Talk:StandWithUs

Organization structure

I've been trying to clarify the structure of this organization, and all the information about it is now properly cited to source documents. All requests for citations have now been dealt with. Are there any substantive objections to the information at this point? --John Nagle 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a citation problem raised by Jayjg (talk · contribs) again. If the exact details of the organizational structure aren't cited in detail, he complains of "original research" and removes them.[1] If the details are properly cited, he complains they are "trivia" and removes them.[2] --John Nagle 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Database searches are ephemeral, and original research. Cite a real source. And I didn't "remove" the trivia, I put it in the proper place in the article and made it accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an official records database of Los Angeles County. That's a reliable source. It is "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." It's not like getting information from Google.

We're in this mess because StandWithUs doesn't give many details on their web site of who they are, or who runs them. They have multiple web sites, most of which are described as "organizations", although it's not clear if these "organizations" have actual members or any independent existence. From the web site, you can sign up for the mailing list or donate money, but not join the organization. On their "news" page, they do have a list of "Articles By Roz Rothstein, SWU National Director"[3], so we have a second source for that info and don't actually have to pull that out of their Form 990 filing. --John Nagle 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Database searches are not properly verifiable, as databases are dynamic, and there is no guarantee that their contents will be the same from one search to the next. Also, using them is original research; as I said, we need something that is not ephemeral. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(coming here from the WP:RS discussion)Looking at the LA County records for a non-profit registration is not original research, ephemeral, or dynamic. I don't understand why it's important to the article, but it's not original research. A business records database is a primary source, and using it is source based research. I don't see it used in a way that violates OR (and again, said twice, I don't see why it is important to the article, either.) SchmuckyTheCat

A search is research, and there's no way of guaranteeing the results will be consistent. We need secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOR:

However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

(removing indent)We have no prohibition against research, it is original research that is the problem. This kind of dry recitation is exactly how a primary source should be used. Using a database like this, in fact, is encouraged. This is a government run database, a digital version of their own paper records. It is beyond belief to think this would be inconsistent, and in fact, this kind of source is stronger than any secondary source, which would presumably have gotten the information from the same place. SchmuckyTheCat

The reason for the dry recitation of detail is that Jayjg (talk · contribs) at various times put a {{fact]} tag on the item and, separately, reverted it, repeatedly, claiming "original research". So it was necessary to document the information in excruciating detail to satisfy those repeated demands, as can be seen from the edit history. It's apparently very important to Jayjg (talk · contribs) that StandWithUs not be identified as a d/b/a name used by the Israel Emergency Alliance, although it's not clear why. The actual situation is that the Israel Emergency Alliance is a California nonprofit corporation, operating under various d/b/a names. --John Nagle 04:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unimportant to me what the context for or against is. Dry recitation is a proper use of a primary source, don't excuse it!

Jayjg, is there a contextual reason this shouldn't be in the article? Spell it out to me like I'm dumb, uninterested, and a non-participant with no background, cuz all of the above is true for this article. Expressing a rational argument aimed at a non-involved audience may clear the air. SchmuckyTheCat 07:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason in this specific case is that John Nagle was doing his usual original research; he linked to a webpage that said nothing, and invited the reader of the article to, I suppose, do a search on a database. That already means that the material is not verified. Further, he used this non-verification to claim that the "Israel Emergency Alliance" was a "parent" of StandWithUs; even if one searches the database, one finds no such fact in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've identified the problem. Searching for relevant info, I found that there was a controversy last year over one of the "Israel Emergency Alliance" organizations, "Librarians for Fairness".[4]. Someone had noticed that the domain for that group was registered by an LA-based PR firm, "Rothstein & Memsic". This generated a claim that it was an astroturf organization created by the PR firm, and some controversy. But the only evidence available at the time was the domain registration WHOIS record, and the people making that claim backed down. More information is now available. The executive director of StandWithUs is Rosalin Rothstein, identified as "Roz Rothstein" on the StandWithUs site. The "Rothstein" in "Rothstein & Memsic" is Jerry Rothstein.[5]. They are husband and wife.[6][7]. Anybody want to write a "Controversy" section? --John Nagle 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

John Nagle, we've been through this many times before. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that cites reliable sources. It is not a tabloid newspaper, and we are editors, not investigative journalists. Please save your crusading muck-raking for Electronic Intifada. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of reigniting this dispute, I really don't understand what the point is here. All that John Nagle has uncovered is that "StandWithUs" is a legal alias for the Israel Emergency Alliance (whoever they are) -- which means almost the same thing as "also known as". There is a subtle difference between the two terms, but not one I would fight over. The connection between the two groups does not seem to be in dispute here, so either version should be acceptable. What am I missing? -- llywrch 20:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues, primarily WP:NOR, but I'll deal with a simpler one for now. A database search turns up the name "StandWithUs". A different search of the same database turns up the name "Israel Emergency Alliance". No search turns up both names simultaneously. Now, how do you get from that Nagle's various claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an original research problem. SchmuckyTheCat 14:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've explained my view above. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, all that database search does is show that the two groups are the same -- which the article states at the moment, & IIRC which is your preferred version. For the moment, let's set the matter of original research aside: what are the other reasons one phrase is preferable to the other? I really want to know. -- llywrch 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Which are the two phrases you are referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on this diff, it appears that John Nagel's preferred version is (cleaned up)

• "StandWithUs is a fictitious business name registered in Los Angeles County, California of the California nonprofit corporation 'Israel Emergency Alliance'." Your preferred version is
• "StandWithUs is also known as 'Israel Emergency Alliance'."

Outside of John's version providing information about legal status -- & being longer -- I don't see a significant difference between the two versions. Or am I comparing the wrong versions? -- llywrch 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Are there any actual sources for this article?Proabivouac 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We have their IRS Form 990 filing, three of their web sites, eight of their affiliates/subunits' web sites, and two published references. We used to have the details of their Los Angeles fictitious name filing in the article, too. What else do you think is needed?

Here are a few more links:

• Israel Ministry of International Trade, invitation to joint briefing with StandWithUs. [8]
• Jewish Journal, "StandWithUs offers Israel 101 guide to help students confront anti-Zionist rhetoric" [9]
• World Jewish News Agency, "StandWithUs Premiere" [10] --John Nagle 00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I see what triggered this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoni Dunin (2nd nomination). Look for "OK, go to the StandWithUs article and find me at least one independent secondary source in it. Then we may talk about justice. greg park avenue 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)". There's an AfD in progress over a bio article about some minor member of the Polish nobility circa WWII. That's a notability issue. StandWithUs doesn't have a notability problem; they're an active, high-visibility organization. --John Nagle 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Added two more sources, removed {{sources}} tag.--John Nagle 04:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

StandWithUs on CNN

StandWithUs got some visibility on CNN Monday. They were one of the groups organizing a protest at Columbia University against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[11]. CNN showed some of their protest signs. Many related stories in Google. --John Nagle 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Big deletions recently

There have been some big deletions recently, without any discussion. I've reverted those. Is there anything that really needs to be changed right now?

