Talk:Mika Tosca/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

Hello! I did not write this page, but I am a college professor teaching a course and one of my students researched and wrote this page as a project for our class. I am contesting this speedy deletion because I do not think that this needs a "fundamental rewrite" to edit out statements seen as promotional. Instead, I think that minor edits in tone can occur and then the page can be considered for notability criteria for academics. Something I'll point out is that this page has numerous valid citations, which implies that this subject is indeed influential in STEM. Thanks for your consideration! Csoconn (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

follow-up: this article has been tagged as relevant to three distinct Wiki projects (LGBTQ+ in STEM, Women in STEM and Environment wiki projects) suggesting that further considering of this page's notability is warranted. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csoconn (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you either Mika Tosca or a professional colleague of Tosca's? I have never heard of a college professor assigning one of their students to create a Wikipedia entry about themselves (the professor) or a personal colleague as a class project. Furthermore, I question using Wikipedia in this manner. At the very least, it seems extremely prejudicial, as the student is clearly not going to include any relevant information that is not laudatory about the person grading them or about the grader's personal acquaintance, and this entire entry does read like a public relations puff-piece. Wendisway (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Just ran into this. I haven't really looked at the sources, but having so many sources, at minimum this should be a regular AFD so there is a chance for the community to review and vote.-- Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding her birth name

It appears some articles give her credit as such. This can be added according to MOS:CHANGEDNAME. User user:Beccaynr has already reverted my edit twice. Let's discuss here. Please post your reasons for or against adding her birth name. I am sensing a COI here, because I am sure Mika no longer wants to be referred to as [DEADNAME], so user:Beccaynr might have some relation to subject. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Most publications refer to her as MG Tosca, so it would not be clear what first name she was using at the time of those publications. This publication, refers to her only with MG Tosca, but shows her email as "[DEADNAME]@xxxxxx." Here is another source that uses her [DEADNAME]. Here is another. Current source 2 and source 3 use the name. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor cited MOS:DEADNAME, just below MOS:CHANGEDNAME, as the reason for the change. I think this one could go either way: I do see some marginal (only) notability under the old name. For example, an article in The Conversation was written as [DEADNAME] (and is listed in her CV). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:DEADNAME, "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. [...] If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article,[g] even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity, and the article Deadnaming.)"

Pursuant to MOS:DEADNAME, there is no notability under Tosca's past name, even though a few sources exist. In addition, in The Scientist article, Publishers Develop Inclusive Name-Change Policies, linked in the Advocacy section of Tosca's article, it is noted that Tosca's science journals are not impacted by her name change, i.e. notability from science journals is not linked to her past name. The Scientist article also seems to offer support for the Wikipedia emphasis on treating a pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

In addition, there was a recent Wikipedia Signpost Essay (2020-11-29) Writing About Women that discusses the importance of the lead, and "According to Graells-Garrido et al. (2015), the lead is a "good proxy for any potential biases expressed by Wikipedia contributors".[14] The lead may be the only part of an article that is read—especially on mobile devices—so pay close attention to how women are described there. Again, giving women "marked" treatment can convey subtle assumptions to readers." I think this essay helps emphasize the need for caution with the lead due to issues that relate to identifying gender, including through the unnecessary use of dead names.

In addition, User:Expertwikiguy notes, "I am sure Mika no longer wants to be referred to as [her past name]," which also seems like very strong support for immediately removing the past name from this article, pursuant to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, "because it contains material about living persons" and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Also, to address the concern about a potential COI, I have no relation to Tosca. Beccaynr (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Expertwikiguy: Could you pull the dead name whilst discussion is ongoing ? Nick (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the dead name for now until we have consensus. The way I found out about the person's dead name was from reviewing the sources, so this cannot be really hidden, unless source 2 and 3 are also removed. If sources are refereeing to her as such, then it justifies adding it. If the issue is privacy, then the article itself has a section about her trans advocacy, so it would be hardly possible to avoid privacy of her gender. I read the Scientific Article as well and it shows her preference, but Wiki is not written based on the subject's preference, rather written based on how news sources talk about the person. I also feel that the fact that this person is transgender and a well known academic is a plus and should be known.Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Expertwikiguy: Thanks. The deadname is only really relevant if you can demonstrate that Mika was previously notable under their deadname and thus it's something readers would need to see to aide their understanding of the article. I'm not seeing that to be the case, particularly given there's an argument that they're not notable at all. Nick (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID states "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources," and while the MOS continues "even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources," that emphasis does not seem necessary for this discussion, because there are only two sources currently included in the article from Tosca's pre-notability career that mention her dead name (graduation from college and the NASA fellowship, neither of which seem sufficient to justify notability), and the most up-to-date reliable sources use her current name, and science journals use her initials, which match her current name. MOS:GENDERID continues, "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article," and I think this has been accomplished in the Advocacy section of the article, by using Tosca's own quotes and self-description. MOS:GENDERID also reiterates "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person only if they were notable under that name," and further states, "Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned," and I believe this is also accomplished in this article with the discussion of Tosca's gender in the Advocacy and Personal Life sections of the article. I had also previously edited out the word "transgender" in the lead when it appeared before "climate scientist," because it appears to be contrary to the guidance in the Wikipedia Signpost Essay (2020-11-29) Writing About Women, and specifically, about how it is important to use gender-neutral language, and e.g. "Avoid adding gender (female pilot, male nurse) unless the topic requires it," so I similarly believe that adding Tosca's dead name to the lead in an attempt to call attention to her gender would be contrary to the gender-neutral language guidance. Beccaynr (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Beccaynr: thank you for your explanation and reasoning. I agree not to use the deadname. Expertwikiguy (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeated violations of the biographies of living persons policy

Hi, the person in question has posted (Redacted) comments on her social media accounts. Please do not delete these references (I added proper citations). Morini1988 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, that Twitter account (which has been the only source added to this article at the time of this comment - there have not been "references" added to this article and there is no indication from any source about posts to several "social media accounts" nor reliable verification that Tosca has posted anything) is an unacceptable source in this context, and according to the biography of a living persons policy, high-quality sources are required, particularly for contentious claims. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There was also a NYPost article, but we can't use the NYPost for sourcing in a biography of a living person, either. See WP:RSP. We'd need the story to appear in multiple non-tabloid/reliable newspapers (or other reliable sources) to include it in a BLP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Collapse edit request that went no where, and that was one of several similar requests in a short period. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted)  Not done See the discussion immediately above. We need ironclad sources to include allegations of antisemitism on a WP:BLP. Instragram and the Post Millenial are not reliable sources; the university statement does not mention her by name. WP:DUE is also relevant. Check back if this eventually gets covered by multiple reliable independent sources (that mention Tosca by name). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023 (2)

