Talk:AMCHA Initiative: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:14, 4 December 2020

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Articles for creation Start‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 6 September 2014 by reviewer Kvng (talk · contribs).

Judaism Start‑class

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California Unassessed

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Late AFC comment

Comment: Ok, looking over some of the refs and I'm inclined to think this should meet Notability, so the issue right now is WP:POV cleanup. My overarching concern at this juncture is that tacking on a Criticism section (which is a good call) does not automatically balance out the tone of the rest of the article. The "Areas of focus" section has a lot of pre-supposition of AMCHA's correctness; a title like Faculty misuse of resources for personal political activism of anti-Semitic nature heavily implies that indisputable misuse is occurring, as opposed to it being one side of the argument. A common reflex of new editors is to just chuck "allegedly" into every opinion, but that's kind of a copout. Just focusing on the titles for a second, here's some suggested more neutral titles:
*Harassment of Jewish Students - this one is actually fine, but I'm not at all seeing why it needs to be separate from the "threats" section, as threats seem a form of harrassment
*Faculty endorsement of pro-Palestine politics (Faculty misuse of resources for personal political activism of anti-Semitic nature)
* Institutional endorsement of pro-Palestine events" (University departments and administrative offices that sponsor, endorse, and/or fund events with antisemitic content)
These titles are shorter, and also I believe phrased in a way that all sides would agree are factual. It avoids rendering judgment in the title itself as to who is "correct" in the debate. Clearly, the section will indicate that AMCHA is alleging misuse/abuse/inappropriateness, etc. but the issue they're addressing is endorsement of pro-Palestine politics, the argument they're making is that it's being done inappropriately.
Getting back to overall issues, the Areas section really feels too much like AMCHA's self-presentation of its own work, as opposed to a neutral view. The sourcing isn't helping here, as most of the sources regarding AMCHA are pretty opinionated either for or against, but regardless the goal should be to show AMCHA's argument, not endorse it. It's pretty hard to render these things neutrally if you're a member/supporter of the group, so if you want me to do a quick rinse of it to bring it into Neutrality, post on my Talk page to ask me over.
(Side-note, you can't hotlink to external images, so you'll have to upload to Wikipedia itself an image of the logo under WP:Fair use, see WP:Images for how to do so, but for legal reasons it can only be done after the article publishes.)
Hope this helps, advocacy groups can be hard to write about neutrally because be definition they're taking one side of a fight, and tend to get the most coverage from their supporters and from their opponents. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks a lot better (and more readable). There is still plenty of opportunity for more of the same. It would be nice to get independent WP:RS for the incidents they describe. --Nbauman (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue appears not to be pro-Palestinian advocacy, but specific elements within it such as BDS, PFLP, or Hamas endorsement that this advocacy group publicly states opposition to. Titles that better explain this positioning, would help for neutrality and/or explanatory purposes in identifying and understanding the positioning of this group --Worlduse (talk) 9 October 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit fully-protected is being considered for merging. ›

. Report Vandalism of User:ImTheIP - POV issues, citing information before org was even created (2011 information), seems to have a vendetta against founder of org. This is not the forum for that. Extreme language of bias throughout.

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020 edits

While I am not sure I'd go as far as User:Worlduse in calling ImTheIP's edits vandalism, these edits are not neutral and use unreliable sources, even going as far as using unreliable sources to make contentious assertions on living persons. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@11Fox11: Your editing style is aggressive and unnecessarily combative. User:Worlduse is a WP:SPA and has mostly not edited any other article than this one. And before I started reworking it, it read like a brochure from AMCHA itself. If you think my edits are "not neutral" you have to explain so rather than resorting to blanket reverts. ImTheIP (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You entered information on a BLP based on unreliable sources, not acceptable. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted 10k of text. I wonder if you are attempting to goad me into reverting one to many times to be able to file a complaint? Because I have already asked you nicely at least three times to explain what exactly in the text you find objectionable but you have failed to do so. I now ask you again a fourth and final time. Please explain what parts of the text you find objectionable and why. ImTheIP (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only editor being aggressive here is you. You kept on pushing more text instead of discussing. The use of unreliable sources for BLP content has been elucidated very plainly. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep reverting 10k of text containing a large number of unrelated changes. I'm not a mind reader so it is completely impossible for me to understand what you are objecting to. ImTheIP (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImTheIP's edits are unacceptable. The websites of Palestinian activists are not reliable sources and the content is slanderous!--Mirk Wolf (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

This article has an established citation style using inline references. Please do not change this to Harvard style, as beyond being a cumbersome style used in a minority of Wikipedia pages, this makes discussing other changes difficult. 11Fox11 (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is called shortened footnotes (sfn) and is unrelated to Harvard style referencing. Shortened footnotes are useful because they reduce syntax clutter when citing multiple pages or fragments from the same source. For example, citing three pages from a journal without sfns requires writing: page 5,^[1] page 10,^[2] and page 15.^[3] It makes the page code look very cluttered. Especially if links have been archived. Using sfn the same footnoting can be achieved like this: page 5,^[4] page 10,^[5] and page 15.^[6] In my edit messages I have clearly marked which edits pertain to footnoting so I'm not sure what your complaint is. It ought to be easier for you to review diffs with sfn syntax since the amount of syntactic clutter is reduced. ImTheIP (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hagopian, Amy; Palo, Caitlin (2018). "Policing the Divestment Debate". South Atlantic Quarterly. 117 (1): 20. doi:10.1215/00382876-4282127. ISSN 0038-2876.