There is a problem with International Herald Tribune references; those are being moved behind the New York Times paywall. But that's not justification for deleting them. --John Nagle (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone put in the info that StandWithUs is a "nonprofit". StandWithUs doesn't seem to be claiming to be a nonprofit in the US tax-exempt sense. They're not coming up in GuideStar, which indexes IRS nonprofit reports, under "StandWithUs", "Stand With Us", or "Israel Emergency Alliance". So we don't have a reliable source for that. --John Nagle (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Updated branch locations to match StandWithUs web site. Some new branches have been added, and the Detroit branch has been dropped. --John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a IRS Form 990, so they're a tax-exempt non-profit. Updated article accordingly. Not clear why they're not in GuideStar. --John Nagle (talk)

06:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

John, certain things were deleted because of broken links, or non existant programs. The logo was changed to the newest StandWithUs logo, take from their website. And other activities have been added to reflect what they have been up to the past couple of years. I dont understand why you feel the need to change it back when what I am adding is up to date. --Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to delete broken links; often the material can be found in another source. (The Internet Archive can be useful.) Flagging them with {{dead_link}} is appropriate. Past activity should remain in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a current news source. --John Nagle (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy group verses Lobby group

Someone recently stated that StandWithUs is not a lobby group and thus removed a link to the Israel lobby in the United States article. Unfortunately, this is incorrect as the terms "interest group", "advocacy group", "special interest group", "pressure group" and "lobby group" are for the most part interchangeable and have the same meaning. It even states so in the first sentence of the article interest group. --John Bahrain (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, StandWithUs isn't supposed to be a lobbying group, because they've registered for 501c3 tax-exempt status as an educational organization. But, according the Jewish Journal of LA, StandWithUs held a workshop on how to lobby: "Workshops at the conference will include practical tips on lobbying for Israel..."[12] So they're an educational organization for the Israel lobby. I'd put the category back in. --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See this article in Jewish Journal of LA, "L.A. brings its clout to AIPAC": "Bringing young Angelenos to the AIPAC conference is an important way for Adam Milstein to support both Israel and Judaism. The Encino commercial real estate developer and his wife, Gila, natives of Haifa, assumed the cost of bringing 150 people here. That includes the Aish L.A. contingent along with groups from StandWithUs, Hillel, AIPAC’s regional group and the Jewish Awareness Movement." If StandWithUs is represented at the AIPAC convention (AIPAC is, of course, "America's pro-Israel lobby"), they're clearly associated with the lobby. --John Nagle (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nagle, under the definitions you use, there'd be many more lobbies than there are today. Also, to Bahrain, "lobbying" has a very specific meaning. SWU still does not do what even AIPAC does, the NRA does, or the AARP. SWU is a grassroots group. It does not fit the wikipedia definition even of a lobbying group. Being a pro-Israel group doesn't make you a lobbying firm. Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tallicfan. Can anyone actually provide a source that SWU is a lobbying group, or even an "advocacy group"? If there are reliable sources to say this, I may change my mind. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey asked "can anyone actually provide a source that SWU is a lobbying group, or even an 'advocacy group.'?" A quick google news search brought up dozens and dozens of hits. Here are a few highlights:

Haaretz: New tool uses Facebook to improve Israel's image

Epstein, who immigrated to Israel 11 years ago, spearheaded the project as campus coordinator for international Israel-advocacy group StandWithUs. The L.A.-based organization sponsored the project for the 23 students who came up with the idea in the framework of the organization's Jerusalem Fellows program.

Haaretz: Israel advocates play gay card

StandWithUs, the U.S.-based Israel-advocacy group, brought together a group of about 30 gay opinion-shapers and activists from Western countries for meetings with Israeli counterparts in show business as well as representatives from the army and the legal system.

JewishJournal: Bus No. 19 Making Controversial Stop

Several prominent Jewish groups have agreed to underwrite the exhibition, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Consulate General of Israel and StandWithUs, an Israeli advocacy group.

JTA: Seattle divestment initiative challenged

An Israel advocacy group is going to court to stop a Seattle ballot initiative on divestment. The Seattle-based organization StandWithUs Northwest is challenging the legality of the initiative in King County Superior Court.

It is understood by many reporters to be an advocacy group, even though it claims to only be an educational group. Even if an organization is a charity, it doesn't mean that it isn't a lobby gruop -- Christians United for Israel is a charity (http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=donate), but it is mentioned quite prominently in the Israel lobby in the United States article. The key is that the term lobbying is used in the more generic sense of advocacy than of dealing directly with politicians as AIPAC does. StandWithUS and Christians United for Israel are both educating people about Israel in such a way that they become more politically active in this regards.

I think the best solution may be to insert a paragraph into the article that puts StandWithUs into context with other such advocacy groups and organizations. It is better than just a "see also" link at the bottom. Thoughts? --John Bahrain (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Megaphone Tool

I just read the section and originally added a citation needed tag (probably not quite in the right location). However, the real problem with the section is, get this, that none of its sources mention StandWithUs! Why is this section even in the article? Could anyone provide a source that confirms that this tool was either created or actively promoted by StandWithUs? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See [13]. StandWithUs is still listed as a partner of GIYUS, which distributes the Megaphone Tool. --John Nagle (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. Does StandWithUs distribute the Megaphone tool? Did it ever distribute it? There should be a source for it. There's no justification for the claims in the article if it's not relevant to StandWithUs except through some partnership with an organization that possibly distributed the tool. I know someone who knows someone who has a friend whose uncle is... you know what I mean. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See reference 14, from Amir Gissan. That had disappeared from the StandWithUs site, but it was in the Internet Archive, so I've added the template to cite it properly. Note the part where it says "This project is supported by StandWithUs. ... Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone..." --John Nagle (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. Now let's address the synthesis. The source #12 (Times Online) does not mention SWU at all, therefore it shouldn't be in the article. Source #13 is not really a source, it shows that Giyus is a partner of SWU, but it is WP:SYNTH to say anything else beyond that, based on that source. In that light, the Register source is not directly relevant to SWU, because the fact that Giyus is affiliated with SWU does not indicate that one asked the other to distribute the megaphone tool; in fact, this contradicts the SWU website (archive) which appealed people to use the microphone, based on Gissin's request, not a request from Giyus. In light of all of the above, the changes I'm suggesting are (if this was not clear):

1. Removal of sources 12, 13 and 15.
2. Remonal of the second sentence about the BBC poll, unless a source is found to link it directly with SWU.
3. Clarification of "Foreign Ministry of Israel" to the "Public Affairs Department of the Foreign Ministry of Israel" (otherwise it makes it sound like the foreign minister endorsed the tool or something).
4. In the longer term, merger of this section with the other very small Activities sections, that could together fit into two–three well-written paragraphs.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the BBC reference; that was already covered in the main Megaphone desktop tool article, and we have a main article link. As for the "synthesis" issue, references should not be removed in response to a claim of "synthesis". Only conclusions created by editors are properly WP:SYNTH problems. Please don't remove references based on claims of WP:SYNTH. Several editors have been sanctioned for such behavior in conjunction with Israel-related articles. --John Nagle (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted the wording a bit, to indicate that StandWithUs partners with GYIUS (which is properly cited), that GYIUS cooperates with the Foreign Ministry of Israel in this matter (which is properly cited), and that GYIUS distributes the Internet Megaphone Tool (which is properly cited.) Beyond those cited facts, no conclusions are drawn. --John Nagle (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you threatening me with sanctions? I haven't actually edited the article. Now, as to your actual comment, it's true, the conclusions created by editors are WP:SYNTH. The conclusion that "StandWithUs, in partnership with the organization Give Israel Your United Support (GIYUS) ... promotes the Megaphone Desktop Tool" is your personal conclusion. None of the sources say that it promotes the desktop tool in partnership with GIYUS. Or have you slipped some sources that I didn't see? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

StandWithUs's web site said "This project is supported by StandWithUs. Its an easy way for you to help!" and then goes on to quote the letter from Amir Gissin at "The Israeli Public Affairs Department.", who writes "Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone. "[14] That seems clear enough. --John Nagle (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem clear at all. They copied the message of Mr. Gissin verbatim, and it happenned to include the GIYUS URL to get the tool. It could've been any other website. I ask again: do you have a source saying that SWU distributed the tool in partnership with GIYUS? If not, it is your personal conclusion. This is obvious from your post above where you explained your point of view (I repeat: your point of view), which is not clear at all from any of the sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have a source saying that StandWithUs encouraged the distribution of the tool. Note the comment above the letter by Gissin: "This project is supported by StandWithUs." What part of that is unclear? [15] --John Nagle (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My edit removed reference to GIYUS, not StandWithUs, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Went back to Ynhockey's version. GIYUS says StandWithUs is one of their supporters, but StandWithUs doesn't visibly say that they support GIYUS. --John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Inter Press Service investigation

This material is sourced to a reliable source and provides relevant background into the entities behind StandWithUs, so I see no reason whatsoever to exclude it from the article. The opposite is in fact true. Personally I was quite surprised to learn the contents of IPS' investigation. --Dailycare (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

An article that labels mainstream pro-Israel groups and think tanks as "extreme-right" is WP:POV and not a WP:RS.ShamWow (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We have POV sources like "Canadian Jewish News", and "The Jewish Star". The Inter Press News article seems to be reasonably well source; it's not just an opinion piece. --John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey (talk · contribs)'s last edit seems to be moving this toward neutral. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There are still a few problems with the section though:

1. "who has also provided funds to CAMERA and MEMRI, which have both been criticised for producing extremist pro-Israel propaganda."—criticized by whom? The IPS? Why is their opinion notable? I have no problem with mentioning an actual investigation done by them, but their opinions on CAMERA and MEMRI should be kept out of it. Also WP:REDFLAG.
2. "According to IPS, some of these entities have compared Palestinian nationalism to Nazism and alleged that a "vast Muslim conspiracy" is underway to undermine the United States."—another irrelevant sentence per above.
3. "An investigation by the Inter Press Service revealed in October 2009"—is there a 3rd party source saying that they "revealed" anything? I would change to "concluded" unless such a source is provided.