Collapse edit request that went no where, and that was one of several similar requests in a short period. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add the following section following the section "Advocacy for trans people"  Not done Please see comments below. Beccaynr (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Antisemitism allegations Following killings in Israel and Gaza, Tosca allegedly made a story post on her Instagram account on October 17 2023, which read, "Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement. After the past week, if your eyes aren't open to the crimes against humanity that Israel is committing and has committed for decades, and will continue to commit, then I suggest you open them. It's disgusting and grotesque. May they all rot in hell." The next day, Tosca issued an apology through an Instagram post, which stated in part, "Yesterday I wrote some things on my Instagram story that I unequivocally reject and do not stand behind." Shortly after Tosca's apology, the School of The Art Institute of Chicago President Telly issued a statement, which stated in part, "One member of our community expressed views on their personal social media account—views that are not reflective of the School or the values we as a community share—causing distress among those both within and beyond our campus. The School of the Art Institute of Chicago rejects such hateful views, and I want to clarify our values as an educational community." In a later communication with New York Post, School officials confirmed that they were "aware of the “hateful views” Tosca shared on social media and that SAIC “repudiates” them." Texanpacifist (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC) References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023 (4)

Collapse edit request that went no where, and that was one of several similar requests in a short period. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitic Controversy Over Comments on Instagram On October 18, 2023, Dr. Tosca was criticized in the media for her antisemitic commentary on Instagram, where she stated, “Israelis are pigs. Savages,” she wrote. “Very bad people. Irredeemable excrement." She ended her Instagram post with the statement, "May they all rot in hell" She received significant backlash from the media, and on October 19, 2023, has since apologized, stating: “Yesterday I wrote some things on my Instagram story that I unequivocally reject and do not stand behind,” Tosca wrote. “I am deeply sorry for writing what I wrote, and for hurting many people with my words, and I am especially sorry to Israeli people that I broadly placed at fault for the war.” SteveOhs (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC) See ongoing thread slightly above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC) References

Sources, summary

Towards developing a consensus, I wish to overview the situation. I'll have a bit of a WP:WALLOFTEXT, but there's a lot to summarize.

Tosca apparently made these antisemitic remarks, and quickly apologized for them (possibly under pressure). It looks unlikely to me at this time that she will face a serious threat of firing over them. They were widely covered in tabloid type sources that we can't use (NYPost, Daily Mail, IBTimes, Nouvelle Fr translates the IBTimes article into french); it appears to have become a big news story in India, where it has been picked up by lower-quality sources like the Hindustan Times, the Times of India, etc, but not by "green" sources from WP:RSP. More seriously: they were picked up by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wire service [1], and this story appeared in several reliable newspapers/similar [2][3]; the mention there is somewhat brief. The National Desk, a Sinclair product (so, certainly partisan, possibly usable in the presence of other sources) picked it up [4], and this story was syndicated over at least 5 or 6 local television stations including e.g. [5][6][7]. The Algemeiner has picked it up in brief [8]; Beccaynr has expressed concerns above that this source is overly sensational, I do not see this myself.

Right now, KiharaNoukan is making policy-based arguments for inclusion, Beccaynr is making policy-based arguments for exclusion. Some newer editors are arguing for inclusion, mostly not in a policy-based manner. I don't have a strong opinion at this point. There is a whole lot of text above, which I've tried to summarize. Beccaynr, KiharaNoukan, if I've missed anything major or been unfair, perhaps you could concisely add here. I will ping some established editors who have commented here or on BLPN. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Drmies, and Morbidthoughts: would you help develop a consensus? (Noting in passing that the Russell J. Rickford article has a similar situation.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Russ Woodroofe - my view is 'exclusion for now' because coverage could continue. And The National Desk at RSN discussion may be helpful for this discussion about sources to support contentious content for this BLP/GENSEX subject. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Particularly for BLPs and especially at a time where propaganda and misinformation is rampant, we should look for content verified by non-partisan high-quality sources publishing quality articles. I don't see that yet. Plus, as always, NOTNEWS. If Tosca gets fired as a result of these comments then we'll hear about it from quality sources, perhaps--but then, the subject only scrapes by in terms of notability, in my opinion; they don't pass per WP:NPROF, only via the GNG, and only so marginally. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the mention in the JTA wire service article brief, but it is ultimately only one article even if widely syndicated. WP:NPF calls for restraint and would at least require multiple high quality sources. At the archived RSN discussion, there seems to be no consensus that TND is one of those but demonstrates TND is obsessed with transgender issues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I explained my use of 'brief' well, but I was thinking about WP:PROPORTION and what we could do to develop content with what from my view, is fairly limited reporting by the JTA. By contrast, Russell J. Rickford has not only had his statements at a public rally and what happened afterwards reported on in what from my view, appears to be greater depth by the JTA, but also The Telegraph, Washington Post, CNN, and Jewish Journal; coverage includes US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and US Representative Claudia Tenney calling for him to be fired, and we can source his recently-announced semester leave of absence. The availability and depth of high-quality sources about Rickford appears to make it possible to develop content that is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone per WP:BLPBALANCE and with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, per WP:PROPORTION. Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also ping the other editors arguing for inclusion @Texanpacifist @Wendisway, the first? talk entry page for this incident shows them sourcing extensively and arguing for inclusion, with their withdrawal seeming to be from exasperation at following along with the extensive discussion. I wouldn't consider the mention from JTA and its related articles "brief". The original JTA article headlines with Cornell Professor Russell J. Rickford, likely due to his more famous institution, and discusses him in detail, but focuses just as much attention on Mika Tosca's comments as well for its two primary topics within the article itself, ditto for the syndicated releases. I believe Rickford's articles' inclusion of this topic demonstrates that this topic is worth inclusion. I would also note the Patch article utilizing syndication from the Associated Press as a usable source for this topic. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I have no interest in continuing. @Beccaynr is presenting a moving target. First, it is unreliable sources, then it is, that source is not unreliable, but the information is sensational, then it should not be included in full. The fact that this person can decide what goes into this page is enough to understand what's going on. Please stop pinging me. Texanpacifist (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe Hi, I remember now seeing this ping, but apparently I got distracted (or was fed up atm). Something like

In October 2023, during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, Tosca posted harsh anti-Israel comments on social media. She apologized the following day, and her university called such views "hateful".

References

could be acceptable. It can still be argued to fail WP:PROPORTION IMO, but at least it is per ok-ish sources given and fairly short. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As a follow up about sources - in addition to concerns raised about the 3 sentences of coverage in the Algemeiner, which includes an unrelated focus on her gender, similar to tabloid sources, I noticed during research for another article the Herald Sun#LGBTI people and issues section, which describes a case where the Australian Press Council found irrelevant references to a subject being transgender was a breach of news ethics standards. I think this helps articulate a BLP policy concern related to the use sources that seem to sensationalize Tosca, unlike, e.g. the JTA/Times of Israel. Also, as a follow up comparison w/r/t WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:PROPORTION, I was able to develop content in the Russell J. Rickford article not only with the sources noted above, but also Inside Higher Ed, Politico, as well as local reporting about Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand calling for him to be fired. It may be worthwhile to note that Tosca is not mentioned in these other news sources that have focused on college campuses and/or Rickford as we consider the quality, weight, proportion, and endurance of the reporting about Tosca. Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC) and ping: Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Beccaynr (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

Mika Tosca became widely known after her vial antisemitic comments after the Hamas attacks on Israel. Notably, she de-humanized all Jews publicly on her social media. 159.196.13.63 (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done See extensive talk page discussions above. There appears to be no consensus to include any material along these lines, based on the sources available. Sourcing requirements are high for contentious material in a WP:BLP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

When will the semi-protected state of this page end?

