Talk:Smear campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shame campaign[edit]

I think this section should be merged with Shame. It's not really the same thing as a smear campaign; its presence in this article obfuscates the meaning of "smear." IrisWings 07:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

POV-pushing original research[edit]

I've moved the following section to talk:

Anti-Zionists, have claimed that a world-wide smear campain is Anti-Defamation League's equating of criticism of Israel with antisemitism <ref>ADL: Anti-Zionism at Anti-Semitism</ref>, as has been pointed out by jewish linguist professor and activist Noam Chomsky in his 1989 book Necessary Illusions. Other Jewish critics of ADL, Neturei Karta - an organisation of orthodox Jews, has been attacked by ADL and other orthodox jews<nowiki><ref>The Jerusalem Post: US Orthodox slam Natorei Karta Iran conference attendance</ref>, in response to their criticism of zionism<ref>ADL: Neturei Karta: What is it?</ref>. Actions of ADL provoked arise of opposition<ref>ADL Watch</ref><ref>The ADL: More about the "monitors"</ref>.

Israel supporters claimed that criticism has been replaced with a preferrance to hype over facts and that Israel is being a subject of a smear campaign<ref>Ynet News: Jenin massacre syndrome</ref>.

As far as I can tell, none of the references actually refer to a "smear campaign"; as such, it's pure original research, as well as the usual POV-pushing, both of which are forbidden by policy. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the original editor of the paragraph, but the version shown here is sort-of vandalized. I did no O.R. and I did verify on multiple sources, knowingly excluding sources with known anti-jewish bias (like neo-nazi sites). I have found the matter well founded, and in accordance with events reported in TV and press. The links in original edit are illustrating the ADL smear campaign clearly to those who can read. But leave it that way. I understand that factually correct, but politically incorrect information (especially in that serious & sensitive matters) could hurt wiki's financing a lot. More to that, the meaning of original edits is derrogated now, so the delete is no big loss. At least, now I understand the methods. Back to unknowledge, bye! (5 days, you are quick, boys). Dramenbejs 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, more POV-pushing nonsense about "Zionism" was inserted into the article, as follows:

Dr. Maher Hathout was the victim of a smear campaign initiated by Steven Emerson and then backed up by The Zionist Organization of American, American Jewish Committee and Stand With Us.<ref>Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: Muslim Spokesman Receives Humanitarian Award Despite Zionist Smear Campaign</ref>

Suddenly an opinion piece by Pat and Samir Twair alleging a smear campaign about some barely heard-of guy, published in a polemical anti-Zionist pseudo-journal, becomes a significant incident of a "smear campaign"? So much so that it is one of only three examples throughout the history of the world that manages to make it into this tiny article? Has no-one ever read WP:NPOV#Undue weight? I've linked to it many times now. Can those who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of demonizing Zionism please restrict their one-sided attacks to the Anti-Zionism article, rather than trying to spread it thoughout every single article in Wikipedia? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the NNPOV is on your side :-(, see, Amiri Baraka is another victim.

i don't think you've been watching the discussion between the pro-israel and the anti-zionists/israel... you would have seen both points of view issued... personally, i think the material about israel being smeared should be allowed... and since i support NPOV on wikipedia, i don't mind too much when the opposite side of anti-israel people claiming they are wrongfully being dubbed anti-semites... in any event, the images of sharon are a perfect examle for a smear campaign... i'm re-introducing those and waiting for other people to give their opinions about the rest of the material. Jaakobou 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These are complete non-notables, and WP:NPOV#Undue weight means they don't belong here. That includes Latuff's stuff, which is original research as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
personally, i feel that you could only call the "don't compare criticism with anti-semitism" claim to maybe be a non-notable, but the smear campaign against israel is far from being non-notable and that is not original reaserch of mine - here's 4 full length video documentries that smear (or document smearing) israel intentionally.

I think that is enough material to make a "non original research" for the smearing israel claim. (and i didn't even touch Pallywood and Talal-Abu Rachmeh). Jaakobou 06:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Did any of them specifically mention the Latuff cartoons about Sharon, and refer to them as a "smear campaign"? Jayjg (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
several sources mention Latuff and the images speak for themselves as they are part of the smear tactic to make sharon's actions invalid regardless of their nature... that is why they suit quite well as an example for a smear campaign in action on the visual side. Jaakobou 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Images don't speak for themselves (that's original research). If you have any sources (and please, only reliable sources) it would be nice to have a look at them. // Liftarn
Liftarn, it is bad form to remove materials instantly without proper cause when an issue is under discussion. it is also bad form to call other people's edits "non-notable nonsense". please explain to me why latuff's images are not part of the smear campaign... if you cannot come up with anything better than "non-notable nonsense", than i will add a few hebrew articles and the images and we'll call it a day on the latuff images and could continue to add other materials from that smear campaign. Jaakobou 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's actually not "bad form" it is required per WP:BLP. I don't have to prove a negative, but you have to give a reliable source for that they are a "part of the smear campaign". And even if you do manage to find something saying it it is a bit undue weight to include a cartoonist from Brazil as one of the foremost examples of smear campaigns. // Liftarn


This article requires an historical dimension. Exactly how far back does the concept go, and how was it perceived in past historical contexts? For example, Bishop Adam of Orleton of Hereford used anti-'sodomite' smears against Edward II of England in 1327 and had also done so previously against the Knights Templar. Historicity would also dampen down controversy over current attributions of smear campaigns or otherwise. Calibanu (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu

Smearing not just politics[edit]

Smearing goes on in any context such as in the interpersonal level and in the workplace.--Penbat (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Penbat, Yes that's true. But which template you think would be appropriate for this page? We can add more templates, as well as change the lead. You should propose something. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the 4 templates at the bottom of the page ? The abuse and bullying templates basically cover the ground i meant. Smearing (closely related to character assassination) is a prime strategy of bullies in the workplace or other contexts. i cant think of any relevant sources for this off hand.--Penbat (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)