise how do you explain why there have been so many demolished houses? Firstly, i wrote 'Palestinian homes' but as you had problems with this i changed it to 'some Palestinian homes' and i can't see whats wrong with that. You are now spreading misinformation. Israel does do bad things and you have to accept that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.79.232 (talk • contribs).


 * This discussion definitely does not belong on this page. I am not even going to debate it with you. Take it to the intifada article. Please stop changing it here. I will continue reverting you. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë  16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont want to get into an argument with you, what i'm saying is that not ALL houses that are demolished by Israel are the homes of suicide bombers. By putting this down it creates a false image of the situation. By saying some Palestinian homes it becomes NPOV. However as i am not a member of Wikipedia i dont think it is fair for me to change it back and will leave it to someone who doesn't want false information to spread which makes others suffering look acceptable

It is poorly written, it doesn't even really discuss Shapiro's activities that got him publicity, and it doesn't even have his date of birth, which surely must be out there somewhere. As time permits I will work on the article. It needs it.--Wehwalt 12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

OK....
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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

WP:BLP Policy on reverts
If you read WP:BLP you will see: ''Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.'' Carol Moore 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * I would suggest that you seek such help, then, you've been skating awfully close to the line.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But I am only ONE revert behind you! Carol Moore 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Not the way I count it. What you are counting as reverts aren't.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually this is an issue (doing reverts during editing) I've had administrators refuse to comment on. But the bottom line is you are placing fast and loose with BLP per the above - specifically:
 * 1
 * taking out relevant info like Shapiro's allegations it was tank fire and now machine gun fire from newest Guardian article
 * 1 Adding irrelevant (or POV?) stuff like who was left in the headquarters after Shapiro left.
 * 2 Taking out full Shapiro quote which provides context; doing so makes him look bad.
 * 3 Uses "alleges" three times in two sentences when one is enough.
 * 4 completely removed relevant WP:RS reference whose title calls Shapiro "hero". (Unless insert other material from that article, will put in external links.)
 * 5 removed accurate description of why he left the building (demonstration) and replaced with WP:Original research interpretation of the fact two doctors came in, i.e. "Shapiro was allowed to leave when a doctor took his place," making it look like Shapiro was a hostage.
 * 6 and 2 more edits:Inserts WP:Original research fact (or allegation) not in any of the other articles about this individual, probably for POV purposes.
 * Carol Moore 13:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * It's called balance. Deal with it. And it is all from RS. I'm afraid you are not allowed to cherry pick, you must allow balance. Note that I've left much material I suspect you approve of (for you added it). As for the opinion piece, it is not an RS. As for the tank fire vs. machine gun fire, he said both. Would you like for the article to say that he said both? It would make it look like he is changing stories. In the interest of npov, though, I simply stated "fire". By the way, if the building was receiving tank fire all night, there would not be a building. Think about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not complain about the accurate WP:RS info that you added for balance. However, the edits I mentioned go beyond that into POV and WP:OR. Also, maybe the machine gun fire came from people sitting on the tanks. So a compromise is machine gun fire. Carol Moore 14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * I don't have a problem with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Specific questions or proposed changes to deal with BLP violation issues - others I will revert to what I mention above. (Also note may find other info or issues of interest when look at your new article, but this is all I'm doing today:
 * Machine gun fire - already agreed above.
 * What is purpose of mentioning who was left in HQ later unless you mention in greater detail how many people left, under what circumstances, etc. The doctors reference has nothing to do with an exchange of people! At least the demonstration which you deleted makes sense as a motivation for letting Shapiro out. It's pretty much irrelevant - or it sounds like there weren't a lot of people inside and Shapiro is lying about wounded inside. The solution is just a much longer description. So which is it? Delete or make it a paragraph?
 * I will suggest a compromise on the CNN quote that leaves in what I want but takes into consideration what you put up. But too busy today.
 * The allegation about the bomb in the ambulance obviously can researched from many sources. Research might prove it to have been a propaganda lie. But it is NOT in any of the articles about Shapiro and it's insertion looks POV or even an attempt to link him with such bombing. Just inserting things like that is the essence of WP:synthesis.
 * Again, with WP:BLP the rules are stricter, as they should be, unless editors agree to be financially responsible for all lawsuits that results from edits they make :-) Carol Moore 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * The demonstration was in an opinion piece. I'd really want to see a straight news coverage cite before putting that back in. So let us hold off on that until we see if either of us can find one.
 * CNN quote. Will await your response.
 * Bomb. Suggest we drop that AND the allegation on Israel firing on ambulances. Please see the WP:NPOV statement on "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources".
 * So one we can act on now, and two we need more info to act on.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concerning firing on ambulances - the ICRC itself has criticized both sides in strong language for doing this.John Z (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt! But given that the original allegation in this case came from a commentary piece by an author who accuses Israel of firing on him and his wife, I think we should take any mention of firing out, and look elsewhere for any needed references which the article formerly supplied.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does need more research. But WP:RS instead of nonsourced allegations was my goal :-) Busy getting ready for major electrical upgrade (coincidental to recent power outage), but will fit it some work on this by end of weekend. How dare life interfere with wikipedia editing!!!Carol Moore 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * True. I will wait for your better reference. The Guardian piece just won't cut it, I am afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambulances
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)