Wikipedia rules clearly state that semi-protected state is to be a temporary measure. Will the person or persons who have put the page in that state please indicate when the “temporary” status will change? A permanent “temporary” status weeks after the incident blocking all ability to have any mention of the incident on the page is a violation of how Wikipedia works. And an act of anti-Semitism (by actively blocking any ability for the act of anti-Semitism in question to be known to readers of Wikipedia) Setthingsright42 (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

On "when", see [9]. You can ask for earlier protection-removal at WP:RPP. Note however that articles with Arab–Israeli conflict-related troubles currently tend to get WP:BLUELOCKs, there's stuff going on in that area and people are upset about it. As can be seen on this talkpage, this act is known to people even if it's not currently in a WP-article, since people have other sources of info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

So NOW the logic for why the information is not included on the page is that “this act is known to people even if it's not currently in a WP-article, since people have other sources of info”!!! Talk about Alice in Wonderland!

Given this acknowledgment, why is the information still being kept off the page? Tosca herself apologized for the action in question!! “Because people are upset” that the incident in question occurred and the information has come out is NOT a legitimate reason for this outrageous censorship. Setthingsright42 (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

There has been substantial discussion on this talk page, which is part of how consensus can be developed about whether and how to include content according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Policies that have been discussed include the biographies of living persons policy, the neutral point of view policy, and the what Wikipedia is not policy, including "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." Guidelines that have been mentioned include the reliable sources guideline, and there have been references to a list of frequently-discussed sources that have been assessed in past discussions that help us assess the usefulness of sources. All of this needs to be considered when developing encyclopedic content, particularly about living people, so it may seem as if reasons are changing, but this may be related to how there are several aspects to consider because of the applicable policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible sentence on instagram incident for the article

If we _were_ to include this in the article (and I don't think the sourcing is quite there yet, and am otherwise unconvinced), perhaps a short paragraph like "In 2023, in the wake of the Israel–Hamas war, Tosca posted an Instagram Story that was widely criticized as antisemitic. She apologized for the story later the same day." It might be possible to include a sentence that SAIC released a statement on the same day. I agree that Tosca is quoted a bit excessively elsewhere in the article, and the solution to that is to trim that quoting, not to add unencyclopedic content elsewhere. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow. That is quite the whitewash of Tosca's comments. You've managed to make the most vehemently hateful comments about a particular minority group sound almost admirable, by making it all about the apology with no actual mention whatsoever of what the antisemitic comments were, and only a vague suggestion that some other people found them offensive. And suggesting that accurate reporting of the incident is "unencyclopedic", too. I'm almost stunned at the effort. Wendisway (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to consider adding the date of the Instagram Story post; the date of the apology; and a mention of SAIC making statements as well as a short summary of how the SAIC statements are reported by reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

But not adding what the comments were? There's no point including it at all if all you're going to do is whitewash it and make it all about the apology and not even tell the reader what was said that was being apologized for! Wendisway (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times of Israel (Andrew Lapin) source published today: "US university professors retract blaming Israel for Hamas massacre after censure" seems to have a focus on what has happened after various statements, and refers to Tosca's post ("according to a screenshot shared by The New York Post") as "harsh anti-Israel sentiments." This source appears to be a reprint of the JTA (Andrew Lapin) source, but includes a secondary evaluation that could be used to help develop content, according to e.g. WP:BLPBALANCE. Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm weakly against including the actual calendar date, but in favor of the chronology. Didn't the original IG story, the SAIC statement, and the apology all happen on the same day? It would be certainly be worthwhile to briefly include how reliable sources summarize the SAIC statement. In particular, engaging for a second in the kind of original research that we cannot put into the article, it is possible that Tosca's apology was prompted by pressure from SAIC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking the date of the IG story may be relevant context; there seem to have been attempts to add content to this article that seem problematic with regard to how statements are cherrypicked and juxtaposed (e.g. by Wendisway [10]; KiharaNoukan [11]; an IP [12]; another IP [13]; another IP [14]) so adding specific dates and/or relative time references may be a way to help achieve NPOV with basic context. I think as reliable sourcing develops, we could sort out the dates and timing. Beccaynr (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem adding in mention of the time or the date, nobody had mentioned dates not there as being "cherrypicking".

More than happy to reword to this:

On October 15, 2023, Tosca said on Instagram that "Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement". The comments were highlighted by a nonprofit group and SAIC subsequently repudiated them. Tosca later apologized for her comments the same day.

Another news org that has since mentioned this incident includes Algemeiner, and going back to Patch, I think it is far more relevant to point out that AP contributed to the reporting than that that it cites Post once for only the statement by SAIC, not anything the Ny Post reported themselves. On AP's WP:RSP page, it states "Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable." KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

KiharaNoukan, I will clarify because I am concerned my comments may be mischaracterized; I did not intend to suggest cherrypicking may have occurred from a lack of a specific date; it is because content added by you, Wendisway, and several IPs include only part of the Tosca quote. The potentially undue or misleading juxtaposition (per WP:NPOV policy) is in how the partial quote is presented.

For the marginally-reliable Patch source, general use of the AP (which does not otherwise appear to have reported on Tosca) does not seem to transform the source into support for contentious material in a BLP. And the Algemeiner source seems unreliable for a BLP, including because of the description of Tosca, which appears recycled from e.g. the WP:NYPOST and/or other non-RS sources.

Also, an X/Twitter account does not have reliability because it is a nonprofit group; the account has a Wikipedia article, and whether this is included seems to depend on the weight accorded by reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we can add the full quote as well if that is deemed necessary. The partial quote was the first line of her post and is the first portion highlighted in the JTA article. I don't see how we are getting "NYPOST" from Algemeiner, which does not even mention the Post. The nonprofit group is not being cited for its statements as a RS, it is mentioned by the Hindustan Times. Since JTA does not include it, I am fine with disincluding it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Search online for the descriptive phrase attributed to Tosca by the Alegemeiner (which is not how she describes herself) and the apparent origins in non-RS are available. Beccaynr (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I searched online for the descriptive phrase "radically optimistic transsexual climate scientist." It appears to be from her Instagram page. I don't think the NYPOST is editing her own Instagram page. As of this post, her Instagram bio is:

"Chicago’s radically optimistic transsexual climate scientist ||

Marathoner || views expressed here are mine and not reflective of my employer" KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I had looked to her official website "transgender scientist (she/her pronouns)" and there are sources in the article, e.g. "'As a trans woman and as a scientist...'" Buzzfeed 2018); Chicago Tribune (2019), "Mika Tosca, a trans climate scientist"; The Scientist "Tosca, a climate scientist [...] who is transgender"; Windy City Times (2020) "Transgender climate scientist [...] Dr. Mika Tosca"; Epigram (2020) "Dr Mika Tosca is a [...] transgender woman", so non-RS focusing on different terminology raised concerns, and further review of the Alegemeiner may find additional reasons to exclude it as support contentious material in a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Arguing for exclusion based on "may find additional reasons to exclude it" without actually explaining what it is, and given that your last attempt on excluding the Algemeiner is a false claim that they relied on the NY Post without evidence, without any reference to the Post is little more than WP:JDLI. You've had "WP:NYPOST" brought up against to several articles at this point that are not the NY Post, the latest not even bringing up the Post at all, using info that with a quick "search online for the descriptive phrase attributed to Tosca", would indicate that it is not related to the Post. Again, this conversation is devolving into WP:WL. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

