Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:12, 23 September 2008

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Journalism Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sarah to Lauren

Why did she change her first name, actually ? Because it sounds too jewish ? RCS (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"terror sympathiser"

The labeling of Lauren Booth as terror sympathiser is original research and a violation of the Misplaced Pages:BLP policy. If you want to include this label, please find reputable sources which describe her as a terror sympathiser (possibly based on her visit to Gaza) and cite them here. The linked photo does not suffice. 87.79.65.207 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Residence

It said South of France. That has been corrected to South of Gaza. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.243.80 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the fact that she wants leave Gaza after a short stay, its obvious that she does not live there. 87.79.65.207 (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "wants to leave Gaza"? She came to the judenrein reichlet of Gaza and refuses to leave the way she came. This hate-filled anti-semite moved to Gaza with an intention to stay - that's usually the definition of "residence" for legal purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.243.80 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Ms Booth said yesterday she was anxious to get back to her two young children, aged five and seven, in the UK although the next "peace boat" is not due in Gaza for another three weeks."

This quote shows that she does not want to stay in Gaza. 87.79.65.207 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that the scum-bag has at least *temporarily* moved to Gaza?

Ok 87.79.65.207 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

this is ridiculous. "Temporarily moved to Gaza"! She has tried to leave Gaza and has not been able to do so. She has expressed concern about having to wait an unspecified number of weeks for the next maritime visitor to make it through because "That is a pretty long time for my kids to wait" (aged 5 and 7). I've changed the text as a result as the sarcasm in the "temporarily" addition by the person who views her as a "scum-bag" does not seem to me appropriate for a wiki page, and its also just plain inaccurate - about right for a blog site, but wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.20.123 (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"I am between the devil and the deep blue sea."

From here. She obviously means it literally, because she geographically can go neither into Israel, nor take a boat or swim back. The point is, is someone who calls Israel "the devil" and who changes her jewish sounding first name to a non-jewish sounding first name a Jew-hater? This is rethorical question. Oh, and here is a picture of her among "starving" Gazans. And another one. RCS (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RCS

I think we can agree that Lauren Booth's travelling companions are no human rights activistes per se, since they don't adress human rights violations by Hamas against fellow Palestinians in Gaza (, only human rights violations by Israelis against Palestinians; so calling the pro-Palestinian activists instead is much more a)correct, b)neutral and c)logical. Furthermore, calling the blockade of Gaza "alleged" is correct too, since there are indeed goods and trucks getting/allowed into Gaza. There is a restriction on the circulation of people and goods, alright, but not a blockade as such. Finally, it is indeed adding to the content and the POV of the article to tell and show that Booth has readily posed for photographs like a happy tourist in a happy place, namely Gaza (), all the while comparing it to Darfur, where you find nothing of the abundance she is displaying. Cheers, RCS (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, those involved are human rights activists, calling them only pro-palestinian is a pov.
Second, the blockade of Gaza is a fact, nobody has ever called it "alleged".
Third, Booth posing for photographs in Gaza is not encyclodic, and therefore should not be included in the article. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, those involved are only human rights activists in the eyes of people who share their POV. Again: do they challenge the human rights violations committed by Hamas? No, they don't, so it's objectively not true that they are campaigning for human rights (if they only do selectively so, they can't be called genuine human rights activists). RCS (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Second, nobody, really: http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=fr&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Afr%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBR&q=%22alleged+blockade%22+gaza&btnG=Rechercher&lr=

Third, Booth posing for photographs as part of her trip to Gaza and her trying to rise attention to what she calls the plight of the Gazans is absolutely encyclopedic as it is part and parcel of what makes her so heroic to some and so odious to others. You cant' dismiss Harry's Place and hundreds of other serious blogs so easyly! RCS (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, you are asserting what you believe a human rights activist is and is not. You are adding your pov to the article.

Second, the article I linked to in the text, and thousands of articles all cite that there is a blockade in Gaza, even the Israeli state freely admits it. Yet again, this is you adding your pov to the article.

Third, there are thousands of photos of Lauren Booth in a thousand different situations. The photos are totally irrelevant to the article.

