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)

“Genocide” is a severe allegation. So far, it has only been made by a number of groups known to be opposed to Israel and governments that haven’t made similar claims when similar military actions are taking place in territories attacked or occupied by friendly counterparts, e.g. South Africa’s, Cuba’s Bolivia’s and Nicaragua’s haven’t made the same accusation when Putin’s military, allied with their countries’ governments, were carpet bombing Ukraine on almost a weekly basis. There are a lot of political factors involved when it comes to genocide allegations and due neutrality must be exercised in the editing process to keep Wikipedia in line with what it is supposed to be. Steven1991 (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with your opinion, please do not make statements about things you don't know. I am talking about carpet bombing of Ukraine. It seems you don't know two things: (1) definition of carpet bombing and (2) what is going on in Ukraine. Being born in the area, I am keeping an eye on it. Long story short: Russia severely underestimated its military prowess and its resources are running thin. If under "carpet bombing" you mean rocket strikes regularly reported, hardly you can call a dozen of rockets launched a "carpet bombing", bearing in mind that the majority of them are usually intercepted by Ukrainian air defense. And of course it does not happen "on a weekly basis". Russia simply does not have enough ammo to "to bomb them back into the Stone Age". If they could they would surely would. If you are referring to the reported devastation along the line of military contact, it was mostly shelling, not bombing. I will not go into detail why Russians do not use bombers much. --Altenmann >talk 19:10, 21 September 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)

The organization's twitter account doxxed someone simply for wearing a Palestine pin. https://twitter.com/stopantisemites/status/1809617629394374904?s=46 Lobsel Vith (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The organization is targeting people for wearing Palestine pins and trying to get them fired: https://twitter.com/stopantisemites/status/1810842679523115333?s=46 Lobsel Vith (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also Liora Rez tweeting a variant of the 'N word please' phrase: https://twitter.com/arhu_m/status/1742023279123284035?s=46 in response to politician Ilhan Omar tweeting a quote: "If your freedom relies on my oppression, then neither of us are free." Lobsel Vith (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

We need secondary sources to establish DUE and even then it's not clear we should include these EvergreenFir (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lobsel Vith you need secondary sources, not tweets. Please revert yourself EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to know the credibility of the tweets and their authors. Is it possible to provide secondary sources, e.g. news articles, Op-Eds, to justify the claims of impropriety of the specific posts of the organisation concerned? Steven1991 (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

“Doxxing” appears to be a strong word. I would like to know the legality of photography onboard a flight and whether the photographed FA has had his personal details circulated on multiple platforms and/or subject to threats? If yes, I would consider it so. Steven1991 (talk) 13:59, 21 September 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)

The entire intro should be rewritten (and avoid using StopAntisemitism itself as a source.) If nothing else, one obvious glaring problem is that it describes the organization as A proponent of new antisemitism, which is wrong no matter what perspective you take - the intent is probably to say that they're a proponent of the definition of new antisemitism rather than promoting antisemitism themselves, but we lack a source that could be used to reword it properly. EDIT: I took a rough stab at rewriting it. YNET, whose coverage could reasonably be described as sympathetic, describes them as an advocacy org and just notes that they're privately funded, so I went with that and summarized what seemed to be the main points of the rest of our sources. That said, I think it's fine to describe Rez as the CEO based on coverage in eg. YNET and such - we can assume they verified basic things like whether she was actually the CEO! --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd caution against describing Rez as a CEO ("spokesperson" might be more appropriate). The title chief executive officer suggests a formal corporate structure, and, based on the Washington Post piece previously discussed, there is no formal corporate structure. The organization is a sponsored entity, which means, for legal purposes, it doesn't exist independent of the organization sponsoring it.

Additionally, Rez was billed as the "executive director" of the organization when she appeared at a Jan. 11, 2024 congressional hearing, which would be a term more consistent with the leader of a non-profit entity (although, if there is no formal StopAntisemitism board of directors, I would suggest the possibility that "executive director" is either a completely fabricated title or is being used in an extremely informal way by Rez and her employers).

