Talk:Howard Grief

Petition to the Supreme Court regarding the Oslo accords

This passage is currently cited only to the "Ariel Center for Policy Research", which seems to be a source advocating fringe theories e.g the Israeli settlements are legal, Israel has legal sovereignty over the Palestinian territories, Obama's administration is "an existential threat to Israel". Probably OK as a reference for Grief's opinion, but for claims that his petition was "substantive" and that Rabine Government was involved in "illegalities" this is totally unacceptable.

It seems the petition was dismissed out of hand by the Israeli Court and wasn't looked at seriously. I can't find any WP:RELIABLE SOURCES discussing the petition that would show that it is notable for inclusion in this encyclopaedia. If third RS can be found discussing it, then re-write the passage based on them. If they can't it needs to go. Dlv999 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that if we recast the paragraph to continue to indicate that the "illegalities" were alleged (by Grief himself), then this paragraph can be retained as an example of Grief's extremist position. The individual petition may not have significant notability (we certainly wouldn't create an entire article about it) but in the context of Grief's biography, I think it helps paint the portrait of the man. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked the two sources in the passage, they are actually the same citation [1][2]. This is what they say about the petition: Howard Grief is the author of the "Petition to Annul the Interim Agreement" which was presented to Israel's Supreme Court. (The Court, calling the Petition "a political position" extricated itself from dealing with the matter.) The Petition was published as ACPR's Policy Paper No. 77 and describes the illegal nature of the Israel-PLO Agreements under Israeli law and their non-applicability under international law.

I just found the summary[3] and petition itself[4], perhaps we could put something together from them Dlv999 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

John Quigley's comments in "The Statehood of Palestine: International Law in the Middle East Conflict" may be of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That said, i don't think his recent edits are good.

You can not criticize and undermine a man on his biography. If he would like to criticize his work. it should be in a different section and not in his biography. Also, you cannot criticize something without knowing what you are criticizing. so if this page is a place of criticism, Howard grief legal theory should be explained hers as well.

Also note that he took down 3 Paragraphs from his biography including information about his academic degrees and education. I see it as a strong sign of bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed your personal attack. Please keep commentary like that off the page. It won't help. Also, please read WP:NOTADVOCATE. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have also reverted your removal of John Quigley's source and the related content. Editors are trying to make the article better. Please assist them. You should read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV to ensure that you understand what is required. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Piwi -- I'm not sure what you mean by your statement "you can not criticize or undermine a man on his biography". What we can and must do is present the facts as they are available from independent sources. If the facts cast the subject in a negative light, that can't be helped. It is often the case that biographies are created at Wikipedia by well-minded people who want to praise and honor their subject (sometimes a close friend or relative, or sometimes themselves), but when other editors begin to research the subject, they uncover the dirty little truths that the original author left out. If the dirty little truths exist, they will be found and added to the biography. This is not malicious, it is just balanced. But it often leaves the biography in a state far from what the original author would have wanted. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiDan61, I agree with everything you said. I think you misunderstood me.

I am complaining about 2 major things:

• 1. Recent Bias "bad faith" editing that is damaging this value.

• 2. The structure and the content of this article.

--

1. One of the last edits deleted paragraphs from Howard Grief "Biography section". All three of them contained valuable information for his biography. Such as:

• • Information about his academic degrees, legal education and legal experience.

• • Information that indicates the fact he was a legal advisor on international law of Israel to Professor Yuval Ne'eman while he was a minister in the Shamir Israeli government.

In my opinion the only purpose of dropping this paragraph was in order to delegitimize Howard Grief and his work.

Can the fact that Albert Einstein had studied mathematics and physics could be dropped out from his Wikipedia page?

Therefore in my opinion this 3 paragraph should be restored and placed in his "biography section".

2. It is only natural that one will have criticism on somebody else's work (Especially in this "hot topic"). And I think that criticism about his work has also a place in this page. In my opinion this will help us reviling the truth.

However, the criticism about his work should certainly not be placed in his "biography section" that should be about this man personal life.

Also, while criticism about his work is mostly welcome, Howard Grief legal argument should be explained as well.(!!)

In order to criticize "something".. First you must explain what that "something" is! (In our case "something" is the summary of Howard Grief legal argument.)

This is only fair and justified.

Also I think that if we will not embrace a certain structure of this article, Chaos will be everywhere.

For all of these reasons I suggest the following article structure:

• 1. First section – "Biography" – information about this man life.

• 2. Second section – "legal argument" – this section will explain and summaries Howard Grief legal arguments.

• 3. Third section – "criticism" – this section will contain criticism about his work.

In my opinion this is also the right choice of addressing and studying this value.

