Talk:StandWithUs/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

pinkwashing

Why exactly is the pinkwashing undue for the lead? nableezy - 01:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I just did a quick word count showing that 18% of the article is criticism and 30% of the lead is criticism. Seems totally WP:UNDUE to pack the lead with any more criticism with that. What seems appropriate is to pick the most notable of the criticism and include them in the lead. That seems like what has been happening, though the latest version looks a bit wonky and might need a source (separate issue). -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats a product of the rest of the article containing a bunch of low-quality noise, such as nearly the entirety of the campaigns section. I also dont see anything in WP:UNDUE about word count percentages. Is the pinkwashing not a significant criticism? Significant as determined by sources of course. Sources like Haaretz, or the Forward, Sarah Schulman (author of Israel/Palestine and the Queer International published by Duke University Press), all consider significant? nableezy - 02:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I don't see any of those sources currently used in this article. Currently the entire pinkwashing "section" is a single sentence, and one of the sources is the Canadian Journal of Film Studies. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, will add those sources. And then would I assume you agree that it is appropriate to include in the lead? nableezy - 04:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: At first glance, at least some of them are behind paywalls. Maybe not required, but it would be super useful if you could include the relevant text in the ref. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinkwashing as a wedge tactic used by StandByUs gets several pages in Bob's recent book, where the strategy, customary in US politics has been adopted widely by a number of hasbara groups. It caught Bob's attention as a political analyst because using the Arabs (Palestinians) repress gays argument in order to create division in the I/P Palestinian rights movement became a stock in SWU's rhetorical armory (I think that began in 2010). Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

TOI source does not support the claim StandWithUs is "right wing".4 Please remove "right wing" from lead and add to criticism if at all. Norelc19 (talk) 8:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of sources for right wing, and that isnt a criticism. nableezy - 17:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What the ToI said before at http://web.archive.org/web/20210716000104/https://www.timesofisrael.com/we-cannot-be-scared-hundreds-rally-against-antisemitism-in-dc/. Haaretz (as opposed to "ToI Staff") remains as usual, reliable. It's anyway trivial to source this in multiple rs.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the ToI source with a scholarly source instead.Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

StandWithUs is not left nor right wing. They are a non-partisan organization. Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the small town Idaho newspaper is the end all be all of reliable sources, and trumps academic sources that say SWU is right wing. nableezy - 17:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Latest deletion has no grounding

The latest large deletion by Asipiringartist does not have the grounds for doing so. The section deleted provides a source and direct quotes, with no original research. It seems like a clean up effort of any criticism of the group.

Edit: nevermind, I saw that there could be an edit war about this...this wiki reads like an advertisement because it is.

Non reliable sources - should be removed

None of these sources should be considered as reliable, non-biased sources in regards to their description of Jewish groups or Zionist groups.

"The Israel Lobby and the European Union"

The authors are:

• David Miller who has been accused of anti-semitism.
• David Cronin who blogs for the electronic intifada (a non-reliable source) [link]
• Sarah Marusek who is a pro-Palestine activist. [link]

"Gay Rights with a side of Apartheid"

The author Nada Elia writes for the electronic intifada (a non-reliable source) [link]

"Rights as Weapons: ..."

The author Nicola Perugini writes for the electronic intifada (a non-reliable source) [link]

"Global Middle East: ..."

The author is a BDS activist and organizer. [link]

They should be removed from the article.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, association with a non-reliable source does not make everything written by an author unreliable, and as ImTheIP correctly pointed out in an earlier discussion about at least one of the sources you call into question, The authors' suspected bias on the Israel-Palestinian conflict does not make their research output unreliable. All these sources appear reliable to me, and as you'll find in previous discussions on this talk page, consensus for their removal has not been reached. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not claiming that everything written by these authors is unreliable. I'm saying that they seem, without question, biased against Zionist organizations. As such, their opinions on this topic and this page should be regarded as opinions, not fact. Are you claiming that these authors are non-biased in regards to Zionism and Zionist Organazations?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It certainly seems reasonable that some or all of these authors might be biased against Zionism and organizations that espouse it. However, I don't think that would necessarily make the sources unreliable or mean that they must be described and attributed as opinion, especially given that two are from peer-reviewed journals that appear to be well-reputed, one is a publication of a public research university, the last is from a book published by University of California Press as part of a series on geopolitics, and none of them appear to be characterized as opinion by the authors or by the publishers. If a source is made unreliable simply when the author might have an opinion on the thing they're writing about, I expect we'll quickly run out of reliable sources, not only for this article but also for most others.​ ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 07:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question if they might have an opinion. BDS activists and writers for Electronic Intifada are actively opposing groups like StandWithUs and vice versa. Is there a single source free from such obvious bias that also labels StandWithUS unequivocally as right-wing? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Right wing is sourced in the first sentence to a UCP press RS. Bias by itself doesn't exclude RS, unless it is a very active bias. Please don't even bother attempting to remove the description as "right-wing" which has been discussed time and time again with the conclusion that it should remain.Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is Times of Israel

