Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:50, 24 November 2006

Request for comments

Firstly, this has been taken out, citing BLP:

• Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg says that Levinger once told him: “I’m not happy when any living creature dies—an Arab, a fly, a donkey.”

To my knowledge, Levinger has never retracted his words, (quite the opposite),...and they are widely quoted. When it is a quote from a reliable source (=The New Yorker), which have never been retracted, can we then use BLP to remove it?

Secondly, it is a fact that Levinger, an Israeli citizen, was sentenced according to Israeli law, and served time in jail. But the ] is being removed, with the edit-line: "He is no criminal" Sooooo, how criminal do the person have to be, in order to use that cat.? Does it depend on the politics?? E.g. there are people who would be very upset seeing, say, Mordechai Vanunu, in that category, and who would very strongly object to it. So what is the difference, in principle, between him and Moshe Levinger, with regards to this category? Regards, Huldra 11:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

cherrypicking a quote is a violation of WP:BLP. With an article this short, it's also undue weight and serious WP:POV. famous according to whom ? to you ? Sitting 3 months in jail doesn't warrant a criminal tag especially not to a living person. Vanunu was convicted for treason and spent 20 years in jail. Now if Levinger was convicted for murder and spent more than a couple of months you'd be correct. in terms of legal values, I can explain to you that Levinger didn't have the mens rea required in order to tag him as a criminal - since he was negligent and didn't have conscious set of of mind to perform an offense, it would be controversial to place in the category. Note it won't be impossible to place him in the category, since negligence is also a criminal offense, but it will be still controversial since some regard negligence as differently and rightly so. With such a short sentence it will be even more controversial. The rule is the controversial cats are not added to living persons. Amoruso 04:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The definition of ] is "Israeli citizens or permanent residents who have been convicted of crime by an independent court of justice". That matches Levinger, end of argument. In fact he was convicted and served time for two separate crimes. I'll add the second crime to the article now. --Zero 07:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification -and for the new inf.! Regards, Huldra 14:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, if what you wrote is true on the reverse - still labeling him as a criminal is a Violation of WP:BLP and of undue weight. Amoruso 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like these people-categories at all and will happy if it disappears. However, while the category is there and has a clear definition, we should apply it. --Zero 00:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The details about Levinger's first trial on the assault charges are important because those were the reasons why the appeals court reversed the acquital and convicted him. I've rearranged the text to put the whole story together, even though the section is now non-chronological. It is difficult to write it properly since the timelines of the two separate cases are intermingled. Actually this section is quite light on him as he was reported by the IDF for violent rampages on a regular basis and was frequently arrested. Some general statement along those lines should go into the article but at the moment I don't have a source that summarises it. In order to not make the "criminal convictions" section stand out, the first section of the article should be expanded. His central role in the settler movement is barely described at the moment. --Zero 00:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree but as long as it doesn't, I feel that it contradicts WP:BLP and I referred it there to see other responses. Let's wait and see what others think I'll accept it. As for category definition, this is what YOU said :Categories aren't perfect descriptors. Negligence only and a few months on such a controversy... I dunno. Amoruso 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You have to find an argument with some validity. The category exists, its definition is unusually precise, Levinger satisfies it. Your opinion of him is not of interest. --Zero 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry, he doesn't seem to fit this catgory per above. Amoruso 23:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Amo, have you read the discussion here: ? From what I can see, there cannot be much doubt that he fits the label, as defined: an Israeli convicted of a crime by an Israeli judiciary. I´m therefore reverting. Regards, Huldra 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)PS: why on earth do you not want to link to the Gush Emunim Underground?

1. ""Among The Settlers""., by Jeffrey Goldberg (New Yorker, May 2004)