Jump to content

Talk:StandWithUs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MtTamlady (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 6 November 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconIsrael C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconOrganizations C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources not credible

Remove source 2 Clearly this is not the voice of reason and bias.

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1391096357138669574?t=WkXtaggCHsKoigkBBLVi6Q&s=19

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1392587380113170440?t=ldPRa3Lyje3OFXv21Q1xTA&s=19

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1391097323305021447?t=0b5iKRXS4jQx8oOMtJSJGA&s=19

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1025059788466601986?t=RQRuouWKb1Gg7YASsO-ocQ&s=19


StandWithUs denies right-wing, such in the case of David Miller and other attempts. Hohnes88 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 sources supporting right wing and twitter is not a source. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: It appears you have personal interest on this article, maybe a bias even? I genuinely created the Controversy section with subjections of General and Criticism. Using right-wing in the lead is racial profiling and Antisemitism, the very concept that the subject of the article seems to be against. I checked the sources and most are self published opinions of journalists, like in the case of the Forward Article. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact as per WP:RSEDITORIAL. That was why I created a controversy section for that phrase. Besides, they are articles where the subject of this article denied being right-wing, as such makes the statement controversial.MesutOzula (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed ad nauseum, please check the archives. If you wish to assert that all or any of the given sources are not RS then you may make that case at WP:RSN. Using right-wing in the lead is racial profiling and Antisemitism <-- This is garbage, please don't insult the intelligence of other editors. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just surprised why you seem to have personal interest in this matter. I edited the article in good faith and pointed to facts. But you make it seem like a personal attack: please don't insult the intelligence of other editors <-- This was never my intention. Now that it seem you have personal interest in this article. I will take my time to check the article very well and make adjustments where appropriate with facts. MesutOzula (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are good, personal opinions are irrelevant. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are half a dozen reliable sources supporting the attribution of 'right-wing' for this advocacy organization. This talk page thread is highly frivolous time-wasting. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph reads as an ad against the organization, please remove "pro-occupation" you can also see that other organizationsp don't get the same treatment. Aipac [[1]] [Street] If Not Now So clearly this is something out of the ordinary and very misleading when in fact StandWithUs is an education non-partisan organization. MtTamlady (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it claims to be non-partisan. That is not what the bulk of reliable sources describe it as. Provide an independent source for "educational non-partisan organization". Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We go by RS, what SWU calls itself is irrelevant although we do note that. As has been noted many tiimes before, either contest the RS or bring independent RS that specifically contradict the RS (and you will need at least six). Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, clearly many people have an interest in this article, and just today it has been changed tremendously, so the description from this morning looks nothing like now, my point is there needs to be consistency. Like in the case of the occupation claim, this can be discussed in the main article and not in the lead as it already is. Also, views, criticism, and controversies sections repeat the same claims over and over again. MtTamlady (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't changed by myself, except back to the long standing version before improper amendments were made to the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power from Princeton Press describes StandWithUs as nongovermental group supporter of Israel. And also London School of Economics stating pro-Israel advocacy organization.
Completely understand and all clear on sources, just because there are senior editors here, thought of requesting some help to clean up the lead to make it short and just leave all the other information in the sub-sections. MtTamlady (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed 'pro-occupation', not because it isn't supported by reliable sources, but because there may not be enough examples to make it due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven’t answered my question about any relationship with this organisation. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]