 * 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)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol Moore 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * 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)

Removing questionably sourced paragraphs

 * This source (for two reprints) - JAT: The "Jewish Action Taskforce" - would be considered extremist and fringe and only usable about its own activities per Rs
 * 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)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * 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)


 * 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 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and 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)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * 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)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * 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)
 * These issues frequently discussed at 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)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * 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)

Wehwalt, what the fuck is this? Your own personal little fiefdom? What you're doing here is astonishingly wrong and you know it. I get that you don't like Shapiro, but you know perfectly well that alleged reprints by militant Internet activists from unknown and defunct print sources are worthless. Oh hey, and it looks like I already crossed paths with you here months ago, but you didn't give up. This is garbage and you know it. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why don't you partially revert yourself and we'll discuss the point at issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Accede unilaterally to your demands, then you'll deign to negotiate? No thanks. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Perceived support for terror
NSH001, the paragraph you reverted had already been included in this Wiki entry in its entirety. I merely moved it to a new and more relevant section. The source in question quotes Shapiro verbatim as having stated that "Nonviolent resistance is no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation." Even in subsequently contextualising his quote, Shapiro does not distance himself from it, but clarifies that "you have to deal with the reality on the ground". Logic dictates that such comments cannot simply be placed under the heading "Activism". Kindly expand on your suggestion that further re-writing of the source is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshgladwin (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The present text is a wholly dishonest and misleading spin on what Shapiro actually says. Here are a few quotes from the same source:


 * ''The article that we wrote was actually in response to another article written by a Palestinian, who said the Palestinians could not be nonviolent. And so we were addressing within the context of the debate over whether the Palestinians could use violence or could not use nonviolence or could use nonviolence. So it was, first of all, within that context.


 * ''in which we were advocating that you have to deal with the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that Palestinians are living in a context of extreme violence. The occupation itself is violence, as has been pointed out by many international organizations, including the United Nations.


 * ''And the Palestinians, you know, they feel, unfortunately, that they are helpless against this overwhelming force of Apache helicopters and F-16s, and sometimes feeling this hopelessness that they must act out violently in order -- the only way to be heard and only way to get their message out.


 * ''And so we were trying to say that the emphasis actually was that we had intended to put, which was taken out of context, was that it can be both violent and nonviolent, that it doesn't have to be just violent. That there can be nonviolent resistance, and this is what we were calling for. This is what we advocate.


 * ''no, no, that there is already violence. The resistance, I mean, as you see, you report on suicide bombings all the time and on the military attacks, but that there has to also be nonviolence. That's what we are calling for.


 * ''There already is violence. We're not advocating it. It's already there. It's on the ground. We're working with people and with Palestinians who want to promote nonviolence, and that was the context of the whole article

I have to go out shortly, otherwise I would have re-written it myself.

--NSH001 (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)