Talk:Gerald M. Steinberg

Steinberg's appeal against the EC rejected by the EU General Court
It is quite surprising that this article does not mention the rejection by the European Commission of Gerald Steinberg's demand from the European Commission to get documents relating to funding decisions for grants to Israeli and Palestinian NGO's. Steinberg's requests started in October 2008, his appeal was filed in January 2010, and was rejected in November 2012, with a court order that Steinberg should pay all trial charges. Contrary to what currently appears on the NGO Monitor page, the appeal was made personally by Gerald Steinberg and not by NGO Monitor because Israeli organizations can not appeal to the EU court, and Steinberg apparently used a European passport and concealed his Israeli citizenship, presenting himself as an Israeli resident. Steinberg claimed that the court should reverse the decision of the EC and order it to disclose the documents within 15 days, as well as order the EC to pay the costs. The orders of the court were Signed by the court in Luxembourg on November 27 2012 See (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=131828&doclang=EN) and (http://972mag.com/eu-throws-out-ngo-monitor-case-tells-gerald-steinberg-to-pick-up-the-tab/62491/).רסטיניאק (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
 * 1. The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
 * 2. Mr. Gerald Steinberg shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission


 * So who paid the costs of the failed appeal of Gerald Steinberg ? and how much ? רסטיניאק (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק


 * For interest, which source is the basis for your statement that "Steinberg apparently used a European passport and concealed his Israeli citizenship" ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * First, he could not appeal to the EU court with an Israeli or an American passport. Second, he is most probably entitled to a British passport as he was born, to the best of my knowledge, in the UK. And third - he is described as a "resident of Jerusalem (Israel)" and not as an Israeli Citizen by the official court document which must reflect his registration of the appeal.רסטיניאק (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק


 * Yes, that's what I figured too (he was born in London by the way), but without a reliable source joining the dots it's WP:SYN and can't be included.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems this should be included less the citizenship question flagged by sean.holyland. Perplexed566 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted a few sentences about this. Needs more work. I welcome help on it. Perplexed566 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Steinberg's attacks on Israeli Peace and Human Rights Organizations
Under "Civil Society Activities" of Gerald Steinberg, the following is missing from that page: The Steinberg attacks on Israeli Human Rights and Peace Organizations. Here is an initial list, more to come: 1 Steinberg attacks the NIF http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Repentance-and-atonement-at-the-New-Israel-Fund

2 Steinberg attacks B’Tselem http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/What-BTselem-does-not-know-and-refuses-to-admit

3 Steinberg Attacks Peace Organizations and other Human Rights organizations in Israel http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/881/j-street-ben-ami-and-ben-or-consulting-the-ngo-connection Including the Peres Centre for Peace, The Geneva institute Group (Yossi Beilin) and many others.

4 Steinberg attacks Yesh-Din

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=233680

5 Steinberg attacks Machsom Watch http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_monitor_machsom_watch_s_demonization_funded_by_nif_and_eu_

6 Steinberg attacks Breaking the Silence http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Breaking-what-silence

7 Steinberg is portrayed as a Mccarthyist http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new-mccarthyism-in-israel-human-rights-groups-face-crackdown/?print=1

8 Public activities coordinated by Steinberg http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/israels-new-attack-on-freedom-of-speech רסטיניאק (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק


 * That is because this is an article, not a tool for a political campaign by organizations where are loggerheads with this academian. In the US we call that responsible publishing, and Steinbergs work as academic and political freedom.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbrklyn (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The Method of operations of Steinberg on Wikipedia now exposed
See WP:COIN section 8 which includes now the exposure of Soosim as an employee of NGO Monitor headed by Gerald Steinberg and the main contributor to articles on Wikipedia about Steinberg, NGO Monitor, most human rights and peace organizations in Israel as well as quite a few of the World organizations for Human Rights. This needs to be fixed once and for all. Steinberg has been smearing, defaming and villifying human rights organizations under the false pretense of a NGO MOnitor which avoided monitoring all the right wing organizations (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngo_index.php?letter=A), including his own. רסטיניאק (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
 * No soapboxing please.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That is an OPINION that is not appropraite for wikipedea. You can't vandelize the article for your own political purposes. This comes down to, I don't like him, he is a right winger and I will delete shit. Mrbrklyn (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiLeaks information
Earlier today I posted a report of statements made by Steinberg to U.S. diplomats that was revealed by WikiLeaks. However, Dlv999 notified me of this discussion regarding the use of wikileaks cables in BLP articles. And I'm thankful for his revert. From a cursory search, I found one other secondary source mention of this information. Is that sufficient to re-introduce this information about Steinberg? It certainly is notable and sheds a great deal of light about his work.--Perplexed566 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is no. What we really need is some third party, secondary source with a reputation for fact checking. Like a factual news report for instance. Or even better some sort of academic scholarship in a relevant field published by an academic press. Dlv999 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing resume items?
I was about to remove the following from the article, but wanted to post here about it first to see if there was a difference of opinion.
 * "and the founder of the Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation.[3] He was awarded an Israel Science Foundation grant, (2008); served as team leader, Israel at the Polls research on the peace process and Israel-American relations (1988-2005); is a member of Israel Council of Foreign Affairs; is a member of the advisory board of the Israel Law Review International; appointed to the Israel Higher-Education Council, Committee on Public Policy (2013). Following the 1995 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference, he was appointed the Israeli delegate to the IAEA's annual academic conferences examining proposals of a Middle East Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction.[4]