Regarding YNET, I think you're giving the staff members who wrote and edited the article a little too much credit as fact checkers. I agree that the cited piece could politely be described as "sympathetic" to Rez and her organization (to be less polite, I'd call it promotional), and I find it difficult to believe that they actually saw verifiable proof that "CEO" is her official title and didn't just casually use it as a generic term for the head of an organization.

At bare minimum, I would change all references to Rez as "CEO" to "executive director" (although, again, I think either title misleadingly implies that StopAntisemitism is an independently run organization). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate if I there are reasonable explanations on why the definition of “new antisemitism” – largely based on the IHRA definition – is not supposed to be accepted as true, when it is the definition adopted by the European Commission, major parties in the United Kingdom including the traditionally pro-Palestine Labour Party. I believe that it is unfair to discredit the organisation’s claims simply because of disagreement with a definition allegedly adopted by the organisation. We have to assess the claims case-by-case and look through all available evidence, i.e. what the “exposed” individuals said and/or did, impact of their behaviour, to make judgements. Steven1991 (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the sentence, "Its adoption of the IHRA's working definition of antisemitism, which controversially classifies anti-Zionism as antisemitic," under the "Reception" section. I agree that it needs to be modified.

In addition to being a sentence fragment, it specifically needs cited examples of individuals or groups criticizing StopAntisemitism specifically for adopting the IHRA working definition, as well as cited examples of individuals or groups who have stated that the definition conflates anti-Zionism and antisemitism. I also think the phrasing "controversially classifies" isn't quite as neutral or accurate as it could be. Perhaps it should be replaced with something along the lines of, "...for its alleged conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism." If such changes can't be made, then I think deleting that sentence entirely would be better than leaving it as is.

As for your general question as to why the IHRA's working definition of antisemitism shouldn't be accepted as "true," there are a few reasons (although I'm just talking generally, here, and not in relation to Wikipedia's official editing standards).

First, I don't think widespread institutional adoption or support of an idea or practice should ever be used as a benchmark for whether that idea or practice is factually correct, intellectually honest or ethically applied. I won't give specific examples here, as to avoid sparking any tangential debates, but more than a few morally heinous ideas and practices have achieved the status of universal or near-universal acceptance (both in the past and the present day). Taking the position that widespread acceptance necessarily means that something is "true" is a little too culturally relativistic for my taste.

Second, while I personally have no issue with the text of the working definition, the examples of antisemitic words or actions attached to the definition are where I and many other critics believe the definition crosses into a biased defense of Zionism and/or the Israeli state.

Most of the examples given are pretty uncontroversial and straightforward (e.g., "Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews"). Some of the uncontroversial entries even mention Israel (e.g., "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust").

However, there are some examples that mention Israel or Israelis that veer into, to put it politely, "questionable" territory.

One says it's antisemitic to question the Jewish right to self-determination, which it is, as long as one is talking about the right of a group or individual to have control over their own lives and destinies. However, that example further adds that it's antisemitic to label Israel a racist endeavor (which seems to suggest that one can't have self-determination without nationhood and that Israel should be immune from any systemic criticism or analysis of its well documented history of state and civilian violence and discrimination against marginalized racial and ethnic groups, including, but by no means limited to, displaced Palestinian refugees). Unfortunately, many people conflate "self-determination" with nationhood when discussing this topic, and that's a dangerous conflation IMO.

Another example says it's antisemitic to compare contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis. This one is a naked attempt to shield the Israeli state from criticism. One can argue, dependent on context, whether it is appropriate or in good taste to make such a comparison in a particular instance. One might even argue more pragmatically that such a comparison might drive off those otherwise sympathetic to one's criticisms or unnecessarily trigger those who were persecuted (or had family who were persecuted) by the Nazis. However, to blanketly label any statement that draws such a comparison as antisemitic is not an attempt to combat or categorize antisemitism, but, rather, an attempt to quiet criticism of Israel, as well as anti-Zionist discourse more generally.

