Talk:Greta Berlin

Antisemitic tweet

"After a tweet was published" vs. "she published a tweet". Saying that "she published a tweet" implies intentionality, and it is an interpretation of the facts. The fact is that she did NOT publish it intentionally nor willingly. The tweet was published automatically through an automatic mechanism that links Berlin's facebook account to the Free Gaza Movement twitter account. Her intention was to post the video in a private group in the context of an ongoing discussion, but she made a mistake using the share feature of Facebook, with the consequence that the video was automatically published via the Free Gaza Movement Twitter account. There was no intentionality here, therefore it would be more objective to say that the tweet was published. Engelo (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Her intentionality is unknowable, and I appreciate that you treat her claims of lack of intentionality as fact, but they are unverifiable, and treatment of her claims as fact is inappropriate for reasons of NPOV. In any event, saying "she published a tweet" implies nothing more than that she published a tweet, which is an uncontroverted fact. Her claimed reasons for doing so are discussed in the remainder of the paragraph. In fact, the entire controversy and discussion are incomprehensible if the entry does not note that she is the person who tweeted the comment.Knowitall369 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Her intentions are unknowable, I agree, therefore we need an expression that is neutral regarding her intentionality. "She published a tweet" implies that she published a tweet intentionally. In fact, she did not publish a tweet at all, all she did was to post on her facebook account, and the automatic mechanism that did the publishing. Engelo (talk) 10:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

She tweeted, and the original version ("she tweeted") before your edits was better, but I'll leave things as they are if you can provide a reliable source for the claim that the tweet "originat[ed] from her Facebook account."Knowitall369 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is confirmed by Statement by members of Berlin’s FB discussion group, and also by the words of Greta herself in the interview with Derfner she clearly states that the post landed on her FB wall instead of in the group. Please leave things as they are. Engelo (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So your source is the Derfner article. Please feel free to add it as the source, and lets ask CarolMooreDC if she considers it a RS in this context.Knowitall369 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

However, I cannot agree to your deletion of her claim not to have seen the video. The deletion is clearly POV. You are right that her claim is "confusing" (i.e., possibly inconsistent) and this is precisely why it is relevant to the controversy. Part of the controversy is the criticism that her various explanations are both inconsistent and not credible, and the entry should, at the very least, contain the various explanations.Knowitall369 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That she has not seen the video is a detail, it has no relevance to the story in its entirity and in this context it only serves to mislead the reader. She hasn't seen the video, it is true, but she has seen its title and she knew that it was about the Zionists role in the time of the holocaust. THAT is enough to make the video relevant for the discussion. The video was supposed to be a stimulus in a private discussion, within a certain context. Whether she actually saw it does not change this story, but in this context, mentioning it suggests that she is making implausible excuses. This must be left out. Engelo (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Berlin later apologized that the post with the video found its way to public domain, declaring that she had "shared it without watching it" -> this is simply wrong. She did not apologize for not having seen it. She apologized for having *mistakenly* allowed it to land on her wall instead of landing in a private group. THAT was her one and only mistake to which she apologized. The reader is being mislead to think that she apologizes for not seeing the vid. That is NOT the case Engelo (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you agree that "in this context, mentioning it suggests that she is making implausible excuses." That is exactly the claim made by her critics, and that is precisely why it is relevant. The controversy consists of the claims of Berlin's critics as well as Berlin's claims. I am restoring the information. Please try to remember NPOV. It is not "misleading the reader" to provide accurate, relevant and well-sourced information that might lead the reader to a different conclusion than your POV.Knowitall369 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing the sentence: "the group discussion for which she’d intended the video never took place, so there’s no discussion to publish." - this sentence is taken out of context, it is NOT a quote of Berlin but a quote of what Derfner understood that Berlin was telling him, and contrary to the text in this section right now, is *not* related to Abunimah's allegations, which, according to the members of the group, are unwarranted by the evidence he brought to bear in his piece. Engelo (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed itKnowitall369 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you. Engelo (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There's still an issue with the following sentence: "In response to claims from those with access to the Facebook page that no such discussion was actually taking place,[23] Berlin stated in an interview that she could not publish a copy of the discussion.[24]". The point is, that those who claimed to have access to the facebook page, were not on the right page. They THOUGHT they had access to the page, but in fact looked at a different, semi-public page. The group Berlin was referring to is different, it is a closed and secret group. In addition, she was not responding to *that* allegation, she was merely responding to the demand asking her to show the relevant context, the discussion that the video was supposed to inform. She said that, since the video never made it to that group (it landed on her wall by mistake), the discussion emanating from the video never took place. That was what she was referring to Engelo (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not buying it. The Controversy section does look it contains a fair degree of apologetics, especially the claims made by Brenner. Since the actual tweet originating from Berlin's Facebook account said "Zionists operated the concentration camps and helped murder millions of innocent Jews", and not just the attached link or a component of the video associated with that link, Berlin's disavowals ring hollow. The tweet clearly communicated the central claims extracted from the linked video. There does appear to be some covering of tracks by Berlin and Brenner here. JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.144 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