"J Street, Americans for Peace Now, and T’ruah declined to co-sponsor the rally in part due to the presence of right-wing organizations including the Zionist Organization of America and StandWithUs." End of. Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Both of these sources mention StandWithUs as an advocacy organization and not "right-wing" TOI and Haaretz Norelc1r (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

StandWithUs is nonpolitical MtTamladyr (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Some Israeli sources parrot StandWithUs's claim that they are non-political. Academic sources however have found that they are indeed right-wing. nableezy - 19:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Cnn - Pro Israeli Group Fox News Fox News - Pro Israel Group New York Times - Pro Israel Group Washington Post Pro-Israel Group BBC-Pro Israel charity. (MtTamlady (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC))

We say that it is pro-Israel as well. That does not negate that it is right-wing. You're not going to be able to ignore the sources that do explicitly call it right-wing, considering they are much stronger given they are academic sources focused on where on the political spectrum some of these groups are, and not throw-away lines from news articles. Im sorry you dislike that this group is described as right wing. But per several academic sources this group is indeed right-wing. And no matter how many times you repeat the same argument it isnt going to overrule those sources. nableezy - 20:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It's ok to call it right-wing if there's a valid source for it but don't think this should be in the first paragraph as it's a misleading representation for this organization with so many other sources disputing this. Views section is a more appropriate place for such a claim. (MtTamlady (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)).

MtTamlady, not saying something isn't the same as disputing it. A group being pro-Israel does not prevent that same group from being right-wing. I strongly suggest you review this note about repeatedly stating the same argument before continuing to engage on this issue. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So let's talk about the sources currently quoted. Moskowitz is clearly not a reliable source. Here are some quotes from him online. He is clearly biased against Israel and Pro-Israel orgs.

The author:

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1391096357138669574?t=WkXtaggCHsKoigkBBLVi6Q&s=19

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1392587380113170440?t=ldPRa3Lyje3OFXv21Q1xTA&s=19

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1391097323305021447?t=0b5iKRXS4jQx8oOMtJSJGA&s=19

https://twitter.com/_pem_pem/status/1025059788466601986?t=RQRuouWKb1Gg7YASsO-ocQ&s=19

The second source is the Forward, which clearly has other mentions for StandWithUs

(MtTamlady (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)).

Bias and reliability are two different metrics. Here is another scholarly source

"a representative of the right-wing pro-Israeli organisation Stand With Us." (PUP, 2019)

So even if the one you are talking about now was removed, it can easily be replaced with another (or several others).Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"a right wing US based Israel support group". That's enough for now, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please have a look here. although not a favorable opinion the org is still described as International educational organization As you can see, some academic articles such as this one refer to StandWithUs in a more broad way which turns this into a matter of opinion which can be under Views and not in lead (MtTamlady (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)).

Also here StandWithUs is described as a pro-Israel advocacy organization (MtTamlady (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)).

The article already describes SWU as a pro-Israel advocacy organization. Apart from it being obvious anyway, the weight of rs defines this organization as right wing pro Israeli. Trying to argue that it is defined as something else in a source here and a source there is a pointless exercise.Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, Hypothetically speaking, how would you show that an organization is "not right-wing"? the world is far more complicated than that, it's not just left and right, like mentioned earlier there are many opinions and they can be in the views section. The fact that some articles in Academia refer to StandWithUs as right wing while others don't and just speak about advocacy goes to show that it's not a unanimous notion. Again I'm not saying this shouldn't be in the article, just not in the lead (MtTamlady (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)).

You now have 5 scholarly RS saying "right wing", and there are more. You are essentially trying to argue that these sources are in error. That some sources don't mention right wing is not proof of anything other than that they don't mention it. Per reliable scholarly sources, it is a defining feature of the org and so is due for the lead, as is advocacy, which is also in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is per this recent RFC "generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues." I tagged it in the article for now, see if anyone can find a better source.Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thanks for the TimesOfIsrael link. There's definitely no obvious bias against Zionist Orgs there.