 * "He is a co-author of Best Practices for Human Rights and Humanitarian NGO Fact-Finding, published by Nijhoff, ISBN 978-9004218116.[5] He has written academic articles in the field, including "Arms Control and Regional Security in the Middle East", Survival, Vol. 36, No. 1, Spring, 1994; Examining Israel's NPT Exceptionality: 1998-2005, Non-Proliferation Review, Vol. 13, No 1, March 2006; and "Realism, Politics and Culture in Middle East Arms Control Negotiations" International Negotiation, Vol. 10 (2005).


 * "Extending his doctoral research, he published and participated in policy making on policy responses to proliferation: "Dual Use Aspects of Space Technology and the Implications for the Middle East", in Toward Fusion of Air and Space: Surveying Developments and Assessing Choices for Small and Middle Powers, Dana J. Johnson and Ariel E. Levite, editors, RAND, Santa Monica, 2003, pp. 86–97.[6]"

I don't believe that this information is notable in any way, which is why it all traces back to essentially his CV and not to any acceptable sources. Surely, it's original research too, without any secondary source to back it up.


 * So being appointed to international negotiation bodies is not notable? If you go by this standard, Yale University posts the work of EVERY profressor they have.  I think you don't like his politics and you are attacking him.

Mrbrklyn (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems natural that information like this finds its way to articles on Wikipedia as good faith edits to try to extend the information in the article. But that doesn't mean that it's appropriate.

Before I strike this text, does anybody want to argue that it's notable? PPX (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with you, delete it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree that some of this is a bit marginal. But the book is important, no? In terms of the CV, is any of this cited in reliable sources? Some of it must be. That should be checked and confirmed before removing. Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether the book is notable. The test, as you say, is in finding reliable secondary sources. PPX (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to start taking these items out. If anything deleted is deemed notable we can add it back in. PPX (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. Leaving the book in for now given Steal the Kosher Bacon's comment. I think it should come out if we can't find secondary sources. But I want to make sure that there is sufficent time for folks to weigh in here on the talk page. PPX (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that the resume items have been removed, I'm not seeing much significance for an entry about Steinberg separate from NGO MONITOR. The EU court case is really about Steinberg's work for NGO MONIOTOR. The criticism from Heilman and Roth is about stuff put out by his organization, while Steinberg himself is not even mentioned in the comments from Karp. Doesn't it make more sense too have this page redirect to the NGO MONITOR's article, and maybe include some of the basic biographical stuff from here over there in the section about Staff? Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit and reliable sources
I guess a lawsuit by this Steinberg against the European Commision is important enough to be included. But there does not seem to be a reliable source for the last quote about "manifestly lacking any foundation in law." I removed the blog source and left in the Jerusalem Post newspaper, but I just noticed that the Jerusalem Post itself is referring to the blog. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia rules are about that. And, does this one episode warrant so many details? And, if it does, should we be including more details from the newspaper's account? Like Steinberg's response? Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By blog, do you mean 972 Magazine? I'm not sure if I would call it a blog, but I would certainly have some concerns about 972's political leanings. But I've seen a few articles quote 972 on this, so it might be reliable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a blog is necessarily an unreliable source. It's a gray area, where one of the key questions is whether there is an editorial structure or whether it is self-published, (i.e. one guy and his laptop). The fact that 972 is a source used by outlets like the New York Times suggests it's more than "just" a blog. PPX (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I agree that there's a risk of too much detail in terms of "Kitchen Sinking" this episode. If we put in a "rejoinder" that is Steinberg slamming the decision, then would we also need to have the other perspective? On the other hand, if we can succinctly cover any substantive and notable critique of the decision, it would be appropriate. If you have a suggestion for how to do it, please give it a try. We can always edit further. PPX (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of different things here.
 * 1) In terms of 972 Magazine. Their about page seems to say that there is no editorial oversight: "Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels;" http://972mag.com/about/. (This is also relevant to one of the points in the first section of this article)
 * 2) Your point about the kitchen sink is well taken. I would be happy to try and edit this page with that in mind, but I was informed by another editor that I don't have enough edits to participate in this page. Not sure whether this is a systematic thing or not that is being applied to others, but don't want to cause trouble. So, for now, I'm just going to be active on the talk page here. Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good point about 972's editorial policy that I was not aware of. I would definitely be concerned about using 972 as a direct source. On the other hand, Haaretz, Times of Israel, and other sources do have editorial policies which perhaps would imply that some effort was made to verify that information. The other issue using the quotation is that it seems clear that "manifestly lacking foundation in law" is a term of art which can sound misleadingly negative in this context. It appears it is used by the European court when rejecting a claim in various contexts.