KiharaNoukan, for myself, I think the the Algemeiner is probably a sufficiently reliable source, and the Times of Israel is a pretty strong source. I'm not absolutely convinced that the incident is WP:DUE in the article, but I'm not convinced that it is not, either. I think a summary of what she said along the lines of the brief words (perhaps still shorter) used by the Algemeiner would be ok; the full text is surely WP:SENSATIONAL. Perhaps In 2023, Tosca posted an Instagram story in which she called Israelis "pigs" and expressed a wish that they "all rot in hell". The School of the Art Institute of Chicago issued a statement the same day repudiating Tosca's words. Tosca apologized (also on Instagram) later the same day.? Beccaynr, if you still have severe doubts, then an RfC would be an alternate option. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, your proposed text works fine for me. Maybe just with indication of October 2023 for clarity. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't object greatly to the month, but think that it might be better to say "In 2023, in the wake of the Israel–Hamas war, ...". So, giving the context rather than the month; I think this probably ages better. And we don't give months with the dates elsewhere in the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, either one of the year-only edits works for me. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Algemeiner seems to be reproducing how this has been reported in e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL [15] "who describes herself on social media as 'Chicago's radically optimistic transsexual climate scientist' [...] 'Israelis are pigs. Savages,' she wrote. 'Very bad people. Irredeemable excrement.' [...] after the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas that killed 1,400 people."; The National Desk, [16], "who describes herself as “Chicago’s radically optimistic transsexual climate scientist,” [...] “Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people,” Tosca wrote."; WP:POSTMIL [17] (BLP vio). And I had tried to explain a BLP/NPOV concern at RFPP during the first wave of attempts to add similar content - selective quotations without more precise context of the timing seems to make an already-bad statement sound worse. Adding a sentence or two without more independent and reliable sourcing seems premature based on BLP and NPOV policies. Beccaynr (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, other non-usable sources describing the same incident does not poison RS describing that incident as well. The Algemeiner does not cite a single one of the problematic sources you bring up in its reporting. The only similarities you highlight are basic details, unindicative of "reproducing", and for quotes, not even that similar.

The "radically optimistic transsexual climate scientist" phrase, as I have shown above, is a verbatim self-description taken from her own Instagram page, the very source of these comments in the first place. It is not attributed to any one of the sources you bring up.

Her quotes are the whole source of this issue in the first place, it's only natural they are brought up verbatim. But even then, The Daily Mail, The National Desk, the Post Millenial, none of them state her quotes as The Algemeiner do, with a summation of "Israelis are pigs … may they all rot in hell.", followed by quoting her apology.

Yes, these comments come in the aftermath of the Oct 7 attacks. It is only natural to mention this basic context. Considering that Tosca herself states "this past week," it's beyond evident that this is what is being referred to.

WP:NYPOST applies to the New York Post. WP:DAILYMAIL applies to the Daily Mail. WP:POSTMIL applies to the Post Millenial. This is none of them. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, the Times of Israel notes "according to a screenshot shared by The New York Post" in its reporting; this is one issue that seems relevant to BLP, NPOV and NOT policies when considering whether, when, and how to add content, because we seem to already be starting with a risk of introducing sensationalism. And when a source, such as The Algemeiner, reports similarly to what tabloid, questionable, and non-RS sources have previously published, this seems relevant when considering whether the source is also sensationalism and whether it should be used to support contentious claims in this BLP. At this time, there seems to have been a brief burst of similar reporting in low-quality sources, and then Times of Israel/JTA reporting on the NYPOST's action as well as what happened after, i.e. Tosca's apology and reactions from SAIC. From my view, this does not yet seem to be enough to develop balanced content according to BLP and NPOV policies. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated any similarities beyond them reporting on the same issue and providing basic relevant details like the verbatim quotes of her own statements and the context of the Oct 7 attacks. Any notable details, such as context, framing, juxtaposition, characterization, etc. are completely unindicative of supposed "reproduction."

WP:BLPPUBLIC states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." We have multiple RS going from local to national to international sources, we have satisfied this requirement.

Can you explain what edits you would like to include to satisfy WP:NPOV? Every proposed edit that has been made here has included mention of her apology, and seems to reflect how the incident has been described in sources. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Alegmeiner source reports in a similarly sensationalized manner about this BLP subject, and therefore seems unsuitable for supporting contentious content. Sources have been discussed on this talk page as low-quality, sensationalized, and tabloid. We do not have consensus about multiple RS existing to support content, and Tosca does not appear to be a public figure.

And, as to this: Yes, these comments come in the aftermath of the Oct 7 attacks. It is only natural to mention this basic context. Considering that Tosca herself states "this past week," it's beyond evident that this is what is being referred to. This is part of why I suggest more precision, per BLP and NPOV if content is added. Based her comment, as well as the timing (reported by The Times of Israel as "in the midst of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza"), it seems clear that we need to do better than tabloid and low-quality sources, according to BLP and NPOV policy. Beccaynr (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing an edit that mentions that this comes during the war? That has been proposed above, and I have no problem with inclusion of that. The Algemeiner mentions that, as does all the other RS I have seen. I don't see how the Algemeiner is sensationalized. You have made claims of similarity, but those similarities only are reflected in that all sources have the basic details, and not even in the same way, as I have demonstrated in how quotes are presented. KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This whole debate about including the hateful, antisemitic comments of Mika Tosca in Wikipedia appears unbelievable to me. I read about her original post on Instagram. Prior to this I supported Wikipedia by some modest donations. However, I was not aware that some people "are more equal than others". She admits having posted this awful content and she has apologized. I was not aware of the power Wikipedia guardians have about what they deem sufficiently reliable (sources). I believe if papers like the NY Post printed a post that was not hers, she would sue.

I'm not rich. I will keep those few Euros to myself and recommend to anyone I talk to about Wikipedia to rather support another cause Markus310773 (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not proposing any addition at this time, because there do not appear to be multiple reliable secondary sources according to WP:BLPBALANCE, because most of the available sources appear to have an overall tabloid and sensationalized quality, and because of the recentness of this incident. We are not under an obligation to rush contentious content into this article.

I have suggested that we not include content that is similar to the wave of edits made by multiple accounts before and after this article was protected, e.g. that seem to contravene BLP policy because of poor sourcing and BLP and NPOV policy through a juxtaposition of statements, and that we do better than the burst of tabloid and low-quality sources, including ones, such as the Alegmeiner, that focus on her gender, similar to the tabloid, non-RS, and other low-quality sources. This article is subject to contentious topics procedures for gender-related disputes, so when Algemeiner and tabloids focus on this unrelated aspect, I think it is okay to raise a concern. The Alegmeiner source also has only three sentences about Tosca, printing part of her statement reproduced on X/Twitter and part of her apology.

The lack of context is one of the issues that seemed to be a problem when multiple accounts made multiple attempts to add similar selective quotes from Tosca to this article. Many attempts were removed from view in the edit history, but some currently remain. Beccaynr (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how this in any way justifies leaving out what the actual words were and instead emphasizing the apology for them, without telling the reader what was being apologized for (which is both absurd and very non-encyclopedic writing). The proposed wording goes to extremely contorted lengths to cast the subject's actions in a noble and admirable light, and I will not venture a guess here as to why we would be trying so hard to do that. Wikipedia editors aren't PR people for the subjects of these articles, no matter what their actions. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state facts on people and events, not sanitize them. Wendisway (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the editors blocking the addition of this information are doing it out of ideological bias. I am pro-Palestinian and pro-LGBTQ, but trying to hide hateful and racist statements by a public figure from the public is not going to help anyone in either group. Indeed, the resistance against the sources provided and the attempts to hide the extent of hatred expressed by Tosca are actions contributing to further political polarization that is one of the biggest problems facing western democracies today, and is reducing Wikipedia into an echo chamber where certain voices are actively undermined and vilified.

