Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Chavmen (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
Line 22: Line 22:
:::* The writer of the piece in Palestine Chronicle, [[Ronnie Kasrils]], was a senior member of the South African government for many years, so his opinion is notable on the topic
:::* The writer of the piece in Palestine Chronicle, [[Ronnie Kasrils]], was a senior member of the South African government for many years, so his opinion is notable on the topic
:::[[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 11:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:Onceinawhile|Onceinawhile]] ([[User talk:Onceinawhile|talk]]) 11:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::::According to the WP:RSP Mondoweiss is WP:OPINION, so a further in-line attribution would be good.
::::So just to clarify, if someone notable writes for an opinion based magazine or online publication, its useable on Wikipedia? [[User:Chavmen|Chavmen]] ([[User talk:Chavmen|talk]]) 13:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:48, 2 January 2024

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it easily passes WP:GNG including wide WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. --Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eladkarmel comments

@Eladkarmel:, you wrote in your edit comment: WP:FRINGE, based on non reliable partisan sources, POV content, POV title, pov caricature. Are you suggesting that some other reliable sources believe there is no such thing as weaponization of antisemitism? I can't even find any unreliable sources which claim there is no such thing as weaponization of antisemitism... Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 David Hirsh article I just added to the bibliography provides an important perspective - that some people who claim that anti-semitism is being weaponized are themselves anti-semitic and the "weaponization" claim is itself a bad faith argument. This point of view needs to be incorporated in to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just had a brief read, these sources for this sentence are questionable:
The Palestine Chronicle and Mondoweiss.
"It has been claimed that Anti-Palestinianism is a foundation of such actions,[15] and has been compared to similar actions taken during apartheid South Africa.[16]"
As far as I was aware these are heavily biassed. Chavmen (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. They should only be used as opinions, hence the "It has been claimed" caveat. Further in-line attribution can be added if helpful. FYI:
  • Mondoweiss is a notable organization and the writer of the cited article, Faris Giacaman, is their Managing Editor
  • The writer of the piece in Palestine Chronicle, Ronnie Kasrils, was a senior member of the South African government for many years, so his opinion is notable on the topic
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the WP:RSP Mondoweiss is WP:OPINION, so a further in-line attribution would be good.
So just to clarify, if someone notable writes for an opinion based magazine or online publication, its useable on Wikipedia? Chavmen (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]