Next question -- In the body of the article, the founder in quoted as insisting that her Org is non-partisan, not right-wing and that's contrasted against right-wing claims. Any thoughts on how that should be captured in the lead? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Due weight. The weight assigned to themselves claiming they are not when everyone else says they are, you do the math, it's in the body as sps that's enough.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Bias does not equal unreliability. Biased opinions can be included if due, with attribution. Electronic Intifada can be used with attribution, but not for facts, as per WP:RSP: There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed. As Selfstudier says, Rolling Stone is also unreliable for facts. Also agree with Selfstudier that consensus on "right-wing" is supported by multiple sources, but I think that replacing the controversial sources with less controversial ones such as Times of Israel would be sensible. (See also: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-link-keeps-leftist-jewish-groups-from-planned-dc-antisemitism-rally/ https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2014/02/06/israelis-denounce-israel-society/ ) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Another request to remove Right Wing from lead

This is not representative of the organization. They are an Israel advocacy group and are non partisan. Source Norelc19 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Norelc19

NO. 3 cites in lead for right wing. These endless requests need to cease.Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support of settlements

Regarding this, now the lede is hardly neutral. In violation of WP:NPOV, it presents only one view (SWU supports settlements) while not mentioning their own stance (that they don't take a position) at all. WP:ABOUTSELF has nothing against adding it. It's not exceptional or self-serving, doesn't involve claims about third parties or events not related to the source, there is no doubt as to its authenticity, and this is only a small part of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have energy to engage deeply with this article right now, but the SWU statement in question is absolutely both exceptional and self-serving. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It says in the lead "The founder claims the organization is non-partisan and takes no policy positions." so it is covered already in a general sense. They also say that they are not right wing but just because they say that does not mean we have to include it specifically, particularly when there are multiple sources contradicting that. Looking at the lead those two contradictory claims probably ought to sit together in the lead (in the second paragraph) and I also think it would be better if the research paper was attributed in this instance. When I get some time, I will also try to find additional sources on that matter (and some others). I would just say that I think that quite enough effort has gone into making this org look like something that it isn't quite, personally I would prefer it if we now avoid sps altogether and stick to rs if at all possible.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. Then let's move the sentence "SWU does not believe the West Bank is occupied and supports Israeli settlements" to the second paragraph which describes their activities. Alaexis_¿question? 19:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agreed to juxtapose the contradictory views, so I moved it to there if you don't mind.Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please remove "right wing" in lead

Please remove right wing in lead. The sources currently quoted are biased, based on a study by the very controversial David Miller More than 100 MPs and peers from every major UK political party have called for the University of Bristol to act against this professor over many Antisemitic statements, including the claim that Jewish students on campus were “directed by the state of Israel”. He is the the author of multiple conspiracy theories. He is an entirely biased and discredited source. Please remove this non accurate representation of StandWithUs on Wiki. Another source OzMulik (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to close this, because reading the above discussion and doing some research myself leads me to believe it is a very contentious issue. I haven't seen reliable sources without a bias referring to them as right wing. I'm seeing a lot of “We wonder if CCFP explained to the Hollywood luminaries who signed its statement, like Ziggy Marley and Sarah Silverman, that its apolitical message of ‘art building bridges for peace’ is actually a sanitizing front for the right-wing, pro-settler organization StandWithUs, that has deep ties to the Israeli government?” Felice Gelman, a member of Adalah-NY and an active supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, wrote on the org’s website. I did see a reference calling them "conservative pro-Israel". Because of this I think the best way to move forward would be to voluntarily close the edit request and open a Request for Comment and solicit some outside input. Provide sources that either counter the right wing claim, or provide other descriptors and let them be judged against current sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is, frankly, absurd. To say that a group which does not think that the West Bank is occupied by Israel, and which also claim that Israeli settlements are not illegal, that such a group is not right-wing? Please stop your attempts at white-washing them; it is a waste of everyones time, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My attempts at white washing them? I hadn't heard of them until I looked at this edit request, so I looked at the two sources he posted about David Miller, then googled for news sources and other articles about them. I think you may want to slow your roll in attacking random people answering edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies to you, User:ScottishFinnishRadish; my comment about white-washing was meant for OzMulik, not you. I see I should have made two "::" instead of three. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the apology, I appreciate it. Easy mistake to make. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem closing this. Edit requests need to be in the form Change X to Y and supply reliable sources in support. Edit requests are not for attacking the other side, throwing around allegations of antisemitism and bias. Note that this article is subject ARBPIA so any RFC will have a participation limited to qualifying editors, 30/500.Selfstudier (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking above I see the issue has come up multiple times, so I was hoping to avoid another edit request or talk page section in a week or two, but I have no objections to closing it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

