Talk:StopAntisemitism

My last edit

The paragraph on the Kiswani episode seemed to include some odd details for this page; at any rate, as it stood, 107 of the 318 words in entire page's body seemed, for better or worse, to be pushing Kiswani's perspective, which is neither DUE nor NPOV (what is more, the Kiswani quote seems quite clearly to be MANDY). I also tried to make more accurate the claims motivating the "anti-Semite of the year" "award", which were not limited to the sweatshirt incident. Taking a look at the page as a whole, it still seems as if this incident gets more than DUE would suggest (again, for better or worse, the Ilhan Omar event did not get less coverage, but merits only a sentence); this is hardly the end of the world, but it is worth observing. As always, very happy to discuss this further here --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

COI edits

For continuity, a discussion surrounding TruthPrevailsFinally (talk · contribs) COI edits and edit requests at User_talk:Macaddct1984#StopAntisemitism_section -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This topis is also discussed on the Talk page of the article about Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Please continue reading there for more information/discussion.

Why this section about Waygood is relevant:

1. International media coverage, see citations in the article
2. Millions of views on X, thousands of comments, thousands of retweets
3. Involvement of two well-known and reputable Jewish organisations (StopAntisemitism, Shirion Collective), which brought the scandal to public attention
4. Vertex is a public company. This is very relevant information to the shareholders, some of which (for instance funds) have strict compliance regimes regarding incidents like this and may have to be forced to sell shares, which can cause a great economic impact.
5. Vertex itself has issued a public statement including Richard Waygood's name. It is a very rare occurrence that companies comment publicly on firings, even rarer is a statement including names.
6. He was a high-ranking associate (see #5), otherwise Vertex would not have fired him publicly
7. As stated in the article, the incident happened just weeks after the 2023 Hames attack on Israel, during a period of time with rising antisemitism.
8. There was a public outcry, targeting even his wife's (Annette Waygood) company (Partners Group), where she is also a high-ranking associate. There are also newspaper reports about his wife, who had also been at the event on which Richard Waygood wore the Nazi armband, although there is no information (yet) if she also wore Nazi clothes.

Currently, a lot of anonymous editors (with IP address from Switzerland or from a Swiss VPN), as well as some new user accounts, try to censor/vandalize the article by editing the section about Richard Waygood without sources.

However:

1. Wikipedia is not censored, see here
2. Wikipedia relies on sources and not on claims or first-hand "evidence". A source is, for example, a newspaper. The current incident has been reported internationally by well-renowned newspapers, including the name of the associate.

MarcoMiller2 (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding so-called "data privacy" which is constantly mentioned by the anonymous editors:

1. 1 This is similar to the Tron/Boris Floricic naming controversary case, whose name has been public for nearly 20 years, even after lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia abides by the laws of the US and not by Swiss/German/whatever law.
2. 2 The name is public all over the internet and on social media. The original X thread has been viewed more than 1.4 million times, the re-post also 1 million times. There are thousands of retweets and comments, only under the original posting. There are thousands more on the various news websites and re-ports. Several Jewish/Israeli organizations have re-posted the case on their social media accounts, with thousands of more comments, all including the name of Richard Waygood. His name has several auto-completes on Google, depending on location for example: "las vegas", "vertex", "pharma", "nazi". Taking into consideration all of this, his name is public information.
3. 3 There is no data privacy, as he (Richard Waygood) has posted the photo himself on social media, see here in the Blick article:

Quote (German): "Das Foto stellte er anschliessend in die sozialen Medien."

Translation: "He then posted the photo on social media."

To be clear: He himself posted the photo under his name. If there has been any "data privacy", he relinquished it voluntarily.

1. 4 We do not need to discuss any "private information" or any claims that are constantly being brought up by anonymous users. These information is irrelevant to Wikipedia, it has no sources, whereas all the information mentioned in the section about Waygood had multiple reliable sources. And we can be sure that the newspapers have checked and vetted the information before publishing it, and, as they are Swiss newspapers, also have given the accused person (Waygood) the chance to comment. Obviously, he didn't, otherwise they would have to use his statement in the article. But he obviously didn't even deny.

Let's work together and make Wikipedia better - but let's stick to sources and facts! Thank you all for the productive discussion so far. MarcoMiller2 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@MarcoMiller2: Thanks for the insights. This is still happening; I may take it to RFPP if it persists. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 01:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

After page protection has ran out, the same vandalism is happening again. I'll request protection again. Markman222222222 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ich finde es schon sehr relevant, dass dieser Pharma-Angestellte Richard Waygood aus Hünenberg ZG die Hakenkreuzarminde getragen hat und deshalb bei Vertex rausgeflogen ist. Ebenso relevant ist das Verhalten seiner Frau Anette Waygood-Weiner von Partners Group, die das Tragen der Hakenkreuzarminde laut Inside-Paradeplatz und Zentralplus zumindest gebilligt hat, weil es ja ein Foto gibt, auf dem sie auch drauf ist. Fragesteller1900 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Falscher Ort: Zug, nicht Hünenberg!

Hakenkreuz-Richard Waygood (Vertex Pharma) ist aus Zug/Baar, nicht aus Hünenberg. Lustig ist dass seine Frau Anette Waygood nun wieder unter dem Doppelnamen Anette Waygood-Weiner auftritt. Distanziert sie sich endlich von dem antisemitischen Verhalten ihres Mannes? Die arbeitet ja anscheinend bei Partners Group in Baar. Was sagt eigentlich diese Firma dazu? Zugerinsider (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wird Zeit dass bei dem Hakenkreuz-Waygood aus Zug, Baar, Hünenberg oder sonschtwo endlich mal der SACK ZUGEMACHT WIRD! Ist ja ekelhaft. Was denkt sich der Typ?! Dass er mit so einem Nazigetue durchkommt? RivarDelph (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The proof for this organization's "unmasking" is their own tweet and this pretty basic website, which reproduces that tweet, so I'm thinking that all these SPIs (MarcoMiller2 and User:Markman222222222) might have something to do with the organization. (I would like to congratulate Markman on his extraordinary quick learning process.) Besides that, NOTNEWS applies. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for this. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 00:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Use as a reliable Source for BLP?

Can StopAntisemitism be used as a reliable source for the purpose of BLP?

Pro: Generally rely on other reliable sources, over 5 years old, no history of misinformation

Con: some degree of bias/political leaning FortunateSons (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: Since it's an advocacy organization, reliability would probably be on a case-by-case basis. If you have a question about a specific use case, you might want to ask at WP:RSN. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I will FortunateSons (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on their aboutpage, I wouldn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Liora Rez doxxing and harassing people for protesting Israel's genocide of Palestinians

It seems that the page, aside from conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism, omits Liora Rez doxxing numerous people on her official StopAntisemitism account for protesting Israel's genocide of Palestinians. The account has done this numerous times, claiming that protesting Israel's actions is antisemitic, and has engaged in making racist remarks. Why aren't these controversies on the page? Lobsel Vith (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

What WP:BLP-good WP:RS do you have that can be used, and what article content do you suggest adding based on them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Naming targets of StopAntisemitism

I don't think one or two news articles that mention them in passing are sufficient to include the names of specific living individuals who were targeted by StopAntisemitism here; some of them fall under WP:BLP1E and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and either way there simply isn't enough encyclopedic significance to their specific names in this article to override that and justify inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed the specific people's names. I do think it is still important to include the actual examples and not just say "anti-Israel activity," though. It's important context. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Only a single source seems to include those quotes, though. I'm concerned that it might fall afoul of the WP:QUOTEFARM warning that quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing; beyond that, your insistence that a quote highlighted in a single source gives me pause, because it feels like you're trying to add them in order to make an argument that they deserved to be targeted or to justify StopAntisemitism's actions, which is misusing the source (it certainly does not present them that way.) If these are really as important and central as you claim, then multiple other sources should mention them, surely? Otherwise, why pull those particular quotes out of the piece and not eg. a high school basketball coach who wore a shirt with a watermelon, a symbol of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, to a game or Marzouca, who lives in Los Angeles and uses they/them pronouns, said StopAntisemitism’s X post triggered a stream of threats. People emailed Marzouca saying they deserved to be sent to Gaza to die and criticizing their appearance, with one person calling them a “disgusting, manipulative rat” - something the source gives equal weight in terms of context. More broadly, we determine what's important context based on coverage; a few quotes pulled from a single source that was using them in a different way doesn't really meet that standard. --Aquillion (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Aquillion You should @ me. Otherwise you're talking into the abyss. The whole point of the article is that both sides disagree whether it is anti-Israel or antisemitic. By showing the actual quotes it let's users see the specific conduct and decide what the conduct falls into. It's ambiguous - otherwise there wouldn't be an WaPo article on this. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Does CT apply to this page?

I think there is a lot of overlap between this article and WP:ARBPIA. I actually did a cursory search and this site seems to take positions a little more on the I-P conflict. I tried finding sources as well; there is this Washington Post article from recently, as well as this press release that is reposted on Yahoo, Business Insider, etc. I think this question may be better suited for WP:AE but I am not sure.

In any case I think the intro needs reworking. The WashPost article I linked to ties the organization to Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation; we do need to find more sources for this or, failing that, drop the "focused on combating antisemitism" part because that needs WP:V.

I also did searches for Liora Rez, one of the BLPs associated with this, and aside from the Washington Post article, found this Fox News piece rebutting that. But we already have kind of established WP:FOXNEWS so it should be used with caution. Awesome Aasim 23:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the intro needs to be rewritten. There appears to be no sourcing behind categorizing StopAntisemitism as a "non-profit organization" or even that Liora Rez is the organization's founder beyond statements Rez, herself, has made to various media sources. It is abundantly clear, based on the Washington Post article you cited, that StopAntisemitism operates under a fiscal sponsorship and that Rez is a direct employee of the sponsoring entity. I'd be fine with you stating that as fact based just on the Post reporter's research, but, even if you don't feel confident that the article serves as sufficient basis to do so, it still serves as sufficient basis to remove the description of StopAntisemitism as a "non-profit organization" or at least notate that said description is disputed and poorly sourced. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)