WikiDan61: When I said "you can not criticize or undermine a man on his biography" I meant that the criticism belongs to the "criticism section" of this article and certainly not in the "biography section".

The "dirty little truths" criticism about his legal theory are much welcome. But they should be place in the "criticism section" Therefor, this edit by the Wikipedia user Dlv999:

"According to John Quigley, Grief's position excluding "the Arab inhabitants of the country at the time" from sovereignty on the basis of the Balfour Declaration is difficult to maintain given that the declaration "specifically references the rights of the population of Palestine in its entirety".[8]"

Should be moved to the "criticism section" and should be deleted from the "biography section". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwi2000 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Piwi, the material that was removed regarding Grief's background was removed because it was unsourced. All material, especially biographical information, must be verifiable. Unsourced material is always likely to be removed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Piwi2000, as explained by WikiDan the details were removed because they lacked citations. On Wikipedia all material should be supported by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES but we are especially strict when it comes to biographies of living people (WP:BLP). In these articles unreferenced claims (whether positive or negative) should be removed on sight without discussion. I would encourage you to re-add the biographical details citing a reliable source for each statement.

If you think the layout of the article needs changing you are free to amend it. I would try to avoid a specific "criticism" section if possible. But I think separate sections for biographical details and discussion of his professional works/opinion would be a good idea. Dlv999 (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Levy Report

After Grief was devoting his life work to a cause, and an official committee finds main conclusions based on the same exact grounds - INHO it is a justified reason to put a note about it on his page. isn't it? Again, i did not say he is mentioned. but his thesis is,l almost word by word... נלביא (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explain the requirements on your talk page but I apparently failed. The key point is that "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" (from the WP:OR policy). In other words, a reliable source is required that explicitly states that the thesis in the Levy report is based on Grief's thesis. Grief, the subject of this article, must be mentioned by name. It doesn't matter whether any of us think that one thesis matches or is based on another thesis. Only a reliable source can make that connection and draw that conclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OK if (an unknown) einstein said e = mc2 and wrote a book about it. and if later - without mentioning him - a revolutionary group finds and publishes that e=mc2 - they are not to be mentioned in einstein's page? i wonder.נלביא (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

att: i did never say what they said is based on what he said (personally). i did say they based on the same thesis, on the same grounds. it is still mentionable by a fair source of knowledge.נלביא (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

the implication in the statement (at least in the version I reverted) was that the conclusion of the Levy Report was based on Grief's work. A statement that the Levy Report independently reached the same conclusion as Grief might be of interest, if properly cited. However, as an argument in favor of the validity of Grief's work, it should be balanced with the majority argument (also properly cited) that finds Grief's views invalid. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If the Levy report mentions Grief's theory, it should certainly be included in the article about the Levy report, as well as in the article about Grief. In my recollection, there is no mention of Grief in the Levy report, but more than one source pointed to the fact, that the legal argument (San Remo) in the Levy report is in fact an old hat, after the Levy report was published. I'll check whether Grief is mentioned as one of the legal experts who argued with the San Remo conference before the Levy committee did. As far as s'נלביא stance is concerned, imo comparisons with Einstein are not helpful in this case, neither is calling the Levy committee "a revolutionary group". Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it for now as an WP:OR policy violation. If you could find some sources that explicitly make the connection Ajnem that would be very helpful. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

you mean again, after reading that e=mc2 in one place and e=mc2 in another, that i have to provide sombody who said it is the same? i object!! i even copied exact phrases from the text. what else?נלביא (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

anyway, i believe, after his death today unfortunately, that some more will be written about him and his work.נלביא (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

נלביא rest assured, if there are reliable sources linking Grief to the Levy report, I'll find them. No need for you to insert OR which will be removed faster than you can put it in. For those who would like to get familiar with Grief's stance in a nutshell, I recommend reading his definition of the term Israel in the title of his book "The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law", conveniently provided by Googlebooks [5]. No reason why those who want to get more familiar with his theories shouldn't go on reading. But, as נלביא has pointed out, the Levy report has it in a much shorter version - and on a much smaller geographical scale. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Grief's Biography is, that with the exception of the basic facts, it is not sourced, possibly because it was written with insider knowledge. If there are published sources, please add them. As of now, I have only found references that the Levy Report may be based on Grief's publications in posts on blogs ([6], [7]), not reliable sources, I'm afraid. Grief himself when referring to the Levy Report doesn't mention it ([8]. [9]) But I did add that Grief claimed to have been the first (and only one) to grasp the real importance of the San Remo Conference for the Jewish people. By the way, until today, I never knew that the Jerusalem Post has a Christian Edition, interesting, that they wouldn't publish the piece about Grief [10] in the non-Christian Edition. Ajnem (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My conclusions