All sources are biased, the question is whether the description is DUE in other words what does a balance of reliable sources say. I have to say that I usually associate those positions mentioned by Huldra with the right but I'm open to being convinced that a balance of reliable sources say otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do a deep in-depth look, nor do I have an opinion one way or the other. I just saw when I was looking into the edit request that the "right wingness" of this group is a whole thing. People argue about it, there are debates between different groups about it, so I wasn't going to make the move one way or another on closing the request. I know there are plenty of subject matter experts, or at least people passingly familiar with it. Maybe Huldra is right and it's frankly absurd for an informed party to question if they're right wing. Just so happens I'm not an informed party, just someone who spent a few minutes googling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Right wing / left wing is a subjective classification and differs from country to country. If this article is describing an educational non-profit that actively positions itself to be non-partisan (and is described so on noted non-profit websites), the burden of proof of it being of one particular persuasion should be stronger than this. As an organization that counters antisemitism and is pro-Israel, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is right-wing. There is a difference between educating about, and advocating for, positions. MtTamlady (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's all very well but the case remains the same, there is a consensus at the moment in favor of right wing, to change that you need to come up with reliable sources sufficient in number to justify changing that consensus. Also no-one said it was right wing because it was countering antisemitism or because it was pro Israel, people on the left support that as well. No, the positions that were mentioned by editor Huldra, those I am fairly certain are views held mainly by the right. We can debate what right wing means but this is English Wikipedia and I think we can all agree on the difference between left and right of the political spectrum in that context. So the order of the day is less forum chit chat and more sources, K?Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, given that David Miller seems to be a rather controversial figure, his opinions the status of StandWithUs should at least be attributed. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of the sources that clearly state StandWithUs is not right wing nor left wing. “As a non-partisan education organization, we will continue to state the facts without taking a position or advocating for any particular policy,” “We recognize that this is an issue of controversy and debate in Israeli society, and as a non-partisan education organization, StandWithUs does not take a position on it,” the group said. Please see the actual StandWithUs education [<blacklisted external link removed> playbook]in which it is mentioned that "Settlements are an issue of political and legal controversy inside and outside of Israel.". Check out the about section on the StandWithUs Website : StandWithUs is not politically aligned in any country. It does not and has never advocated specific policies for Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MtTamlady (talk • contribs) 10:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are not secondary sources discussing if the organization is right wing or not, that is the organization identifying itself. The current sources are independent of the organization. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Providing more sources : the StandWithUs Center for Combating Antisemitism decried Trump's choice of retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor to oversee US-German relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

OzMulik, not only is this another primary source, but interpreting it to mean that StandWithUs is not right wing would be pure original research (and bad research at that). I think it's past time to listen before this becomes disruptive. ezlev.^talk 09:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please remove "right wing" mention in intro. It's based on an academic study by David Miller who's not a credible source. The University of Bristol fired David Miller, a professor accused of antisemitic comments.

Controversial academic has had employment 'terminated with immediate effect' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norelc19 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Please remove "right wing" mention in intro. Haaretz as well as other news outlets refer to StandWithUs as an Israel advocacy group. OzMulik 09:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzMulik (talk • contribs)

No, since many reliable sources support it and non dispute it. nableezy - 17:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz is one of the articles that supports the right-wing claim and it is clearly disputed, the other one is an academic paper from a Professor <blp vio redacted> Please remove right-wing from lead. Norlec19 - 12:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norelc19 (talk • contribs)

No, replaced Haaretz article with other article referring to SWU as a "right wing Israel lobby group". If you want to argue that Moskowitz book (not an article) is not a reliable source, you may do so at WP:RSN.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

One source that StandWithUs is bipartisan: https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-691573/amp Tuvyaamiller (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Unclear if the entire article is copy-pasted, but at least the "nonpartisan" description appears to be copied from StandWithUs without alteration. See exact copy in the "publisher" self-description at: [1]. Since that description, and possibly the whole article, is a copy-paste, that description does not appear to be independent. Freelance-frank (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please remove Right Wing from lead and move into criticism. NBC news talk about StandWithUs as [advocacy group]. MtTamlady (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Stand With Us is an international and non-partisan Israel education organization that provides students and communities with leadership training and educational programs. Please move right-wing to Criticism AEN Guide and Resource Book 2022 Page 277 MtTamlady (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:StandWithUs#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2022. Et passim, ad nauseum, nothing has changed, file another request with supporting evidence if something does change.Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

you recently reverted my edit of a ref that IMO did not state that SWU is right wing. The article states, and you quote it as: "it has partnered with StandWithUs, a group widely perceived as being on the far right of the pro-Israel spectrum." That is not an endorsement of the statement that "SWU is right wing." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you think "far right" is not "right"? nableezy - 16:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Perceived as", that's not the same as "it is" especially since the RS didn't make that statement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the word widely in your quote. nableezy - 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

David Miller who comes up as source material in opener is labeled as Iran State Media by Twitter Please remove this source. OzMulik (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Twitter (the company, not any individual tweet) isnt a reliable source for anything other than Twitter's view. nableezy - 15:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

Please remove right-wing from lead. If not possible Pro Israel needs to be before right-wing as this represents the organization more. MtTamlady (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See discussions above and in the archives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The org denies being right wing and multiple sources state it is not. Criticism can still be made however it should be in the Criticism section and not in the opening paragraph/lead as it's a matter of opinion.

Sources

OzMulik (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)