I am withdrawing myself from this sham of a process. @Beccaynr and @Russ Woodroofe can continue treating this place as their personal fiefdom. People like you are the reason Trump will be the next U.S. president. Texanpacifist (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of issues with the claims the editors opposing inclusion have brought up, but regardless, please see WP:NOTFORUM. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The unusable sources are not being discussed here. You have repeatedly attempted to poison RS with these other unusable sources with little to no substance. RS can and should be discussed independently. You have not laid out a coherent idea of what you would consider acceptable for addition. It started with editors in the prior discussion generally in agreement of more RS reporting needed, which is exactly what we have now and have had for a while. Multiple RS reporting is the requirement set out in BLP policy. It has been fulfilled. It then became a cascade of spurious nitpicking, from articles being "too brief" even when Tosca's comments constitute one of the main focuses of the article to everything apparently being WP:NYPOST even when they don't mention the Post.

This latest hit on the Algemeiner is a key example of these ever-evolving standards and nitpicks. We've gone from the Algemeiner falsely being accused of making up Tosca's self-description copied from the NY Post, to the Algemeiner being accused of being too similar to non RS because it mentions basic details like the verbatim quotes Tosca has stated, to now "focus on her gender," which has not been brought up once before in this entire conversation. I agree, this is an "unrelated aspect." Where is this supposed "focus on her gender?" A single mention of her own self-description, transcribed verbatim from the Instagram account she used to post the controversial comments, along with her credentials as a "climate scientist," introducing her along with the author's own-voice description of her as a professor "of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago"? I'm not sure what standards you are using to characterize this singular verbatim self-attribution as a "focus" of the article, while simultaneously castigating RS for being too "brief" in their considerably lengthier descriptions of the incident as a whole. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the repeated characterization of my comment and analysis of the Algemeiner as 'false' is unfair; I wrote the Algemeiner source seems unreliable for a BLP, including because of the description of Tosca, which appears recycled from e.g. the WP:NYPOST and/or other non-RS sources, and as I later explained, this was based on my internet search, which showed results for a phrase from the Algemeiner appearing in multiple non-RS, including the NYPost. You conducted research to identify Tosca's IG account, which was not cited by the Algemeiner, and this is typically how the collaborative process works. From my view, finding the account does not change how this unrelated aspect (which is not reported by the Times of Israel) is part of the reporting in sources such as the tabloid Daily Mail etc., as I documented above. And I have generally and then more specifically referred to concerns as discussion develops, because from my view, this is also part of the collaborative discussion process.

Overall, I think it would best for this discussion to focus on the content, not contributors. It can be distracting to sort through comments to separate out personalized comments and ad hominem from actual discussion about sources and content. We can have different opinions, and there are options for dispute resolution. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about this claim: the descriptive phrase attributed to Tosca by the Alegemeiner (which is not how she describes herself). This is false, because The Algemeiner's quote is a verbatim restatement of how she describes herself in her Instagram bio where she put up the controversial statements in the first place: "radically optimistic transsexual climate scientist." Its falsehood is important and worth noting because if it is indeed true that it is not a self-description, and only created from whole cloth from the NY Post or others, it would give credence to your allegations of "reproducing" non-RS content. But it's not true.

The most recent allegation towards The Algemeiner, which is presumably based on one word of that self-description, "transsexual," and claiming that The Algemeiner in turn is focused on her gender, does not make sense. It is referenced once, quoting a verbatim self-descriptive statement, as part of a description where she also describes herself as a "climate scientist." The author's own description never brings up gender or sex ever, only mentioning that she is a SAIC professor. You may as well as claim that the article is focused on climate science, by this standard. I have been very critical of the claims you have put forward, how you utilize the policies you cite, and the standards you're using to judge these sources, but I have only ever focused on the content. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the Alegemeiner source appears to 'reproduce' the tabloid/sensationalized style of content reported by non-RS - the piece was published after non-RS published similar content, including the self-description. From my view, this seems unusable to support this contentious content in this BLP; similar to non-RS sources, Alegemeiner finds her gender relevant to an incident that has nothing to do with her gender; uses (without attribution) her personal Instagram instead of e.g. her personal website (a source I used to find her self-description) or how she is commonly referred to when her gender is relevant to coverage (as noted in a sourced comment above). I have raised further concerns about the depth of the Alegemeiner piece, and how this also seems to sensationalize Tosca with selective quoting and limited context. Meanwhile, the Times of Israel/JTA does not find her gender relevant, notes the involvement of the NYPost, has more precision with context and includes a reaction from SAIC. From my view, The Times of Israel/JTA coverage helps support inclusion because it can help develop balanced content, but multiple reliable secondary sources are needed according to policy, and these do not yet appear to exist. Beccaynr (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Instagram Comments

Tosca is currently most notable for the controversy concerning her comments about the Israeli people during the the 2023 Israeli-Hamas war. As we have saved images her her direct comments, why can the comments themselves not be included? I've seen the discussion regarding sources, but I fail yo understand how quoting what she herself published fails to meet the criteria. 2600:1700:F730:DEB0:4D60:2A96:90F0:498C (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Among other problems, I don't think that non-reliably republished forms of a post that was immediately taken down by the subject fall under self-published. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This was reported by Hindustan Times, the largest newspaper in India. It is an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Someone can submit the edit.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/israelis-are-pigs-chicago-art-professor-makes-anti-israel-post-netizens-demand-her-to-be-fired-101697725075825.html Jmouritz127 (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Also Fox has reported this. https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-professor-apologizes-calling-israelis-pigs-savages https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/chicago-professor-calls-israelis-pigs-and-savages Jmouritz127 (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

These sources were brought up in the previous discussion, which I judge to have resulted in no consensus to include the material. An interested editor could start a WP:RFC. I am doubtful that the result would be different. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2023 (3)

I can't see any non-ideological grounds for the rejection for these edit requests, especially because now CBS news Chicago is also reporting the same claims, which is a source included in the following edit proposal.

Therefore, please add the following section following the section "Advocacy for trans people":

That is not CBS, it is The National Desk, produced by Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which appears to be unsuitable for supporting contentious claims about living people. Beccaynr (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism allegations

Following killings in Israel and Gaza, Tosca allegedly made a story post on her Instagram account on October 17 2023, which read,

"Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement. After the past week, if your eyes aren't open to the crimes against humanity that Israel is committing and has committed for decades, and will continue to commit, then I suggest you open them. It's disgusting and grotesque. May they all rot in hell."

The next day, Tosca issued an apology through an Instagram post, which stated in part, "Yesterday I wrote some things on my Instagram story that I unequivocally reject and do not stand behind."

