Jump to content

Talk:StandWithUs/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

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)

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)
Again that is an irrelevant objection. All of these names here are meaningless without some gloss on competence, background.'it is noteworthy that both Zimmerman and Seid are active in “defend Israel” lobbying and educational organizations, including EMET (Endowment for Middle East Truth) and StandWithUs.' Lustick 190 n.11 Lustick again directly connects her with SWU, ('Roberta P. Seid, PhD is a historian and former lecturer at the University of Southern California. She is a researcher and consultant on Israeli history, particularly on events surrounding Israel’s War of Independence.')
You are reading WP:Onus as an open invitation to a POV numbers gane. The information is verified, you challenge its relevance, and I have provided cogent reasons why explaining who Seid is is relevant to an article where she is cited as a key director. So far there is no consensus to exclude or include. Consensus is based on cogency of arguments, not on a numbers game based on a handful of desultory editors opining over a few hours. Removing that information in anticipation that the consensus will go your way is preposterously bad practice.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Read WP:ONUS and start an RfC to see if you viewpoint has support. The onus is on those wishing to include contested material. Get to work. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Don't be rude. I've read it and reread it more than a decade before you ever edited here. If you need to be reminded, it reads:

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

A discussion raised over a few hours, with 4 comments, two against, is not a consensus determining that the information re Seid does not improve the article. These things are discussed for at least a few days before that can be asserted one way or another. No vote stacking please. Arguments.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Read it again, especially the last line "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". I heard you, you heard me (and Bob drobbs who is also in favor if excluding this.) If you want it included, start an RfC that will determine if there's a consensus to include. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't need to read things twice. The bolded statement (A) is the primary conditional, from which the secondary elaboration (B) you cite follows. Without A you do not get to B. It's,. like most wiki policy pages, poorly phrased, but in plain English that is certainly one of its implications, and therefore can be construed as making B reliant on A.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inf-in MD: To be clear, my support for removing it was conditional. Based on some of the comments above it seems that condition may not be met:
"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."
But I haven't taken the effort to read through all of the comments yet. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification of your position. Lustick does mention her affiliation with SWU, so I don't think it s a case of WP:OR. But I do think it is a case of WP:UNDUE. Lustick also mentions her affiliation with the University of Southern California -does anyone seriously think we could include this criticism in the USC article? Inf-in MD (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Please desist from making silly arguments. SWU has a small core of employees of whom Seid was a high echelon director. The USC employs a vast faculty, and she does not figure as a notable person among their many (wiki-bio-ed) scholars.Let's no make this thread a WP:TLDR trivial distraction omnibus.

(1)'the paper in question is not the output of SWU.'Inf-in MD

Actually Seid joined SWU at its inception in 2001, and co-authored that paper in 2006. The paper was written while she was a member of SWU which is not known for publoishing research, as opposed to propagating its views on Israel through numerous outlets, one of which here turns out to be the Begin-Sadat Centre . It reflects both her views, and those of SWU and the fact that the venue chosen happens to be the Begin-Sadat Centre is immaterial.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(2)If it's only in regards to one person who happens to work for SWU, and SWU is not mentioned.'Bob drobbs