This is already a pretty long comment, so I'm not going to analyze every one of the problematic examples. I will just say that, if the questionable examples were removed, I would have no issue accepting the IHRA working definition as reasonable or, as you put it, "true." However, with those examples tacked on, I see it as nothing more than an attempt to institutionalize Zionist perspectives. Regardless of how many countries, states/provinces or local municipalities adopt the definition, I won't ever accept it as valid, unless they remove the questionable examples.

Again, that's just my personal opinion on the IHRA working definition. If you're asking whether the Wikipedia community should accept the IHRA working definition as uncontroversial, I think there's ample documentation of both past and current criticism of and opposition to the definition not to label it as such. Plus, as I said, it's not good practice to use widespread institutional adoption as one's sole or primary benchmark for veracity. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

it's antisemitic to compare contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis. This one is a naked attempt to shield the Israeli state from criticism - Not that naked and not an invention of IHRA. Please read Reductio ad Hitlerum and Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. --Altenmann >talk 20:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your lengthy response, but for

“it's antisemitic to compare contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis. This one is a naked attempt to shield the Israeli state from criticism...”

I am sorry that I beg to differ. In addition to Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, I believe that the following articles also provided sound arguments for why comparing Israel to Nazi Germany to any extent is inherently anti-Jewish:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

As such, claims, made by StopAntisemitism, of certain individuals being “antisemitic” on the basis of them employing Holocaust inversion in their remarks or rhetoric, shall be accepted as valid, which would inevitably lead to a higher occurrence of antisemitic incidents being recorded, despite objections from elements in academia associated with the other side of the conflict. Steven1991 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The article has become biased in favor of the organization

Edits made since 19 July by Steven1991 have made the article more biased. I was considering reverting the changes, but I didn't want to do it without discussion, and I don't feel like getting in an edit war with him. Zartog1022 (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please state your objections here, instead of "considering", especially if do not want edit war. - Altenmann >talk 02:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have sources with criticism, let us discuss them. - Altenmann >talk 02:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I removed some self-flattery. - Altenmann >talk 03:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not biased. You cannot say it is “biased” simply because it doesn’t provide negative coverage for an organisation with whose actions you do not find in agreement? Steven1991 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes one can say it is biased "because it doesn’t provide negative coverage". Again, Steven1991, you are attacking an editor/reader rather than an argument ("with whose actions you do not find in agreement") Please let WP:NPA be ingrained in your brain when you edit Wikipedia. What is allowable (and even unfortunately advisable) in polemics to question opponent's integrity, it is not so in Wikipedia. The correct answer to Zartog1022 was already given above by me, and they had nothing to counter, right? --Altenmann >talk 20:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. Steven1991 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Original research

I accidentally came to this page, added some info, put it on my watchlist, after noticing signioficant activity I took a closer look at the article and noticed several pieces of original research, some of which I removed or tagged. If someone questions m=y removals, I am happy to explain in detail more just edit summary. - Altenmann >talk 02:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Notably:

• I removed "The group is considered by some as pro-Israel due to its..." I dont see sources, not to say WP:WEASEL "by some".- Altenmann >talk 02:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• The group has been subject to criticisms ... "its adoption of the IHRA's working definition of antisemitism, which classifies anti-Zionism as antisemitic" - I removed the refbombing and tagged as {cn} because the refs were not about the criticism of the organization, but about the definitions of antisemitism, i.e., the corresponding text is WP:SYNTH. I did not remove it completely, just tagged, because I may reasonably assume that such criticsm does exist. - Altenmann >talk 02:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post

I reverted the edit which added epithet "controversial":

A controversial article by The Washington Post...