Shortly after Tosca's apology, the School of The Art Institute of Chicago President Elissa Telly issued a statement, which stated in part,

"One member of our community expressed views on their personal social media account—views that are not reflective of the School or the values we as a community share—causing distress among those both within and beyond our campus. The School of the Art Institute of Chicago rejects such hateful views, and I want to clarify our values as an educational community."

In a later communication with New York Post, School officials confirmed that they were "aware of the “hateful views” Tosca shared on social media and that SAIC “repudiates” them." Texanpacifist (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

•  Not done reliable sources are needed to support articles, particularly for contentious claims about living people; therefore, content based on WP:NYPOST, WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, and per WP:RSP, The Washington Times (which "should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons"), do not appear suitable for these contentious claims and the proposed broad introduction. The BizPacReview source also seems to be a blog owned by an advertising and fundraising company, according to its About Us page, so this also does not appear suitable to support contentious claims about a living person. The Hindustan Times notes "Netizens on X(formerly Twitter) called her out and trolled the professor", but this does not seem sufficient to support adding content at this time; a purported Instragram post no longer published and a university post that does not identify the subject of the article does not seem sufficient to develop encyclopedic content according to WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

How about the CBS source? Texanpacifist (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me add this: At this point, I am happy to wait until more sources confirm but I am worried that the editor is not objective. It might be helpful to know in advance what sources Beccaynr considers reliable. I don't want to come back with a NY Times or BBC source just to be given the same response. Thank you for your patience. Texanpacifist (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I commented above: "That is not CBS, it is The National Desk, produced by Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which appears to be unsuitable for supporting contentious claims about living people." And the links in my comment, e.g. WP:RSP, or specifically, e.g. WP:NYPOST, lead to a page that summarizes Wikipedia consensus about the general reliability of the source. Another editor has also provided similar feedback about the need for reliable sources on this talk page, and there is a notice at the top of this Talk page about the biographies of living persons policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

NYTimes and BBC are reliable. Sinclair is marginal, similarly for foxnews. NYPost, Daily Mail, Washington Times, etc, are a no-go, and cannot be used in a Biography of a Living Person to support any claim. See WP:RSP for an overview of some sources that have been discussed previously as to reliability. We need ironclad sourcing for this kind of material in a BLP. If sourcing does emerge, then the most that could go in would be a short (say, 1-2 sentence) overview of the incident. Beccaynr, thanks for tracking down The National Desk; it wasn't obvious to me that it was the name of a program. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Russ Woodroofe, we can wait a week or five and see if better sources emerge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! We can wait a week when the story dies down as not to embarrass her and show the anti-antisemitism of the "left." I totally agree. 2600:8805:A985:4300:AC70:B4FC:8675:F088 (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times article also notes that "Nonprofit group Stop Antisemitism tagged her employer on X(formerly Twitter) and called her a 'hate filled instructor'." It also connects with with a larger trend of social media posts siding with Hamas & Palestine. Given that international news media is covering it, with substantially more than just some "netizens on X," it seems plenty sufficient to include. Other sources covering this include Patch, with reporting from the Associated Press, another international media source Nouvelle, SAIC itself releasing a statement that describes her views as "hateful", a repudiation mentioned by Nouvelle and Patch.

This article currently has content about how a movie with a female fairy inspired her, coverage of one-off speaking blurbs in a couple of news channels, and a student newspaper's article on her. On the other hand, we have local news, international media, and her own employer making a press release in response to and condemning her statement. This is sufficient for introduction. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's been widely covered in the media, including the Times of Israel [18] and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency [19] (and I'll give you three guesses why those sources will be deemed unacceptable by the same editors). It simply doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Had Tosca made the same comments about nearly any other minority group, there would already be an extensive section on it in this article, but even when the subject of an article expresses the most vehement and blatant public hatred for Israelis or Jews like this and it's covered by multiple news sources, it always results in a rush of editors insisting that it would just be "sensationalist" and "out of proportion" to include it. Wendisway (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the editors judgment on this matter seems to be biased and call for the addition of the proposed comments. There are now enough reliabe sources documenting Tosca's Antiseite response, her apology, and the aftermath. FigTenne (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your claim of a lack of reliable sources now is preposterous. By refusing to allow publication of this information, you are effectively suggesting that the NY Post, The Jerusalem Post, The Daily Kos and countless other sites are perpetrating a hoax and that they are publishing false information. Frankly, that would be a story which would merit inclusion on this page!

you lack evidence to be able to exclude such widely published information which included screenshots of Instagram. Are you claiming that YOU know sufficiently that no such words were put on Instagram by Tosca? Because that is the only possible justification to not include the information on the page. You could continue to be biased and assert that the information is “in dispute”, or other such biased wording. But you have ZERO justification to leave all mention of the incident off the page. Continuing to do so now is an active act of anti-Semitism, pure and simple, no matter what words you use to justify keeping the mention off of the page. Setthingsright42 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I also attempted to add this information. Although my addition [[20]] used neutral language and included a reliable source (ABC News affiliate with the story attributed to their National Desk), it was immediately deleted by Russ Woodroofe who stated it needed "multiple" reliable sources. I then attempted to add more reliable sources to it to satisfy that demand, but was unable to as the same user deleted my entry again within seconds so that I could not finish adding the additional sources, even though I had stated that I would be adding them as requested.

I was then sent both a condescending message from one user pretending to think that this was my first edit on Wikipedia and a "test" and telling me to use the sandbox to experiment (I've been editing for over a year with no deletions of my edits) and a warning from another stating that I cannot contribute anything on the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" until I have 500 edits. My edit was not about that conflict, but only about Tosca's comments, on the page about Tosca.

So I give up. It's clear that there is a very aggressive effort by multiple people to keep this information off of this subject's page, and no one is going to get it on there, no matter how many reliable news sources report it. I frankly wonder why this subject has a Wikipedia entry at all, as this is the most newsworthy thing Tosca has ever done and the whole entry reads like a self-published public relations piece full of laudatory accomplishments. Wendisway (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Some moderators immediately delete everything and seem to make ideological decisions about reliable sources. I will try again if and when another more left leaning source reports on this, but I am not optimistic. I expect a similar ban barring me from editing. Texanpacifist (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wendisway, "The National Desk" was explained above; you simply have that wrong. Please read what Beccaynr wrote. The subject of the article likely passes the WP:GNG given the sourcing in the article, but you are welcome to try it at AfD. What would be nice is if you could try not to immediately jump on the conspiracy bandwagon, with this nonsense of "a very aggressive effort by multiple people"--I had never heard of this person until I saw that edit of yours. You could also see what other edits I made to that article, and judge whether I'm on the subject's payroll, or perhaps on the payroll of some nefarious left-wing organization. You'll pardon me if I find that suggestion both laughable and sad. Texanpacifist, a host of guidelines was cited pertaining to these edits, but you are welcome to think that this was an "ideological decision". You are also welcome to jump on every tweet commented on on the internets, but you'll have to live with the fact that some of us here try to edit according to our policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I will wait for a centrist or left source to report. Of course, you have no reason to believe me but I work at SAIC and I know the story to be true from direct confirmation. Still, I respect the policy and the efforts to generate consensus. Texanpacifist (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I checked some sources, I don't doubt it's true, but there is WP:BLP, WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS to consider. That this was in some media today doesn't mean it has to be in this WP-article today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Texanpacifist, I have no doubt that she made the remarks. Policy here is still (modulo a lot of details) that we follow mainstream news sources, and err a certain amount on the side of exclusion, particularly on a controversial incident such as this. The notably leftist Wall Street Journal counts as "mainstream" for this purpose, btw -- see the WP:RSP list that I've mentioned a few times. I appreciate the good faith effort to listen on sources, and I know that the rules here are sometimes a bit technical. There's some chance that the story is covered by a "green" source over the next several days. I've seen similar incidents go in both ways. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the Daily KOS not sufficiently left and mainstream now? Setthingsright42 (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I never said anything whatsoever about you "being on the payroll of some nefarious left-wing organization" and would appreciate you not making up nonsense that neither I nor anyone else said simply to be rude about it. All I said in regard to you (and I didn't even name you), in fact, was that you had sent me a condescending message pretending to think it was my first Wikipedia edit and telling me to use the sandbox to experiment. Which you did. Wendisway (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wendisway, I wonder--"it seems that someone wants this figure protected from having information about their actions that is in the news on their Wikipedia page", "This seems politically motivated...There appears to be no reason to remove it other than wanting to protect the subject of the article from the inclusion of a newsworthy controversy", "There really is no reason to delete the information that is not political", "It's clear that the subject of this article is one of those who gets Wikipedia's very special treatment", "it's very clear that the subject of this pretty obviously self-published PR puff piece article is protected as one of Wikipedia's very special subjects", "It's clear that there is a very aggressive effort by multiple people to keep this information off of this subject's page". So--what are we to make of these comments of yours? Drmies (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