the link and the text accompanying it was part of an internal discussion, and because of a technical glitch it landed in public domain taken completely out of context. A sentence that might appear antisemitic when taken out of context, can be quite innocuous when understood in context. Engelo (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitic comments

Comments by her step daughter saying she used antisemitic slurs has been removed. There is a lack of what would commonly be considered RS but Daniel Pipes (the guy who broke the story) is not a nobody. There seems to be a decent buzz around the net that includes academics. So although I am sure the sources would be acceptable if they were praising her, I doubt editors will accept it here (more since it is the Israel-Palestine topic area and not because it is a BLP even though BLP is the better reason). So if anyone finds anything that is a little bit closer to par please bring it up.07:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

A person claiming to be her step daughter posting on the reader comments section of danielpipes.org is an unacceptable source. Read WP:BLP for why. nableezy - 12:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We are looking at two different sources then. And I didn't say it was RS. Pay more attention before you start fights.Cptnono (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not starting a "fight". You made a silly argument about sources being rejected because this has something to do with p-i. I explicitly said in my removal of that nonsense that I did so because of WP:BLP. That source was unacceptable and it was removed (in fact, you should have removed it when you saw it added). And, per BLP, any contentious material requires high quality sources. So if there are such sources about Berlin's supposed antisemitism then that can be included. If there are not then they cannot be. Simple really. nableezy - 20:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Did I say otherwise?Cptnono (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And did I accuse you of saying otherwise? You apparently questioned the reasons for the removal of a user comment on danielpipes.org accusing a living person of frequently making antisemitic comments. I explained that reasoning. Bye. nableezy - 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

She has not denied it. How is it contentious? Metallurgist (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no obligation to deny rumors, whether they are false or not. It's not an indication that the rumor would be correct, and it would be original research to make edits based on such assumptions anyway.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "So if anyone finds anything that is a little bit closer to par please bring it up." is me questioning the removal. So if anyone thinks that the original source is fine then say so. If anyone finds anything else please say so. I am seeing tons of things on the internet that are close enough to verification fo rme but doubt they are appropriate RS.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:BLP policies when writing