 * I'm not an expert on this but this article doesn't seem to be a classic article in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but I'm happy to make edits for you if you suggest them here (as would others I'm sure). FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In light of the sensitivities around BLP, I think it's Ok to remove those items. And FuriouslySerene's comment about "manifestly lacking foundation in law" makes sense.
 * I'm not sure that the wiser move, however, isn't to see Steinberg's role as a government consultant as an uncontested fact. (Bear in mind that the 972 article includes a link to primary sources that validate this - would that be the better source?). Its absence seems conspicuous to me. PPX (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. I checked the Hebrew version of this page "government consultant" appears in the opening sentence. PPX (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerald M. Steinberg. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610150240/http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n05/HumanRightsGroupsWorkingAgainstPeace.htm to http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v3n05/HumanRightsGroupsWorkingAgainstPeace.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723121549/http://spme.net/cgi-bin/facultyforum.cgi?ID=1865 to http://spme.net/cgi-bin/facultyforum.cgi?ID=1865

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Section regarding tenuous relationship between Steinberg and others
I removed this section as per Wikipedia's policy of BLPREMOVE from this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced Steal the Kosher Bacon (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph about Yehudit Karp is should either be removed or mention their COI
The paragraph is based on an opinion article (which doesn’t mandate exclusion, but should be considered) and the author has a conflict of interest (as visible if you read her contributor profile). Does anyone have a preference regarding an appropriate way to adress that? FortunateSons (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We do "Yehudit Karp, a former Israeli deputy attorney general,", so it is fully attributed as an opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Her biography on the site describes her as a “member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund“. This is the first paragraph of what she wrote: “The not-so-stealth campaigns against the Arab civil rights organization Adalah, its supporter the New Israel Fund, and the values of democratic and minority rights are hitting new lows.”
 * I would say that this is a COI at least worth mentioning, don’t you? FortunateSons (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, as we tend to to say this in any article. We point out who they are, that is all we need to do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and being a member of the org that supports a party feuding with this party is significant here.
 * While she is (IMO) important enough to be considered a subject matter expert, at least based on my reading of the jwa article on her, we shouldn’t leave out what is effectively a conflict of interest just because she is; particularly considering she mentioned both facts in the article and her bio respectively. FortunateSons (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What would be a reason not to use the description from the source cited, "the former Deputy Attorney General of Israel and a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund"? This presumably amounts to a self-description by the author at the time, or a decision by The Times of Israel (although it leaves out a lot of biographical detail too).
 * What would be the basis for truncating the description to "a former Israeli deputy attorney general"?
 * One reason I suppose could be that she is only one of 250 or so members of NIF's international council, although I don't think that would be a good reason.
 * Clearly there's going to be a conflict of interest between organizations pursuing things like equal rights, accurate reporting, objectivity etc. and components of Israel's propaganda machinery, like NGO Monitor. So, it seems better to make that conflict of interest plain by telling readers that Yehudit Karp is "a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund".
 * Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree (except with the tone/neutrality, but it’s still well within the permitted range imo, so no issue here), extending her description and adding the context of the article written by her would appropriately address my concerns. Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)