As shown above, it doesn't regard 'one person who happens to work 'for SWU. She was a member from the start, a core member charged with directing its key focus, education. Your second point is met by the fact that Lustick specifically names her, and mentions her background at length in the paper cited.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  • WP:Undue. Were that to apply, one would have to show that clarifying the background of a key member of an organization is undue, while mentioning them. Why would that be the case? To the contrary, most people deemed prominent in these articles have wiki bio links. None of those apart from the founder have them, and of those, only Seid has something of a public record. The names are meaningless unless one can point to their informational value. What is the name of the office secretary doing there? Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
She wrote it while she was at SWU, but not for SWU. She was a contributor to a paper with 3 authors, and she was not the lead author. The other two authors have nothing to do with SWU, and neither does BESA. There is nothing in the publication to suggest that this is the work of or the views of SWU, so it is undue here. If you want it in, start an RfC. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I stated a fact = 'She wrote it while she was at SWU'. You (Inf-in MD ) made an inference:'('but not for SWU.') Where is your proof for that? Please let us desist from this pointless to-and-fro and allow other editors to read the evidence and provide reasoned arguments (not votes) for either of the two positions, exclusion inclusion.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: 'This seems like a stretch:
'"It reflects both her views, and those of SWU..."
Above people argued that just because an author is a BDS activist doesn't mean that we can use that association in determining whether or not an author is a reliable source on this topic. A similar standard seems to apply here. We can't just assume that because this woman wrote something outside of work it has any impact whatsoever in what she does in the office and it certainly cannot be seen as reflective of the views of SWU.
So, if that's your argument for inclusion I don't support it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Hang on, you placed a condition on rejection, that Lustick didn't mention SWU. He does? Your reply? That SWU's educational director xo-authored that piece while not working for SWU. SWU's whole programme is to propagate literature, forums, teaching that promotes things like Israel's right to the West Bank, which is what she did in her office work, and in this publication. You can't keep raising conditions and if satisfied, changing your argument. If you do so, then there's no point in arguing, because you will apparently finds another grounds to reject the reply.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
That SWU program is to propagate studies like this does not make this their output, absent any other indication that it is. Lustick mentions her affiliation in a footnote, while repeatedly referring to the article in the body of his critique as "the BESA study", which is part of what he calls "the Ettinger project". There is no mention of SWU, and for good reason, there is no connection other than the fact that an employee of theirs contributed to the study. It undue here. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
False. It is untrue that 'there is no mention of SWU'. p.190 mentions it. He links Roberta Seid to that institution, and notes she also publishes in other venues (American Enterprise Institute)to the same effect p.204 n.55. She was not 'an employee of theirs'. She was a core mover of SWU's educational programme. It is absurd to claim that a person who had a major professional position at SWU regarding educating people about the 'truth' of Israel, never can be cited re SWU if her work was published not by SWU but numerous other outlets (Times of Israel/Jerusalem Post/Begin Sadat Centre/American Enterprise Institute, often as co-author also with her employer. Rothstein. That would be a schizophrenic approach to publishing realities, esp. since SWU is not a publisher, but a promoter through numerous publishing outlets of the line it advocates for, and has no house organ. Now, let's drop ity and allow others to reason here. Our positions are known.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: Sorry man, but I reserve the right to shift my opinion as I learn more and reflect more on a topic. I am currently undecided.
It seems like shades of gray whether or not it should be included, and I might have to do some additional research before making a decision.
Do you have any other examples where the director of an organization co-authoring a paper in a capacity other than their work, has made it onto that Org's page? Or anything even close to that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with changing one's opinion. There's something odd in declaring a view when one admits one hasn't read the relevant material (and you admit you hadn't when you gave a provisory thumbs down). Then saying in the conditional tense, your negative view was based on a premise which, again, I showed was contradicted by the material. Then, once your flawed assumption was demonstrated, you came back and insisted you still stick to your original view, which was based on an admitted unfamiliarity. That is not empirically based judgement, which is required here (being neutral). Anyone in Wikipedia can invent endless reasons for saying yea/nay, but what counts is coherence and cogency, which is lacking in your sturdy defense of a position based on insufficient familiarity with the evidence. StandWithUs insists that the facts of Israel are constantly distorted by leading historians in the field, that those who criticize the occupation are ignorant of history. And Seid's job was to organize the 'education' of students to challenge and controvert critics, Jewish or otherwise, by producing the 'real facts'. Nothing in her work shows any familiarity with Israeli scholarship post 1980, everything I have read of hers is an echo chamber of memes Israeli scholarship has demolished for 30 years. So noting that the director of a teaching programme co-authored, while directing SWU's teaching programs, a paper which is known to have manipulated statistics, in a small parenthesis, is relevant.Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Weight of criticism in the lead

A couple of editors have added a bunch of criticism into the lead. It's now about 40% of the overall lead. That seems excessive.

Before I start editing to either remove some of what's there or adding a bunch of info about the org's activities, let me see if we can approach this constructively.