We do not add judgemental epithets into articles in wikipedia voice. On the other hand I did find this article controversial myself. If there are sources that dispute claims of Washington Post, we can consider them, preferably in the talk page here first (we do not want to replicate bickering in the media into Wikipedia, so we need to discuss what to do).- Altenmann >talk 00:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Revert per WP:UNDUE

Regarding this revert - this piece is of marginal relevance: no third-party sources describe that StopAntisemitism was instrumental in the Columbia University case; the statement "the organization has followed up progressively" has no encyclopedic merit. - - Altenmann >talk 02:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the disputed text does not coming from independent source that describes the activity of an organization. For comparison: Washington Post every day covers noitable events, but our article about the newspaper does not list how the newspaper covered this and that event. Our article includes what other sources write about WP and which work of it was notable. Just the same, we do not write about each and every law produces by the state. Only notable ones identified by other sources as notable. In the context STopAntis, its "Antisemite of the Year" or Antisemite of the Week being covered by any other sources.

Now, please explain, which other sources covered the involvement of StopAntis in the Columbia University case? In particular, which sources describe that the organization was instrumental in the mentioned resignations? - Altenmann >talk 05:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

By "Activities", we talk about what the organization does just as the "Antisemites of the Year" elections which are not extensively covered or or given significance by mainstream media outlets. Why do you allow the ordered-by-year "Antisemites of the Year" information to be input but not the Columbia University-associated ones for which I provided sources with regard to the organization's active coverage/involvement? Steven1991 (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

About AotY: In Wikipedia policies we do not operate with the term "mainstream", we use the concept "reliable sources independent of the article subject". About Columbia, you did not answer my questions related it. Your answer may convince me that I was wrong. Therefore please answer them without further sidetracking. - Altenmann >talk 19:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And of course, if there is a motive on the part of anyone to somehow dictate the narrative – just as many others on this encyclopedia have been attempting – no "improvement" in the relevant content contributed by me would be deemed satisfactory. Steven1991 (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia the narrative is "dictated" by Wikipedia policies. I explained the reasons of my edits in this and two preceding sections in this talk page. Of course people are not perfect and may err and disagree. For this we have a procedure of WP:Dispute resolution. - Altenmann >talk 19:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I take it, you are not yet well familiar with wikipedia policies, and I don't blame you: they are rather arcane. Therefor please let me explain that questioning motives of Wikipedians is generally a bad practice. Please read the policies: WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks (in a nutshell: Comment on content, not the contributors). If you have serious reasons to believe that some editor harms Wikipedia, we have administrator's message board WP:AN/I, where you can state your complaints (with proofs of misbehavior) - Altenmann >talk 19:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"relevant content" -- I am questioning precisely the relevance and the encyclopedicity of your recent contribution, and my (unanswered) questions about Columbia is aimed at the clarification of relevance. - Altenmann >talk 19:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Antisemite of the Year"

I have removed a lot of the content here and other mentions to this controversial list because I have concerns this section violates WP:BLP and especially WP:ABOUTSELF, specifically The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and It does not involve claims about third parties. I would probably reduce the section to just include that the organization holds regular contests on voting an "antisemite of the year" and leaving it at that, also it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This is at the intersection of WP:BLP, WP:CT/A-I and WP:LIBEL, especially because "-ist" terms are ad hominem attacks. Also WP:NOTNEWS; just because news sources report on a claim does not mean that that claim merits inclusion. Awesome Aasim 20:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I posted the note about this issue in WP:BLPN#StopAntisemitism. --Altenmann >talk 21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that we can get consensus as to whether the material indeed does violate BLP. I do know that potential BLP violations are removed first, discussed second. Awesome Aasim 21:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Coming here from BLPN, I have concerns about WP:LABEL. If this isn't content that would be included on the biography of the named person, then it is not appropriate in another article. WP:BLPSTYLE also notes "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources" (emphasis added). This BLP policy applies to information about a living person on "any Wikipedia page". – notwally (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

IgNobel prize with List of Ig Nobel Prize winners, Darwin_Awards#Notable_recipients, Golden Raspberry Awards, etc. All of them put a bad stricker on a person. I dont think that Robert Klark Graham is "commonly decribed" as an "IgNobel prize winner". The policy says Do not label people with contentious labels, meaning that we cannot label people thusly in Wikipedia voice. "Antisemite of the Year" is not Wikipedian's invention, and it is not a label, it is an "anti-award", so I don't see why this term cannot be used. --Altenmann >talk 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and there may be problems with those articles as well), they are not the same as labeling someone an "antisemite". Further, as WP:LABEL explains: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" (emphasis added). These types of labels should generally never be used in Wikipedia's voice at all and require in-text attribution. Once again, if this is not content that would be BLP-appropriate for the article subject's biographical article, then it is not appropriate on another article. – notwally (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you wrote it yourself: never be used in Wikipedia's voice - it was not used in Wikipedia's voice and was properly attributed. Yes, Wikipedia cannot call someone antisemite, but others can. What is mor, it was not a random label, it was an "anti-award" for actions reasonably perceived to be antisemitic. --Altenmann >talk 22:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It would still need to be widely used in reliable sources. One or two sources reporting on this is not sufficient for a list with this type of contentious, value-ladel label. – notwally (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

These are extremely poor comparisons; the IgNobel prizes are not criticisms of the research, the Razzies are meant in good fun and have even been personally accepted by some "winners", and while the Darwin Awards may be similarly disparaging, they definitely aren't BLP issues in the vast majority of cases. The existence of those lists is not a good reason why one tarring living people with as serious an accusation as anti-semitism should stay. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 01:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I googled "Antisemite of the Year" and was surprised to find it is a notable annual competition. There were gobs of reliable sources documenting this competition. And a spot check of a couple of the BLPs, like Kayne West, clearly show he is known for his antisemitic statements; Greta Thunberg (listed as a GA), mentions her being labeled 'antisemite of the week' by StopAntisemitism. As long as the names included are reliably sourced and the label is not in Wikivoice and properly attributed, I don't see a serious BLP issue here, and of course if they have denied the allegation and issued a statement and/or comment, then that should be reported as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick search on Bing and Google as well and am finding that largely tabloids are reporting on Greta Thunberg's addition. I think that tells me everything I need to know about that list. Can you list some articles here to establish independence and whatnot? Even then, I still think these are serious assertions that require more than just reliable sources - they require stellar sources that have done their own analyses and came to the same conclusion. Awesome Aasim 04:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong. If you search "Antisemite of the Year" shows sources I would not describe as "tabloids", ad Greta is not even on top of search results. The winner is ... suprize!... Kayne West. Jerusalm Post, Newsweek, Billboard, Algemeinner.... I am not listing local news, which are prone to be called "tabloids" by ...er... critics. --Altenmann >talk 05:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSCONTEXT as well; a magazine on music may not be reliable in the area of politics. A tech tips site may not be reliable in the area of medicine. Like I said, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

WP:NEWSWEEK is not considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes in general post 2013 and should be used with extreme caution. As for the other sources, Jerusalem Post, Algemeiner, etc., I think they should definitely be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis on WP:RSN, especially in the area of WP:CT/A-I and surrounding antisemitism.

I would be inclined to restore the entries only where there are several exceptional WP:RS, especially for such claims that can be considered defamation. Awesome Aasim 17:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there would need to be a case-by-case determination for each living person based on whether the term is widely used in reliable sources for that particular individual. (Noting that I don't think defamation really has anything to do with this though, especially not for public figures.) – notwally (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We can't use sources that just use "the term", we have to use sources that specifically identify this organization and this competition, "Antisemite of the Year", otherwise the content would fail verification without those two qualifiers. All we're doing here is reporting what reliable sources have published about this organization and the individuals the public voted on in this competition. I also agree that defamation has nothing to do with this. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we just use a brief summary (proposed example below) for that section. I left out Anuradha Mittal and Nerdeen Kiswani, since they don't have their own articles, and also left out the runner-ups.

Since 2019, the organization has held an annual competition to select a public figure as the "Antisemite of the Year", which in their opinion is a "distinct dishonor reserved for the most bigoted and hateful individual". The group selects ten individuals, based upon publicly available information, and then submits those names to the public to vote on in a poll, which determines who will be given the title for the year. The inaugural winner was U.S. representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district Ilhan Omar. Other notable figures the public has voted for the title, include: Kanye West in 2022, and U.S. representative from Michigan Rashida Tlaib in 2023.

And there are no issues with BLPVIO, defamation, libel or exceptional claims, because Wikipedia is not making any assertions about these individuals, we are merely reporting what reliable sources have published about this organization and this competition, and their opinions are properly attributed to them. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the proposal should say The group selects ten individuals, based upon publicly available information, and then selects three semi-finalists..... Isaidnoway (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

because Wikipedia is not making any assertions about these individuals, we are merely reporting what reliable sources have published about this organization and this competition Are these sources truly reliable though?

I am taking a closer look at my removal again. One of the sources that was removed along with the section was the Toronto Sun, which I presume is not usable as a source per WP:THESUN. There does need to be a more widespread evaluation and narrowing of sources to determine if they are usable for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and surrounding antisemitism.

I do have another thought. If a marginally or exceptionally unreliable source's page or pages is/are cited as fact by a page/pages in a reliable source, does it make that reliable source's page unusable?

I do think that just mentioning the fact that such a competition exists is acceptable. We do not need to mention the results if they are potentially a WP:BLP issue. Awesome Aasim 03:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to these types of BLP concerns. The "merely reporting what others said" is not a strong argument when it comes to BLP, especially for highly-contentious labels, unless there are numerous reliable sources. – notwally (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I think we can just mention the existence of this contest, but not the candidates or winners. This might be best rather than using labels that make accusations of hate. Awesome Aasim 19:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, doing some searching, Toronto Sun seems to be unaffiliated, but the fact that it is still a tabloid tells a lot about its potential reliability. Awesome Aasim 23:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Criticism section / 1RR

@Notwally: please self revert your second blanking of the criticism section. Your revert was a breach of 1RR per WP:PIA. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of this page being under sanctions since there is no notice on the talk page or warning when making an edit. I would also note that the content I removed is a likely BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Notwally: per WP:PIA: For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing… edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace. This is not in doubt.

The content you reverted twice was entirely focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please self-revert.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that it shouldn't be entirely blanked, at least. If there are more specific issues they can be addressed, but considering that the only people named in that section are people StopAntisemitism has targeted, with all of the statements clearly attributed to StopAntisemitism, I don't see how it could be a BLP violation, at least not significant enough to invoke BLP's "remove immediately" provisions - it is clearly in compliance with our policies. Note that MOS:LABEL (which seems to be the actual rationale for removal) is not part of WP:BLP; the thresholds and methods for handling them are wildly different. The latter doesn't support deleting an entire section that is otherwise reasonably sourced and which reasonably summarizes the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Although with that said the section could probably use some workshopping. I removed the listing of specific far-right figures, since their identities are not really germane to the criticism; I don't think the other people mentioned can reasonably be said to be put in a BLP-sensitive context given that, in addition to what I said above about it being sourced and attributed, the mention in the context of this criticism section is exculpatory, ie. the criticism the sources are covering is "look at how silly it is that they're targeting these people." But the bigger question is this - is that really the main criticism leveled at the group? --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be including any names with those types of labels without multiple, high quality sourcing. Also, how is WP:NEWSWEEK a reliable source for this type of contentious label? Further, WP:LABEL is very much a part of the BLP policies, see the section under WP:BLPSTYLE: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Arguing someone else labeled them and we are just reporting that is not an adequate justification to ignore those BLP policy concerns. I am not seeing what value naming specific people (whether far-right or otherwise) adds to that section that could not be achieved otherwise. And that's not even getting into other issues such as WP:NOTNEWS. Where is the consensus to include this disputed, controversial material as required under the policy WP:ONUS? – notwally (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)