Fourth, no blog shoud be used as a source on wikipedia, which is why I removed it and replaced it with ynet news article saying the same thing. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Some peace activists, really: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/113530. I don't have to tell you that this Greta Berlin was the mastermind of the Gaza trip? RCS (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Greta Berlin was one of those who worked on the idea, but "mastermind", no. This is an article about Lauren Booth, and not one about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My take on this: (1) None of the sources characterize her or the others on the boat as "human rights activists" (only as "foreign activists" or "left wing activists"), so it is not appropriate for the article to use that phrase. (2) The business about the photos is a pov-push and does not belong in the article. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a ref where they are clearly characterised as human rights activists. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the phrase to a simple unqualified "activists", on the grounds that there are multiple reputable primary sources that characterize them in different ways, and Misplaced Pages should not be deciding which of them is correct. Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, i did it before you but i was reverted by that other POV-pusher (my guess) Dead-or-Red. Let's see... RCS (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That she is a human rights activist should not be disputed, so I have added it to the lead. I still contest the revert though. The boat had all maner of people on board, including a holocaust survivor. To deny that these people were there to highlight human rights issues in Gaza is mind boggling. Dead-or-Red (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

1. As mentioned above, photos of Booth in a supermarket are not encyclopedic content, and hence should not be included.

The photo in the supermarket is photojournalism by a RS agency. Your point is a naked assertion. -- Y not? 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2. The sources that were inserted to "support" the claim that Booth has been widely criticised did not infact do so. This is why I have removed this statement from the article.

I don't get this one. -- Y not? 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If editors wish to include this text yet again, can they please discuss before doing so. Dead-or-Red (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If editors want to remove sourced statements, they ought to at the very least build up consensus. Failure to do is failure to respect the work of others. I urge you to revert yourself, consistently with the above. -- Y not? 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

All that Y says is correct. Dead-or-Red, you are editing disruptively against consensus now. IronDuke 20:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not editing against consensus. But he's removing the legitimate work of others on insufficient grounds, where there's no consensus either way. -- Y not? 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I count him reverting against me, you, Interwebs, and RCS on this subject... if it's not consensus, it's pretty close, no? IronDuke 20:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

A photograph alone is not a reliable source, it should not be included as a reference. I am not familiar with Arutz Sheva and whether or not it would be considered a reliable source, but, nevertheless, Misplaced Pages should not be using the words "claims" or "claimed" in reference to her statements, and we most certainly should not be coining them "sensationalist." Lastly, one or two media outlets "criticizing" her statements (or reporting on blogs that may have done the same) are not sufficient enough for inclusion under WP:UNDUE. I have rephrased the sentence on her comments to not fail wp:aww; without some reliable sourcing, the "criticism" allegations will need to remain out of the article.   user:j    (aka justen)   01:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I notice in the history of the article there was a statement that she has since left Gaza (source), since removed. Anyone familiar with reason for the removal?   user:j    (aka justen)   02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Arutz Sheva and whether or not it would be considered a reliable source. Right... you don't know the source... what to do? Delete it! What an awful edit, and what an awful excuse. And what of the other sources you gutted out of the article, that are so far undiscussed? Also, you badly misunderstand WP:UNDUE. It would apply, somewhat, if media outlets all over the world were suggesting that LB was correct and that Gaza was like a concentration camp, and that there were no groceries with well-stocked shelves, but a few outlets contradicted that. We'd handle that situation by making sure the reader understood there was a majority view, though a few people had taken exception. We'd still mention it, even according to WP:UNDUE. But that isn't even the case here. No one is suggesting she did not visit the gorcery, or that she was not criticized for it. It isn't a major part of the article, it's entirely consistent with WP BLP. This isn't even close to an issue.

Right now it looks like about 4-2 against what you're doing. Justen, get consensus -- and get informed -- before you make another edit, please. IronDuke 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessary for the removal of commentary that Booth's statements were "sensationalist" as Misplaced Pages is not in the position to opine on the reality or accuracy of her words. Also, Booth didn't "claim" what she said, she, quite simply, said it (see wp:aww). Were you referring to something else?

Sorry, yes, as to Arutz Sheva, the Misplaced Pages article on the subject seems to pretty clearly indicate that organization is not a reliable source for a biography of a living person. The wp:rs policy clearly says: "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." The Arutz Sheva article clearly indicates the organization has a specific viewpoint to promote, a viewpoint that apparently directly involves the issues at hand here. So, yes, wp:blp requires controversial statements, such as that alleging criticism towards Booth, to be impeccably sourced; I do not believe Arutz Sheva meets that requirement.