Also, ShamWow has a point. If this is indeed a notable investigation, I call on everyone here to look for other reliable sources that mention it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I think it would be ludicrous to include this clearly POV article from a highly ideological "news" group. Just by labeling certain mainstream groups as "extremist pro-Israel propaganda" should make that clear. And as far as I know, this fringe article has created no sort of controversy, giving it WP:Undue weight.ShamWow (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Other sources:

• "StandWithUs takes anti J-Street Stand" - Haaretz [16]
• "Why is the pro-Israel right so afraid of J Street?" Politico [17]: "For instance, StandWithUs, which was created to smear J Street, has been urging senators and House members to take their names off the J Street “host committee."

It's clear from multiple sources that StandWithUs is actively opposing J Street. StandWithUs even links to the Haaretz article above from their own web site, so they're not hiding their position. --John Nagle (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

StandWithUs can be opposed to J-Street without being some extreme right-wing organization. They are two distinct items.ShamWow (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough call. Clearly StandWithUs is anti-J Street; they've said so publicly. "Extreme right wing" is an interesting issue. Some neocon groups which were "mainstream" during the Bush Adminstration are now called "extreme right wing". This is inconvenient for the Jewish organizations that got close to the neocons. Most of the press coverage on this subject discusses AIPAC, which did[18][19]. Coverage of StandWithUs is more limited. --John Nagle (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, SWU is clearly opposed to J Street like the great majority of Jewish and pro-Israel organizations. It doesn't make it extreme right-wing and the rest of what you wrote is pretty irrelevant.ShamWow (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion has been sidetracked into J Street issues. I'm restoring the material on the IPS study to the article, interested parties may edit the text if they feel they can better capture what the article says. The article is still IPS' lead Mid-East piece. Stating that only controversial items should be included in this article (20:12 above) is IMO weird, since the article would become very short very fast. --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposing J street isn't what the article says makes anything extremist (the article, or text, doesn't say SWU is extremist, just that it's linked to extremists). Saying there is a muslim conspiracy afoot to destroy the US (like SWUs funders say) is extremist. You may replace "extremist" with "militant" which is IIRC the word IPS uses, if you like. --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

IPS "may" be a reliable source but this article is clearly a POV violation, making wild assertions that mainstream, if not right-leaning organizations and individuals, are "extreme right-wing." There is nothing original about this so-called witch hunt.ShamWow (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Since we have a NPOV-based content dispute, I've posted this on the neutrality noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#StandWithUs_NGO.2C_funding_research_by_Inter_Press_Service_is_NPOV.3F

BTW, I hope you're not referring to CAMERA with "mainstream"... --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Luckily IPS aren't calling HRW staff nazis or marxists or else we would have a serious dilemma here. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ShamWow, you couldn't exclude the sourced material on neutrality, so you try WP:WEASEL instead? I suggest that there is indeed a POV problem, and you have it. See WP:REVERT, wherein "revert a good faith edit only as a last resort" and "reword rather than revert". If you feel the content can be presented better, then improve the text. This is a collaborative effort, not a competitive one. FWIW, WP:WEASEL as such applies to wikipedia editors, not sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, article is WP:Red flag - surprising claim that is made nowhere else - WP:Undue - no other source has seen fit to print these accusations - and WP:NPOV - Wikipedia does not assert IPS claims. IPS didn't "reveal" anything, it was alleged. I have NPOV'd the article for now, but based on these arguments, it should be removed.ShamWow (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that's better. Concerning your policy citations, the red flag case is not met since 1) IPS is mainstream, 2) the allegations are not out of character taking into account SWU and e.g. the J Street case and similarly 3) they are not contrary to the mainstream view on SWU as being pro-Israel (going through the three criteria for WP:red flag). Concerning WP:Undue, the story is reproduced in at least these five outlets which is pretty impressive for something as obscure as SWU:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/22-8
http://thisiszionism.blogspot.com/2009/10/pro-israel-groups-money-trail-veers.html
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/10/24/pro-israel-group39s-money-trail-veers-hard-right-in-attacks-on-american-jews/
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10847.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=490746&mesg_id=490746

and finally concerning NPOV, once more IPS is WP:RS and Wikipedia uses those as sources of information, in fact as the only sources of information. This was discussed on the neutrality noticeboard with an uninvolved third-party editor. --Dailycare (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention are WP:RS and most of those sources simply reposted IPS's report. WP:Red flag still applies.ShamWow (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

IPS is clearly an RS. Whether what they say in the article is true is a different matter that we can't resolve. Regarding Electronic Intifada I suggest you read the surprising information here. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also regarding descriptions like "extreme-right", even Richard Silverstein descibes them as having an "extremist pro-Israel agenda" in his Tikun Olam blog and I don't think he is the type to throw that word around lightly. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Guardian article

This may be of interest. An article by Chris McGreal, the Guardian's Washington correspondent from 23 October 2009. Who speaks for America's Jews? J Street lobby group works to loosen big beasts' grip on Congress Ben-Ami referring to StandWithUs using "thuggish smear tactics" caught my eye. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Should be included and has been.ShamWow (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Events

I guess we need something in the article to cover activities like StandWithUs flying in Jerusalem Post correspondent Yaakov Katz from Israel to speak at the “Facing the Iranian Threat” event in Seattle and other events described here. I assume they do this kind of thing regularly as part of their activities. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why Reception is better than Criticism

See WP:CRIT and also to encourage people to not just add criticism per NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that everything within it is criticism, it wouldn't make sense to change it to reception. Secondly, those articles don't have much to do with how the organization has been "received." One is a dispute with another Israel organization and the IPS article is supposed to demonstrate what a right-wing nutbag group SWU is.

Yeah but if a sign over a door says Men you're kind of encouraging only men to use the door. There must be loads of sources out there saying how great StandWithUs are. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll love finding them.ShamWow (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I get a chance. I saw one yesterday. Unlike many editors I WP:DGAF either way. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An uninvolved editor on the neutrality noticeboard also recommended the section be given a neutral title and include, if possible, also positive comments. --Dailycare (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Sean, you are a hero. Secondly, I cannot support a change to the "Reception" title until there positive statements are included.ShamWow (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a title such as "Reception" would give the reader the impression that the section contained a balanced overview of all the reception for StandWithUs, both positive and negative. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to come up with other feedback (positive/neutral) in order to rename the section. That or leave it as it is. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on other NGO's

entire section violates NPOV

a statement that says "has been accused on numerous occasions" without a SINGLE citation?

Also, what about the use of blogs such as Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss as sources-- does this fit with NPOV?

The paragraph about individual actions at rallies constitutes original research.

changes made in accordance with the above.