Hi, after having spent some time on trying to find RS about Grief, his publications and opinions, I come to the following conclusions:
There are practically no sources dealing with Grief's opinions outside blogs and right wing advocacy publications such as the Ariel Center, Arutz 7, and the allgemeiner. Upon his death, everybody repeats the same short bio published by the Ariel Center [11] and the allgemeiner [12]. The piece in the Christian edition of the Jerusalem Post is an exception, the same goes for Quigley's mentioning Grief in his book. So, it's an open question wether Grief meets the criteria of notability, but, as he does have an article probably created by somebody with a personal interest, and as his stance is not the one adopted by the Levy Report, I'm going to add a quotation section in the article, trying to show what Grief's opinions actually are and what they are based upon and why practically nobody is dealing with them. Everybody is invited to participate in picking the most telling quotations – Grief's oeuvre is available online and in English. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I searched for sources (admittedly not thoroughly) and came to the same conclusions. I guess the one question I have is if his views are almost entirely absent from RS (which seems to be the case), should Wikipedia be the primary outlet for the publication of those views? Dlv999 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ajnem: "his stance is not the one adopted by the Levy Report" as opposed to "Its advocates assert that the resolution of the post-World War I San Remo conference which called for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” retains its validity to the present day and constitutes a binding international commitment to make all of historic Palestine as under the British mandate into a Jewish state." (Levy Report). I think this contradicts what you just said...נלביא (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that, נלביא. Grief's stance goes far beyond that, he claims that the Jewish people had sovereign rights all over the Land of Israel from Dan to Bersheva beginning in April 1920 in San Remo. That is not what Israel has been repeating over and over, and it is not what the Levy Report says, even if the Levy Report also goes back to San Remo. As for your question, Dlv999, if you go for deletion, I wont vote against it, I couldn't even find Grief in WorldCat or the Library of Congress, although he had a book published. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

all of you arguing "no connection to Levy Report": on the hebrew page for Levy report there are 3 external links: one - the actual report test, one - a news item, and the third: Howard Grief's book. Just to let you know...נלביא (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think a more presice description would be that we are saying "no evidence so far of any connection to the Levy report". And here when I say evidence, I mean in Wikipedia terms: a reliable source that connects the two. Articles on the Hebrew Wikipedia are not RS (just as articles on the English Wiki are not RS) for these purposes. Dlv999 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Grief doesn't even have an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Maybe נלביא should start writing one. And the more I get into Grief's writings, the more I think that the article should be deleted as per WP:GNG. The reason why they are not discussed in any RS probably is due to the fact that he calls everybody names who doesn't see it his way, including Israeli Supreme Court juges, Israeli Prime Ministers and everybody who doesn't or didn't ignore the existence of the people living in the "Land of Israel" who happen not to be Jews such as Ahad Ha'am. But I'll add some more quotations, so that users can make up their own minds. Ajnem (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Grief quotes

A user has removed the quotations. That is not good as it is the only way to present Grief's views. I suggest to have the article deleted. Grief is imo far from being notabe enough to have an article. What do you think? Ajnem (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about Grief's notability. But I disagree that presenting Grief's quotes in extensive detail is the only way to present his views. One can summarize Grief's views in a sentence or two, with citations to his writings to verify those summary statements, without needing to reproduce the quotes in full in the article. (Refactored this discussion because we're not really talking about the Levy Report any more, are we?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so, but personally I would not want to do the choosing and the summarizing. But I never meant for all the quotations to stay in the article, they were meant to show Grief's views, because there are practically no sources saying anything much about them. And that is why I think the article should be deleted: One mention in one book is imo not enough, Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion has already occurred with a decision to keep. Many sources were presented (you can check here) that can be used to expand this article without relying on Grief's own writings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no other reliable sources, just blogs, WikiDan61. Nobody seems to go to the trouble to try to understand what Grief's stance is, if I'm not mistaken. Probably because it is of no practical use. But how come you suddenly remember the deletion discussion and contradict yourself? Ajnem (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Because I get involved in many different issues here at Wikipedia, and sometimes, some of the issues temporarily slip my mind. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That's understandable, Ajnem (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Howard Grief. 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/20150926144354/http://www.jewishtribune.ca/news/2013/06/11/howard-grief-73-staunch-fighter-for-land-of-israel to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/news/2013/06/11/howard-grief-73-staunch-fighter-for-land-of-israel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222191817/http://mobiletest.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=83282037&cat=2 to http://mobiletest.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=83282037&cat=2

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)