They seem pretty clear to me. I don't know what you're having trouble understanding, Drmies. Wendisway (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I was told by the same editor who immediately deleted my edits that these actions are only a "small blip in Tosca's career" and at the most, only one or two sentences about this incident will ever be permitted in the article, even if it becomes more widely reported (which appears to mean 'reported by more left-wing sources', which are conveniently unlikely to report on prejudicial anti-Israeli comments by an academic as they would if the comments were anti-Palestinian). I can't guess how it is that we can't include this incident in a BLP because it is too recent and we must wait "four or five weeks" to know if it is newsworthy, but also we already know without waiting any time at all that the entire thing is only a "small blip" that could never merit more than a sentence in the article. However, pointing out such inconsistencies is "jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon", I hear. Wendisway (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I am worried that we are all wasting your breath. I am sure something will come up in Chicago Tribune tomorrow, if not a clearer statement from SAIC. Texanpacifist (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, good luck. I would bet very good money that even if the Chicago Tribune puts it on their front page tomorrow, there will be some reason found to exclude it as a source. Wendisway (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Wendisway, there are two questions. One is, "can the antisemitism incident be covered in the article?" I will quote our WP:BLP guidelines: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The other question is "if the sourcing justifies inclusion, how should it be included?" The answer to that is given in our WP:NPOV policy, particularly the WP:DUE part. In a BLP, that generally means briefly, and it always means non-sensationally. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Both my entry and that by Texanpacifist were non-sensational and written in NPOV. Neither was unsourced or poorly sourced, either. Fine. We are waiting for more sources (and it's clear that only left-wing sources are permitted, which of course makes it far less likely the information can be sourced, as left-wing media rarely reports on academics who spout anti-Israeli sentiments the way they report on those who do the same with anti-Palestinian sentiments, but still, we're waiting). You have already Issued a dictum stating that this incident will not be permitted more than a sentence or two IF it is ever even allowed in the article, no matter how many sources cover it. Okay, fine, again. I must say, I wish some other BLPs on Wikipedia got the same gung-ho protection from so many editors that this one professor is afforded. Wendisway (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And I disagree that for example this [21] was "written in NPOV." Way out of WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The only sensationalism in that is in Tosca's own words. Wendisway (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Still way out of WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire article is out of proportion! It's an extensive article about a minor, non-noteworthy associate professor at a third-rate art school who has done no work of particular fame in the climate change field and reads like a self-written PR puff piece, including minute details about everything from what the subject "observed" while in grad school to being personally influenced by the cartoon Ferngully! Pretending that the only actual newsworthy thing a subject has ever done is out of proportion because it reflects badly on them in an article in which EVERYTHING is so wildly out of proportion in the subject's favor is, frankly, absurd. Wendisway (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mika Tosca was in 2020, anyone who wants can start a new afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is worse than this. Not covering the incident at all is an affront to Israelis and Jews worldwide. It is a lesser form of Holocaust denial. Setthingsright42 (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The information in question can no longer remotely be considered “unsourced or poorly sourced” Setthingsright42 (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Kos has now covered this! Is that not left-leaning enough of a source for you?!? Setthingsright42 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:DAILYKOS. Even if you declare stuff left-leaning, it doesn't mean they're good in the WP-context. Got any Wall Street Journal? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

For the interested, this [22] may be the Daily Kos in question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent addition attempt

A recent addition [23] I removed was based on WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS (noted in the byline of the source used [24]); a Patch source (previously discussed at RSN as marginally reliable) that cites the WP:NYPOST, and the Hindustan Times, so these sources do not appear to be sufficient according to policies and guidelines to support inclusion in this BLP at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr

The Patch source notes the Post reported on the story and that SAIC itself released a statement to the post, citing the university statement rather than Post reporting. It would be more accurate to consider the fact that it states that The Associated Press contributed to the report, which puts it more towards WP:GREL. What exactly is the objection to The Hindustan Times reporting? You dismissed it by stating that the article noting "Netizens on X(formerly Twitter) called her out and trolled the professor." was unexceptional, but that line was well towards the bottom of the article, and you appeared to have missed the preceding content about a nonprofit organization calling attention to the comments, as well as connection to larger trends on social media. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

From my view, it does not seem helpful to point to Patch stating they used AP reporting somewhere in a post about various topics, when they specifically cite the tabloid WP:NYPOST for information about Tosca. And I did not dismiss The Hindustan Times reporting about trolling from X/Twitter; I said one source did not appear sufficient to support contentious encyclopedic content about Tosca. The need to develop contentious content with multiple reliable sources has been discussed in several talk sections on this page; it is part of the biographies of living persons policy, particularly for contentious material. Beccaynr (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside the patch dispute, there is also another Hindustan Times article mentioning the incident. As well as a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report, which attributes the SAIC report as referring to Tosca, assuming that wasn't WP:BLUE anyway. We have at least 3 RS that fully corroborate the edit, which I believe satisfies the standards you have laid out. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

As an initial matter, I think it would be helpful for more editors to participate in this discussion about whether there currently is sufficient support in reliable sources to add contentious material, and if so, how to develop the content according to core content policies. And from my view, the Hindustan Times is one source, even though it published a follow-up story soon after its first. The WP:GNG guideline also notes in fn4:

It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.