Drmikeh49 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

New transit poster controversy

...this time in San Francisco. I prefer not to be the judge of how reliable a source the San Francisco Bay Guardian is. (If the writer's prose is any indication, it's not a serious source of news.) But for those wanting to consider incorporating recent news into the article: BART removes anti-Palestinian ad.—Biosketch (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

StandWithUs and the “Creative Community for Peace”

I had added the following paragraph:

In response to an open letter in Billboard Magazine by the Creative Community for Peace (CCFP) titled “200 Hollywood Heavyweights Support Israel”, Felice Gelman from Adalah-NY said: “We wonder if CCFP explained to the Hollywood luminaries who signed its statement, like Ziggy Marley and Sarah Silverman, that its apolitical message of ‘art building bridges for peace’ is actually a sanitizing front for the right-wing, pro-settler organization StandWithUs, that has deep ties to the Israeli government? We are also concerned that US media covering the statement did not report on who CCFP really is.” (Did LA pro-Israel group conceal right-wing identity from Hollywood celebs and media? Adalah-NY, 2 September 2014.)

User:Plot Spoiler just reverted my edit. I think this is relevant, but I don't want to start an edit war. Other opinions? --Babelfisch (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(PS: on the relations between StandWithUs and the “Creative Community for Peace”, see also: Seth Rogen, Sarah Silverman Among 300 Hollywood Stars Likely Duped into Supporting Right-Wing Group, Stars’ Use of Social Media Embroils Them in Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Pushing back against BDS was a statement by some 200 Hollywood stars,Hollywood Insiders Form Group To Counter Celebrity BDS Campaigns, 300 Hollywood Stars Slam Hamas for Conflict With Israel, To counter BDS, it’s who you know (in Hollywood)) --Babelfisch (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

The source: "StandWithUs has also been active in opposing West Coast communities hosting a speaking tour of Israeli soldiers who speak out against the occupation."
The previous text: "In addition, StandWithUs has opposed a U.S. speaking tour for IDF soldiers who oppose the occupation."
User:Averysoda's version: "In addition, StandWithUs has coordinated a U.S. speaking tour for IDF soldiers."
This type of editing is a serious offence. Zero^talk 03:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What you are trying to do with this edit is a serious offense. Nevertheless, I can see I was wrong with the sentence you mentioned. I'll change it immediately to reflect what the source says. Slow down with your stalking.--Averysoda (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest deletion has no grounding

The latest large deletion by Asipiringartist does not have the grounds for doing so. The section deleted provides a source and direct quotes, with no original research. It seems like a clean up effort of any criticism of the group.

Edit: nevermind, I saw that there could be an edit war about this...this wiki reads like an advertisement because it is.

Dispute surrounding "right-wing" in lead

@Jayhood97: You removed the term "right-wing" from the lead of this article on the basis that "Mondoweiss is a blog, not a source." While you're correct that Mondoweiss is not considered a reliable source, Mondoweiss was not one of the two academic sources which were cited to support the usage of the term. ImTheIP simply mentioned the blog in an edit summary. Please review the page diff to see the two academic sources that were cited, then ping me here with a response. If we aren't able to reach consensus on this wording then we should probably open an RfC or seek a third opinion; we need to tread carefully because this page falls under discretionary sanctions. warmly, ezlev. talk 01:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The only source used to describe StandWithUs as right-wing clearly has an anti-Israel slant. The first sentence of the linked website accuses Israel of "crimes." Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Pennsylvania2, there were two sources, both academic. I think you're correct in pointing out that one of them may not be reliable, although I'll admit I didn't read the full report and therefore can't say for sure. However, the other source which was already cited appears far more reliable, as it was published by Taylor & Francis which has an editorial board and clear editorial policies. I've also just added a source which was written by a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Edinburgh and was published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you'd like to remove the source you took issue with, I think that would be fine; be careful not to remove the other source which is (for some reason) included in the same inline citation. warmly, ezlev. talk 03:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the sources, that was me. :) The technique of collecting multiple sources in the same footnote is called bundling and is in my opinion very useful if you have multiple sources corroborating the same claim because it reduces clutter. The syntax takes some getting used to, but once you get it, it becomes super-useful. The report Pennsylvania2 takes issue with is published on the University of Bath's website so it seems legit to me. David Cronin is a freelance journalist that has written for the Guardian, Sarah Marusek is a research fellow at the University of Leeds, and David Miller is a sociologist at the University of Bristol. ImTheIP (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

David Miller has been discredited over antisemitism. Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

As one of the authors of one of the reports that call StandWithUs a right-wing group has since been discredited for antisemitism, I think that it would be better to have the word removed. The term “pro-Israel group” would be sufficient to describe this group. Geoffrey Zhehao Li (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the last section of the article so out of place here and your unsourced comments about David Miller are a breach of our BLP rules.Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

it states that standwithus is a right wing organisation. What are the sources for this? From their content, website and other material it isnt correct to label them right wing. the correct term would be non-partisan or non-political. Thank you. "Change right wing into non-partisan or non-political" 212.143.186.38 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You can find the sources here: [20] ImTheIP (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello ImTheIp Please clarify the right wing/political reference. Mutliple sources clearly indicate that the organization is non political and non partisan. Here are just a few credible mentions.

[21] This source states that, "As a nonpartisan organization, SWU maintains relations with both Democrats and Republicans. It does not take a stand on Israeli politics or on solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict." [22] Rolling Stone states that StandWithUs is an independent group run by American citizens and is a non government organization. Please change right wing into non-partisan or non-political OzMulik (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither JCPA nor Rolling Stone are reliable sources. A few minutes browsing the SWU website reveals tons of political and partisan commentary. Zero^talk 12:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Zero. On the StandWithUs website it clearly states [23]"StandWithUs (SWU) is an international and non-partisan Israel education organization that inspires and educates people of all ages and backgrounds, challenges misinformation and fights antisemitism." The organization explicitly describes itself as a "non-partisan Israel education organization," not a right wing advocacy group MtTamlady (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We base descriptions on what independent reliable sources say, not on what organizations claim about themselves. Both "pro-Israel" (which SWU states repeatedly) and "anti-Israel" are political, partisan and advocacy positions. I don't personally like "right wing" since it is too much in the eye of the beholder, but it is a fact that SWU publishes assertions that are customarily associated with the right wing. In any case, it isn't my opinion that matters, nor yours, nor SWU's. It is what independent reliable sources say that matters. Zero^talk 12:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Zero Can right wing be removed from the lead as this is misleading and not accurate. @Jayhood97: StandWithUs condemns antisemitism and hate crimes worldwide. Attaching more sources.

TimesOfIsrael JNS JewishNews wkow MtTamlady (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

MtTamlady agree. Right wing needs to be removed from lead as it's non conclusive and has no basis according to the term right wing politics. OzMulik (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There are three scholarly sources corroborating the right-wing claim. That StandWithUs opposes anti-Semitism does not contradict that claim. ImTheIP (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey ImTheIp Source number one is sponsored by the Europal Forum, a partisan organization in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As such it is not a reliable source in terms of classifying pro-Israel organizations.It describes Zionism as "as a political project is based on immigrant Jews dominating over an indigenous people can be seen from the works of its pioneering theoretician, Theodor Herzl." This is a partisan description, not an objective one. This source is not reliable on this issue. Source #2 is Nada Elia. Elia is on the speakers bureau of the US Campaign for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, another very partisan organization. She is not a reliable source on this issue. Source #3 is Nicola Perugini, who advocates for BDS against Israel, making him a partisan source as well OzMulik (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't fly. The authors' suspected bias on the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not make their research output unreliable. Peoples' opinions does not take away from the reliability of their statements. ImTheIP (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Labelling an organization "right wing" is not "research output" but rather a value judgement. That value judgement can absolutely be skewed by political bias, which is clearly evident in all three sources used.OzMulik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please remove "right wing" in lead

