Talk:Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Yet again?

@Huldra: What are your issues this time?

1. You don't think Algemeiner is a RS?
2. I believe you've acknowledged elsewhere, that despite any faults he has, Collier does turn up legitimate antisemtisim. That's all he's alleging here, and it's only one sentence.

What's your issue regarding wp:due?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The Jewish Human Rights Watch (JHRW) report was covered in The Algemeiner , a reliable source, and mentioned in a US State Dept. Annual report, attesting to its notability, I don't see an issue with either RS or DUE. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with inclusion. "Jewish Human Rights Watch" is apparently a Facebook group and Twitter feed, and nothing more. No website, no board of directors, no tax information, no nothing. I agree this is wildly UNDUE, and beyond that Bob WP:ONUS is not an optional policy here. If you continue edit-warring to enforce your position you will find yourself reported to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 21:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

DUE has to do with inclusion, and mentions in a US State Dept. report indicates it is DUE. JHRW's structure is entirely irrelevant to this, as it is covered by relabel sources. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, DUE does. I dont think I said that it does not. And I do not think this qualifies as being worthy any weight. A bogus organization "commissioned" a report by a blogger. So what? nableezy - 22:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is a bogus organization - it is real enough to have filed law suits in the UK - https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/judges-rule-local-councils-must-consider-bds-impact-on-jewish-communities/. Weight is measured by coverage the report got in reliable sources - and we have those - The Algemeiner article , it was paert of the UK parliament discussions (https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/urgent-action-required-to-combat-anti-semitism-in-scottish-psc/) and the US State Dept. report. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

No, weight is measured by how much prominence a viewpoint has received in reliable sources. Any single person can bring a lawsuit. What's the address of their headquarters? Are they a registered charity? Do they have a board of directors? As far as the coverage, it is verifiable that Collier wrote a report alleging such and such. No sources that Ive seen have indicated anything beyond that Collier alleges such and such. And I dont think Algemeiner is actually reliable for facts here, it is an incredibly biased source on the order of Electronic Intifada. nableezy - 22:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

weight is measured by how much prominence a viewpoint has received in reliable sources, yes, that is pretty much what I wrote above - Weight is measured by coverage the report got in reliable sources. And there is coverage. If you question The Algemeiner's reliability, the place to discuss it is RSN. The discussions of it I've seen there indicate it is generally reliable. I don't know if JHRW is a "registered charity" and I don't see why it would matter. It has a director - Jonathan Neumann, [1], and you can probably fetch their address from the court papers if you're inclined to invest time in this. If they filed a lawsuit, they are real. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There are a handful of comments there, and I dont take that as indicative that it is "generally reliable". I do not think this merits coverage here, as a handful of partisan sources parroting a blogger's claims are not a significant viewpoint to be covered here. As always, feel free to get further opinions. nableezy - 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The US State dept. is not my idea of 'a handful of partisan sources parroting a blogger', but yet, it seems like the next step would be an RfC. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Where does the US State Department mention this report? nableezy - 00:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I cant find mention of this group on the State department website anywhere. nableezy - 00:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

See, that's why we have sources in articles, and why it's a bad idea to blindly remove them with false claims of "not RS" or "UNDUE":

"In July Member of Parliament (MP) John Mann, leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism, called for action to be taken against “racists,” following the publication of a report written by pro-Israel blogger David Collier and funded by Jewish Human Rights Watch citing links between the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and anti-Semitism in Scotland. The report stated there was a correlation between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel attitudes. Jewish Human Rights Watch commissioned the report in 2016 after protestors at a festival in Edinburgh celebrating Israeli culture chanted, “No to Brand Israel.”"

[2] Inf-in MD (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, stop making these implied threats. If you feel like I've violated rules then report me, but repeated implications that you might report me is bordering on harassment. Are you clear now that I've asked you to stop this behavior?

I believe that based on the sources this info is wp:due for a single sentence in this article. I started a talk discussion per Huldra's request. I didn't hear back from her. Someone else expressed support for inclusion. So I included it. Period. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not implying anything, I am very explicitly saying that if you continue edit-warring and ignoring the requirements of WP:ONUS I will ask an administrator to make you stop. Are you clear now that Ive asked you to stop violating our policies, and if you continue to violate them then I will ask for administrative intervention? Good. If you think you had consensus for your edit then I guess you can believe that, but you very much do not. nableezy - 22:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)