The BLP policy section WP:BLPBALANCE includes, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" and "The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies", so it appears BLP policy favors waiting for appropriate sources to emerge, and taking care to develop encyclopedic content according to core content policies. Beccaynr (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beccaynr

I am counting the Hindustan Times as one source. There is also the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and the SAIC release itself. That is at least 3. Can you let me know if there is anything in the wording of my edit you feel fails to match WP:BLPBALANCE? I doubt we will see anyone defend her statements when she herself has apologized for them. We have RS that already is appropriate for the article and matches the standards you previously expressed, that seems to also satisfy waiting for "appropriate sources to emerge," unless you have objections to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article? Every editor I have seen has expressed similar sentiments on more, better sources, which these are. You are the one who reverted my edit, I ask if this satisfies your standard, and if not, why? KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency source is primarily about other topics, with a brief mention of Tosca; the nonindependent SAIC source that does not mention Tosca has been discussed on this Talk page as not helpful for supporting inclusion. I do not think sufficient sources exist to support the inclusion of this contentious content at this time, based on policies and guidelines that apply to this article. We should always be cautious with contentious content in biographies of living people; the tabloid press coverage and reporting from The Hindustan Times about trolling from X/Twitter seems to support additional caution here. Beccaynr (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency source is primarily about Tosca and another professor. Pretty much the same amount of content dedicated to Russell Rickford from Cornell is dedicated to Tosca, the only difference being the headline, which is not the best way to ascertain a source per WP:HEADLINES and I imagine highlights Cornell for it being a famous Ivy League. Sections of the article that contain the "brief mention of Tosca" include:

The apology by Russell Rickford, a history professor, was published the same day as another apology from a different university professor in Chicago over her own anti-Israel social media comments.

Both appear to have been prompted by condemnations from their respective university presidents, which came as donors have pulled support from other elite universities] over their perceived failure to sufficiently or promptly condemn the attacks.

On the same day that Rickford apologized, Mika Tosca, a climate scientist and professor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, also apologized for an Instagram post that contained harsh anti-Israel sentiments.

“Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement,” Tosca had written Tuesday, nine days after the massacre and in the midst of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza, according to a screenshot shared by the New York Post. “The propaganda has been downright evil. After the past week, if your eyes aren’t open to the crimes against humanity that Israel is committing and has committed for decades, and will continue to commit, then I suggest you open them.” She concluded, “May they all rot in hell.”

Her post, like Rickford’s, prompted a denunciation from her employer. “One member of our community expressed views on their personal social media account—views that are not reflective of the School or the values we as a community share—causing distress among those both within and beyond our campus,” SAIC president Elissa Tenny wrote in a statement Wednesday. “The School of the Art Institute of Chicago rejects such hateful views, and I want to clarify our values as an educational community.”

In a lengthy apology posted to Instagram that same day, Tosca said she was “deeply sorry for writing what I wrote.”

“I am especially sorry to Israeli people that I broadly placed at fault for the war,” she continued. “You did not — and do not — deserve that, and I was wrong to post what I posted; I know that my words perpetuated harmful stereotypes.”

Rickford and Tosca’s apologies come as university faculty around the country have posted inflammatory statements about Israel. Yale University American studies professor Zareen Grewal tweeted on the day of Hamas’ attacks that “Israel is a murderous, genocidal settler state and Palestinians have every right to resist through armed struggle, solidarity.” An online petition started by the family of a Jewish Yale student to pressure the university to remove her has racked up more than 53,000 signatures, but the university has not commented on her statements.

The SAIC source is about Tosca, The JTA article has affirmed as much. Pretending that it isn't in the face of an RS stating that it is, is WP:OR.

You again lower The Hindustan Times for talking about twitter posts against Tosca. That is at the very bottom of their article, which firstly highlights how Tosca's comments reflect a larger trend of comments and how a nonprofit organization called attention to it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is excessive to quote so much from the JTA source, but from my view, it is a brief (not in-depth) mention of Tosca. And to clarify my previous comment, when I referred to the Hindustan Times, this was in reference to the biographies of living persons policy - from my view, the tabloid attention and reported trolling from X/Twitter suggests we should be particularly cautious when assessing sources and developing content if there is consensus to include this event in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't see how JTA's content on Tosca is both "excessive" and "brief." If the sections on Tosca are "brief," then everything in the article is "brief." She is one of the two primary individuals focused on for the article. This label of "brief" being used to dismiss a RS just seems like WP:JDLI. The concerns about tabloids and trolling from twitter is why we use RS to back content, which we do have. Poisoning valid RS because other poor sourcing exists about the same topic does not make sense, the RS is there to be used in lieu of it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems excessive to include such a large quote on this Talk page, with content about other people, and potentially a copyright problem. JTA is also recent news, and cites the tabloid WP:NYPOST. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and not a tabloid, so we do not have to rush to develop contentious content in articles about living people. Beccaynr (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We started with "The need to develop contentious content with multiple reliable sources has been discussed in several talk sections on this page"

I provided other RS that did just that.

Then it moved to a claim about WP:BLPBALANCE.

I asked about exactly what was in conflict.

Then it became that the JTA source was too brief, and who knows if the SAIC source is talking about the same thing, despite an RS saying it is.

I addressed that, with quotes demonstrating the extent of the topic coverage.

Then it became that it was still too brief... somehow.

I addressed that.

Now we're at poisoning the entire JTA source because it has 1 attributed quote of Tosca obtained by the Post (I guess this isn't brief), with no reporting from the Post itself at all. Then we're at "WP:NOTNEWS" which seems to wrap right back around to the starting point of "The need to develop contentious content with multiple reliable sources has been discussed in several talk sections on this page." These objections are not productive and are looking more and more like WP:WL. But I agree, Wikipedia articles should wait for RS to develop. As you mentioned, this was the common theme among other editors in the earlier talk page post. And we do indeed have multiple RS attesting to this now. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't see why it would matter if the article was primarily about another professor, as long as it also covers Tosca's incident and is a reliable source. But it really seems that no matter how many reliable sources cover this incident, there will always be some reason to discount them. Wendisway (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There's also the Times of Israel [25] which is about all of the US professors who have made anti-Israel comments. Wendisway (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

“Waiting” is no longer relevant now, correct? The information is now multi-sourced across the political spectrum. So there is literally zero justification to refuse to allow publication of this incident. Well, zero legitimate justification. Setthingsright42 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The moderators' removal of even the most toned down report of this issue is absored in light of the evidence. Questions should be raised about the integrity of this Wiki webpage and how well it serves the public. FigTenne (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think at this point it would be most constructive to allow other editors to participate in this discussion, given the discussion that has already occured about sources, polices, and guidelines in other Talk sections. From my view, this recent event appears to have originated from tabloid press (based on what sources state, e.g. the JTA) and what has been reported as trolling from X/Twitter, so there are further BLP policy-based concerns because of the tabloid and sensationalized characteristics of this contentious event. Beccaynr (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I take the JTA source seriously. I also take The National Desk reporting somewhat seriously, as re-published by local news agencies. The Hindustan Times I agree is only marginally reliable (especially for international reporting), and I don't think is useable here; I think it's likely similar to the Times of India. The SAIC source is primary. I am of the opinion that we're still short of the point where we have sufficient reliable sources, but that we are approaching that point. There are still two questions: Given sufficient sourcing, should we include it in the article? (Per WP:BALANCE, WP:DUE, etc.) And, if so, how should we include it? I will start a new topic with the second question. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

My general sense of SBG-owned local news sources with National Desk bylines is the generic "national desk" name can incorrectly make it appear as if these local outlets independently report national news, instead of reprinting content from an SBG program that seems unsuitable for contentious claims about living people (see e.g. past RSN discussion), similar to how some local FOX News outlets reprint national WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Thank you for opening the section below. Beccaynr (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)