Finally, her visiting a grocery store is, quite frankly, a ridiculous issue. Misplaced Pages cannot source something using the photograph itself; we need a reliable source commenting on the photograph. Is it an interesting photograph, given the context? Could it make great political fodder? Is the idea of "going to a modern grocery store in an alleged concentration camp" a great case of political gotchaism? Sure on all counts. But it would have to be reliably sourced before it can be included in the article, and as of right now it is not.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that it is a "ridiculous issue" is of no moment whatever. What matters is what reliable sources think. And what of the other three sources you removed? IronDuke 12:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion specifically restored the word "claimed" over the word "said," quite blatantly contradictory to wp:aww. I have restored neutral wording. As to the three sources:

• The Jerusalem Post citation is used to source this statement: "Booth was criticized" for her statements. The article mentions nothing of any criticism directed at Booth.
• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency citation is also used to source the same statement. The piece which could be called "criticism" clearly is editorial; it does not cite any individual or organization (aside from the JTA itself) which has criticized Booth.
• The Agence France-Presse photograph itself, via Getty, is used as a source for the remainder of the sentence.

The Jerusalem Post could be used to cite the facts, if the situation were notable. The JTA piece is editorial. One source and one editorial does not sustain wp:notnews nor wp:not. Our thoughts on what the photograph shows in relation to her statements about Gaza is synthesis and original research. You seem determined to keep this content in there; I have no interest in this person and had never heard of her before yesterday. I have no particular sympathy to her or her apparent cause.

You seem to be unwilling or unable to accept here that we are an encyclopedia, and this is a biography; we are not a newswire or place to reprint a fleeting opinion or editorial (and certainly not to insert our own). Very often supporters and detractors of an individual or their viewpoint strive to include tidbits of news which they feel glorify or vilify, respectively, the target. This is not the place for it. Her being unable to leave Gaza appears to be notable and reliably sourced; her shopping for groceries while in Gaza is not, so far as reliable sources are concerned. If there was any significant level of media attention on the issue, it could have been included; with one source, a photograph, and an editorial, however, it did not rise to a biographical occurrence, and it appears now unlikely to do so.

I have restored neutral wording and removed content which clearly is not notable. Just as I recommended to your colleague on this article, User:Dead-or-Red, I would suggest you seek an opinion from an uninvolved party to regain perspective. I would strongly caution you against further wholesale reverts to the article.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But what if I desperately want to smear her, to tell the whole wikipedia-reading world about what a lying (censored) she is? How am I to achieve that? She gets to walk around and yap and we can't even bring ourselves to point out that she has been called out for this? -- Y not? 04:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If she's been called out by a reasonable number of reliable sources, absolutely. That has not yet happened as one or two don't rise to the level of notability required for a brief biography. I would recommend you start calling up editors in chief at some newspapers!   user:j    (aka justen)   06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Funnily, J, you keep on erasing the fact that she also compared Gaza to a concentration camp - and explicitly a nazi concentration camp, not one like the Brits set up for the Boers - in addition to comparing it to ~Darfur. Do you have a revisionist agenda? RCS (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the place to make your point. The gist of her comments are in the article.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In a telephone interview with Ynet on Wednesday, Booth slammed Israel's policies and called Gaza "the largest concentration camp in the world today. I was startled the Israelis agreed to this.” . Obviously, you feel incomfortable with the word "concentration camp. A page from Ernst Zündel's book, maybe? And no, this is no personal attack. I am going to report you for revisionist edits. RCS (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding the "revisionist edits" noticeboard. You might want to take a look at wp:undue and wp:npov on your way there, though. As to your assertion that I feel "incomfortable with the word 'concentration camp'", you are absolutely right. The horrors of the Holocaust, and other genocides since, do make me uncomfortable, and have motivated me in my life to care about and do something about what is happening in my world. But, quite frankly, that has nothing to do with my editing of Misplaced Pages, nor does it prevent me from recognizing a clear attempt to bias a biography of a living person when I see that happening.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For a change, you could also watch the interview she gave to George Galloway on the phone from Gaza, where she goes to great lenghts to explain that Gaza is first and foremost a concentration camp. http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/09/12/lauren-booth-in-gaza/#comments. RCS (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC):::::::For a change, you could also watch the interview she gave to George Galloway on the phone from Gaza, where she goes to great lenghts to explain that Gaza is first and foremost a concentration camp. http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/09/12/lauren-booth-in-gaza/#comments. RCS (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And i dare remind you of WP:OWN, by the way. RCS (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RCS, please take a moment, and please go actually read wp:npov. And then take just one more second to look at wp:undue. I cite these so often, and I'm always afraid that people just glance right over the acronyms and keep telling themselves that I'm just their enemy, trying to keep them from making Misplaced Pages "right." It's pretty clear you have great contempt for this Lauren Booth. Do you understand how that clouds your judgment in editing her article? Do you understand that you are picking and choosing her quotes which you believe make her look petty? Do you understand why that is not the role of Misplaced Pages?   user:j    (aka justen)   07:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Stub-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles