Draft talk:Antisemitism on Wikipedia

Marcus statement

As noted above, the Torres statement may need explanation for readers.

The same source reports on the view of Kenneth Marcus: Marcus, who served as assistant U.S. secretary of education for civil rights in the Trump administration, told the Washington Examiner that historical anti-Zionism consisted of Jews who opposed the establishment of a Jewish state due to “certain ultraorthodox Jewish messianic views or based on other historical considerations that simply aren’t applicable today.” A doctrine that was held by the original anti-Zionist Jews and is still held by some today is that the establishment of a Jewish state is supposed to happen at the coming of the Jewish messiah. They believe it must be divinely ordained, not done by humans. Modern non-Jewish anti-Zionism, Marcus explained, derives from “historical antisemitic movements as opposed to other forms of anti-Zionism,” such as ultraorthodox Jewish anti-Zionism, “that have nothing to do with antisemitism.” As a result, he said, “21st-century anti-Zionism,” such as the ideas espoused on Wikipedia’s revised entry about Zionism, “is essentially antisemitism.”

Suggested added sentence to the article: Kenneth Marcus, academic and former government official, said that Wikipedia's article on Zionism was promoting “21st-century anti-Zionism,” which Marcus characterized as "essentially antisemitism." Feedback? ProfGray (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional quotes and information from sources. Your proposed sentence does not give the rationale for Marcus' claim that 21-st century anti-Zionism is "essentially antisemitism". A crucial historical assumption that he makes is that anti-Zionism has always been either religious Jewish opposition (existing mainly much earlier than the 21-st century) based on the belief that God intended for a Jewish state to be created when the Jewish messiah comes and not before, or else non-Jewish anti-Zionism. This dichotomy of anti-Zionist thought is based on a simplistic view of Jews that completely ignores the diversity of religious and philosophical views of people who self-identify as ethnically Jewish. There has been a large and influential Jewish participation in leftist movements (communist, socialist, social democratic, progressive, etc.). Many are Reform Jewish in religious beliefs (not sharing the Orthodox Jewish belief about a messiah giving rise to a Jewish state) or atheist or agnostic. Marcus' statement itself could arguably be characterized as "antisemitic" because of its stereotypical view of what Jews believe and his effective dismissal of an important section of the Jewish community as non-Jewish and hence anti-Zionist because of antisemitic motivations. Jews, like other ethnic groups, are not a monolith, and to presume that they are can plausibly be regarded as a form of antisemitism. NightHeron (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the proposed sentence does give any justification or rationale for Marcus' claim ("essentially antisemitism"). But it still merits inclusion in this (potential) article because he's saying Wikipedia's article had an antisemitic bias, right? @NightHeron

It may be a valid critique to consider if Marcus is making faulty assumptions. And faulty assumptions can have prejudiced implications ("arguably be characterized as.." etc). But for a WP article, there's have to be an outside source that delivers that critique and, presumably, one that consider the specific Wikipedia article that he refers to. Fair enough? ProfGray (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, but we have the option of excluding the quote as WP:UNDUE if we can't find any source that addresses it directly. When an opinion is somewhat extreme and denigrates a lot of people, for example by accusing them of racism, sexism, or antisemitism, it's particularly important not to include such an allegation as a stand-alone comment without context. In the case of the Marcus quote, he's denigrating all 21-st century opponents of Zionism except for the tiny proportion that's motivated by the belief that the Jewish state was supposed to wait for the coming of the Jewish messiah. The people he accuses of antisemitism include all non-orthodox Jewish opponents of Zionism, as well as others who have recently adopted a strong anti-Zionist viewpoint as a result of atrocities against children and other innocent civilians in Gaza. I agree with you that ideally we could include the Marcus quote in a proper context with sources that discuss what he said. However, there might be no publicly available sources that comment directly on it. It's likely that people who've written in opposition to what they term "weaponization" of allegations of antisemitism feel that they don't have to respond directly to each allegation. In that situation I think it's best to just remove the Marcus quote. NightHeron (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would question whether Marcus has sufficient understanding of the situation to be due inclusion here. His academic education is in American law and not anything associated with the study of racism, religious and ethnic discrimination, etc. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There's Brandeis, I guess. Lotsa lawyers there, too. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, perhaps he is positioned sufficiently (e.g., by the newspaper and by his status) to be worth quoting to express that POV, regardless of whether we think he understands. After all, he doesn't need to pass a Reliable Source test, only the newspaper does, right?

On the other hand, if his understanding does matter, then let's look at his expertise. He is the author a 2015 book, published by Oxford University Press, The Definition of Anti-Semitism. He was also Staff Director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He wrote a 2012 book, Cambridge Univ Press, on Jewish Identity and Civil Rights.

So, it's fair to say that he is perceived as a expert on antisemitism (and discrimination etc). Since he spoke on this article's topic, doesn't it make sense to present his perspective? cc: Simonm223, Selfstudier,NightHeron thanks. ProfGray (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we are looking at a question of balance here. The view that wikipedia is pushing anti-Zionism and that anti-Zionism is essentially antisemitism is one person's personal opinion. Most mainstream scholars on antisemitism and Palestine do not accept the view that anti-Zionism is essentially antisemitism, so the claim is controversial.

However, these scholars have not commented on the wikipedia article in question. Therefore we are giving prominent coverage to a strongly biased throwaway comment by one individual which has not received enough coverage to be contradicted. I don't think that Marcus fits the definition of subject matter expert, so in view of this the sentemce wouldn't appear to be WP:DUE. If the comments sparked a debate in reliable sources, where contradictory opinions were expressed, that range of opinions might be due.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a low opinion of using newspapers to establish WP:DUE especially when academic material is available. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Marcus is a well-known, published scholar on antisemitism. He even leads an organization that works on antisemitism. He did comment directly on the Wikipedia article in question (Zionism).

Is there some measure by which he is not a subject matter expert on antisemitism?

The draft currently includes comments by Hen Mazzig and Rep. Torres. Surely Marcus is a more recognized expert than those two, right?

I appreciate the desire for balance. Even if there's no published statement that presents another viewpoint about the Wikipedia article, it'd be fine to include in wikivoice an NPOV contextualizing statement such as "it is a disputed position that contemporary anti-Zionism is antisemitism." ProfGray (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @NightHeron that this quote is likely WP:UNDUE these reasons being those that NightHeron already described plus the presence of a preponderance of stronger academic sources that could approach the topic more dispassionately. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it is a lot more than disputed, at least by best sources (ie not by Israel, ADL and the rest). I don't particularly object to an attributed WP:COATRACK type comment from Marcus but it is WP:RECENT for all that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Four question to be responsive to concerns above. Our discussion is about a paragraph that begins: In 2024, Wikipedia faced accusations of bias based on changes to its article about Zionism. (1) Is there any disagreement that such accusations were made?

To support the "accusations" sentence, the paragraph cites ADL, Hen Mazzig, and Rep. Torres. (2) Are there any objections to citing these 3 with the current snippets of their accusations?

This Talk section is a proposal to add an additional sentence from Marcus. The objections above include UNDUE weight. (This includes RECENT, which is a cause of potential UNDUE writing and COATRACK, which would be a pile-on of undue weight, right?) In order to provide the proper weight to the 2024 accusations of this paragraph, (3) what would be objections to cutting back the # of words given to Torres and Mazzig, so that Marcus could be added? Or to replacing Torres or Mazzig for Marcus?

(4) Would this clarification be acceptable? In 2024, Wikipedia faced accusations of anti-Jewish bias based on changes to its article about Zionism. Bold only to show the editing change, of course.

@Simonm223@Selfstudier@NightHeron @Boynamedsue Also pinging @XDanielx, who edited the article before and not sure if watching the draft, hope that's okay. ProfGray (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Marcus is problematic not only because his criticism of Wikipedia is biased, but because he insists on the outlandish claim that all opposition to Zionism is essentially antisemitic with the only exception being orthodox Jews who wanted Zionism to wait for the coming of the Jewish messiah. It's like saying that any opinion that settlers to N America were wrong to steal the Indians' lands and commit genocide against the Indians can be dismissed as simply anti=American, except for people who believed that they should have waited for the arrival of a messiah before they started killing Indians. Totally whackadoodle. NightHeron (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@NightHeron -- thanks for the reply. It'd be helpful to me to see comments on the 4 questions above, including #1 and #4. Not sure that it matters how WP editors view Marcus and I do not want to express any opinion regarding his claims. What matters is how Marcus is seen in the world -- gets published by academic presses, gets appointed to leadership positions, runs an organization that deals with antisemitism, etc. Fair enough? ProfGray (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

My point is that Marcus' theory about the nature of opposition to Zionism is essentially a fringe theory (although one that's espoused by many Zionists), namely, that (except for a small number of orthodox Jews who are waiting for the Jewish messiah) people who object to Zionism because of what has been done to the Palestinian people in the name of Zionism really have secret anti-Jewish motives, that is, are part of an anti-Jewish conspiracy that even includes Jews who oppose Zionism. This belief should thus be handled carefully, like any fringe notion. I think that that's the relevant issue, not necessarily your 4 questions. NightHeron (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this concern. Perhaps this can be separated into two parts:

One -- (A) Do Marcus and many Zionists say that (all or some) contemporary (non-Orthodox) anti-Zionists are also always / generally antisemitic? Seems likely, though this is an empirical q. (B) Do they also claim "secret anti-Jewish motives" or "conspiracy" by anti-Zionists? I'm doubtful, but it's also something that can be addressed -- is there any evidence for this?

Two -- If (A)+(B), would it be covered by WP:FRINGE? Probably not, because it's not a view that's deemed falsifiable by scientific or historical evidence. It's an opinion about what to condemn as bigotry. Fringe cannot simply mean POVs with low % of adherents. Also, while Zionist Jews may be small % English-speaking humans, they are a sizeable % of people who care about and have a stake in the meaning of antisemitism. By analogy, it'd be incorrect for hearing people to treat the deaf community's definition of anti-deaf prejudice as a fringe theory. ProfGray (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion of how anti-Zionism can be antisemitic in the articles on New antisemitism and 3D test of antisemitism. The concept dates to the early 1970s.

Proponents of the concept generally posit that in the late 20th and early 21st centuries much of what is purported to be criticism of Israel is in fact tantamount to demonization, and that together with evidence of a resurgence of antisemitic attacks on Jews, desecration of Jewish symbols and Judaism, Holocaust denial, and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse and online hate speech, such demonization represents an evolution in the appearance of antisemitic beliefs. Proponents argue that anti-Zionism and demonization of Israel, or double standards applied to its conduct (some also include anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, and Third-Worldism) may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism, particularly when emanating simultaneously from the far-left, Islamism, and the far-right. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally find it frustrating when people interpret WP:FRINGE such that only History, among the humanities, can be seen as having Fringe content. And I do think the idea put forward by Marcus, that all criticism of Zionism except for that of orthodox Jews is necessarily antisemitic, should be treated as fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole AZ =/!= AS needs an article all to itself, I'm reasonably confident in the interim that a majority of best sources are going to be saying, as an absolute minimum, that not all AZ = AS, in which case people asserting AZ = AS are just wrong. Depending on exactly what those best sources say, it may well be a fringe or at least a minority position. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the AZ ~~ AS connection could have its own article. Meanwhile, there's a really long section (w subsections) Anti-Zionism#Allegations of antisemitism.

Minority positions deserve some encyclopedic attention, as long as reported by Reliable Sources and properly presented and attributed, but not UNDUE coverage. Even if editors personally consider an opinion wrong, it can be put in the article in a suitable way.

WP:FRINGE policy does not apply to this type of minority opinion, because it's about how to categorize prejudice, which is not a scientific, falsifiable matter. ProfGray (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about listing of genocide as blood libel etc

A sentence was added with about 10 sources, re: Wikipedia's listing of genocides. This point does seem relevant to this article on antisemitism. I edited the wording to a more neutral point of view. However, 10 sources is too many for Wikipedia style. Let's choose the two most reliable sources -- and can we quote anyone who is charging WP with a "blood libel" or other antisemitic concern? cc:User:Allthemilescombined1, thanks. ProfGray (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well -- 8 minutes later -- checked the 10 sources and none of them mention Wikipedia or charge Wikipedia with bias. The current fn #36 does discuss the Wikipedia decision, but does not mention blood libel or antisemitism. Need to be sure that a source brings up both Wikipedia and antisemitism, else it will be rejected as Wikipedia:No original research

This Haaretz article does mention Wikipedia and it's generally a good source. But it only mentions anti-Israel bias, not antisemitism. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-11-07/ty-article/.premium/wikipedia-editors-add-article-titled-gaza-genocide-to-list-of-genocides-page/00000193-0749-d3a2-a3d7-4f491b760000

This Jewish Journal article goes into more depth about Wikipedia. Again, only mentions anti-Israel but not antisemitism. https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/376425/wikipedia-editors-add-gaza-genocide-to-list-of-genocides-article/

@Allthemilescombined1please see above. The sentence needs a proper reference or it should be deleted. ProfGray (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Added to this sentence, with reference. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@ProfGray I added Dara Horn's comments on antisemitic genocide accusations. Also: Adam Kirsch describes the convergence of anti-Zionism with "older patterns of anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish thinking", citing as an example the protesters who chanted "MSK shame on you, you support genocide too" because of a donor's politics. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1-- hi. This article is about antisemitism on Wikipedia, such as biased Wiki articles or Wiki editors getting sanctions for anti-Jewish conduct. Especially because this article has been heavily contested, any reported accusations or findings of antisemitism must be about Wikipedia, explicitly. Since the Horn and Kirsch sources do not mention Wikipedia, the associated sentences need to be removed. (They might be used in articles, maybe Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war?) Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions about this. ProfGray (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@ProfGray I added "Genocide accusations against Israel on Wikipedia have been criticized for a lack of NPOV tagging, in contrast to genocide accusations against Hamas" with a source. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the use of this line because, frankly, the idea that accusations of genocide by Hamas are NPOV tagged while accusations of genocide by Israel are not is because any assertion that Hamas, as it is currently composed, would be functionally able to perpetrate genocide actions is a WP:FRINGE statement. As such the source criticizing Wikipedia is effectively holding that Wikipedia is giving insufficient credence to a fringe position. We wouldn't include such a criticism in an article on Wikipedia and UFOlogy. We shouldn't do it here where the stakes are rather higher. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223Imagining what Hamas has or doesn't have functionally would be a WP:SYNTH statement and WP:FUTURE speculation. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Adjudicating the reliability of a source according to WP:FRINGE guidelines isn't an article space edit and is not subject to WP:SYNTH synth restrictions. So, actually, no it's not synth for me to say it's a fringe belief that Hamas has the material capacity to commit genocide. This is pointedly not a comment on any future state but, rather, is about capacity right now. Simonm223 (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the new(ish) sentence ("Genocide accusations.... lack of NPOV...") but for a different reason than stated above.

• Fringe does not apply to this kind of POV. Regardless of beliefs about Hamas, the opinion to be put into our article (or deleted) is whether Wikipedia has anti-Jewish bias. The article cites a historian and WP editors, it goes into detailed analysis of WP and the bias concerns. If there's a reliable source that puts argues against Bandler's informants and sources, etc., we could report that critique. But that critique is not our role and, really, FRINGE would not be the right policy to carry such a critique.
• @Allthemilescombined1-- the problem with the sentence is that it does not mention anti-Jewish or antisemitic bias. This article is about antisemitism on Wikipedia, not anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia. For that topic, there's: Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. That article has two Bandler pieces and the new sentence ("Genocide accusations...") could go there, supported by another Bandler piece.

My plan is to delete the sentences in this paragraph because they do not fit the scope of this article.

Meanwhile, it would be very helpful to know if there are other sentences anywhere in the current draft that are disputed or need to be tagged, so I'm tagging some editors who have been raising concerns @Simonm223 @NightHeron @Selfstudier @Boynamedsue, thanks. Even more with the new title, this article meets Notability criteria and, though it can be improved, the draft appears to have undergone enough improvements to be ready to move to main space. ProfGray (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The following line The framing of Wikipedia articles can be biased against Jews, at times, as Wolniewicz-Slomka and Makhortykh found, for instance, when Jewish heroics was omitted or Jewish suffering marginalized. should be moved to the section on holocaust related subjects as both sources are explicitly about that topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about how this sentence is inserted into the I/P section where, by article copy, it appears to be about WWII related topics Citing the Grabowski and Klein study of "a small group of editors", the report contends that "Wikipedia's entries on Jewish subjects, particularly those related to Polish–Jewish history surrounding World War II, perpetuate and reinforce damaging stereotypes and misconceptions[,]" leading the keynote speaker, politician Manuel Valls, to speak of an "antisemitic bias" in Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph is blatantly non-neutral by presenting as if all commentary on Wikipedia's treatment of Zionism was saying it was anti-Jewish. In 2024, Wikipedia faced accusations of bias based on changes to its article about Zionism. Some of the controversial language related to the framing of Zionism as colonization, as well as the statement that Zionists wanted "as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinians as possible". The Anti-Defamation League called the revised language "historically inaccurate" and "derogatory". Israeli writer Hen Mazzig called the entry "downright antisemitic", saying that it promoted the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry. US congressman Ritchie Torres called it a "warped telling of history," counting "Israeli Jews from the Middle East and North Africa, as well as from Ethiopia" among the "European colonizers."

Beyond that I've said my bit on the NPOV tag claim. And otherwise I have no further concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, one last thing about the final quote - I'm also uncertain how Ritchie Torres is WP:DUE in this circumstance. He does not appear to have any relevant expertise. He is just some politician. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added to the section on "Gaza genocide" with another source. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I cut the Ritchie Torres sentence and source. I remain concerned about the para in general as non-neutral but this much is a pretty clear WP:DUE matter. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Since the view of Marcus does merit mention, IMO, it's fine to delete Torres. However, it seems like you accidentally deleted the source, which also covers Hen Mazzig. @Simonm223 Please restore that source, ok? ProfGray (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's no problem. Didn't realize that source was doing double-duty. I put it back. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that citing Grabowski as evidence of bias against Israel is an obvious stretch as I mentioned earlier.

Other than an offhand comment about how, in general, the Left criticizes Zionism as a colonialist project, in this podcast (where the interviewer is trying to get JG to talk about bias against Israel) he says literally nothing else about it, citing his lack of expertise on the question. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with keeping Grabowski in the article but I think it should be moved to the WWII / holocaust section to avoid WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

LOL It looks like it's actually the World Jewish Congress that is synthesizing Grabowski here by conflating holocaust deniers with critics of Israel as if those groups were a 1:1 match. I would suggest that, in light of that, it's best to cut the "citing Grabowski" line altogether. However if we want to expand upon Grabowski's work in the section on the holocaust I would be 100% in favour. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the difficulty (though I wouldn't use the term "holocaust deniers"). The WJC makes a sweeping claim based on the WWII/Holocaust study, as the podcaster tried and failed to get Grabowski to do. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm really uncomfortable with Grabowski in this context because I think WJC is using material that's broadly unrelated to Israel at all. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Attribution

The Israel section was until my recent edits, a festival of WP:WEASEL. Concerns were raised and criticisms were made... no mention that the critics in question were, a single wikipedian (not notable for the article, not a subject expert) some Israeli actor (not notable for the article, not a subject expert), and the ADL (famously unreliable for this topic). This is basic stuff. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Another bit done. Given the prominence given by Jewish Journal articles to interviews with disgruntled pro-Israeli wikipedians, conducted by Aaaron Bandler, I think we are going to have to have serious discussions at some point about circularity in terms of sourcing.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

More done, we've got to the point where David Collier's opinion is included without challenge. Excellent. What a great little neutral article is shaping up here.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Circularity and interviews

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Circularity and interviews with wikipedians regarding allegations of bias in wikipedia

This discussion at RSN is relevant to this discussion. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Now moved here; see below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The draft which is currently being worked on for Antisemitism and Wikipedia has a section which makes widespread use of pieces written by Aaron Bandler in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, based partially on interviews (usually anonymous) with wikipedians.

