Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
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
Julius Stone is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
Repeated deletion of any mention of Julius Stone's passionate support of Israel
Being the single most quoted and relied upon jurist to support the extreme minority opinion that Israeli occupation, annexations and settlements are legal, which most of the rest of the world so overwhelmingly finds to be illegal, I find it curious that his own passionate devotion to the State of Israel, and the opinions of his colleagues regarding said passion, is repeatedly censored. To be sure, it would be far more credible for the image of his impartiality were these feelings unknown, but it remains fact stipulated by his own official biography; and his strong feelings have exited speculation and comment from his colleagues(plural), cited by a reliable source, the Sydney Law Review. WP:UNDUE does not apply. Jayjg specifically told me once before that if I found input by colleagues regarding his pro-Israeli devotion, he would drop opposition to this kind of inclusion. AladdinSE (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid civility violations such as false use of the term "censor"; going forward refer only to article content, not other editors. This biography devotes little space to his important and breakthrough thinking in the area of international law, and almost none to his many books. As such, reference to this minor fact violates WP:UNDUE. If the biography becomes long enough, then the material will be more balanced, and as such more appropriate. Jayjg 01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If you believe content about this man's achievements is underdeveloped, by all means add what you think is appropriate. What is not an appropriate remedy is to curtail or disallow credibly cited highly pertinent content on possible bias and highly emotional attitudes towards a particular state which is severely immured in international law controversies for which the subject of this article is held up as a champion. These are colleagues of Stone commenting in a peer-reviewed legal journal. WP:UNDUE does not apply in any way, shape or form. Moreover, some time ago when we had this same disagreement on mentioning Stone's devotion to the State of Israel, this kind of citation is what you personally assured me would make you drop you opposition to its inclusion. At the time I conceded and the material was removed. I invite you now to honor your word.--AladdinSE (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you read WP:UNDUE through? I'll quote the relevant bit:
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
Is it your personal opinion that this "cited highly pertinent content on possible bias", or is it merely an argument you are making to undermine his credibility? Have third-party, reliable sources stated that this material is relevant to his legal views? Finally, I'm not sure what you're referring to about my personal assurances. Jayjg 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not my opinion, but the opinion of his colleagues as the Sydney Law review describes them. As to relevance to his legal views, I have made no statement on that. This is a biographical article on Julius Stone. His official biography and his colleagues deem it that his devotion to the State of Israel, and that some of his colleagues even feared to discuss Israel with him, is important and noteworthy. You have no right to delete this material. The very fact that you set forth the shortness of the article as rendering this material not appropriate, and that "If the biography becomes long enough, then the material will be more balanced, and as such more appropriate" proves that all your arguments about WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are worthless. I repeat, the remedy is to expound on what you think is underdeveloped, not to delete other material. As to your not recalling your assurances to me regarding the previous incarnation of this dispute, I can only express my disappointment, and move on. --AladdinSE (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[REDACTED] 
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WMAU_2017_vertical_logo_(colour).svg){kind=link}