First, let's not used self-published blogs, unless it's things she's actually written herself, but even then you have to be careful. I have a feeling there's probably more from WP:RS sources that can be used on her life and activism in general as well. Some of other refs also questionable, but left for now... CarolMooreDC 18:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked editor Knowitall369 to explain why his revert does not violate policy and meanwhile I have put a BLP notice on top. [signed later] CarolMooreDC 07:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the use of +972, I thoroughly agree that it is, in general a lousy source. But the source here is not the blogger at +972, but Greta Berlin herself, who was interviewed by the +972 blogger. Seems to me a pretty clear-cut case that it is "things she's actually [said] herself." If you look at the rest of the page, you will see that there are a number of places where Greta Berlin is the source, being interviewed by some pretty otherwise unreliable outfits. This is a breaking controversy, and by now it's moving in to more reliable news outfits. Much of it is covered here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/07/the-tortuous-history-of-the-greta-berlin-tweet-controversy.html if you want to take a crack at rewriting. At any rate, your edit was substantive, eliminating both her later inconsistent apology that she had forwarded the video due to its content because "it seemed like the kind of propaganda that our group was discussing" and the later controversy concerning the question of whether there had been any such discussion of propaganda. PS. Probably better in the future to take this first to talk page before making substantive deletions on claimed WP:BLP grounds. Also, a different tone would be appreciated; you'll excuse me if I took you to be a wee bit patronizing.Knowitall369 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

+972 - the real problem is it is much ado about nothing, and having a not very high quality source dissect it and have her explain it doesn't make it much better. Sexagenarians like myself trying to remember where they posted what and figure out how it got some place we didn't mean to go, and embarrassed we weren't paying attention to what we posted. And then him commenting on other people who can't pass WP:RS (though perhaps I think they should) commenting on it. The Daily Beast covering it barely raises its stature. It's just silly to go into all those details - and thus my tone about the whole thing. This is an encyclopedia not a "GOTCHA" rag. CarolMooreDC 07:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note, this article is part of a contentious topic area that is under 1/rr per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Further remedies Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted my defacto revert. But I hope we can agree that if Atzmon's facts (except about self) are not considered WP:RS for BLP on Wikipedia, in my experience, then this claim which does not identify where her comments come from also is not WP:RS and doesn't belong here. (And I see someone used it recently in another publication, doubtless getting it from here and not Atzmon's page.)

The Free Gaza article is under 1RR, not this one. CarolMooreDC 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly not much ado about nothing. Walter Russell Mead has asked Desmond Tutu (!) to withdraw support from Free Gaza and apologize as a result of the scandal. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/10/04/archbishop-tutu-please-apologize-to-the-jews/. I am glad, however, to see your actual agenda emerge, rather than hiding behind claims of sources. Your empathy for Berlin as a fellow sexagenarian is understandable, but really has no place in the entry. I appreciate as well that you believe Berlin's explanation, but it is a fact that others do not, and the entry cannot be restricted to your POV. The controversy consists of the accusations as well as Berlin's defenses of herself. I can't help but notice as well the agenda behind the editing and concern for sources. After the latest edits, the entry does not have the content of the the Derfner controversy but still has the response to the Derfner controversy (attributed to Qumsiyeh and others). Notably, the Qumsiyeh et al statments are not sourced, and the reason is that they come FROM THE SAME DERFNER ARTICLE that is supposed not to be a good source. I am sourcing the Qumsiyeh et al statements to that article, and will ask for a little consistency going forward on sourcing -- if it's not good for the goose, it's not good for the gander. Finally, the one-sided editing here is making the entry incomprehensible. It is impossible to understand Qumsiyeh et al's response, without knowing to what it was responding. It is bizarre that at the moment, the paragraph about a controversy consists almost entirely of one side -- Berlin's claims in response to criticisms that are no longer mentioned in the entry. I am restoring the controversy to which Qumsiyeh is responding, and will ask people to remember NPOV as they go forward.Knowitall369 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to Knowitall369 I have taken a pass at the Controversy section, which was heavily repetitive, disjointed, and only theoretically grammatical at points. Frizzmaz (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Knowitall369 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

carolmooredc - technically it is not 1RR, but i think everyone in the topic area will agree that it is. so, tread carefully lest someone feels like going after you. Soosim (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Greta_Berlin:_Gossip_and_Feedback_Loops_from_poor_WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the nature of this editing dispute, I think it's quite clear that ARBPIA applies and so I have added that template to the top of this talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! CarolMooreDC 19:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued BLP issues

