Draft talk:Antisemitism on Wikipedia

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)

First here are some answers to your questions: (1) Of the articles listed, on the whole they seem okay, however, I would be somewhat hesitant to give one author over at JJ undue weight to his research/synthesis. Are their others over at JJ or other reliable sources that also share in his perspectives? (2) The weight should somewhat be proportional to what is being said, you cannot make too much about "one active editor" in contrast to the 49 million registered users. (3) I'm not sure circularity is overtly an issue as long as (a) the interviewee is talking about their experiences, not resharing second-hand information; and (b) the research is not simply taking someones actions as a source itself. (4) If you are asking if someone who was interviewed for a topic can then later edit the article in which they were cited in -- this I believe is COI, which isn't necessarily outrighted prohibited, but where things can become especially dangerous is when they're editing the page to 'correct or fix' how their interview was misrepresented or taken out of context.

Now with all of that said, on a quick review I do have concerns about this article itself, how it presents and its overall weight issues. They're too lengthy to list all of them, but it has sentiments of an article where people are battle grounding the topic in the article itself without consensus on the direction. It often makes statements and then I ask myself, wait, was this evidence that Wikipedia support or combat antisemitism. TiggerJay (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The Forward and The Heritage Foundation

[2][3] some on-topic coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

yes, that's spot on content for this article. Which section would it go under? Do you plan to write it up? ProfGray (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Antisemitic misconduct" seems to be closest, but I don't intend to edit this draft atm, I'm not sure the subject is fit for a separate article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)