Talk:Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a logo be included in this article to improve its quality.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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

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

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

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

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

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

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

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

Yet again?

@Huldra: What are your issues this time?

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

What's your issue regarding wp:due?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See, that's why we have sources in articles, and why it's a bad idea to blindly remove them with false claims of "not RS" or "UNDUE":
"In July Member of Parliament (MP) John Mann, leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism, called for action to be taken against “racists,” following the publication of a report written by pro-Israel blogger David Collier and funded by Jewish Human Rights Watch citing links between the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and anti-Semitism in Scotland. The report stated there was a correlation between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel attitudes. Jewish Human Rights Watch commissioned the report in 2016 after protestors at a festival in Edinburgh celebrating Israeli culture chanted, “No to Brand Israel.”"
[2] Inf-in MD (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know that was not cited at all right? Ill include a bit citing that. nableezy - 00:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Of course it was cited: [3], ref #21, before being removed with a false claim of "not a reliable source". Inf-in MD (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ah I see it was cited in a prior version in which bogus crap about the findings "being featured" in a report was sourced to a report that mentioned a pro-Israel blogger. It was not cited in what I removed however. nableezy - 00:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That references a Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, which is why my search returned nada as I was looking for the title of this group. Do we know for certain its the same? nableezy - 00:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think JHRW commissioned Collier to write 2 reports at he same time, one about the "Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign" and one about "Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign"? How about you stop this ridiculous charade? Inf-in MD (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but the State Dept report references a "Palestinian Solidarity Campaign", which may or may not include any specific group. I dont actually know what a JHRW is or how they commissioned anything, as they seem to exist on Twitter and Facebook and thats it. nableezy - 00:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, well WP:CIR. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Would you care to strike any personal attacks before they are reported? nableezy - 01:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seeing as you were wised enough to add back the material cited to the State Dept and removed under false pretenses, I'll strike out the above comment. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Except I did that before your personal attack? nableezy - 01:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps you did, but I didn't see it before I made my comment. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

And you certainly didnt see me saying You know that was not cited at all right? Ill include a bit citing that right? Oh no, you replied to that. Huh. nableezy - 02:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I saw that, and replied to it on this page. I didn't look at the article page to se if you actually did what you said you would do. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

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

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

It is interesting that everywhere it claims that Collier was commissioned to investigate AS in Scotland but what he ends up doing is investigating SPSC, I wonder if all the other Scots know that Collier thinks SPSC is representative of them? I cannot believe that we are arguing about having this sort of thing in the encyclopedia.Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~The US State Dept. thought it was a topic of interest for their annual report. That counts for more than your opinion of the quality of the research Inf-in MD (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Interesting to note that the two Times cites in the last sentence of the lead both refer to what we know as a report by Collier, as a report by JHRW and don't mention Collier at all. The BBC article cites a JHRW representative, apparently this chap, https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/author/robert-festenstein/ , who'd a thought it?Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False allegations

If this article is to include allegations that Scottish PSC is antisemitic, it must also include this story from the Daily Record: Top pro-Israel lawyer faked vandalism attack at Scots home in plot to frame Palestine group. Basically, a Glasgow lawyer was fined by the Scottish Law Society after he conspired with another member of Glasgow Friends of Israel to stage a false antisemitic attack on his home in an attempt to discredit SPSC. David Collier, it should be noted, is a prominent supporter of this character. Any allegations emanating from Collier should be examined carefully, and never accepted on face value. RolandR (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]