I think User:Nomoskedasticity did a good job getting rid of some of the worst problems. Here are the two big BLP/RS ones I see remaining:

• This sentence is just unnecessary detail: In response to claims from those with access to the Facebook page that no such discussion was actually taking place,[REF:http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/greta-berlins-statement-not-correct] Berlin stated in an interview that she could not publish a copy of the discussion.[REF:Derfner] It's from a source (ali-abunimah on electronic intifada) not usually considered reliable (though perhaps he should be) for BLP which is meant to make it look like she's a liar. But then since it's immediately shown through statements of 16 people she's not a liar. So why include it at all, except for clear POV purposes?
• Jewish Voice for Peace statement should not be included. I wish they could be used to criticize the many individuals they usually criticize but let us not forget Wikipedia:V#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves which particularly applies to BLP. However, I think a link to it COULD be included after the Mondoweiss note. (Philip Weiss/Monodweiss is now quasi-WP:RS, though that quickly will be challenged if editors try to quote him on some topics or people.) CarolMooreDC 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I did consider going further -- precisely along the lines you indicate. It's probably reasonable to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

i am not following as to why jvp can't be used for their own opinion on this particular topic. isn't berlin involved with them in some direct fashion? meaning, it isn't as if some group with no affiliation to this page is making a statement. and as for mondoweiss, no, it has not been made quasi-rs. Soosim (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone at all can call someone else anti-semitic (or refer to their circulation of anti-semitic materials) -- but we would normally not include such allegations in our article unless they have been covered in secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So Soosim is saying that Mondoweiss run by actual professional journalists is NOT WP:RS for BLP but Jewish Voices for Peace which is a collection of political activists is? Please read: Wikipedia:V#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. CarolMooreDC 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I just wrote it per WP:BLP and WP:RS and if it's reverted to something vs. policy will gladly bring back diff to BLP Noticeboard and ask for sanctions if the policy violation bad enough... Let's keep extreme partisanship out of BLPs please! CarolMooreDC 18:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I hope that important BLP clarification per source will not be seen as a bad 1RR... I'll revert quick if so!! CarolMooreDC 23:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Knock it off, Carol. We all know that BLP trumps pretty much everyting but don't take advantage of it. You had been edit warring with less experienced users and you were wrong when you said that this article was not under 1/rr. Just edit like you should and there should not be any worries.Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was not under 1RR. You told me it was then you admitted it was not at 18:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC) above. THEN another person put it under 1RR. Anyway, I've lost track of what the specific issues are as busy yesterday and sneaking time from an editathon today. Tomorrow will revisit CarolMooreDC 14:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You are old enough to know how to read, Carol. I did not admit anything. That was another editor commenting on it. But since you want to continue to disagree, I will ask you to go read the sanctions. Does it say anywhere that a template is required for it to be enforced? How about you also stop being contrary and realize that me reminding you and another editor edit warring was much better than reporting you both, FFS. But you guys do your thing. It looks like there is a heated discussion below and it is all for nothing. I will simply find the RSs for you when you guys get bored of this article in a couple months. So Carol and all the rest of you have your play time here but please go away when RS are presented.Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Voice for Peace

Is there a consensus for the removal of their position on Berlin[1]? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What were the reasons for inclusion vs exclusion of this material? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is it your position that Jewish Voice for Peace should be used as a source in other articles? nableezy - 06:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

jvp is a source for their own statements only. and since they were partners with berlin and fgm for a book tour and in the middle have removed themselves, this is relevant. it if was just one other organization saying something pro or con, then it might not be relevant at all. but since they were running a joint program and jvp pulled out, it is directly relevant. Soosim (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What Soosim said. They are reliable for their own positions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe I said they arent reliable for their own opinions, Im not in the habit of questioning tautologies. My question was is it your position that Jewish Voice for Peace should be used as a source in other articles? nableezy - 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone at all can call someone else anti-semitic (or refer to their circulation of anti-semitic materials) or say anything at all -- but we would normally not include such allegations in our article unless they have been covered in secondary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