Please remove right wing in lead. The sources currently quoted are biased, based on a study by the very controversial David Miller More than 100 MPs and peers from every major UK political party have called for the University of Bristol to act against this professor over many Antisemitic statements, including the claim that Jewish students on campus were “directed by the state of Israel”. He is the the author of multiple conspiracy theories. He is an entirely biased and discredited source. Please remove this non accurate representation of StandWithUs on Wiki. Another source OzMulik (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to close this, because reading the above discussion and doing some research myself leads me to believe it is a very contentious issue. I haven't seen reliable sources without a bias referring to them as right wing. I'm seeing a lot of “We wonder if CCFP explained to the Hollywood luminaries who signed its statement, like Ziggy Marley and Sarah Silverman, that its apolitical message of ‘art building bridges for peace’ is actually a sanitizing front for the right-wing, pro-settler organization StandWithUs, that has deep ties to the Israeli government?” Felice Gelman, a member of Adalah-NY and an active supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, wrote on the org’s website. I did see a reference calling them "conservative pro-Israel". Because of this I think the best way to move forward would be to voluntarily close the edit request and open a Request for Comment and solicit some outside input. Provide sources that either counter the right wing claim, or provide other descriptors and let them be judged against current sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is, frankly, absurd. To say that a group which does not think that the West Bank is occupied by Israel, and which also claim that Israeli settlements are not illegal, that such a group is not right-wing? Please stop your attempts at white-washing them; it is a waste of everyones time, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My attempts at white washing them? I hadn't heard of them until I looked at this edit request, so I looked at the two sources he posted about David Miller, then googled for news sources and other articles about them. I think you may want to slow your roll in attacking random people answering edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies to you, User:ScottishFinnishRadish; my comment about white-washing was meant for OzMulik, not you. I see I should have made two "::" instead of three. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the apology, I appreciate it. Easy mistake to make. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem closing this. Edit requests need to be in the form Change X to Y and supply reliable sources in support. Edit requests are not for attacking the other side, throwing around allegations of antisemitism and bias. Note that this article is subject ARBPIA so any RFC will have a participation limited to qualifying editors, 30/500.Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking above I see the issue has come up multiple times, so I was hoping to avoid another edit request or talk page section in a week or two, but I have no objections to closing it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

All sources are biased, the question is whether the description is DUE in other words what does a balance of reliable sources say. I have to say that I usually associate those positions mentioned by Huldra with the right but I'm open to being convinced that a balance of reliable sources say otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do a deep in-depth look, nor do I have an opinion one way or the other. I just saw when I was looking into the edit request that the "right wingness" of this group is a whole thing. People argue about it, there are debates between different groups about it, so I wasn't going to make the move one way or another on closing the request. I know there are plenty of subject matter experts, or at least people passingly familiar with it. Maybe Huldra is right and it's frankly absurd for an informed party to question if they're right wing. Just so happens I'm not an informed party, just someone who spent a few minutes googling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Right wing / left wing is a subjective classification and differs from country to country. If this article is describing an educational non-profit that actively positions itself to be non-partisan (and is described so on noted non-profit websites), the burden of proof of it being of one particular persuasion should be stronger than this. As an organization that counters antisemitism and is pro-Israel, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is right-wing. There is a difference between educating about, and advocating for, positions. MtTamlady (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's all very well but the case remains the same, there is a consensus at the moment in favor of right wing, to change that you need to come up with reliable sources sufficient in number to justify changing that consensus. Also no-one said it was right wing because it was countering antisemitism or because it was pro Israel, people on the left support that as well. No, the positions that were mentioned by editor Huldra, those I am fairly certain are views held mainly by the right. We can debate what right wing means but this is English Wikipedia and I think we can all agree on the difference between left and right of the political spectrum in that context. So the order of the day is less forum chit chat and more sources, K?Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of the sources that clearly state StandWithUs is not right wing nor left wing. “As a non-partisan education organization, we will continue to state the facts without taking a position or advocating for any particular policy,” “We recognize that this is an issue of controversy and debate in Israeli society, and as a non-partisan education organization, StandWithUs does not take a position on it,” the group said. Please see the actual StandWithUs education playbookin which it is mentioned that "Settlements are an issue of political and legal controversy inside and outside of Israel.". Check out the about section on the StandWithUs Website : StandWithUs is not politically aligned in any country. It does not and has never advocated specific policies for Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MtTamlady (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are not secondary sources discussing if the organization is right wing or not, that is the organization identifying itself. The current sources are independent of the organization. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Providing more sources : the StandWithUs Center for Combating Antisemitism decried Trump's choice of retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor to oversee US-German relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

OzMulik, not only is this another primary source, but interpreting it to mean that StandWithUs is not right wing would be pure original research (and bad research at that). I think it's past time to listen before this becomes disruptive. ezlev.^talk 09:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete article due to misinformation

Norelc19 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please suggest actual edits to remedy what you see as misinformation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this is a very disruptive and inaccurate representation of the organization, that might as well be deleted. StandWithUs is not an American right-wing organization and it doesn't support Israeli settlements. StandWithUs is described as a "non-partisan Israel education organization" StandWithUs is an independent group run by American citizens and is not an arm of the Israeli government StandWithUs is a non-partisan education organization Based on one bias source of David Miller that has been suspended from academia and Bristol University, the majority of the StandWithUs article is misinforming and false. Please remove/amend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs) 10:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please remove "right wing" in lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norelc19 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for providing sources. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia prefers independent sources. Two sources that you suggest are directly from StandWithUs. Though they may be useful for self-description to the extend that it is due, secondary sources will be preferred. Freelance-frank (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like independent secondary sources mostly characterize StandWithUs as right-wing.

1. Haaretz says in 2018: "Although StandWithUs is often characterized as right-of-center, and has been criticized for accepting funding from donors whose views are militantly right-wing, the Los Angeles-based group maintains that it has never advocated specific policies for Israel."
2. Haaretz says in 2015: "The Prime Minister's Office will pay the right-wing Israel-advocacy group StandWithUs just over 1 million shekels ($254,000) to help it push the government's political line this year via social media, the Israeli media website The Seventh Eye reported on Tuesday."

1. The left-wing Mondoweiss says in 2014: "They have grants of $200 to dish out, Israeli soldiers to promote and events to suggest, like a 'Hummus not Hamas' party. StandWithUs, the right-wing pro-Israel group, is gearing up to combat the annual 'Israel Apartheid Week...'"
2. The Nation says in 2019: "Official documents link Creative Community for Peace (CCfP) with the Israel Emergency Alliance, which is better known as the right-wing organization StandWithUs."
3. JTA and The Intercept both imply that StandWithUs is right-wing, though they don't say so as explicitly as in the above examples.
4. Variety notes in 2014 that a BDS supporter describes StandWithUs as right-wing. This view is probably not due in this article without additional RS coverage, however.

Again, it matters more how reliable, independent, secondary sources describe StandWithUs. Though it seems this organization prefers to describe itself as non-partisan, this is not a promotional page, so we prefer to use the descriptions from secondary sources.

Freelance-frank (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that various sources are in play here, that is why "right wing" mention is non-conclusive and needs to be removed.

Even CNN labels StandWithUs just as a Pro-Israel group, I think this needs to be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norelc19 (talk • contribs)

Contradiction is resolved by proper WP:BALANCE of sources, rather than by removal. In addition, CNN doesn't really talk about StandWithUs in the linked article. It's just a passing mention. Freelance-frank (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind Haaretz is a leaning left newspaper, however here in their article again StandWithUs has a different description, and also here labeled as nonprofit working to counter anti-Israel activities on campus/

Also here mentioned by BBC as a pro-Israel charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norelc19 (talk • contribs)

Claremont Independent : StandWithUs, “an international and non-partisan Israel education organization that inspires and educates people of all ages and backgrounds

The Forward : StandWithUs, a pro-Israel advocacy group

Abc News : StandWithUs, a pro-Israel education and advocacy group.

Inside Highered : StandWithUs, a pro-Israel advocacy group

New York Times : Pro-Israel groups like StandWithUs

Los Angeles Times : Pro-Israel education organization StandWithUs

Foreignpolicy : StandWithUs, a pro-Israel advocacy organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs)

That's fine, and the pro-Israel description is already in the article. It is also not a contradiction: most of sources I list describe SWU as pro-Israel as well. I don't think there's any additional action to take here. Freelance-frank (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Well you can't really contradict "right wing" you can only see that this description does not appear in most mentions of the org. in major news sources and across media.