Wikipedia Editors Include “Palestine” in “Genocide of Indigenous Peoples” Article

Seven Tactics Wikipedia Editors Used to Spread Anti-Israel Bias Since Oct. 7

Wikipedia Editors Title Article “Gaza Genocide”

Wikipedia’s Fundamental Sourcing Problem Forty-three Jewish Orgs Call on Wikimedia to Reconsider Editors’ Decision on ADL

Several questions arise from this:

• 1. These appear to be strongly biased sources which occasionally mix comment and fact. However, I feel they are probably ok to use with care. I'm not sure if other users would share that assessment though.

• 2. How much weight should we be giving to articles about wikipedia based on interviews with wikipedians? Are they any better than vox pops for example?

• 3. We have a (imo at least) strongly biased source which has connections with a subset of wikipedians, and frequently publishes articles which support their political viewpoint. I believe the wikipedians interviewed participated in the talkpage and noticeboard discussions they describe. If we are using sources based on anonymous interviews with ourselves, do we not risk circularity? Articles end up being based on the positions held by wikipedians on talkpages.

• 4. Can editors add, or participate in discussions pertaining to, sources they were interviewed for?

As this is at the intersection of WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:COI, and the issues all affect each other, I have notified at the COI and NPOV boards but I hope we can keep this discussion here. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

All of these are from Jewish Journal [1]. It looks like a publication among the Jewish community with some editorial oversight, but not sure how much. The pieces seems to be written by a journalist. I think these are ok to use, like you said, with some care. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

i think circularity is if material from wikipedia is being used for wikipedia. in general, the real experience of editors editing wikipedia is not material from wikipedia and should not be a circularity issue.

i think questions of bias should be solved with attribution if necessary and questions of dueness. no clue about editors participation in discussion material they helped generate outside of wikipedia, that would be a slight COI that should probs be disclosed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure here. If I criticise a source on a talkpage because I don't like it, and my opinions do not hold sway in the discussion, then I contact a friendly journalist who publishes my criticism, I can add my criticisms to the article. This is wikipedians introducing their opinions to wikipedia through targeted action. If it's not circular, it is at least oval.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

you could maybe argue no independence… but maybe nobody is independent enough to talk about wikipedia since everyone uses it and everyone can contribute to it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between "could edit an article" and "does edit a specific article, and then plays a role in creating sources that go on it or that criticise it"--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably depends on the objective. If the objective were to leverage the media to create disinformation as part of an ongoing information war that can be injected back into Wikipedia so that it can be disseminated widely and incorporated into LLM training sets, then using these kinds of sources is probably quite a good idea. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

THis does not seem to be an RS issue, so much as an undue one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the OP, it is an issue which has aspects of various areas, and so it is probably better to discuss in one place. Even if that means some discussion will fall outside of a strictly defined remit of one particular board.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Jewish Journal is likely a reliable source, particularly for the quotes of other people (unless there is reliably sourced accusations that they publish falsified quotes). The interviews with Wikipedians wouldn't be WP:CIRCULAR as interviews with people who editor Wikipedia isn't Wikipedia content. As to COI or DUE take it to the article's talk page, per the header of this noticeboard this isn't a general foruma and having those discussions here means they won't be in the talk page archives of the article itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can entirely avoid circularity when the article is about the behavior of wikipedians. I do think that means we should carefully attribute, consider WP:DUE where appropriate and avoid over-reliance on those sources. But they certainly shouldn't be purged from the article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, it seems fine as attributed opinion. As long as it is not a huge section of just quotes, what there is right now seems OK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Totally disagree, almost nothing there is due.. David Collier is a fringe extremist, random wikipedians are not any more notable than quotes from members of the public. As it is at the moment is a POV mess.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I well remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist) Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but his is not the only source under discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean it could be reasonable to say, as I was mentioning about WP:DUE, that some content involving the opinions of Wikipedians is allowable / unavoidable but that Collier, specifically, is undue inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

My view is that no "said an anonymous wikipedian" statements are due. The fact users of this website have got a friendly journo who can get their quotes into print does not make their opinions due for publication. This is particularly clear when the journo is massively partisan, as they show no interest in giving justifications of the decisions the same space as criticisms.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)