They never referred to her as an anti semite and the fact that the involved material was anti-semitic material is not a controversial fact, is sourced by many other sources, and she herself at this point has admitted as much. No good reason is therefore being put forth for the removal of this content. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

nableezy - what other article? is jvp involved in that topic or just expressing an opinion about it? for example, if they partnered with Madonna and then withdrew, it is relevant to the madonna page. if they have an opinon about Professional wrestling just like anyone else has, then no. not sure what isn't clear from what i wrote above. Soosim (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont know, lets say the article on the JNF nableezy - 04:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

excellent example - what is their connection to JNF? if they are merely voicing an opinion about a JNF event, then no, not suitable. but if they are/were a partner with JNF on a project, and now because of the event 'x', they remove their status, then, sure. relevant. what's not clear? (i feel i am not being clear enough for you). Soosim (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If the opinion of JVP is notable to the topic it should be fairly easy to find an RS that has reported it as such. If no such source exists, the logical conclusion to be drawn is that RS do not consider it to be a notable opinion on the topic, and in that case we should not include it in this article. Dlv999 (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It would help if people remembered that self-published sources like advocacy groups can't make statements on 3rd parties. So we can quote them saying they have disassociated themselves, but not their claims of WHY they did so. It would help if people would look at what is there now as a ref. on this topic, i.e., Alex Kane, Free Gaza Movement Twitter controversy leads Jewish Voice for Peace to distance itself from group, Mondoweiss, October 8, 2012 and comment on whether it is WP:RS for explaining JVP's reason. CarolMooreDC 19:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

carol - i have no problem in limiting the jvp quote to the facts that they have distanced themselves from berlin and fgm, without the 'why'. i personally think it is silly, but i can live with that. and mondowweis is only RS if the author of article 'x' there is directly related to the event. if greta berlin chose to write in mondoweiss, then fine. but an outsider, no. Soosim (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Foward mentions the organization withdrew their sponsorship of Berlin's book tour here (also on JTA here). It also has some other information regarding people cancelling her events as a result of the video that could be included. Althougn not dealing with JVP, The Jerusalem Post here has some responses by various organizations or people and resignments from the organization. --Jethro B 00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wolf's negative comments probably not WP:RS for BLP anywhere

Well, User:Soosim, at per this diff] putting back Ms. Wolf's attacks on Ms. Berlin, your edit summary partial revert since it is rs for this specific item only. You have it backwards, actually. Doing a quick of Wikipedia I see Mondoweiss HAS been used to say nastier things against individual Zionists than that. Which kills your theory about "rs for this specific item only."

However, those uses were Weiss or other journalists being that critical, not an activist writing an emotional personal "expose" which might be less than accurate and have some other agenda than doing journalism. That sort of thing would be considered an opinion piece at best even if it was in the Guardian and not something that can be used in WP:BLP.

So I'll delete it again per WP:BLP and if you can get NPOV editors at WP:RS or WP:BLP to say that that particular article on Mondoweiss is WP:RS we can keep it in. (FYI, The only real discussion on WP:RSN of Mondoweiss is if he could be used to say nice things about someone, and User:Biosketch didn't think so.) CarolMooreDC 05:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

COI

I have tagged this article and added a connected contributor tag, as it appears that Tecspk@aol.com has a relationship with the subject of this article. See here and here and most recently here. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo affair

Theater of the Absurd corrected its original article and added an editor's note correcting the earlier assertion of the article that stated that Berlin claimed that Charlie Hebdo was a false flag… In fact, Berlin just re-posted the comment from an acquaintance. Reposting does not necessarily mean that Berlin endorses or believes this to be the case, so I think it is irrelevant here. Engelo (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)