This claim is not conclusive from all sources combined, and we can't pick and choose sources, thus please remove "right wing" mention from lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs)

It looks like all of the descriptions you bring up are only passing mentions in which StandWithUs is only a very minor part of the articles. In contrast, the sources I suggest are mostly extended discussions specifically regarding StandWithUs. Because of this, it appears that a significant portion of coverage in reliable sources describes SWU as "right-wing", while only some passing mentions omit this description. I could be missing some pieces in centrist or right-leaning sources that describe StandWithUs as nonpartisan or left-leaning, of course. Because much of the substantive coverage uses the right-wing description, it is reasonable to include that description. The fact that some coverage doesn't mention political orientation at all doesn't seem like an issue because any given article will concentrate on what is important in that context. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated conversations come to the same conclusion every time. It's right wing and that's it.Selfstudier (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please review new source stating that StandWithUs is independent of the Israeli government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs)

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise?Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In lead it is mentioned that "Known for working closely with the Israeli government" let's remove please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs)

That's not the same as saying it is dependent on the Israeli government and anyway, it is properly sourced.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

Remove "right wing" from the first sentence because the group is nonpartisan. Zcweinstein (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Few, (if any) beside themselves call them "nonpartisan", Huldra (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Had this discussion n times already. It's called right wing by reliable sources and that's the end of it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

Delete "right-wing" in the first sentence. StandWithUs is not right-wing or left-wing, and the majority of it's members are left-wing American Democrats. 140.112.81.15 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(Independent, reliable) source needed. Not done. Freelance-frank (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please remove right wing in lead, StandWithUs is non partisan.

That just seems to confirm that the org is seen by most as right wing, "....“Those two things combined have given StandWithUs a completely undeserved right-wing reputation.....” other than by the biased person making the statement. So still no reason to do anything here and it would be best if you and others would just stop wasting everybody's time with these requests.Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The group generally supports two-state solution while claiming that there are no real partners, which is more a centrist position in Israeli and Jewish perspective. Furthermore, it clearly says that "It does not and has never advocated specific policies for Israel. ". Right-wing would mean opposing two-state solution and actively supporting policies that are aligned with the Israeli right, like ZOA.

References

All you need now is at least one (independent, reliable) source that agrees with you. You haven't signed your edit (again) and you appear to be making a habit of using WP talk pages as a forum for your personal opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I am sort of getting tired of all these new(?) editors suddenly turning up, all demanding that we remove "right-wing" from the lead. I wonder why they are all turning up, making the very same request, now? Huldra (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please remove "right wing" mention in lead. Stand With Us is an international non-partisan Israel education organization that combats antisemitism. CBS

This is insufficient.

First, conflicting views do not mean removal of one of them. Per WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance". Since strong RS support the current descriptor in the lead, it is likely that additional sources would lead to inclusion of both views and attribution, rather than replacement.

Second, there is a further hurdle that must be overcome. Notice the "proportion to their prominence" statement above. The current descriptor is sourced to several academic sources. The suggested CBS source is a single article from a local outlet. Your argument could be improved by providing more sources that support your argument from larger sources.

Finally, I don't think the descriptors "right-wing" and "non-partisan" are necessarily contradictory. The first refers to ideology, while the second refers to political party.

Hope this is helpful. So my suggestion is: find more sources. Find high-quality sources. Link them here to support your argument for inclusion. Freelance-frank (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Please rearrange the article starting with the Foundation of StandWithUs "SWU was founded in Los Angeles by Roz Rothstein in 2001. As of 2016, it had 18 offices across the US and branches in Israel, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada" And then go into detail. - Like in the case of JNF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund OzMulik (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What was done on another page has no relevance for this page. WP isn't a "source". Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Solving the page's listed issues:

I'd like to help clean up this page and solve the issues on it.

1. Where is the content that reads like an advertisement? True 4 years ago, but is it still?
2. Where is the puffery (subjective promotion)?
3. Which sources might be unreliable?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Puffery and ad can definitely go now. I think there are sourcing issues still though. See sections below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone else want to add thoughts here? If not, I'll remove the puffery and ad tags soon. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: You still have objections to closing some of these. Can you please explain, quoting from the MOS, why you believe the article as-is still violates MOS:PUFFERY or WP:SOAP.

Advertisting: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources...

Puffery: Words to watch: legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal ..

-- Bob drobbs (talk)

Non reliable sources - should be removed

None of these sources should be considered as reliable, non-biased sources in regards to their description of Jewish groups or Zionist groups.

"The Israel Lobby and the European Union"

The authors are:

• David Miller who has been accused of anti-semitism.
• David Cronin who blogs for the electronic intifada (a non-reliable source) [link]
• Sarah Marusek who is a pro-Palestine activist. [link]

"Gay Rights with a side of Apartheid"

The author Nada Elia writes for the electronic intifada (a non-reliable source) [link]

"Rights as Weapons: ..."

The author Nicola Perugini writes for the electronic intifada (a non-reliable source) [link]

"Global Middle East: ..."

The author is a BDS activist and organizer. [link]

They should be removed from the article.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, association with a non-reliable source does not make everything written by an author unreliable, and as ImTheIP correctly pointed out in an earlier discussion about at least one of the sources you call into question, The authors' suspected bias on the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not make their research output unreliable. All these sources appear reliable to me, and as you'll find in previous discussions on this talk page, consensus for their removal has not been reached. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not claiming that everything written by these authors is unreliable. I'm saying that they seem, without question, biased against Zionist organizations. As such, their opinions on this topic and this page should be regarded as opinions, not fact. Are you claiming that these authors are non-biased in regards to Zionism and Zionist Organazations?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It certainly seems reasonable that some or all of these authors might be biased against Zionism and organizations that espouse it. However, I don't think that would necessarily make the sources unreliable or mean that they must be described and attributed as opinion, especially given that two are from peer-reviewed journals that appear to be well-reputed, one is a publication of a public research university, the last is from a book published by University of California Press as part of a series on geopolitics, and none of them appear to be characterized as opinion by the authors or by the publishers. If a source is made unreliable simply when the author might have an opinion on the thing they're writing about, I expect we'll quickly run out of reliable sources, not only for this article but also for most others.​ ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 07:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question if they might have an opinion. BDS activists and writers for Electronic Intifada are actively opposing groups like StandWithUs and vice versa. Is there a single source free from such obvious bias that also labels StandWithUS unequivocally as right-wing? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Right wing is sourced in the first sentence to a UCP press RS. Bias by itself doesn't exclude RS, unless it is a very active bias. Please don't even bother attempting to remove the description as "right-wing" which has been discussed time and time again with the conclusion that it should remain.Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is Times of Israel

"J Street, Americans for Peace Now, and T’ruah declined to co-sponsor the rally in part due to the presence of right-wing organizations including the Zionist Organization of America and StandWithUs." End of. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is per this recent RFC "generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues." I tagged it in the article for now, see if anyone can find a better source.Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thanks for the TimesOfIsrael link. There's definitely no obvious bias against Zionist Orgs there.

Next question -- In the body of the article, the founder in quoted as insisting that her Org is non-partisan, not right-wing and that's contrasted against right-wing claims. Any thoughts on how that should be captured in the lead? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Due weight. The weight assigned to themselves claiming they are not when everyone else says they are, you do the math, it's in the body as sps that's enough.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Bias does not equal unreliability. Biased opinions can be included if due, with attribution. Electronic Intifada can be used with attribution, but not for facts, as per WP:RSP: There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed. As Selfstudier says, Rolling Stone is also unreliable for facts. Also agree with Selfstudier that consensus on "right-wing" is supported by multiple sources, but I think that replacing the controversial sources with less controversial ones such as Times of Israel would be sensible. (See also: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-link-keeps-leftist-jewish-groups-from-planned-dc-antisemitism-rally/ https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2014/02/06/israelis-denounce-israel-society/ ) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources biased against group do not belong in lead

@Selfstudier: Your claim that the previous revision read like an ad is false. It spelled out the founders claims covered by multiple sources as opinion, not fact. And the lead was already inclusive of sources that describe it as right-wing, which are directly contrary to it's claims.