Views section

At User:EdJohnston's suggestion, I restored the views section added by ImTheIP as it appears adequately sourced to reliable sources. User:Mirk Wolf and User:Worlduse, are you OK with this? 11Fox11 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Hagopian, Amy; Palo, Caitlin (2018). "Policing the Divestment Debate". South Atlantic Quarterly. 117 (1): 5. doi:10.1215/00382876-4282127. ISSN 0038-2876.
^ Hagopian, Amy; Palo, Caitlin (2018). "Policing the Divestment Debate". South Atlantic Quarterly. 117 (1): 10. doi:10.1215/00382876-4282127. ISSN 0038-2876.
^ Hagopian, Amy; Palo, Caitlin (2018). "Policing the Divestment Debate". South Atlantic Quarterly. 117 (1): 20. doi:10.1215/00382876-4282127. ISSN 0038-2876.
^ Hagopian & Palo 2018, p. 5. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHagopianPalo2018 (help)
^ Hagopian & Palo 2018, p. 10. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHagopianPalo2018 (help)
^ Hagopian & Palo 2018, p. 15. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHagopianPalo2018 (help)

[1] Hagopian, Amy; Palo, Caitlin (2018). "Policing the Divestment Debate". South Atlantic Quarterly. 117 (1): 5. doi:10.1215/00382876-4282127. ISSN 0038-2876.

[2] Hagopian, Amy; Palo, Caitlin (2018). "Policing the Divestment Debate". South Atlantic Quarterly. 117 (1): 10. doi:10.1215/00382876-4282127. ISSN 0038-2876.

[3] Hagopian, Amy; Palo, Caitlin (2018). "Policing the Divestment Debate". South Atlantic Quarterly. 117 (1): 20. doi:10.1215/00382876-4282127. ISSN 0038-2876.

[FOOTNOTEHagopianPalo20185-4] Hagopian & Palo 2018, p. 5. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHagopianPalo2018 (help)

[FOOTNOTEHagopianPalo201810-5] Hagopian & Palo 2018, p. 10. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHagopianPalo2018 (help)

[FOOTNOTEHagopianPalo201815-6] Hagopian & Palo 2018, p. 15. sfn error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHagopianPalo2018 (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 == Citation style ==
 This article has an established citation style using inline references. Please do not change this to Harvard style, as beyond being a cumbersome style used in a minority of Wikipedia pages, this makes discussing other changes difficult. [[User:11Fox11|11Fox11]] ([[User talk:11Fox11|talk]]) 02:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
+: It is called shortened footnotes (sfn) and is unrelated to Harvard style referencing. Shortened footnotes are useful because they reduce syntax clutter when citing multiple pages or fragments from the same source. For example, citing three pages from a journal without sfns requires writing: page 5,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hagopian|first1=Amy|last2=Palo|first2=Caitlin|title=Policing the Divestment Debate|journal=South Atlantic Quarterly|volume=117|issue=1|year=2018|issn=0038-2876|doi=10.1215/00382876-4282127|url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article-abstract/117/1/211/133461|page=5}}</ref> page 10,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hagopian|first1=Amy|last2=Palo|first2=Caitlin|title=Policing the Divestment Debate|journal=South Atlantic Quarterly|volume=117|issue=1|year=2018|issn=0038-2876|doi=10.1215/00382876-4282127|url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article-abstract/117/1/211/133461|p=10}}</ref> and page 15.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hagopian|first1=Amy|last2=Palo|first2=Caitlin|title=Policing the Divestment Debate|journal=South Atlantic Quarterly|volume=117|issue=1|year=2018|issn=0038-2876|doi=10.1215/00382876-4282127|url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article-abstract/117/1/211/133461|p=20}}</ref> It makes the page code look very cluttered. Especially if links have been archived. Using sfn the same footnoting can be achieved like this: page 5,{{sfn|Hagopian|Palo|2018|p=5}} page 10,{{sfn|Hagopian|Palo|2018|p=10}} and page 15.{{sfn|Hagopian|Palo|2018|p=15}} In my edit messages I have clearly marked which edits pertain to footnoting so I'm not sure what your complaint is. It ought to be ''easier'' for you to review diffs with sfn syntax since the amount of syntactic clutter is reduced. [[User:ImTheIP|<span style="color:#807">Im</span><span style="color:#870">The</span><span style="color:#087">IP</span>]] ([[User talk:ImTheIP|talk]]) 21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
+{{refbegin}}
+* {{cite journal|last1=Hagopian|first1=Amy|last2=Palo|first2=Caitlin|title=Policing the Divestment Debate|journal=South Atlantic Quarterly|volume=117|issue=1|year=2018|issn=0038-2876|doi=10.1215/00382876-4282127|url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article-abstract/117/1/211/133461|p=20}}
+{{refend}}
 == Views section ==