Is it possible to get some sort of agreement on the appropriate weight of criticism in the lead vs. other information about the Org?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Threatening to delete what "a couple of editors added" is not constructive, you are free to edit as you see fit in accordance with policy (MOS:LEAD here). Not sure what it is you really want, the criticism is one paragraph (of three). I am looking into the gov funding thing, it was proposed but apparently not consummated so that part might not stand.Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Also see WP:DUE. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay. You're intent on editwarring to a clear POV end. Elide whatever you read as reflecting negatively on a hasbara organ. You removed from the lead

The group has also been accused of pinkwashing Israel to divert attention away from its human rights violations. [a] [2]

References

  1. ^ Bob 2019, pp. 198–199.
  2. ^ Sirvent & Haiphong 2019, p. 295.
Bob is an impeccable source. The details are accurate. Where did you put that material in the article, to conserve it? Nowhere. In other words. you removed it from the article, not just from the lead. The removal of a first class academic source from an article is abusive. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I rebalanced the lead with different criticism, there is plenty more that could be added but that will do.Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I apologize if I removed anything that wasn't captured elsewhere. Pink washing remains in the criticism section where it belongs.
And after Selfstudier's edits, the criticism constitutes 40% of the content (word count) of the lead.
That seems to reflect Selfstudier's bias, and not what's appropriate for any article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
It's called consensus, a concept you seem unfamiliar with judging by your behavior at another article. Oh and please get rid of those redlinks that you complained about (I won't report you for 1R if you do).Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see this claimed consensus, and for the record, I , too, think the allegations of "pinkwashing" are not lead-worthy, and neither is your recent addition of Burston's opinions. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Unilaterally "rebalancing" the lead with additional criticism to stack it against SWU is not called "consensus" at all. Did _anyone_ else agree to it??
After your changes, the criticism section now makes up 18% of the article, but 40% of the lead. That seems to violate WP:DUE.
Care to explain why you're creating such a disproportionate weight of criticism in the lead? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a short summary of what is in the article already so it has consensus. Claims that an org passes off assertion as fact seem leadworthy to me (it actually says "lies" in the article). Then again, both you and Bob drobbs editing reduced criticism in the lead to zero at one point, enough said I think.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: There was absolutely no consensus to pack the lead full of criticism. Criticism taking up 0% of the lead is clearly inappropriate (note the entire lead sucked a week ago). But criticism taking up 40% of the lead is equally inappropriate.
If you're going to continue to keep "rebalancing" the lead toward tons of criticism you need to explain your rationale for that. And is is possible to move toward agreement on how much is appropriate? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Reverting again, keep it up.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@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)
They are still there, given your first comment above, @Bob drobbs:, are you going to delete some or all of them? Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I've deleted all the non-notable ones. To the clueless: the Secretary was a board member, and a "Secretary" in the corporate governance context is one of the officers of the organization.Inf-in MD (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. And for others, see Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Just because "Secretary" is in the title doesnt mean the person is of little importance.  :-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Lustick

Ian Lustick has argued that StandWithUs manipulates statistics on Palestinian demography in order to buttress continued Israeli occupation and settlement of the West Bank

This is incorrect. The text should read:

Political scientist Ian Lustick has argued that a paper on Palestinian demography co-authored by SWU's former director of education, Roberta Seid, manipulated statistics to buttress the continued Israeli occupation and settlement of the West Bank

I can't fix it myself per 1R. Please adjust the text.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