The accusations you added, made by people who are biased against the group, have no place in the lead. @BobFromBrockley: above said that these "controversial sources" should be replaced with non-biased ones. I agree that they should be removed from the article, replaced with non-biased sources, and they should absolutely be removed from the lead.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Being described as right wing is not criticism, the Republican party is right wing, statement of fact. Refer the question to RSN if you wish to contest the material, bias by itself is not a sufficient reason to exclude content (per BobFromBrockley as well as me) unless you can demonstrate it to be extreme (note that irrelevancies like "David Miller has been accused of...." don't mean a thing, an accusation is just that, an accusation. I could accuse you of being a (something), it doesn't mean you are a something, right?) And making the lead read like an ad means you can't remove the tag saying that the article reads like an ad, which it still does (too much sps rather than third party sourcing) even with the criticism in. The Rolling Stone stuff is being removed soon as well, since that has been determined to be an unreliable source at RSN.Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't really gone looking for material about this outfit because tbh, I'm not that interested, this kind of org is two a penny. But a fast search turned up https://ccrjustice.org/files/2014-12-19_Davis_JVP-PSLS-Corrected-Amicus-Brief.pdf which has quite a lot to say about SWU.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You're not describing factual content. Political leanings are a subjective judgment, not a statement of fact. Multiple sources sharing an opinion lends weight to it's reliability but it doesn't make it factual. And in this case, the founder of the group has expressed a total rejection of the label (unlike the republican party), so it should without a doubt be seen in a critical light.

See both WP:Bias and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Sources biased against the group, making accusations against the group, absolutely does not belong in the lead. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:MANDY may be worth considering here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Right. I have already answered the points made so I don't see why they are being repeated. Repetition doesn't make the argument any stronger and there is no policy saying that biased sources don't belong in the lead. Instead of complaining about biased sources against SWU why not find some biased sources for SWU? That would be better than the sps stuff.Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There is clear policy that says that you need consensus to add material to the article. Your addition was reverted, and you restored it without consensus. This is disruptive editing in an article subject to discretionary sanctions. Inf-in MD (talk)

The material has been in the body unattributed for a while now, so saying I need consensus to add material to the article which is already in the article is obvious nonsense. There was zero criticism in the lead so summarizing a small amount of criticism from the body in the lead is absolutely fine, required even for NPOV, nor should you have reverted while there was an ongoing noticeboard discussion in an effort to enforce the opinion that you expressed there. That's disruptive.Selfstudier (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You added material which was contested and removed, and you restored it without consensus. This is disruptive editing in an article subject to discretionary sanctions. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You just said that. It makes no more sense the second time.Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

And I'll say it again and again to make it crystal clear to the admins who will sooner or later have to take a look at your behavior: You added material which was contested and removed, and you restored it without consensus. This is disruptive editing in an article subject to discretionary sanctions. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Think we're done now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

not quite. I'll be undoing your disruption in due course, unless you manage to find consensus for it. And if you restore it without such consensus, expect a report at AE, because that is disruptive editing in an article subject to discretionary sanctions. . Inf-in MD (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Think we're done now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Returning to the principal question, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" per WP:BIASED.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

What you added is not a reliable source for facts, and the guiding policy is WP:ONUS. Your disregard for that policy is noted, and your disruption of the article will be undone. Inf-in MD (talk)

Your opinion has already been given at the NPOV noticeboard, still only your opinion though, pending a conclusion there. Just for the record, I didn't add the material to begin with.Selfstudier (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, but your disruption and disregard for WP:ONUS exists independently of the outcome of that discussion. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

And for the record, yeah, you did: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StandWithUs&type=revision&diff=1047223882&oldid=1047221533 Inf-in MD (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't, that diff is a summary in the lead from material already in the body that was not added by me (that's what "to begin with" means).Selfstudier (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Btw, have you actually read ONUS? (and V).Selfstudier (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The diff is clear - you added that material to the lead, where it wasn't before. And then disruptively edit-warred it back in after it was challenged. Yes, I've read WP:ONUS, have you? This is pretty clear: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You haven't met that onus. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The content was already in the article for some time so ONUS was met. AND regardless of that you would still need a proper reason to revert, Idontlikeit doesn't do it. Btw, how is it you keep showing up at articles where I edit? Just a coincidence is it? Selfstudier (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It was not in the lead, and you added it to the lead, where it was challenged, thus it dis not ahve consensus as lead material . And you then disruptively edit-warred it back in after it was challenged and removed form the lead. This issue is being debated in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where I saw the source being discussed. But now that we're on this topic, how did you happen to arrive here, Talk:Death of Mustafa Tamimi a couple of hours after my edit? A coincidence, was it? Inf-in MD (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOUND is a bad idea, just so's you know.Selfstudier (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The most relevant thing might be that we learned this source is advocacy. Any objections if we just delete the source along with the content associated with it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

We haven't learned that yet, there is a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard, initiated by you. Please wait for the outcome. Even if it were determined as advocacy, it will likely only need attribution, not "disappearing". You will also be pleased to hear that since you have piqued my interest about this org that I have been gathering up additional source material such as https://theintercept.com/2019/03/25/adam-milstein-israel-bds/ Selfstudier (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A little levity, not that I am suggesting this is a usable source but the tweets could be verified I guess https://news.knowyourmeme.com/news/critics-of-israel-roast-pro-irsrael-groups-iron-dome-superhero-design Selfstudier (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

These are interesting, some news outfit called the Middle East Times "The latest step in the propaganda war came after the Israeli Foreign Ministry established StandWithUs, an earlier campaign to argue Israel's case on the Internet." and Haaretz https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-pmo-hires-rightist-advocacy-group-1.5360091 "Prime Minister's Office Hires Rightist Israel Advocacy Group for 1 Million Shekels". Who woulda thought it.Selfstudier (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That last one is in the article already, it also says "right-wing", might as well add that into the pot.Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere, this lot and a bunch of others are all in the Israel on Campus Coalition which, interestingly has a bunch of tags on it similar to here.Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• A report written by David Miller, published on the website of his employer does not belong in the lead. David Miller is known for: Bristol University: Professor David Miller investigation launched (BBC) and MPs and peers call on Bristol University to condemn academic in antisemitism row (The Times) in the context of Israel, and for Conspiracy theories spread by academics with university help (The Times) in a wider non-Israel context. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Should_BDS_activists_be_used_to_define_Zionist_Orgs is a recent relevant discussion about the above source (and the given question) at the NPOV noticeboard.Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding editorial comments to the article

I had previously removed form the article an editorial comment attached to Rothstein's views (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StandWithUs&type=revision&diff=1046462335&oldid=1046449586) because it was not in the source. Today a variant of this was restored (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StandWithUs&type=revision&diff=1047260683&oldid=1047259052) again introducing material which is not in the source, and citing WP:WESTBANK. However, WP:WESTBANK 6.1 explicitly allows the use of the term when "The terms are used inside verbatim quotations from sources" (as it is here), and nowhere did it mandate or allow for an editorial comment not in the source to "explain" things. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the simple solution be to link Judea and Samaria? Also, does the source say she has a soft spot for the settlements, or just for that part of Palestine? And does the "However" at the start of that sentence make sense, as left/right is a separate issue? And are Rothstein's personal views about the occupied territories relevant, unless they're the formal position of the organisation? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

She doesn't refer to the settlements, but that part is at least in the source - "Rothstein does acknowledge her soft spot for the settlement movement." I am not a fan of linking terms in direct quotes, as that introduces implicit editorial interpretation of what she meant, especially when the link you propose is to an article about the "Administrative area", and I doubt that she is attached to that. I'd say the last point you made is the salient one- this is Rothstein's view, not the organization's. The simple solution is to just delete this. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If you mean delete "However, she acknowledged .... I didn’t care," referring to the West Bank as "Judea and Samaria", no objection here, Nableezy might object but I don't think so.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