no need, I'll be removing this entire bit of WP:UNDUE material shortly. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
No. There is no consensus to remove, and it certainly is not undue, given Seid's prominence in the organization. It's under discussion.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The onus for consensus is on those wishing to include disputed material. Out it goes. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
The opposition of one editor is not evidence of lack of consensus. Otherwise all ARBPIA articles would be completely empty. To editor Nishidani:, it isn't clear from your proposed replacement whether Seid was former director of education at the time the paper was written or is former director of education now. Please clarify. Zerotalk 05:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The past tense was obligatory because she was with SWU as director of education until 2018, when she died.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I too think its WP:UNDUE. Please explain why we should include his view? --Shrike (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Shrike, your oneline lockstep vote was predictable, and your request shows you haven't read the thread which exhaustively shows 'why his view' should be included. It is a woman's view. What Lustick, a male did, was show that all of the mathematics underpinning the page Seid co-authored skewed the evidence, and even flew in the face of practices used by the Israeli Bureau of Statistics, in order to 'educate' students to think Israel had a right to the West Bank. Lustick's judgment is not a 'view': his analysis is not an opinion. It is a study of facts and methods ignored by authors who came to the topic with their view, a view which trounced the facts and standard scholarly methodology. Sure it's embarrassing, but a wikipage is not intended to be a promo fanfav outline of an institution, as this originally was. Read the threads before jumping into the page with an opinion.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Ian Lustick is a renowned expert and people like him are precisely the sort of sources an article like this should be based on. Zerotalk 13:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The question is not about Lustick's expertise, but rather is it due weight for a article about SWU. His criticism is directed at an article that he describes, multiple times as "the BESA study". It is an article with 3 authors, two of whom , including the lead author, have nothing to do with SWU. Nothing on the BESA site indicates this work was the output of SWU, or related to SWU in any way. The only relation to SWU is that one of the co-authors was also a SWU senior employee, as is noted in a footnote. That is not enough to be presented as criticism of the organization, and there's no consensus here to include it. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not only Lustick. If the team out there stopped reverting and gutting material that builds ther article, in order to read up on the topic, they'd note that, for example, Clifford Bob in his Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power, Princeton University Press, 2019 calls Seid 'a leader of the SWU' (p.200) along with Rothstein. As such, and as an educationalist for that organization, it is due to mention something about here, esp. since the rest of the team, unlike those two, appear to be employees with zero notability.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Seid was certainly a senior employee of the SWU. That does not make everything she contributed to a work of the SWU.Inf-in MD (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Creative Community for Peace

Now that there's a new page for Creative Community for Peace, how much of that section, if any, should remain?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest a {{Main}} at the top of that section here, and then the section should be a short summary of the new article, with emphasis on the factor that links the two – which, to be clear, is the allegations that CCFP is a SWU front group as reported on here in the ToI and in an October 2013 article in The Forward that I can't access because I've reached my free article limit. There are likely other sources as well, potentially including the ones in this article. I agree that CCFP likely has stand-alone notability, but as it stands right now, that article is strongly POV. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
...Bob drobbs, it looks like you cited the article in The Forward that I mentioned. Does it not actually mention the allegations of front-groupery (if you will), or did you miss that part, or did you decide not to include them? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Like I said in my first comment when I created that page, it's a work in progress, and I plan on working more on it later. I agree that a balanced version of Forward's info about their early partnership with StandWithUs should be included. I'll do it later if no one else does. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoting the Electronic Intifada

This is a generally unreliable source, so I don't think we should be using them, even as an attributed opinion. This issue raised by Levivich here, in a related matter. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's used 3 separate times. I'd suggest that we get rid of two of them. It's an unreliable source reporting on non-notable people and groups.
As for the 3rd, it should be replaced with a reference to IPS. There was zero reason to use EI in that case in the first place. (link) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
No. 'generally unreliable' provides one with no warrant to start eliding systematically all use of EI. The 'generally' means there are exceptions, subject to close evaluation and discussion. All you two do is declare a shared intent to erase. Jewish Voice for Peace is the source, Electronic Intifada is the venue. It is a press release, and there is no reason to suspect it was forged. That, for example should stay. And editors should be reminded here that SWU is a rightwing hasbara organization notable also for using all channels to reframe reportage on Israel in a favourable light. So far Wikipedia is free of this man ipulative agenda. It is not looking healthy for our commitment to neutrality that some editors are editing not to construct the article, but 'cleanse't of any innuendo that the larger world is in two minds about its practices. Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a venue for organizations to publish their press releases. HAs this been mentioned in any other reliable source? Inf-in MD (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
A press release is a self-published source and thus also not an RS. Sources that are yellow at RSP should not be used, especially for controversial material. I support removing all yellow sources from this article. Unless some reliable source reports on what EI thinks about SWU, EI's opinion is WP:UNDUE (same for anyone else's opinion). Levivich 20:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Look. Could you try to be less predictable in always siding with a pro-Israeli viewpoint. I commend your equable manners, but if you want your judgment to be considered neutral, of admin quality, you should takle some distance from the topic, when making your judgment. In the sense, that this is a sock-infested area, with over a dozen casual people who barely scrape past the 500 bar, coming in over the last year, some of whom may well be active in some of the editwarring here and caution is needed, since Wikipedia has no means of countering that kind of gaming (which, as you should know, has been declared as a major intention by hasbara bodies offline) A Press release by Jewish Voice for Peace is not a controversial matter. It is a statement. The press release is not self-published if it is taken up by a second or third party and reproduced. To step in and repress the use of the Press release by challenging the secondary source as reliable when it merely prints what the primary source states, is ridiculous. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nishidani: It wasn't even the National Branch of JVP. The press release was from the San Francisco Branch. That does not seem notable.
I strongly object to your characterization that anyone is trying to 'cleanse' this page. Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable, and there's no reason to include their reporting on non-notable people and orgs. This seems like standard wikipedia practice.
And if you're going to speak about bias, I'll remind you that all editors, yourself included should restrict yourself to editing based on reliable sources, and seek to find appropriate balance, not based on your personal bias for or against the subject. Your comment above seemed out of line with that: "editors should be reminded here that SWU is a rightwing hasbara organization ... manipulative agenda". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Since you've made just 908 edits in a decade, and have become more active only recently, and most of your edits are tweaky itsy bitsy things - I can't see any real constructive effort (I've written several hundred articles, and I judge editors also by their constructiveness), I suggest you think twice before handing out advice. It is odd that you think because a branch office of Jewish Voice for Peace is concerned, that has nothing to do with the organization. They are exactly like SWU, which has numerouys branch offices, but when they act regionally (as in Michigan and Seattle) their operations are attributed to SWU. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Indeed. If a non-reliable source, quotes a press release from a local branch of SWU, saying something bad about BDS, I will 100% say it doesn't belong on the BDS page. Do you diagree?
This seems like it should be non-controversial. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Is this a fishing expedition for my views on BDS? I don't share the viewpoint of BDS on a boycott, as a matter of fact, though I think its call to boycott Israel is understandable, reasoned, and based on a recent historic precedent (not to speak of the earlier Jewish calls to boycott Nazi Germany in the 30s, which was a conflicted call in that community by the way) since I seconded a boycott of South Africa over apartheid in the 1980s. Since Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'tselem have recently declared that Israel also practices apartheid (self-evident for years), and no one can dismiss that evaluation of the facts as 'partisan', 'antisemitic', 'antiZionist' but simply a realistic judgment of the human rights record, I naturally think the tsunami tide of hasbara attacking BDS is BS - a conscious attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the international community in full awareness that the rhetoric belies the reality. I disagree with BDS's political judgment (I concur with Norman Finkelstein on that), but not with their evaluation of Israel's record. So the 'controversy' you speak of is, to me, just political theatre, hasbara vs. scholarship, spin versus reality. Very much what SWU practices. I'ìd be curious to know if there is at least one, yes one, paper authored by its people which will stand academic scrutiny as factual in any of its claims. I've read a dozen over the last few days, trying to find one, and the quality is execrable. You'd never get even a pass grade at any decent university for that tripe. But, as an editor, I try to stick to the facts, and I don't as a personal rule, ever use EI, even though I think occasional pieces in it are far more reliable than what I read in The Times of Israel, or the Jerusalem Post, which we mechanically use without challenge. There. Happy? Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
No fishing and no tricks:
Should content from press releases, issued by non-notable entities, covered by generally unreliable sources, speaking about 3rd parties, be included on articles about those third parties?
To me this question and it's answer seem pretty clear, and I'm surprised there's any controversy about it at all. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Following a lengthy investigation into multiple antisemitic comments by Professor David Miller, the University of Bristol announced on October 1 that “a disciplinary hearing found Professor Miller did not meet the standards of behavior we expect from our staff and the University has concluded that Professor Miller’s employment should be terminated with immediate effect”. There are multiple, respected sources calling out his antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories that make him a distinctly biased and unreliable source. "Right Wing" mention needs to be removed from lead and moved to the criticism section if anything. Providing relevant sources 1 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't report every little incident, especially not in a POV manner

I'm removing this: SWU was one of a number of groups who condemned Palestinians for raising a Nazi flag over the town of Beit Ummar. For two reasons: (1) this article is not supposed to be a catalogue of everything SWU commented on; (2) more importantly, the report is highly misleading. The flag was not just "over the town of Beit Ummar" but near an IDF post in the town. The more reliable JPost report makes it clear that the residents were charging the Israelis with being like Nazis, not declaring themselves to be Nazis. JP quotes one resident: "What happened on Saturday is not because we are against the Jewish religion, or because we support Hitler. We just wanted to send a message that there isn’t much of a difference between Israel and the Nazis." None of this belongs here as it has zero to do with SWU. Zerotalk 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I won't argue strongly for inclusion. I don't think this needs to be in this article. But I want to share a couple of counter-points:
1) This is an item a RS thought this was notable enough to report on; not a catalogue of everything they've commented on.
2) It seems like WP:OR for you to delete content that you find to be misleading.
3) It doesn't have nothing to do with SWU. SWU made an action and a reliable source reported on that action.
-- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. And just remember, the same applies to various "criticisms" - this article is not supposed to be a catalogue of everything anyone said about SWU, and not every op-ed critical of it belongs here. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC) And speaking of misleading, what you quoted above ("What happened on Saturday is not because we are against the Jewish religion, or because we support Hitler. We just wanted to send a message that there isn’t much of a difference between Israel and the Nazis.") is from a different incident, not this one. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs: (1) Per policy, "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article." (2) On the contrary, if we have reason to believe that something is misleading, on the basis of reliable sources, we are obliged to balance or remove it. That is also policy. (3) All SWU did was comment on it in a predictable way. You or I could have written their comment just as well as them. That makes it a trivial connection. Zerotalk 01:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD: Yes, you are correct that the quotation was for a previous incident. My apologies for missing that. But I still think it is more relevant than the made-up explanations from anti-Palestinian sources. Zerotalk 01:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is not a compendium of everything SWU has commented on, or even everything that the press has noted that SWU has commented on. The majority of the "campaigns" section is based on a handful of news sources commenting about a press release, with no indication it was actually a campaign or is in any way significant to SWU. nableezy - 01:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The section is actually named "campaigns and activities". I'm not the one who named it. RS writing about SWU's activities seems to fit.
Though I do think the article could be improved by wrapping up some of those 3rd level sections into a new 2nd level section. I'm just not sure what it should be called. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
News sources cover all sorts of news. Take a look at for example Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. They are articles that cover the topic of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, not all their activities. Could you imagine if every time HRW was quoted in the press that was in its article? This isnt meant to be a compendium of everything that SWU has ever done. If there are some actions that had some particularly important consequence sure include it in a bit more detail, but right now it is mostly a vessel to promote their activities, and that isnt what Wikipedia is supposed to be. nableezy - 03:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this incident is not noteworthy in relation to SWU and this article should not list every time a comment from them is quoted. It should focus on their noteworthy activities. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a strawman at this point, or should just be closed. There was no disagreement in regards to removing the content that was removed. Everything else seems notable. Paul Ghozar is the least referenced section, but there's an article focused on SWU's comment, not just a mention of it.
If anything, I might question the JVP (201) section. This was a scuffle more than a decade ago by people who claim they were acting of their own violation, not as part of any organized SWU action. Does every action done by anyone who supports SWU belong in this article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd want to leave that one in so that readers can form a judgment about the membership of SWU and how much credence to give to a claim by one of them that 10 SWU activists "acted as individuals and not as part of an organized SWU action."Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:StandWithUs/Archive_2&oldid=1065160953"