What about the next sentence? "Rothstein is opposed to J Street..." Isn't that her as well?Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That's described in another resource (ToI) as the group's position: "The group’s efforts are focused mainly on US college campuses, where it often challenges the liberal “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group J Street". Inf-in MD (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:WESTBANK it may not "namely that it cannot be used without qualification as though it is the neutral point of view." We have to clarify what Judea and Samaria means because that isnt the standard phrasing in the English language. And no, you may not just link "Judea and Samaria". nableezy - 16:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And given the two socks of one account that were banned in a single arbcom case about this issue, I am shocked but not surprised that you of all people would start this again. nableezy - 16:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Start what? You are the one invoking WP:WESTBANK, which has an exception (6.1) that allows its use in a quote. Are you ok with moving this entirely, per the suggestion above, as this is a personal view, and not that of the organization? Inf-in MD (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

dont give a crap really, but if Judea and Samaria is used it has to be clarified. Yes, in a direct quote it may be used, but as it is not the commonly used term readily understandable to English language speakers it needs to be clarified as to what the hell she's talking about. She's attached to some ancient kingdom? Or she's attached to a land mass the rest of us call the West Bank? nableezy - 16:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The simple solution is to remove her personal opinion, so if you no one objects, I will remove it. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If this "clarification" is not in the source you may not include it nothing in the guideline demand it. --Shrike (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. And yes, it does demand it, saying it cannot be presented as though it were NPOV. Quoting without clarification does that. You arent gonna get a backdoor to promoting Greater Israel on Wikipedia though quotations, sorry. nableezy - 17:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead still reads like an add

Lead reads like a puff piece for SWU (zero criticism in the lead for a start) and we still need more reliable sources for this article instead of sps. So tags need to stay until these issues are resolved.Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead seems factual, and there's no policy that requires leads to have criticisms in it. Compare for example with Students for Justice in Palestine. What do you see as "puff"? I do agree that SPSs like Mondoweiss need to be removed. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

sps refers to material about SWU published by themselves (see aboutself). Right wing claim has already been demonstrated as nonsense so that should tell you how much value to place on these claims. NPOV requires criticism with due weight and I think I will be adding a tag for that shortly as I am interested in hearing from other editors at this point, I already know your views and you already know mine.Selfstudier (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Material by an organization about itself is ok to use in articles about them - WP:SPS : "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities", so let's dispense with that non-policy based bit of nonsense. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree the sources issue should remain for now. I think there are issues with sources on both sides of this article.

But I think it's pretty clear that this article absolutely does _not_ read like an ad nor is there any puffery. Be specific where you see problems, and quote from MOS to explain your objection instead of just saying "puff piece". For reference, here's excerpts from the MOS.

Advertisting: Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources...

Puffery: Words to watch: legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal ...

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said, what I am interested in is the view of other editors, via RFC if needs be.Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You don't get to hold the article hostage until some people who support you "happen" to show up. If you have specific issues, name them so we can address them. If you want to start an RFC, go ahead. Otherwise, these tags will be removed. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

In my view the article has no puffery and does include criticism so the tag maybe removed --Shrike (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

there's no policy that requires leads to have criticisms in it? WP:LEAD: All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more. The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs. See also Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Lead section. Huh. nableezy - 15:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is up to you to establish that the criticism is significant enough, in terms of weight, to be present in the lead. It is instructive to look at Black Lives Matter - an article that has a "Criticism" that is 4600 bytes long, with multiple subsections, but not a word of criticism in the lead. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources demonstrate that criticism. Will be adding to the lead, dont worry. Your regular turn to misdirection being totally irrelevant to this article and our policies is as per usual ignored. nableezy - 16:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources demonstrate that criticism exist, but not that it is significant enough for the lead. You need a consensus of editors to do that, or else whatever you add will be removed in short order. Our policies include WP:ONUS Inf-in MD (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Your comments seem to be heading totally off topic. Selfstudier, claims that this article still reads like advertising. Others disagree, we believe the advertising and puffery issues should be removed and asked him to support his case.

If you're going to make any arguments that those issues should remain on the page, then please explain your argument using MOS:PUFFERY and WP:SOAP, not WP:LEAD. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? WP:LEAD requires the lead to include significant criticisms. Ill be adding such material to the lead. nableezy - 16:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The topic here is the "advertising" issue was posted at the top of the page, along with "puffery" tag. Selfstudier was insisting that it needed to stay. Inf-in MD removed the tags yesterday.

I'm hoping for agreement that those issues are solved and won't be put back up by Selfstudier or anyone else, unless new issues appear. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The issues are not resolved, I will be adding criticism to the lead. You cannot just hive that off down the page, sorry. nableezy - 17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Get consensus for what you want to add, first. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nah. That isnt a requirement for content, and removing content on the basis of supposed no consensus is tendentious and will be reverted and reported. Ciao. nableezy - 17:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a summary of the criticism section in the lead. WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV requires such, you cant make a hagiography in to an encyclopedia lead according to our policies. nableezy - 17:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is most certainly is a requirement for content."While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

This article was not a hagiography or anything close to it before your addition, but I am ok with what you added. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The request that one get consensus to add material is based on nothing but your own imagination, and I will ignore it everywhere you make it, as many times and with as many as accounts as you wish to make it with. nableezy - 17:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Red Links

@Nableezy: Can you explain your use of wp:red. Is there any evidence that any of those people might be notable? If not, the red links should be removed or maybe the section should be re-written and the list truncated to "Notable board members..."

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It was Nishidani who did that. They can be un-linked. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What? nableezy - 17:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Sorry. My mistake. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

iirc the list was originally presented as a list of notables when in fact they are not as the redlinks demonstrate. If there is no expectation that the redlinked persons will become notable then why mention them? Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I am ok with removing them. Nishidani has yet to provide an explanation. Or participate here, in general Inf-in MD (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The words following those names were other prominent, meaning, those mentioned are prominent. If there are there should be evidence of the same. Where is it? If those people are not prominent, then why mention them at all? It is rather embarrassing to see the 'secretary' of an office mentioned. That's barrel scraping.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lustick's criticism

Lustick does not say SWU manipulates statistics. Rather, he criticizes a publication of the Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, written by three academics, one of whom has a position with SWU. This is entirely undue for this article. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD: I apologize. I made that change because it really did not belong the Organization section. If it's only in regards to one person who happens to work for SWU, and SWU is not mentioned, then I agree it's undue and connecting the two would border on WP:OR. If the person had her own wiki page it might belong there, but it doesn't seem she's notable. I support removing it entirely. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The S in ZSW is Seid, who Lustick mentions is SWU (and that Z is with some similar sort of org) but the fiddling allegation is directed at the work of the 3 of them (none of them being appropriately qualified according to Lustick). So maybe you want to take a closer look at this? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Seid in Lustick is the Seid of our article's educational director. She is mentioned in that capacity, and Lustick identified her as 'co-author' of a paper which manipulates statistic. So what's the problem? Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not an article about Seid, and the paper in question is not the output of SWU, so it is inappropriate for this article. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Who said or implied this is an article about Seid, a parenthesis does not imply that. You have in the text a laundry list of people who apparently constitute the core of the operation. Attempts to establish their notability failed, except for Seid who, nota bene, co-authors many articles with the Rothstein. That the article in question is not produced by SWU is immaterial, since we are dealing with the core staff and people in that organization, of which Seid is a part, and key functionary. Since Seid and Rothstein coauthor articles, just as Rothstein is given background, so too Seid, and it is a minimalist note. She is an important figure because she oversees its educational programmes, and therefore is responsible for what the SWU define as non-ideological accuracy in the factual representation of Israel. If Seid has that power, and yet an exceptionably reliable source states that part of the work she authored manipulates data, that bears on SWU directly, since her role is to 'educate' students. There's no argument for removing that other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT so far as I can see.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lustick's criticism was leveled at a specific paper, with multiple authors, 2 of whom, including the lead author, have nothing to do with SWU. The paper is not produced by SWU, the subject of this article. Including this criticism of the paper here is WP:UNDUE for this article. Read WP:ONUS and start an RfC to see if you viewpoint has support. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)